American Republican And Baltimore Daily Clipper

[For the American Republican.]

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. The Writer in your paper of the 30th ult. who styles himself the "West End," very much mistakes the sentiments of the citizens of this section of the city, if he in his article headed "Imprisonment for debt" speaks in behalf of the people: it may be, and no doubt is, the opinion of your correspondent, that this law should continue to exist, but the people here sanction no such crude and uncharitable sentiments-and I would almost guarantee, if the question was put, whether imprisonment for debt should be abolished, two-thirds of them would vote in the affirmative; and why? because they are dishonest; anxious for the blotting out from the statutes any law which would hinder them from evading the payment of debts contracted in good faith, but from fortuitous circumstances, unable to pay at the precise time their creditors wish; no, but because the abolishment of the law would afford them additional advantages for the speedy payment of their liabilities; these advantages I cannot here enumerate.

Your correspondent in the opening of his communication allows no sincerity to those who have heretofore advocated a repeal of this law, but says "they affect the greatest horror at the idea of imprisonment for debt." I, sirs, do not "affect" but express "the greatest horror" at his communication-it is the advocacy of an unjust law-a tirade against the worthy advocates of its repeal-a tampering with the nicer feelings of the poor unfortunate debtor. I regard it as "a relic of barbarism"—a foul spot upon our high claims to civilization, and gospel benevolence; it takes in its operation the energies, aye, the reputation of the debtor. incarcerates them in a loathsore prison, and leaves them there to wither and die. And is this nothing?

Again, your correspondent very charitably recommends the "insolvent laws," which were made, he says, "for the poor, honest debtor's especial benefit." One word here. We all know, Messrs. Editors, the effect upon the reputation of that man who takes this law, it forever prostrates him in the eyes of the community." The public look with suspicion and distrust upon him who is stigmatized as a "petitioner." For myself, I had as lieve trust a man after as before petitioning, (provided he was a man of integrity,) but to an individual who has no means, no monied capital, but who depends alone upon his character and reputation for the maintenance of his wife and beloved offspring, the availing himself of this law generally proves death to his present and future prospect. I would like to go into a particular review of this question in all its bearings and aspects, but time nor space will allow. In conclusion, I will go with your correspondent for the enactment of a law which will provide "for the better collection of debts;" but will never sanction, by word or deed, a law which places the honest and dishonest man on the same footing, and which, while it clears the "guilty," virtually declares him "guilty" who pleads in beseeching tenderness "not guilty."

ANOTHER WEST ENDER.