New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-11-12
place, and how in the midst of such changes his
words had remained fixed In the hearts OF his
cnnntrYmen.
BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION AGAIN

Il
The subiect of bankruptcy was again brought
I'M at the last meeting of the Chamber of Com
merce. when Mr.. d. C. Robbins presented re-
view of the present position OF the question ana
committee was appointed. Last session the
effort to get bankruptcy law failed because its
advocates were unable to agree on the pro-
visions of the measure. The Lowell bill was re-
iccted by the Senate i'll favor OF the Ingalls, blll
while the latter was rejected by the House in
favor of the Lowell bill. These two bills repre-
sent the opinions of the East and West, and
until some compromise is arrived at no act is
likely to pass Western sentiment is on the
whole opposed to any bankruptcy law. The
position of the farmer in the interior Is so en-
tirely different from that of the trader III New
York and Boston that it is impossible to frame
mode of procedure which would not work
great hardship in one case and yet would Sc
cure instant protection to the creditor i'll the
other. The ingalls, bill was so drawn as to be
comparatively harmless to the Senator's cOnstit-
uents. But n bankruptcy law is most needed
in the East and In the great commercial cities.
The application of the act would be as ten TO
one in these centres as compared with the inte-
rior States. 1t is therefore argued, not unrea-
sonably, that the bill should be adapted to those
sections of the country where 1t Is likely to be
most largely put in practice. with view OF
avoiding the difficulty, Mr.. Robbins suggests
that all farmers grazierS and other agrlculturlstS
should be excepted from the law OF bankruptcy
The proposal is not altogether new Inc AcC
5th George II. oh. 80 specially excepted these
canings and it was not until the distinction OF
traders and non-tradcrs was abolished that the
farmer in England was liable to be made
bankrupt. The proposal, if accepted, would en-
able Congress to formulate a law which would
work well where il is most wanted, without in
Jury to those classes by whom 1t Is not required
But if the suggestion be adopted 1t will be nee
essary to revive the distinction between trader
and nOn-tradcr.
Another argument may be urged in favor OF
so limiting the bill. When the Constitution OF
the United States was drawn the word bank
ruptcics was exclusively applied to the IN
solyencv of traders. a" In strictness," says Web
ster. Gno person but a trader can be bank
rq1nt" If was not till 1861 that the doors OF
fine Bankruptcy Court were opened to non
traders. But apart from this question, the diff
cultv of framing such q law for this country
would be greatly lessened if all who do not
"buv and sell in the way of their trade > were
excluded. Both the bankruptcy acts passed
by Congress and afterward repealed have en-
braced both traders and nOn-traderS.
We must not, however be impatient II Con-
ercss fails in framing a measure at once. The
bill recently passed by the British Parliament
wasthcfiftecnth introduced since 1869. ltditfers
from any preceding law in being stener and
sevcrer code All private arrangements are
abolished. No compromise or composition Is
possible unless the debtor can show clean
record. This is code for which at present
from the more primitive condition of the i'll
terror States, we are not prepared.