Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1911-09-22

PROVISIONS cOlSulneu, dlu tHSi iuh VII
and pay nothing. To imagine really
fitting punishment for such fellow Is
difficult; but since all laws have to he
along general lines, remembering that
an act which in one case may be a
serious offense, in another case is not
nearly so bad, the matter has to be
viewed from many standpoints.
Section "a of Article l of the Con-
stitution declares that no person shall
be imprisoned for debt except for
fraud.
The history of this section extends
from ancient times down to about two
, generations ago and it is made up OF
many cruel chapters of mans inhuman-
| ity to man. There are few right think
ing individuals who are not agreed that
there should be some way to punish
men who deliberately deprive their
fellows of money or possessions, but
the experience of the ages has failed
to discover a plan that has MT proved
Objectionable in it's practical applica =
ton, the trouble generally being that
| it was subject to more abuse than to
proper and legitimate use.
In the story of the Romans we read
of at least one old soldier who gave
the best years of his life in distin-
guished service to his country, and
was afterward thrown into dungeon
by malicious enemies who had bought
up claims against him, and we are
told also how this incident helped to
bring about certain reforms of the
abuses of the day. People of the pres
ent generation are mostly familiar
with the manner in which i'm
prisonment for debt was abolished in
England only fifty or sixty years ago
through the powerful writings of
Charles Dickens, and most of our older
people can tell about the debtors
room" in the York county Jail, some
stories that would have an exceedingly
unpleasant sound at this time.
But notwithstanding the unsatisfac-
tory efforts of the past to find some
way to mete out just punishment to
deliberate swindlers, it is not to be
denied that the problem involved is
still a vexatious one, and society can
not yet afford to give up all hope OF
some reasonably satisfactory solution.
To our mind the courts have not
taken a proper view of the general
principle involved in the constitution
al prohibition of Imprisonment for
debt. AS we see it the most objec-
tionable and absurd feature Of the old
practice was the idea of allowing a
creditor to throw debtor in jail and
keep him there as long as the creditor
was willing to pay for his feed. This
system was especially encouraging of
malevolence and spite.
1t seems. to us that since willful re-
fusal to pay a just debt that could
have been paid may very easily be re-
garded as a misdemeanor, the matter
should be regulated by jury trials in
which all the circumstances ould be
brought out with sufficient clearness
to make it appear whether or not the
debtor should be really punished and
if punishment be due let the term of
Imprisonment be fixed by the statute
that would properly adjust 1t to the
offense committed.
While legal imprisonment for debt
is not recognized, as matter of fact,
Imprisonment for debt is really as
common as it ever was. For instance
when a circuit judge says 500 or three
months, and if the prisoner elects to
take the months rather than pay the
500, if that is not Imprisonment for
debt, we are unable to understand
what it is. When the prisoner has to
take the three months because he has
no 500 and cannot raise it, the analo-
gy is all the more complete.
But getting back to the Spartanburg
case, as we see it, the probability is
that the magistrate who undertook to
pass on the constitutionality of this
boarding house statute will be upheld
by the supreme court, for otherwise
the court is liable to raise a number
of analogous questions that will add
to it's embarrassments.