Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1879. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume II, Issue 21, 4 November 1879, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1879. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

A Bill has been introduced into the House of Representatives by Mr Hutchison, one of the Wellington members, having for its object the abolition of imprisonment for debt, and has passed its second reading, the committal being fixed for Thursday next. The subject is of great importance to the Colony as a whole, inasmuch as it affects to the greatest extent small traders. A merchant, in doing business, requires security, either by endorsements or in real pioparty, for goods supplied. Not so the retail trader. He, in most cases, is compelled to trust to the honor of his customer, or the warrant of the bailiff, for payment, and where the debtor possesses no property, nothing that can against his will be converted into cash for payment of his debt, the exist in law holds over him a threat of imprisonment. At present, the law is adjusted to the happy medium between the right of the creditor and the misfortunes of the debtor. For debt, pure and simple, no man can be imprisoned. First of all, the creditor must sue in the ordinary course of law ; should judgment be recorded in his favor, and remain unsatisfied, he must go to the trouble and expense of taking out a "judgment summons," upon which an order of imprisonment may be made. But before such an order can be obtained, the creditor must show that the debtor was able to pay the amount for which judgment was recorded against him, and either refused or neglected to do so. This, we say, is as near an approach as can be made to a fair adjustment of the question. But Mr Hutchison's Bill proposes to take away even this safeguard to traders, by the entire abolition of imprisonment for debt. The resxilt, we fear, will bo most unsatisfactory. Dishonest men will regard New Zealand as a very Paradise, free from every necessity to pay just debts, and in the end the foundations of trade will be sapped, and credit destroyed. Whatever political charlatans may say, such a state of affairs i s extremely undesirable. Four-fifths of the retail trade of the Colony is carried on upon credit, and must continue so to be. But if no security is by law given to the trader that* he can punish dishonesty ; if any worthless scamp may contract debts and then snap his fingers at his creditor, every sensible man will feel himself compelled to treat honest men as rogues, and refuse all credit, thus bringing about a state of misery and wretchedness from the contemplation of which the mind shrinks.

Tlie Bill Mr Hutchison has introduced is the outcome of a vapid and maudlin sentimentalism, which is shared in by a section of society who indulge in the parrot-cry that no man should suffer because of his misfortunes ! But there is another aspect of this subject. A great many socalled " misfortunes " are the result of neglect and insobriety. We have in our mind's eye an instance in which ft man carrying on a remunerative business, devoted himself to the " pleasures " of almost incessant drunkenness. His business was neglected, and after a few months, he filed his schedule. That man actually had the effrontery to explain his bankruptcy by the " dullness of the times." Numbers of instances are daily occurring around us, in which men's poverty and mistortunes are the result of their own criminal neglect and folly. Such cases, the law should reach. A man, perhaps employed on a station, contracts debts in a township near. He buys clothes, cigars, saddles, stores, &c, but when he receives his salary, he spends it in drink, and leaves unpaid the debts incurred for his sustenance. To say that such a man should not be punished for what really is dishonesty, is to allow sentiment to usurp the place of justice, and is giving a premium to fraud. Yet instances of the

kind mentioned occur every week, and there is so laigo an amount of ;< hitman nature " in man that we fear the Bill Mr Hutchison proposes would multiply to a tremendous extent the number. "We would go even beyond the present law, and make a man responsible not only for what ho Ins, but for what he might have had. A man who owes money should spend nothing beyond what is required for the actual necessities of life until he lias paid or made provision for what he owes. That is a principle which in the abstract is soimd. It is carrying out the golden rule of doing to others as we would they should do uuto us. A law embodying that would be severe ; but what shall we say of the man who, while owing a tradesman for the bread or meat that sustains his life, fritters away money that should be devoted to paying his debts, in the indulgence of depraved appetites ? Such men, as a rule, are themselves the first to insist upon payment, like the servant in the parable, who, although forgiven a debt of 10,000 talents of silver, imprisoned a man who owed him a hundred pence. We can heartily sympathise with those who suffer through misfortune — want of employment, depression of trade, and such like contingencies — but we rejoica at the vindication of Justice when dishonest or criminally-reckless men are made to pay the penalty for the suffering and loss they inflict on others ; — not only the direct loss they cause ti the trader they rob, but the suffering they indirectly cause by rendering it almost impossible for worthy and honest men, fighting gallantly the battle of life, to obtain credit. We therefore trust Mr Hutchison's Bill will not become law.