Mr. DAWES. I wish to call attention to the fact that the effect of this enactment will be to produce in almost all the States of the Union 2 sets ofinegotiable notes one liable to absolute forfeiture if the notes be in any way tainted with usury, and another liable SlUJply to the penalty provided by the State laws. In our own State, fbrinstance, wehave tried various penalties fornsnry. 1st we had a law similar to that now in force in the State of NewYork, providing that as a penalty for usury the debt should be forfeited. Then the law was modified so as to provide that 3 times the whole amount of interest should be forfeited if there were any unlawful interest exacted. Now our law provides that 3 times the amognt of the unlawful interest shall be forfeited; and there is a provision for the recovery of the unlawful interest from any party who has taken it. such would be the law applicable to all negotiable paper in Massachusetts exc t that which might pass through these national anks. Then there is another class of negotiable paper, that passing through the national banks in Massachusetts and throughout NewEngland, which would have attached to it the entire forfeiture of the debt as the penalty for usury. Now, sir, I do notdcsire to opposethis amendment, but I wish to suggest to my colleague [Mr. Hoorsu] whether it is not practicable to provide that the penalty of usury in the several States shall conform to the law of the individual State, whether the State has deemed it wise, like the State of NewYork, to retain the old provision, or whether, like the State of Massachusetts, it deems it sufficient to provide a forfeiture of 3 times the amount of unlawful interest, or whether, like the State of Indiana, it declares that the forfeiture of the interest itself is sufficient. I throw out this suggestion to my colleague, for it seemsto me to be a great evil that different classes of negotiable paper, having on their face nothingrto distinguish one class from another, should have attached to them by law a very different penalty. It seems to me quite worth the while of the gentlemen having charge of this bill to try whether they cannot devise a penalty which shall conform to the law of each of the States respectively; so that all the negotiable paper in h assachusetts shall be subject for usury to the penalty provided by the law of that State, andpall the negotiable paper in the State of NewYork shall for usury be subject to the penalty provided by the law of that State. I do not know that this is practicable; but I throw out the suggestion for what it may be worth.