New-York tribune., 1881-10-03

mind that the point now at issue Is not pank-
ruptcy OF no bankruptcy, but. one Nanonai
system rs against separate State laws at once
conflicting and complicated.
But if bankruptcy legislation has been diff
cult among a compact, homogeneous popu-
lation like that of England, how much more so
amidst the vast and varied conditions OF life
which exist in America. The Bankruptcy law
of 1S41 was in fact an act for the relief of
insolvent debtors. 1t was passed under excep-
tional circumstances and was speedily ab0l-
ished. Then followed the law of 1867, which
partook of the same character though in less
degree. No instance was ever known of a dis
charge being refused, and it resulted in country
places in the almost total confiscatiOn of
the debtors property so far as his creditors
were concerned. The act was abolished
in 1878. Last session the Senate authorized
its Judiciary Committee to sit during the
recess for the purpose of considering the
question of establishing uniform laws on the
subject of bankruptcy throughout the United
States. That Committee last June issued a
circular to the different Chambers of Commerce
requesting their views on various points. In
response to this circular both the New-York
and Boston Chambers of Commerce have taken
action. Under the auspices of the latter the
Lowell bill has been prepared by the eminent
Judge whose name it bears and submit
ted as tentative draft The New
York Chamber of Commerce have submitted
this proposal to highly critical sitting, the
result of which appears in two pamphlets is
sued by them. They accept the draft a
&" valuable contribution toward the formation
"of a suitable Bankrupt Act" but to many of
its provisions they demur
The bill follows to certain extent the
outline of the English act of 1869. The
machinery adopted is practically the same.
The English " committee of inspection ap-
pears as a "committee of direction" The
Controller appears as supervisor. Both the
name and functions Of the assignee are
unchanged. But there are two important
variations from the procedure of the English
act There are no clauses for liquidation
out of bankruptcy, nor does the Lowell bill
give the Court the extended jurisdiction over
the person of the debtor conferred by the
English law. 1t is on this point that the two
Chambers are chiefly at issue. The Lowell
draft seems to be drawn from debtors point
of view, while the New-York Chamber adopt
rather the creditors view of it. Mr.. Robbins
and his committee argue that, as their losses
10y bad debts are only from L. to - per cent
of their returns, the economical liquidation OF
the amount in insolvent estates is rs nothing
compared with the Importance of adjudcatng
with strict Justice on the conduct of default
ing debtors. While they have no desire to be
severe on the honest debtor, they think that
everyone seeking relief in bankruptcy should
be called on to prove the honesty OF his career
and that not only for the previous six months
but for the whole period of his trading. With
this view they desire TO see fuller powers vested
in the Court. They propose to grant il the
fullest authority to defer or hold over pro-
cccdings in bankruptcy where emergency
may be detrimental 10 the interest of AL con
ccrncd. They would clOthe the new tribunal
with highly elastic procedure, competent to
deal at once with the trader in large cities and
the farmer in sparScy settled districts. The
practical suggestions made by the NewYork
and Boston Chambers will be of great assist
ance in enabling COngrcSstO formulate an act
which shall show mercy to the debtor without
injury to the rights of creditors. Such an act
is urgently needed, aud it is to be hoped that
next session will see it an accomplished fact.