, 1842-02-12
CONGRESSIONAL ANALYSIS.
SENATE.

Numerous memorials were presented to-
day for and against the amendment, modlfca-
ton, and repeal Of the Bankrupt law, which
were referred TO the Judiciary Committee.
Mr.. Bayard presented one from Philadel-
phia for the amendment of the Bankrupt bill
SO as 10 include banks, or for its repeal. Mr..
B. remarked that there wasan l~mportan;rev-
olution taking place in public opinion on the
subject Of including banks in the compulso-
nv provision of that bill. For his own part, he
could barely meet with a single intelligent
man, was was not in favor Of subjecting
these pe-nicious corporations to the opera
~,ions,of the law. He believedit The only way
the Federal power could be restored over
the currency, and the banks broug' t to Il
sense of their duty to conduct their affairs
properly.
Mr.. Preston also presented a memorial
from Philadelphia for the repeal of that law.
Here marked that he was so satisfied of
the impolicy in point Of principle. and in
the details of this bill. as TO feel imperiously
bound to give his vote for its repeal. He
argued tina, the power was never intended
to be applied to agricultural communities, but
that it naturally belonged to the commercial
classes. He did not believe such a law
void be advantageous to the agricultural
classes, and argued that one could not be
framed to meet their appreciation, or that,
If passed. would be permitted to remain 10
operation for any length Of time. He Ia
mented that the power over bankruptcy had
been conferred exclusively on the National
Government. He much preferred that it
should be left to the States, in which 1t might
have been more properly lodged; they being
better acquainted as to what would best
conserve their interests. He was opposed
to the exercise Of any power by the Federal
G~overnmen, that would interfere, to the re-
molest extent, with the private interests be.
tween man and man; and was opposed 10
any system of relief that had that tendency.
Mr.. Buchanan said he merely wished to
correc, a misrepresentation which prevailed
extensively throughout the country, and
seemed to exis, in the mind Of the se"a.
tor from South Carolina, as TO the extent oil
the necessity for the passage OF a bankrupt
Tters was no principle of constitutional
law more firmly settled, than that the several
States possess the power OF passing bankrupt
laws which shall extend to all future contracts
made between citizens Of the State where
such a law existed. Nay, more; 1t the CIT
zen Of a State where such bankrupt law ex'
isted became the debtor of a citizen oi ano
ther State. and took the benefit of his own
State bankrup, law, hi: foreign creal,o'
would be bound by the discharge, PROVIDED
he had accepted a dividend OF the DEBTOR :,
property. The foreign creditors woo'a al
WAYS accep, the dividend even # i y %sT'
,ery small, rather than loose bis who,e oeo.
The only necessity, therefore, ,os Inc va pas
sage Of a bankrupt law by Congress, woul'
be to provide for the discharge from reero :;
spec,ive contracts, and from on,,ss,'G S,s, !"
cases in which tho citizens OF anotner Ss aI
refused TO accep, his dividend OF the bank
rupt's effects. ov
Mr.. Berrieu made some remarks :" pro-.
the necessity Of a bankrupt law by oongses'
but distinctly admitted that MT; puS"a ',
bad stated the law correctly; It was a Ma'
he said, that the Supreme Court had Gee
ded that it was competent for the s'a'e Ia