In reference to the provisions in the bankrupt act regulating the annulment of attachments in certain cases by bankruptcy, the referee quoted subds. (C) and (F) of section 67. Subd. (C) provides in substance that an attachment in a suit begun within four months before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy by or against such person shall be dissolved by the adjudication of such person to be a bankrupt. "If it appears that such lien was obtained and permitted while the defendant was insolvent, and that its existence and enforcement will work a preference," subd. (F) provides in substance that attachments obtained against a person who is insolvent at any time within four months prior to the filing of a petition in bankruptcy against him shall be deemed null and void in case he is adjudged a bankrupt. The creditors' counsel claim that these subdivisions apply to two different classes of cases, subd. (C) applying to cases in which the suit was begun within four months before the filing of the petition. and subd. (F) to cases in which the suit was begun more than four months before the filing of the petition and the attachment obtained within the four months. Therefore, subd. (C) alone applies to his case was the contention. The referee disagrees with the opinion of the referee In re Hopkins, National Bankruptcy News, January 15, 1899, page 71 (8). Mr. Holt, the referee secured creditor, provided that he has accepted no dividend to the prejudice of other creditors. In re Clark et al., 5 N. B. R., 255; 5 Fed. Cases, 850, a creditor who, in ignorance of the law, had proved his claim without mentioning his security, was allowed to withdraw his proof. This is not in derogation of the maxim, “ignorantia juris," etc., as any creditor aggrieved could raise at once an objection. in this case, says, among other things: "Subd. (C) was the original provision in the house bill invalidating liens obtained through legal proceedings by bankruptcy; subd. (F) was the provision in the senate bill, and in the compromise between the house and senate, these provisions of both bills were incorporated into the present act (Collier on Bankruptcy, page 383). There is nothing in the language of subd. (F) which in terms makes it applicable only to suits begun more than four months before the bankruptcy, and I think that it applies to any case in which an attachment is obtained within four months before the filing of the petition * * * under this construction most cases that would be affected by subd. (C) would also be affected by subd. (F), but I think that the true construction of these subdivisions is that if a case comes within the terms of either or of both, either or both apply * * * under either subdivision, it is essential that the bankrupt should be insolvent at the time the attachment is levied." As the petition was filed on December fourteenth, less than a week after the levying of the attachment and the verified schedules of the bankrupt, and the total assets as shown by the appraisal disclosed liabilities to the extent of nearly eight times the value of the assets, no evidence being offered that there was any substantial change in the condition of the bankrupt between December eighth and fourteenth, the natural presumption formed by the referee was that at the time of the attachment and the filing of the petition, the bankrupt was insolvent. As to the contention of the creditors' counsel that subd. (C) does not apply to his case, because the defendant moved to vacate the attachment, it thereby not appearing that the lien of the attachment was permitted by the bankrupt, the referee holds, "by the language of subd. (C) it must appear that said lien was obtained and permitted while the defendant was insolvent.' I think that the word permitted refers to a case in which an attachment is on its face invalid, but the bankrupt has collusively or wilfully permitted it to remain. * In any event, the question is unimportant upon this motion, because this case is covered by subd. (F), which contains no such limitation." Motion denied. The opinion of the New York referee is to be commended on account of its simplicity. The construction by the Alabama referee, creates a distinction not recognized by previous decisions under the act of 1867, and concededly is an unnecessary difference, and one that would operate as an open door for collusion. The argument of the referee that this construction is the more apparent from the last clause of the subdivision, stating that the trustee might "perfect and enforce" such lien, "if the dissolution would militate against the best interests of the estate,” seems to rather tell strongly against his pomonths next proceeding the commencement of said of the bankruptcy proceedings, said property vesting proceedings." (C. Bracken v. Johnston, 4 Dill., 518; in the assignee. "Although the same is then attached 3 Fed. Cases, 1120; Long v. Conner, 17 N. B. R., 540; on mesne process as the property of the debtor, and 1 Fed. Cas., 823; Vogel v. Lathrop, 4 N. B. R., 439; 28 shall dissolve any such attachment made within four Fed. Cas., 1246.) (8) The referee in this case, in construing these subdivisions says, "the lens included in subdivision (C) are such liens as may be acquired in" proceedings legal or equitable, begun within the four months, that is, new, fresh legal proceedings, as distinguished from. old suits, judgments or claims. I conceive that the purpose expressed in that subdivision is, not to cut off all such liens without inquiry into the condition, intentions and knowledge of the parties, but to give to the creditor who, without knowledge of the insolvency of his debtor or by (?) any fraud, has, by legal proceedings begun within the four months, acquired some advantage over the other creditors, the reward of his diligence. Subdivision (F) was intended creditors or lienors, such, for example, as creditors holding old judgments upon which, by process issued within the four months, liens may have been secured, or pending legal proceedings which within the four months, may have ripened into some sort of a lien upon the bankrupt's estate. This class of liens are absolutely wiped out by the adjudication * * * The Bankrupt Act of 1867 contained an expression similar to that in the present act. It provided that as the assignee (trustee) is appointed and qualified, the judge, or register should assign and convey to the assignee the entire estate of the bankrupt with all deeds, books and papers, that such assignation should relate back to the commencement to reach and affect an entirely different class of as soon sition, this latter clause being added obviously to better subserve the interests of all creditors, and not for the advantage of any creditor who had procured a lien within the four months and during the insolvency of the debtor, where the conditions of legal process were within the terms of the subdivision. To discuss the recent decisions, many of which are upon minor and comparatively unimportant points would expand this paper, unnecessarily, whose object is an illustration of the general principles of bankruptcy law, as laid down in this district, with the differences contrasted upon the points involved from other jurisdictions. When the nature of the subject is considered, the circumstances that evoked the law, and the hiatus of twenty years between the repeal of the law of 1867 and the enactment of the measure of 1898, it is really a just source of surprise that the decisions should not evince wider discrep ancies. It would probably be easier to codify the decisions under the act of 1867 and 1898, in all the different jurisdictions, than to attempt the task of reconciling the various judicial utterances upon the subject of insolvency in the State of New York. If it is contemplated that the law should remain either permanently or for a number of years upon the statute book in a somewhat amended form, from time to time increasing the difficulties and obstacles to the obtainment of a discharge, the general policy of retaining such a law would doubtless be beneficial. In the matter of the fee system as administered under this law, it is probable that the Bar, almost to a unit, as well as the public, would welcome some practicable means of either modifying some of its rigors, or the total abolition of the same, with the establishment of a permanent board of referees upon a salaried basis. The law as it stands to-day, is emblematic of our modern civilized humanitarian development, and of the principle that "Justice oft must be tempered with mercy." Thus nations may prosper, remembering that for every loss there is a gain, that even utilitarianism has its charitable side, and that the stern decree of the "survival of the fittest," is tempered with the divine edict: "Let the strong bear with the weak." ALEXANDER LEE HIRSCHBERG. Mt. Vernon, N. Y., June, 1902. LEGAL SYSTEMS IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA. What a strange conglomeration of men and women one finds in an American university to-day! I would like to write something in regard to an institution which is certainly in the vanguard of educational establishments in Europe or America. I have had considerable experience of the methods employed and the results brought about by the various teaching bodies in the British islands, and it may be interesting to those who have never travelled across the herring pond to know the difference between the system which obtains there and that pursued in the United States. Take a student in Great Britain who has made up his mind to follow the profession and practice of law for a livelihood. He will first have to settle whether he intends to become an attorney, otherwise called a solicitor, or a barrister-at-law. Here comes the first point which will have to be elucidated for the benefit of those who do not understand the difference between the one and the other. An attorney is practically the same in every respect as in the United States with the exception that he can not plead before the higher courts. His sphere is the petty sessions, the quarter sessions, police courts, etc. The attorney pleads before a judge of assize only in the capacity of furnishing the materials to the barrister, who alone is competent to plead before Now a student wishing to become a solicitor will have to pass the necessary entrance examination, or show his certificate of matriculation of some recognized university. He will then have to be apprenticed to a solicitor for a term of five years, except in case of a graduate of a recognized university, when the term is three years. A payment of a pretty stiff fee is almost always required by any solicitor who has any apprentices in his offices. In addition he will have to attend lectures at the headquarters of the law society. There is no school so-called. These lectures do not cover a very long period of time. The student will have to "keep terms," that is, attendance at the lectures is absolutely necessary to qualify for admission to the profession. If a certain number out of the entire lectures delivered are not attended, the student will lose his year. He will have to pass the middle examination before he can present himself for the final. When he passes the final, and has an affidavit made by a solicitor of standing that he studied the required time in his office, he can then, on the proposition of a member of the bar, be admitted and duly invested with all the rights and privileges incidental to an ancient and honorable profession. He will then have to pay an annual license fee of £10. On default of payment his name is liable to be struck off the roll of solicitors. The procedure is different for the barrister's side of the profession. He will have to register at the "inns of court," where he will attend lectures, have the privilege of the library and keep commons. This keeping commons is a curious custom. Every student must keep commons every term; that is, he must eat a dinner a certain number of times in the dining hall of the society. Three years is the usual 66 course; two for university graduates. Then when he passes the required examination, on the proposition of a barrister of some years standing, he will be "called to the bar." Then he will have to don his wig and gown,” and can never plead a case without being attired in this old-fashioned regalia. The "inner bar" again is distinct from the outer bar." The leading successful juniors after years of hard work, succeed in being called to the inner bar. They "take silk," as the phrase goes. This expression came to be used from the fact that members from the inner bar, Queen's counsel as they are called, wear gowns made of silk, as distinguished from the stuff gowns of the juniors. Thus the practice of the law is surrounded by wonderful pomp and circumstance. The judge is clothed in robes of magnificence, which are, to say the least, calculated to recall some scenes of the "Arabian Nights." Americans are too practical a people to believe in any of this pomp and show. The burly court attendants are considered pompous enough, and the majesty of the law is upheld by a few well-fed policemen, while the clerk of the court plays a very important part, only second to that of the judge himself. I confess I was disappointed on my first visit to a court of law in America. I had in my mind's eye a picture of regal state such as I had always seen in Europe. The glamor which was the effect of all this show had vanished. It seemed as if you took away all the artist's best work from a splendid painting and left nothing but the lay figures as drawn out in the rough draft, and which seemed strongly cold and unfamiliar. This, of course, was one of my first impressions, which I suppose are almost always modified by the maturer experience of after years. profited by the lectures or not. A fearful agitation followed. The students demonstrated on the public streets, and subsequently they won the day. The keeping of note books is not compulsory. In fact, as compared with American system, the whole modus operandi gave the student more opportunity to do as he pleased in this respect. Looking at the facts of the case as I find them, I must assert that the American system is far and away ahead of the old world methods. The American student is a much more diligent man than the average student of the old world. It seems to be characteristic of the American people generally. They are indefatigable, resolute and energetic. A boy does not come to college because the father thinks and, mayhap, says: "Oh, it will do him. good to run through the 'varsity. I'd like to see my boy pull in the boat as I did when I went to college." They come to work, and they do work with a consistent effort which would amaze the students of the old world. I have worked steadily for hours looking up cases in the library, and, worn out and tired, I might remark to a student sitting near me as to the amount of work I covered in a certain time, only to discover to my dismay that he has done twice as much. The American may or may not be blessed with brains, but one and all seem to have inbred in them a wonderful capacity for quelling hard work. By the way, to anyone who is tired of reading the sensational papers, or the so-called humor of the comic papers, or of reading what Corbett says about Fitzsimmons, and what the doughty champion says of his fallen foe, as they sling choice epithets at each other, I would commend the study of cases. It may not send the same thrill through his nerves as he may experience as he surveys the works of art (?) which adorn the pictorial pages of the Sunday papers. It may not be the same reading exactly as the reported speeches of the heroes of the caucuses, where current slang and the queen's English struggle for mastery, and the result is a victory for slang. But if he loves work for the sake of work, and is not afraid to become afflicted with paresis, and "writers' cramp," let him take up the study of law and work to keep ahead of his class. He will find that this is a species of amusement which will prove exhilarating in the extreme. I have dwelt on these points, as I said, to show the difference between the American and European systems. I must say, without fear of contradiction, that the system which prevails in this country is far ahead of anything in Europe. I suppose the system of one school may be taken as a type of the most advanced methods on the American continent. All the red tapeism is eliminated. The whole work of the school is mapped out and arranged in a manner that gives the maximum of instruction to the student. The "recitations" were to me a novel feature. As a general rule, they are not included in the work of any teaching body connected with a university in Europe. In fact, I have seen tremendous agitation which arose from the fact that a professor in one of the queen's colleges wished to make it a custom to ask questions on previous lectures. Students who did not show proficiency of some sort in the previous work which he had lectured on found that the practical professor would I began by saying, what a strange conglomeration not be inclined to give them credit for attendance at of men and women one finds in an American univerlectures from which they derived no benefit. The sity to-day. I say women advisedly, for the time students regarded this as an infringement on their is coming when poor, frail, broken-hearted, overrights. They did not pay their money to be cate- worked, under-paid man will have to make way for chised. It was their own affair whether they the so-called "weaker vessel," who can do his work a Before three weeks are over he will probably long to get back to his mother's apron strings, where perchance he can revel in the enjoyment of rustic repose and all the joys that accompany life in these peaceful homes of America, where criminal law will cease to trouble, and litigants of every kind are at rest. as well as him, and who is fast usurping his domain and telling him, go to Klondike or Chelsea, or anywhere except where woman's noble talents are to have undisturbed sway. When woman takes her place in all the learned professions, and can, in attention to business, beat the average man in nine cases out of ten, where are the unfortunate men going to find their sphere of influence? "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." Aye! it will rock the world later on, and the old world will wonder what has happened when woman will rule over its broad acres, and sublunary exist ence will be a "thing of beauty and a joy forever." "When pain and anguish rack the brow A ministering angel thou!" What would the poet have said if he saw her thunder in the forum, if he saw her orating in the public places as a “socialist” and in many spheres where he never dreamed to see her. His day dreams would have vanished into thin air if he saw her with abbreviated skirts astride a wheel careering along the highway. The women of his day never raised their skirts above their ankles. It would surprise him indeed. But, good Sir Walter, we have women too who think of other things besides the wheel. Our women are far ahead of the silly, simpering, fair "ladye" of your day. "Tempora mutantur et mutamur nos in illis." Of the Suffolk (Mass.) Bar. JOHN J. O'CONNOR. own. He is on good terms with his "uncle." His great ambition is to shine as a ladies' man. What can we do for this parasite of city life? The thief and common malefactors we can guard against, but who can protect society from the worthless individual who hangs on to the skirts of respectability? You all know the young man about town whom I have just described. He is a living ulcer to society. He is never detected in crime, but, in my opinion, is always ready to act as a “go-between ". in anything disreputable or shady. The present and future generations of America will rise up and call him blessed who can show a practical way to reform this worthless creature. "A trial justice who attends a term or part of THE AMERICAN DUDE; HIS PLACE (?) IN the supreme court, except in the counties of New SOCIOLOGY. This type of individual is distinctly a creation of the nineteenth century. His exact place in society has never yet been determined by sociologists. Can you describe him? I will attempt it. He wears on the top of his head a hat just as flat as his cash. His soiled finger-tips stamp him as an incessant cigarette smoker. The women folks of the community are pestered by his undesirable and unsolicited attentions. He wears a large collar, sports a cane and cigarette. Of cheek and impudence he has an unlimited store. He plays billiards, sports jewelry, wears bouquets and owes the landlady. A moustache (nine hairs to a side) generally adorns his thin lips. He is always ready to drink on another man's dollar, and the free lunch he never spares. His ignorance is always displayed, as is likewise his eyeglass and English airs. When his tailor thinks of him he can sing with perfect propriety "The Heart Bowed Down With Weight of Woe." His face and pale complexion denote his knowledge of folly, vice and sin. His legs are long and slender, and a large necktie does yeoman duty in hiding his soiled linen. His shoes are sharp at the toe, and in winter a pair of seedy gaiters cover his slender feet. His poor old father he will not York and Kings, outside the county in which he resides, is entitled to the actual necessary traveling and other expenses incurred by him in the performance of such duties, not exceeding one thousand dollars, to be paid by the treasurer upon the audit and warrant of the comptroller." Laws of 1901, chapter 468, section 1, reads as follows: "Every justice of the supreme court, who has been, or shall hereafter be, designated as a presiding or associate justice of any of the appellate divisions of the supreme court of this state, except in the first and second departments, and who resides in a county other than that in which the court to which he is assigned is held, shall be paid annually the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars in full for all his actual and necessary expenses and disbursements paid or incurred by him while absent from the county in which he resides, in the performance of his duties as such justice, including his expenses in going to and returning from the place where such court is held” (amended by Laws 1901, chap. 468, in effect January 1, 1901). The question is whether these acts are within the inhibitions of the Constitution, article 6, section 12. Do they increase the compensation established by law? The Constitution of 1846, article 6, section 7, in which he resides, in the performance of his read as follows: "The judges of the court of appeals and justices of the supreme court shall severally receive, at stated times, for their services, a compensation, to be established by law, which shall not be increased or diminished during their continuance in office." The Constitution of 1869 (amending the above), article 6, section 14, was as follows: "The judges and justices hereinbefore mentioned shall receive for their services, a compensation to be established by law, which shall not be diminished during their official terms." duties as such justice, including his expenses in going to and returning from the place where such court is held, not to exceed the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars in any year." Sec. 2. "Any justice who is entitled to reimbursement for his expenses and disbursements under the provisions of this act, shall make a statement of the expenses and disbursements so paid and incurred by him and duly verify the same, which shall be presented to the comptroller for audit, and the amount audited by him shall be paid by the treasurer out of any moneys in his hands not other The Constitution of 1881, article 6, section 14, is a wise appropriated." verbatim of 1869. Sec. 3. "The disbursements authorized under this We are now in possession of the continuity of act shall be paid from the first day of January, the fundamental law. eighteen hundred and ninety-six." Whatever doubt (if any) exists as to the act of 1900, there can be no doubt about the act of 1901. Where is the evidence that the expenses of a justice of the Appellate Division amounts to $2,500? Is there a presumption that his expenses amount to $2,500? If so, is it a presumption of fact or of law? His expenses may amount to $1,000, $5,000, or even $10,000— non constat. In order to understand more fully these acts, we must read prior laws. Sections 2 and 3 repealed by Laws 1901, chapter 468. It will be noticed that by this act the justices are repaid their actual and necessary expenses, but not to exceed the sum of $2,500 in any year. Does this act, chapter 468 of the Laws of 1901, violate article 6, section 12, of the Constitution? We say it does. This payment increases the compensation of the justice receiving it. The $1,200 allowed by the Laws of 1872, chapter 541, section 1, is the same, in principle, as the Chapter 408 of the Laws of 1870, section 9, reads $2,500 given by the act of 1901, chapter 390, secas follows: "The justices of the supreme court shall receive an annual compensation of $6,000 each, payable quarterly, in lieu of all other compensation, except they shall receive, in addition to such stated salaries, a per diem allowance of five dollars per day, for their reasonable expenses, when absent from their homes, and engaged in holding any general or special term, circuit court or court of oyer and terminer, or attending any convention, as hereinafter provided, to revise the rules of said court." The legislature of 1872, chapter 541, section 1, in part, abrogated these provisions, and enacted as follows: "The said justices of the supreme court, except in the first judicial district, shall each receive the sum of twelve hundred dollars, annually, from the first day of January, eighteen hundred and seventytwo, in lieu of, and in full of all expenses now allowed by law. This subdivision shall not increase the pay of any judge, except the justices of the supreme court." Laws of 1896, chapter 390, read as follows: Section 1. "Every justice of the supreme court, who has been, or shall hereafter be, designated as the presiding or associate justice of any of the appellate divisions of the supreme court of this state, except in the first department, and who resides in a county other than that which the court to which he is assigned is held, shall be repaid the actual and necessary expenses and disbursements that he shall pay or incur while absent from the county tion I. People ex rel Bockes (115 N. Y. 302), the court had under consideration the question whether the $1,200 allowed to justices of the Supreme Court by the Laws of 1872, chapter 541, section I, was a compensation. Gray, J., says: "The word compensation means, and, I think, obviously means, the sum of money which the judicial officer had been in the receipt of from the State, when his term of office was abridged." In the law of 1870, which gave a per diem allowance for reasonable expenses, etc., that payment even was regarded as in the nature of compensation to the justice, for the language used was that the $6,000 a year was "in lieu of all other compensation," except that they shall receive, in addition to such stated salary, a per diem allowance," etc. The effect of the use of the word "except," in connection with the grant of compensation, is to invest the grant of a per diem allowance, with the legislative idea of further compensation. Then the act of 1872 abrogates the provision for a per diem allowance, and grants to the justices the sum of $1,200 annually in lieu" of expenses. This language is substantial in its effect. It substitutes an annual grant of money to the incumbent, in the place of the allowance for expenses. This, I think, was a clear grant of pay or compensation, having no connection with the expenses incurred by a justice. As granted by this act, it |