Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1843-01-18

crcditors only, whom it enabled 10 sue out
q commission OF bankruptcy in the cases
specified. aud to compel an assignmcn,
aud division Of the debtors assets among
them. This ancient statute had been The
foundation Of all The legislation which had
since taken place on The general subject oil
bankruptcy in Great Britain. aud very
strong doubts were entertained, after all
that had been done, whether more benef,
or injury had resulted !; aud this even un-
der q consolidated Government like theirs.
within the Limits OF n small island, ard
with q Parliament that was held 10 be ON
nipotent.
1t had been asserted 10 argument tina.
there va n truth u" re1l difference be-
tween au icsolvent and a bankrupt. law.
This had recently been maintained by a
jurisl Of very distinguished reputation,
and one whom he confessed 10 be far more
learned than Mr.. p; but Notwithstanding
this, be must conceive tina, there was a
broad and obvious distinction between The
Two; insolvent laws being passed, chiefly
il not solely. Tor The benefit Of debtors
while statutes Of bankruptcy were intend
ed. on the contrary. for the relief ofcredi
tors. So far. therefore. as any bankrupt
law included the principle Of voluntary
bankruptcy, 50 far it partook of the nature
Of an insolvent law. and TO that extent be
held il 10 be wholly unconstitutional. MI.
P. said he was for limiting The power giY-
Ell in the Constitution TO the s~triciesi pos
sible limits. The idea Of a bankrupt law.
even SO late as the times Of Blackstone.
had been That of a law intended 10 affect
traders only, aud enacted for the beuef, Of
creditors; but The law il was now propos-
ed To repeal was a law for the beue6t Of
debtors almost exclusively; il was 10 truth
al inso!vent law, and was opposed TO The
spirit if not the very letter of the Cpnstitu-
lion. So ~undeniably true was this, that
one Of the friends Of The law in auniher
pan Of the Capitol had been driven to
take the ground that Congress didpossess
the righ, TO pass q Law interfering With The
obligation OF contracts. and TO pass er post
Geto law. The argument in support of
this monsIrous position was, that the pow
er to pass such laws was by The Constitu.
lion prohibited only to the States. aud
that therefore 1t remained in possession of
the General Government. TO Mr.. P.
this appeared to be perfect solecism. lie
had ever held the doctrine that the Federal
Government held lis powers by specific
grant. and by nothing else. But here il
was conleuded that il derived lis powers
from those sumo powers having been de-.
MED to the States Such a doctrine went
tn sweep into the jurisdiction of this Fede-
raj Government every contract made
throughout the United States, and allowed
it the authority Of interfering with or abrn.
eating them. Had gentlemen seriously
contemplated the ilIimilable. the sinrlling
consequences Of such a doctrine 2 mo such
blow had ever before been ainsed q, the
whole system Of credi, lhroSs2Eau! The
Whale community. Ii siriu Eery
I~oundulion OF civilized
si,iou should be
aould any i"ie' No
one who pad u 71lue Of
property woU;, n under
sucf Il condition he advo-
Gates of Ihls bank avs which
included both vol. involuntary
baukrupIs-had be &. u.Iven to an areu-
meut like This. In order to mainluin the
consliiulionality Of such a law they were
compelled 10 maintain that the Federal
Government possesses, Il constitutional pow
rr To .inmul The obligation of Contracts.
But Mr.. Z. demanded 10 know where wa,
The eram!-There was any such power
conferred by The Consultation? Why. il
was prohibited to the States, aud there.
fore il must be- in the General Governmenl.
Mr. T. not only denied Ibis Inference, hui
drew IN Inference directly The reverse OF
il. The GUclrne WAS m%ansirous, IL u a>
horrible, II struck u, al The v~,rali,v-ycs.
at the very furW, ut liberty. lfsuch pow
er as denied 10 the States themselves. ~
course it was withheld from the Fc!rni
Government. Ii was 10 this principle iha,
Mr.. p. was especially opposed al the lime
the law was enacted, and il formed one OF
the leading reasons why he went for its
repeal.
Il was said by gentlemen that the law
had done all the mischief that it could d".
and now Congress were bound 10 con'iaur
it, that they might help all who yet "rrr
dcsirous Of obtaining its benefits. Mr.. r..
said he loved the attributes OF mercy. as
exercised BY Government in stopping to
relieve the wrclciied and tho downfallen ;
but he loved not less another attribute
which no less belonged To il-that Of hav-
lug a ~bandage across its eyes. in token Of
administering its blessings to all alike,
without distinction of the low or the high.
of the prosperous or the poor; and he was,
lhercloic. utterly opposed 10 these appeals
so often mnde TO their mere sympatlIics as
men, instead Of TO their duty as Legislators.
Mr.. p. had witnessed with establishment
the proposition Of his friend from N. Iork.
in his eye. tMr. McKcon.l 20 include cnr-
pora,ions in the scope Of the bankrupt law.
This, instead Of limiting and restricting
the sense Of the term bankruptcy in The
Constitution within The uurrowesl possible
limits, was 10 extend it no only beyond
traders. to whom alone il originally refer
red, but even 10 include within It's scope
all corporations!
Ir gentlemen went on at this ra,e, what
mower al all would they at last leave 10