Mr. STEWART. The adoption of this amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts, of course, is the end of the bill. There will be no bankrupt bill if you now provide that no debtor be a discharged bankrupt unless his assets are sufficient to pay 50%. of the claims against his estate. And now I should like to say a word in regard to one remark made by the Senfrom Massachusetts in support of this amendment. He says that it is objectionable to pass this bill at is time, because there is a large amount of indebtedness due by persons in the South, pay.ment of which has been postponed in consequence of the rebellion, which will be lost to northern creditors if this bill be passed. I think he is entirely mistaken as to the practical operation of this bill so far as that matter is concerned. In the 1st place, the theory of a bankrupt bill is, that when a man is hopelessly insolvent it is better for the creditor that he should be discharged, so that he need not send good money after bad, and it is better for the community that the debtor should be discharged, so that he may be of use to the community. ifa man, whether in the South or in the North, is hopelessly insolvent, I would not wish to tax the creditor by putting him to the expense of attempting to collect anything. A word further in respect to the operation of this bill in the South. Gentlemen complain of stay laws, and I admit they are onerous and wrong. This bill sweeps out of existence the stay laws. If a southern debtor has property and is willing to avail himself of stay laws or of the prejudices of the community which would prevent a fair verdict by a jury in a suit for the recovery of a northern debt, this bill enables the creditor to force him into bankruptcy, to compel a distribution of his assets, and this through the process of the U.S. courts, whereas the State courts there as now organized are very poor machinery for the collection of debts. Then I say that where the debtor is hope lessly insolvent it is better for the northern creditor that he should know it, and the less money he sends after what is lost the better; and where the debtor is not insolvent, but wishes to shield behind stay laws or to avail himself of a prejudice that exists in the community, so as to affect juries or interrupt the due administration of justice, this bill enables the creditors to go into the U.S. courts and coerce the creditor into bankruptcy and have a fair distribution of the assets. So far as the northern debtor is concerned it is much better that he should have a settlement. This bill enables him to get a settlement in any event. If he can get nothing he knows it; if there is anything to be distributed it enables him to reach the debtor who is attempting to evade payment. Really it is some relief to the northern creditor. Then, throughout the North values have changed so rapidly in the last 6 years, men's property has fluctuated to such an extent, that there is a large number of persons who are insolvent, with large indebtedness hanging over them, which is merely the result of the fluctuation in prices, and which no human foresight could have guarded against. It is highly important that they should be relieved. The community demands their services in the avenues of business. If there ever was a time when a bankrupt bill was appropriate it seems to me now is the time. Furthermore, we should have such a law on our statute book as a regular system for all time. All civilized nations recognize the importance of this. A bankrupt bill holds up a moral standard for traders that does not exist independently of it. If a trader commits an act of fraud, an act of bankruptcy, he can be driven into bankruptcy, although he may have a large surplus above what is sufficient to pay his debts. such a law fixes a standard of morality which is higher than is recognized by the insolvent laws of the different States. It is a compulsory as well as a voluntary system of bankruptcy. Most of the States have their insolvent laws, but they are not as good for the general creditor throughout the U.S. as this bankrupt law would be. The insolvent laws in most of the southern States enable a debtor to much more easily prevent his property being fairly distributed among his creditors than this bill. You cannot wipe out the insolvent laws that exist in the South. The States all over the Union have insolvent laws, and under those laws there is no possibility of a creditor non-resident in the State getting a portion of the proceeds when there is a distri ution. That was the evil aimed at by the framers of the Constitution when they gave Congress power to pass a uniform bankrupt law, as the debates show, because the States were passing bankrupt and insolvent laws that gave a preference to resident over non-resident creditors. There was an evil in that respect, and that was the very evil intended to be removed by giving this power to Congress. The evil still exists, however, I say, then, this bill, as a measure in favor of creditors, and of northern creditors if you please, is of some advantage to them. It gives them a remedy which they do not now have, and takes away from them no right which they now have. Anything that can be done to avoid the payment of a debt can be much more read creditors in every possible way. ily done under the State insolvent laws that exist throughout the South. I hope the bill will become a law; but if this amendment prevails it is the end of the bill.