Mr. STEWART. So I supposed. The argument that the people of Indiana want to pay dollar for dollar is answered by the insolvent laws on her statute book. Her insolvent laws guard no more strictly against fraud than does this bill. I believe nearly every State has its insolvent laws. The inconvenience of these State insolvent laws was the argument used in the debates in the Convention that framed the Constitution in favor of a general law, and at this otime it is very pertinent. The South has its insolvent laws which allow a debtor to be discharged, and under their pecu liar system there is no chance of an equal or fair distribution of the assets. This bill is for the benefit of the northern creditors as much as for.other class. The State insolvent laws enable the debtor to escape with as much and generally with greater facility than this bill, and under them you go into the State courts instead of into the U.S. courts. This bill enables a northern creditor or a cred itor anywhere in another State to force the debtor into the U.S. courts and obtain a distribution of his assets. This argument, therefore, that the people of the States desire to pay their debts and to adopt that policy is not true in the sense in which it is. There is no State that does not in some form relieve the debtors by insolvent laws. It is the policy of the people of Indiana, when an enterprising, honest man has been unfortunate and he is pursued by relentless creditors, to allow him to surrender up all he has and start again in the world. This is the policy of Indiana. That is the policy of this bill. It is not true that it is the policy of the U.S. to make every man under all circumstances pay his debts. That was the theory at one time under the English Government, and they carried that theory so far that they allowed creditors to take the person of the debtor and confine him in jail and let his family suffer, perhaps starve. The creditors were all powerful, and they treated the debtors as criminals. But, sir, all that has been changed. The only question here is whether we shall, under the provision of the Constitution, have a uniform system of bankruptcy, so that citizens of one State may have the same chance to a fair distribution of the assets of the debtor as the citizens of another State. The only question is whether we shall, under the provision of the Constitution, make that policy, which is acknowledged by every State and by all the people of the U.S. to be right and just, uniform; make it apply uniformly. There is no doubt about the propriety of the bill so far as that is concerned. The Senator further says that we must look to the English bankrupt law in determining questions of uniformity. I wish to call the attention of the Senate particularly to that as applicable to this question of allowing the States to retain their homestead laws. The English bankrupt system allowed in each case the judge before whom the proceedings were tried to set apart for the support of the family of the bankrupt so much as was suitable to the condition of the bankrupt, so much as was reasonable owing to his position in society, that would correspond with his condition; in one case 5, in another case 100, and perhaps in another case 1,000, and so on gradu ating it. Does anybody question that that was a uniform system of bankruptcy? We were referred to that one example for an interpretation of the provision of the Constitution. That is the English law today. Is not that entirely analogous to allowing the States to set apart beforehand a homestead for the family? Does that interfere with the uniformity of the system any more than it did to allow an arbi trary amount to be set apart for the debtor corresponding to his condition and circumstances in life? Certainly not. Then we maintain that there is nothing in this bill which violates that principle of uniformity. There is certainly nothing in the bill that allows a dishonest debtor to avoid the payment of his debts. There is nothing in the bill which is not in precise harmony with the legislation of all the States of the Union, for they all have insolvent laws, and all recognize the necessity of relieving enterprising men from debts which will otherwise incumber them for life and make their families paupers. All the States, I believe, recognize the principle in some form. The only question is, whether we shall make it convenient and uniform for the accommodation of the commercial people of the U.S.; whether they shall have the same privileges all over the U.S. that they have in anyone particular State; whether they shall have the advantage of the U.S. courts in which to have the assets of a dishonest debtor distributed. That is the only question to be determined here. As to the objection that the bill is unconstitutional because of the voluntary clause, that has been determined by the Supreme Court. We had a bankrupt act before this; the act of 1841 was a voluntary act; and the Supreme Court held that it was constitutional. That objection, therefore, is disposed of I do hope, sir, that this bill will pass. I do not think it involves the question of reconstruction. When that question comes before Ius shall be prepared to adopt any necessary measures that may be before Congress to secure the life and property of every loyal man. I will go as far as any other Senator in that direction. But this bill has nothing to do with that question. The question now before us simply is, whether we shall, in conformity to the requirement of the Constitution, have upon our statute book, for the convenience of the commercial men of the country, a uniform system of bankruptcy, by which bankrupts may be driven into the U.S. courts, and their assets fairly distributed; where they may appear, if they wish to go into voluntary bankruptcy, in the U.S. courts; where the creditors can have an opportunity to examine their accounts; or whether they shall go into the interior courts in the interior of the country, where nobody will hear of it, and go through bankruptcy in the fraudulent way that is complained of, to the prejudice of their creditors. I repeat, the question is simply whether we shall have a uniform system in the proper courts, or whether we shall let it go on in the way it now goes on, to the det riment of commercial men, with the whole thing involved in uncertainty: the South with her stay laws, with her laws that prevent the collection of debts in every possible form, and with the prejudice in the local courts that must exist to the fair distribution of assets a prejudice which will prevent a northern creditor from sharing equally with a southern cred itor. This prejudice must necessarily exist. It existed at the time of the formation of the Constitution. This local prejudice was recognized by those who were in the Convention. They sought to avoid local prejudices, and for the convenience of commercial men, and for creditors throughout the U.S., it was deemed important that the U.S. courts should be thrown open under a general system. That is all there is of this bill, and I hope it will pass.