Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, as I have already remarked, I am in favor of a judicious and well framed bankrupt law, if we can have one, and I shall probably vote for the Present bill on its final passage if it ever reaches that point. I wish, ro. to call the attention of the Senate, and particularly that of the honorable Senfrom Vermont, to the danger of a collision of jurisdiction in the operations of this law. In most of the States, I believe, they have a system of winding up acts in regard to banks, by which the banks of the State, if they become insolvent, are wound up, their affairs closed, and their assets distributed among their creditors. We have a system like that in my State, and I Presume there is a similar system in other States. Now, take for instance a case of this kind: a bank in the State of NewYork becomes insolvent, if you please bankrupt, using the word “bankrupt” in the sense of insolvent. Proceedings are taken on the part of the State authorities to wind up the bank and distribute its assets. A receiver is appointed by an order of the court of chancery, whose duty it is to enter upon the premises, take the books and assets of the bank, and hold them subject to the order of the court, and the court afterward proceeds to sell the property and distribute the avails. Now, suppose during any portion of this proceeding a creditor of the ank, acting under the involuntary clause of this bankrupt bill, should file his petition in the bankrupt court, and ask to have that bank and its affairs committed to the kind care of an assignee in bankruptcy, and the Federal court or bankrupt court should make such an order: how is such an order to be enforced? It would inevitably bring on a collision of jurisdiction between the 2 courts, or rather between the Federal authority and the State authority, which would be very unpleasant, If, however, this bankrupt act shall be adjudged to be the paramount law, if upon this large field of subjects it is supreme, then it would be competent for the bankrupt court, at any moment before the final distribution of the assets of an insolvent bank, to lay hold of those assets and dispose of them according to the provisions of this bill, in defiance and contempt of the laws of the State upon precisely the same subject. I call the attention of the honorable Senator to this view of the matter for the purpose of further illustrating the objection which I make to this portion of the bill upon constitutional ounds. I cannot understand how Congress o way of a bankrupt act can exercise. power or authority over corporations which are purely the creatures of State legislation. If the power belongs to the State to regulate its own corporations, if the State gives them their peculiar faculties, imparts to then life and all the laws of their being, it must be and is an exclusive power, one with which we can not, interfere. My objection rests upon the fundamental principle that we have not, in reference to State corporations, the power to interfere; at least I think not. I am not sure that the question has ever been adjudged in any court. It is to me not entirely a new one, to be sure, for I have reflected upon it before. If the Senate should not see fit to strike out the entire section for the reasons which I have alleged, I think the amendment suggested by the Senfrom Vermont, confining the section to trading corporations, would be a very decided improvement, and I should vote for it.