The unconstitutionality of the law of Maryland, so far as it attempts to authorise a qualified discharge of an insolvent from his debts, does not affect, or invalidate that part of the laws which discharges the person of the insolvent from imprisonment. As to the objection to the mode of proceeding in this case, there Is nothing in It It is consistent with the practice of this court, in the many cases which come before us. This practice rests in the discretion of the court, and is acted upon where there are no material facts in controversy between the parties. Where there are, and the court cannot satisfactorily decide upon them, I should, in such cases, refuse to interfere in a summary way, and leave the defendant to plead his discharge. In the one now under consideration, there is no fact material to the question of bail, about which a doubt can exist. It is not even insinuated in the deposition which has been taken, that the defendant entered into a new contract at any time with the United States, after his discharge, to pay this debt He assented to the assignment by Swift of his notes, to the United States; but such assent was unnecessary, and even that preceded his discharge. But I am of opinion, that the case of U. S. v. Wilson [supra] is in point to show, that the United States are not affected by state insolvent laws, which profess to discharge the persons of their debtors, and that it is strictly applicable to this case. The debts due by the defendant to Swift, -were equitably transferred to the United States on the 6th of December, 4819, and his notes were assigned in the year 1820, long before the discharge, and were before the contemplated insolvency of the defendant, as is proved by the witness. His person, then, never was discharged from these debts before the United States became his creditors; at which time, he stood in relation to the United States, for what was due to Swift, in the same situation as an original debtor. Rule discharged.