community think, nevertheless, it operates very well. If they can pay it back, they can all stand alike, and, on the whole, it would be better to pay back and have a redistribution. I should hardly think it possible that would commend itself to the great majority of business interests, and I have no doubt unless this feature is removed, and greater restrictions are placed upon the discharge, that there will be such opposition to its continuance that the Bankruptcy Law will not last long. The discharges which have been refused in the southern district of New York have not been, in number, a great many. I am quite sure it has not been above fifty. That, of course, is a very small number of refusals out of at least three thousand. I don't think that fifty by any means represents the number in which morally the discharge ought not to have been granted, or from a moral business point of view. Many cases have been before me in which I was satisfied that the man did not deserve a discharge, but it was impossible to deny it under the language of the present section. That, I think, will be entirely changed by the amendments which have been prepared and will be proposed.

A. Coleman Smith, of New York:

Mr. President, after listening to Judge Brown's remarks on the Bankruptcy Law, for which I am sure we are all very grateful, I think that Mr. Cantwell's letter ought to be referred to the Committee on Law Reform. I think it would be a matter of discourtesy to him not to do so. I, therefore, ask leave to make a motion that Mr. Cantwell's letter be referred to the Committee on Law Reform.

W. Martin Jones, of Rochester:

That motion has been made, that it be referred to the

Committee on Law Reform, and a motion was then made. to lay the letter on the table.

Mr. Smith:

I move this as a substitute of the motion of the gentleman that it be postponed for one year.

Mr. Jones:

I understood that motion was withdrawn and we go back to the original motion made, that the matter be referred to the Committee on Law Reform.

The motion that the whole matter, including Mr. Cantwell's letter, be referred to the Committee on Law Reform, was then duly carried.

Thomas F. Wilkinson, of Albany:

I would like to ask through the Chair, if Judge Brown deems it wise, at this time, for the State Bar Association to make any declaration or expression of opinion, as to these amendments to the Bankruptcy Law to which he has called our attention? If advisable for any action to be taken looking to the amendment of the law in the particular suggested, the question occurs to me whether there should be any expression in that regard by the Bar Association for the purpose of effecting some result.

'The President:

I don't see how the Bar Association, as a body, could take any action to-day in the matter without some report from a committee which should place in definite form precisely what amendments should be recommended.

Mr. Wilkinson:

The motion which was referred to the committee does not indicate what action it is desired to take.

R. J. Moses, of New York:

If we had the amendments of the referees, we would then know just what they were. I ask Mr. Hotchkiss to state specifically what amendments the committee of the referees have agreed upon.

William H. Hotchkiss, of Buffalo:

The Ray Bill, so-called, which has now been reintroduced in the present session of Congress, was drawn about two years ago, and has not been substantially changed since then. That bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee of the House. It has not yet been introduced in the Senate. My understanding is that the bill, with modifications suggested by the Judiciary Committee, is surely to be reported out of the House.

As to the changes which will be accomplished by the bill they may be summarized as follows:

I. The first is not very important in this part of the country. It exempts exempt property from the total of the assets of the bankrupt in arriving at what is a fair valuation of such assets.

2. This second change is one looking to greater efficiency in the practical administration of the act. It has been held that a trustee who conducts a going business for a long period of time cannot be allowed extra compensation, but only commissions on dividends. The amendment makes it possible to allow the additional . compensation such service merits.

3. The third change is very important. The making of a general assignment by an individual, copartnership or corporation is now an act of bankruptcy, per se. The amendment will provide that the appointment of a receiver, either of a copartnership or of a corporation,

will, provided such a copartnership or corporation be insolvent, be an act of bankruptcy. The effect of this will be to draw to the federal courts a very large number of insolvency cases which are now administered in the State courts, with all that that means in the way of large expenses and administration by the officers or friends of the insolvent.

4. This fourth is another sweeping change. In substance, it permits all those corporations which can be adjudged involuntary bankrupts to file voluntary petitions, after, however, obtaining the consent of a majority in number of their stockholders or of stockholders present at a meeting called for that purpose. This is a substantial return to the policy of the law of 1867. Corporations are now vastly more important than they were then. So long as their stockholders are protected, there is no reason why they should not be permitted to petition voluntarily.

The same section of the bill also adds mining corporations to the other business corporations amenable to bankruptcy. This has been made necessary by decisions in many of the Western States holding that such corporations were not strictly either manufacturing, trading or mercantile corporations.

It is also provided in this section that the bankruptcy of a corporation shall not relieve such officers, directors or stockholders from any liability under the laws of the State or Territory or the United States.

5. One of the great criticisms of the law has been that it has been practically impossible to prevent discharges. We have heard something of that criticism here to-day. The bill, therefore, so modifies one of the present objections by striking out words of limitation as to make it available, and then adds four new objections, as follows:

(1.) Obtained property on credit upon a materially false statement in writing made by him to any person for the purpose of obtaining credit, or of being communicated to the trade or to the person from whom he obtained such property on credit; or (2.) Made a fraudulent transfer of any portion of his property to any person; or

(3.) Been granted a discharge in bankruptcy within six years; or

(4.) In the course of his proceedings refused to obey any lawful order of or to answer any question approved by the court.

It is hardly necessary that I give any reasons for these changes. They will appeal to every lawyer who is familiar with this subject. The first and second of the added objections are rephrasings of similar objections found in the law of 1867. The third is aimed at the chronic bankrupt. Under the law, as now, there have been instances of the same man petitioning twice within a year, and there is a case on record of a man who went through bankruptcy three times in less than three years. This practice will be stopped by the third of these new objections. The fourth is intended to meet the objection often raised by bankrupts' attorneys, that the answer to questions put the bankrupt on his examination tend to incriminate him. Under the decision of the Supreme Court, in Counselman v. Hitchcock, there would seem to be but one way to meet this difficulty, inasmuch as the law, as now, seems to permit a bankrupt to close his lips and leave the creditors in ignorance as to the whereabouts of his property. A discharge is a boon, not strictly a right, and it is thought that denying a discharge to him who refuses to testify will have a tendency to