, 1840-07-04

Which, oIinS III very uuuitIOuS CIdSSeS Oi
persons who were not esteemed traders, in
England, at the time of the adoption of the
constitution OF the United States. | may add,
that bankrupt laws, properly so called, or
laws providing for the sessio bonorum, on the
continent Of Europe, and in Scotland, were
never confined to traders; and while the
members of the convention may be supposed
to have looked to the example Of England, it
is BY no means improbable that they con.
templated also the examples and Institutions
of other countries. There is TO reason to
suppose that it was intended to tie up the
hands Of congress to the establissent of that
particular bankrupt system which existed in
England in 1888; and to deny to it all pow
er of future modification and amendment; it
would he just as reasonable to say that the
United States laws Of copyright, of patents
for inventions, and many others, could only
be mere transcripts of such British statutes
on the same subjects, as existed in 1889.
The great object was 20 authorize Con-
gress to establish a uniform system through
out all the States. No State could of itself
establish such a system; it could only estab-
lish q system for itself; and the diversities.
inconsistencies, and interferenoies ofthe sew.
eral State systems had been subjects ofmuch
well-grounded complaint. 1t was intended
to give Congress the power to establish u.
niiormlty in this respect; and if the English
example was regarded, it was regarded in las
general character, Of a power in Parliament
to pass laws on the subject, 10 repeal them,
and pass others, in its discretion, and to deal
with the whole subject, from time to time,
| as aynprIpDcn nr tho avIranniac nf tho p,,hlu,
should suggest or require. The bankrupt
system of England, as it existed in 1889, was
not the same which bad previously existed,
nor the same which afterwards existed. or
that which now exists. At first. the system
was coercive, and the law a sort Of criminal
law, extending TO all persons, as well as ira.
ders.-But changes had taken place before
1888, and other changes, and very impor-
tant chnges, nave taken place since. The
system is now greatly simplified and improv-
ed, and II is also made much more extensive,
as TO those whom it embraces. Ii is hardly
too much TO say that it is preposterous TO
contend, that we are 90 refuse TO ourselves
not only the light Of our own experience,
and AL regard 10 our W peculiar situation,
but that We are also 10 exclude from our re-
gard and notice all modern English improve
ments, and confne ourselves to the English
bankrupt laws as they existed in 1889. The
power Of Congress is given in the fullest
manner. and by the largest and most com.
prehensive terms and forms Of expression;
and it cannot be limited by vague presurnp-
tons Of a reference to other existing coGes, or
loose conjectures about the intents Of its fra
mers, nowhere expressed or minated in the
instrument itself, or any contemporancous
exposition.
| think, then, that Congress may pass n
law which shall include persons not traders,
and which shall include voluntary cases only.
And | think further, that the amendment pro
posed by the honorable member from New
Jersey is, in effect, exactly against his own
argument. | think it admits all that he con-
tends against. In the first place, he admits
voluntary bankruptcies, and there were none
such in England in 1889. This is clear
And in the next place, he admits any one
who will say that he has been concerned in
trade, and he maintains, and has asserted,
that IN this country any body may say that.
Any body, then, may come in under the bill.
The only difference is, he must cone in un-
der a disguise, or in IN assumed character.
'hatS'ei oS NO uIchts oCCupitlons
or pursuits, he must come in as n trader, or
as one who has been engaged in trade
The honorable member attempts n distinction
between traders and those who can say
that they have been engaged in trade. ]
cannot see the difference. 1t is too fine for
me. A trader is one concerned in trade,
and TO be concerned in trade is to be trader.
What is the difference? But If persons may
be concerned in trade, and yet not be traders,
still such persons were not embraced in the
English statutes, which apply to traders by
names; and, therefore, the gcntleman's bill
would embrace persons not within those
statutes as they stood in 1889.
The gentlenan's real object is, not to con-
fine the bill to traders, but to embrace every
body; and yet he deems if necessary for
every person applying to state, and TO swear,
that he has been engaged in trade. This
seems 10 me to be both superfluous and oh
lectionable; superiuous, because if we have
a right to bring in persons under one name.
we may bring in the same persons un
der another name, or by a general descrir-
ton; Objectionable, because, it requires men