Mr. JENCKES. Not now; but I propose to do so. I understand the sole objection of the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. CONKLING] is that there will be a difficulty in the enforcement of this bill, if it becomes a law, within the district in which he resides. I agree to his objection; there is a serious difficulty. But I submit to him, as I shall submit to other gentlemen, that such difficulty is one which is to be remedied, not by defeating the bill, but by submitting amendments to its provisions or by proposing amendments to the laws creating the judiciary which shall execute the law within his district. The objection which has been raised by the Gentfrom NewYork, and also repeated by other gentlemen, is a good objection. But it is not an objection to the law Itself, but simply to the means to be employed to carry it into effect. The objection is e nally applicable to the northern district of Iline rs and also to the district of Massachusetts. fiat I learn that the judge in the district of Massachusetts can administer the law in that district, and I have not learned that the judge in any other district feels incompetent to administer this law. So, also, in other districts. It beingamere matter of executive, not to say judicial ability, I think the gentleman will withdraw his objection to 1 the bill itself, if he can devise any method, or if the House can aid him in devising any method by which this objection can be overcome. The original bill, which I had the privilege to present in the last Congress, contained a provision that an additional judge might be appointed in any district when the present judge cannot administer the law. There is no such provision in the present bill. For one, I am willing to accept such an amendment that any gentleman may offer, or any other amendment by which the machinery of the bill maybe carried into effect, imroved and perfecte. I pass from this objection, because it is one of mere detail, and come to another. It is one which relates to the principle of the law, and the only one raised by any person who has yet spoken against the bill. I refer to the objection of the Gentfrom Wisconsin. He objects that this bill containsaclause providing for proceedings in involuntary bankru tcy. Upon this point, wish to submit to this House and to the country, what I believe to be the true view of the law of debtor and creditor. This strikes at one of the fundamental relations between man and man. How shall a man contract debts? How shall the person with whom he contracts debts be paid? Without doubt, this question of the collection of debts might have been left to the constitution and laws of the several States. wise statesmen Mr. Clay among the number said that they thought the subject of the collection of debts might have been left to the several States. Learned and wise as Mr. Clay was, the fathers and authors of the Constitution were, inmy opinion, wiser than he. They were building up a nation. The foundations of that nation were to he laid under the pillars of the States for some purposes; and for others, the national dome was to be raised upon broader and firmer foundations and the men of that day saw, and others who have followed them have seen, that one of the great questions to be settled by the national laws was that between debtor and creditor and why? Not because it was a mere municipal regulation, amatter of local law within State jurisdictions, but because it was a part of the commercial law of the regulation of commerce between the States and they placed in the letter of the Constitution not only the power to regulate this system of laws as between debtor and creditor, but that of commerce both between citizens of the States and between citizens and the subjects of foreign nations. The language use in the constitution has a greater significance than has been given to it in legislation in these days. Therefore I say that when the power is del egated to this Congress, it is an implied instruction from the framers of the Constitution and their constituents to those who frame laws under the Constitution that they should see that those powers are properly exercised. This “involuntary clause, as it is called, is simply a mode of collecting debts a uniform law for the collection of debts in every State of these U.S and independently of that clause, is it not a wise thing to be adopted? Is there any person who has had experience, either as a merchant or a lawyer, who can say that this is not the best and the wisest thing that can be done? Is there anything better in this branch of the law than a uniform system for the collection of debts?I No man knows what may be the law of Texas or Alabama or Oregon or Maine. A man may trust an individual, that individual may fail, and the creditor may be obliged to resort to the law for the collection of his debt. But who knows what that law is? Only the man living in the neighborhood of the debtor and within the State where the debtor has his domi cile. Under this bill every one will be able to know what is the law on this subject of the collection of debt everywhere throughout the U.S.A. Based upon the Constitution, founded upon the adamant that our fathers placed there, I defy any man to say that the superstructure now proposed to be reared is not one that will adorn and perfect the foundation which they constructed. Again, the objection is raised, and it seems to me to be a technical one, as to the exemption laws of certain States. All States have exemption laws. If the 1st Congress which met under the Constitution had exercised all the power granted to them, no question could have arisen now on this subject. I have heard men say, many inside and outside of the House, that they would like to have a bankrupt law 15 or 20 years old. True. Why? because it would not then interfere with the existing laws of any State. I hold, and I think it will be sustained by the highest authority it may be vanity in me to think so, but having studied the question and being bound to give my opinion not only to the House but to the country I am satisfied that when we have 1st exercised the power granted in the Constitution, as we now propose to do, we must take as the basis upon which our statute shall take effect the existin laws of the States as the 1st Congress under the Constitution would have taken the State laws in force in 1789. We can alter them in future, but not as to the past. We must take the titles of property, real and personal, as the 1st Congress would have taken them. How would a bankrupt law passed in 1789 have operated upon estates tail and base fees and titles of that kind? The answer will be found in the English law. It would have no operation upon them, and therefore I meet the question, which is a serious one. now both for and against it by saying that this is the 1st exercise of the power granted to Congress by the Constitution, and that we must take things as they are and not undertake now to make them as we would have them. Some object that the law will be retroactive; that it will discharge debts now existing. will meet.that, Mr. Speaker, by saying when the Constitution of the {IU.S. was framed and when. adopted by the several States, an when power was conceded and granted thereby to this Congress to pass uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy, that this power of congress was created and its duty directed as soon as the Constitution was adopted as to the exercise of this power of Congress. I ask where the proposition has been gainsaid in any authoritative manner. No one can show. challenge an answer from anyone within the sound of my voice. Where has anyone said that that power was not in Congress, and that our duty, since the Constitution was adopted, has not been to exercise the power thus granted? and why has Congress been derelict in that duty? Behind that lies anotherquestion which seems to influence mens minds, and that is and there I strike the principle of all these laws why is it (some men say) thnta mans future earnings should be exempted from the payment of his past debts, which may be the consequence of his indise retions? The proposition embraced in this bill has been adopted in the commercial world for over 2000 years. I will concede to the argument of my oppo nents, even at this day, that a learned member having charge of the amendments to the bankrupt system in the English Parliament doubts whether that ought to have been the law; but every commercial nation in the world, eveiy State, not only of the magnitude of this, but every State that has had individuals engaged in commercial transactions, has agreed to that principle. Who will deny to the honest man who has met with misfortune the discharge to which an honest judge may say he is entitled? If there is anyone my time is at his service in which to answer this question. I will add but one word to what I have said on the retroactive effect of the law. All remedial statutes are retroactive, and this is a remedial statute. There are gentlemen here who have said to me, “Provide that this bill shall take effect upon contracts which shall be made after the 1st day of January, 1867, or on any immediate day, and the bill shall receive my vo.” Now, I say to those gentlemen, and the answer will be regarded as conclusive by every lawyer who hears it, and it is not necessary to go into the details of the reasons for that answer; I answer that every remedial statute, as this is, is retroactive, and necessarily must be. When we legislate, we do so upon the business of the country as it stands, as it is. Now, I have no friendliness for prophetic legislation. I cannot understand that Wisdom that sees beyond the present hour. When I vote at all, it is upon the experience that the past has given us, and upon the emergency that arises in the present. I look around t iis country and I see not only 1,000s but tens of 1,000s, and if some communications are to be believed, 100s of 1,000s of men who may now need, and who ought to obtain, the benefit of this reme dial legislation. I know many of them; men who do not obtrude themselves upon their Representatives; men who do not seek sympathy in print; men who are borne down by the weight of misfortune, who are earning a scanty subsistence for themselves and for their families in a quiet and obscure way; men who do not come u here to seek what may seem to be a grant of aid from their country; men who do not sign their names to memorials, but who are toiling to get a living where once they were in high credit and fortune; men whose skill was a gain to the country, but whose misjudgment was a loss to themselves. These are the men, and these only let me say it, and be heard and be known to say it these are the only men, the honest and unfortunate, and perhaps misjudging, not the fraudulent, who are to obtain the benefit of what are called the voluntary provisions in this act. We say, by this measure, that we have confidence in our judges, that they will grant the benefit of this discharge to none others than those who show themselves to be honestly cu titled to it. Mr. Speaker, this brings me to another point, upon which I wish I could not only have the attention of all the members of this House, but of every person in this country. The objection is made here by members, as well as in the press and by correspondence, that this is a measure of such magnitude that Congress should hesitate in regard to it, and they say further that because it is a measure of great magnitude. Congress should not pass it. Now, I agree with them in the 1st proposition; it is a measure of vast consequence; it reaches the relation of debtor and creditor in every State of the Union; and because it does so I am not astonished at its magnitude. But my faculties do not grow dim; my senses are not weakened or impaired in the presence of a question of such magnitude. I read the old Constitution of our fathers, and I find that they charged Congress with the duty and clothed them wrth the power of legislation upon this subject, and as one of those legislators I assume my share of the responsibility. I know whereof I legislate. I have had some experience in the execution of the laws of the different States on the subject of debtor and creditor. But that is of no consequence. The study I have given to those laws has led me to the conclusion that our fathers Were wise and that their successors should be just. I should do discredit to them if] should say otherwise; I should do discredit to myself and to my associates if I acted otherwise. There is a great power not only granted to Congress but imposed upon it in the same clause to which I have referred. Congress is required and authorized to pass uniform laws upon the subject of naturalization, and such laws have been made ever since this Government had an existence and why are not our own native citizens entitled to legislation upon the subject of bankruptcy equally with that which aliens are entitled to have by virtue of the same provision of the Constitution? I have also heard it said that there are objections to this bill because it is called a bankrupt bill. Well, I think no one will deny the fact that baukrupts exist. Bankruptcy means failure in business; that there are men who cannot pay their debts to the number of 1,000s in the U.S. Why should they not have a law to relieve them “I and above all, why in the future should not all persons who owe debts, and all persons who have debts, to collect, have a uniform system of laws throughout the U.S., by which those debts can be settled or collected? Is not that a plain proposition? There is no interference with State rights. Use any phrase you may; disguise it as you may for the purpose of making it acceptable to political parties, the truth is there is no political question about it and why should not this be? I ask any gentleman to answer me. That question has not been answered, it never has been answered in any debate. Herctofore, and that has been the misfortune of the nation upon this subject, it has been made simply a matter of the existing politics, and no men have arisen who have met the question in the spirit of the fathers of the Constitution, and said, let us build where our fathers laid the foundation. I do not say this to disparage any who have preceded us; they yielded to their necessities; I yield to none. My duty is lain and u ain; and new I ask the attention of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVnns] as Ine tice the objection which he made to the passage of this bill. I do not expect to convince him; he has his own Opinions, asl have mine. Butl wish to answer him before this House and before the country. He said, in a side conversation, in the debate upon this bill the other day, that this was the worst time when a law of this kind could be passed. I believe I do not misreport him. Now, he will agree that every debtor in the land would like tohave this bill become a law no one can disagree to that proposition: and I present to him and to the House and to the country recommendations of this bill by the creditor interest of the entire North; beginning with the Board of Trade of the city of Boston, indorsed by the Chamber of Commerce of NewYork, and further by similar boardsin Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit. Chicago, Milwaukec, StLouis, Dubuque, Cincinnati, &c., Representing at least 9/10ths if not 19/20ths of the creditor interest of this country. Yct the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] says, “Why, sir, you may let pome rebel debtor go if this bill becomes a aw. I say to him, as this creditor interest says to me, and I “ will try to use their own language, We know our debtors; we wish to meet them as commercial men, mercantile men, business men; we do not care to know whether they have been rebels or not; that isa political question. We want to meet them upon the ground that business men meet each 0! nor upon, and let them meet us before the courts of the country; let them show themselves to have been honest; let them show that they have not used their property in aid of the rebellion; let them show that they have not wasted their property in that direction, and we will meet them and give them a discharge, and trust them here after.” I have piles of letters from creditors to that effect, men who ask me not tomention their names to the House and to the country; men whom I know and whom I believe and there is another class which Congress s“hould consider; a large class of men who say, We can get discharged from our northern and loyal creditors; but we want the privileges of this bill, and hope that it will become a law in order that We may compel a discharge from those who have persecuted us during the rebellion.” Every word that has been used against this bill upon that ground will retroact upon the persons who have used these fallacious arguments. But laying aside every question relatin to past transactions, everything relating to rebellion or civilWar, I wish to say to this House and to this country, as one much wiser and greater than I said 2000 years ago in the senate of Rome, “ Erase the debts of your friends and of your enemies upon their meeting you with their property, ” and that became then the law of Rome and wherever the lio man law had force, and the civil law (which is the Roman has been maintained, it has been and is the law now, and has been the law in all the intermediate years. Mr. Speaker, the number of the persons and the interests upon which this bill will O crate form another great consideration which have to age upon this House. As I have said, there are 1,000s and tens of 1,000s of persons who make no complaint or request here by open and public memorial, because of their double necessity the necessity in which they are, not to alarm their creditors, who may pursue them with the rigor of the local law, and the necessity which they have to maintain their present position. When the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Senese x] said the other day that he had a bill which he wished to urge upon the attention of the House, he stated that it.involved the necessities and requirements of the army of volunteers. Now, I wish to say to him and to the liouse that this bill calls for action because an nrmyof persons tenfold in number, who have been placed in their present position, not by their will, but involuntarily, call for relief, and can obtain it only by the action of this Congress. I would not like to state their number. It has been stated by gentlemen who have hitherto addressed this House upon this subject. The statistics which they cited I believe to be true. But for myself I would not wish to assume the responsibility of stating the actual number who could have relief under this bill if it should becomea law. Every me berknows of some know of 100s, me, like mmysaeny ii know of 1,000s, and I ask the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS, who objected to this bill for political reasons, whether after so many years during which he has been known as the champion of the black man, he will now in his old age vote for the enslavemeut, the continued enslavement, of the white man. I am in favor of emancipation, but I am for the emancipation of white and black alike. The slavery of debt is worse than the slavery of personal service. The latter can be performed and the oblitions satisfied; the former never can be. It has been tried in the history of the world. In ancient Rome the debtor was a slave to his creditor, and they even had a law providing thatthe creditors, if they so willed, should not only have custody of the body of the creditor, but should cut it into pieces and divide it among themselves if they saw fit. That was a dividend richly earned and much to be desired! That desire remains even now. We all have known and used the merciful maxims of the common law. Many of us have frequently urged upon juries the proposition that 90 niuu guilty men should ese ape punishment rather than that one innocent man should be found guilty. All this has been done with regard to crime; but when "on come to a question of debt, if it is but a dollar, where is then the mer ciful maxim? Who ever heard of a common law decision with a word of mercy for a debtor? Why, Mr. Speaker, among the objections urged to the bankrupt law of 1800, repeated in the debates of 1820, was that, if the principle should be adopted that we were to look to the bankrupt laws of England for our guid ance, under which men were at one time convicted and sentenced to death for bankruptcy. it was argued that there might be danger of introducing such a principle into the legislation of this country. hat was the argument that was heard in these old Halls. Those who opposed a system of bankrupt law did so, not because such system gave discharge to the debtor, but because they feared that those inhuman punishments might be introduced as against the debtor in this country. Men with kind heart] and mercifuldiapositions, and taking wise views of the Constitution, urged that argument and it prevailed. Every one can read it. It is in " Let us not shrink from exercising any of those our records; and it is one of the remarkable things in our records. Now, we propose to meet the case, not by any half measure, but by a measure which receives the aprobation of both debtor and I creditor. All this debtors, as I have said, are in favor of this measure. Iask any member to rise here and state if he knows a creditor who is against the bill. I should like to know any man who has reason for saying that there is a creditor in the U.S.A. who objects to the provisions of this bill. I should like to see any man who will say that this measure does not approach to the creation of an equality between debtor and creditor, which is the great thing to be desired in all commercial transactions. If anyone wishes to say that the creditor interest opposes the passage of this bill, or has authority for saying so, I am ready to yield him a portion of my time for that purpose. I have searched this country over, anfhaVe found no one making such objec tiou. I wish to make one further remark in connection with these suggestions, for they are nothing more. A speech upon this subject would require not only the time allowed by the rules oft iis House, but the time of a day and a night session. What I have uttered has been simply propositions; not an argument, but suggestions. Allow me to say I may be sin gu ar in entertaining this idea that it seems to me that one of the principal causes of the difficulty between sections of this country has been that Congress has not carried into effect the powers granted to it.