The Daily state journal. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1868-1874, 1872-10-05
The Bankrupt Law,

~ tbs Biitor of the State Josrnat.f eF ,
The Bankrupt decision Of Judge Riyes
at Danville is doubtless an able one but
seems to the writer to miss the gist Of the
whole matter involved. ,tl
In other words, the learned Judge has
overlooked the object of the law, and has
gone upon voyage of discovery through
many authorities and much learning to find
out the meaning of an act which in itself is
plain enough. 5a.wgsI aqafw
The mischief sought to be remedied by
the act of Congress of June Sth; 1872, was
that the Bankrupt act heretofore existing
did not relieve to sufficient ex. ent against
debts antecedent to the adoption of the
Constitution. ig s1fs e 5ehaigsE 81 =
This was the mischief in Virginia. at
least; and it was against this mischief, SO
far as Viginia was concerned, that the law
was intended to remedy.
1t is not necessary to consider its opera
tons in other States, as there is no objec-
ton on account Of uniformity, ii being conf
coded that in this respect the law as it
stands is unexceptionable. y.s,5ag..4gi ~.
Now let us see what the law says as re-
CARDS State exemptions. 1t provides for
exemptions not exceeding in amount such
State exemption laws in force in the year
1864 Changed by amendment to 1871.
Now, would ask what is the meaning
Of the words in force. Do they mean that
any argument was, necessary to determine
the sense in which they are used? Did not
Congress have ample power over the sub
ject? Can it be presumed that it was a
hypothetical provision Of the law by which
it was intended that the question in. Yir-
ginia was to be left to the decision of the
Virginia Court Of Appeals? eei
On the contrary, was it is not intended
by these words, IN j force, that the Congress
used them in their common acceptation and
usual Specification And was not the
Virginia homestead IN force, and fully IN
force in and during the year 1871, accord.
| ing to the common use of language, and
| the common intent of mankind sss9
I maintain on this point that, SO far
| from it being the intention of Congress tc
4 leave the settlement of this matter to the
Court of Appeals Of Virginia, it was theiI
manifest object to take it ont of the hands
| of that tribunal. g.a,t,g a
Congress was, on the 18th day of March
1872, petitioned by the Legislature to L.
| galze the Homestead act of the Virginia
| Constitution. Why was this done ? 1t was t.
| get rid OF the action of the Virgin;
Court of Appeals. And yet, according to
Judge Rives, Congress has acted so igno
rantIy and bunglingly as to leave the whole
question to the Court of Appeals, from
which it was the object Of all parties Il
take the question.
| In order to avoid confusion, have
merely considered the question as regards
Virginia, reviewing it merely as Stat
question, particularly, as no doubt hal
been anywhere expressed as to the ami
.fornity of the law throughout the country
There is one fact, however, which | fee
| called upon to allude to. s AS
| The State of South Carolina has n home
stead Of 81 900 really and $500 personally
I'D Suppose the Supreme court of that
State should decide (asI believe il has done
| that looking to the Constitution of tn
| United States the retfospecfirs operation o
1 their Homestead is constitutional !saF
| In that event the operation OF the bank
rupt law be ia,if form in Virginia and Soutl
Carolina, and IL nov uniformity absolutcl,
necessary to make bankrupt law coa,stitas
tionai. 'Tis absurd therefore to say tina
State courts should decide. ,aa -
| | consider therefore, that looking at tn
act Of Congress of june s, 1872, in plai
common sense point of view, the meaning
appears 30 obvious as to be beyond tn