Mr. LANE. I have hitherto contented myself with giving a silent vote upon the various amendments to this bankrupt bill and upon the passage of the bill itself, and now shall only detain the Senate for a very few moments to Present my objections to its passage. P read in the Constitution of the U.S. that Congress shall have power to enact a uniform system of bankruptcy. In looking to the grant of power in the Constitution of the U.S. we must look to the contempora neous and antecedent history of legislation on the subject of bankruptcy, and particularly to the bankrupt laws of England, from which we have derived our notions, not only upon that, but upon almost every other subject of commercial legislation. The grant of power is to pass a uniform system of bankruptcy; 1st, it was to be uniform; 2ndly, a system of bankruptcy. Why the introduction of the word “uniform?” Simply because under the Articles of Confed eration each State of the Confederation claimed and possessed the right to legislate upon this subject, and they imade insolvent or bankrupt laws different in their character. Hence, the necessity of requiring that the system should be uniform. But it was to be a system of bankruptcy then known and ascertained by judicial proceedings, and by the history of bankrupt legislation in England. What was that system? A prospective system from the beginning, and an involuntary system, without any right of the debtor by his own motion to release himself from debt. Then, to make this law constitutional you must have in view the English system of bankruptcy, which must have been in the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution, and you must have the further provision of uniformity. The bill now proposed to be passed is in contravention of the whole English system of bankruptcy. There has grown up there during a long period of time a system well digested, looking only to the future, and not proposing any retroactive action. The English system of bankruptcy, therefore, is wholly distinct from the system now proposed; because this system has a retrospective feature, and has also the voluntary feature. Then, I do not suppose that Congress has the power to pass this bill; 1st, because it is retro spective in its operations; 2ndly, because it contains the voluntary clause under which the debtor can relieve himself from all his debts. I do not suppose this bill to be constitutional because it is not uniform in its operation. You have already adopted a provision that property exempt from execution and home.exempt from execution by the different State laws shall not be surrendered in bankruptcy. That at once makes the system anything else but uniform, for every single State has a different system of exemption. Then it cannot be uniform, and therefore is unconstitutional. It is retrospective and contains the voluntary clause, and therefore cannot be constitutional, if we believe the framers of the Constitution to have had in view the English system of legistation on this subject. These to me are controlling reasons why I shall vote against the Present bill. have another, and an all sufficient reason to me. I have old fashioned notions as to the honesty and morality of the obligation of debts. I believe when a man contracts a debt he owes that debt till he pays it, and that a Legislature can not, without impairing the obligation of contracts, interfere between the debtor and the creditor. We are all alike, debtor and creditor, citizens of the same Government, and the government owes precisely the same protection to the one as it does to the other. I believe, furthermore, that the effect of such a bill as this will only be temporary in its character. It will enable the wild and reckless speculator, the adventurer, and those who do not feel the obligation of their debts, bill, to take the benefit of the and leave honest men who feel their obligations to law and conscience and morality to stagger on through life, having been impov erished by the frauds of adventurers and fraudulent debtors. This I believe. Now, sir, what has been the history of legislation on this subject? From 1789 down to 1800 the Congress of the U.S. never assumed to carry out this grant of power in the Constitution. It remained in abeyance from 1789 till 1800. Then, for the 1st time in the history of the world, as I believe, a bankrupt law was passed embracing the voluntary feature, the right of a debtor to release himself from his debts without paying, not 50 cents on the dollar, but 100 cents on every dollar that he owes. That is the way to pay debts. That is the way we understand it in Indiana. When a man owes a debt he discharges it, not by paying 50 cents on the dollar, but by paying 100 cents on the dollar, and then he can look his fellows in the face as an honest man. But the act of 1800 was passed. It was in operation for some 2 or 3 years; and under a perfect storm of indignation such was the public sense of honesty and justice and integrity the law was repealed, and we heard no more of a bankrupt law until 1841. 30 9 years elapsed between the repeal of the bankrupt law of 1890 and the passage of the law of 1841. Then another law was passed, embracing all these odious features, for which I voted under instructions, some 9,000of my constituents petitioning for it, and no one remonstrating against it; but when I gave the vote I said exPressly that I gave that vote not of myself, but on behalf of my constituents. I have regretted the vote ever since, and I have been explaining it ever since. If I were to vote for this bill I should never live long enough to explain my vote. There has been no single man from the whole State of Indiana, during the last or the Present session, who has asked me to give any such vote. No single paper in my State, of any shade of political opinion, so far as I know, has ever recommended the passage of any such bill. Therefore, I shall vote with great heartiness against the passage of this bill. It may pass as other bills have passed; but without assuming the character of a prophet, let me say and I speak from experiences of the past that if you pass, this bill it will not be upon your statute book 12 months until it will be repealed under a storm of indignation which no public servant will dare to resist. It is in vioation of the principles of common morality, as I conceive, which govern my action. Gen. tlemen equally conscientious will vote against me; but with my convictions I can never sanction any such bill. Now, Mr. President, I shall not go into the present condition of society in. the lately rebel States, believing that, that matter does not properly a oto the discussion and investigation of this subject; yet I do draw one reason from the Present condition of the southern States inducing me to vote against this bankrupt bill. There was a very large indebt. edness in all these southern States to the loyal northern States at the beginning of the rebellion. Every single dollar of that debt was confiscated by the action of the rebel States and the confederate Congress; and now they ask me and ask you to affirm that confiscation and repudiation, and say that the northern creditor shall have no process by which he shall collect his debts. That results from the nature of our legislation and from the provision of the Constitution; for when you pass this bankrupt law it must be uniform in its operation over all the States, loyal and disloyal. For 5 years we have been engaged in a war with rebellion; the northern creditor had no process by which he could enforce his debts against the southern people; it was all in abeyance; the authority of the constitutional courts was overthrown; for 5 years war rendered it impossible to collect those debts; and now you propose, by a solemn act of Congress, to say that hereafter and forever these debts shall be confiscated, repudiated, and wiped out.