Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1873-08-23

RaNKRrpr EXEMPTIONS. The l4th section
of the act of Congress, approved March 5rd,
1867, in additionto the exemptions allowed d.
rectly by the act; itself, also provided for the
same amount and character OF exemptions as
was allowed by the laws of the different States,
which were 10 force n the year 1864, the bank
rupt to have the benefit Of the amount OF the
exemption allowed by the State in which he
was domiced at the time OF the commcnce-
ment Of the proceedings.
By an amendment approved June Sth, 1877,
Congress extended the time, so as to include
exemptions allowed by the laws Of the differ
ent States, which were in force in 1871. The
new Constitution Of the State of Virginia and
the act passed in Pursuance thereto, provided
for an exemption OF $4,000 (making some spe
cifc cxceptions) as against all debts, whether
contracted prior or subsequently to the adop-
ton Of the said Constitution.
On the 9th Of June 1872, the Court of APP
peals of Virginia, in the Homestead cases,
reported in 22d Grattan, page 266. decided
that SO much Of the Constitution as allowed q
homestead exemption against debts contract
ed before the adoption of that instrument was
in violation of the Constitution of the United
States; which prohibited the States from pass
ing any law imparing the Obligations Of con-
tracts, and was therefore nulity. 10 Sep
TENDER, 1872, Judge Rives, of the u. S. Dis
trict Court for the Western District Of Virginia,
''iu re Wylic" Gamer. Law Times, vol. 5,
page 500, though declining to decide positive
" when the homestead provisions of the Con
stitution of Nirg iDia btclmc operative, or IN
other words, when the Constitution went into
its ratification, at the polls, or January 10Th,
1870, the date OF the admission Of her rep
rescntatvcs into Congress, expressed him
self strongly in favor of the former date;
and SAID it was not material to the questions
then before hun, as there was no doubt that
the amendment of the Bankruptact Of June Sth,
1872, did embrace the homestead provisions Of
the Virginia Constitution, because they were
certainly in force in the year Isl |; and he de-
cided also that bankrupt in Virginia could
not claim the homestead exemption as against
debts contracted prior to tic adoption Of the
Constitution, because the Court of Appeals had
so construed the law; giving as his reason, that
"a fixed and received construction by State,
10 its own Courts, made a. part OF the law, .
which, as Judge of a United States Court, he
was called upon to administer within the State.
He also held that it had been decided, that not
withstandiug the variety of State exemptions,
yet the Bankrupt act IN adopting them, was
constitutional, because the act was still uniform,
in principle, though dirc,sc in its application;
and although Congress had the power, and
may have intended by the amendment of June
Sth, 1872, to have given the law retroactive eli:
feet, as to exemptions, yet they had not accomi
lishcd it, but had only extended exemptions so
far as the Court Of Appeals had allowed them,
namely; as to debts contracted subsequently to
the adoption of the Constitution. Congress,
then, by an act approved March Sd, 1873, de-
clared that the exemptions under the bankrupt
act should be such as were allowed by the Con-
stitution aud laws of each State, respectively,
which were 10 force in the year 1871; and that
such exemptions should be valid against debts
contracted before, as well as after the adoption
of such Constitution and laws.
Thus stands the law-and it remains for the
u. S. Supreme Court to decide finally, wheth-
er such law is "unyorm' within the mean
ing and intent Of the Constitution of the United
States, and whether its retrospective feature is
not subversive Of the objects of all governments,
and grossly 10 violation of principles ofjustice,
which lie deeper than the Constitution itself.