The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1840-06-04

"SIe the same IN principle, nut differed IN DETAIL
and were referred 70 the Judiciary Committee
A majority Of that Committee, after mature
consideration, have reported bill which is appli-
cable to voluntary bankrupts only. And sir,
after examining the bill, have determined TO
give It my support, because Ibelieve il presents
In more acceptable form the relief which the
petitioners call for. In the amendment proposed
| by the Chairman, are included voluntary and in
voluntary bankrupts and corporations. And il
has been gravely urged that unless these proyi-
SONS are included in the same bill, il will not be
Constitutional. As there has been no argument
| presented which proves that what is Constitu-
uonal in one bill would not be Constitutional in
TWO, shall not attempt to refute proposition
that is not sustained by any known rule Of con
struction
Sir, viii nexl consider the necessity and expe-
diency Of including any provision in this bin re-
laling 70 compulsory bankruptcy. Between the
remedies proposed for cases Of voluntary and in
voluntary bankruptcy, BY the amendment under
| consideration, there is no resemblance in form
Or effect, One proposes means Of relief for
the honest, unfortunate man, who will surrender
his property for the benefit Of his creditor, whilst
| the other presents to the creditor new system
by which to detect and punish a fraudulent
debtor. One is civil, and the other, in the ma
ture Of criminal proceeding. One is the vo-
luntary act of the debtor, the other is compul-
Soiy I"OSSVuiHS tuS putt VI tiic CIcutOI. Is
there any necessary connection between these
propositions Should measure OF relief to
misfortune be coupled with provisions to punish
fraudulent debtors The Chairman does not
present an objection to the subject matter of the
bil--to the plain and simple plan of relef--but
he seeks 10 attach to il a variety Of debateable
questions which are foreign to the prayer Of the
petitioners, and disconnected with the principles
Of the bill. To amend by adding distinct pro-
| nnctfton ia n nnvpt If otoftn Il -
not obnoxious to many objections which are ge-
morally raised against bills when the union Of
subjects tends to multiply supporters Is il not
equally unfair, if il operates to defeat questions
otherwise unobjectionable BY such unneces-
sary amendments this bill may be defeated, al
though majority Of the Senate may be in ia
vor Of il or provisions to which the majority of
the Senate may be opposed, may become a law.
Let us legislate on this subject as we do upon
all others. Let then, distinct questions be EN-
bodied in two bills, that each Senator may be
enabled to record his vote for or against them
without being compelled to pursue course in
consistent with his wishes, or revolving to his
feelings. There can be no serious objection to
granting relief to the honest unfortunate man,
He seeks these halls, because his only hope lies
here we, and we alone, can set him free. si
But the Chairman urges that we disregard
the nights Of the creditor and provide him with,
no mcans to enforce his contracts Sir, does
that Senator believe that creditors have en-
braced this opportunity TO obtain additional laws
10 infiict new pains and penalties upon debtors
And is this the reason why Congress is pressed
by petitions Why are your tables burthened
with memorials from thousands and hundreds
Of thousands of the citizens of the several
States2 Why do the State Legislatures. by
solemn resolves, duly certified under their seal
Of State, and transmitted here by their several
Governors, call upon Congress to establish uni
form laws Of bankruptcy Is il not because the
Constitution declares that "no State shall pass
any law, impairing the obligation of contracts
and that Congress shall have power to establish
uniform laws on the subject Of bankruptcy Do
they not call upon Congress to do that and that
only. which Congress alone can do? The
States have not surrendered the right to pass laws
for the benefit Of the creditor. Their power is
supreme. They have enacted laws without
number for the collection Of debts and enforcing
the performance OF contracts. Is there any COM
plants that the laws are moi sufficiently severe
Are there not laws Of every kind and description
from the warrant Of justice of the peace to the
attachment in the courts Of chancery? 1t is
true, these remedies vary in the several States,
but they are made to suit the peculiar situation
Of the communities in which they exist. The
wit OF Legislators has been exhausted in devils
ing means to extract every dollar from the debtor
and cast him pennyless upon the world. He is
examined under oath, at the pleasure Of the
creditor, with the pains and penalties of perjury
before him, for the purpose of discovering pro-
perry which properly belongs 10 the creditors
and this proceeding, which appears 10 leave no
further room for improvement is what Lord
Brougham emphaticaly calls, ''the perfection Of
the law"
Sir, can any one believe that any further re-
medies are needed for the creditor? And is
there Senator who believes that the State he
represents would call upon Congress to enact
laws for the collection Of debts within its Dor
ders 4? Can we believe that the State Legisla-
lures would call upon Congress to do what they
have the power to do, and which they have here
tofore done, TO the entire satisfaction of the peo-
pie? Sir, the legislature by which was APP
pointed, and which passed the resolution upon
your table, did not desire you to exercise that
power. Ii recognizes no necessity for any ad
ditional laws for the collection of debts, but
declares, M
"That the Congress of the United States is mpe
riousy called upon by the embarrassenfs irich
Frustrated the business Of the country to exercise that
power conferred by the Constitution which authorizes
them to establish uniform laws the subject Of bank
ruptccs of natural persons throughout the United
States" NN ia lesun f.@
have been unable to discover any necessity
or reason for the enactment Of any laws for the
collection of debts, when it is so manifest that
neltntT tne odteS nor the people uesiTt IL.
was surprised to hear the Senator from New
Jersey intimate that this bill would relieve the
debtor to the injury Of the creditor, and that il
would open the door to fraud and perjury. Why,
sir, does not the Senator know that his own bill
contains all the provisions that are embraced in
the one reported by the majority Of the commit
tee, and is obnoxious to the same objection 2?
But deny that the creditor will be loser by
this measure nay, sir, contend he is deeply
interested in procuring the release Of the debtor
NV own views on this subject cannot be more