New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-03-05

ten,ionsI suipdlers are not hindered by the neces-
s;tv of false swearing OurCOurts are ful Of suits
tobreak assignments: but how seldom are they suc-
cessGul. WedO not say that honest men are never
frc.d to axe an assignment, or prefer one cred
itor 10 the exclusion of the rest; but we do ssy,
and everv merchant in New.York will bear IA wiz
pe,s. that a vast majority Of all assignments are
either fictitious or caused by the extrayagant reck
leesness Of the assgnor, who knows that 80 long
~ he can select biz own assenees and prefer what
over creditors he pleases, be can force his other
creditor 10 comprOmise, and to fail without the
fear Of poverty. Another terrible evil growing out
Of this system Of preferences is This that the poorer
creditors suffer while the richer ones escape. The
reason is manifest Ii the debtor fails, prefering
house worth a Million he can afterward get unlim-
tied credit with that touse; but by prefering new
house. lust rising into business and worth but little
he sacrifices the friendship millionaire TO secure
the favor of ono who is unable to assist him here
after.
Another weghty objection to the system Of
preferences by insolvent debtors is that it
not only Injuries commercial morality by
DESTROYING confidence, but enables those who
mediate assignments to undeTsell those who
90 not. 1t increases the price Of merchan-
disc: for the Wholesale merchant, knowing the
risk, sells at en- additional profit to cover antic-
mated Losses. There is no class Of men who lose
as much by bad debts as tho New-York merchants
In Boston, Philadelphia, and New Orleans, where
iudcious bankrupt laws are in existence, credit is
more stable and failures less frequent. The reason
is that the effects Of the bankrupt there taken
out of his hands and delivered over to assgnees for
O pro rata division upon all his debts He has con-
seQuently no nope Of profit by failure; but here
il is an adage pregnant with meaning, that man
" fails to get rich.
These opinions are not ours alone, but are held
by many eminent jurists. Many of our en-
Heightened Judges" says Chancellor Walworth,
have regretted that the principle of permitting an
insolvent to make voluntary assignment OF bis
"property, and to give preferences in any way,
should be adopted. Judge Holman ofthe District
Court of the United States for Indiana, speaks Of
it as that most Ubiquitous principle of the com
mon law recognized in most of the States, which
authorizes an nsolyent debtor to prefer one
creditor over another Of equal or superior
"merit" Judge Judson Of Connecticut refers to
it as ga principle constituting the insolvent an
"sgent to obtain money from one and bestow it
.upon another at his pleasure" Judges Story and
Baldwin of the Supreme Court of the United
States, condemn it as not merely as negotiable
and unjust so far it regards creditors but as in
furious in its effects on the community. In 1913
lx.. GtaNao e. tba
District of Ohio, in communication to
the Senate of the United States says that
ore of the greatest evils growing out
of certain commercial failures and distresses
"has been the unjust and fraudulent assignments
"made by debtors in failing circumstances, by
(Which some creditors acquire preferences over
"Others equally worthy; and large portion OF
the real and personal estate in this district, has,
"under the operation of those assignments, been
"tied up, the debtor appropratug all the proceeds
"of his property aud earnings to the payment OF
some one debt, to the exclusion of all others;
81 and there is no limit to the fraud and injustice
"perpetrated by such means"
In Maine, Hampshire, Massachusetts, Con-
necticut, New-Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania
Ohio, Missouri, Georgia and Louisiana assignments
with preferences are done away with. The prop
erty of the insolvent passes into the hands OF
assignees he is compelled TO discover, under oath,
its value and amount, and is punished for fraud if
he fails to do so and finally all his effects are dis
posed Of and the proceeds equally divided among
his creditors. Our present law permitting pref
erences is the old common law of England, where
it was abolished as early as the time of Queen
Elizabeth, and a system Of bankruptcy, somewhat
similar to that which prevails in the above
States, substituted in its place. All the States
aforementioned have tried our plan of special
assignments, and have abandoned it. Why are
we so far behind the more enlightened jarispru-
dence of so many younger States, and two centu-
ries behind England We are glad to see that
Mr.. Carpenter has introduced bill in the Legsla
ture to do away with our present absurd and in
iquitous method, and establish a system Of bank
ruptcy in its place. We trust it may be adopted