, 1879-02-01

Some weeks hgo NO cnllcd attention 70 tho |
bill proposed In tho State Legislature by |
Senator DAsu, Of Cook County. amending |
tho existing Inv OF the State requiring fore"
closures Of mortgages. Under the existing |
lnw, when mortgage Is forec1osed aud tho |
property does not fotch as much as tho
amount Of ths debt, the creditor obtainn a
Judgment for tho difference. In such caaes.
goneraly, there Is no bidder sare tho mort
gagoe, who oiEors what ho pleases, md then
takes the property and also judgment. and
then lcvies on any other property the victim
may have left, aells that for what 1t may
hnppen to bring, and then holds over the
wrotci, for the resilus Of his life the remainder
of his Judgment for interest, costs, md at-
tornoys fees allowed under the cutth1oat
mortgage.
The bill proposed by Senator BAsu amends
this law to the extent OF providing that
whsnovor n creditor shall in any proceeding
obtain judgment for any purchase Of n
claim not satisfied BY the proceeds Of salo
Of tho 1nortgaged promises, such Judgment
shall hayo tho cfoct Of orenfng the forc-
closure aud permitting the debtor to redeem
tho property within two ycars from tho date
Of the judgment.
This bill has provoked au outbreak Of
yirtuous zeal In behalf OF maintaining the
eapctity Of contracts, aud DAEn;s bill is held
up to public reprobatfou as m act OF legal
ronudiation. Thero are mon living who aro
| old enough to remember the violent denun-
c!ations onco hearod upon tho proposition 10
abolish imprisonment for debt. That WAS
regarded as n gross violation Of contract
Tho creditor sold man $50 worth Of goods,
and II the debtor could not pay he WIS put
into prison. Tho repeal Of tho law for in-
prIsoument for debt WAS stranuousty opposed,
and In many Sta.os It was accomplished
only after long popular agitation anil in
snstallments. In tho earliest agos, tho
,1qlinauent debtor WAS not only SUBJ
joct to imprisonment, but became tho
slave of tho creditor. Peonago III Mexico IL
basoa on tho same rriucple. Our present
Inv on the subject Of theforeclosuro Of mort
cages is only a degree removed from the
spirit Of tho medieval doctrine ON this sub
iect In fact, imprisonment for debt has
boon abolished in England only luite re-
Gently, and has not baen fully abolished in
France oven Mt this tin.o.
Lonns on mortgages arc eraro1y made unless
tho properly Ia valued by tho louder at s1eie1
ts amount n ths loan. Tint possibly ap.
plies to every loau made In this State prior
to such removals rs may hayo been effected
during tho last few years. The money was
loaned on tho value Of this double seourlsJ
md not upon the other probable means oi
tho debtor, nor was 1t loaned under any e1
, ppctntion that tho lender would ever lave Il
: seek beyond the ample property mortgnget
fur repayment Of tho loan. Va much qucs
; ton whether any loan on real estate securtt,
I WIN ever mala In Illinois because The exist
' lug law gavs 10 the creditor tho right o
e Judgment against the debtor In case tn
= n,ostgagod premises failed to pay the debt
d Thsre is, therefore. no equity which this bill
consideration or inducement leading up to th
J. lending Of the money IL taken away BY tht
II sepealng hlll. ALL that is proposed Is
70 change Of tho lsgal remedy, which chang
81 in no case takes from the creditor III
u right to the ,nostgagsd premfaes or tho fu
y payment Of his deht.
~ Tho bill simply provides thAt when /
~ tho ordinary coussa OF business the valuo c
- money shall, between tho date of loan an
- .hs maturity Of the mortgage, so increaa
- that the sum OF tho debt In money shall o,
~ ceeil In salue that Of the property pledged =
y. security, then The creditor sLaI! have IL
~ ~ choice Of taking tie property In full sau'
- faction OF the debt, or, II thst bo not sati
- u factory, then the debtor shall ha.e two yoar
~ additional time In which 10 pay the del
and redeem tlo property.
ye We fail 10 roe the want Of honesty. ju
X tice, and equity in such humane provision
Dn We fail to soc In 1t the least symptoms
D. reputation. We fail to sse any more il
ro- honesty in it than was involved In the chapl
No Of land which, while giving TO the debt
he the right to take mans property for det
'as took from the creditor tho right 10 en3la
'us Or ilnpsson the body OF the debtor.
~ tho proposed change III tls law does n
is impair TIN obligation ot contracts any mo
he than does tL% Appellate Court act impair t
on- obligation Of contracts by taking away fro
1as parties to certain classes OF suits the right