Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-04-09
RICHMOND, TUESDAY, APRIL ..
THE RaNKRIIpT LAW.

m that was passed at the Extra Wing Session of lS4l
I'd. What part played by Mr.. Clay in the pas,
saue of the bill land Sd. What were the opinions OF
Mr.. Van Buren, upon Bankrupt Law The reader
will ind an all these questions IN our paper
of this morning.
ls, The unpretending but luminous Essay on our
first page shows u.s. that the law passed under the aus
p,ces of Mr. Clay, is really an insovent law, npper-
aining to The jurisdiction oil The States, and not
bankrupt Bill within the purview of the Federal Cen
stitution We refer that Essay for calculation oil
this Distinction well for the history of the impo-
per circumstances under which this law was originally
foised on the country.
adly The agency which Mr. Clay had in the pas
sage Of the BILL stated the very interesting letter
of Mr. Lynn Boyd. The passage of the bill depended
on Mr. Clays vote, and that of course gwen
in favor oil II.
The Wings once attempted to deny that it was q
Wing measure; and their argument was, that but Tor
few Democratic votes it would have passed, and
that, therefore, it was Just as much Democratic as
Wing measure. The last "Lynchburg Republican
has Analysed the votes of the two Houses, name by
name, both upon the passage and the repeal OF the
law and The following the result:
Passage of The Bill.
In the Senate, the bill had 90 ayes, viz % Wings,
and Democrats-(of these 4, Mouton acted under
the instructions of his Legislature, and Williams OF
Maine, and Young OF Illinois, because they believed II
was desired by their cons,uents)-lS Democrats
voted against the bill, and Wings.
In The House of Representatives., for the bill lo7
Wings, and only 3 Democrats making ITO. fsa'nsi
the bill lO6-of whom S3 were Democrats--the "rest
Republican Wings, now so denounced by the Federal
Whigs-nnd also few Federalists.'
AT the next session of Congress, resolution for the
repeal Of the Law passed the House OF Representa-
tges-l26 to 9f-of the a. there were only 3 Demo
Gratis The Repeal Bill was rejected in the Senate
NAYS 90. With the exception of Democrats, all
were Whgs-Henry Clay of Kentucky among them,
of course How then are the Democrats just as re-
sponsihle as the Wings:
Take this other fact At The lose Of the Extra Ses
sion, the Wing members Of Congress issued an al
dress rccounlng wlnt they had done, and what They
would have done but for the veto. In this, they
claimed the Bankrupt Law one of their grand 'Re-
lief measures As one Of "that series OF measures,
which were supposed TO embrace the scheme OF relief,
which the nation, large, required-it met from Uhg
Coneress that support, of which the chief argument and
highest value derred from the respect htch eeery
one fen 10 be due to comprehensive peicy tehOse se0pe
should include ecery interest Of the nation
Sd Mr. Van Buren, views coniormable TO the
spirit of the Constitution, as will fully appear from
the following extract Of his speech on the Bankrupt
Bill of 1927 By the 93d section oil the bill proposed
IN the Senate Of the United States, the provisions oil
the act were to extend 10 all classes, we'll as To me
chants motion was made 10 strike out that Stctt0R,
which motion Mr.. Van Buren, supported lie said.
"When | say am in favor OF Il Bankrupt system, /
mean 10 be understood speaking OF Bankrupt sys-
was in contemplation by the trainers OF that instrument
The ODD section had received his appreciation.
1t was an nsolvent and not Bankrupt Law. IL was
such bill Congress had no right In pass lie sad
he was aware of The ingenuity which had been, and
nigh, again be used, 10 canound the bankrupt aud
in solvent sys,emsun ingenuity which had before, and
might again embarrass the question, to the relative
powers of The Federal and Stale Governments He
was conscious of the difficulty, difficulty arising from
the decisions of the Courts, and the frequency and con-
trariey of legislation in England) that existed IN lay
ing down clear and unexceptionabe rule of dIscrl-
mnation between Bankrupt and lnsolvent laws For
the present. at least he should not attempt H. lie
would content himself with the several decarations-
that for nearly three hundred years. the two systems
had been kept distinct in Engand-ihat they differed
in their origin becs, and provisions, and had always
there and here been executed by different tribunals
that al the time of the adoption of the Constitution,
they were known and distinguished, both IN E0gland
and in this country, as distinct systems-the one
having for its object, TO afford summary and
speedy remedy for creditors, against fraudulent or
failing raders-the other aordIng relief to inscl-
vent debtors, of all denominations. The Consilu--
lion of the Unite States had clothed the national Le-
gisature with power TO establish the former, and mad
left the right 10 pass, and The duty OF estae'shihs
the latter upon the State Governments The 93d sec
ton of this bill was upon any definition that might be
given of the different terms, nsovent law IL II
passed-that is, if Congress had the constitutional
power 10 pass IT, the States had no right 10 pass any
law upon the subec, of insolvency. not even the right
10 authorize any discharge OF debtors Imprisoned upon
process issuing out Of their o"n courts Otherwise
than as il might SUIT the pleasure convenience OF
Congress to permit There was, he said, no middle
ground. If the partition wall between bankruptcy
and insolvency once broken down, all State legts-
ation subjected to the absolute and arbitrary su
pervsion of Congress. He did not believe that such
was the design OF the trainers of the Constitution
He did not believe that such was The Constitution
He therefore, objected 10 the constitutional power Of
Congress 10 pass The section referred To- lie hsd De-
fore sad that he to EXPLAIN not 10 DISCUSS anu ne
would not depart from the course he had marked out
for himself. He would therefore, only add, that IN
his iudgmen the provision contained in the 93d section
was not within the reasons which induced the trainers
Of the Constitution vest this power of establishing
uniform laws the subject OF bankruptcies N Con
gress that il power, which never ought 10 De,
or 10 have BEEN ted in Congress: that could only
BIZ well and successfully executed by the States, where
those who made the Constitution had lel 1t that It's
exercise would operate most inuronsy upon The sys
tenn which governed the Union and the States sepa
ratey. Those mischels would, among other things
consist in injurious extension OF the patronage OF
the Federal Government, and insnpporable en-
largement Of the range of its judicial powers IL was
not his purpose TO specify lie would only say, .hat
if this section passed, it would be perfectly ioe 10
think Of the suicency of two, or ten or TWEEN
ty commissioners, to execute the law IN many, u Ho
most. of the States.
But still more exceponnble consequence would
be- the extension of the jurisdiction OF the Federal
Courts, and the indispensable necessity ct an mme-
date end great increase of their number The obvious
character Of this consequence superseded the
of detail The portion of litigation in the different
States, arising out OF their nsovent laws, was familiar
to all and tina, would of necessity, be Immediately or
ultimately drawn into the Federal Courts He was
certain that if the bill passed it stood, the measure
would not stand long lis predecessor 1t was, he
thought improbable that the States could stand quietly
by and themselves thus shorn Of great and sau
tary portion OF their powers. The decision OF the
Supreme Court of the u. States would doubtless be
referred to- of that he would for the present. only say
that that high tribunal had not YET covered the whole
ground He was aware of what. at the moment he
was speaking, was going on below. But ne would
not, for instant anticipate farther limitations upon
the rights of the States upon this subject As yet,
they had not been restricted by the Supreme Court
from passing prospective insolvent laws. Such was
the ninety third section-such the States, and The
States only, had right to pass. If Congress acted
upon the subject their act if acquesced in, would IN
clude surrender of oil State power upon the subject
Ii put to him 10 decide between being party IN
such surrender the loss of the Bankrupt bill, he
could not, as he viewed the subject, without being
false to his trust, hesitate in preerrng the latter
THE REVIEW REVIEWED.