The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-08-01
A BILL THAT SHOULD BE KILLED.

When the Bailey bankrupt bill passed
seemed to be framed in the interest of debt
ors only, inasmuch as ii made no provision
for involuntary bankruptcy. A fair bankrupt
law should recognize the rights of creditors
TO the extent at least of making some
provision for the forcing Of dishonest debt
ors into bankruptcy. All OF the national
bankrupt laws heretofore passed in this
country. those Of 1900, 1871 and 1861, have
done this. but the Bailey bill does not.
Further acquaintance with the provisions
of the bill shows that it is open to crit
icism on another ground. The Constitution
provides that Congress shall nave power
to establish uniform laws on the subject
of bankruptcies throughout the United
States" The operation of the Bailey bill
would not be uniform. 1t provides that
any one owing $500 or more may make an
assignment in bankruptcy. 'such assign
ment to be in accordance with the laws
OF the State where the debtor resides"
Under this provision the operation and eff
feet of the law would vary in each State
and would be specially beneficial to the
South. The business ledger of the country
shows that the South is at all times largely
debtor to the North, and as the laws in
Southern States are very liberal towards
debtors it is obvious that a national bank
ruptcy Law which practically adopts the
Ia rC nf the 1ffaranf Ctokoo -.~.fl s-.-x
to the advantage of Southern debtors. Thus,
in Florida a debtor, the head of a family,
is allowed 16O acres of land and all inn
provements, and certain personality, free
from execution; in Arkansas he is allowed
sixty acres regardless of value, and per-
sonal property; in Texas 200 acres and all
improvements. and personal property. In
Maine a debtor is allowed land worth but
500; in Massachusetts, $500; in Indiana,
real or personal property, or both, to the
amount of $500. Now suppose that under
the Bailey bill a debtor in Texas owning
200 acres of improved land worth SIG, 900
and personally worth 81, 900 goes into bank
ruptcy owing $4,000. Under the Bailey bill
ne WOULD nOl0 all his realty, worth $50, 600,
and would wipe out $25, 900 of Indebtedness
with $1,000 of personality. On the other
hand, a debtor in Indiana, owning an i'm
proved farm worth $4,000 and going into
bankruptcy owing So. 900, could only claim
$500 exemption of both realty and person.
atty. The Texas debtor would pay his
debts at the rate of about 4 cents on the
dollar, while the Indiana debtor would
pay at least 80 per cent. A comparison
or other Southern States with other North
ern States will show the same inequality
of operation. 1t is manifest, therefore, that
the provision in the Bailey bill which re-
quires the assignment to be in accordance
with the laws of the different States de-
stroys the quality of uniformity which a
national bankruptcy law should have. In
fact, as the law would have a different ap-
plication in every State, there would be
no uniformity about it. This bill, so plain
iy in the interest of Southern debtors, has
passed the House and has been read twice
and referred to the judiciary committee in
the Senate. 1t ought not to become a law.