The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-06-27
Judge Mammond,s Reply.

49," hhARN sAaN ~ Wv
Ny DEAR SENAToR-I am obliged to
you Tor the kindly reception OF my
suggestions about the bankruptcy bill.
| have always thought that the Lowell
bill was too highly artificial for our
circumstances, outside OF the very
large commercial cities. AS / said in
a communication to the Judiciary
Committee, applying for my views
some years ago, IL Is too much like
using a battery of artillery to kill a
mouse, or TO send q formidable naval
armament to overhaul an obnoxious
fishing smack, in its application to
nine-tenths of the cases that would
arise under ii, certainly with respect
to those arising in that vast extent OF
territory outside Of the great M
cial centeTs. A far more simple and
inexpensive system, with elasticity
sufficient to make ample pro-
vition for exceptionally large cases
might be devised, to accomplish
every purpose, except that of winding
up every insolvent enterprise, great
and small, In the Federal Courts, very
much as insolvent railroads ara now
wound up.
agree with you that the courts,
State or Federal, should be relieved OF
that business as long as men act
honestly and fairly In the conduct of
their %affairp, aud do not trespass on
the just rights or claims Of each other.
For example, II an i~nsolvent merchant
CHOOSES to impRrtally administer his
assets for the equal benefit Of Es
Gre ditors, he should be permitted to
doit and the courts should not inter-
fere; neither should hitlcreditors be
allowed to interfere by attachment
quits or other efforts to secure a selfish
advantage. / submit that IL lie only
through q wise and uniform system Of
bankruptcy under the Federal Con.
stitulion that the merchant can be
permitted to do this, and, certainly,
ouly by these means can creditors
be secured In q power 10 prevent
preferences obtained by attachments
or other like methods, either with the
acquiescence Of the debtor OF against
HE will. Let me illustrate this neces.
sity for a bankrupt law that shall com.
prehend some protection for creditors
against the barbaric e~elflshnes1 Of the
doctrine that a State may lay hold OF
all the property that lies within its
borders, and distribute it among lis
citizens, or the suitors within its
forum.
A merchant In Ohio, as permitted
by end according to the laws OF that
State, impartially assigned all his
property, whenever situated, for the
equal benefit of all his creditors. The
laws of the State of Tennessee also
permit and encourage such assign
ments. Yet, Tennessee creditors at
tached on Geographic notes Of the
assignment, and, because the local
laws Of Tennessee, as to registration
and notice, were not complied with
and IL was a physical i~mpoes,bility to
comply with them before the levy OF
the attachments they insist on a
preference. l ruled at the trial that the
Ohio assignment was good, but the
State courts here almost slmultane-
ously ruled that the attachments were
effective, and, not desiring a conflict
OF decision, if possible TO be avoided,
on motion for new trial / have ordered
a reargument before a iuii bench.
Within q fortnight, under similar cir.
cunsances, the Massachusetts, Su-
preEne Court hiss decided in favor Of
The Massachusetts creditors who at
iached. Now, l respectfully submit,
my dear sir, that II one State will not
recognize the Jus centrum as of shy
force, and seek TO evSde it rs q mere
sale OF comfy, which they so limit as
to convert their action into a sale OF
positive international d,scour,esy that
would produces uu~iriendliness among
independent rations, Congress should
interfere 10 enforce a more amioab!e