Mr. STEWART. Well, I will read the sylla bus of the case in 7 Howard, to show that an i analogous question has been before the SCOTUS been decided, and has: “The proviso of the 2ndsection of the bankrupt act, passed on the 19th of August, 1841, Preserves all liens which may be valid by the laws of respectively.” the States The States under this power to mightFo make liens make liens in favor of the family as well as in favor of the creditors, which is the ordinary way. “In someof the States, attachmentsare issueden mesne process by which the property seized is to await the result of which the suit. This constitutesalien is saved by the proviso in the bankrupt act.” Some States allowed liens in favor of the bankrupt's judgment creditors; other States did not allow such liens: was that not a want of uniformity? And yet the bankrupt law of 1841 was held to be constitutional. Surely there was as great a want of uniformity under. the lien laws as there can be under the exemption laws of the States. The principle is the same, so far as I can comprehend it. “Therefore, where an attachment wasissued, and the defendants afterward applied for the benefit of the bankrupt act, a plea of bankruptcy wasnot sufficient to prevent a condemning judgment from being rendered the property under attachment. “The 4th section of the statute, if it stoodalone, would make a plea of bankruptcy a good plea in bar in dischargeof all debts; but if the whole statute be construedtogether this is not theresult. “A rejoinder. setting forth that the district court of the U.S. had decided that the attachment was not a valid lien upon the property, wasnot a 981rejoinder. The district court could not oust the State court of its jurisdiction which had already attached.” The bankrupt law of 1841 in States where they had not this attachment law and I believe it existed only in NewEngland reached all the property of the debtor. In NewEng land when a debtor became in failing circumstances a creditor would issue an attachment and require a lien, and in the distribution of the assets would get his whole debt if the assets were sufficient to meet it; but that practice was not allowed out of NewEngland. Yet the Supreme Court did not hold that the law was unconstitutional for that reason. That was a greater and more unfair inequality than will be created by allowing the States to provide within their respective limits for a small pittance to be reserved, either in the shape of a homestead or an exemption of property from execution, for the benefit of the amily.