Mr. FOSTER. If the bankrupt law of the U.S. did not annul those liens, to my mind it would not be clear that it was not a uniform law on the subject of bankruptcy, because of course those liens, in order to take effect, must be pursued to final judgment; the creditor must get his judgment against the debtor, and show the amount of his debt, and apply the property under the law to the payment of that debt. In that case the property of the debtor goes to pay his honest debts. That is the effect of the law under those circumstances. The effect of this law, if it be carried out, is that in some States all a man's property shall be taken to pay his debts, and in other States none of his property shall be taken to pay them; though in the case where none is taken he is a man having large property, and in other States where the bankrupt has but lit tle property all goes. There is a wide difference, to my mind, between the manner in which property may be applied to the payment of debts and exempting the whole property of a bankrupt, no matter how large, from paying any debt whatever. And, Mr. President, I am unable myself to conjure up quite so much sympathy as some gentlemen seem to feel as to the amount of property held by a man who is unable to pay F. debts. I have been so unfortunate as to be in debt myself, and so unfortunate as to have people in debt to me; and I have known more cases where people owed debts who Enever.paid, who were better off and had more than some of their creditors, than I have of cases where debtors made themselves, entitled to very great respect, especially upon this adoption of the homestead exemption laws or were made poor and destitute for the beneservation there are poor creditors, made poor by their inability to collect their honest debts of men who may perhaps be owners of homesteads highly valuable in some States 80 acres or more, without limitation as to value. E.: Where would be the evil to the community if one of these debtors, if you please poor debt ors, with his valuable homestead, should be compelled to part with it for the benefit of his poorer creditor, who unfortunately was without a homestead? The creditor, under such circumstances, and there are many such, is quite as deserving of our sympathy and the benefit of our legislation as the . This, however, is quite aside from the principle that is here involved. The question here is whether we have power under the Constitution to pass a law of this sort. The ComJudiciary have had this matter under consideration, and they report to us that we cannot pass the bill with this clause in it without violating the Constitution of the country. In exPressing the opinion that this clause must be stricken out or that this law will be unconstitutional, I am following the lead of the ComJudiciary, who it may be Presumed have examined this question with care, and whose opinion thus exPressed is entitled to great respect.