Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-12-16

1
and persevering body of men. With
cause so just and claims 30 weighiy, how
ever, all their skill and cunning will fail
| il only the people OF the Southwest are de-
| terminsd and the legislators they have
chosen are faithful and watchful.
BANKRUPT LAW AND MERCANTILE
| ISTERRSES-
Congress has now under consideration tine
subject of bankruptcy law. subject OF
| great importance TO business men, who
should watch attentively what Congress is
doing with reference to it. The country hiss
suffered 100 much already, owing to one bank
ruptcy bill Congress formulated, TO permit
another blupder of the kind to be perpe-
traled. If we choose 10 send lawyers 70
Washington, instead of fair proportion OF
experienced men of business, we must watch
their proceedings when business matters
come up for action. Two schemes were put
before Congress at its last session, one almost
the antipodes OF the other, yet the CONNER
cial men OF the country have left Congress
uncertain as to which scheme they prefer,
which is plain subject OF clear business
| duty. One OF the schemes, known as the
| Lowell bill, because 1t was drawn by Judge
Lowell, was introduced by Mr.. Hosr,
| the other known as the equity bill, by Mr..
ingalls,. The equity system gives general
| Jurisdiction in bankruptcy to the district
COURTS OF the United States, 10 be disposed Of
according 10 the practice of equity. TIE
Lowell bill, which the Senate has adopted,
euacts complete code of rules and practice.
The great principle Of difference between the
two is that in one the creditors appoint their
own assignee and retain control over the
case. In the other scheme the court appoints
receiver and has the matter in It's own
hands. By the Lowell bill it takes at lesst
three creditors 10 file an involuntary petit
ton; in the equity one single creditor may
file petition and procure an adjudication.
The Lowell bill abolishes the system of fee
payments as far as possible; in the equity
scheme fees are retained aud enlarged. A
prominent feature in the Lowell plan is the
substitution of a uniform system of exemp-
tiops OF property from liability for debts, |
for the varying exemptions Of the different |
States az far as traders-not agri- |
culturisis-are concerned. The equity |
plan retains the State exemptions in all |
their conf ictipg provisions, and the opera
ton of the law can be changed or INSTRUCTED |
by new exemptions. The Lowell bill clears
the honest debtor; the equity one holds the
debtor at the discretion of the court as long
as the judges please. The Lowell bill pre-
vents and avoids conveyances and prefer
ences; the equity system leaves room for dis
honest evasions. Fraud and dishonesty on
the part of INSCRIPTIONS creditors and their
accomplices is punished under the Lowell
bill; the equity bill does not provide this
safeguard. The Lowell courts have power
to prescribe rules Of practice in carrying out
the law; the equity courts are governed by
law constructed on decisions and preccdents.
In the one case the law can be known bv all;
in the other there is the usual uncertainty
and wraugling unavoidable in constructive
law. In the Lowell system Congress m axes
ths law and the courts interpret il; in the
equity plan the law essentially is what the
courts decide it 10 be. The wording of the
equity bill is brief and simple, but the prac-
teal working being what the different courts
it 10 be, would be intricate, and 10 |
others than lawyers often unintelligible; the /
Lowell bill has been constructed upon an |
extended and profound study of the practi.
cal results OF cases in our own and other
courts, AMI has specific provisions for the
various contingencies that arise in practice s
In one case the letter OF the law decides; in !
the other the proviaions have to be sought in /,
the usuages, decisions and precedents Of the .
courts, requiring recourse 10 legal research, q
subtitle distinctions, and all
the elaborate paraphernalia of legal casuis- !
Try. The objections most strongly urged Q
against the equity plan is that practice I'M y
Ter it would be liable 10 delay, the free sys-
EN- TO excess, the Discretionary powers of !
he courts TO abuse, while The creditors would y
De deprived OF voice in the settlement of |
he bankrupt estate, for the courts would !
axe the whole matter into their hands, and .
lebtor and creditor alike must submit 10 | e
heir award, as is usual in other civil cases.
10 the Lowell bill it is objected that it
reates many special officers; that it
caves little to the discretion OF the Il
ouris, and that the creditors as
ody would not sufficiently provide =
Or justice TO each individual among them !,
he main question, in finding which of the a
offending plans is preferable, appears to CT
e this: In disposing of bankrupt estate a
MI the ends oil justice be best served by the =
secretion OF judges, who are outside any d
ersonal interest in the matter, or by the g
secretion OF the creditors--a discretion linn u
ed by legal provisions-who are themselves .,
iterested parties? The system oil salaried
Ulcers will, no doubt, be generally preferred NJ
} that OF fees. The fee system makes il TO
lie interest OF officials to pro ract litigation.
lat OF salaries 10 abridge it, and creditors al
re generally willing to sacrifice something
reach quickly an end OF vexation and uu- IN
'rlainty, and the honest debtors interests =.
sually lie in the same direction. The Sen. A,
lie has adopted the Lowell bill after mature dl
and after their committee had ipoy
ioPted the equity bill. We have been at -
me pains TO present impartially the merits M
I'd demeri's OF the two oppoaing sys- hi
ms, for each have their strong and pl
cir weak sides. The matter is one ~ ~
at comes home 20 every individual ps
lsiness man, and it would be well If boards of
trade, and the different exchanges, and M
her trade associations, gave the matter due f,
liberation and communicated 10 Congress In
preferences they entertain for one or the ha
her bill, and so make known whether thew
vor leaving Gases 10 the discretion of courts TT
cording TO precedents, or to the discretion cic
creditors within limits defined by law. sir
le decision should come from the practical pc
Pefienee OF business men, not be left TO III
e choice OF lawyers, who, in such matters to
liable to follow conventionaIity and tbs
nm TO the injury OF the spirit and matter. de-
ou
fro
Floods In Oregon. wa
SAN Francisco, December I5.-Verv to
aVy rslns have fallen in Oregon and 1t
sshinglon Territory during The last three he;
ys. There is much damsge to railroad drs
dges, ETC., by the flood Pendleton river the