The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-08-05
The BansruptLaw as Administered py
Radical Judges. ssas

iva said d, saturday, an ingenious argument
II does NOT, however, give any good reason
why we should change cur opinion as 30 the
effect Of the last amendment made5ao tne1
bankrupt Law, but does, satisfy NJ that aFs
HreHrs has tbs, best OF reasons for HechTing
that the law will he construed ey su 9 y
R,vxs 10 mean lust what Nh. HuaHEs ssys III
means. But we notify the, judge, The dlsf
trict attorney, and the clerk, that more 10 tnan
two thousand dollars. worth Of property may
be involved In q Claim for exemption under
she Virginia homestead Law, and that in every
such case a wrong done by, Judge RryEs may
be righted By the Supreme Coast aof tthe
United States. Judge BoSp cannot prevent
it.
Let us remark, In the first place that Ms.
HUaHrs as district attorney has nothing TO
do with the bankrupt law. His letter does
not profess to carry any weight as an o. official fa.9
document; but the date of it-"Oahce UnLed
States District Attorney"-and fheaddress,
t.E. S. WATSON, Esq, clerk Of United sfa hes
Courtn-are calculated, if not intended, 70
impose upon the unsuspecting and the un-
informed. Mr.. HUGHEs's opinion IS WORTH
inst as much as that of any other! lawyer 81 y,
equal attainments, and no more; and he ad-
mits that the lawyers who practice In the
State courts desire the orertaifowf2o the
homestead exemption. ~ .ttg.
Now, what does Dir. HUGHEs tell us1 We
say nothing as to bis argument because That
does not commend itself to our Judgment as
either clear or satisfactory, notwithstanding
its ingenuity, But what does he state as
facts? First, that Judge RiyEs will decide
that an unconstitutional law Of Virginia tas;
been made a part of the bankrupt law efthe
United States mfr. HuGaEss says this !. with
entire confidence, The highest judicial TIL
bunai In Virginia has decided that the retro
spectiye feature Of the homestead law Of the
State is unconstitutional-tha it was uncon:
stitutional upon the day of its passagee-that
it was therefore null and void 40 inillso7- that
il has never been in force rightfas-
ly-and yet MI. HuGHEs declares with
centre confidence" that Judge RIvEs
will decide that that feature Of the
homestead act was unconstitutional ;hwgof
Virgins on the lst day5o Of, january, 1S7il
Can it be possible that Judge RIFEs has au-
thorized Mr.. HUGHES to, say this? we 40
not doubt It for a moment."'Apd. yet this
Radical judge will get upon the bench and
listen, we suppose, with a calm countenance,
to speeches from the ablest lawyers of Vir-
ginia intended to prove that that feature OF
the homestead law is not a part. Of the bank
rupt law. He has already prejudged the
case. The district attorney tells us SO. He
has made up his mind. And yet he will
have to sit in Judgment upon every such case
hat shall come up in his court. i...f'11 =
It is possible-barely possible-that we
have misunderstood Mr.. HUGnEs on this
point. Judge RrvEs may not have told him
how he intended TO decide such cases. Ii
not, his "entire confidence" may be mis-
placed, and Judge RIyEs may follow the de-
cision OF. the Supreme, Court Of Appeals Of
Virginia. 1~sstls< 'es'' s2st 4 I ,isf'i
We said in our last articles on this subject
exactly what Mr.. HuanEs repeatsAand we
cited authority for the opiaion-that Con:
gress may pass, laws impairingd the obligation
of contracts. We conceded, too, that that
body could exempt as much Of q bankrnpts
property, as it might ehoose't 70 exempt buli
we claimed that it had not fixed any amount
It simply provided that whatever Was Ell
empted under the Virginia laWip force, jap.
uary 1, 1871, should be exempted under the
bankrupt law. IL meant, Of course, what
ever was exempted Under u constitutions
law. It was not necessary to express this
adjective. 1t was clearly understoodssinssWWy
do not believe that a dozen membersef Con
gress could be found wbe would admit thai
they intended to provide for ans% exemption
that had 10 any State been jndicially pro
nounced unconstitutional. Rememhef5i i
not the Constitution of, Virginia that The
homestead law violates, but tho Constitution
of the United, states--that very Constitution
which every congressman his worn 10 sup
port. yatft ,slIthh MAs<sn
But here is the IN most I remarkable, MI, Ii lei part arr q o
Mr.. HUaHEs,s letter. We reproduce; it a9gaaiRly
Gas tothef fifty percent; Requirement eftht
bankrupt law, It is as follows: ~, bankrupt
cases commenced after the ast'day Of Janu'
ary, 1885, the. bankrupt shall not be dis
charged unaessl those of, his debtsWhieh haVe
been contracted since that date shah b eeqnal
to Fifty per cent. of the, claims, proved against
his estate, for which he shall be liable as the
principal debtor. us4fgYu,,ft5,.l
"The laW,does notsrequiretteassessto pay
fifty per cent, but only that they shall be
equal In value to. ffty per cent Of the clairps
actually proved. i Tie psactteel IS 10 grant
the discharge where fherclistio positive OPP
position to Il, made on the day that creditors
are called upon to shoNi cause why ,atrshoiId
notsbe granted PFactieallytft this fftyatper
cent requirement. docs NOS Operate to lire
yent the dlsehargei0f bankEupts.t There Is
no recent a~TaeIdnsens, &C the bansrupb actif
respectto this fsQqtHssnasnnf Ssla Il apsssx II L I
IL we understand The above; itn,eats. ttpSas
Judge R.yEs grants, discharges iH bankruptcy
without anS regard II that ffsssthls:1o d. tile
law which reqniresaa voluntary bankrupt %
surrender assets equal in ssslue 70 ,6fsy,per
cent. of the claims actually proved against
him as principal debtor 4 nrsea1Eg1,,NtNsfii
"tfB per cent. requirements dosss aoss0ge.
"rate to plressat ne discharge or baakr