St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-10-24

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23.--The debate
on the bankruptcy bill began today in
the house. There is great deal of de-
termined opposition to the measure,
led by some of the ableSt lawyers in the
house, like Culberson, of Texas; Stone.
of Pennsylvania. and Boatner. of
Louisiana. 1t is directed generally
against the policy of national bank
ruptcy law in view of past experience
with substitute laws, and particularly
the involuntary clause at this time,
when so many business firms in close
straits might under its operation be
forced to the wall.
The senate amendments to the Raw
Hns bills for the relief of the Mormon
church was agreed to. A bill authOriZ-
ing the payment of the expenses of
Louis L.. Williams, worlds fair COM
missioner from Alaska, was objected to
by Mr.. Kilgore on the ground that 1t
would inaugurate deluge of claims
against the government, growing ouLof
the worlds fair.
The printing bill passed, 167 to II.
The consideration of the bill to pro-
vide for the construction of a steam
revenue cutter on the great lakes, TO re-
place the Andy johnson, was then re-
sumed. Mr.. Loud, of California, offered
a substitute, including provision for a
revenue cutter for the harbor of San
Francisco.
Chairman Sayres. of the appropria-
tious committee, in opposing the substi-
tute, served notice on his Democratic
colleagues that unless they joined with
him in economizing this would be
BILLION DOLLAR CONGRESS.
Mr.. Loud withdrew the substitute.
and the bill was passed.
According to the special order adopt
ed last week the house then proceeded
to the consideration of the bankrupt
cy bill. Mr.. Oates, who has charge of
the measure, opened the debate in ad-
vocacy of it.
If ever there was time, except at the
close of war, when everything finan-
cial was out of joint, that demanded
bankruptcy law. this was the time.
There had been so much financial
trouble of recent years, statistics
showed such an increased number of
failures of all kinds, that no one could
law, provided it was one of perfect fair
ness to all parties.
The four pointed criticisms against
the. bill in the last congress had been
corrected in the present bill. The prin-
cipal opposition to the measure was
against the involuntary clause. Bank
ruptcy was an odious term. 1t implied
opprobrium. Only two grounds existed
in this bill which could involuntarily
force a man into bankruptcy-insol-
vency, which did not reflect dishOnOr,
and fraud, which entitled no one to im-
munity. The proposed bill required
that the creditors could not proceed
against debtor unless the debts were
in excess of 5000. 1t made it impossible
for a creditor to force one of his debt
ors into bankruptcy by requiring that
their creditors must be made party to
a bankruptcy proceeding. and it re-
qDired that the bankrupts shall have
been insolvent for at least thirty days.
The bill was not one for the speedy COL
lection of debts, as many members sup
posed 1t was for the relief of debtors
same time an instrumentallty by which
creditors could reach rascals who were
seeking TO
DEFRAUD THEM.
w. A. Stone, OF Pennsylvania, led the
opposition to the bill in strong and
carefully prepared speech. He called
attention to the fact that every amend
ment to the bankruptcy law of 1867 was
in the direction of greater liberality TO
bankrupts. The present bill, in his
opinion, was more drastic than the act
of 1867. Its penalty provisions were
harsher ana severe. Would it be wise
to pass the law in anticipation of bus
mess depression; it would tend to per-
petuate matters. Within six months
many banks and business houses had
failed. but their assets had not been
sacrificed at forced sales. If bank
ruptcy law had been in operation the
flag of the auctioneer would be flying
rom every square. In such times it
was good policy to help those hard
pressed by creditors instead of forcing
them to the basement of the block. This
bill would make it unsafe for
man to contract debt that
might lead him to bankruptcy. The
provisions which prevented the dis
charge of bankruptcy proceedings. he
said, were brutal. The act of 1867 was
much more humane than this bill. He
analyzed and criticised the provisions
of the bill, and concluded by saying
that the bill in his opinion would work
incalculable injury to public interests.
He was especially opposed to any bank
ruptcy law in these times.
Nr. Sibley. of Pennsylvania, op posed