St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-09-27
ABOUT OUR CREDITORS.

One of the veXed questions of modern
ethics is this: How ought man to
treat his creditors? Many of the large
fortunes of America are based on sue
cessful failures, and many millionaire
counts the beginning of his accumula-
tons from the hour when he effected a
clever compromise of his debts. Are
riches acquired in this way dishonesty
gained, and is it ever right 10 pay so
cents on the dollar when one is really
able to settle at par?
These are very Interesting inquiries,
with no little contemporary pertinency
in view of the stringent condition of the
money market during the past twelve
months. And, like all problems of law
or morals, they are not altogether easy
to solve, because the line which divides
the permissible from the forbidden is
often so fine as to be invisible. There
are number of things which all high
minded people agree it is wrong to do.
For example, it is wrong to influence
legislation by the use of money for the
purpose of brides. On the other hand,
there are number of things very much
like them, but the propriety of which
no one except casuiSt ever questions.
For example, the most conscientious
man who is interested in procuring the
passage of q bill can assist in the
work by getting on friendly terms
with the men who have votes, so that
when it comes up for consideration
it will be received with favor because
of his popularity. That is, it is against
good conscience to buy votes with
money; but it Is not wrong to buy them
with the coin of kindly feeling and per-
sonal attractiveness. The reason for
such a distinction does not appear at
first glance, but the distinction exists,
nevertheless.
So also is it in the matter of paying
ones debts. Men are known who al
ways meet their bills, no matter how
large, with cash, and not with checks.
This would seem very inconvenient,
but they expect to gain something by it.
lfithey use check they will have of
necessity to draw it for the exact
amount. If they use money. the
difficulty of making change or
the pettinesS of insisting on
an odd sum will suggest to one creditor
or another that he throw off little from
the total due. Ten cents saved here by
such device, and half dollar there, if
persisted in, will reach considerable
sum after awhile, provided the number
of transactions is large enough. Morally
this may be classed among the unob-
ieetionable things because it is nothing
more than taking an open advantage of
the very common tendency OF the human
mind to think in round numbers. But
OH the other hand, suppose that a
creditor coming to ones door presents
a just bill and you have the money with
which to meet it. Suppose further,
with the object of saving a few
dollars, you declare that it is
large, and that unless he consents
to reduction you will never
pay it until you are compelled to. In
order to avoid trouble, he may yield,
and you will be so much the richer. Is
this wealth honestly gotten? You
know that instinctively men shun law
suits, and you have taken advantage of
this human characteristic for your own
profit. The men who pay in cash be-
cause they expect to have the odd cents
thrown off have done very much the
same thing. And yet your course is i'm
moral while theirs is not. Here again
the reason for any distinction does
not appear on the surface, but there is
no doubt that it exists.