The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-03-20

sTTs,a yIrgsnSa monsesfead Exemption
fin tho Ba..lkrusst Courts.
LYSunnuRd, March II, 1873.
Editor of the Dispatch
Dear Sir.--1 do not think the explanatory
bankrupt act of March 8. 1873, is open to the
construction YOU put upon itin your edition
Of the t3tt, which find that the Wing con-
,urs In. in its commentary Of the 14th In.
slant. AS 1t is important that the people
should not miscunceiYe their rights unuer
this law l address you on the subject.
Tn its terms, this act is explanatory OF the
act passed by Congress on the 9Th june,
1872. giving to bankrupts the exemptions al
lowed by the laws of the States in force in
1871. The explanatory act Is, therefore, but
mart and parcel of the act which it explains
and the net explained gives the exemptions
allowed by the laws Of Virginia which were
in force in 1871, with the exceptions imposed
nv those laws. The two acts must be con.
sirued together; and each must he taken to
limit any construction which might be pu'
upon either separately if that were the only
one in existence.
In whatever particular the act OF March
8, 1873, CONSTITUTES that of June S, 1872, thai
construction must prevail. On the other
hand, where the junior act does not con-
strue the senior one the senior must prevail
The earlier act gives to the bankrupt SUCH
exemptions as were given by the laws oil
Virginia in 1871. These laws gave the poor
mars exemption absolutely against all claims
of every name. They also gave the home
stead exemption of $1,000 against old ana
ueu debts but gave il subject TO certain
eXemptions-that is to say, the homestead
exemption was given as against all debts
except:
|. Purchase money unpaid.
9. Hires and wages due laborers and me-
chanies.
3. Money due by public officers or by tdu'
Charles.
i. Money due for taxes levied.
5. Money due for rents.
G. Money due for legally taxed fees to pub
lie officers.
/. The exemption was not good to hold
for the debtor property sold by virtue or any
mortgage, deed of trust, pledge, or other Sc
curly thereon. -,
l. say the laws of Virginia in 1871 gave
the $1,000 homestead subject to the iorego,
inc seven exceptions, but gave it against OLD
as well ms new debts. And these laws OF
1871 were in respect to the amount OF the
homestead. the classes Of debts affected by it,
and the exceptions limiting it, referred 10 by
Congress in its act Of June Sth, 1872, as fur
nishing the rule by which bankrupts in Viz
GINA were to be allowed their exemptions
by the bankrupt courts of the United States
in Virginia.
But the courts in Virginia in constituting
this law Of Congress and these laws of Nir-
ginia ruled out of consideration all debts eX-
sting prior to 1870, refusing to give the
homestead us against those old debts. 1t
was also feared that even the United States
courts would SO hold old debts upon which
Judgment liens had been obtained, proceed
ing in this Inst matter upon the words
"oNer security thereon" employed in the
seventh clause OF exception above rectcd.
1t was this action Of the courts i'll Virgil
MIA, virtually nuilifying an important and
most bcnuiicent provision OF Il congressional
statute, and Of q state Constitution adopted
bv the almost unanimous popular voice OF
Virginia. which the explanatory act OF March
8, 1873, was intended to correct. This act
was framed for Tic accomplishment of two
ohiects-first, 10 give the homestead against
debts contracted before 1870; and second, TO
give it against debts secured merely by
liens Of Judgment or decree.
Every law must be construed with refer
ence to the evil it is intended to remedy /;
aud the terms of this explanatory law them
selves point directly to tic two evils which
ii was intended to remedy. 1t affects the
congressional act. of June 2, 1872, and the
laws of Virginia referred to by that act, only
in the particulars which it expressly indi-
c.ltes-viZ., those of old debts aud OF judJ-
mcnt liens. 1t does not affect them i'll any
other respect, but leaves them in all respects
intact.
There could be no denial Of these PROPOSE
tons if the explanatory act had been passed
i'm the form in which [ originally drew ii,
and in which it was originally presented, rs
moved by Judge Critcher; Tor then it was
merely Il deciaratory law, and was as fol-
lows
"a Bill to Declare he True Intent and
Meaning Of the act, approved June 5,
1872, amendatory Of the General Bank
rupt Ld,C.
"Be ii enacted By The Senate and House
of REPRESENTATIVES Of the United States of
.lmcrica in Congress assembled, That it was
the true intent and meaning Of al act ap-
proved June 8, 1872, entitled AN act to
amend an act entitled An act to establish a
uniform system of bankruptcy throughout
the United States approved March 9, 1867"
that the exemptions allowed the bankrupt
by the said amendatory act should be
the amount allowed by the constitu-
ton and laws Of each State, respectively,
as existing in the year 1871; and that such
exemptions he valid against debts con-
tracted before the adoption and pas
sage of such State constitution and laws,
Us well as those contracted after The same,
and against liens by judgment or decree OF
any Stale court, any decision Of any such
court rendered since the adoption and pas
sage Of such constitution and laws 10 the
contrary Notwithstanding"
But after the bill had been moved and
printed in the foregoing words, we thought
we ough. not to risk 1t III 4 merely dcclara-
tory form, which might not be obligatory
upon the courts; aud SO, before it went be-
fore the Judiciary Committee OF the House
OF Representatives, | inserted in it, in pen
ell, with the concurrence and approval of
Judge Critcher, the words sand ii is hereby
enacted that they SHALL" after the word
"should" in the blank space shown above in
the original bill. These words made it an
enGcting as well rs an explanatory statute,
and in that form i5 passed the House and
Senate. But the intersection of these words,
though imparting to it the authority of an
enacting statute, does not so change the DRIFT,
purpose, or intent of the act as TO make it
superior to, or anything else but part and
parcel Of, the act which it construcs.
Therefore conceive that the United States
courts. looking to the title of the act, and to
lis leading words and evident intention, will
still consider it in connection with and as
part of the act OF June s, 1872; and thus
will decide to give the $4,000 homestead ex-
cmpton against old debts and Judgment