(see also 8 Metcalf, 313, and 1 Kent Com. 395), that it is competent, where the power is concurrent and not exclusively national in its nature, to vest the state tribunals with jurisdiction, so that, with the assent of Congress, they may take cognizance of all such cases, even to the extent, as in Houston vs. Moore, of enforcing acts of Congress, the question might still remain in this view, whether the matter of bankruptcy is exclusively national, so as to forbid Congress from conceding to the state courts power to execute a National Bankrupt Law. In Sturges vs. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, it was decided that the states have concurrent authority to pass bankrupt laws. But this decision was with the very material restriction that such laws shall not impair the obligation of contracts, nor conflict with any act of Congress. The principle seems to be that, although Congress cannot confer new jurisdiction or powers upon the states, or their courts, it may, nevertheless, remove or exempt them from the disability which, in matters of concurrent jurisdiction, it has the power to interpose. (1 Kent Com. 398; 2 Kent Com. 391.) In either view of the question, the real difficulty seems to be whether, even with the concurrence of Congress and the state legislatures, it is possible to invest the state courts or their officers with jurisdiction or any exercise of authority over the rights of persons outside of their own borders, and discharging the obligations of antecedent contracts so as to establish anything like a uniform or efficient system. This would be to create and confer a new jurisdiction upon the state courts, which it is not in the power of Congress to do. (Story, on the Constitution, Sections 1109-10.) In the opinion of the Committee, this is an insuperable objection, and upon these considerations, with others which might. be added, they are, therefore, of opinion that Congress cannot vest in the state courts the power to execute a National Bankrupt Law. RUFUS KING, Chairman, Upon the motion of Isaac D. Jones, of Maryland, to adopt the report, the following discussion took place: Simeon E. Baldwin, of Connecticut: No allusion caught my ear in the report just read to the case of Claflin vs. Houseman,* in one of the early volumes of Otto's Reports, where, if I recollect rightly, views were expressed by the court somewhat different from those given in the case of Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee, and my impression is, that in the case of Claflin vs. Houseman, which arose under our recent bankrupt law, the jurisdiction of state courts over controversies between assignees in bankruptcy and adverse claimants was sustained, it being held that the state courts were parts of the general machinery of American government, and that they had a sort of a common law jurisdiction over all controversies of that character, whether arising particularly in a bankruptcy case or in any other. I have no doubt the Chairman of the Committee will remember it, and I ask if that did not, in some particular, modify the views expressed in the earlier cases referred to in the report. Robert G. Street, of Texas: The Committee are deserving of great credit for the labor they have expended upon this subject. Nevertheless I feel under the necessity of offering a substitute for the report of the Committee, and I do so in the following resolution : "Resolved, That it is the sense of this Association that the expression of opinion on controverted questions of law is not within its province." The President: The Chair does not think the resolution can be made a substitute for the report of the Committee, but after the adoption of the report, the resolution of the gentleman from Texas will be in order. * In Claflin vs Houseman, assignee, it was held, that under the Bankrupt Act of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 517), the assignee might sue in the state courts to recover the assets of the bankrupt, no exclusive jurisdiction having been given to the courts of the United States. Mr. Jones, of Maryland, was allowed to withdraw the motion to adopt the report, and move its reception by the Association. And the report was received. Edward O. Hinkley, of Maryland : I desire to call the attention of the Committee to a matter I did not hear in the report, namely, that Mr. Madison, in the Federalist, in one of his papers concerning the judicial department of the government of the United States, has suggested that it is in the power of the United States to vest in the state courts the powers intended to be exercised under the Constitution of the United States. I thought it not improper to call attention to this suggestion, although it has been suggested that the opinion expressed by him, in the light of what has been since decided, must be considered as having been overruled.* E. F. Bullard, of New York: I move that the report be referred back to the Committee, and held over for another year's consideration. It seems to me the matter is too important to be passed on at this time. with so slight an examination. I was the author of the resolution that called out this report, and I will state my object. I believe the members of the bar generally throughout the country desire the passage of a bankrupt law, but a great objection is found in rural districts. In the large cities of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia the jurisdiction is exercised by the United States Courts without embarrassment; but take this northern district of New York to illustrate the difficulties in the country. Our judge formerly resided at Buffalo, and we had to travel from three to four hundred miles to get to the . court. The judge is now located at Syracuse, and that is within easier reach. *Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist, No. 81, says: "To confer upon the existing courts of the several states the power of determining such causes, would perhaps be as much 'to constitute tribunals' as to create new courts with the like power." You will find this is the great complaint in the rural districts—that it is difficult to get a case before a judge without great expense. The marshal's fees for serving papers, the clerk's and the register's fees, and the expenses in general, were rendered so large that rarely was there anything left for the creditors. We want a bankruptcy law that can be administered at a small expense, and if the power lies in Congress to give it to the state courts, so that each county judge or each local judge can perform its duties, the great objection will be removed. I hope the matter will be suspended another year without being disposed of in its present shape. James O. Broadhead, of Missouri : I rise to ask whether it would be in order to move the adoption of the report. There is a motion to refer it back to the Committee. If so, I wish to interpose my motion. I think some gentlemen have misunderstood the reading of this report. I listened attentively to it, and my conclusion was this: that whilst the Committee did not undertake to say what power Congress had in regard to the general proposition to pass a general bankrupt law, to be administered by the authorities of the different states, yet they came to the conclusion that Congress could pass no law giving a state court the authority to exercise jurisdiction over a citizen of another state. That is the conclusion to which the Committee came, and I think there can be no two opinions among the members of the Association. on that point, that Congress has no authority in that respect. Whatever authority they may have to pass a general insolvent law which may be operative in the different states, yet they can give to no state court authority to exercise jurisdiction over the citizens of another state out of their jurisdiction. That is the conclusion to which this report comes, and, I understand, the only conclusion. That being my understanding, I move the adoption of the report. The Chair suggested that a disposition of Mr. Bullard's motion must be first made. John W. Stevenson, of Kentucky: I move to make this report the special order of the day, tomorrow, at eleven o'clock; that will enable the members individually to read the report themselves, and fully understand it. It seems to me that disposition of the matter will cover the objection to re-submitting it; and I will add to my motion that in the meantime the report be printed, and copies furnished to the members of the Association. After some discussion, this motion was adopted. 18. The Chair then called upon the Committee on Commercial Law. On behalf of the Committee on Commercial Law, George A. Mercer made a verbal report that the Committee was not full, and had no chairman; that nothing was referred to the Committee at the last session of the Association; the only matter contemplated was a bankrupt law, and inasmuch as the order of exercises announced a paper to be read on that subject, the members of the Committee concluded it would be best to make no special report from that Committee. 19. John W. Stevenson, of Kentucky, from the Committee on International Law, stated the reasons why this Committee had no report at this meeting. 20. The Committee on Grievances made no report. 21. Francis Rawle, of Philadelphia, on behalf of the Committee on Publications, reported that the Committee had had two thousand copies of the Report of the Third Annual Meeting printed, and the greater part of them distributed among the members and principal libraries. 22. James O. Broadhead: Mr. President: I wish to offer a resolution which I thought would be offered last night; it is a subject not exactly in order in the routine of business, but one that we should delay no longer. |