regulations, it would be impossible to advance the great common interest of the nation. It should not, therefore, be expected by the friends of the measure, that the interest and advantage of their immediate constituents alone, are to be consulted; nor should it be concluded by the advocates of the bill, that no other views but their own are worthy of consideration. Upon this floor, continued Mr. S., the feelings and interests of every class are, or should be, represented. It would most surely be unwise, and a violation of our duty, to legislate for the benefit of any class, to the exclusion of all others, unless in some special cases. This, sir, is a proposition to create, by legislative enactment, a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States. The policy, and, in the opinion of some most respectable gentlemen, the necessity, of this measure, grow out of the embarrassments and difficulties of a very large and meritorious class of our fellow-citizens, who have been engaged in commerce. Whilst I admit, said Mr. S., the great advantages which the country has received, and will continue to receive, from the enterprise and industry of commercial men; and whilst I recognise their right to be represented here, and declare my sympathies for their misfortunes, and readiness to lend my aid in all legitimate measures for their relief, I cannot forget that they constitute but a very small portion of the whole community, to all of whom the principle of the bill should be applied, whenever it shall pass into a law.

The avowed object of the bill, sir, is to dissolve from all legal liability for debt the unfortunate man who has been overwhelmed by adversity, and thus redeem him from what has been pronounced cruel, unnecessary, and unmerited vassalage. Why confine the operation of your benign intention to persons designated in the bill? I affect not to know, sir, much about the wants and interests of commerce and trade, in our large cities and seaport towns; but I claim some knowledge of the situation of farmers and other persons not included in the bill, and, without undertaking to say that a bankrupt law is desired by them, I will venture the assertion, that it would be unfair and unequal to pass one without giving them the benefit of it. We are told, continued Mr. S., that commerce and trade demand the passage of this bill. Would you exclude agriculture, sir, upon which they both depend? If, from the operation of causes over which persons engaged in commerce and trade had no control, hundreds and thousands of our fellow-citizens have been ruined

MARCH, 1822.

merchants and traders, have been undone, not by adventuring, said Mr. S. beyond their means, in commerce and trade, for the accumulation of wealth and the enjoyment of splendor; not with the hope of buying principalities and erecting palaces; no, sir, by yielding to the influence of those noble and generous feelings which adorn our nature-the feelings of friendship-many beyond the mountains, who, but a little while back, were living upon their farms in ease and independence, if not affluence, have found themselves suddenly ruined, and brought to poverty and want-not by their own prodigality, sir, but by bank endorsements and other securityship-for whom? Men engaged in commerce and trade. Can it be right, sir, can it possibly be right, that he who has been urged on by cupidity or ambition, and in the furtherance of those passions has surrounded himself, in his progress, by individuals drawn to him by feelings of partiality and friendship, when he sinks into ruin, and overwhelms his friends in his fall-can it be right, sir, I ask, to redeem him, and leave them hopeless, despondent, undone? If the individual thus redeemed looks with gratitude and love to his country, what must be the reflections of those whom he has undone, and their country leaves in ruin, when they draw a comparison of their situations? If you strengthen the attachment of the first to his country, you alienate the affection of the other.

The bill should also be clearly retrospective in its operation and power of redemption; otherwise, thousands of meritorious citizens will derive no benefit from its passage; and, if you do interpose, do it efficiently-let us have a general jubilee.

I do not speak, said Mr. S., of the situation of those who wish this law, in the large commercial cities of the Union. I speak of those in the West, the causes of whose embarrassments I better understand, and whose claims to all the advantages proposed by the bill are at least equal to the claims of any other portion of this great community.

In conclusion, sir, there is no punishment unaccompanied with ignominy, which I would not undergo rather than give my support to a measure which, if it does pass, should operate for the benefit and advantage of the whole people, but which, as the bill now stands, will be partial and unjust. I shall, therefore, with great pleasure, vote for the amendment.

Messrs. Ross and Cook spoke against the motion; when

The question being taken on thus amending the bill, it passed in the affirmative-yeas 86, nays 78, as follows:

Moore of Pennsylvania, Moore of Virginia, Moore of Alabama, Morgan, Murray, Neale, Nelson of Massachusetts, New, Patterson of New York, Pitcher, Plumer of Pennsylvania, Rankin, Rich, Rochester, Rogers, Ruggles, Ross, Russell, Sanders, Sawyer, Scott, Sergeant, S. Smith, J. S. Smith, Sterling of Connecticut, Sterling of New York, Stoddard, Swan, Swearingen, Taylor, Tod, Tomlinson, Tracy, Walker, White, Whitman, Williamson, Woodcock, Woodson, and Wright.

NAYS-Messrs. Alexander, Allen of Tennessee, Archer, Ball, Barber of Ohio, Bassett, Baylies, Blackledge, Blair, Brown, Buchanan, Burton, Butler, Campbell of Ohio, Cassedy, Conner, Cook, Cuthbert, Dane, Denison, Dickinson, Edwards of North Carolina, Floyd, Gilmer, Gist, Gross, Hall, Harvey, Hooks, J. S. Johnston, Jones of Virginia, Kirkland, Lathrop, Leftwich, Lincoln, Long, Lowndes, McCoy, McDuffie, McNeill, McSherry, Mallary, Matlack, Matson, Mattocks, Mercer, Mitchell of Pennsylvania, Mitchell of South Carolina, Nelson of Virginia, Overstreet, Patterson of Pennsylvania, Phillips, Pierson, Plumer of New Hampshire, Poinsett, Reed of Massachusetts, Reid of Georgia, Rhea, Ross, Sloan, Arthur Smith, W. Smith, Alexander Smyth, Stevenson, Tatnall, Thompson, Trimble, Tucker of South Carolina, Tucker of Virginia, Upham, Vance, Van Rensselaer, Van Wyck, Whipple, Williams of North Carolina, Williams of Virginia, Wilson, and Worman.

Mr. FULLER then moved further to amend the said bill, by inserting, after the word "commission," in the 7th line of the 35th section of the printed bill, the following, viz:

"Except, however, all debts from the bankrupt for supplies of provisions, wearing apparel, household furniture necessary for himself and his family, and for laborers' wages; but all such debts shall remain and may be recovered, so much as may be due after any dividend or partial payment therein, notwithstanding the certificate aforesaid, or any thing done pursuant to this act Provided, however, That no single debt, so excepted, shall exceed two hundred dollars."

And on the question to agree to this amendment, it was determined in the negative.

Mr. WALWORTH then moved further to amend the said bill, by inserting, after the word "debts," in the 26th line of the 2d section of the printed bill, the following, to wit:

"And prove to the said judge, by the affidavit of such petitioner or petitioners, or by the oath of one or more credible witness or witnesses, that an act of bankruptcy, as mentioned in the first section of this act, has been committed by the person petitioned against within six months then last past."

And on the question to agree to this amendment, it was determined in the negative.

No further amendment having been offered to the bill, the question recurred upon ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading; on which question Mr. RHEA called for the yeas and nays, which were thereupon ordered.

Mr. BUCHANAN, of Pennsylvania, addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Speaker: Before the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kentucky had obtained the sanction of this House, the question whether the bill should be engrossed for a third reading, was 17th CoN. 1st SESS.-41

H. OF R.

one of very great importance. That question has, however, dwindled into insignificance, compared with the one at present under consideration. We are now called upon to decide the fate of a measure of awful importance. The most dreadful responsibility rests upon us. We are not now to determine, merely, whether a bankrupt law shall be extended to the trading classes of the community; but whether it shall embrace every citizen of this Union, and spread its demoralizing influence over the whole surface of society.

The amendment which has been adopted to-day, makes it my imperative duty, even at this protracted period of the debate, to trespass upon the patience of the House. I have the honor, in part, of representing an honest, a wealthy, and a respectable, agricultural community. I owe it to them, to my conscience, and to my God, not to suffer this bill to pass, which I conceive to be now fraught with destruction to their best interests, both moral and political, without entering my solemn protest against its provisions.

We have heard it repeated over and over again, by the friends of a bankrupt bill, that it should be confined to the mercantile classes. One of the principal arguments urged in its favor, by its eloquent supporters, was, that merchants, from the nature of their pursuits, were exposed to the vicissitudes of fortune more than other men; and that therefore their situation required a peculiar system of laws. That, in this country, their fortunes had not only been exposed to the dangers commonly incident to their profession; but, that the commercial regulations of the Government, the embargo, the nonintercourse laws, and finally the war, had brought ruin upon thousands. It was, therefore, inferred, that Congress were under a moral obligation to pass a bankrupt law for their relief.

The policy of all the modern commercial nations in the world, was presented before us for our imitation. England, France, Scotland, Ireland, Holland, and Spain, we had been told, each extended a bankrupt law to the merchant, and absolved him from the payment of his debts, upon certain conditions. Indeed, a great portion of the argument consisted in drawing a line of distinction between traders and the remaining classes of society.

Judge then, Mr. Speaker, of my astonishment, when to-day I found those very gentlemen voting in favor of introducing an amendment, extending the provisions of this bill to every individual in society, who might ask to become its object.

Will you pass a bankrupt law for the farmer? Will you teach that vast body of your best citizens to disregard the faith of contracts? Are you prepared to sanction a principle by which the whole mass of society will be in danger of being demoralized, and it will be left to an election by every man's creditors, in which a majority of two-thirds in number and value, against the consent of the remainder, shall have the power of discharging him from the obligation of all his contracts? Surely the House of Representatives are not prepared to answer these questions in the affirmative. No nation in the world, whether commercial or

March, 1822.

H. OF R.

as the one now before us is necessary, on account of the numerous frauds which are perpetrated under the insolvent laws of the States, and the preference which they authorize a failing debtor to give to particular creditors.

Before, Mr. Speaker, I proceed to expose to the view of the House those objections against this bill which have presented themselves with peculiar force to my mind, permit me to answer some of the principal arguments which have been urged in favor of its passage. My friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, in his concluding speech, has made such a clear, forcible, and eloquent argument in favor of the bill, that I fear it has produced a considerable effect. Upon this occasion he was listened to, as he always is, and always deserves to be, with the most profound attention. It is painful for me to be under the necessity of differing from him in opinion, and when I do so, I am almost inclined to distrust my own judgment. Nothing, therefore, but an imperative sense of duty could have induced me to take any part in the debate upon the present

occasion.

It has been urged that, as the framers of the Constitution gave to Congress the power of passing a bankrupt law, we are bound to put that power into practical operation, and not suffer it to remain dormant.

In answer to this argument I would reply, that power and duty are very different in their nature. Power is optional, duty imperative. The language of power is that you may, that of duty you must. The Constitution has, in the same section, and in the same terms, given to Congress the power to declare war, to borrow money, to raise and support armies, &c. Will any gentleman, however, undertake to say, we are under an obligation to give life and energy to these powers by bringing them into action? Will it be contended that, because we possess the power of declaring war and borrowing money, that we are under a moral obligation to embroil ourselves with foreign Governments, or load the country with a national debt? Should any individual act upon the principle that it is his duty to do every thing which he has the legal power of doing, he would soon make himself a fit citizen for a madhouse.

Power, whether vested in Congress or in an individual, necessarily implies the right of exercising a sound discretion. The Constitution was intended not only for us, and for those who have gone before us, but for generations yet to come. It has vested in Congress ample powers, to be called into action whenever, in their sound discretion, they believe the interest or the happiness of the people require their exertion. We are, therefore, left to exercise our judgment on this subject, entirely untrammelled by any Constitutional injunction.

From the forcible manner in which this argument has been urged, one would be induced to suppose that the legislative authority of the States, upon this subject, had been entirely prostrated by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Sturges vs. Crowninshield. This is, however, altogether a mistake. The citizens of the States have not been left exposed to the mercy of fraudulent debtors. They can look to their own Legislatures for relief. Their power to pass bankrupt laws is as ample within their several States as that of Congress, with one single exception: which is, that such laws shall not contain a provision "impairing the obligation of contracts." This tremendous power the people have decreed that the States shall not exercise. With the exception, therefore, of that portion of this bill which discharges a bankrupt from his debts, the Legislatures of the several States might, if they thought proper, enact all its provisions. They have the same power to pass every law for the prevention and punishment of the frauds of insolvent traders which Congress possess. They can equally annul all preferences which a failing debtor may give to a favorite creditor, whether by deed of trust, by judgment, or in any other manner. This principle is expressly recognised in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case which I have cited. There is then no necessity that Congress should interfere for the purpose of securing the creditor; yet this has been urged as one of the principal reasons in favor of the passage of a bankrupt bill.

It cannot be denied that many of the States have neglected to exercise the authority which they fully possess over this subject. In the State, one of whose representatives I have the honor to be, a failing debtor of every description possesses too much power in the distribution of his property. He may, if he chooses, secure one creditor at the expense of all the rest. He is the sole judge of the propriety of any preference which he may think proper to make. The Legislature of that, and of every other State where a similar evil exists, can however apply the remedy, if they think proper. Why then has it been urged upon us, that it is absolutely necessary Congress should pass this bill, to secure creditors against the frauds and the preferences which exist under the insolvent laws of the States, when the States themselves possess ample powers to attain the same ends?

It has been said, truly, that Congress alone can pass a bankrupt law which will be uniform over the United States. But, I would ask, whether the benefits resulting from the uniformity which the law must possess would not be more nominal than real, whilst, on the other hand, it would be a source of the most serious inconveniences? Is it correct legislation to force upon the citizens of one State a system of internal policy, deeply affecting the rights