Thomas County cat., 1890-10-09
AREDEMPTlON LAW.

hAn60S FARMER.
The course of the convention held in
this city on the third day of the present
month was moved by singular combi-
nation of influences, one OF the most re-
markable of which was disposition to
help debtors save their homes. To be
sure, the platform does not contain
word on the subject, but an after
thought took possession OF delegate
and he offered resolution favoring a
two-year redemption law. 1t was op-
posed, of course, and did not come to
vote until it had been cut IN two in the
middle, leaving the time one year IN
stead of two. This was an unexpected
turn of the party wheel, for if anything
has been demonstrated in party history
it is that the republican party in Kan
sas is opposed to redemption law. Up
to 1868 we had two-year redemption
law, but in the revision of that year this
law was repealed, and no effort to re-
enact it has been successful since.
During the last session of the legisla-
ture, several redemption laws were in
troduced and all defeated in committee.
The judiciary committee of the house
prepared long report in opposition to
this class of bills, arguing that they are
unconstitutional and iniure the credit
of the state, and bankers and money
lenders, and the party press argued
along the same lines. Here is an e1-
tract from the report referred to:
Your committee on judiciary have
had under consideration the various
bills referred to it relating to proposed
stay laws and redemption laws, and
after full discussion and reflection has
agreed to report adversely upon them
all.
The committee then proceed to argue
against the proposed policy on two
grounds unconstitutionality, (2)
injury to the credit of the people. Con-
tinuing, they say:
It is clear, therefore, that any law
for stav of execution or creating right
of redemption could only operate upon
contracts entered into subsequent to it's
enactment, and the hoped-for benefits
of such law, if they should prove to
have any existence in fact, would not
be generally felt for several years to
come On the other hand, the imme-
diate effects of such legislation would,
in the opinion of your committee, be
injurious to the best interests OF the
people of the state.
Last spring and early summer, the
farmers and other workers of Kansas,
by thousands, petitioned the governor
to call the legislature together in spe-
cial session to give the people relief by
the enactment of redemption and stay
laws. The governor made no response
to these petitions, and his party papers
explained his silence by saying that
such laws would be unconstitutional,
and therefore time ought not to be
consumed in their enactment, and be-
sides the reputation and credit of the
state would suffer from such reckless
legislation. The petitioners we're de-
nounced as repudiators. That was only
few months ago. Now We find one
year redemption law favored by the
very men who denounced it then. Who
will explain this change of front? Were
we right then, after all? And were
these infallible fnancers wrong? It
will be amusing to hear Governor
Humphrey and Ex-Governor Anthony
advocating redemption law this fall
among the people whom they regarded
as simpletons only last April. Did some
one say the peoples party is doing no
good?