Mr. DAVIS. That is not the meaning of the Constitution. The meaning and the plain words of the Constitution are, that every property right, every dollar of assets that the bankrupt owns must be distributed, and must be distributed equally, because the requisition of the Constitution is exPressly that the bankrupt law shall be uniform; that is, the system of bankruptcy established by the act of Congress shall be equal. The honorable Senfrom Nevada conceded the whole argument this morning when he said that the equality contemplated was the equal distribution of the assets of the bankrupt. I concede that that is the principal element of equality which is contemplated by the Constitution. ow, sir, what is that principle? if I can et the attention of the honorable Senfrom Nevada I think I will make a discrimination which will prove the fallacy of his position. His position is that because the bankrupt act of 1841, recognized the validity of certain liens, and the Supreme Court in its decision sustained the validity of that provision of the bankrupt law of 1841 which recognized the validity of those liens, therefore the provision which is moved to be stricken out of this bill does not establish an inequality in the distribution of the assets of the bankrupt. Why, sir, a man has an estate in every subject of property that he owns. If the law creates a lien upon that general property, this lien is a particular property, not belonging to the bankrupt or the owner of the property generally, but belonging to other persons, who are entitled to the lien. Can anything be plainer than that? A man wishes to become a bankrupt under this law if it passes; he owns in the State of Wisconsin, if you please, a landed property of 1000acres of land. He has not paid, though, half of the purchase money to his vender for this land, and that vender has a lien by the laws of Wisconsin upon that ini for the payment of the residue of the purchase money. The act of 1841 simply recognized the validity of such liens, and the Supreme Court decided that the clause recognizing the validity of such laws was not unconstitutional.