Mr. CONNESS. I will not, in the Presence of distinguished legal gentlemen in the Senate, undertake to enter into a discussion of the constitutional principle involved in this question, which has already been discussed by Senators; but I rePresent in part a State which has a great interest in the pending provision. We have in California an exemption law, as it is termed; that provides for an exemption of $5,000, or a homestead of that value to the debtor, if a man of family, and I should dislike very much to see Congress pass any act interfering with the right of the people of that State to make such a provision for the homesteads of families the heads of which have been unfortunate in business. Without undertaking to exPress an opinion on the subject, I incline to the belief that the honorable chairman of the ComJudiciary of this body is not correct in the point he has raised as to the non-uniformity of the bill without this amendment. I think the question of uniformity does not go to the matter of the amount exempted; but, on the contrary, the State exemption is rather in the nature of a police regulation in this, that what is exempt in one State may not in any manner constitute a sufficiency in another State. For instance, the homestead exemption law of the State of Vermont, as has been stated, sets apart in such a case $500 worth of property, while in California the amount is $5,000 in value. The California law was passed during the early history ôf that State, when $5,000 worth of property would go no further in providing a homestead for a family than $500 would in the State of Vermont; and, although things have equalized in that State to a greater extent now than at the date of the passage of that act, yet the people of that State have become used to the amount of this exemption, and there is no disposition that I know of at the Present time in that State to interfere with it or to lessen the amount. It is rather viewed as a wise enact ment, because the lawmaking the exemption $5,000 is a notice to all mankind, to every person who deals with a citizen of California, that that amount is exempt by law, and nobody is cheated by it, nobody is injured, while an amount sufficient for a homestead for the protection of the family is retained to the unfor tunate debtor. Now, sir, who so wise, who so competent, to determine how much shall constitute a sufficient exemption as the local Legislature of each State? shall we assume that Congress can provide here a uniform amount, no matter what that amount may be, and determine that it will be sufficient in the State of Vermont and equally so in the State of California? Certainly no person will contend that that could be done, or that Congress could act wisely in such a matter. So that the proposition goes to the question whether or not shall be an extension in favor of the family. It appears clear to my mind, as I before observed, that the exemption is more in the nature of a police regulation, a local right that can be more wisely and more directly exercised by the Legislature of each State than it possibly can be by Congress. I therefore incline to the belief that the question of the uniformity of the law is not involved in the provision that shall be made for the debtor's family. I am very free to say that as the bill came from the House, without the amendment proposed, I shall vote for it; but if the amendment be adopted I cannot consent to vote for it, nor to repeal the provision which the people of California have, as I think wisely, made and which they feel disposed to Preserve. The point made by the honorable Senfrom Indiana, that the bankrupt may proceed in bankruptcy under the State bankrupt laws, and thereby not avail himself of the provisions of this law, but avail himself of any provision made by the State laws in the way of exemption to the family, loses its force entirely when it is known that this is a compulsory bankrupt law. It is both voluntary and compulsory. Under this bill, as I understand it, if it shall become a law, the creditors may compel the debtor into bankruptcy, and as a matter of course the question arises at once as to the power of the congressional or the State law, so that when Pogon in bankruptcy were taken by virtue of State laws the debtor would be entitled to one class of treatment in the disposition of his affairs, while if proceedings were taken under this act, if it shall become a law, he would be entitled to altogether another disposition. I am not now advised whether this bill goes to the extent of repealing all State laws on the subject of bankruptcy. I Presume not; but that if it passes it will become the universal law of bankruptcy, or the one most availed of, I think there need be scarcely a doubt. For the reasons Presented I shall vote against the amendment reported by the committee, and if it shall obtain, I shall feel compelled to vote against the passage of the bill.