The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-05-26
.gu,a.nFn,rnptI5Hw.

writer for the haleiSu ~1sssL0s y" ncs iSsuS
with rs on the question of tie constitutions
| ali,y of the amended bankrupg law He Is
| sound lawyer, we ne sureand We shall
ponder what hesmay aag befoin deciding that
he is wrong. We wish to hear from him,
however, on the points which we made the
other day upon Mr.. Justice MlLLER's opinion
In the Missouri case before we undertake to
refate his arguments. at present we have
but a few words to- say, land these are upon
the following statement in the article in the
Negs 7vs -.~ ~~ 2's
But the Dispatch denies that Congress,
| in the oct of March 3. 1873, did more than
attempt, "by authorization and ratifca-
ton, TO give effect to the State exemption
flaws as State ldtcS. Let us see whether
| Congress enacted any law Of its 0,css in the
passage Of said act or not. Ii endCts that
the exemptions in, each State shall be the
=" an,omnt" allowed by the Constitution ind
laws of each State as existing in the year
lS71-meaning the amount designated or
fixed by such State law; nothing more nor
nothing less. 1t simply adopts the eXemp-
lions in each State as the measure of its own
exemptions, without adopting the State
homestead lauS. This Is obvious from the
following enactment: .....
And 1t Is hereby ENACTED that such exemptions
adoption and passage Of such State constitution and
laws rs well as those contracted afterwards" &C.
Now, they were not so valid under the
State laws, and Congress could not, by " uu-
ihorzation Of them as State lauS, make
them so. In this the Dispatch is undoubtedly
right. But that is not what Congress did or
attempted TO do in the act of March 3, 1878.
That body, in which there are some sound
and able constitutional lawyers, especially in
the Senate, simply enacted that such exemp-
tons should he "vaid" against all classes
Of debts under the bankrupt lava law of
Congress, which none can doubt its power
to pass. .... -.., e.. ..
! We have this to say in reply: If the new
act of Congress does not change the Vir-
sinia law, then the same amount is to be ex-
emptcd under the bankrupt law that was
exempted under the Virginia law, aud
against the same debts that were thrown out
by the Virginia law, as this law was eXpound-
ed by her highest judicial tribunal. In a
word, the bankrupt law has not changed the
i Virginia law. And if the act Of Congress
does not change the Virginia law, it failed
to do what it was intended to do; for that
was the avowed purpose of its authors. On
the other hand, if it does change the Viz
ginia law it changes it by validating that part
of the Virginia law which the Court of Ar-
peals had pronounced unconstitutional. And
this is Just what the Supreme Court of the
United States said, in the case from Georgia,
that Congress could not do.
The writer in the Ne,cs says that Congress
did not attempt by authorization " of them
as State lars to validate the homestead laws
of the several States. He quotes enough OF
the act of Congress to suit bis purpose: but
he omits the following:
i "It is hereby enacted that they shall be
the amount allowed by the Constitution and
i laws of each State respectively rs existing
10 the year 1871; and that such exemptions
lie valid against debts contracted before the
adoption and passage of such State Constitu-
ton and laws, As well a. those contracted
after the same, and against liens by .udg-
ment or decree of any State court, any de-
| cison of any such court rendered since the
adoption and passage Of such constitutions
to the contrary notwithstanding.
| "Any decision Of any such court:'
| What does this mean? 1t means that Con-
gress attempted to override the State courts.
| 1t means that our Court of Appeals having
decided what the law Of Virginia was, and
| against what debts the homestead eXcmp-
| ton should he allowed, Congress tried TO
override both the law and the court. Admit
| ting. then, that the writer for the Ne'rs is
| right thus far, he has only got out of one
difficulty to fall into greater. Congress has
power to pass Il UNIFORM bankrupt law.
This uniformity must either he derived from
the fact that it respects the State laws, or the
| fact that it fixes the amount itself. The new
| bankrupt law does neither. 1t is, therefore,
not uniform, and not being uniform, is not
constitutional; for if it does not change the
Virginia law, it has had no effect here, whilst
if it does change the Virginia law, it is not
| uniform, since the only uniformity it can
possibly claim is due to its allowing what
| the State law allows as exemptions.