The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-07-08
UNITED STATES COURT ROOMS,
NORFOLK, VA, July 6, 1881.
Mn = ToooHs Cbgirm1n. dc. :

Hon. John j. Ingalls,, Chairman, &C.:
sir.-I have. had the honor 10 receive
| your letter OF the 1st Of June asking replies
10 in,errogatories which you PROFOUND,
having relation TO the policy OF the enact
ment OF another bankruptcy law, and inyl-
ting practical suggestions germane to the
subject.
The reasons in favor Of uniform law OF
insolvency in country so vast as ours,
throughout whose territory trade is a0so-
lutely free; whose population IS so entirely
occupied either in the productions OF the
subjects of exchange, OF ia commerce ana
manufactures; and in which there are as
many distinct systems OF iudicature as there
are States, presenting laws OF insolvency
often radically diverse, are too numerous
10 he set out in detail, and are so cogent
that Congress will fiud itself unable long to
avoid the enactment OF such measure.
The States being prohibited from passing
laws impairing the obligation OF contracts,
and Congress being expressly empowered
10 pass uniform laws of bankruptcy en-
bracino that mower, IL follows that it is only
| Congress that can give legal relief from
debt to enterprising citizens who have been
oveItaken by disastrous accidents OF COM
merce. and provide law of insolvency,
uniform throughout the Union, embracing
all the provisions OF relief and administra-
lion requisite to a Just, bene6cent, and sue
cessful bankruptcy system. The legislation
of the States on the subject Of insolvency
generally comedies to debtors, IN forms
more or less invidious, the power TO prefer
one creditor or class OF creditors over others
less favored and this particular feature OF
! Slate legislation, usually inimcal TO nUD-re-
sident creditors, differs IN the several State
codes so widely as 10 produce discredlt-
able chaos in the American law OF insOYen-
cy, considered as national system. a una.
| form law of inSolvency-that is to say, OF
bankruptcy-com Itself TO the APP
proyal of every merchant aud manufacturer
of large dealings as far preferable to the
resent heterogeneous system, and, indeed,
as indispensable to a sound policy OF inter-
| State commerce.
| think the principal opposition to an
other bankruptcy law has its source in the
| odium in which the law OF 1867 was held.
But although the bankruptcy law OF 1867
was by universal concession an exceedingly
defective one, yet / have never heard
any complaint against it, so far as it con-
cerned those provisions which determined
the principles on which the respective
rights OF debtors and creditors were set
tied. It's vice lay in its administrative iea.
tures-that is to say, in the system Of prGc-
tice it established for the bankruptcy courts.
IL provided cumbrous aud expensive ma.
chinery of administration, the principal
aim Of which seemed to be that Of Teliey-
ing the courts as far as practicable from any
responsible supervision over the proceed
iDgs in each case, by providing that these
should go along mechanically In the offices
attached TO the court according TO forms
prescribed with elaborate technicality, on
the payment OF fees fixed by law, which
were in large part needless, excessive, and
beyond the power OF the court TO remit OF
regulate, and often even to know Of. Such
o system OF administration or practice could
not fail to engender grievous abuses and Ia
bring the law which established it into mer-
tied odium.
Neither registers nor assiguees were ap'
pointed By the courts Of which they were
officers; and the law was so automatic and
minute In lis provisions, even as 10 the
pettiest details, especially those dispensing
with the direct action OF the courts, that
thousands Of cases did not come INTO the
courts at all, except for the purpose OF OBJ
tanning, In the most perfunctOry manner
the signatures OF the Judges TO formal orders
OF ADJUDICATION or discharge. The proceed
ines being thus perfuncrory and automatic,
In so many cases not reaching the courts al
all, the members OF the legal profession
practicing in them were not responsible te
the courts for their good behavior, aud q
low grade Of lawyers was thus generated
throughout the country. My own earnest
and fixed conviction is that the machinery
which was provided 5y The law OF 1851
ought not 10 be revived, but ought TO bt
wholly discarded.
My opinion Is that Congress should IN
stitute an entirely different system OF prdc.
| tice In bankruptcy from that established by
the law OF 1867. There should be no regis.
| tiers, assignees, or messengers, as such. Tue
| district courts should, as to proceedings
| in bankruptcy, be constituted courts OF
chancery, aud bankruptcy proceedings In
them should be required by law to be con-
| ducled according 10 the forms and rules Of
the ordinary chancery practice. The pro-
ceeding in each case would thereby become
| a proceeding BY " General Creditors Blu"
| modified by such rules OF law or OF court as
might be deemed or found 10 be expedieUt
Every step IN each case should be taken
under the direct. responsible supervision OF
| the court 10 which II was pending, which, ~
each case, should appoint receiver OF The
bankrupfs estate, and hold him to rules OF
administration similar 10 those to which Or
binary administrators or executors are held,
This receiver would thus nut only be no.
onansihle IN the creditors az the bankrupt,