CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



JJ'J 



be, .-mil -hall not bo allowed to 

 e luT elective franchise &s she pleases. 

 to the fjcntlcman who tiil'i-rs this ainend- 

 :li:i[ iu- has not, under tin- ('(institution, 

 .red anywhere that the (Ii-n.-ral Gov- 

 ; ,i can li\ tin- ,-tatus of the elective fran- 

 Voii have lel'i it thus far with the Siatr-. 



Tin- con-titutioi.al amendment that we passed 

 ir left it to the States, even to the ivlu-l, 

 forfeited States, to regulate it for themselves, 

 the only restriction being that they should not 

 have political power for those of their popula- 

 tion whom they excluded from the right of vot- 

 ing. ( )f course, I am as much for the principle 

 of the amendment as anybody else. I wish the 

 \vonl white' were excluded from the constitu- 

 tion of my own State. But neither you, sir, 

 nor I, nor this Congress, can do it under the 

 itution of the United States. We have no 

 [lower IK re to say to the State of Ohio, 'Correct 

 this error in your constitution or we will cor- 

 rect it for you.' Will any gentleman, contend 

 that wo can do it ? I do not suppose that is 

 contended in regard to a State which has not 

 forfeited her rights by treason." 

 Mr. Brown : " Is this a State ? " 

 M r. \Vade : " She asks to be a State." 

 Mr. Brown : " That is the very question." 

 Mr. Wade : u Certainly, she asks to be a State, 

 and if you make her a State at all I ask you to 

 in. ike her one upon the same conditions with 

 every other State." 



.Mr. Brown: " I ask the Senator whether he 

 considers this a State now, and as thereby ex- 

 cluding us from this action? " 



Mr. Wade : " Oh, no. I think, however, that 

 in parity of reason this amendment stands upon 

 the same grounds as if it were applied to an 

 existing State. You ask an unusual thing. 

 You undertake here to correct her constitution 

 in this particular by act of Congress. You say 

 to these people, 'If you come in as a State we 

 will fix your elective franchise.' You can- 

 not do it for a State ; the moment she is jn the 

 Union you agree that she has a right to do it 

 herself. Then, that being the case, what right 

 have you to control her in this particular as a 

 condition on which she shall come in ? It is an 

 unusual condition, and it is a test which has 

 never been applied to any State. You gave this 

 Territory no notice in your enabling act that it 

 was necessary for her to comply with such a 

 condition ; but now, after she has made her 

 constitution in good faith and complied with 

 your enabling act, you come in here and say 

 there is another condition that wo did not think 

 of at the time, which not having been perform- 

 ed by you, we will exclude you and not allow 

 you to jcome in. I do not believe it is right." 



Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, followed, saying: "It 

 is now proposed by the Senator from Missouri 

 (Mr. Brown) to make an additional qualification, 

 an additional condition. Is that fair to a people 

 who, after their struggles among themselves, 

 have finally settled down upon accepting your 

 proposition ? Is it fair now to put them to the 



expense of calling their convention together 

 again to pass upon a new proposition, a new 



condition that was not mentioned in the origi- 

 nal law? Certainly not. Even if I agreed with 

 the Senator that it was wise to impose upon a 

 State any limitation over its control of the elec- 

 tive franchise, I certainly would not impose 

 that condition now, when two years ago we re- 

 J'used to require it. In the very law which en- 

 abled the people of Nebraska to organize a State 

 government we limited the right of suffrage to 

 white voters in the Territory. We authorized 

 all those, who under the territorial law could 

 vote, to vote at the election for delegates to 

 frame the constitution ; and by the territorial 

 law, which was then upon our tables, the elec- 

 tive franchise was confined to the white people 

 of the Territory, so that we authorized the white 

 people of the Territory alone to frame this con- 

 stitution. Now, shall we, after these people 

 have complied with that condition, turn around 

 and insist that we shall not stand by our offer, 

 but will impose other conditions ? I think it is 

 not fair to do so. It would not be fair in deal- 

 ing between men, and I think it is not fair in 

 dealing in political questions between a great 

 nation and a community seeking to come into 

 the Union as a State. The only conditions we 

 imposed upon these people by the enabling act 

 were in these words, which I read from that 

 act: 



Said constitution shall provide, by an article for- 

 ever irrevocable without the consent of the Congress 

 of the United States : 



1. That slavery or involuntary servitude shall be 

 forever prohibited in said State. 



2. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment 

 shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said State shall 

 ever be molested in person or property on account of 

 his or her mode of religious worship. 



8. That the people inhabiting said Territory do 

 agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right 

 and title to the unappropriated public lands lyine 

 within said Territory, and that the same shall be and 

 remain at the sole and entire disposition of the Unit- 

 ed States ; and that the lands belonging to citizens of 

 the United States residing without the said State 

 shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging 

 to residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be im- 



Eosed by said State on lands or property therein 

 elonging to, or which may hereafter DC purchased 

 by, the United States. 



" These are the three conditions that have 

 been for many years imposed on new States. 

 These conditions have been literally complied 

 with in the constitution now submitted to us. 

 I ask Senators whether, under these circum- 

 stances, it is reasonable and fair to send these 

 people back and require an additional condition 

 not imposed by the enabling act, compelling 

 them to undergo the expense of again conven- 

 ing their convention (for that is the only way 

 in which they can accept it) to pass upon this 

 new proposition. Even if the proposition was 

 important, it would not be fair and right to 

 do so. 



" Mr. President, a cursory remark was made 

 by the Senator from Massachusetts on a subject 

 to which my colleague also alluded, and which, 



