But we are not left to depend solely upon the foregoing arguments; for it will be observed, that in civilized communities, and particularly under a government like ours, there are certain rights, which, although in a manner appertaining to individuals, still belong, in a great degree, to the publie. Of these rights, society ought not to be divested by the acts of any of its members. Individual interest, must give way to the public good; so when it appears that the public are to be injured by the act of one individual, the latter is restrained for the benefit of the former. According to the common law, a man's tools and utensils of trade, the axe of a carpenter, the books of a scholar, and the like, were privileged from execution for the sake of the public, because the taking of them away would disable the owner from serving the commonwealth in his station. Labor is wealth, and in proportion to the amount of productive labor, so is the wealth of a nation. The whole communinity being made up of individuals, and individual labor being its source of wealth, of course the imprisoning of one individual affeets the whole. By confining a man in prison, you require others to do that labor which he was required to do, or you reduce the means of living in that proportion. For instance, deprive society of the labor of one half of its members, and you impose upon the remainder the necessity of supplying the whole. You either reduce the amount of productive labor one half, or you require those who do labor to do twice as much as before. In China it is a maxim, that if there be a man that does not work, or a woman that is idle, in the empire, somebody must suffer cold and hunger. And the court of Areopagus, at Athens, exercised a right of examining every citizen in what manner he spent his time. But in our own happy country, public policy is made to yield to the gratification of individual cruelty, and the law of imprisonment for debt allows neither age, sickness, or infirmity, to bar its operation.

We have now concluded that part of our examination that relates more particularly to the nature of the debtor's obligation, and the creditor's rights. We will now examine into the proposition, or assertion, that this law holds out the only effectual means for collecting debts, and coercing payment.

Being well aware that many individuals look more to the expediency of laws, than to the principles on which they are founded, we shall proceed to the examination of this subdivision of the question, with an anxious desire that it may receive the particular attention of the House.

The efficiency of this system for the protection of the creditor, now assumes a shape of more than ordinary interest; and should its operation tend as little to effect the end sought to be attained, as its principles would seem to imply, nothing short of an expression in favor of its repeal, can be expected from this House.

The subjoined facts and opinions, have been collected w great care, and the number might have been multiplied ten fold had it been thought necessary. No exertion has been spared to procure the best evidence, which the nature of the question, and the time allowed the committee would admit. Letters have been directed to the sheriffs of many of the counties of this State, and we regret to say that up to this period, very few answers have been returned. We have thus been compelled to refer to facts concerning the general operation of this system, in the place of confining our inquiries to its effects in this State.

In the fifth report of the Prison Discipline Society, for 1830, we find the following-" In seventeen prisons from which we have heard, out of 2,057 persons imprisoned, the records show only 294 who paid the debt; 1,019 were discharged by the creditor or his attorney, and 744 took the poor debtor's oath. In each case where the creditor or attorney discharged the debtor, or the poor man's oath was taken, the costs were paid by the creditor."

The following is an extract of a letter from the justices of the quorum and sheriff of Berkshire county, Massachusetts " Being justices of the peace and of the quorum in this county, we have attended, some of us more than twenty years, the examination of debtors, who have taken the benefit of the poor debtor's oath, and have had an opportunity of ascertaining the benefit creditors generally derive from the imprisonment of their debtors, and of learning the injury sustained by the debtors and their families, from such imprisonment. From our observation, we are decidedly of opinion, that there are but few cases in which any benefit is gained by the creditor, by the imprisonment of his debtor; and that the injury, in most cases, to the debtor, but more generally to his family, is very great; and in many instances extremely oppressive." The sheriff adds-" Having been sheriff of the county eighteen years, I have observed the operation of our laws against poor debtors; and fully concur in the opinion of the above gentlemen."

Governor Lincoln of Massachusetts, says "The claims of humanity have long urged the abolishment of imprisonment;" and "the most diligent and exact inquiry has shown, that but little effect in enforcing the payment of money, is produced by the confinement of debtors."

Governor Harvey of New Hampshire, remarks-" It is now rarely found that the debtor, committed to prison under the present law, ever calculates on being discharged by payment of the debt; and so far as my observation has extended, about seven eighths of all persons, committed on execution, have been discharged on application to the commissionary of jail delivery.

From Charles Sedgwick, Esq. Lenox, Massachusetts" You will perceive by the statement below, that beside the loss and inconvenience occasioned to the debtor by imprisonment, it is useless and expensive to the creditor. The amount of debts when the party took the poor debtor's oath, was $456.75; and the amount of costs on the same, $1,439.12. Thus it appears that the expenses amounted to more than three times the amount of the debt, without answering any good purpose whatever, and operated very hardly upon the families of debtors, by depriving them of the means of daily support."

Mr. Bradford, of Philadelphia, says-" I have had much opportunity, for many years, as an inspector of the prison, of witnessing the evils resulting from imprisonment for debt, and therefore can testify to the folly of the whole system. The debtor becomes reckless of character, dissolute, and in many instances, ruined; and returns to society its bane and curse."

From the Hon. H. W. Dwight-" I have never found it necessary to imprison a man for a debt due to me, personally: and whenever, in fifteen years' practice, I have done so for a client, I have always found it would have been better not to have done so."

From the Hon. Samuel Greenleaf-" In the course of twenty-four years' practice at the bar, I have known little good to result from imprisonment for debt, and am inclined to doubt whether all the sums collected in any one county by that operation, would amount to as much as the expenses of all the commitments in that county during the same period of time."

From the Hon. Thomas S. Grimke, South Carolina-" My settled conviction, after twenty years' practice, is, that in nine out of ten cases, (and I am not sure but nineteen out of twenty,) the property assigned has been so trifling, that no one would act as assignee."

From William Griffiths, Esq. compiler of the Law Register"During the thirty years of my knowledge of the insolvent system in New-Jersey, in which time there could not have been less thara six thousand discharges, I have never heard of a dividend being made to the amount of one shilling; nor a single assignee who has rendered an account to creditors. Possibly there are cases where a dividend has been made; yet it may be safely said, that the whole amount in thirty years would not pay the court fees."

An hundred extracts like the foregoing could be given, derived from gentlemen of the first standing in every part of the Unionproving conclusively, that this system has not only borne oppressively on the debtor, but has yielded no benefit to the creditor, and that in nine cases out of ten, the costs have equalled the amount of the debt.

Can any thing more be wanting to prove the utter uselessness and tyranny of this system? But there is another consideration attached to this subject, which will require a few remarks.

Under the present law, inducements are held out to extend credit; and probably as many bad debts may be traced to urgent offers of goods at an almost unlimited credit, as to the unrestrained inclination to buy. Something ought to be done to prevent creditors from encouraging persons to contract debts beyond their ability to pay.No inducement should be held out to the creditor, except what the character of the person presents. No prospect should be offered him founded on the distress of the family of the debtor, and upon the sympathies of his friends; and no false hopes or unfounded expectations should induce him to do what, without them, he would not do.

In relation to this subject, Judge Bailey observes-"Generally, creditors are a much more wary class of men than debtors; and if the laws authorising imprisonment for debt were repealed, they would probably be more cautious how they give credit; and this would be likely to have a beneficial effect on the community, as it would tend to lessen the number of debtors and creditors, and would also tend to virtuous and honorable conduct, by giving to men of fair character the advantages they ought to have in obtaining credit."

This question, however, is not left to conjecture. Although we have presented testimony against the beneficial effects of this system-although we have shown that according to the experience and opinion of good and wise men, in every section of our country, this law works not only injustice and oppression to the debtor, but gives no relief to the creditor-although we have proved, as far as negative testimony will go, that the creditor and the debtor, together with the morals of the community, would be benefitted by the repeal of this law-yet we are not reduced to the necessity of resting our case here; we have clear, incontrovertible testimony-evidence of a positive and conclusive nature, which must forever put this question at rest.

In relation to this subject, Col. Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, remarks" In Kentucky, imprisonment for debt was abolished in in the year 1821: of course, the law repealing it, has been in full force for near ten years, and during a period of pecuniary embarrassment, such as the history of the state cannot furnish a parallel.

"At the commencement it encountered some considerable opposition, because a part of the system was not retained to operate on fraudulent debtors; but as it become better understood, its principles more fully developed, and its humanizing effects more completely unfolded, so in proportion, the opposition sunk away by degrees, until almost every murmur of complaint was hushed into silence. At the present time I believe the sentiment of approbation is almost universal among all classes and conditions of society. Indeed we begin to look back with surprise and astonishment, that such a barbarity should ever have existed, or that a republican community should ever have supposed that such a gross violation of personal liberty should ever have been necessary.

"It was confidently asserted, that the abolition of the old system would produce great frauds, annihilate credit, work injustice, and reduce the State to confusion. Time has dissipated these fears, and proved them to have been imaginary.

"I have no hesitation in asserting, from my knowledge in that portion of the State wherein I reside, that since the abolition of im