New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-02-03

the debtor they please. As between tnese TWO
svstems Mr.. Robbins and his colleagues unhesi-
tatinplv declare in favor of the former. They
assert that where the assignee is chosen by the
oct of the creditors he is too often only the tool
of the bankrupt, and that the experience OF inc
Act of SGT is fatal to such procedure ms ~
one great difficulty the judiciary Colhihl'tco
have to face. Creditors of this class, VINO nave
n small stake in each estate, care little for the
amount of the dividend, so that the conduct
OF the debtor be carefully sifted. They desire
rather the checking of bankruptcies than the
economical distribution of bankrupt estates
How such system would suit the importer
and trader who deal in large figures Is an
other question. The new law must recognize
and provide for both classes.
The committee make an excellent sugges-
ton in proposing that new courts shall
only be constituted in great cities, and that III
country districts the administration be left III
the hands of the United States District Courts
This will avoid the necessity of creating
many new districts with the attendant patron
age, as proposed by the Boston committee. 1t
will afford court of first instance in the large
cities, where the present machinery Of the Fed
eral Courts would break down were it loaded
with the additional responsibility of bank
ruptcy Jurisdiction, while in country districts
it would throw the work on the District Courts,
and so avoid the necessity of creating an eX-
pensiye and cumbrOus organization. The ques-
ton whether the State Courts can legally be
empowered to administer bankrupt estates the
report leaves to the full Judiciary Committee.
In making this suggestion, Mr.. Robbins has
followed the English precedent Large centres
like London, Birmingham and Manchester
have their Bankruptcy Courts, while in the
country the jurisdiction is left entirely IN the
hands of the County Courts.
The Lowell bill, which has been so often
discussed, criticised and recommended, has
undergone considerable changes The second
draft issued from Boston contained material
alterations. Within the last two months
further revisons have been suggested by its
own supporters. The original draft, rs HE
TRIBUNE pointed out, was little more than an
adaptation of the English act of 1859. The
last batch of propounded amendments seem
taken, not from later English legislation, but
from the earlier acts of 1919. Instead OF
clothing the registrars with judicial functions
il is now proposed to constitute courts pre-
sided over by Commissioners in Bankruptcy"
These officers were the creation of the act of
1919. They were a species of half-breed be-
tween Judge and a registrar, possessing
neither the dignity of the one nor the dill
gence Of the other. Weighed in the balance
Of experience, they were found wanting. In
1869 they were swept away, and the ctlice
has never been revived. While admitting
some good features in this bill, Mr.. Robbins
regards it as the expression Of the views of
New England traders only.
1t is satisfactory to note that, although the
two committees differed widely in their orig
inal conception of the proposed measure, they
have been gradually approaching one another,
though from different directions. In comparing
the proposals of both parties, however,
it is clear that, while Boston has sought
inspiration from obsolete English legis-
lation, New-York has followed the dis
cussiOn in England down to the present
time, and seeks to utilize, so far as It is APP
plicable to this country, the latest efforts of
the most eminent English jurists The report
presented by Mr.. Robbins is able and intelligent
evidently framed by those who take broad
view of the situation, and while ANXIOUS for a
complete and comprehensive measure, Is op-
posed to any suggested legislation adapted
only to one district and unsuitable to the re-
quirements Of the rest of the country.