The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-05-22

utterly insignificant in comparison WV" Wv
promises held out.
nv 1nstice Miller on Uniform Bank
rupt Law.
I, North Carolina they have RETROSPECT
five homestead law, AS we have in Virginia,
and so are discussing in that State, as we are
here. the question Of the constitutionality OF
the amendatory bankrupt law. The Sails
bury Waterman quotes the following eX'
tract from an opinion of Justice MILLER, OF
the Supreme Court of the United States, to
prove the consttutionaity of the new law
He was presiding in the United States Cir
emit Court in Missouri some time ago-be-
fore the passage of the law in question land
i'm bankrupt case which was then pending
therein, he said:
The second question presented. and urged
with earnestneS>, is the unconstitutlona'lty
of that part of section ii of the bankrupt
law making the homestead exemption.
Congress shall have power to establish
uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies
throughout the United States" is the Ian
c,laye of the Constitution by which the grant
is made. 1t is insisted that the 18th section,
already cited, having adopted the exemption
laws Of the State in which the bankrupt is
domcied, these exemptions having no regard
to uniformity. violates the constitutional pro-
vision authorizing uniform laws throughout
the United States to he passed. It's obvious
from the language employed that the uniform
ity here referred to was uniformity among
the States. If Congress saw cause to pass
bankrupt laws under the grant of power re-
ferred TO, the injunction is that they shall be
uniform throughout the United States So
tar AS the distribution Of bankrupt's assets
the point under conSideratiOn-is concerned,
the law is uniform. When viewed with
reference to the State exemption laws, there
is uniformity which, Oh reflection, readily
suggests itself Though the States vary In
the extent of their exemptions, yet what re-
mains the bankrupt law distributes equally
among the creditors. Nor does the bank
rupt law in any way vary or change the
rights Of the parties. All contracts are maze
with reference to existing laws, and no
creditor could recover more from his debtor
under the State laws than the uneNcmptcd
part of his assets, the very thing that Is at
tanned by the bankrupt law. which. there
iOTe, Is StllCtl. uuuol ILL., ~ f' bt'h't''"'
" Bankrupt Register, page 90.
This opinion, we repeat, was pronounced
before the passage of the amendatory bank
rupt law. BY implication it condemns this
law as unconstitutional. Mr.. Justice MILLER
argues that the law as it stood before was
constitutional because il respected the State
laws. "Whcn viewed with reference to the
state exemption laws there is Il uniformity
(which. on reflection, readily suggests
Itself" This uniformity, we take it, con-
sisted in the fact that in every state The
bankrupt law exempted what the State eX-
empted. This uniformity no longer exists.
The new bankrupt law overrides the law of
Virginia as cXpounded by her highest Judi
cial tribunal and by a Federal court (Judgc
RIvES), and undertakes to exempt what those
tribunals declared could not constltutonally
be exempted by State law.
Mr.. Justice MILLER continues :
"Nor does the bankrupt law in any way
vary or change the rights nf the rnfticS.'
In this respect, us we have shown, the new
law differs from the old one. The new law
dors vary and change the rights OF the par
ties. 1t deprivcs the creditor of light,
which the two tribunals we have mentioned
decided he had under the bankrupt law as it
stood before last amended.
Again: Mr.. Justice MILLER says:
"All contracts are made with reference to
existing [Statc] laws, and no creditor could
recover more from bis debtor under the State
laws than the uneXempted part of his as
sctS-the very thing that is attained by the
bankrupt law, tchich, therefore, is strictly
| WHtOrnl.'
Here. once more, Justice MILLER. by neceS
sary implication, pronolnceS the new bank
rupt law unconstitutional. First, he says
that all contracts in the state were made
with reference to existing State laws. This
means that if the State law had been different
when he was passing upon it from what it
was when the contract involved in the case
wa, made, he would have pronounced the
State law unconstitutional. In other words,
il means that he would countenance no retro
active State homestead laws. He adds:
NO creator could recorer more from,
his dcbior mater tie State ta,ns than the IN
exempted part Of has dssctS--the re,y thing
hu is attained by The bankrupt lar, Uhtch,
therefore, as strictly uniform"
Thi, language, applied 10 the new bank
rupt law ms it would work in Virginia,
would read as follows:
"A creditor could recover from his debtor
under the State laws the unexempted part of
his assets. But under the new bankrupt law
this thing is not attained. That law tries to
exempt what the State law, as eXpounded by
her highest court, could not exempt and is
therefore not strictly uniform. Not being
uniform, it is unconstitutional"
1t seems to us that the Waterman has fur
nished an authority which is so clearly
against its own side of the question that Its
opponents may accept that authority as con-
elusive of the question, and demand, upon
that papers own showing, a decision that
the amendatory bankrupt law Of 1878 is I'M
constitutional.
-
Did it ever occur to anybody that the North
might be Ovcrrun with southern carpet-bag-
gers? Not less than seven or eight cX. Con-
teticrate officers are now said to be perma-
neut residents OF New York city; and the
beauty of it is, nobody thinks of taunting
them with being ~ rebplso mich lose ~ car