Mr. SHERMAN. In the consideration of this bankrupt bill I have felt disposed to follow the committee in all their amendments, so that if we are to have a bankrupt law we shall have one that has been carefully matured, care fully considered, and well guarded to carry out the intention of the framers of the law. It is manifest that the amendment of the Senfrom Oregon is totally inconsistent with the great body of the bill. If adopted, it is a virtual defeat of the bill. The adoption of this amendment will require of course the recommitment of the bill. I prefer to defeat the bill by a direct vote rather than do it by indirection. I think the gentleman who has charge of this bill will admit that if this amendment be adopted the whole bill must be reframed. The bill has been framed mainly to apply to preexisting debts, and this clause is entirely inconsistent with many sections of the bill, so that it would not be fair to vote in favor of this amendment unless you want to defeat the bill by indirection. My own course as to this bankrupt bill will be guided somewhat by the plain and obvious public opinion of the State of Ohio. In the State of Ohio there is a strong prejudice against a bankrupt bill. A part of that grows out of the fact that it is an agricultural community, and bankrupt laws are not favored by agricultural and mechanical communities. They are commercial measures, and they are only justified by the fluctuations and losses in commercial transactions. They are the growth of the English system of commerce, and generally an agricultural community have a prejudice against a bankrupt law. A part o this prejudice in this case has grown out of the abuses of the law of 1841, when men appar ently wealthy suddenly took the benefit of the bankrupt law, discharged themselves from all their liabilities, and soon after became rich again, and sometimes honest creditors saw the d.ebtors who had been discharged by the bank law rolling in wealth, while they themselves in some cases were suffering the pangs of poverty., The remembrance of that transaction, which was before my time, undoubtedly prejudices the public mind against a bankrupt aW. But rather than that I have the best evidence that the public sentiment of the State of Ohio is against it from the action of the Legislature 2 years ago when this very bill, or one similar in character, was introduced into Congress. The Legislature of Ohio with great unanimity then instructed the Senators from that State to vote against it. While I do not feel bound by legislative instructions, while I do not regard myself as compelled to obey the wishes of the Legislature if inconsistent with the duty which I owe to myself and my position, I yet pay great respect to the views of the Legislature as an evidence of the public sentiment of the State; and I always do respect that exPression, especially when I am convinced that the Legislature exPresses the sentiments of the people of the State, as is the case on this matter. I shall feel bound, therefore, to vote against this bill; but in doing Iso am desirous to promote all proper amendments to the bill and to see it consistent, so that if passed against my own judgment it may be a creditable and uni form and consistent throughout.