Mr. SPENCER said what he desired was, that
the motion to reconsider should be laid on the
table, because he did not know how he should
vote at present.
Mr. BOWIE would like to have the question
taken on this subject. He would be satisfied if
the motion to reconsider should be now voted
upon, as he would be unavoidably absent to-
morrow. The grand cardinal principle that no
man should be imprisoned for debt was acknow-
ledged, and had been inserted in this new Con-
stitution. He was utterly opposed to instruct-
ing the Legislature on the subject, because, by
the section already adopted there was neces-
sarily left to the Legislature the power to pun-
ish fraud in any manner they pleased. He could
not allow this matter to go in the milk and
water form proposed by the gentleman from
Somerset, (Mr. Crisfield.) He did not know
that the Legislature would feel themselves bound
to obey such an injunction. They might refuse
to do it, and where then was the remedy? He
was satisfied that the Legislature would act on
the subject as they deemed best for the public
good.
Mr. W. C. JOHNSON was opposed to recon-
sidering that provision inserted in this constitu-
tion, abolishing imprisonment for debt. He
trusted that at this enlightened day the members
of this Convention would rejoice at what they
had done, by striking out that barbarous feature
which existed heretofore in our institutions,
He hoped that day would never be in Maryland
that an individual should be incarcerated in a
prison, because he was not able to pay his debts
He trusted that in the nineteenth century, it
never would be done—when Christianity, civili-
zation and humanity was the law of the land.
He was sorry he was not here when the ques-
tion was before the Convention, as he would
like to have presented his views at large on the
subject. In what the Convention had done, it
showed they had acted with humanity, and would
say to the unfortunate, "We sympathize with
you, and will not aid, by any act of ours, to add
to the bolts and bars of your prison house.'
In order, then, to bring this matter to a test vote
at once, he would move to lay the motion to re-
consider on the table, and call for the yeas and
nays.
Mr. CRISFIELD rose, when
The PRESIDENT stated that the question was
not debatable.
Mr. CRISFIELD. I hope the gentleman will
withdraw his motion.
Mr. W. C. JOHNSON. If you will renew it.
Mr, CRISFIELD. I will renew it,
Mr, W. C. JOHNSON then withdrew his motion
Mr. CRISFIELD observed that he had not, in
making this motion, intended to enter into an
argument. He had not supposed that any gen-
tleman would regard the proposition he had
made, as one to continue imprisonment for debt
nor did he suppose that his proposition was en
titled to be called 'barbarous" on the one hand
or on the other to be denounced as a "milk an(
water" proposition. He saw nothing like milk
and water or barbarism about it. |
Mr, W. C. JOHNSON explained that in what he
had previously said it was only in reference to
the abstract question of imprisonment for debt.
He had not seen the gentleman's (Mr. Cris-
field's) proposition. He had applied his re-
mark to the principle of imprisonment for debt
being an ultra barbarian practice, therefore he
would vote for no such proposition. He (Mr.
J.) had not attributed to the gentleman any thing
that was not worthy his high position and emi-
nence.
Mr CRISFIELD said imprisonment for debt in
Maryland was a mere fancy. Practically considered,
there was no imprisonment for debt, certain-
ly none that could be oppressive. Not one time
in twenty was the liberty of a party in danger;
and in no case was a man ever imprisoned under
such circumstances but he could easily liberate
himself. Now, what was proposed to be
done? Here it was proposed to abolish imprison-
ment for debt absolutely and at once, without
making provision for the altered circumstances,
and without substituting any thing in its place.
He (Mr. C) would go as far as any gentleman
in this body to abolish imprisonment for debt,
under proper safeguards and securities to the
creditors. He did not look altogether to the debt-
or, but he looked also to the creditor, and with a
desire also to protect his interests against fraud
and deception. If you let the article stand as it
is, how would, you enforce attendance of a party
in court in a civil action! How would you make
those means of the debtor tangible under the or-
dinary execution. The result would be that
the creditor would suffer unless some sub-
stitute for imprisonment for debt be at the
same time adopted; and fraud would go un-
punished and unchecked. Was it right? Was
the debtor class the only class of persons we were
lo take care of! Were persons who had involved
themselves in debt, and had converted their prop-
erty into money, to go free with no means to
purge their consciences and wrest from them the
fruits of their fraud? And were the persons who
gave credit not entitled to protection? It was all
improper, all wrong. Every class of the commu-
nity of Maryland was entitled to protection—the
creditor as well as the debtor class; and all he
wanted was, that when you abolish imprisonment
for debt, you should employ means to compel the
fraudulent debtor to pay his debts. You now pro-
pose to abolish imprisonment for debt without
giving any security, any shield to the creditor
against fraud, any thing to enable him to enforce
just demands and to reach property of the debtor
not within scope of an ordinary execution. This,
he thought, was all wrong. For those reasons
he moved a reconsideration.
Mr. W. C. JOHNSON would simply say in reply,
that he understood there was a large class of cases
under the existing laws where persons incurring
debts elsewhere were captured in this State and,
imprisoned whilst strangers here from home.
Mr. CRISFELD thought there had been a law
passed recently which prohibited any such act
from being done now in Maryland.
Mr. W. C. JOHNSON said, then it must be a |
