Conservative * 11
27 , 1001 ] that any moiioy , paid by an
insolvent , to any one of his creditors ,
even though it be paid in the ordinary
course of his business , if paid within
four mouths of his bankruptcy , whether
the debtor was insolvent or not , and
whether the creditor had any reason to
suspect insolvency or not , or whether
any preference -was intended or not ,
must be given up by the creditor as a
condition precedent to having his claim
allowed against the estate of the in
solvent and participating in the divi
dends of that estate ? And must not such
a decision to a very large extent , unsettle
all legitimate mercantile credit ? Can
the existence of any law be continued
and justified when the law itself is at
bottom morally wrong ? Can the present
Bankruptcy law be tolerated , except on
the basis of expediency , and the imper
ative public necessity for some sort of
bankruptcy law ? Have not the condi
tions which brought , this statute into
existence passed away , and the necessity
for just such a law ceased ? Is not its
continuance a wrong and its spirit con
trary to the righteous idea of holding
each man responsible for his acts ? Is it
not at base the government coming in
to relieve a man from the obligations of
his own contract ? In short , is it not an
indulgent paternalism ? Was not the en
actment of this law , without limiting
its operations to a specific and compar
atively short period of time , a mistake
in economics and in morals ? Men are
made strong , honest and prudent by
teaching them that they must bear the
consequence of being weak , imprudent
and dishonest. One great objection to
the present bankruptcy law is that it
puts all creditors the careless , the in
competent , the ignorant and the inat
tentive , upon the same basis as the in
telligent , the vigilant and the indus
trious. The honest man who found
himself deluged with debt , overwhelmed
in the depths during the panic of 1893
and 1894 , could , in a majority of cases ,
compound with his creditors , by agree
ment , upon surrender of his estate. But
' the fraudulent debtor who has , in viola
tion of his creditors' rights , pretended to
sell estates by transferring them to
relatives , practically does away with
any contest over the fraudulent aliena
tion , because as creditors must all share
pro rata in the division of an estate , no
one creditor is interested in proceeding
at his own expen&e , to contest the fraud
ulent transfer for the benefit of all the
creditors ; and , as a rule , these contests
are therefore rarely made , and it is safe
to say that in a great many instances ,
debtors have proceeded to bankruptcy
and become relieved of their obligations
while large estate were held practically
iu trust for them by relatives and
friends.
In the western states I believe the rule
is , too large exemptions from legal pro-
cess. Perfectly well I remember an ex-
eruption law in the fourth legislative
assembly of the territory of Nebraska ,
which exempted from all legal process
a quarter section of land and all the
improvements thereon. This law was
passed for the purpose of inviting men
from other states to escape into Nebras
ka with dishonestly acquired funds ,
which could be absorbed in a quarter-
section homestead and protected against
all invading or pursuing creditors. The
result of such law-making ought to be
and generally is disastrous to the people
who indulge in it. The credit of the Ne
braska pioneers referred to was based
upon property , and as there was no
property to speak of , except improved
quarter-sections of land held as homes ,
the very basis of credit for everybody
was knocked out and it was not long
before common sense and honest de
cency and self-respect caused the repeal
of that wholesale exemption. It is safe
to say that throughout the Northwest
generally these exemptions have been
very large , too largo , and in many of the
states they are still quite too large.
The fundamental and righteous idea of
the exemption is , of course , that some
protection or provision ought to be made
for the family. But experience teaches
that the larger the exemption , the more it
encourages men-to rely upon government
for protection : to depend upon law , rather
than to face the asperities of their con
ditions and to work out their own sal
vation. The states severally , and the
republic at large , need at this time a re
vival , an arousement , as the Methodists
call it , in favor of individual honesty
and absolute mercantile integrity. All
the commercial world ought to be con
verted to the doctrine that a contract is
a binding and not a voidable
obligation. Every member of the
industrial and commercial organiza
tions of this country ought to under
stand and swear allegiance to the great
principle that as a man agrees to do so
iu truth and honor , he must and shall
do. The government should not be im
portuned to protect the indolent , the
extravagant and the thoughtless from
the consequences of their own misman
agement. The prevalent idea that it is
the duty of the government to provide
or secure every man a living and an es
tate ought to be erased.
Recent legislative assaults upon prop
erty rights and against organized prop
erty interests have degraded and cor
rupted public sentiment. All attempts
to divert from the provident to the im
provident the fruits of industry and
thrift are detrimental to the moral and
social status of the people of the United
States. All exemptions by state author
ities should be restricted to a mini
mum. All legislation which stands in
the way , or which is intended to stand
in the wayof the working out of modern
commercial tendencies ought to be re
pealed. It is not the function of the
government to relieve the inert and
improvident from the consequences of
their own extravagance and indolence , at
the expense of the frugal and indus
trious. It is the function of govern
ment to maintain the peace and to per
mit each citizen to have an equal chance
in the struggle for life , liberty and
property under a system of fair , just
and equitably administered laws. Each
American must learn that he must defer
for himself and not depend upon the
government to do for him , and every
body ought to know that to "do" the
government by getting an unnecessary
appropriation , or creating a sinecure for
a political favorite is not statesmanship.
All the "Stay laws , " whereby debtors
suspend for an indefinite time the decree
or judgment in favor of the creditor ,
ought to bo repealed. All laws which
permit appeals in foreclosure cases , from
orders confirming sales , upon bonds
which do not protect the creditor , but
which permit the defaulting debtor to
remain in poeession of the land , reaping
the harvest thereof , ought likewise to
be repealed. The laws which intention
ally make it difficult by delay , and very
expensive for an owner to obtain from
a defaulting tenant the posession of his
property , ought likewise to be repealed.
All laws which make it easy and cheap
to appeal A cause , in order that the
delay which the debtor thereby
so profitably secures , because the
delay is worth more to him than the 'ex
pense of the appeal , ought to be obliter
ated from the statute books. All laws ,
the theory and principle of which are to
give to the debtor who has made default
in his obligation some privilege of value ,
at the immediate expense of his creditor ,
ought to be repealed , because such laws
are inherently dishonest and shame
lessly reward dishonesty as though it
were a merit.
The class of laws alluded to
are inimical to the debtor ,
whose best interests are conserved
by speedy liquidation. They are
likewise very expensive because
the creditor in dealing with him ,
endeavors to guard against all
these contingencies so far as he may , by
charging a higher rate of interest or a
higher price for goods. Thus the bur
dens which fall alike upon the honest
debtor and the dishonest one are created
by unwise legislation.
But the most malicious effect of this
sort of law-making is its general result.
Laws encourage and foster the spirit to
which they pander. The ambition of
dishonestly wresting from a creditor
what it was agreed he should have makes
the improvident a particular class , for -
whose interest this sort of specific legis
lation is enacted and for whom these
special rights are provided. Whenever
any class of citizens believe themselves * , '
entitled to enacted privileges , their demands - , /
mands grow more importunate and * * '