The Governor Vetoes Debt Relief, and the Paper Cheers

The arguments of the governor in connection with his veto of the deficiency judgment bill are conclusive, and will convince any one who is disposed to regard the matter fairly that the position taken by him is correct. At a time like the present, when so many people are suffering from the depressed condition of business and are unable to meet their obligations, there is apt to be a strong sentiment in favor of any form of legislation that holds out even a promise of relief. There is, moreover, a very natural feeling that where property taken as security for debt has depreciated in value it is only just that the creditor, as well as the debtor, should bear a portion of the loss.

When it is considered, however, that the bill in question could not in any way affect existing obligations, it must be clear that the effect of the bill would be exactly the reverse of what was intended. Instead of helping the debtor it would injure him. There is a disposition on the part of creditors to be lenient so long as their rights are not imperiled, but it is notorious that capital is very timid, and that the enactment of such a law as the deficiency judgment bill contemplated would only make capital more timid at the very time when money is most needed, to the injury of the very men who would be most benefited.