The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-02-02


ngs OF yesterday, continued from our Fourth
EdlhOn:-
WAsHNeToS, February l.
senate.
hr. wilson Withdrew his motion and the
Sankrupt bill was taken up, the question being
Nlpon the amendment of the Senate Judiciary
committee TO strike out from the list of exoep-
ions to the operations OF the bill the following
Rords-' And such other property not included
tn the foregoing exceptions as is exempted
Fom teYy and sale upon execution by the laws
y the state in which the bankrupt has his
somicile at the time of the commencement of
ne proceedings in bankruptcy, TO an amount
pot exceeding that allowed by such State ex-
4mption laws In force in the year 1854"
Mi. DooLITTLE (Wis.) hoped this would not
Pe stricken out, and expressed himself in favor
~ the bill.
Mr.. TRUMBU11 dll.l contended that as the ex-
mption laws of the States differed materially,
ne exempting $1,000, another $500, another 500,
Ind SO on, the bill with this paragraph in it
bould not be q general bankrupt law, the only
ne which Congress has q right to pass. The
judiciary Committee were unanimously OF this
opinion, and he appealed TO the lawyers Of the
8enate whether 10 was not correct one?
Mr.. DooLITTLE (Wis.) said the homestead was
sacred trust fund, held apart for the family:
nd while it might differ in amount in the diff
brent states, the rule was still the same every
FheTe
" supposlng the state of Wisconsin to pass q
"Rw exempting all the property OF o debtor, and
'nquiring how the Bankrupt law could be en-
"prced in that state in such an event with the
aragraph referred to in it.
Mr.. POLAND tVt.) called Mr. Trumbulrs at
8entOn to the fact that the exemptions in the
Paragraph were such only as were allowed
lnder the law in force in 1864.
Mr.. TRUMBULL (Ill) said that was merely a
imitation of the amount.
The bill proposed to exempt under any fu-
Ilre law not exceeding the exemption laws of
Mr.. WADE COhiol said his own opinions were
#Pther in favor OF bankrupt law, but two
4 FEARS ago the Ohio Legislature, by O nearly
Unanimous vote, instructed him and his col
AGAINST the RnnIgrnnt a
mould, therefore, feel compelled to vote against
be bill.
Expressed by MIR. Trumbull in the pending
nendment A bankrupt bill must be uniform
l its operations, and IL could not be uniform
fhile this provision was in it.
Mr.. HOWARD Mich opposed the amendment.
10 strike out this provision would be virtually
b annul the exemption laws of the States,
fhich Congress had no power to do. When the
Constitution speaks of uniform bankruptcy, it
i TO be understood as meaning that the laws of
congress on the subject shall be uniform, as far
IS Congress is concerned; that is, that it shall
8pt make one law for one state and another for
bother State. He had no doubtabou the con-
Ifitutionallty of this clause and rather than see
stricken out he should vote against the bill.
MT: CONFESS lCai( was inclined TO believe
+ Nle uniformity of the bill with this provision
b il, was not strictly pertinent. He did not
elieve the uniformity required by the Consti.
on related to the amount exempted under the
Nate laws and he should be sorry to see the
ause stricken out, as it would materially affect
lis State, where 5000 was eXem pied for home
H3ead. He believed the local Legislature of O
.tate was better able to Judge of the proper
|knounJ to be exempted than Congress could be.
is the bill came from the House he would vote
pr it, If this amendment were adopted. he
Hould feel compelled to vote against it,
MIR. GRIMES Nowa) asked whether, If this bill
ecame a law, it would be possible for a State to
Hhange its exemption law by increasing or de-
keasing the amount? also, whetherLt would be
ossible for State coming into the Union after
le passage of this law to pass an exemption
Mr.. POLAND Cvt.) expressed the opinion that
y would not be in the power of the States to
*lange their exemption.
|'tlr JOHNSON Md addressed the Senate briefly
Ia the general subject Of bankrupt laws, and
Expressed the opinion that the provision now
proposed to be stricken out did not destroy the
10 nformity required by the Constitution.
After further discussion by Messrs Grimes
tewart, Ramsey, McDougall, Davis and VIII
|bn the latter moved to amend, by substituting
nbr the words proposed to be stricken out, the
|llowing-"And homestead not exceeding in
alue $1,000"
J pass bill with the provision in IT similar to
nat now proposed to be stricken out. Without
tbmething of the kind he would not vote for the
q RPending the consideration of the Bankrupt
MIR FEssENDEry asked and obtained unani-
hous consent to call up the bill of the House.
s&uthorizIng the Secretary OF the treasury To
4 ceive into the Treasury the residuary legacy OF
ames Smithson, upon the same terms as the
" riginal bequest, which was passed..
+ The Bankrupt bill was resumed, but without
n
Executive session, and soon after adjourned.
House OF Representatives.
Z the House at half-past one o'clock, took up
2he senate bill regulating the tenure of certain
vii cffices. the debate being, on the suggestion
+. Mr.. Hale. limited to half hour speeches.
MIR. FINCK (Ohio) opposed the bill, as an en-
Soachment on the constitutional rights of the
s kecutive branch of the Government.
# MIR. WILLIAMS (Pa.) sustained the bill, sug-
. esting, however, some amendments to it, by
ne transferring to it Of certain provisions con-
lined in the bill on the same subject reported
N him from the Judiciary Committee.
MIR. WOODBRIDGE (Vt0 advocated the Senate
= Gll and opposed any amendment of it in the
ouSe, because that would, In the present con-
Ition of the business, prevent its becoming a
w this session.
= Mr. DoNNELLY (Minn.) spoke in support OF
Is he bill, and offered an amendment to the third
action, providing that no vacancy shall be
~. ed to have happened during the recess OF the
enate, if the Incumbent of the office was in the
xercise of its duties on the day that Congress
DnVened; and that in such case the person
& olding the office shall continue 70 hold IL until
is successor is confirmed by the Senate.
Z Mr.. HIsE (Ky) made anargument against the
III on the ground of us sunconstitutionality.
M STEVENS (Pa.) spoke in favor OF the propo-
ton which he had offered some time since tC
eclare all persons nominated to and rejected
the Senate incapable Of holding any public
Aice for one year, and he offered an amend
- nent to that effect.
Mr.. BAKER Qll) supported the bill as making
ne of the most needed and important reforms
the Government.
The House, at half-past three o'clock, called
he previous question, and Mr., HALE, who haC
herpe of the bill, made the closing argument
-. b its support. He advocated the bill as proper
neasure of permanent legislation, and no
nerey as applicable TO the present state o
arties There was nothing in it, he argued
erogating from the proper and desirable eXer
ise of Executive power All tne power OF sus
ension, all the power of getting rid of un
~orthy officers, would remain under it wherei
'ow was The change that IT made was tina
nat suspension could not rlpen into remova
yitbout the approval of the Senate.
He oDposed the amendments offered to tn
az tho hin ware amended at all