Mr. POLAND. This amendment, although Foby the committee, was not reported y the unanimous vote of the committee, but by a majority, and although the bill was reported from the committee by myself, I did not, in committee, concur in this amendment. I do not myself think that the amendment should be adopted. I am very certain that if it is adopted it will very seriously jeop ardize the passage; but if it is required that it should be adopted in order to make the system that this bill establishes a uniform system of bankruptcy within the meaning of the Constitution of the U.S., then of course we must adopt it, whatever effect it may have upon the fate of the bill. We all understand that the provisions under the laws of the different States in relation to exemptions from attachment and execution, both of real and personal estate homestead laws as they are termed as applied to real estate vary in the different States. Nearly all, and I do not know but quite all, the NewEngland States have now an existing homestead law. The NewEngland rule in reference to homesteads is $500 a homestead not exceeding in value $500; in the State of NewYork it is $1,000. In some of the western States they exempt a certain number of acres of land. In the Pacific States I believe they go by value, but have a still higher one than we have in NewEngland or even in NewYork. The general wisdom of these homestead laws as passed by the different States is not questioned by anybody; but it is said that when we. come to administer upon the estates of insol vent and bankrupt debtors, to make a national system as applied to that subject, we are not at liberty to leave any of these State laws in force in relation to these exemptions; that we must cut them all up, or else, if we leave any exemption at all, we must make one of our own and one that shall be uniform in the several States. It does not appear to me to be necessary to do any such thing; I think we may well enough leave in force all the laws of the various States protecting such necessary portion of the insolvent's property as is necessary for the use of his family, as has been declared by the several States; that we do not thereby make an inequality, preventing the system of bankruptcy that we thereby establish from being “uniform, ” in the sense of the Constitution and the laws. If we leave this section to stand as it was passed by the House, and leave these State exemptions to remain and be operative still, notwithstanding the passage of this bankrupt law, we do just this: we lay hold upon half the property of insolvents and bankrupts in all the States that by the existing laws is liable to the payment of their debts; and that is a uniform rule, a uniform law throughout the entire Government, throughout every State; and because in consequence of the difference in the State laws there may be some inequality, it is nothing more than what happens in a great variety of instances under this and under the preceding laws. Quite a notable example of this arose under the law that was passed in 1841. In all the NewEngland States, I believe, we have a proceeding for attaching property upon mesne process. When a man commences a suit he prays out a writ and he goes and seizes property enough to secure the payment of his debt if he recovers judgment finally what we call an attachment lien. It hardly exists anywhere out of NewEngland, I believe, in the U.S. such a lien could not exist under the law of any other State. Under the bankrupt law that was passed in 1841 existing liens upon property were to stand against any title acquired y the assignee under that law. A very great controversy arose in the State of NewHampshire whether an attachment lien, where a cred itor had brought suit and attached property prior to the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, whether that was a lien within the meaning of the bankrupt law; and a very notable controversy notable as among law yers sprang up between Judge Parker, the chief justice of NewHampshire, and Judge Story, the circuit judge of that district; Judge Story insisting that this lien was not available, and Judge Parker insisting that it was. The controversy resulted in Judge Parker's view being sustained. Now, if no statute lien by the laws of the State could be upheld unless a similar statute lien could be upheld throughout the entire country, then that must have gone by, because it was only in NewEngland that that kind of statute law existed. As I said to begin with, Mr. President, the adoption of this amendment will undoubtedly seriously jeopardize the fate of this bill; and I state this as a reason for asking every Senator to examine it with great care, and to be quite certain that the retention of this clause will render the bankrupt system which we are about to inaugurate so uniform as to be una vailing in consequence of allowing these homestead exemptions to remain untouched by our bankrupt law before they adopt the amendment reported by the committee.