Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1878-04-13

simply says the property shall be
held that the debtor shall not
fraudulently conyeyit /; that he shall
hold it in stGtu quo until the debt
becomes due.
Mr.. Bailey-We propose nothing
more than that here There is no
change of this contract tall. / say
that it is impossible for the Senator
from Georgia, with all his ingenuity,
with all his ability, with all his
mastery of the principles as well as
Of the technics of the law, to show.
in what particular or that in any
particular this bill in requiring the
creation of sinking fund changes
the contract between these parties
or expedites one day the payment
of the debt that will become due in
the future from these corporations
to the Government of the United
States.
Mr.. Hill-The contract requires
the corporations to pay one-half of
the compensation for Government
transportation. This bill requires
them to eXpend the whole of it on
the debt. i - eg
Mr.. Bailey-NOt at all.
Mr.. Hill-You require them to
pay it into a sinking fund, which
sinking fund is placed in the Treas
ury of the creditor. You take the
money away from the debtor. The
law to which the Senator refers in
Tennessee and Georgia does not take
a dollar from the debtor before the
debt is due.
Mr.. Bailey-It takes his property
from him.
Mr.. Hill-It does not take his
property from him it only holds it.
Mr.. Bailey-What difference does
it make whether this sinking fund
is in the Treasury of the United
States or i'm a bank in New York ?
The Treasury is adopted for that
purpose, not alone because it is a
Government agency, but because it
is supposed to be the safest to all
parties. If a dollar shall be lost by
reason of tue defalcation of officers
of the United States, the Govern
ment will, not in law but in honor,
be bound to make that loss good.
For that reason, because it is safer
and more convenient, the Treasury
of the United States is selected as
the custodian of this fund. ~
Mr.. Hill-HOw does it lessen the
burdens you impose by this bill up
on the debtor to pay this additional
half of the transportation account
simply because the creditor takes
the money and holds 1t but does not
pay it out to the creditor until the
debt becomes due?
Mr.. Bailey-It is no burden to a
man to pay a debt.
Mr.. Hill-It is a burden to pay a
| debt before it becomes due.
Mr.. Bailey-The whole argument
proceeds upon the assumption that
a creditor has no rights in respect to
the earnings of his debtor, upon the
assumption that the debtor may if
he can under some legal technicality
escape the payment of the debt that
he may legally and properly do it.
We take nothing from this company
that it is not under the highest
moral obligation to devote to the
payment of the debt, and we simply
propose to convert that moral obi
cation into a legal obligation. The
case is not in one particular differ
ent, in the view in which / am now
considering this subject, from the
case that was supposed Il while ago
of debtor in the State of Georgia
who proposed to transfer, or at
tempted to transfer, his property for
the purpose of avoiding the pay
ment of a debt. The Government,
or rather the law, seizes the property
in that case-the law enacted by
the Legislature, that undertakes to
regulate and control the relations of
man with his fellow-man in their
business transactions. The law
seizes it and dedicates it to the
payment of debt, or rather, it i'm
pounds it and holds it until the debt
shall become due. His property is
taken from him just as we propose
to take money from the vaults of
these great corporations and place it
in the Treasury of the United States
as security for the payment of debts
payable IN future and which the
officers of the company have de-
clared that they cannot and Will not
pay.
But, Mr.. President, l believe it is
the law in the State of Georgia as
it is the law to-day in Tennessee and
in most of the States of the Union,
that if debtor offers to remove
himself and his property from the
State where the debt was created,
in advance of the time for payment,
that property may be seized, it may
be impOunded, and may be held
until the debt shall have become
due. Upon what principle does
that legislation rest? Why is not
that unconstitutional -? Why does
not that work change in the con-
tract between the parties?
Mr.. Hill-That goes exactly upon
this definite principle, that the
debtor after he has made the debt is
endangering its collection by his
own act, not by the act of another,
and he is changing the jurisdiction
of the debt; he is travelling beyond
the jurisdiction in which he created
his debt.
Mr.. Bailey-Then the power of
the Legislature rests not upon the
fact that it is a Legislature. It is
not an inherent power; it is not
power derived from the people; but
the power is derived from the act of
the absconding or fraudulent debtor.
Mr.. Hill-The necessity for the
legislation is derived from that act.
Mr.. Bailey-The necessity for the
legislation Who shall Judge of its
necessity? If the Congress has the
right to enact laws on the subject,
who can judge or inquire into their
wisdom or necessity?
Mr.. Hill-It would be uncOnstitu-
tiOnal for Legislature to pass an
act authorizing the property of
debtor to be seized before the debt
is due, if he is not changing his sit
uation, if he is not removing; and
the legislation itself in this bill only
seeks to have vitality upon the
ground that he is not changing his
Jurisdiction.
Mr.. Edmunds-SuppOse he were
wasting it?
Mr.. Hill-Certainly; if he were
wasting it, that would be the same
thing.
Mr.. Edmunds-Now what is the
difference as to a corporation paying
money to its stockholders, whence
it never can come back, which it is
confessedly necessary to get to pay
its debts?
Mr.. Hill-Ah, you have got no
4l.,N