Mr. HOWARD., Mr. President, among the uncertainties which seem to hang about the phrase in the Constitution, “uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy, ” there are at least a few certainties; and the 1st is that before the Constitution was adopted each one of the States, in virtue of its sovereign power, and each one of them claimed that power, had authority to establish bankrupt laws. Each State had power to establish any system of bankrupt laws that it might see fit; and it is a historical fact, which I Presume the Senfrom Illinois will not deny, that systems of bankrupt laws did exist anterior to . Constitution, and that there was a dissimilarity between otwo of those systems existing in the States. In short, there was a want of uniformity in the bankrupt laws existing within the U.S.A. before the adoption of the Constitution; and beside that, each State exercised its authority in refo. to the collection of debts so as to exempt from final process certain portions of the debt or's property, real or personal, or both. Both these powers have been exercised since the adoption of the Constitution, for every State has from time to time had its separate system of bankruptcy and its separate system of laws for the collection of debts. Each State, as I have remarked, may exempt from final process whatever property it sees fit, and having the ordinary legislative power that pertains to a government, and being itself a fo." it is not to be Presumed that it will exercise this power wantonly or injuriously to its own citizens or to persons who are not its citizens. The whole system of bankruptcy and the system for the collection of debts have been under the complete control of the various State legislatures and are so now. Now, I wish to put a question to my learned friendfrom Illinois, the chairman of the ComJudiciary, in order to ascertain whether he and I view this clause in the same light. The committee propose to strike out of the bill the clause exempting from the operation of the surrender of the bankrupt’s effects the particular property specified in the bill: And such other property not included in going exceptions the fore as is exemptedfrom levy and sale upon executionby the laws of the State in bankrupt which the has his domicile at the time of the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy to an aemmoputine tnnot exceedingthat allowed bysuch state exlaws in force in the year o. This clause recognizes the existence and continuing force of the exemption laws of the various States as it stands. Now, if we strike out this clause, I ask the Senator whether or not all the property thus exempted by State laws will be included among the assets of the bankrupt and subject to sale according to the provisions of this bill, and pass from his possession and enjoyment into the hands of his creditors? I give it that construction. The expunging from the bill of this clause is in tended by the committee, and is understood by the committee, as a complete nullification of all the exemption laws established by the States. such will be undoubtedly the effect of striking out the clause. Now, sir, I entertain the opinion that it is not competent for Congress to interfere with the exemption laws of the States. I hold that that is one of the rights and powers pertaining to the States under the Constitution to make such exemptions, and that it belongs to the category of State powers in the same sense in which the power to collect debts, to make contracts, conveyances of land, wills, and all other commercial instruments, and instruments relating to the title of the property owned by the citizens of the State. Congress has no power over this vast field of subjects, and I hold that when the Constitution speaks of “establishing uniform laws upon the subject of bankruptcy, ” it is to be understood in the sense that the laws which Congress pass shall have a uniform operation and effect throughout the States, making no exception of one State or part of a State from the operation of the act; that the general act shall operate with uniformity throughout all the States, in order to take away and remove the difficulty which existed before the formation of the Constitution, consisting in a want of uniformity of the bankrupt laws of the various States. The clause is to be interpreted rather in a territorial than a commercial sense; it is intended to extend the same general system throughout the U.S., and to take away from the States the power of establishing each for itself a separate system of bankruptcy, which may be different from every other system known in the States. That is the light in which I read the Constitution. Now, sir, I can never consent that all the property exempted from final process in my State and the exemption in my State is fixed and established by a clause of the constitution of the State itself shall be swept into the vortexof the bankrupt's assets and sold at public auction. I do not believe Congress have power thus to interfere with the internal pol icy of a State. I do not believe any such thing was intended by the framers of the Constitution; but it was intended to leave to the States, under what we call a uniform system of bank. ruptcy, the full and complete control of all matters connected with their internal policy and domestic legislation. But, sir, I will not occupy the time of the Senate further upon this subject. I have no doubt about the constitutionality of this clause which is now sought to be stricken out, and I am free to say that rather than see such an attempt to sweep away a whole system of exemption laws existing in my own State succeed I shall vote against the bill. I do not think the people of my State or the people of any other State will quietly endure lo In OnStrous injustice which would flow from such an enactment.