Mr. HENDERSON. I doubt whether it will help their creditors. I am sure that the constituency I rePresent are as much interested in this matter as perhaps any people, because the eredits in my State against the people of the South are very large. They were very large when the rebellion broke out, and they have not been paid since. I do not think that my constituency, standing in the light of creditors, will be benefited by the passage of this law. I cannot see that it will benefit the people of the South or benefit the people of the North to whom they are indebted. Where a man is disposed to do right, where he is disposed to be honest, as I have said before, a majority of his creditors can be obtained almost at any time to release him upon the payment of a fair% age of his indebt edness. I would not, therefore, interfere with existing contracts any further than, I could help. Then I require that at least 30%. of the existing indebtedness be paid. The 4th provision is that no debt or contract accruing hereafter shall be discharged in the case of a voluntary certificate unless the assets shall pay 50% of the amount proved. This subject, was examined many ears ago, under a resolution of the NewYork legislature, by the chancelor and the judges of the supreemecourt of the State of NewYork. After having examined very thoroughly into the operation of the insolvent, and bankrupt laws of the State of NewYork, they made a report, from which I beg leave to read an extract: “Judging from their former experience, and from observation in the course of their judicial duties, they were of opinion that the insolvent law was the source of a great deal of fraud and perjoi They were apprehensive that the evil was incurable and arose principally from the infirmity inherent in every such system. A permanent insolvent act, made exPressly for the relief of the debtor, and held up daily to his view and temptation, had a powerful tendency to render him heedless in the creation of debt and careless as to payment. It induced him to place his hopes of relief rather in contrivances for his discharge than in increased and severe exertion to perform hisduty. It held out an easy and tempting mode of procurin an absolute release to the debtor from his debts; an the system had been, and still was, and probably ever must be, from the very nature of it, productive of incalculable abuse, fraud, and perjury, and greatly injurious to the public morals.” If we hold out an inducement by a general law to every man who may be involved to the extent of $300 to proceed and get a bankrupt's discharge by giving that $300 to the officers of the court, will it not Present the temptation here spoken of” If a man in business knows that without paying any part of his indebtedness he may if he becomes insolvent procure a discharge and forever stand exempt from the obligation of his debts, is it not a very great inducement to the commission of fraud & If not, it most certainly is to the indulgence of fo.heedlessness and recklessness in business. would therefore put some limitation on voluntary bankruptcy in this respect that I would not apply to involuntary bankruptcy. I prose that where a party applies to procure for imself the benefits of the act he shall pay some part of his indebtedness. If this distress is so very great as is supposed by the Senfrom Maryland and the Senfrom Vermont in regard to existing debts, I still apprehend that 30%. of them can be paid, and if not that a majority in interest of the creditors will at least agree to the discharge of the party. That is my experience. fothat where good faith is shown by a debtor generally his creditors are perfectly willing to give him his discharge upon the payment of a very small% age of his indebtedness. But in regard to subsequent indebtedness I would not hold out this induce ment, that any man who is reckless and care less in business may procure a discharge without paying at least 1/2 of his indebtedness, unless by the consent of the creditors. I would still let the creditors give him his discharge by consent. There is another instruction which I have embodied, that all future acquisitions of the bankrupt, obtained by descent, devise, be quest, or in the course of distribution shall be subject to the payment of his former debts. I am perfectly willing to relieve all future acqui.sitions by labor, but I am wholly unwilling, so far as I am individually concerned, to allow a party to hold a bankrupt's certificate and to receive large inheritances and to enjoy those inheritances free from the payment of his debts. It seems to me that it is unjust, and that it produced a good deal of the bill feeling against the acts previously passed, and it will have the same effect again. Finally, I provide that no debt shall be discharged unless it be specified in the original or supplementary schedules of the debtor or Presented for proof by the creditor. In reference to involuntary bankruptcy, I say 1st, that the petitioning creditor, seeking to obtain a judgment of bankruptcy, must represent and establish against the alleged bankrupt an indebtedness of not less than $1,500. 250 dollars indebtedness is all that is required by the bill now in order to E. the party to bankruptcy. The reasons I have given in reference to applying a law of that character to merchants, traders, and those having credits in other States than the States of their residences will apply very strongly in support of this provision. provided also that in cases of involuntary bankruptcy a specific amount of property, not exceeding $1,000, shall be grempted in favor of the head of a family, affi not exceeding $500 in other cases. The Senate, it is true, has exPressed its opinion on this point, and that is to leave the exemption laws of the respective States to apply, and the Senfrom Maryland thinks that provision constitutional. I cannot bring my mind to that opinion. However, I do not desire to enter into any remarks upon it now. I feel very clear that if the law be passed with that provision not much good will result from it, because the States, in order to retain for themselves the entire magistracy over this subject, will pass such exemption laws as will render perfectly futile the operation of this measure, and it will do no good. There ought, therefore, to be some specific amount specified. I put the amount at $1,000, which is larger than in cases of voluntary bankruptcy. Where a party comes in voluntarily and seeks a discharge he ought to surren der nearly all his property. Where his cred itors push him to bankruptcy there is some reason why he should have a larger exemption. If $1,000 dollars be not sufficient let him have $2,000, and if that be not sufficient let him have $3,000. I am not particular about the amount, but I think the amount ought to be specific and made applicable in each and every State of the Union, because very great injustice will be worked by suffering the different States to avoid the payment of their creditors outside, for it will. remembered that so far as their own citizens are concerned they can regulate this matter for themselves, and it is only in reference to outside creditors that it becomes necessary to have a bankrupt law at all. The remaining proposition of this branch of the instructions is the same as the last one of the other, namely: that after the discharge all acquisitions that come from relatives by descent, devise, bequest, or in the course of distribution, shall be subject to the payment of the debts. That is the old Maryland law of insolvency, and a very good provision it is.