uals, who, in the commercial vicissitudes of the last twenty years, have become bankrupt,—sometimes from fraud, oftener from imprudence, but most frequently from misfortune,—are now struggling out a miserable existence, a burden to their friends and to their country. They live without hope, and will die without regret.
If we look into the proceedings of the Convention, or examine the commentaries on the Constitution by the great men who framed it, we shall find abundant reason to believe that the article which gives to Congress power over this subject, was designed to prevent frauds. The Journals of the Convention show that, on the 29th August, 1787, it was moved to commit the following proposition, to wit, "to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy, and respecting the damages arising from the protest of foreign bills of exchange;" which passed in the affirmative by a vote of nine states against two—Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, voting in the affirmative, and New Hampshire and Massachusetts in the negative. On the 1st of September following, Mr. Rutledge, of South Carolina, (from the committee,) reported and recommended the insertion of the following words, viz.: "to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies;" which, on the 3d of September, was agreed to by yeas and nays, every state voting in the affirmative, except Connecticut.
I confess I felt my confidence in the wisdom of this provision of the Constitution strengthened and confirmed, when I discovered that it had been introduced by John Rutledge, and had received the unequivocal sanction of James Madison. In a number of the Federalist, written by that distinguished statesman, speaking of this particular provision of the Constitution, he says, "Uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy will prevent so many frauds, that the expediency of it seems not likely to be called in question." Sir, we are wiser than our ancestors; that which they designed to "prevent frauds" we pronounce to be the most fruitful source of frauds. A proposition which seemed to them so clear that it was "not likely to be called in question," we have for twenty years rejected as unworthy even of a trial. It may be, Mr. President, that I am bigoted in my reverence for the authors of this Constitution; but I am free to confess that I distrust my own judgment when I find it leading me to discard their precepts, or to reject their injunctions.
In relation to bankruptcy, it is the federal government only that ever will enact a wise and judicious system, and no power but Congress can establish uniformity. This is the great desideratum. This is the true, the only remedy for the evils which I have pointed out. The wise man now at the head of the Supreme Court of the United States (whose character has been drawn with a master's hand by the gentleman from Virginia, in a finished picture that I cannot venture to touch, lest I should impair its beauty) has given us his opinion on this clause of the Constitution in terms worthy of consideration:—
"The peculiar terms of the grant (says Chief Justice Marshall) certainly deserve notice. Congress is not authorized merely to pass laws, the operation of which shall be uniform, but to establish uniform laws on the subject throughout the United States. This establishment of uniformity is, perhaps, incompatible with state legislation on that part of the subject to which the acts of Congress may extend."
Now, let it be remembered, that while, on the one hand, the power is expressly conferred on the federal government of acting efficiently on this subject, the right has been taken away from the states. This the Supreme
