Mr. PAINE. Mr. Speaker, came here at the opening of the session hoping to have an opportunity before its close to vote for a well considered bankrupt law; and when the bill now under consideration was introduced by the honorable chairman of the select committee on bankruptcy, addressed myself to its examination, expecting to be able to record my vote in favor of its passage; for I was of the opinion that a wisely framed system of bankruptcy would not only give relief and, as it were, new life to 1,000s of wretched debtors in the country, but also, if made a permanent feature of our national legislation, prove of great value to creditors themselves, and promote the commercial interests and Generalwelfare of the people. Certainly t are are many 1,000s of our fellow citizens enchained by hopeless debt, in bondage almost as intolerable as that which so long and fear fully cursed the black slaves in the southern States, by whom such a law would be hailed as a proclamation of emancipation hardly less beneficent than that of Abraham Lincoln to the blacks. At the same time it is not to be forgotten that there is a wide difference between the present condition of the country and its condition when the law of 1841 was ed. Then the revulsious of 1837had strewn the land with wrecks, and 1,000s of prostrate debtors appealed to Congress“ for a bankrupt law. But now there is no such wide s read insolvency in the country. If a law of any kind is now enacted it will be mainly as a permanent measure, and not specially for present relief like the act of 1841. But, sir, this more I examine the provisions of this bill, the mere I observe the spirit and purpose of those who have it in c a, the more apprehensive do I become that it is destined to be presented, for the final vote upon its passage, in a form so objectionable as to exclude the possibility of my support. have concluded to vote against the provisions for involuntary bankruptcy contained in this bill; and will proceed to state the considerations which have impelled me to this decis ion. I shall take no part in the old and, I suppose, interminable controversy respecting the precise import of the word bankruptcies in that clause of the Federal Constitution which provides that Congress shall have power to establish “uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the U.S. ” In that controversy, Webster, Clay, Benton, Calhoun, Marshall, and Story have been conspicuous. But, for the purposes of my argument, 1; Will be sufficient to state the views of each Without any presumptuous attempt to de cide who were rightand who were wrong. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on th"e Federal Constitution, says: Without stopping at presentto considerwhat is the precise meaning of each of thesetermsnse ontra distinguished from the other. it may be stated that the general object of all bankrupt and insolvent laws is. on the one hand to securethe creditors an appropriation of the property of their debtors pro ran toto the discharge of their debts wheneverthe latter are unable to discharge the whole amount and on the other hand. to relieve unfortunate and honest debtors from perpetual bondageto their creditors, either in the shape of unlimited imprisonment to coerce payment of thoir debts or of an absolute right to appropriate and monopolizeall their future earnings."Se “vlum 1101. What are to be deemed bankrupt laws within the meaning of the CODSUUHJODJ has beena matter of much forensic discussion an argument. Attempts have been made to distinguish between bankrupt laws and insolvent laws. For example, it has been said that laws which moroly liberate the person of the debtor are insolvent laws, and those which discharge the contract are bankrupt laws. But it would be very dilficult to sustain this distinction. by anyuniformity of laws. at home or abroad. 1n somc of the States laws known as insolvent laws discharge the person only; in othersthey discharge the contract and if Congress were to pass a ban ru t not which should dischargethe person only of the bankrupt, and leave his future acquisitions iablo to his creditors.there Would be great difficulty in saying that such an act was not. in the senseof the Constitution. a bankrupt act and so within the power of Congress. Again, it has beensaid that insolvent laws act on imprisoned debtors only at their own instance; and bankrupt only at the instance of creditors. But however true this may have been in past times astho actual course of huglish legislation.it is not true and never was true. iis a distinction in colonial legislation. In England it was an accidentin the system and not a may terial ground to discriminate who were to be deemed. in a legal sense. insolvents or baukrupts and if an act of Congress should be ussed which should authpr 17.0a commission of bankruptcy to issue at the in slaiico of the rlobtor no court would. on this account. tbioenwaalraranndtethdein saying that the act was unconstitutional commissiona nullity. It is believed that no laws ever were passedin America. by the colonies or States.which had the technical denomination of bankrut laws. But insolvent laws. quite COeXlCllSlVOml lenglish bankrupt systems in on operations and obyccts, have not been unfrequent in colonial and State legislation. No distinction was ever practically or even theoretically, attemptedto be mydo betwccii bankruptcics and insolvencies. Apd an historical review of the colonial and State legislation will abundantly show that abankrupt law may contain those regulations which are generally found in lusolvent laws and that an insolventlaw mayonntainiluisle which are common to bankrupt laws.” “cum: Perhaps assalisfucto a description of ii bankrupt law ase an be frame( is that it is a law for the beuemnesfiint awnhdi crhclitehfe olafttcerer daitroersunawnidlling their to debtors i n debts, and a law pny their on the subject of bankruptciesin the senseof the Cpristitutionis a lawmaking provisions for pprsons failing to pay their deb."Secci0111i08. Mr. Calhoun, in his great speech upon the bankrupt bill, enacted a quarter of a century ago. expressed the following opinion: "At lhc time of the formation of the Constitution there existed.both in this country and in England. from which we derived our laws, 2 separate systcms of laws QTOWlniOllt of the relation oforeditors and debtor, the one nuwn as the system of bankruptcy and the other of insolvency. The systemof insolvent laws grow out of the debtor side of the relation and originated in motives of humanity for the unfortunate but honest deblor. Their object is to relievu him from the power of his creditors, upon an honest surrender of all his property for their benefit. Very different are the motivesan objectsin which the laws of bankruptcy originiited. They grew. but of the creditor sideof the relation and form a portion of the mercuptilq or commercial code of laws. Their leading obJect is to strengthen the system of commercial credit. Though growinzzout of thosaiue relation and COihM; extent connected, the 2 are asdifferent in genius and character as the different sspects of the relation out of which they grow. The members of the Convention that framed the Constitution could not have been ignorant of the fact that there were 2 such systems knowii by the names of bankrupt and insolvent laws. Is it to be suppose dthat, if the intended to delegate to Congress power over bot systems, these able and cautious men. so familiar with the distinction between them.would not have included both by name? and is it not conclusive that. in not doing so and in liuiiting the grant to bankruptcy alone, it was the intention to grant that only to the exclusion of insolvency." In the same debate Mr. Clay said: “ I shall attempt no precise definition of thp phrase a bankruptcy and insolvency which are certamly generally used in tho vernacular lauguage, in a synonymous sense. I prefer to describn the properties or qualities of each systcm. lhatofinsolvenc requires a full surrender ofallthe property and or its of the debtor. tgikcs the administration of themout of his hands.distributes them. by a 3rd party. Among his creditors. ahd finally, after an honest compliance with the provisions of the system. exonerates the personof the debtor from all arrest or imprisonment on account of re existing debts. The system does not. It is generally supposed discharge his future so quisitions from liability. The bankrupt system, too exactsa full surrender of the property an credits of the debtor takes the administration of them out of his hands, confides the distribution of them among his creditors to a 3rd party and finally. after an honest and faithful compliance With the requirements of the system. Exonerates both the person of the debtor from all arrests and impr1sonment and his future acquisitions from all liabilitly on accountlof all debts und contracts ensting at the period of the commissiono f the act of bankruptc. Thus it Will beperceived that on most points there is a stroii resemblance between the 2 sistems. The cssentia and characteristic difference betwcen them is that the systemof insolvency does not, or rather is suppose to be incompetentto grunt whilo the bankrupt system can conferan effectual discharge of the debtor from all preiSiiistin debts and obligations. That incompetency of the states to hold 6in their systems of insolvency for such a discurge is supposedto result from the $ohibition to the States.in the Constitution of the U.S. against the passageof any law impairing the obligation of contracts." In the proress of this memorable debate Mr. Webster said! “The Constitution declares that congress shall have power to establish uniform laws on the colect of bankruptcies throughout the U.S. what are bankruptcies? T O word is mostcertainly to be taken in its commonand popularsense; in that sense in which the people run e supposed to have lClliCI" srutopotedijetsw. hen they rati ed the constitution. Bunk in the general meaning and acceptation of the term, meanno more than failures. When a man cannot pay hisdebts wc suyho hasbecomebankrupt, or has failed. Bankruptcies. as facts, or occurrences, or cases.for which Congressis authorized to make provision. ure failures. A learned Judge has said that a law on the subject of bankruptcies. in the senseof the Constitution is a lawmaking provision for cases of ersrns failing to pay their debts. Over tho wholo subject of those bankruptcies or theso failures. the power of 001i l08a5s, it stands on the face of the Constitution is full and complete.” In the case of Sturgis vs. Crowninshield, 4 Wheaten, Chief Justice Marshall said: "But the subject is divisablo in its nature into bankrupt and insolvent laws; though the hue of par tition between them isuofso distinctly marked as to enableany person to say with positive precision what belongs exclusively to the one and not to the other class oflaws. It is said. for example. that laws which merely liberate the person are insolvent laws and those which discharge the contract ar o bankrupt laws. But ifun act of Congress should discharge the person of the bankrupt and lcave his future acquisitions liable to his creditors.we should feel much hesitation in saying that this was an insolvent and not a bankrupt law and therefore unconstitutional. Another distinction has been stated and uniformly obse rverl. Insolvent laws operntoat the instanceof an imprisoned debtor; bankrupt laws at the instance of the creditor. But should an act of Congress authorize a commissionof bankruptcy to issue on the application of a debtor. a court would scarcely be warranted in saying that the law was unconstitutional." “This difficulty of discriminating with any accuracy betwcen insoly cut and bankrupt laws, Would lead to the opinion that n bankrupt liiw iiia contain those regulations which are generullyfoun iu insolvent laws and that an insolvent law may contain thosewhich are common to a bankrupt law." It is immaterial for my present purpose to decide which of these is the better opinion. Give the word its widest latitude, incluing all the meanings, whether of bankruptcy or insoly ency, claimed by any or all of those eminent men, and you will find that any bankrupt law which we can constitutionally enact will ein brace a part or all of the following as its main features, and no others: The surrender of the debtors estate for the benefit of his creditors. Exemption of the person of the debtor from imprliiseod nimse ehnatr.ge of the debtor, operative within his own State only, from liabilities incurred {vithin the State after the taking effect of the aw. The discharge of the debtor, operative in all the States, from all his liabilities, including those incurred before the taking effect of the law. An initiative in the proceedings by the debtor which characterizes voluntary bankruptcy. An initiative by the creditors which characterizes involuntary or compulsory bankruptcy. Uniformity in the operation of the act through out all t heStates and the persons upon whom the act shall operate must be those who cannot or will not pay their debts, and who are of the class or classes to which the right or liability to bankruptoy is restricted, if there is any restriction. How, it is firmly established by judicial de cision that in the absence of legislation by congress on this subject, the States have both the right and the power to put in operation, within their own limits, by their own legislation, all of the provisions which I have enumerated except only that for the general discharge of the debtor from his liabilities. lliisexccpiion results from the inhibition to impair the obligations of contracts laid by the Constitution iiion the States. Whether Congress can exercise this power is of course another question, to be decided, as ithap pens, by a reference, not to express constitutional grant, for which you will look in vain, but to the inherent attributes of national sovereignty and if no such inhibition were imposed upon the States, it is obvious that their inability to make laws operative beyond their own geo graphical limits would ronder uniformity in bankruptcy an improbable if not impossible result of State legislation and it must be admitted that there is no urgent reason for uuiformityin any of the provisions of a bank ru t law, except that which whites to the debt or s general discharge from his liabilities. Whether you do or do not recognize in all of these provisions features ( f a bankrupt law as distinguished from an insolvent law, whether you admit or deny their constitutionality, yet the bill before us embraces them all. It provides for the surrender of the debtors estate to his creditors; for his exemption from imprisonment; for his general discharge, operative in all the States, from antecedent. liabilities in curred before or after the taking effect of the act; for voluntai bankruptcy; for compulsory bankruptcy; an for the nail iim operation of the law throughout the U.S and it further provides that the opt ration of the law shall not be restricted to merchants and traders but shall extend to all natural and artificial persons. In this respect this bill differs as well from the act of 1800 as from that of 1841. The former included provisions for involuntary but not for voluntary bankruptcy. The latter embraced both, butits compulsory provisions were only applicable to merchants, traders, bankers, factors, brokers, underwriters, and marine in surers. Each act was repealed after an unsatisfactory trial of less than 3 years. Now, sir, I am in favor of the distribution of the debtors estate among his creditors; 1 am in favor of the exemption of the person of the debtor from imprisonment; I am in favor of the debtors general discharge from his debts, and therefore, of course, in favor of such lim ited discharge from liability as the States can constitutionally grant and although adequate provisions on these subjees can be and in fact are made by State laws, to that they present no affirmative reasons for the enactment of this law, yettheir presence in this bill would have no effect to determe from its support. For, however capable the States may be of effectuating these provisions by legislation, they are, in my judgment, proper elements of a national bankrupt law. Nor am I opposed to that distinctive feature of this bill which constitutes voluntary bankruptcy. I am also quite willing, for the purposes of this argument, to concede that certain questions which divided in Titanic combat the Senators of the 26th congress shall be decided to suit the friends of this bill; that we have, under the Federal constitution, the powers, then so vigorously disputed, to provide by a Federal law for both voluntary and involuntary bankruptcy, and to include within its scope all natural persons, whether traders or not excepting, O course, those who have by rebellion forfeited their claims to its benefits and to include also all artificial persons, whether banks or other in corporations. But, in the present condition of the country, I can vote for no such compulsory bankruptcy as I find in this bill. I should be sorry to see even merchants and traders subjected to its provisions; but to my mind the idea of inflicting comulsory bankruptcy upon our farmers and mec anics, in the present condition of the collection laws and tribunals of the several States and of the U.S., is too preposterous and revolting to receive the sanction of my vote. Sir, the country does not now ask for compulsory bankruptcy. The country will not thank us for it. If there exists anywhere, in any class, a desire for any bankrupt law, it is for a voluntary bankrupt law. There may he a small number of men, in narrow docalities of 4 or 5 of the States, who desire a comulsory law. But the masses shrink from it. f it is forced upon them, they will submit to it as an intolerab e, indefensible wrong. I believe there is not a single State where one citizen inten would vote for this bill. In all of the States, exec ting possibly 4 or 5, its supporters would number less than one in 1000. Indeed, sir, if it were submitted to the 850,000 people of my own State to decide today whether a compulsory bankrupt law should be enacted, to operate upon farmers and mechanics and all other persons, I doubt if it would obtain 100 votes outside of the greedy throng who would hope to fatten as officials on the spoils of bankruptcy and it is with good reason that the masses of the people shrink from such a law. It will carry among them wide s read ruin and desolation. Hungry swarmso marshals and clerks and registers and messengers and trustees and assignees and lawyers will gather as buzzards to banquet on the corpses with which this bill will strew the land. It I stood here as the Representative. not of the people, but of my professional brethren only, Twould not oppose this law. For it is their sickle which is to reap in this harvest of death. Into their purses and the purses of officials will go whatever of gold can e extracted from the bankrupt. estate. To the creditor will go only the wretched rags which you strifrom the corpse of the debtor. Sir, t iis compulsory bankruptcy is hostile to the genius of our institutions and the spirit and interests of the great masses of our people. It will be peculiarly offensive to the free and easy but honest and true men of the West, whom it will squeeze into the strait jacket so befitting the madmen of Wall street and the response which it will draw hither from that new country, as soon as its practical operations shall be understood and felt, will be marked with all the strength and vehemence which characterized its resonse to Abraham Lincolns call for 300,000 more men to smite down the rebellion. They are an agricultural people, interspersed with mechanics. They have not the iiglhly developed commerce of Boston, NewYork, or Philadelphia. Nor have they the manufacturing peculiarities of Massachusetts, Connecticut, or RhdIsland. The farmers and mechanics of the West are, as a people, inferior in intelligence, enterprise, honesty, and patriotism to no portion of our fellow citizens. In business prosperity, if not before, they certainly are not behind the average of the country. Without that reverential respect for or precise observance of the artificial rules of trade and commerce which sometimes serve as l; a guise of external decency to cover essential rottenness of character in the hot beds of commercial speculation, they are yet able to transact their business satisfactorily to themselves and to others, on a basis quite as safe and sound and honest as do those men with whom book keeping is religion, form is substance, arithmetic is honesty, and punctilio is honor, even though stee ied in knavery and fraud and it will be neither just nor expedient to put these people, millions in number, into Wall street strait jackets at the instance or for the benefit of a few 100s of their fellow citi us. Some of them have seen their neighbors, under the laws already in force giving to federal courts jurisdiction of cases between citizens of different States, dragged into these courts by non-resident creditors. They have not failed to appreciate the difference in the expense of litigation in the State tribunals and in the cumbrous Federal courts. They have not failed to crceive what an engineof oppression a hederaFcourt run. he in the hands of a man holding office for ife, free from the salutary checks of responsibility to, and swift punishment by, the people or government of the State which are imposed upon the judges of State courts, and prudent enough to avoid those tangible and glaring wrongs which alone incur danger of impeachment. the yhave not failed to observe that for these reasons a Federal court may be, and sometimes is, atribunal the tracks of whose suitors, whether plaintiffs or defendants, point all inward and none outward and hard enough for them oftentimes, is the law which permits non-resident creditors to force them into these courts. But, sir, if you enlarge this jurisdiction as you.ropose so that it shall virtually embrace the colllection of debts, as between citizens of the same State, you will impose upon them a burden of expense, inconvenience, oppression, and misery, which nothing but.the most urgent necessity will excuse; for they know very well, as you and I know, sir, that in the present condition of the collection laws of the States no intelligent creditor will institute these proceedings in bankruptcyif prompted merely by ade sire to recover his debt, and not by a malicious purpose to harass and torment his debtors. at whether the enforcement of these compul sory provisions shall be prompted byignorance or malice, they will inevitably thrust into unnecessar bankruptcy, into gratuitous ruin, 1,000s of unfortunate but upright men who are this day manfully struggling against failure, heroically resolved, and if let a one able, to stem and turn back the tide which threatens to ingulf them and so this law, intended as a bening measure for the relief of the unfortunate, becomes itself an engine of persecution. Its mise hievous consequences, too, will be most distressing in those very debtor communities and among those very debtor classes whom you assert to be most in need of the beneficent provisions of voluntary bankruptcy, whom you profess y0urselves most anxious to relieve. The compulsory chapter of this bill will be enacted for the benefit of the creditor, if it shall be enacted for anybodys benefit and not for universal mise hief. It certainly can be no blessing to the debtor, for the voluntary provisions afford all the relief he wants, and just when he wants it. But it happens that the only feature of a bankrupt law, wlhether voluntary or compulsory, which does not lie within the constitutional scope of State legislation, is a feature which has no connection with the creditors remedy or interests, but is instituted solely for the benefit of the debtor. It is that provision j which discharges the debtor from the debt and, so destroys the legal obligation of the contract. All else the States can enact. Every conceivble contrivanes to enable the creditor to wring payment from the debtors hands State legislation can provide. and, Mr. Speaker, every such contrivance State legislation does provide today. I ask you, sir, to look at the collection laws, which State legislators have exhausted their ingenuity to bring to perfection, which are the results of centuries of experience, and tell me whether they leave anything wanting to the creditor, unless it be the barbarous delight of tormenting his debtor without benefit to himself. I ask your attention to the creditors remedies in my own State as an epitome of the whole, for they differ in no essential particular from those of other States. He has his action at law and in chancery with the ordinary execution. He may arrest his debtor in an action not arising on contract when the debtoris about to remove from the State; in an action for in jury to person or character, or for an injnry to or wrongful taking, detention, or conversion of property; in an action for fraudulent misap plication of property by an agent, factor, bro er, attorney, solicitor, or counselor; and in an action for the recovery of the possession of personal property unjustly detained, where the property, or an part thereof, has been concea ed, remove, or disposed of, so that it cannot be found or taken by the sheriff. He may seize his debtors property by attachment, in an action on contract, if he has abse onded or is about to abse ond from the State, or concealed therein. to the injury of the creditor, or has assigned, disposed of, or concealed an of his property with intent to defraud his creditor, or is about to do either of these things, or has removed, or is about to remove, any of his property out of the State with intent to defraud his creditors, or fraudulently contracted the debt or incurred the obligation for which the action is brought. The writ of ne excat is preserved to the creditor, and the remedies by injunction and repleving are secured to him in most complete and effective forms and in addition to all these well known methods of enforcing his demands, the creditor has that modern device which, underthe name of supplementary proceedings in aid of execution, combines, in their cheapest and most summary form, the injunction, attachment, receiver, creditors bill, compulsory bankruptcy, arrest, ne sweat, and in fact every other contrivance ever invented to wring gold from the hands of fraudulent or unfortunate debtors. All this the creditor now has by State law. What more will he have? For what legitimate interest of his do the State laws fail to provide? For what legitimate purpose does he ask the interposition of the rough arms of this bill? Can it be for any other purpose than the gratuitous injury of the debtor without benefit to himself? Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the destruction of the State exemption laws is the object of these provisions for compulsory bankruptcy. Certainly it will be their effect. But, sir, the masses of our people will not permit these salutary ox emptions to be swept away with impunity at the request of a mere handful of their fellow citizens, whether merchants or manufacturers, however opulent or influential they may be. The American homestead exemption is at once among the choicest fruits and the noble stern blems of American civilization. The idea which underlies it is indeed the very idea which characterizes the genius of our institutions and Government as distinguished from that of all others, the development, elevation, and dignity of the individual men who constitute the pillars and the strength of the Republic. It is atleast 5 years too late to deny or doubt that the grand conservators of American institutions are the millions of men who occupy their oWn houses and their own land. It is too late to doubt that whatever just law tends to increase the number of these, to elevate them in intelligence and character and dignity. will not only contribute to the sum total of national happiness and prosperity, but will also add to that essential strength which the country has required and may again, God only knows how soon, require to preset and perpetuate the national existence. Sir, when the State makes the home of the citizen, be he merchant, farmer, or mechanic, his castle, from which the storms of fortune cannot drive him, and himself one of the sovereigns of the Republic, it is not a boon of charity conferred upon him or his wife or children at the expense of creditors or of justice, but it is at once an act absolutely just, a bless ing to the husband, wife, and child, and a ten fold greater blessing to the nation itself. It. s ust. It. interferes with no rights, because, being prospective in its operation, all business and all cre it are predicated upon its provisions. No man is deceived. There is no false credit. No mans homestead is an element of his credit, except through that legitimate and proper confidence which will be felt in the respects of him who is encouraged and enabletfto stand up, an independent man, on his own soil. He who becomes his creditor becomes such knowing that whatever adversities overtake the debtor, the homestead will never answer for the debt any more than the body or the soul and it is preposterous to say that when adversity does overtake the debtor, it will be hard and unjust if the creditor cannot do what he from the be ginning knew he could not do; what he never intended or expected to do, drive the debtor and his wife and children from their home. But if you enact this bankrupt law, it will, in deed, be diilicult to estimate the hardship and injustice which it will work. I pray ou to consider the case for one moment. he industrious and moderately prosperous mechanic owns his little home, which is better than a palace for him, which is encircled by the very eartstrings of wife and children, which cannot be stricken from the American vocabulary, and leave much of liberty behind. Today he be comes indebted to his neighbor, the farmer. To this friendly transaction the hard, relent less features of a Wall street operation are as foreign as were the money changers to the temple of God. The creditor trusts his neigh bor knowing that his homestead will never respond to the debt, and if the homestead law remains in force he will wait, as he intended, until his debtor pays him every penny. But pass this bill, and you thereby inspire the creditor with something of your own cruelty. The friendship in which the debt originated is for gotten in the tempting opportunity which you suddenly hold out to wrest an estate from a helpless neighbor. Abandoning the State courts, which ordinarily dispense justice at reasonable charges betwMn citizens of the same State, he dra:1 his neighbor into the dreaded machinery of tcFederal courts, which are, in some parts of the country, hardly less terrible to the people than, the Star Chamber or the Inquisition itself. The creditor does this only to find the mirage of his neighbors homestead, which deluded him on, disap ear in the ever thirsty sands of Federal fee bi ls. as the oasis of the enchanted traveler disappears in the sands of the desert. The debtor is ruined. His wife and children are homeless paupers. The creditor has gained not a farthing. The friendship of cars is bro ken up and worse than all, the hederal government has lost a illar of strength which it could not afford to ose. Will you wonder if he curses the suicidal folly of that Government which is read to ruin not only him and his wife and children and creditor, but also even itself? It will not do, sir, at this day, to pretend that the creditor who isa citizen of a different State sustains a relation substantially different from this. For you know, sir, that the merchant of NewYork or Philadelphia or Boston who trades with western men knows the collection laws of the States of his western customers as well as he knows those of his own State. The publishedbooks containing the collection laws of the several States in circulation among iner chants are as countless as dictionaries and better read than their Bibles and what is more, it will result from the difference in the character and extent of the transactions that when claims from other States come into conflict with the homestead law once, those from the same State will come into such conflict 1,000times. But, sir, while it is true that the nation itself derives the highest benefit from these State exemption laws, it is also true that they are of inestimable value to the people, to widows and to orphans no less than to men. Their presence in the body of the laws of a people constitutes a mile stone in the progress of the commercial world from that brutality which made the creditor the cannibal tormeutor of the debtor, to the ameliorations of modern civilization. The value of exemptions is recognized in the legislation of almost all the States. In deed, they are established by the declaration of rights in the constitution of my own State, in these words: " The privilege of the debtor to enjoythe necessary comforts of life shall be recognized by wholesome laws, exempting a reasonable amount of property from seizure or sale for the payment of any do tor liability hereafter contracted." In obedience to this injunction of the constitution of Wisconsin, our Legislature has enacted laws exempting certain property, real and personal, from seizure or sale for the payment of debts contracted after their enactment. The business of our people, transacted with each other and with citizens of other States, has been transacted with reference to these constitutional and statutory provisions. It is a part of our system which has become endeared to our people by experience of its benefits, and it will not be torn from them with impunity by this or any other Congress. When you ask me to vote for a compulsory bankrupt act which will, without occasion or excuse, abrogate not only our stat utes, but even our constitution, your demand is unreasonable and I must resist it. If you could show me that the welfare of the whole country demanded that we should new exercise our constitutional power by enacting a comulsory bankrupt law which would annihilate State laws and constitutions, I should feel bound to vote for your law, however reluctant to injure my own people. But, sir, ou can show no such thing. On the contrary, have shown you that you are called upon neither by the wishes nor by the interests of the people at large, or of any considerable portion of them, to make this law. Sir, I would hesitate to say that the distressed farmer or mechanic should either forego the benefits of voluntary bankruptcy or tear down the roof that covers his wife and children, and lead them out penniless and shelterless into the world. But it I could consent to that. I could not consent to drive him into compulsory bankruptcy, and theningulf him in such hopeless ruin. I shall, therefore, oppose this bill on the ground that it destroys wise and salutary exemptions, which have gradually grown up in most, if not all, of the States, have become incorporated as an integral part into the body of their laws, and become, with good reason, unspeakably dear to the masses of the American people, however unimportant or repulsive they may be to, manufacturing or mercantile ca italists in particular localities. That this bil will, if enacted, abrogate these exemptions no man can doubt. When my attention was 1st called to iIt prepared an amendmentlim iting the operation of its comulsory provisions to snci real and personal) estate of the debtor as should not be exempted from attachment or seizure or levy on execution by the laws of the State of his residence. But it became apparent that such an amendment would render the bill unconstitutional, for it must be uniform in order to be constitutional; and Uniformity as to the property subject to or exempt from its operation is as indispensable as Uniformity in any other particular. Now, if no bankrupt law is in force the homestead exemption is violative neither of the letter nor of the spirit of the Federal Constitution. But if a bankrupt law is enacted, and the State exemptions are not expressly saved, they are destroyed by the constitutional previsionmade operaiive by the enactment of the law. If the exemptions are expressly saved by such a structure of the bill as makes it operative upon property not exempted, and on such property only. then the bill falls to the ground as unconstitutional in all its length and breadth. If, however, the exemptions are expressly saved by such a structure of the act as extends its operation to all the estate of the debtor, and then excepts therefrom the property exempted by State laws, the excetion alone falls as unconstitutional, and the law crushes to powder our homestead exemptions. There is, then, no middle ground. This comulsory bankrupt law willdestroy our homestead laws, or we must destroy it. In my judgment, if we enact this law we shall, after a very short experience of its practical operation, become satisfied, not only that we have incurred, but that we have justly incurred, the disleasure of the country. f the principle of the compulsory clause of this law is objectionable, so also are the details by which it is carried into execution. With a high hand it assumes to reverse that solid maxim that the accused is presumed to be in nocent until proven to be guilty and actually attempts the absurdit of holdin the accused ilty unless he shalT establish is innocence y proving a ne ative. When the trial or hearing is held, to determine whether the alleged act of bankruptcy has been committed. what is the rule of procedure? Are the proceedings to be dismissed unless the accusing creditor shall prove the truth of his accusation? Shall the accused of free unless his accuser shall prove what he as charged, that the debtor has ab se onded, or removed his property, or assigned, sold, conveyed, or transferred it, to defraud or hinder his creditors, or has been arrested or yimprisoned, or has confessed judgment. to de feat this act? No, sir; there is no such thing in the bond. The burden of proof is shifted to the shoulders of the debtor. These are the concluding words of the 41st section of the bill: “And it npon such hearing or trial the debtor proves to the satisfaction of the court or of the jury, as the casemay be, that the facts set forth in the petition are not true or that the debtor has paid and satisfied all liens upon his property, in case the existence of such liens was the soleground of the proceeding, the proceedingshall be dismissed." and you will not. fail to observe, sir, that whereas the proof of a negative in ordinary cases is proverbially difficult, the proof of the netive of either of I the allegations of prescribed acts of bankruptcy is peculiarly difficult. It is in such circumstances of aggravated hardship that the accused must assume the hitherto uneaidof burden of actually proving his own innocence before any attempt is made to prove his guilt. How natural that a law conceived in the spirit of the Inquisition should drag its machinery along in its train! and mark youl In the next section it is provided that the bankruptcy shall be adjudged. not if the creditor shall prove the facts alleged in his petition to be true, but if the judge shall find them to be true; leaving the unjust judge a pretext to find them true if the debtor shall not have proven them not to be true under the requirement just read. Sir, it will be superfluous to comment on legislation like this, whether operative on merchants, mechanics, farmers, or anybody else. There is one other provision which must not be overlooked. It will only be necessary to translate it from the verbiage of the law into common English, in order to exhibitdts enormities. The district judge may, if, after the commencement of the proceedings, creditors holding 3/4ths olpthe claims shall recommend it, appoint trustees to supersede the assignees, and without giving any security whatever, wind up the estate under the direction of a committee of creditors, with all the pewers of assignees in bankruptcy. Sir, I fancy I see the vultures, that fatten on fees and costs already flapping their wings for the banquet to which this provision invites them and yet there is something better still in store ibr them. They will not be able to restrain their gobble of loathsome joy when they se ent that clause of section 33 which provides that if the estate, which, fairly and cheaply settled, would have paid, perhaps, 90%., shall shrink to less than 50 in ihe hands of these irresponsible trustees and their attendant har pies, the debtor shall still be held for every unpaid cent; and so his carcass at some future day may furnish another feast for the buzzards of the law. It seems to, sir, that these reasons ought, of themselves, O deter us from the enactment of this measure. But against it we have also the concurrent authority of all the greatest statesmen of the generation which has just passed away. This veryquestion of compulsorly bankruptcy has been cbated in this apto by Webster and Clay and Benton and Calhoun. The law which was enacted in 1841, and repealed in 1813, contained provisions for involuntary bankruptcy. But unike the compulsory provisions of the pending bill, they were restricted in their operation to certain classes. On the 5th day of June, Mr. Clay moved, in the Senate, to strike out the compul 60? clause. The yeas&nays were taken; an I ask the House carefully to observe the vote, which stood as follows: “YEAS l7. NAYS 12).” Now, it is true that there was a majority of 8 in favor of retaining the compulsory clause. But even if this vote were to e taken as a correct criterion of the opinions of these senators upon the simple question of accepting or rejecting compulsory bankruptcy, itcould hardly be doubtful on which side the weight of authority is found. Ip, rehpoownedveerra, tiynegu will carefully rea the speeches of those who voted against striking out this compulsory provision you will, I think, he satisfie that other reasons than the simple a proval of that provision prom ted most of the opposition to the motion of Mr. Clay. You will find that only Messrs. Benton, Norvell, and Wall have placed themselves upon the record as advocates of the involuntary clause, and that they expressly required the restriction of its operation to merchants and traders, which restriction in substance characterized that law of 1841, but is wanting in this bill of 1866. You will find also that Messrs. anderson and Hubbard avowed their hostility to the bill as a whole; that of the 25 who voted to retain this clause, 13 subsequently, on the same day, voted for the indefinite postponement of the bill, and 17 on the goth of June voted against the bill on its final passage. You will become convinced, sir, that the explanation of the vote upon Mr. Clays motion given by Mr. Calhoun in the extract from his speech which I shall soon read was correct. Mr. Clay sa"idI in this memorable debate: will nowsayafewwordsonthepartle ular amendment which I have submitted. to strike out the section which provides for the caseof compulsoryorin voluntary bankruptcies. 3 considerations appear to me to unite in recommending the adoption of that am“endment: 1. such a coercive system is opposed to the habits and genius of the country. It might answerfor the large commercial cities, rbutit is not adapted for the other parts of the count. In large portions of the Union the interior more out and trader are accustomed to give extensive credits, waiting for payment gurnotwil mthgec frorpm. eBruotrthpelaunntceerrtraeianltizes the so asof his of theseasons and the markets freiguently occasions disappointment in the collection of debts of the most undoubtedehar acter. Hence the merchant may be disabled punctually to comply with his engagements, although his ultimate ability is be ond all doubt and it would ea case of extremo iardship to divest him, on account of a temporary delinquency without his fault, iof the careful and prudent management of his own property and transfer it to the custodyof a receiver or assignces, whose chief solicitude might be their own commissionsand es. “2. All the acts specified in the compulsory section proposed to be stricken out as evidence of bankruptcy, are already prowded for by the laws of some of the States and are suse eptibleof provision by all the States and "3. If the involuntary system be desirnblentpught not to be included in t iis bill, but should be introduced in a so brute bill.as was proposed by a maiority of the Judiciury Committee. Mr. Calhoun said: “But it goes much further, and provides for loom prehensivesystemofcompulsory bankruptoy. as it is calledthat is. as I understand it. bankruptcy as in toefntdliiesd pboyrttihoenConstitution. sfiir as the provisions admit its constitutionalliatrye, blimutited to indiViduals. object to it on tic broad ground of expediency. It is impossible for any onqto doubt, who willexanuno the history of pur legislation, that theremust be some powerful ObJOCtion to the passageoflaws ofbankrupte by Congress. No other proof is neededthan the fact t at, although the Government has Beenin operation for morethan half a century and the power is unquestionable, yet in that long period. Notwitbstanding the numorouii and strenuous efforts that have been magic, but a single act. has passed, and that, though limited to 5 years, was repealed before the expiration of the time. If we inquire into the causew oshall find it. in art at least, in the genius of our institutions and t io character of our pe ole, which areabhorrent to whateyer is harsh in legisation. than which there is none, in its Widerange more so than the laws of bankruptcy. They give the creditors the most summary and eflicient processagainst the debtors, of which we may besatisfied by looking into the pronsions of this amendment." "And shall we, who are at least in part responsiblefor such astute of things at such a period when the debtors are somuch at the mercy of theoredttors, reversin the bill Judged but humane policy wisely prohibite to the Statesby the Constitution, of interposing in favor of the debtois, arm the creditors with new and extraordinary powers of enforcing their demands? Whoi s tbero that does not feelthat itwoulil becruel, impolitic and unjust? But it is only at such periods that bankrupt lawsnre proposed: and is it at all wmounnditeyrfhual vtehastothsteroinnsgtliynactnid vestfeeaedliinly gsreosfistthed their adoption? “ 0ii no occasionhas there been strongercausefor resistance thiip the p resent.f;or on nono could such a law be moro impolitio and cruel and such. 1 may udtrefrom the discussion, is the feeling of this bod. tending alone and limited to individuals, I doubt whetherthe portion of the amepdment under immediate consideration would receive it singlo vote. although it is the onlypart which ise learly and unquestionablywitbin the limits of Uie Constitution. Itmay, then, well be asked, if it is without supporters, why is it inserted 1 But one answer ciin be given: because it is felt, as obnoxious in; it is, to be indispensableto the pmage of the provisions connectedwith it. One portion of the Senate is so intent on passing the part in favor of insolvent debtors that they ars wiling to take with it the compulsory portion in favor o creditors, while another, from a strong desireto include corporations, are willing to comprehend the other provisions, though they denouncetho provisions in favor of insolvent detors standing a one as fraudulent. unjust, and unconstitutional. It is thus the 2 extremes unite in favor of a measure that neither would support alone, and a featureof the bill. obnoxious of itself, but constitutional, is made to buoy upother portions which, if not clearly unconstitutional, to say the least, are of doubtful constituionally. Let me so to those wbo represent the portion of the Union where the indebtedness is the greatest, and who, on that account, favor the provisions for the reliofof the insolvent, that the operation of the amendment, should it. pass, will disappoint them. The part in favor of the debtors may, indeed, throw of! tie burden from many who are now hopelessly insolvent, and restoretheir usefulness to themselves and society, but the other provisions will induce a far greater number to insolvency who might otherwise struggle through their embarriissmentsWith a competonc left for the support of themselvesand their families. I cannot be mistaken. Should the amendment as it now stands becomea law. instead of relieving it would crush ihe indubted portion of the Union. DelmleonRepealm 151l3. Mr. Webster said: " Now, sir, the argument for the compulsory clause cisu.rtihtya;t without this power the creditors have no se that the bill is a.one sided measure, a measurefor the benefitnnd.rclief of debtors only. quite regardlessof the Just rights of creditors. All t iIs deny. I maintain. on the contrary, not only that there is Just securityfor thoughts ol creditors.under the voluntary part of the bill, but that that part, of itself and by itself, is of the highest value and importance to creditors. This proposition takes for granted, whatI have no doubt Will be found true, that personsin insolvent circumstanceswill generally becomovoluntary bunkrupts; and in the 2nd place, I maintain that very little value is added to tple futiltiuiity of creditors by the compulsory part of t ei and his arguments, in maintenance of these propositions alone, fill more than 5 columns of the Globe. Mr. Benton said: "Persons who are not merchants or traders have been carried away by the spirit of the times, and have beeninvolved in debts from which theyseeno means of extrication. These have a right to the relief of a bankrupt law as well as those regularly engagedin trade: at the sometime they should not be subject to the compulsoryapplication of the law. With them the application of the law should be voluntary and optional: it should only be applied to them on their own petition.while with those regularly engngmdin trade, and particularly bound to know the laws of trade and to obeytheselaws, the application of the law should be coiniulsory, and should trike effect upon ntbo petition o a given proportion of the cred ors. I have now, Mr. Speaker, presented the considerations which control my judgment in this case. They rest upon reason, experience, and authority; and I cannot deem it wise or expe dient to enact a law which they all so emphat ically condemn.