Mr. JENCKES. Mr. Speaker, the bill upon which I now ask the vote of this House rests upon no doubtful authority; no question can arise in regard to the constitutional power of this Congress to pass it. The lauguage of the Constitution of the U.S. IS plain and explicit that Congress shall have power to pass uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the U.S. Looking through the debates that have arisen upon previous laws relating to this subject, I have found no question raised as to the power of Congress; the entire and absolute power of Congress over this ighole subject is conceded and acknowledge. here have been criticisms upon the language used in previous laws, and upon the language used in the Constitution. At the time of the assuge of the bankrupt law of 1800, many he ieved, if I may credit the language then used in the debates as reported in the Annals of Congress, that the constitutional provision had reference only to the laws of England when that phrase was adopted which now stands in the Constitution. But in the subsequent de hates, when the subject was before Congress in 1820, in 1827, in 1840 41, and 1842, 1 think I may say, from having examined every speech that was made upon the subject, there was no question as to the power of Congress over the entire subject. Some said that the laws of England were to be their uide. Others said, and said more wisely, as think, that there were other systems of bankruptcy than those adopted or recognized by the laws of England; and that the authors of the Constitution had reference ton general law upon the entire subject, which should meet, not only the wants of the American people at that time, but whatever they might require in their business thereafter. The Constitutionitself was expressed in brief phrase, containing general propositions. The authors of it have by experience shown themselves to be as wise, ifnot wiser, than their successors. The phrase which they used upon this subject seems to me to furnish the basis of the present law, and of any future amendment to it which shall embrace the entire subject of laws relating to persons who have failed in business, and which shall provide for the distribution of the estates of the insolvents. The foundation of this law, therefore, I assume, is entirely clear and sound. No one can raise an objection to the power of Congress over this whole subject. The objections which have been raied in this debate, and the objections which have hitherto been raised, are to certain provisions of the law, not to the general policy of it. But in the lim ited time which is allowed to me I propose to consider these general objections and to reply to them as bravely as I may. The 1st objection is made by gentlemen who live in certain portions of the territory of the U.S. whose district courts are authorized and required to take jurisdiction of cases under this bill, and wherever there are a large number of persons and a large amount of property; that may be Subjected to the operations of this bill. [will take the northern district of NewYork for example and as I wish this to be a debate simply upon the propositions of the law, and not upon the general policy of it, I ask the attention of the Gentfrom that district, [Mr. CoxxuxoJone of the principal objections raised to this law is that it cannot be executed in the northern district of NewYork.