Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-02-25

not given the bill careful study. But it
seemed to have been drawn with great deal of
ability and labor, and embodidies q Der of
good features. However, Individually, he pre-
ferred a national bankruptcy law to any local
insolvency act, becauseit acted alike on all cred
itors, both foreign and domestic. The principal
objection to State insolvency law is that
creditors residing out of the State cannot be
compelled to submit themselves to it's iuris-
diction, unless doing 80 voluntarily, whereas
under national act all creditors are compelled
to submit to the jurisdiction. But in the alb
law would seem to be desirable for the protec-
ton of the mercantile community.
AS to the present bill, what do you think of
its provisions?
Possibly it may be a little too elaborate and
complicated. Having confidence in Mr.. Warner
not having carefully examined it, 1 am reluc-
tant to give any decided opinion regarding it's
distinctive merits or otherwise
BIGELow, FLANDRAU & CLARK.
Mr.. Clark was in, the rest of the firm was
out. Mr.. Clark had not read the bill, but
thought judicious insolvency law necessary.
Mr.. Bigelow was hailed on the street, but to
no purpose.
PALMER & BELL.
Judge Palmer was out, Mr.. Bell was in. Mr.
Bell, on invitation, gave himself up to the
reporter.
He thought there was too much
machinery about Warmers bill. It embraced
too much minutiae and became unwieldy in
its operations. After all, he considered it a
difficult matter to provide State bankrupt or
Insolvency law. Nonresident creditors would
not be affected, it would only apply at home,
and dealer or trader might never be discharg-
ed, being liable to non resident creditors.
Any particular provisions in it that you
condemn?"
1.-THE attorneys fees are too large. It places
too much power in the attorneys hands. He
could under its provisions crush debtor OUT
MIR. Bell believed the same results could be
accomplished, and with less expense and ma
chinery, by making some amendment to the
present assignment law preventing a race
among creditors to seize and retain preference.
Mr.. r. B. Galusha believed such a bill nee
essary, but had not seen Warmers remedy.
MIR. h. J. HORN.
He entertained favorable opinion of the
bill. Didn't know the full details, but thought
the general object good.
MIR. MORRIS LAMpREY.
Mr.. Lamprey unhesitatingly condemned the
bill. He had both read and studied the pro-
posed insolvency law. It was costly, expensive
in it's provisions and unwieldly. It had the
further Objectionable feature of being likely to
become an engine of fraud and oppression.
Mr.. Lamprey didn't believe it would or ought
to pass.
MIR. c. d. O'BRIEN.
The reporter found in this gentleman anoth-
er unequivocally opposed to Warmers work for
the salvation of the creditor and 1.-THE damna-
ton of the DEBTOR
Mr.. O'Brien remarked that it made every-
body a bankrupt. Any creditor could force a
| man who owed him an insignificant sum into
bankruptcy-by bringing action against him
in some other county before the court COM
missioner. It took away the right of
trial by jury. It virtually puts any and every-
body at the mercy of creditor. On the whole
/, MIR. o Brien was firmly of the opinion that the
proposed law would be an outrage, and work
great injury if passed. So much SO that an ex-
ira session of the legislature would have to be
called to repeal it, if it ever became operative.
MR. 8. L. IEPRcE.
advocated the passage of a law of this
character. He was not thoroughly acquainted
! with the bill, but from q cursory review of it,
| and comparative glance at SenatoriBuck g bill
of the same character, he much preferred the
lat ter.
GILMAN & oLouaH.
Mr.. Gilman was at home. He didn't believe
in the policy of an insolvency law. State
law of that kind generally accrued to
the benefit of court officers. The assignment,
law rs at present in force was
ample enough. However, Mr.. Gilman had moi
given the present or proposed bill any 'consid.
GRAFTON, thinking it time enough to take it in
hand when it became the law.
Mr.. II. O. James had read the proposed bill
carefully, and thought it altogether unneces
sary.
MIR. J. B. sANBoRN.
As matter of principle, Mr.. Sanborn didn',
favorlaws of this kind. But he thought Warner,
proposed bill had many good provisions. Ate,
ALL it only relieves man in the State. and +
he owns property elsewhere he's liable. AND
can't be discharged. A national bankrupt Law
is the only one that can do justice throughout
when jndiciously administered.
Mr.. w. 81. Sanborn entertained the view tina
there was no need for such law. Further
more he opposed the proposed remedy in all it
provisions, as cumbersome and liable to worl
injustice.
MIR. j. N. ROGERS.
J In answer to the direct query, Mr.. Roger
! 3