Mr. VAN BUREN said, that every step the discussion had progressed had riveted his original convictions, that Congress, in passing the bill, with the section in question, would not only transcend its constitutional power, but establish a system which would be most mischievous and oppressive in its operation.  So thinking, he had intended to have replied to the other observations of the Senator from Georgia; but, after-consideration had induced him to change that determination. He was induced to do so by a belief that the general views he had taken had sufficiently fortified and explained by the Senators from New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Virginia, and by a strong desire to save time, and give to the great measure under consideration a fair opportunity to pass at the present session, if it could be passed at all. Earnestly hoping, therefore, that the Senate would strike out a section which prevented him from supporting the bill, without a great violation of principle, he would forgo the privilege of replying to the observations he had stated. He made this explanation now, that the Chairman might go on with the discussion, and close it, without being replied to. If he could succeed in quieting his own doubts upon the subject, and in convincing the Senate of the expediency of the provision in question, Mr. V. B. would cheerfully acquiesce in the decision that should be made.

*    *    *

Mr. VAN BUREN said, that he had declared his determination not to reply to the observations of the Chairman: and, however much it might cost him to suffer the constitutional views of that gentleman, erroneous as he considered them to be, to pass unanswered, he should not change his determination in that respect. He rose for explanation only. The position he had taken was, that, according to the principle advanced by the decision of the Supreme Court in, the case of Sturges and Crowninshield, the States were deprived, by the adoption of the Federal Constitution, of all right to legislate independently on the subject of insolvency; that they had not the right of providing for the discharge of debtors from imprisonment, upon process issuing out of our Courts, except by the permission of Congress. In this view of the subject, he understood the Chairman to concur in his opinion; and, all he desired was, to be informed whether he had correctly understood him.

*    *    *

Mr. VAN BUREN added: Suppose, Sir, that Congress pass a law that no insolvent debtor shall be discharged, except upon such and such conditions—can a State, according to the doctrine of the Supreme Court, pass any law for the discharge of its imprisoned debtors, upon conditions inconsistent with those prescribed by Congress? I say they cannot. Am I right or wrong?