Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, sir. Now, the idea of the Convention in the adoption of this provision was, perhaps, merely a continuation of the idea existing at the time that Congress might regulate commerce. It strikes me that there is no necessity for a bankrupt law as between citizens of the same State. It is best to leave the States to regulate that matter for themselves. For instance, Indiana does not desire any bankrupt law to control contracts or debts so far as the citizens of Indiana are concerned. So in regard to NewJersey; NewJersey would ose far as her own citizens are concerned, to determine that matter for herself. So of my own State. But as it has been decided by the Supreme Court that a bankrupt's discharge under a State law will not be good as against a creditor residing in another State from the one where the discharge was obtained or where the contract was entered into, an act of this sort in all probability is necessary so far as to regulate trade between citizens of different States. It must be seen that this law is more exten sive in its operation than any law I am aware of that has ever been adopted either in England or in this country. The English law applied only to traders, to merchants, not to individuals who did not undertake to make a livelihood by trade, commerce, business, buying and selling for profit. By the English law of bankruptcy none others could avail themselves of it. This law, however, like the act of 1841, extends to all classes of individuals, and I am satisfied that the unpopularity of the act of 1841 in a great degree proceeded from the fact that the door was open for all persons to obtain bankrupt certificates voluntarily. That was the cause of its repeal. That Presented the obnox ious points, and Presented them, so strongly to the minds of the people as to induce the repeal of the act very soon. I have provided in the instructions which I have submitted that when a man asks to be discharged as a bankrupt all his property shall be transferred except $500. In case of involuntary bankruptcy I submit that in all proba bility a larger amount could be very justly and properly exempted from the operations of the law; but where the bankrupt himself asks to be discharged ought he not in all reason to give up a greater amount of his property? Is it unjust to require him, when he prefers to surrender his property and obtain a bankrupt cer tificate, a discharge from all his indebtedness, to reserve a smaller proportion than where he is forced into bankruptcy? I believe not. It is a voluntary thing with him. If he desires to surrender the property and asks for it, let him have less exempted than in the other case. I do not think any voluntary clause should be left in the bill. F had the framing of iIt would have no voluntary clause in it. I would follow the act of 1800 on that subject, and not adopt the provision of the act of 1841 which rendered it so odious to the community. But if the bankrupt sees fit to insist upon a discharge let him surrender all his property except $500. fy 2nd provision is that his indebtedness provable under the act must amount to $1,500 at least. The Senfrom Vermont will see that after a party owing $300 can proceed and go through all the necessary costs of procuring a certificate, the $300 will be entirely used up in the costs of the proceeding, and there will be nothing left for the creditors. Why not then put some limitation on it such a limitation anyhow as would be available to the creditors to a certain extent, and let them have something? What is the use of a party taking the little that he may have and proceeding voluntarily to obtain a discharge as against his creditors, and give it to the officers of the court instead of to the creditors? Surely after paying the costs of the proceeding and the fees of the officers, even the amount I propose would leave very little for the creditors. I further provide that the assets shall pay at least 30%. of any debts existing at the time of the passage of the act. For my own part I would not let it operate upon any debt existing at the time of its passage if I could. I agree with the Senfrom Oregon, that the idea prevalent in the Convention which induced the framers of the Constitution to say that no State should pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, arising as it did from a feeling of justice toward others, should induce us to be at least very wary how we interfere with existing obligations and contracts. I do not appreciate the argument of the Senfrom Vermont and the Senfrom Maryland who spoke of the distress in the South. I cannot see that this bill is to be very beneficial to the people of the South. I do not so look upon it. I cannot see that it will help the people of the South who are now passing stay laws, as we are informed, to protect themselves. The land owners who are in. the Legislatures, it is said, are passing stay laws to protect themselves and their people. I cannot see that to declare all those laws invalid and tear them up root and branch and turn the property of those people over to registers in bankruptcy is to benefit, them materially. It may give them a discharge but what good does the discharge do when all their lands are sold?