The Washington times., 1902-01-12
BANKRUPTCY LAW
REMAINS THE SAME.
THE ACT Is STILL IN FORCE.
Philip Walker Declares II
Was Never Superseded by
General Insolvency Meas
ure-COde Makes Some
Provisions.

Mr.. Philip Walker, a member of the law
firm of Lipscomb C Walker, takes issue
with prominent member of the bar
who stated that the bankruptcy law, SO
far as it relates to the District of Co.
lumbia, has been superseded by a general
insolvency law.
Mr.. Walker says:
Chapter l of the code states. among
other things, all acts of Congress. by
their terms applicable to the District of
Columbia and to other places under the
Jurisdiction of the United States. in force
at the date of the passage of this act
shall remain in force except in SO far as
the same are Inconsistent with or are
replaced by some provision of this code
Chapter Twelve.
The bankruptcy is such an act, and the
only question is whether it is inconsistent
with or replaced by a provision of this
code. 1t is claimed that this applies to
Chapter XII. Assignment of InsoIvent
Debtors
Before the passage of the bankruptcy
law we had a general assignment law. ap-
proved February -, 1898 (27 Stat. L., 40
Code sections 1856. Part of 436, and most Of
40 are taken from This act 1t was never
contended that this law was repealed or
superseded by the bankruptcy law, and
the latter distinctly makes an assignment
for the benefit OF creditors an act of
bankruptcy. for which the assignor NAV
De haied into court as an involuntary
bankrupt
Ii does not make the assignment void
unless the creditors desire to tsfe ad-
vantage of the provisions of the rank-
ruptcy act, and if they do not, there is
nothing in the law which prevents tie
assignee from administering thu
trust estate. 1t is only when such as.
signments are made after the passage of
the bankruptcy law and with intent to
defraud. that they are void; If there is no
intent to defraud, they are valid. Sec
67e, bank act.)
Situation in Few Words.
"The question of inconsistency of
statutes is summed up in few words in
the Encyclopedia of Law (Vol. %, p. 4s5):
Where two acts are not in express
terms repugnant, but the later act COW
ers the whole subject-m CT the
earlier, not purporting to amend it, and
plainly shows that it was intended as a
substitute for the earlier, 1t will oper-
ate as a repeal thereof though all the
provisions OF the two may not be re-
pugnant. But there must an unmistak-
BILE intent manifested on the part of the
legislature to make the new act a sub
stitute for the old and TO contain all
the law on the subject for mere similar
ity in the provisions Of the two statutes
is not enough TO effect a repeal, even
though the similarity may be such as to
cause confusion or Inconvenience.
Even when the later statute covers the
whole ground of the earlier, If there is an
declaration of intention against
a repeal by implication, the courts will
let both acts stand, and construe them as
instituting two separate systems OF ac-
the same object. unless such
is impossible
Does Not Cover 1t.
THE insolvency law in the code does not
cover the whole ground of the bankruptcy
law by long ways. and can, therefore,
have been no intention to repeal, but the
Legislature simply gave two concurrent
remedies.
But the most insuperable objection to
the opinion of the prominent member Of
the bar is the constitutional question.
The Constitution gives Congress the right
to pass uniform laws on the subject