Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/270

 258 FEDERAL REFOBTEB, �out of the courls of the United States. The leamed judge held that this insolvent law was neither an act abolishing impriaonment for debt, nor one allowing it under certain con- ditions and restrictions, but one which steered between the t,wo, and abolished imprisonment absolutely, but only as to a certain class of persons. �He held, further, that the case did not corne under the la-w conforming our processes to those of the state, beoause that law, at that time, was the act of 1828, which was not pro- spective, and, therefore, did not apply to the insolvent law of Massachusetts, which was first passed in 1838. �Both of the laws of the United States, upon which this decision rested, have been changed since 1,854. The act of 1867, now Eev. St. § 990, instead of saying that when the state law allows imprisonment upon certain conditions, etc., says : "Ail modifications, conditions, and restrictions upon im- prisonment for debt, provided by the laws of any state, shall be applicable to the process issuing from the courts of the United States to be executed therein." This change of lan- guage is material. The ruling of Judge Gurtis was that the clause in the act of 1839 was applicable to those laws which, permitting imprisonment, required certain formalities before the arrest, or restricted the duration of the imprisonment. 2 Gurtis, G, G. 95. If, therefore, the state had abolished imprisonment in ail possible classes of civil cases, excepting one, no mattor how infrequent that class might be, it would be neither a law abolishing imprisonment for debt, nor one allowing it under conditions and restrictions. To meet these objections Gongress passed the act of 1867. See U. S. v. Tetlorv, 2 Lowell, 159. By this act, in the clause which I have above cited, ail modifications upon imprisonment for debt are adopted. Is not the express exemption of discharged insolvents from imprisonment upon provable debts a modifi- cation upon imprisonment for debt ? I so consider it. It is certainly a modification of the general law of imprisonment for debt, and that is what the statute means. The intent of Eev. St. §§ 990, 991, is that in civil actions for debt the defend- ant ehall be subject to imprisonment, and be released there- ����