The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-04-09
rFor the Dispatch.I ..t. r.
Bankrupt Exemptions under Act OIL
CONGRESS of March, 1873.

debts contracted before the adoption ana pas
saoe of such State Constitution and td,cs as
we'll as those contracted after the same, aud
against liens by judgment or decree OF any
State court, any decision of any such court
rendered since the adoption and passage OF
such Constitution and laws 10 the contrary
notwithstanding" -....
The legal effect Of this act of March, 1873,
if it be sustained, is to make the State ''home-
stead exemption act " in Virginia operative as
bar against the debts of a bankrupt con-
tracted before, as well as against those con-
tracted after, the adoption of the State Consti-
tuition, although the Supreme Court OF APP
pcals of Virginia has decided that this pro-
vision flor homestead exemption) in the Tir-
giuia Constitution and in the act Of Assem-
Div known us the "homestead law us $50 far
as relates to antecedent debts in violation of
the Constitution of the United States, and
therefore s'Uoid "-therefore as imperative
as if it had never been adopted or enacted.
The practical effects are:
/. To induce many to become bankrupts
who would not do so but for this premium
on bankruptcy thus offered them.
2. To compel many to become bankrupts
who would not do so were il not for the fact
that the willing bankruptcy of their debtors
own debts. ........ #u
3. To cripple many solvent business men,
q very large part of whose assets are the
debts owing to them by the first two classes.
1t is like row of bricks standing on end
throw one down against the next, and then
all 20 in succession. a| '''''s'
/ AS this effect is given to the State eXemp-
ton by ali oct of Congress many creditors
S.,in ctr1r RI t.,ifh
that it cannot be resisted; surprising that it
power in Congress to make it so.
/ In this they are wrong. The validity of
these amendatory and declaratory acts ought
to be tested to the last extent in every in
stance. 10 do 40 would check this runous
rush into bankruptcy for the sake Of the
homestead. -.-.
/ The result of such test would be to show
that these acts of Congress are invalid so far
as they attempt to enlarge the State exemp-
tion into protection against antecedent
debts and contracts.
Had Congress provided in its bankrupt act
that every bankrupt should be allowed,
under that act, an exemption to an amount
not exceeding 1000 or s. 800, or any greater
limit, it would have doubtless been rs much
within the scope Of its legitimate powers as
it was for it to allow $500, as it does.
But the legislation in the act of March,
1878 is different matter entirely. ...
|! Congress has not in the acts of 1867, 1872,
or 1878, made the homestead exemption acts
of the respective States integral parts of the
bankrupt law, as if they were enacted by
itself 1t has nowhere incorporated them
into its o,cn act as part and parcel Of it as
an exemption given by itself, as part Of its
general law Of bankruptcy. ... ...
1t will not for moment be commended that
1t has done so; for had it so done, it would
be tantamount to giving different exemp-
ton to different classes of debtors, varying
In the different States of the Union. 1t would
be. equivalent to enacling in the general
bankrupt law that class of debtors residing
in Virginia should be allowed $1,000,
others in North Carolina s1,700; in
California, $4,000; in Maryland, $500 {:
and so on throughout the Union. Not
only that, it would be giving to household
ers and heads of families an exemption not
allowed by it to other classes of debtors in
the same State, thus producing great Unequal
| ity in its benefits and burthenS among indi-
yidual debtors; and as great inequality as to
its local bearings, for it would facilitate and
stimulate bankruptcy in some States far more
than in others. Such an act would not
establish "an uniform system of bankrupt
| cy." The law could not "Ge uniform
throughout the United States" 80"
| 1t would be different an each State as to
amount allowed, as to individuals, and as to
local influences and operation. Congress, in
the acts Of '67-'72, had no intention to med
die with the State laws of exemption. 1t
meant simply 10 cooperate with the State
laws, and to direct the Federal registers,
judges, and other officers to recognize and
respect the State exemptions as they were
and whatever they were, In their admins
tration of the assets of the bankrupt, so that
the debtor should not be deprived by the
United States act ofany boon which the laws
of his own State had extended to him. and
so that no creditor should drive his debtor
into bankruptcy in order to defeat and evade
the State exemption. 1t meant only to con-
form the United States act to the State idrS
SO far as to make sure that nothing should
be taken under the bankrupt law which the
State law had exempted, and that no protec-
ton which any State law had actually given
to the debtor should be broken down by the
United States act. 1t did not itself giue the
exemption, but only dllo,oed him to keep, as
against the demand of The general bankrupt
law, what the State law gave him, without
interference by Federal officers.
Any other construction of these acts of
Congress would render them invalid and
worthless, either as being enacted without
constitutional authority or as being in direct
violation of the Constitution of the United
States, which requires the law on the subject
of bankruptcy to be "uniform throughout
ue Union" Article 1, section s, clause 4.
ANY other construction would do violence
to the plain meaning of the language of the
acts themselves. -. .- # H.. -a,..,
Thus far these acts of '67-'72 are bene:
flcient and valid.
But this declaratory act Of March, 1878,
goes many bowshots beyond when it de-
eares that it was. the true intent and mean
ing of the act of june S, 1872, and does itself
enact, that SUCH (State) exemptions shall
be valid against dntecedent debts and cou-
tracts, any decisions of the State courts to
the contrary notwithstanding.
Here Congress undertakes, not to make a
United States lawsof its own, but to net on
State lau, and to enlarge IT'S operation-to
give to, the State enactment, as such, an effect
which it could not have of itself, which was
not inherent in 1t, and which It could By no
possibility derive from the source whence it
originated. Itundertakes to give validity and
vitality; to State enactment, as such, which
Is per Sc g Uoid. Ess..
Congress has no power to do this. i.2s
whatever may DC the. opinions as to the
power of Congress to csrcumsc.1te the ope-
ration of Slate law when antngonistic to
Federal law, no one can doubt the total alb
sence Of power in it to create or enlarge a
State law. +, ..1 RI