ing of the fee simple of an estate at a great sac-
rifice, because of the inability of the debtor to
raise an amount of money, which the estate it-
self would rent for in less than seven years. It
is a good provision—it is essential to society—it
guards the oppressed, and it works no injury to
the creditor. It ought to be adopted, and the
Convention should stop in its hurry to effect so
good a purpose.
Mr. BREST, of Baltimore city, said that he had
gone as far as the furthest in the homestead law,
though he was not satisfied with it as it had been
adopted in the Constitution, because it did not
secure enough. He was utterly opposed to this
proposition; it would carry them back to the
barbarous time of the common law, and did not
suit the age in which we live. The writ of
Elegit was a writ derived from the common law,
by which rents were applied to the payment
of debts,—that writ has fallen into disuse as
commerce advanced, and now it is proposed substantially
to renew it. He also saw this objection.
There might be a very wealthy man residing in
this city, who owned a farm in one of the coun-
ties. He might refuse to pay his debts, in which
case, under this provision, a man would be com-
pelled to wait seven years before he could receive
the payment of the debt out of the property.
Mr. DASHIELL. He could receive instalm
every year.
Mr. BRENT said, that he would have to wait
seven years to get the debt. If they had not
done enough to protect the homesteads of poor
men, let the gentleman move to reconsider the
article they had already engrafted in the Consti-
tution in relation to that subject, and he (Mr. B.)
would go as far as any man.
Mr. DASHIELL. The seven years right could
be sold and the money paid.
Mr. BRENT. Yes, but at a ruinous discount.
Mr. BOWIE could see very well that this pro-
position did not suit the commercial world, but
at the same time he understood very well how it
would suit the agricultural world.
Mr. BRENT said that his remark was that it
did not suit the commercial age, not the commer-
cial world.
Mr. DASHIELL said if a man should possess a
small farm, and owe perhaps one-half its value
because he had not the money to pay his debts
immediately, he would be oppressed by his credi-
tor, and his property would be set up for sale
having the effect of robbing the poor man of his
farm The provision said that if the rent or
profits of the farm, beyond the payment of taxes
and the necessary repairs, should besufficient
within the space of seven years to pay the debt
it should not besold. So that at the expiration
of seven years, the poor man could get possession
of his property again. He did not see how it
would take away the right of any man. The
creditor would get interest upon his money all the
time. He believed that this proposition belonged
to the advancement of this age.
Mr. HOWARD thought, that if the proposition
should be adopted, it would produce just the
contrary effect which the gentleman desired. |
He held that it was conformable to the genius of
the times in which we live, that men should be
permitted to make bargains as suited them best.
Hence, it was that he had always been opposed,
and was now, to any usury law whatever, be-
cause it made borrowers pay more money than
others. They could not borrow upon the pledge
of landed estate, as easily as they could upon the
pledge of bank stock. He had himself known
lenders turn their backs upon landed security, and
take money in bank stock, because when the time
was out, they could not obtain the money they
could sell the stock, without going into a court of
Chancery, and procuring a mortgage. Hence
the Legislature of the State, in the spirit of the
age had passed laws to render mortgages easily
available, and they could now be foreclosed with-
out the interposition of Chancery, by giving sum-
mary notice to the sheriff. That had effected
something to facilitate loans upon landed estates,
but not enough. If persons desired to borrow
money, obstacles should not be thrown in their
way. In case a creditor died, his estate had to
be settled up. Under this provision, they could
not settle it up and divide it among, perhaps his
children, who might be just starting in business.
His children must be content with receiving in-
stalments every year for a number of years, and
in the mean time, the executor would keep pos-
session of the estate. Thus it would prolong the
settlement of the estate, and keep the heirs out
of capital, which might be of more use to them
than ten times the amount a few years after-
wards. This provision would oppress the very
class of society for whose benefit it was offered.
He had never heard any complaint of the statute
of George the Second, under which all lands
were sold for debt. On the contrary, all legisla-
tion seemed to throw facilties in the way of set-
tling up estate at the death of the possessor. Now-
it was proposed to go back anterior to the time
of George the Second, and adopt the same old
principle of common law which had been super-
ceded in this State ever since the reign of that
monarch.
Mr. TUCK made some remarks which will be
published hereafter.
Mr. GWINN said, that in addition to what had
been urged by the gentleman from Prince
George's, this proposition would destroy the liens
secured to mechanics in the city of Baltimore and
in some of the counties, since it would prevent
them from availing themselves of that security
for the space of seven years. He would say,
without hesitation, that in the whole mechanical
class in the State, in which the right of lien now
existed, such a proposition would be received with
universal execration. There was now a series of
well matured laws which served for their protec-
tion, and the gentleman's amendment left them
in fact remediless. There is no justice in a pro-
vision which keeps a man from his own for so
long a period. Creditors have their rights no
less than debtor. A tender care of the latter
should not interfere with the just claims of the
former.
Mr, PHELPS was in favor of the principle, but |
