Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1873-05-22
ANogaGs BANKRUPT CASE.

| at IalrlsonDurg, III Which TIE Judge
said:
Counsel had referred to recent
decision of the Supreme Court Of the
United St'tes upon q case from Geol-
gia, in which the Supreme Cont had
virtually sustained the decision Of the
! Couh's Of Appeals .of. Virginia rendered
/, the l3tArJtsAe last, to The effect THAT
the homestead exemption allowed by
a State constitution could not besse
up against 'anteceaent debts; being in
ylolafioniof the provision cfA the Con
rlstitution of the United States. forbid
ding a State frQA passing. any Law
I impairin, the obligation ola contract.
The Judge expressed satisfaction at
Rthis decision, and remarked THAT it
was noticeable 9as deciding that the
remedy existing at the lime OF, the con
| tract is; part OF. the. CONTRACT, and falls
within contemplation ofThe national
| Constitution forbidding q State from
nnpaiaing that CONTRACTS. 1900 ss iufha.
| "But the Judge, held that this. deci=
sion OF the Supreme Court OF the. Unit
ed States only went to deny the power
Of State to give a retrospective home
stead exemption 1t-did not and could
not impeach the power OF Congress
to pass bankrupt law impairing the
obligation OF CONTRACTS by giving re-
troactive homestead exemptions, Or in
any other way, not in conflict with the
only limitation imposed upon Con
gress in this matter by, the National
Constitution-namely, that the bank
rupt law should be Uniform. The
Judge considertd that the amendatory
bankrupt law Of March 8, 1878, was
uniform, as well as the laws Of which
it was amendatory, and therefore con-
stitutional. He held that it was the
very essence of bankrupt law to
impair the obligation Of contracts, and
the fact that by giving "a homestead
as against pre-existing debts, it i'm.
paired the obligation of contracts, was
no argument against. the constitution
atty Of its bankrupt avs The deci-
sion OF the Supreme Court Of the
United States in the Georgia case went
only to denny the power OF a State TO
pass retroactive homestead exemp-
ton, and not OF the power of Congress
and has no bearing upon the acts OF
June 8, 1872, and March 8, 1872
Judge R1vEs has overlooked alto
| gether the real point. OF course, in
| the case from Georgia the Supreme
Court of the United States did not
| question the power Of Congress to pass
a bankrupt law impairing the obliga-
ton of contracts. 1t is absured even
to state such point; and we DO not
believe that any lawyer ever made
such point before Judge IslvEs. A
pretty bankrupt law that would be
which should not impair the obliga-
ton of contracts. Judge Riyes is
entirely mistaken, too, in saying that
the opinion of the Supreme Court
''went only 10 denny the power of a
Estate to pass a retroactive homestead
claw, and not to the power Of Con
0eress3 to do so. That opinion, of
course, did not deny the power Of Con
gross to pass a retroactive homestead
law as part of a Uniform bankrupt
law; but it did declare in express and
positive terms, that Congress did not
have the power to yitalize an unccn-
stitutional State law of any sort; and
this last is exactly what Congress tried
to do when it passed the amendatory
bankrupt act Of March, 1878. a;sal.s
The real point is this; Congress +, has
the power to pass-a uniform bankrupt
law, and this law must necessarily be
retroactive in its operation SO fer
all lawyers will agree with Judge
Rives. But when the question is ask
ed, Has Congress passed such law in
the amendat, ry bankrul t act Ct. 1873?
there are many to give a. negative an
swer. A bankrupt law cannot posi-
bly, be uniform unless it derives its
quality Of uniformity either from thu
fact that it allows the amount Of ex-
emption provided for by, the law of
each several State, or from the fact
that the bankrupt act itself fixes the
amount Of exemption. The amend97
tory act does neither. 1t does not fix
the amount Of exemption itself. And
it does not allow the amount which
the Court of Appeals Of Virginia and
Judge Rives himself last year decided
to be all that could constitutionally be
allowed under the law of this State,
but attempts to add to this amount by
declaring that the decision Of the State
court shall be overridden and an
amount allowed which no constitu
tional State law. can allow. This $
precisely what the Supreme Court Of
the United States says Congress eaii-
not do. We quote the very words Of
that tribunal: II ''7 ~ o. saar''l ~,
u Though her Constitution was sane
toned by Congress, this provision. can
in no sense be considered an act Of that
body. The sanction was only per-
missive as apart Of the process of her,
rehabilitation, and involved nothing
affirmative or negative beyond e thar
event. If it were express and unequi-
vocal, the result would be the sanlea
Congress cannot, by authorization Or
ratification, give the slightest effect to
State law or constitution q in conflict
with the Constitution of the United
States. That instrument is above and
beyond the power Of Congress and the
States, and is alike obligatory upon
both" -s se0iii asis ss9 fH'h aaRe, -. ..
congress cannot by authorization
or rat ifcation give the slightest effect
to State law in conflict with the Con
stitution of the United. States, a Judge.
Rives and the Virginia Court of Ap-
peals decided last year that the. Viz
sginia Homestead law was in. conflict
with the Constitution Of the United
S4o+ae. o,,J Conorooo fhara,,o,,, y "a