Mr. HENDERSON. I shall not take up the time of the Senate in discussion; but I suppose that this proposition Presents a test vote. It may be that a majority of the Senate do not agree with me in my views in reference to this matter; and I admit that if the bill be recommitted it will be perhaps the end of it for this session. If it be not recommitted, possibly it would be as well to perfect it and pass it at once, as we have but little time. My view is that it is inexpedient and improper to pass any bankrupt law at Present. I am rather inclined to think that our experience upon the subject has demonstrated that there is no necessity for any law of this character. Anyhow, no bankrupt law that has been passed by Congress has given satisfaction to the people. The 1st law that was adopted (in 1800) was continued in force only 5 years. It was repealed within a few years after its passage. The act of 1841was repealed by the same Congress which passed it. The act was passed in August, 1841, and repealed in March, 1843. It was in force but a short time. This bill is a much more sweeping act than either of those laws. It will be remembered that the act of of 1800followed the English rule othe rule which was in force when our Constitution was adopted, which I apprehend the framers of the Constitution had reference to when they declared that Congress should have power to pass uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy. In England at that time there was no such thing as voluntary bankruptcy. It was all involuntary. No man had a right to go into court and make a sched ule of his debts and pray for a judgment of discharge from his indebtedness, either the in debtedness existing at the time or that which might be contracted subsequently. It was all involuntary or coerced bankruptcy. The act of 1841, although it provided for voluntary bankruptcy, had many provisions which were much better than the provisions of this bill, because it did not permit every individual, or almost every individual, no matter what might be his indebtedness, to pray for a discharge; but this act provides that any man who owes $300 of indebtedness may apply. I apprehend that the State laws in almost every State of the Union grant $800 exemption. Hence the effect will be that parties who own $300 worth of property and perhaps owe 3 or 400 dollars of indebtedness, instead of dividing that property among their creditors, will Present a petition to the i. court for a discharge fuse up that money in the payment of costs and fees and charges in rocuring a bankrupt's certificate, instead of dividing the money among honest creditors. My experience is that where a debtor has given evidence of his honesty and his intention to pay his debts there is but little trouble in procuring a 3rd or a half in value of the creditors at any time to agree to release him. Hence, if the bill should be passed, I am elearly of the imPression that some amendment such as that offered by the Senfrom Kentucky [Mr. Davis] ought to be adopted if it is made to apply to debts already existing. It is true that by the Constitution there is no limitation on our discretion in that respect as there is in regard to the States. Congress cannot pass an expostfacto law, but it may pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts. The Constitution provides that the States shall not pass laws impairing the obligations of contracts. Hence it is utterly impossible for a State to pass a law operating upon Present or existing contracts and discharging individuals from them. It has been so decided and settled. What was it that induced the Convention to adopt a provision of that sort? The simple idea that prevailed in regard to expostfacto laws, that laws of that character are unjust within themselves. parties make a contract in view of the existing law, and therefore it should not be interfered with. It has been decided by the Supreme Court, in the case referred to by the Senfrom Maryland, that the States may discharge from contracts entered into after the passage of an insolvent law.