Your letter of the 13th reached me this morning. the question you propose had never before attracted my attention. Without examining the subject I had taken it for granted that the power of passing bankrupt laws resided in the states. It now appears to me more doubtful than I had supposed it to be. Congress has power "to establis[h] an uniform rule of naturalization & uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States." this would seem to empower Congress to regulate the whole bankrupt system, & to require in all the states a conformity to the laws of the national legislature. But unless Congress shall act on the subject, I should feel much difficulty in saying that the legislative power of the states respecting it, is suspended by this part of the constitution.

That part of the constitution which inhibits the passage of any "law impairing the obligation of contracts" was probably intended to prevent a mischief very different from any which grows out of a bankrupt law. Those laws exist in commercial countries, where audit is in its most flourishing state, & were I believe common in the commercial states of the union at the adoption of the constitution. I do not recollect that they existed any complaints or even considered as impairing credit in the states in which they were in operation. The fears & apprehensions which produced that limitation on the legislative power of the states were of a different description. Paper money, the tender of useless property, & other laws acting directly on the engagements of individuals were then objects of general alarm & were probably in the mind of the convention. Yet the words may go further if they do on a fair & necessary construction, they must have their full effect.

The words of the Constitution are prospective. "No state shall" &c. they do not then act on the existing bankrupt system of any state. I should not willingly admit a construction which tolerated bankrupt laws in some states in which they already existed, but forbade their enactment in other states.

It may also be doubted whether a bankrupt law applying to contracts made subsequent to its passage may fairly be termed a law impairing the obligation of contracts. Such contract is made with a a knowlege that it may be acted on by the law. But this would not apply to contracts made out of the states. I should feel no hesitation in saying that a particular act of the state legislature discharging a particular individual who had surrendered his property was invalid. But a general prospective act presents a question of considerable difficulty. I have not thought of the question long enough, nor viewed it in a sufficient variety of lights to have a decided opinion on it, but the biass of my mind at the moment is rather in favor of the validity of the law though I acknowlege I feel very great doubts whether I shall retain that opinion. Your own judgment you having heard the argument, is much more to be relied on than mine. I am my dear sir very sincerely your affectionate