Mr. DAVIS. Just let me proceed in my own way, if you piease. The distinction is that all of a man's property who seeks to become a bankrupt is thereby made subject to distribution among his creditors according to the rule established by the bankrupt law; and the bankrupt law, to be constitutional, that establishes that rule of distribution in our country must be uniform; that is, it must make a uniform distribution of the property of the bankrupt. I conclude, then, that every property right which a bankrupt has is a part of ". assets, and to make a bankrupt law constitutional under our Constitution the law must distribute equally all of his assets or all of his property rights in every State in the Union. The honorable Senfrom Nevada argues persistently and with much ability to prove that liens created by the owner of property, and imposed upon his property by him or by the law, are not subject to be distributed among his creditors. That I fully concede. Why? Because there is a special property in those liens that does not belong to the debtor, but belongs to other individuals, and therefore cannot be distributed as part of the property of the bankrupt. Can anything be plainer than that? Here is the clause in this law which is objected to, and which gentlemen contend if it is continued in the law will vitiate it, because it will be establishing an unequal bankrupt law, and in that position I concur: And such other property not included in going exceptions the fore as is exemptedfrom levy and sale upon execution by the laws of the State in bankrupt which the has his domicile at the time of the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, to amountnot exceedingthat allowedby such State exemption laws in force in the year 1 Now, Mr. President, let us take an example of the exemption laws of 2 of the States. In NewHampshire, I believe, the exemption of property that is not subject to execution by the laws of that State amounts to $500 in the aggregate; in California to $5,000. Suppose this clause was written out fully, and it was said that wherever a bankrupt is declared in the State of NewHampshire all of his property, except the worth of $500, shall be distrib uted among his creditors; but in the State of California, when a debtor becomes bankrupt, there shall be $5,000 of his property reserved and excepted from distribution among his cred itors. That is the principle that gentlemen are contending for, as I understand it. Between these States of California and NewHampshire there is every variety of amount of exemption of ofrom execution by the laws of the States. If these various exemptions in every State are incorporated, as they are in effect by this provision that I have just read in this bankrupt bill before the Senate, it simply amounts to this: that the law, instead of being uniform in relation to the distribution of the property or assets of a bankrupt, shall be and is hereby enacted to be as various, as multiform, as unequal as the laws of the dif: ferent States in relation to the exemption of property from execution. Suppose that this clause had proceeded in extenso to incorporate the exemptions of property from execution in every solitary State in the Union, and had declared that these exemptions of property from execution should be jã and taken as a part of this bankrupt law: I ask the honorable Senfrom Nevada would such a law as that be a lawmaking equal distribution of the assets of a bankrupt among his creditors? No, sir; it would be as various as the laws of the 36 States; it would be as unequal, as these different States in their respective modes would have established a different amount of property exempt from execution and from the payment of creditors. Then, sir, it seems to me to be perfectly plain that a bankrupt law (and that is the one which we are now considering) which exempts in California $5,000 worth of property to the benefit of the bankrupt, or of his family if you choose, and a bankrupt law which exempts in the State of NewHampshire but $500 worth, is unequal, and comes within the denunciation of the Constitution, which declares that the system of bankruptcy established by o Congress be uniform throughout the U.S. My honorable friendfrom Nevada conceded everything this morning in his argument, according to my judgment, when he admitted so strongly, in such few and plain words, that the equality required by the Constitution in bankrupt laws was equality of distribution of the estate among ioscreditors. A law which by general terms or by exPress provision would make a different rule of distribution of assets by reserving a different amount of estate of the bankrupt to be exempt from distribution among his creditors in all the States would be as flagrantly unequal and in violation of the Constitution as it would be possible to make anything. Gentlemen may say that the amount is not large, but you concede a principle here that comprehends everything. As was stated by the Senator who is the President of the Senate protempore, [Mr. Foster] any State may repeal all laws by which debts are to be coerced within its boundaries. The subject of exemption of property from execution belongs to each State within its jurisdiction; they may make it of any amount they please; and this concedes a principle that would enable any State to exempt from distribution as a part of the assets of a bankrupt any amount of property in character and in value that the authorities of that State should choose to provide in their laws. Now, sir, after the objection which I have stated, and which has been so much better stated before by other gentlemen who have participated in this debate, I think it is a perfectly plain proposition that the Constitution requires equality of distribution of the assets of the bankrupt; that all his property is a part of his assets, that so far as there are liens upon his property valid in law he is deprived of so much of his property and it does not belong to him, but it ". to the parties who hold these liens. But so far as there are no liens held by 3rd persons upon fair and valid considerations all his estate, the whole of his property, and the whole of his assets are subject to equal distribution among his creditors, whether he lives in California or in NewHampshire, and whether he seeks to be declared a bankrupt in the one or the other State, and that any law which provides for an unequal distri bution of those assets belonging to the bankrupt comes within the inhibition of the Constitution.