N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 465

Thursday, July 24, 1947 (Morning session)

would appoint, in turn, a number of other business men in various lines of business - that's important - in various lines of business, to act as receivers in receivership, or referees in bankruptcy. The three arbiters would also be similar to a court of appeals on the part of the unfortunates who are caught in a receivership or bankruptcy who would not be satisfied in the way a receivership was being conducted. Their decision as to whether it is or is not being properly conducted may or may not be final, but at least it gives a person a chance to be heard, and today there is no chance.

You've just told me that it's none of your business, or words to that effect. In other words, the "I am above the law" attitude in every case that I have seen so far. The business men, successful business men who would be appointed by these three arbiters would be, as I say, successful in various lines of business. Let us assume that a clothing store was put in the hands of the receiver. The arbiters would choose a business man to act as a receiver, or as a referee, a man who has had a successful record in the clothing business. I have people conducting a receivership who wouldn't even know how to begin to operate my business, and they are making the grandest mess of it that anyone could ever do. I challenge anyone to do any worse, and these people expect to be paid. Where are they going to be paid from? At the expense of my creditors, people who have had faith in me in the past and who would have faith in me in the future. I can't take that and I won't take it.

Now, these men, as I say, would act as receivers or referees in bankruptcy and would, of course, be under the jurisdiction of the three arbiters. They, in turn, would be under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. I believe that under that system, with the fact that a person in difficulty has a right to appeal and that the people conducting receiverships would know the business that they are conducting, your cost of receivership would probably be no more than 25 per cent of the present cost and any monies paid to these people would be honest dollars - and I say that advisedly, honest dollars.

The question of my receivership cost has been brought up and it isn't finished, and it won't be finished until the cost is equitable, and I am going to have a voice in deciding that definitely. I made a mistake in saying that it shouldn't cost over $500, before Mr. Crummy and several other lawyers. Apparently I should have instructions in decimal points. I believe I should have said $5,000. John Matthews later suggested $1,500, but that didn't set well with those present. But I would not and I would never assume an X cost basis of a receivership, and that is what was apparently what was wanted, an X cost basis, whether it's five thousand or ten thousand dollars. I don't know, but I know I'll fight every penny beyond five hundred. So that is why I would like to propose that at least the

Previous Page in Book ********* Table of Contents *********** Next Page in Book