Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, I am earn estly in favor of a bankrupt law. I am in favor of this bill. I have examined it with considerable attention, and I regard it as the most complete and perfect system of bankruptcy I have ever seen. I would be glad to vote for this provision if I could consistently with my own convictions do so, because I am persuaded that if this provision can be retained in the law the bill is more likely to pass; but I am convinced that this provision is in violation of the Constitution. Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass a bankrupt law; but it is restricted in its authority to do so: it must be a uniform law. What is meant by that? “It is a law that shall operate equally, impartially, uniformly throughout the U.S. This provision. cannot operate in that way. There are incor porated into this law all the State laws in relation to the exemption of property from sale or execution for 36 States with all their diversities. Those laws are made a part of this bankrupt system. More than that, sir; it operates unequally and partially in the States themselves. Take my own State. In the State of NewYork a man may have exempted from sale on execution a homestead of the value of $1,000. Here are 2 bankrupts applying at the same time for a discharge; one of them has secured his homestead worth $1,000; the other has a homestead worth $1,000, but he has not taken the necessary steps to exempt it from sale or execution. One of them saves his homestead; the other is obliged to surrender it. Suppose these men owe debts only to the amount of $1,000 each; one of them is discharged from his debts and saves property enough to pay all his debts, while the other is obliged to give approperty enough to pay his debts. There is no uniformity in the operation of it at all. The very 1st object of a system of bankruptcy is to secure the appropriation of the property of the debtor to the payment of his debts, and it is in reference to this that the term “uniform” is used in the Constitution; it is in reference to nothing else. It is uniformity in the appropriation of a man's property; and now is secured by this provision as it stands in the bill the greatest possible diversity, diversity according to the legislation of 36 different States, and then diversity in the operations of the laws of those States themselves. I cannot suppose that this provision will ever stand the test of judicial examination.