The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-07-04

,cenf . Georgia ease,n have each decided tnas
anv state enactment exempting homestead
from liability for "antecedent deDt, @e.,
is void because all such enacsments are eA-
lnressly forbidden by The Constitution oi tne
limited states, which is the expression OF tns
1 voice OF the peopIe-tfle supreme power.
The language used In the opinion OF Tue
TInired States Court in the Georgia case Is
tantamount to saying that such enactmenLs
couId have no existence rs law. me Coh-
stitution and homestead act OF fr5:nE', so
far as thew provide for exemption against
| aantecadento debts. &c, were ntsf'c papers,
| They were not "lawsH existing III
1871. and by no law existing in 1911 " Is
anv eyemption allowed against dents ana
| contracts incurred or made prior TO the
adoption of the Constitution: ana tnere'o''
no such exemption Is embraced IN The pro"
visions of the bankrupt law even as NJ"
| amended. $40.
| If however. this construction bn ovei :
ruled. and it be decided that the act 81 Con-
rrey. makes no use of the State laws olber
| than tn ascertain the amount to be allowed
| Inv Congress in each State, and that tue eN-
| eiuntion is made and the class of debts Is de-
termined by the direct legislation OIL CON
nre... uuconnected with the State enact
mcnts, there yet remains a radicai anu
fatal objection to the udhdaty OF Inc panh-
runt law as at present amended.
If is not uniform throughout the Unlteo
States. e.a,
Uniformity means sameneSs-oHe i'ih''
without variation or diversity.
..Thc Congress shall have power to eStao-
| ,sh uniform laws on the subject OF bank
1lrtcies throughout the United States"
The trainers of the Constitution, as II an
ticipating this very contingency, nsed Tue
void uniform which is word OF pIecl-
sion. They applied it TO the rhote fot-to
the whole of any law on the subject OF BANK
ruptcles. and require that this uniformity
he preserved throughout the United STATES
and the moment any legislation on the SUD
| iect of bankruptcies departs from uniformity
| il is void. from the absence OF lcSsIati'e
| mower 10 enact il, or. rather, to make II an
| obligatory rule of action.
Now, can any one contend that the allow
ance to the bankrupt, rs bankrupt, III
bankrupt law, is not component part oi
law on the subject of bankruptcies! 1hat
il * not a material part-otten more mate
rial. practically, to debtor and creditor than
| thc discharge itself! The exemption against
"anteceCcnt" debts, &C., is one which
| State cannot giye-it is one which Congress
alone can oiye-and it can give 1t 0a9/
through the medium and machinery OF Il
law on the subject of bankruptcies, OF when
the provision must be part and parcel. ne
| g bankrupt law" is one laW-indivislole, oil
general application, and must be taken as
| whole.
When such law on the subject OF bank
runtcies allows an exemption OF 500 III Oh
| State and one of ten times rs much II
another, can any man say that it Is "ur j.
| form throughout the United States y:
would an act be uniform which defined
robbery Of the mails to be felony, but at
tached the penalty of death TO II II commit =.
ted in one State, of imprisonment for HE II
in adjoining State, or OF twenty lcn' n'e
years il in others!
| Jfthe bankrIlnt law as now construed 10
no amended be uniform" where shall we
find standard by which to determine Wha'
| is and what is not uniform
I If uniformity in the mole Of procedure
from the application to the hnal discharge
| be considered as fully satisfying the REQUIRE
ments of the constitution, IN Spte Oh Tue
diversity in the privileges ana dement's ana
hurthens given and caused by its terms-lt
uniformity in one part ana diversity III an
other part of the same tar he compliance
with the provisions Of the constitution,
what faith can anyone ever nave IN the E'h-
nlage of Il law. organic or statutory: HOW
can any one ever trust thatthc true intcrrrc-
talion Of any law is the plain meaning oi the
word in which ii is clothed.
TIA Ter Scriptd est is maxim GOOD ana
truc rs il is Old II is never safe 10 ignore
il,p N N n
,dco,ntc. amend or repeal it, but obey 1t
fairly while it exists.
Distort it or eyadc il by forced and unna-
!ulal constructions and men are at sea- not
knowing what conduct is required. what
rights and duties are defined by any rule
>rribed-which is but Il nelphc oracle,
or wolse, fer it may mislcad by plainly say
ing one thing. and yet mean another, As It's
constrllcrs may wish or determine.
Whence is derived any right 10 dismemher
the bankrupt law? TO say, this part is on the
subject of bankruptcies and is necessarily
uniform and this exemption part Is not on
the subject of bankruptcies, and need not he
and is not uniform!
The power to make general bankrupt
law is an express grant, and is limited to
the terms OF the grant. The fact that there
is such grant concludes all pretcn>on to any
implication Of power beyond or inconsistent
with its terms.
The limitation here is that all such laws
must be uniform throughout the Union.
When Congress goes outside of the terms
of the grant it results in matter simply
c0ronl non judice.
The diversity of exemption is against
the reason Of the limitation, and practically
works gross injustice.
There are two parties affected by bank
rupt law-thc debtor and the creditor. The
law sweeps out of existence the property 3,
the assets of the creditor. beyond what diri-
dend he may miraculoGSly obtain. Its eX-
emption provision cuts him OF from any
chance of partici patton i'll the exempted
property of his debtor, on the faith of which
he NAV have given the credit, and on which
maybap he has Il lien 10y judgment. No mir
acle can save him from this. Now, one great
source of injustice is: l. That by Offering IL
California debtor or Virginia debtor 4
higher premium on bankruptcy, Il greater in
ducement to interpose the bankrupt act be-
tween himself and his creditor, it puts the
creditors of California or Virginia debtor
in far worse condition than the creditor Of
debtors in other States. I'd. That by shut
ting out the creditor of a California debtor
from 5000 Of the assets it puts him in Il
worse condition than the creditor Of Il Mary
land debtor, who is cut of from only $500.
And these are but suggestive of the multi
form wrong and injury wrought by the want
of uniformity" by this limping legislation.
JOHN NJ. Orr, Lecsburg, Va.