ceptible tide extending up the Mississippi River as high as Bayou Sara.

Since that period the Supreme Court of the United States, notwithstanding the earnest dissent of some of its members, has, as it always happens when convenience and expediency demand a change, extended the admiralty jurisdiction over the lakes and all rivers navigable by vessels of ten tons burthen and upwards. [The Gennessee Chief v. Fitzhugh (1851), 12 How. (53 U. S.) 443; The Ad. Hine v. Trevor (1866), 4 Wall. (71 U. S.) 555; Ex parte Boyer (1883), 109 U. S. 629; Butler v. Boston & S. Steamship Co. (1888), 130 Id. 527.] The simple and speedy proceedings in the courts of admiralty make that court a great favorite with many, while others think they see the tendency in the national courts to engross jurisdiction, which may lead to greater evils in the end than the present good attained by decisions, which they think overstep the limits of the Constitution as understood by those who framed it.

The Constitution of the United States also confers upon Congress power to pass uniform rules of bankruptcy. It is a principle governing many of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, that they are inoperative until Congress has passed some law to carry the provisions of the Constitution into effect. Thus the Constitution gives the courts of the United States the right to take jurisdiction of controversies between citizens of different States, between aliens and citizens, and as it respects the grants of lands made by different States, etc. But the courts of the United States hold that they cannot take cognizance of such controversies without an act of Congress to carry the provisions of the Constitution into effect. Hence the individual States have power to pass and enforce insolvent and bankrupt laws when no act of Congress is in force on the subject. Since the formation of the Federal Government, bankrupt laws have been passed between long intervals and following commercial disasters, on three occasions, viz., April 4, 1800, repealed in 1803; and 19th of August, 1841, repealed 3d of March, 1843, and that of 1867, which expired on the 1st of September, 1878.

The insolvent laws of Louisiana, thus dormant by reason of the act of Congress, are of Roman origin. Under the law in

the period of the twelve tables, the borrower of money or debtor could deliver himself, his family and effects into the hands of his creditor, and became bound to him nexu vinctus. He was only released on payment of the debt by himself or by another for him. If he failed to pay, he was adjudged to the creditor with all his property. In other cases, after certain publications and delays, the debtor was adjudged (addictus) to the creditors, who could slay him, or sell him as a slave beyond the Tiber. If there were several creditors, the twelve tables ordained that he should be cut in pieces and fairly divided among the creditors-which probably meant a division of the price of the debtor, after he and his goods were sold. As the pater familias had the power of life and death over his children and grandchildren, of whatever age they might be, as well as over his slaves, this provision of the twelve tables coes not seem so extraordinary. After the preceding provision was abolished, there was a period of the Roman law, in which the debtor's goods were sold in mass (per universitatem), and the vendee succeeded actively and passively to the effects and debts of the insolvent, and was bound to pay the price to the creditors pro rata. Hence, as the debtor had an universal successor, he was discharged from the debt. The benefit of the cession of goods (the insolvent law), as it now exists in our law, had its origin in the time of Julius or Augustus Cæsar. Where the cession was made under the law Julia (ex lege Julia), the debtor enjoyed the right to the beneficium competentie, which is a point of difference between the bankrupt laws and our own, the cessio bonorum.

A man may commit an act of bankruptcy and be forced into court without being insolvent. Under the State law, he cannot be forced into insolvency so long as he has effects to meet executions. The bankrupt laws discharge the debtor absolutely from the debt. The cessio bonorum does not relieve the debtor absolutely from his obligations, but if he comes to a fortune subsequently to his surrender, he can be compelled to make a second surrender, but he is entitled to retain for his own use a competency-that is, the beneficium competentia just mentioned. The insolvent laws of Louisiana, in common with the bankrupt laws of the individual States, do not discharge the debtor from his obligation due the citizens of the other States, and

only barred the obligation due citizens of the same State. Where contracts are entered into during the existence of a bankrupt law, there can be no question of the right of the courts (considered as a question of morals), to discharge the debtor. The right is a condition making a part of the contract. The debtor could say to his creditor: "When I bound myself to pay you a sum of money, it was with the understanding that if, by misfortune, I should become embarrassed, that I should be discharged from the debt by surrendering to you and my other creditors all of my effects. You took my obligations, knowing that the law, which was a part of the contract, gave me this right, and you are bound by the contract." But where the bankrupt law is passed after the debt was contracted, the right to discharge the debtor is not quite so apparent, since it is a fundamental principle of our law that the States cannot impair the obligation of contracts.

The propriety of enacting bankrupt laws by the sovereign power, depends upon the weighing of the propositions whether it is better that some persons should suffer inconvenience on account of the incautious use of credit, as an example to deter others and prevent the like occurrences, and the advantage which the State will derive from the free and untrammeled industry of all its citizens, particularly where many are embarrassed, coupled with the drawback that the bankrupt laws are frequently made the means of screening the money and effects of a fraudulent debtor from the pursuit of his creditors.

The insolvent, oppressed with debt, is incapable of engaging in new business and occupation. Freed from the overwhelming burden, he engages again in useful employments with spirit and zeal, and becomes a wealth producer and a valuable citizen to the State.

In 1824 Congress passed a law adopting for the practice of the Federal courts in this State, the rules of proceeding of the State courts. At this time, as already shown, the code of pracice was not adopted. But the rules of proceeding under the practice acts were very similar to those prescribed by the Code of Practice. A large number of the bar were of the opinion that the broad terms of the Act of Congress of 1824 introduced into the Federal courts the State practice in all cases, and to the

exclusion of proceedings on the equity side of the court, according to the forms common in the other States. After a strenu ous contest it was finally settled that the courts of the United States had equity jurisdiction according to the ancient forms, and all causes proper for the consideration of the chancellor are required to be brought on the equity side of the court-that is, they must be brought according to the rules of the practice in chancery—and these rules are uniform throughout the United States, while the law side of the Federal courts is governed by the laws of the individual States to the same extent as the State courts in ordinary affairs.

There are great misapprehensions as to the meaning of the term equity, or chancery. It will surprise some to be told that proceedings in equity are governed by laws as well known and as faithfully carried out as those upon the statute book, and after all, that is nothing more than a mode of rendering justice and granting relief in a different manner, concurrently with, or in a different class of, cases from those relievable at law.

In every system of laws there must arise a state of facts with which courts of justice are required to deal, not contemplated by the law-giver, nor provided for by him, or if within the express letter of some broad provision which he has laid down, yet of such a character that, to carry the provision into effect, would shock that innate sense of justice implanted in the bosom of everyone, and such considerations would leave no doubt that the law-giver never intended the provision in question to govern the particular case. In the first example, the courts find rules of decisions from the equitable maxims which are supposed to be the foundation of all laws; in the other, the courts interpret according to the rules of equity and the general intent or scope of other laws on like subjects, and endeavor to arrive at the true spirit and meaning of the law, and exclude from the broad words of the law what was not the intention of the law-giver to embrace in them. For, as St. Paul has it

"The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

If, from some forgotten statute, or from time immemorial, the practice of the courts of law has been confined to a set of formulas, there will arise a condition of things not contem

plated in former ages, and a class of wrongs which these formulas are insufficient to redress. Precisely this condition of affairs did arise under the jure civile in the Roman law, which was remedied by the jurisdiction which the praetor assumed or amplified when he established the jus honorarium, and allowed petitions to be addressed directly to him in extraordinary cases, and in England, where the chancellor assumed jurisdiction of those cases in which there was no adequate redress at law. In the latter country (as in the former, in ancient time), proceedings on the law side of the courts were regulated according to certain strict forms, and relief could not be afforded in any other manner. In the action of assumpsit, for example, a judgment could only be rendered for damages; in debt, that the defendant recover his debt and damages; in covenant, even to convey land, the judgment is that plaintiff recover his damages, and so of the other actions. It was found in very many cases that the relief granted by the courts at law was wholly inadequate to the injury. The Chancellor of England gradually assumed jurisdiction over this class of cases, and, uncontrolled by formulas, rendered his decree according to the right of the case. If the defendant had contracted to sell to the plaintiff a tract of land, while a court of law could only in the action of assumpsit or covenant give judgment for damages, the Chancellor, meeting the very equity of the case, ordered the defendant to make title and to account for the revenues, and compelled obedience to his decrees by proceedings known to his court.

The kind of jurisdiction assumed by courts of equity may be illustrated by an example from the statute of frauds and perjuries passed in England in 1677, and adopted, in some form or other, in most of our sister States. By this act, among other things, it was provided that no action should be brought upon any contract for the sale of lands, unless the agreement, or some memorandum or note thereof, should be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith.

Now it sometimes happens that verbal contracts are made and partly performed, as for example, the intended purchaser, who paid part of the price and has been put in possession. By the strict letter of the statute, the vendee would be defeated in