Mr. POLAND. Mr. President, I hardly know by what right the Senfrom Iowa requires my opinion upon the questions he puts, more than that of any other Senator. It is true that by the peculiar condition in which this bill was placed in the ComJudiciary who have had it in charge it fell to me to report the bill as the organ of a majority of that committee to the Senate. The subject is one that I have never very deeply studied. The bill itself is one that originated in the HoRep and passed there, and is the work in the main, understand, of a Representative from RhdIsland, a gentleman who has given very great attention to the subject, [Mr..; So far as regards the question that the senator puts, as to whether, if this bill shall become a law with this provision in it as it came from the House, it obe in the power of the State Legislatures to make future exemptions different from what are provided for in this bill, I am of the opinion if it will do the senator any good or any harm that they will not have the power; that this bill will cover the whole ground, and that it will not be in the power of the Legislatures of the several States afterward to make additional and greater provisions, so that a bankrupt could retain property against his creditors under a proceeding under this law by virtue of those future exemptions. In relation to the admission of new States and what may be done hereafter, those are matters that I have not considered at all, and the gentleman's o is just as good on that subject as mine. I am not aware that it would elucidate the question that is before the Senate if I were prepared to give the Senator iny own opinion on the subject. While I am up, Mr. President, let me say a word in reference to the pending question, When the bill was before the Senate some 2 weeks ago I gave my own view, in a few words, in relation to it, and as to whether this provision in the bill rendered it unconstitutional so that it was not a uniform system of bankruptcy within the meaning of that term in the Constitution of the U.S. The objection is, that because these State exemption laws are different in their terms, the laws of one State exempting more in favor of the debtor and his family than the laws of another State, therefore the system is not uniform. It seems to me that the bill is not open to this objection, even with this provision in the bill as it passed the House. I am aware, as has been stated by several Senators, that the provisions of the laws of the several States are different in this respect. Some of them exempt a larger number and value of articles of personal property than others. There is a very considerable difference in the amount of real estate that a debtor or his family may retain against his creditors. The NewEngland rule is $500; in NewYork it is $1,000; in the western States it is still larger; in the Pacific States it is larger still, going as high in the State of California, as the Senfrom California has told us, as $5,000. It seems to me, Mr. President, that there is very great force in the suggestion that was made by the Senfrom California in relation to this very subject: that while the Legislatures of the several States intended to provide for a poor debtor that he should retain such an amount of personal property and such a home for his family as was necessary to keep them alive, furnish them a reasonable and comfortable home, the amount and value of property that is required for that purpose is very different in different localities, in different portions of our large, extended country, and thu Legislatures of the several States in providing how much should answer that requirement had only made this equal; and when Congress say that a person who goes into bankruptcy, or who is forced into bankruptcy under the provisions of this bill, shall be entitled to this amount of real and personal property for the support of himself and family, they have referred to a rule which is made equal by the Legislatures of the several States, varying according to the different circumstances of each. But however that may be, whether the idea is a sound one or not, it seems to me clear that the rule which this bill establishes is a uniform one. Now, it is not questioned but what the Legislatures of the several States have a right to pass these exemption laws. The general current of decisions in the State courts has been that they have a right to exempt property, either real or personal, from debts that already exist. There have been individual decisions in some of the State courts that an exemption law was not valid so far as it regarded a debt that then existed; but the great majority in the current of decisions in the State courts has been that these exemptions, larger exemptions of personal or real property, were valid even as against existing debts. I am aware that there is not an ejentcirte; uniformity of decisions upon that subbut the general power of the States to pass exemption laws has never been questioned, and it is perfectly well settled and established throughout the country. Now, what does this bill propose to do? What does the section of the bill which is now in question propose? Merely this: that we pass a bankrupt law, we establish a system of nkruptcy, by which every dollar of property in every State that is subject to the man's debts may be taken and appropriated. It administers. the property of every bankrupt throughout the entire country, and takes all his property that is by the existing law subject to the payment of his debts. In that respect it is certainly a uniform system; and it seems to me that that is all that can be required of Congress in order to make the system uniform. Whether it is in our power, whether we may entirely uproot these homestead exemption laws in the different States, is not now in question; but, in my judgment, we may Preserve them and still retain such uniformity as to make our bankrupt law valid under the existing provision of the Constitution of the U.S. It is certainly very desirable to do so. No laws that have been passed by the States have met with more favor in every community than these laws in favor of o: debtors, exempting property both real and personal, and especially exempting realty that is, what has been termed the homestead laws of the different States. There are no laws in all the States to which the people are more attached, none that have been more beneficial in their operation. As I had occasion to say the other day, if those laws must be uprooted, if they must be cast aside in order to make room for a bankrupt law, of course it is idle to ask either this; or the other House of Congress to pass a bankrupt law. In the condition of things in this country and under the State legislation it has become impossible to have a general bankrupt law unless we can have one with such a provision in it as this bill contains. It is perfectly certain that without this provision a bankrupt bill cannot be passed, it cannot be passed with such a provision as this in it without being subject to the objection that is made by the chairman of the committee and by other gentlemen, then we must go without it. Considerable stress seemed to be laid by the Senfrom Illinois upon the fact that this portion of this section had been struck out by the ComJudiciary of the Senate. It perhaps may withdraw some of the force of that statement when it is known that it was by a bare majority of that committee that this was struck out.