New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-02-21
VOLUME XIV.
unconstitutional in the amendment.

unconstitutional in the amendment. IL aid not
impair the obligation Of contracts. 1t merely
said, if you use the remedy the law glVes,y your
consent shall be presumed to the discharge OF the
debtor, No one is bound to use the remedy. The
The amendment merely introduced into the bill,
what is already the law with regard to insolvency,
under Article 2lT3 of the Civil Code. AS to the
argument founded on the alleged unconstitution-
atty of nsovent laws, because they impair the vio
lation of contracts, the Senator read from Story
on the Constitution, p 236, 1885, to show that it
had been decided against. 5t
Mr.. Duyigneaud said the bill had the radical
constitutional defect of not recing the section of
the law which its purpose was to amend. Besides
this the first clause Of the bill providing that GER
tain proportion of the creditors should have the
power to force surrender and discharge the
debtor, was contradcted by the amendment, which
says the judge shall have the power to discharge
the debtor from further liabilities. He contended,
also, that the amendment was unconstitutional be-
cause it amended the insolvent laws without re-
citing the original provisions, and because it went
to impair the violation of contracts To meet his
first objection he moved to insert, in the first sec
ton of the BILL the section of the law the bill first
proposed to amend ,.
This amendment was accepted, adopted, and
the section as amended was adopted. .y 4
Mr. Munday strongly urged the adoption of the
amendment providing for the release of the
debtor on his being forced to surrender of his
property. It was well known, he said, that debts
had been bought up at forty, thirty, even ten
cents on the dollar, for the purpose of taking ad-
vantage of the debtor by compelling him TO surren-
der his property, and still holding the claim
over. He saw nothing but equity in relieving
man from further liabilities who was forced to
give I'M his all to meet them as best he could.
Whit could become of a man, who might have
family dependent on him, who might be old, with
his all taken from him, and his liabilities still kept
hanging over him. ssS 5s &,aE
Mr.. Duyjgpeaud had not the least objection that
a poor and honest debtor should be discharged on
giving up all his property; but he, wanted the
creditors to have the power of according to him.
or of withholding it from debtor who might be
concealing property, while pretending to give up
ALL He would not trust judge TO do this, be-
cause he would not be so much interested in it as
| creditors would. Within his experience, nine out
of every ten debtors making a surrender had been
discharged by the creditors, which showed them
| to be abundantly lenient. ..-
| Mr. Poch6 thought the bill very wise in its pro
Visions and calculated to be very beneficent in its
effects beth on the debtor and the creditor but
| he was yery sorry to see the Trainer of the bill
adopt an amendment which struck at the very root
of the insoyent laws of the State. He was willing
to support the bill relative to respites introduced
by the Senator from Orleans tMr. Duvigneaud,)
and the bill to regulate the sale of property seized
under an order of seizure and sale, Or writ Of
/ feri fncias, introduced by the Senator from Car
roll mr. Lott y but he could not support this, be-
cause it was unconstitutional.
Mr.. Gibson said he considered the argument
which had been advancedpby the Senator from
Orleans (Mr. Duvigneaud) that the Judge would
have no interest in the question which would be
brought before him, one of the strongest that
could be urged in favor of leaving it to him,
rather than to interested and not necessarily len
lent creditors He had yet to see the first act
passed by the Senate in favor Of the debtor, while
the courts were all open and process executed
| against him. He protested against the cuckoo
note of constitutionaty which was raised so com
monty now, and hoped the amendment would be
passed. - f-
Mr.. Egan said he considered the very arguments
and authorities quoted by the Senator from Carroll
| (Mr. Lott), fully established the unconstituton-
atty of the amendment
Mr.. Gordon saw no unconstitutionality in the
amendment, and urged the necessity for the pro-
vision it sought to make in order to protect the
creditor as well as debtor, especially on the
ground that debtors property when seized and
sold is always disposed of at disadvantage. In
4 order to meet the question of constitutionaty he
would propose to adopt article 2l7s of the Civil
Code to the purposes of the amendment. That
could not well be unconstitutional.
This amendment was accepted, and then the bill
was carried through its other stages passed, and
lsent to the ether House. 7''''f''E
Mr.. Foute presented a report from the Commit,
tee on Federal Relations favorable on the resou.
ton to appoint commissioners to proceed to
4 Washington, and unfavorable on the joint resou
ton from the House Of Representatives, expires
slve of the sentiments of the people of Louisiana
on the grounds that similar resolutions had already
beer passed during the extra session, although
-, -. a., 49,. o,,rana houo ,,aa.
sar f.aa oo,oraa naone !,
~ 1;sa ,pan.,. o,a tho ,,r,,,;t =
.a,sau. aoo,,,rso,,aoa 49, ~
-, hoaa ~ 49, ,,in,.o. =
,ao..as ~ -, .,at;a,, 80 ,,r
Pei, a. hunauoa opn;as NJ tho rannrt and roso
rt;ons in Eron.h ond Tho ssma npmhar in EEno,;sl
rvora n,darad ~ 10 orinted fnr GENERAL distrhu
+;on -- -" -.
,,,. .;u,a ru,x, +,,o 1ou,o
MESSAGE ""' ioo0'veu mn ~ ~