JUSTICES' COURTS

[May 26, 1846]

The Janesville Gazette differs from us altogether on the subject of abolishing the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in civil cases, contending that such a step would prevent the poor man from enforcing the collection of debts under fifty dollars, and seeming to think that a moment's reflection would convince any person that such a course would be productive of unmixed evil.

We can only say that, although we may be wrong, we have bestowed not only moments, but days [of] reflection on the subject, and have also made numerous inquiries among poor men as to the effect of the present laws of collection; and both reasoning and the results of these inquiries convince us of the great benefit that would be obtained by abandoning the present system.

Many intelligent men refuse to sue for small debts on the ground that they cannot afford it; and unless the debt is very near the amount of fifty dollars it is in nine cases out of ten a loss, even when recovery is certain and the debt can be collected. Loss of time by adjournments, by actually trying the case, loss of expense by fees to lawyers, and by the trouble of hunting up witnesses, and by the many other unavoidable annoyances make even success of doubtful benefit, while losses by want of witnesses, by the forgetfulness of witnesses, by accidents of various kinds-and there are many of them-combine to make many other suits greatly detrimental to both parties. Besides this, we all know that of the many executions on the dockets of our justices few indeed are ever satisfied by the payment of the sum recovered, and of those few a majority are paid at so distant a date that the plaintiff, had he known how long he would have been obliged to wait, would never have commenced the suit.

Of the suits in justices' courts, many are commenced in a moment of passion and abate when the passion has cooled off. Many get in judgment, it is true, but no farther, because the plaintiff finds he cannot collect if he tries. The dishonest man can almost always get rid of paying, while the honest man will almost always pay as soon as he can without suit. The truth is that the whole system has proved a failure. These courts were instituted for the benefit, perhaps, of the poor man, but they have proved a failure and only assist others, while they actually injure him.

The editor of the Gazette seems to think that an appeal to the honor of employers would be [of] little avail in any case. There again we differ from him very widely. We believe that now such an appeal is futile because an answer has become so pat in such cases, and it is, "Well, you have your remedy, there's the law," and a very poor remedy it is. Let there be no remedy and men for their own sakes will look more to the character they might obtain from their laborers. They would feel that, unless they had the reputation of dealing justly, they could never command labor at the time when it would be most valuable to them, when all things were hurried. They would seek to maintain a high character for punctuality and justice, knowing that it would enable them to have work done with greater punctuality and truer econ

omy.

It is well worth noticing that, the greater legal restrictions you throw round men, the more they neglect the simple commands of justice and honor and satisfy themselves with living up to the mere letter of the law. Where they can legally evade a payment they will, where they can even put off one they do so, and even when they feel the injustice of their conduct, they apologize by saying that it is to punish the man for having sued them; and that, as the plaintiff took advantage of the law to collect his debt, they have a right to take advantage of the delay the law allows to put off the payment.

But the strongest proof of the inefficacy of these courts is the reluctance with which (even now, when men have no other dependence) the best of our citizens approach them. You may seek out every good man in the country, every man who is willing to pay when he owes, sure to satisfy all by his punctuality and workmanship, who is noted as an excellent citizen and as a prudent, cautious man getting along in the world well, and you will find him the man who refuses to resort to these petty courts, preferring a small loss in money on settling a demand to a large one in time, and we must say it also in character. Now the pig-headed, litigious fellow, who never gets along in the world and never gives satisfaction in any job he performs, is always the man who resorts to these courts, who will never give up his rights, however doubtful they may be, to others, and who will never pay until eighteen men have declared he must, and who will even then boast that he can "beat the plaintiff on the execution" -he is the man who is admirably suited with small debt courts. It gives him an air of importance, an excuse for being extremely busy in doing nothing, and frequently teaches him in time a few terms of practice and a few tricks to stave off suits that enable him to talk, as he thinks, very learnedly about law, and that in the end bring him into a scrape that gets him laughed out of town, to run the same career in some far off place. He learns at last the truth of a French saying that "a man may be more cunning than his neighbor, but it will trouble him to be more cunning than all his neighbors."

We consider, then, small courts as a nuisance. We consider them alike injurious to the public and to the legal profession. We would like much to see them done away with, and we know we shall see that. We would prefer Wisconsin should set the example, for we know she will follow it when set; and that will be before much time has elapsed.

Courts of chancery generally refuse to take cognizance of suits where the property in dispute is under one hundred

dollars, and courts of law would do well to follow their example. It would be a deathblow to the present credit system, and that would be one good thing, and it would create a credit system where the claim to confidence would be based on a known character for probity, which would be a much better one yet. We have spoken before of the saving to the community at large, and will not repeat; but we must add that few look sufficiently to the importance of relieving the community from this immense tax. A tax on their time as witnesses, jurors, plaintiffs, and defendants, and a tax on them (and on the most industrious it falls the heaviest, as all taxes do) to support constables, justices, and unfledged (and never to be fledged) lawyerings, who live and die in the petty courts alone.

FREE BANKING

[June 2, 1846]

The Wisconsin Argus objects to free banking as well as any other, saying it would as soon be shaved by incorporated shinplasters as by individual trash.10 So would we; but we do not want to touch either. When we speak of individual banking, we speak of that free banking that we are inclined to think cannot be properly suppressed by law, and can, of course, do no harm.

Every man has a right in our opinion to issue his note of hand, and it is of but little consequence whether it is printed or written. If, in addition, he can convince men that his promises to pay are trustworthy, we hold he has a right to do so, and has established the only kind of bank that we cannot refuse existence to. We do not ask men to do this, nor do we wish to see any man's paper make a currency, however limited its circulation may be, but still, believing it to be one of his proper rights, we say let him exercise it. Whenever

10 For this article see post, 444.

you take any right away from a man, however unimportant it is, you may be sure you have given someone else a privilege he ought not to have had, and that has of course done injury to the mass of the people. Incorporating banking companies was in fact the mode by which the individual system of banking was destroyed, and the world has suffered enough to throw away privileges and return to rights.

We have no fear that at the present day free banking will ever be able to furnish currency. We believe it will only supply the place of exchange, and take the position that shaving brokers have usurped. We believe that individual bankers will exist and that their paper will be furnished to merchants for exchange, either in the shape of bills on each other or in the shape of individual notes; and this will be a proper business, and one to which no one ought to object.

It may be that men will be enabled to make a currency, and we can only say so be it. We hate banks in any shape with a tolerably bitter hatred; but if a man can make his own notes so good that his neighbors choose to take them as money, why we cannot object to it. If their confidence rests in his property, very well, if in his honesty, better yet; if in nothing at all, it is their lookout. They will not be obliged to take his paper because when there are no incorporations there will be enough specie for circulation.

To us it seems necessary, before passing any law, to ask whether there is in it anything that restricts a man in the exercise of his natural rights, or anything that favors a set of men, or a man, improperly. If either is the case the law is wrong. In banking laws we have been giving privileges throughout the United States for many a year; and bitterly have we paid for it. Losses upon losses have been borne by the poor because they were unable to help themselves. They were obliged, not by law but by the effect of law, to receive bank notes as coin; and, although they had little confidence in them, still the very legislation that made them a currency