Mr. STEWART. With the consent of the Senfrom Wisconsin I should like to make a single remark in reply to the Senfrom Kentucky. The Senfrom Kentucky did not quite understand my meaning, Ior did not make myself sufficiently plain. I wish to state again that by the term “uniform” there must have been contemplated an equal distribution of the assets of the bankrupt; that is to say, such asssets as he might not have exempt from execution at the time of the decree. If it meant other than that, if it meant an equal distribution of all the assets of the bankrupt at the time he committed the act of bankruptcy, which the discussion has assumed, then the law of 1841 was most clearly unconstitutional, because it allowed particular cred itors to obtain advantages over others after the commission of an act of bankruptcy. This clause was put into the Constitution in view of the law of involuntary bankruptcy as it existed in England. Voluntary bankruptcy had not then been resorted to except, perhaps, in some of the States, but that was not a general system; and it was called insolvency and not bankruptcy originally in the States. The provision of the Constitution had reference particularly to involuntary bankruptcy where the party was forced into bankruptcy by his creditors, and the word “uniform” was used in that view. If it means that there shall be an equal distribution after the act of bankruptcy is committed, then the law of 1841 was unconstitutional, because it provided that after the act of bankruptcy, and before proceedings in bankruptcy were commenced, after the party f became insolvent; after he had committed a fraud, the State might allow a favored creditor to come in and acquire a lien on his property, and thus prevent an equal distribution of it among the creditors; and it was held in the case which I have cited that all that was required was to distribute fairly among the cred itors, reside where they might, what property was left subject to execution. That could be distributed among the creditors, and that was distributed. Thus the decision under that law practically said that after an act of bankruptcy was committed a creditor might secure an unequal distribution of the property under the authority of the State. If a State could do that, surely a State may reserve a lien for the benefit of the family.