The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-05-17
Another BANKRUPT Case.
The State Journal reports case decided
the other day by Judge RlyEs, at Harrison
burg, in which the Judge said:

tualiy SUBSIDIZED the decision 81 the Court ol AE-
p,ilS Virginia rendered the 18th June last ~ The
effect that Tie Homestead. exemption allow b' Il
State constitution cunll not l~ set ~, dG"uS@ "1:
caisat debts being in violation of the rlr'l,,p "
the Constitution Of the Cintcu States f,'rbit'i'G Il
State from passing amy law impaIing the Dh S;'lihn
OF conrsct The Judge expressed satisfaction al
t, dec. lc,,. and remarked thai II VA" no!lr;hcas
,iecidinr that tho remedy existing a The tine of me
contract II part Of the contract and falls wilnih
contemplation Of The national Constitution 10, lor-
| bidding Il state from iulalrine that c"nir.rl.
| I1ut Tn. .lud,' held that this decision o tic
! supreme Court Il The tuit.d states "niy "cni !"
dcn, the power ri ~ Sidr 10 give ret,"slnc,iy'
,crh the puwrr nf t"agieSs to pass btnkrnll NV
| mlratring The obligation "' r"n'ra't. ny t.,n .
retroactive hun,tStrI exemptions. or IN any ntil'
| w;y not in conflict with The Unl! Limitation ihl,
posed upon Congress in this matters 10y ~" Ha,ln,l,
observation-disclosures. thar the hank ruW law sh"nli
M uuittrn The Judge considered that the aiIlrni;,-
tory IGinKruIt law uf March :. ls7J. was UNIFORM;
as wei N, the laws Of which was aln'nuatorv' anu
| therefore constitutional lie held that IT. was th'
very ,.srIic. OF Il bankrupt Ia" I" Impair th "'i""-
| ton Of contracts, and the fact thai ny giving 4
homestead IL against Irr-cA>iiIS dc5t>. u nialic,l
| ihr ,,,l,r,tion ii contracts. MAS argument a;sau
| tn. c1uStituliDnaliiy II liz lHuhrnp twS.
| S!uI of III" supreme Court III u" ni'ca 4843S
tll Georgia ra.r went only Ia deny tile Imwc7~H "
| Notc 10 pass :; retroactive, hgnlcsicaa rNcnrt'x.
and not uf III, itrir-r IF congress. and ms No h;@'
In. upon the act. Of Juno :. ~, ana warren .
| l,7s..''
judge RIvEs has overlooked altogether the
real point. or course. in the case from Geor-
gin the Supreme Cour! of the United States
| did not question the powcro Congress TO
| lr,>. Il bankrupt law inInirin- the obligation
| Of contracts. 1t /, absurd even 10 state such
| apriut: and we do not believe tia' any
lawyer ever made such Il point beior" Judge
! Elvts. \ pretty bankrupt law that would
| Dc which should not impair the obligation
of contracts. Judge RIyES j. entirely mir
| taken. too. in saying that The opinion OF TIE
Supreme Court went only 10 den! tl"'
..lmvrr of a State tn pas. retroactive hrnc'.
=. strad law, aud not 10 the power :" Con-
'%rc,>" to ,lr -. That opinion. "f ''ir'c,
did not deny tn" power III Congress TO PA,
Il retroactive Homestead las "a il part "t =
uniform bankrupt law; but it did declare.
in express and positive terms. that 'onSIc>>
did not have the power TO y!taiizc III lin-
constitutional State IL" ~ any sort ana
th. last i exactly what Congress tried i"
ito when it passed tie amrndatory bankrupt
act Of March, 1873.
Tue real point i, thi>: Congress lGl> the
power TO pa, uniform hankrun, law. and
ibi, law u!u-t necessarily be- retroactive i'll
with judy RNES. But WHEN the question
j. asked. Has tur"rc>- passed e;lrh law III
the ancndaturr bankrupt act NJ 1873:
there are lDauy To- give = negative ar>H'r.
\ hlnkrllp law canIto; possibly 10 uniform
unless II derives lis I'lliitv "f uniformity
either from the fact i; il alinw~ the amount
OF exemption rIuli icd i"r ~ tn" law II
each several State, NJ from The fact thai The
bankrupt act il>'!f hHe> the amount ct cN-
tmpinn. The amendltory act does neither.
II t,G.e not tiX the amount ot exemption IL
SELF. Aud il. docs moi allow the am"ilni
which tie Court 81 ArlraL, y: Nlr.@ini aud
.Iui~r RIVE himself last ,",Ir ;l"cid'h t. II"
i'll That cnl.l rnn.tIltinuHlk he allowed
uudur thr law at thl- state. !tll aiiCntd' I"
add to this amount hH declaring that the de-
cSiun Of the state court *lGI! III "N"rridIcn
and m amount allowed which no cun>titu
tipual State law eau allow. This is precisely
what the Supreme Court "f The United
STATES says Congress r,nnot do. We quote
the very words of that tribunal:
Though lcr Constitution va. ~anrlIrn"d i!
Couprc>., this prov i>iou can IA 10 sris,c II. co,l
-j,icr, au arl Of that h.Iy. iilr sanction "rls
p"ru-eivr part "f III" pruc.S> at her rchai'lli
alun. and involved not hln- affirmative ~ lcSa'ltt
hC ,und that event. Ii il were cypress uni unciut-
vocal ~" result would Oc III sainr. Congress IN
nat! l., authorization rah alton. give the slight
s 'e lit law Or cI ni:eu Say e'H TS
instrument is above and "! onl the power" Il Ion
s,r":s nd tue slate-, and /, alike obligatory nron
|, IN
"ConrrrSe cannot Ivy authorization or ratl-
ticatiun "iy. the >lightet effect 70 Il state
law in conflict with the Constitution Of tue
United states" JUDGE HIVES and the Nir-
gnia Court of Appeals decided last year that
the Virginia homestead law T0S i'll conflict
with the Constitution of the United States
and Congress thercupon attempted to .itaize'
that unconstitutional law. See if it did not.
Here is the amended bankrupt act:
..Rg il ,yr.fe7 byfb" Srt,ty n"d H""&c ~ E"pr'-
Scoftjrrs az me Enff.R Sn1ss ~ .initrictt ~ ""-
yr,ss uscen,Lici, That II Ma ihc true lliitnt an
ITur,nun ut Al act approved June :. l>T!. entitled
net 10 amend an act entitled act 10 establish
n uniform sv,lcm OF bankruptcy throughout ne
uuitd ss aprro,S Mareh :, , t, ls IN
tory act should aui 1t Is htr'y cnarird that ihcy
shall he the anort allowed by The constitution AID
Iawa OF each state respectively. ~ existing III liza.
y,ar 1871: and that such exemptions In. valid agiis
ucbs contracted before the adoption ana lriS>ase
such State constitution and Laws. a. we'll - lh">c
,,traci,,i after the same aud against liens Ivy Judy
cut or decree OF State court, any d,ci>lrI NJ
any such court rendered SINCE TIT oduiiiun a' pas
sage Of such constitutions T., TIC contrary ni"ith-
startling
'rbe decision of the State court WAS that
one feature of the law wa, unconstitutional.
Congress says the exemption shall be the
allowed by an unconstitutional law.
The Supreme Court decides that Congress
cannot give the slightest c:lrtt to such las.
We prefer the opinion OF the Supreme Court
to that Of Judge kIfEs.
MuRE UsrRrArnN.-I the opinion else
where referred to Judge kIyEs took the high