The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-04-26

ne pays to support the nation that
economy will be a virtue which con-
gressmen will delight to practice.
THE NELSON AND TORREY BILLS.
Senator Nelson's contention that the
Torrey bill was designed more for the
benefit Of the creditor than the debtor
and that it's provisions were altogether
too drastic, is borne out by an exami-
nation of it and a comparison of it's
features providing for involuntary
bankruptcy with those of the bill pre-
pared by the Minnesota senator. AS
seen from an impartial standpoint, one
that neither contemplates bankruptcy
from the view point of the creditor
solicftous only to get what of his debts
he can, nor from that of the dishonest
debtor anxious to escape liabilities, the
purposes of such laws are to first and
primarily allow a debtor who has be-
come entangled in enterprises that
have failed through mismanagement
due to want Of judgment or unavoida-
bic and unforeseen contingencies, to
square off his encumbrances by sur
rendering his property and enable
him to take fresh start, unhampered
by debt, and secondly, in such cases, to
secure to his creditors an equal division
of the assets. Such cases call for vol
untary bankruptcy initiated only by
the debtor The only other use for the
law is where fraud has been used in
mourning the debt or in disposing Of
assets. There permission should be
given creditors to force the bankrupt
cy. Senator Nelson's bill proceeds on
such lines.
The Torrey bill reversed this order
and placed the involuntary features
foremost. 1t provided fifteen distinct
grounds, under nine different heads,
for casting a debtor into the insolvent
court. In the Nelson bill the convey
ance of property with intent to pre-
fer or to defraud q creditor is the
only ground, while, in voluntary pro-
ceedings, discharge may be resisted
and denied if either preference or
fraudulent transfer can be shown, or
that the debtor has withheld property
from the list of assets with intent to
defraud, or has obtained the goods for
which he is indebted by false pretense.
To the objection urged by Senator
Hoar that the latter offense should be
made cause for forced bankruptcy, SEN
ator Nelson replied, that ample provi-
siOns existed in the state laws, an an
swer that hardly meets the case owing
to the limited Jurisdiction Of state
courts. The man who has obtained
goods by such means will hardly seek
escape in voluntary proceedings, and is
not entitled to any charitable treat
ment
But it is in the criminal and punt
tive provisions that these two bills diff
fer most radically, the Torrey bill Gre
ating five offenses, punishable with
imprisonment up to five years and fine
up to $4,000, and twenty-seven other Of
lenses for which the debtor may be
imprisoned up to two years and fined
up to $4,000. These are all in aid of
the primary intent of the bill, the fore
ing debtors into insolvency, or forcing
payment under threat of criminal pro-
ceedings. All these features are elm
mated in the Nelson BILL and the pun
ishment is the inability to secure a
full discharge. In another feature the
two bills differ. 1t was the Just COM
plant against the act of 1857, as it is
against our state assignment laws, that
the estate Of the bankrupt is eaten up
in the expenses. Lawyers, engaged by
the assignee or retained by the cred
itor, receive those fees that seem
reasonable to the court and often out
rageous to the layman, while minor
officials nibble away the assets. a lit
tie to each, but great in the aggre-
gate. It's design is to make the pro-
ceedings as inexpensive as possible in
order to secure to the creditors the
largest possible dividend. Possibly the
Nelson bill is too lenient with the
debtor, but it is more likely to endure
than is the Torrey bill, and, as expe-
rience develops the need, its provisions
can be strengthened