▁that ▁the ▁question ▁was ▁whether ▁or ▁not ▁the ▁means ▁to ▁achieve ▁the ▁goal ▁were ▁reasonable . ▁The ▁answer , ▁clearly , ▁was ▁in ▁the ▁negative . ▁The ▁fundamental ▁reason ▁for ▁this ▁was ▁that ▁the ▁prov isions ▁were ▁over bro ad . ▁The ▁san ction ▁of ▁imprison ment ▁was ▁ost ens ibly ▁aim ed ▁at ▁the ▁deb tor ▁who ▁would ▁not ▁pay , ▁but ▁it ▁was ▁un reason able ▁in ▁that ▁it ▁also ▁struck ▁at ▁those ▁who ▁could ▁not ▁pay ▁and ▁simply ▁failed ▁to ▁prove ▁this ▁at ▁a ▁hearing , ▁often ▁due ▁to ▁negative ▁circumstances ▁created ▁by ▁the ▁prov isions ▁themselves . ▁ ▁There ▁were ▁seven ▁distinct ▁reasons , ▁Krieg ler ▁J ▁found , ▁why ▁the ▁prov isions ▁were ▁in def ens ible : ▁▁ ▁They ▁allowed ▁persons ▁to ▁be ▁imprison ed ▁without ▁having ▁actual ▁notice ▁either ▁of ▁the ▁original ▁judgment ▁or ▁of ▁the ▁hearing . ▁It ▁was ▁not ▁only ▁theoret ically ▁possible , ▁but ▁also ▁quite ▁possible ▁in ▁practice , ▁that ▁the ▁deb tor ' s ▁first ▁notice ▁of ▁the ▁case ▁against ▁him ▁would ▁be ▁when ▁the ▁war rant ▁of ▁comm itt al ▁was ▁executed . ▁In ▁terms ▁of ▁the ▁procedure ▁permitted ▁by ▁the ▁Act ▁and ▁the ▁R ules ▁prom ul g ated ▁there under , ▁there ▁need ▁not ▁necessarily ▁have ▁been ▁personal ▁service ▁of ▁any ▁process ▁prior ▁to ▁that . ▁ ▁Even ▁if ▁a ▁person ▁had ▁notice ▁of ▁the ▁hearing , ▁he ▁could ▁be ▁still ▁imprison ed ▁without ▁knowledge ▁of ▁the ▁possible ▁def ences ▁available ▁to ▁him , ▁and ▁accordingly ▁without ▁any