Mr. TRUMBULL. Then if a proceeding is commenced in 1867, the Present year, under this bill, if it passes, a homestead worth $500 would be exempted from its operation in the State of Vermont, because such was the law of that State in 1864; but if in 1868 the Legislature of Vermont should think proper to exempt only a homestead worth $300, then I say to the Senfrom Vermont under this bill a bankrupt in that State who should be proceeded against in 1868 would have exempted only a homestead worth $300. This is merely a limitation upon the extent of the exemption; and this bill proposes to adopt whatever exemption laws may be passed hereafter in any of the States and which shall be in force when the proceeding in bankruptcy is commenced, provided the exemption laws hereafter passed in any State shall not exempt a larger amount of property than was exempted by the law in force in the State in the year 1864. There is no escape from that. The principle is in the bill just as I stated it; but the Senfrom Wisconsin, who after having made his argument has left the Cham ber, places it upon the ground that we have a right to incorporate into this bill the various exemption laws of the different States, because those exemption laws are in favor of women and children. Now, I undertake to say to that Senator that the exemption laws are not in favor exclusively of women and children. There is no “trust fund” involved in this matter. There is an exemption in my State in favor of every debtor, whether he has a wife and children or not; and I Presume that is the case in every other State of the Union; but those laws are as diverse and different as the States themselves. Does the Senfrom Wisconsin mean to say that the Congress of the U.S., under an authority to pass a uniform law in regard to bankruptcy, has a right to pass a law that shall give to the Senfrom Vermont $100 worth of property if he should become bankrupt that is a very bad illustration I know and allow me $500 in case I should become bankrupt, which is a good illustration and a very probable one, perhaps. : It might be convenient for me to retain $500 an for him to have but $100; but would that be a uniform system of bankruptcy? Is it possible for us without a manifest violation of the Constitution to pass a bill making such a provision, and a bill which I undertake to say adopts the future legislation of the various States in regard to exemptions, provided those future laws do not : the amount that was allowed to be exempted by the laws of such State in existence in 1864? It was the opinion of the ComJudiciary that this could not be done, i.they reported this amendment striking out these words. It seems to me that the committee in their opinion of the power of Congress were correct, and that if we pass a law establishing a uniform system of bankruptcy we must pass one that exempts the same property or the same amount of property to an individual in one State as in another, and we must pass a law that is not liable to be varied by the legislation of the States hereafter. I do not believe it is competent for us to incorporate into this act the various exemption laws of the different States and then declare it to be a uniform system of bankruptcy.