Abolishment of Debt.

Cromwell Argus, Volume V, Issue 214, 16 December 1873, Page 7

Abolishment of Debt.

When Mr T. B. Gillies stated that he was prepared to " abolish debt," he did so with a purpose ; and there can be no doubt the day .is coming that will see his idea, in that respect, carried into practice. The abolition of imprisonment for debt is the first step to that end. His Bill was rejected last session ; but next year, in all probability, will see imprisonment for debt abolished by statute in New Zealand, At present, the law treats debt as a crime, punishable with imprisonment. But as it is impossible to carry on any kind of business without credit, so is it impossible to get rid of debt. Imprisonment for debt is a relic of a barbarous age, which did not scruple to treat the debtor as a person who had no civil rights unless he could satisfy his creditor ; but it is opposed to the humane spirit of this age, and should therefore be abolished. Mr Gillies, however, goes very much further, in his sweeping proposal to " abolish debt," than simply to repeal the punitive enactments against debtors. His scheme of law .reform would involve the abolition of civil process as well, which would have the effect of reducing the credit system to the simple foundation of personal character and solvency. As we understand the proposition, it is as follows: —That A, in trusting B with his property, of whatever kind, does it at his own risk, and with the hope of making a profit out of B. Should B meet his engagements, A pockets the profit, and the public, C, hear nothing of the matter ; but should B make default, A goes to C, and demands that C, who is no party to the transaction, should pay the cost of coercing B to keep faith with A. This, Mr Gillies holds to be unjust to the public, who have no interest, direct or indirect, in the bargaining of A and B, but who are heavily taxed to maintain Courts of law to adjust their disputes. And we, for i our own part, fail to see any reply, good or bad, to the objection ; —an objection, be it remembered, all the more remarkable, coming from a barrister who is second to none in the colony in his knowledge of commercial law. Why should the colony be taxed to maintain Courts of law to settle the disputes of individuals 1 Why should colonists be dragged from their private pursuits to sit on juries, and give .days and weeks of valuable time to the adjustment of private accounts, with which neither they nor the public are concerned 1 There is really no reason why such things should be, beyond the wholly insufficient one that the Government assumes functions, in respect of property, which do not properly belong to it. If, however, civil process were abolished, transactions between individuals would be conducted with much more cave and prudence than they now are. There would be an end of reckless trading. Indiscriminate credit would not be the rule of business as now, relying upon the chapter of accidents, and the help of the Courts, to bring matters square in the end. On the contrary, good business habits, high moral character, and admitted integrity would in every case be recognised ;—there would not be an end of the credit system, but there would be a commencement of a discriminating system of credit, and the result would be—fewer trade losses, a higher commercial tone, and more solid progress than is possible under a system which handicaps integrity, taxes the public to make things pleasant for rogues.— Guardian.