The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-08-13
The Amended Bankrupt Act and the
Supreme Court.

To the Editors of the Daily Dispatch:
Conference.-The amendment to the bank
rupt act approved March 2, 1872, declaratiVe
of the intent of the original act, PROVIDES
that the exemptions allowed the bankrupt
shall be construed to mean 1.-THE amount
allowed by the Constitution and laws OF
each State respectively rs existing IN the
wear 1871" The amendment further pro-
yides that such exemption "shall be vaiid
against debts contracted before the adop'
ton and passage of such State Constitution
and laws, rs well as those contracted AFTER
The same, and liens by judgment or decree
of any State court.
The scope and effect of this leglSlatlon
have been frequently discussed III the D's-
patch, cdtoriafly and otherwise, ana 40 not
propose to contribute to that controversy
further than to call attention to most slSnln-
can't intimation Of the view which the SUI
prenle Court of the United States Will pro-
baby take Of the matter, found in the lotn
volume Of Wallace, just published.
In Gum against Barry, page GU OF that
volume, Gum recovered Judgment IN a
Georgia court against one Hart, in May, 1870,
and sued out execution, which he placed IN
the hands Of Barry, sheriff, seVerai years
afterwards, and instructed him to levy on
certain land of Harris. Barry refused Tor
the reason that, under the Constitution OF
Georgia aud laws passed thereunder,-a
subsequent to the rendition OF the Jude-
ment-this land had been set apart by Hart
as his homestead. Gum applied for man
danus to compel the sheriff to levy, but the
court refused, affirming the validity OF me
act in its retroactive aspect; and on appeal
the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed tue
Judgment of the lower court; whereupon
Gum appealed to the Supreme Court OF the
United States.
This court unanimously reversed the de-
cision of the Supreme Court Of Georgia, and
in considering the argument that inasmuch
rs the Constitution of Georgia was passed
under the reconstruction acts and accepted
formally by Congress, said constitution might
fairly be regarded as an act OF Congress, and
therefore not within the inhibitions of the
Federal Constitution, which only forbids a
" State" to impair contracts. The court
say: "Tbough her Constitution was sane
toned BY Congress, this provision can III no
sense be considered an act of that body"
The sanction was only permissire, as
part of the process Of her rehabilitation.
and involved nothing affirmative or negative
beyond that event. If ii 'cere express and
uuepticocat the result would be the same.
Congress cannot by authorization or ratlfl-
cation gire the slightest effect to a STATE toD
or constitution IN conflict 2Cth the ConShtH-
lion Of the United States"
This reasoning, while not conclusive OF
the ruling of the court in case arising
under the amended bankrupt act, is in the
last degree persuasive. If that amendment
is to be regardedas original and independent
legislation it would seem to be void for want
of uniformity; if simply an attempt to le-
gaize by congressional sanction the uncon-
stitutional legislation of States, it runs coun-
ter to this unanimous decision OF the SUI
premc Court. In either case it is nudity.
Richmond, August II, 1873. n.
z. S.-The Supreme Court in the above
case completely afIirhS the position of our
own Court of Appeals in "The Homestead
Cases "-22 Grattan, page 26G.
Note By the Elitors.-We have published
in full the opinion of the Supreme Court re-
ferred to by our correspondent.