Year: 1871

For the Spectator.
MEssRs. EDITORS In previous issue OF
your very excellent paper, you repudiated re-
pudiation in good style, and went so far, if |
recollect right, as to pronounce heavy SEN
tence against any one Rho should even say or
write anything leaning in that direction, charg-
ing such an one with seeking to avoid the pay
ment OF some just debt For my part am In
favor of every man paying every just debt that
he owes, as far as he can, and if any person is
not honest enough to pay just debt when ne
has the means to do so most assuredly the law
should compel him to do it, and in support of
the fact that these are my views, | assert and
can prove, that have recently paid about two
hundred dollars, and provided tor the certain
payment in the future Of at least one thopsand
more, making twelve hundred dollars will
have paid, which no law on earth ever could
have made me pay. did this in obedience to
what conceived to be the requirements of JUS
tice. Law and justice should always go to-
gether, but unfortunately they sometimes diff
fer widely. People, even judges and juries,
frequently differ in regard to law. and more
frequently in regard to justice. This being
true, we can have no certain rule In regard to
the requirements of either.


If in your piece you only meant to say that
1t would be exceedingly wrong to pass any law
repudiating all old debts both public and pri-
vate you were certainly right. but if you meant
to say that every individual who contracts a
debt, perfectly just at the time, should be held,
regardless of all circumstances whatever, bound
through time, for the payment OF that debt
with whatever he has, or can ever accumulate,
you we're certainly wrong ln some countries
the law enables creditor, however honest and
unfortunate his debtor may have been, to take
from him all his property and then to take his
children, set them up on the block and sell
them to the highest bidder as slaves, for
time long enough tp pay the debt. is that
right? OF course you say no, Law must show
some mercy, even TO q criminal, and much
more to an honest but unfortunate debtor.


Then we have one point established, viz
that creditor should not have too much pow
er over on unfortunate debtor. But what Is
too much? | answer-anything beyond JUS
tice, and since, as before easd, We can have no
certain rule in regard to the requirements OF
justice, and since we are obliged to deal with
the affairs of this world, right or wrong, we
should in all cases. aim to be governed by the
force of moral obligations, which are more sa-
cred and should be held more binding than le-
gal obligations. But one very important Ques-
ton here arises. Is moral obligation for the
payment of debt ever broken or in any way
affected by the civil laws, or any other clrcum-
stances with which the parties are surrounded
before that debt is paid? l answer unhesita-
tinely, YES. To illustrate Suppose general
reputation law was passed. In certain place
there live ten men, each one owing his next
door neighbor one thousand aoilara, and that
is all that each of them owes taking them all to.
gether there is but little difference between all
paying and none paying. Without any con-
sutation or special agreement they all act upon
the plan of non-paylng, except one man, Whlch
we call No. 5 ia the list He is enthusiastic
upon the subject of perfect honesty. No: 4
fails to pay him-he as next resort sells his
little home, all that he has on earth, from un-
der his family, gets one thou sand dollars for 1t
and paws it over to No. 6, knowing at the same
time that No, did not intend to pay No. 7.
Now | ask whether this man No. 5, did not
commit great sin in paying debt which new
er had been paid, and which under other cir
cumstances it would have been great sin for
him not to pay? | answer-yes, he did, and
if I answer correctly then the fact is estab-
lished that cases may arise, in which the moral
obligation for the payment of a debt can be
broken and the debt not yet paid.


Again, A is wealthy, shrewd, speculator-
owns lot of cattle worth one thousand dollars,
fears to hold them, but can't get them off to
market. B is an honest unsuspecting neigh
Dor of rs. owning little home worth one
thousand dollars A goes to b and sells him
the cattle on time. BIS. plans are all honestly
laid-he expects to feed the cattle a few
months then sell them for enough to pay A.
nav all expenses and have little money left
for his trouble, with whl h he expects to bet
ter the condition OF a dependent family. But
alas sure enough just as A secretly feared, an
invading enemy approaches, takes the cattle
and leaves no compensation. 1t Is not B
fault that they are taken, besides 1t Is as clear
as human events can be that A could not have
sold them, at the time, to any one else, and
moreover, if they had remained In his hands,
thew would have gone the same road, he being
powerless to prevent it. When B got the cat
tle the obligations both moral and legal, were
binding on him to pay for them, but | ask
whether the circumstances did not release him
from the moral obligations and whether it
ought not to release him from the legal obiga-
ticns? | answer, yes; and 1t answer cor
rectly, then we have the TACT established that
law, ingat least some cases. ought really to for
bid man from collecting what was once a Just
debtor still has property enough to pay.


Now. sir, if my views are thus far correct,
and if / have made myself rightly understood,
then shall be perfectly safe in saying, that,


while it would be wrong to repudiate all debts,


still It would be right to repudiate some, and
If makes but little difference what name you


give the law by which it is done; and of the
Glass of debts in regard to which, claim, their


moral obligations are broken, and their legal
OBLIGATIONS ought to be broken, there are now
hundreds and thousands of them in the South.
Do YOU answer that law attempting to dis
crminate between debts in that way is liable
to abuse? ask then, whether man ever made
! q law that was not liable to abuse?


There are doubtless some small debts con-
tracted in which the creditor relied solely upon
| the honesty of his debtor, but not many small


ones, and no large ones at all; true we have


many men whose honesty can be trusted with


perfect safety for any amount, but then thai


honest man whom you trust is liable any day


to die, and if he dies you will lose your debt
Business men may risk little in that way, bu


not much. What then, do business creditors


rely upon in receiving obligations from debtors
| In some cases where the amount is not larg
| they rely upon the honesty of the debtor. Il


others they rely upon a known reputation o
the debtors, which he knows it would cost tn


debtor more sacrifice than to pay the debt


but usually, and we may say invariably wher
the debt amounts to much, they rely upon th


property Of the debtor. Then, sir, I ask