Mr. FARNSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, Ivoted this morning to reconsider the vote 2nd in the demand for the previous question. i desired that this question should be open to further discussion by the House. I believed that the hour devoted to the discussion yesterday was not sufficient; that it should be discussed longer and more thoroughly, so that the minds of members might become more settled and clear with regard to the several propositions. Had the vote been taken yesterday I should have voted for the admission of Nebraska under the Senate bill. I should vote the same way to day, because I am entirely satisfied with the 3rd section of the bill, which the Gentfrom Massachusetts now moves to strike out. Indeed, sir, I am better satisfied with a provision of that kind inserted by the Congress of the U.S. in the act of incorporation of this State than I would be if the provision were contained merely in the constitution of Nebraska. A convention framing a constitution and putting into it a provision of that kind only gives it vitality and force until another convention is called, which may "amend the constitution and change such provision. On the other hand, an act of Congress admitting a State and providing in express terms, as this provision does, that the right of suffrage shall extended impartially forever is, I verily believe, binding upon the State both morally and legally. Why, sir, if I know anything about this subject, Congress possesses sovereign power over the Territories of the U.S. I read in the Constitution that “Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other obelonging to the U.S.;” that “new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;” that “the U.S shall guaranty to every State in this Union a RFG.” I ask why, under these several provisions of the Constitution, Congress has not authority to ordain in the act admitting a State whatever conditions and provisions it deems fit, and why such enactments are not binding upon the people of that State? The courts of Illinois held long ago that the ordinance of 1787, excluding slavery from the territory northwest of the Ohio, was binding upon the Territories to which it applied after they became States: that slavery could not be introduced there under the sanction of State legislation; that the ordinance ran with the territory and was perpetually binding. So, sir, in my opinion is an act of Congress chartering a State; for this is nothing but a charter. This act of incorporation imposes terms and conditions upon. corporation as binding upon it. Now, I do not see for my part, and I would like some gentleman more able to discuss this question than I am why there is any reason against it. I do not see why Congress has not power to make a constitution for a Territory. Why not? Congress may admit new States. Congress exercises jurisdiction over them as Territories. We have entire control entire sovereignty. Why, then, cannot Congress and the President make a constitution for a Territory and admit her as a State upon that constitution? Iknow the practice of the Government has been different; but because the practice has been one way is no good reason why the practice may not be another way. True, it is better the people of a Territory should make their own constitution; and the amendment of the Gentfrom Massachusetts only provides that the Legislature of this Territory shall make this declaration. His section does not provide the people of that Territory shall vote on it. The very next Legislature may repeal it. This same Legislature may repeal it the next week after her members are admitted into Congress. I would ask the Gentfrom Massachusetts whether that is not correct? If his amendmentis adopted and Nebraska is admitted, I ask the gentleman whether in his opinion that same Legislature next week cannot repeal it? That does not put it into the constitution of the State of ebraska. It has been asked here if the Senate bill is adopted, if this declaration is adopted by congress containing these terms and conditions extending the right of suffrage to all classes without distinction of color, what remedy has a man who is excluded from the right to vote? I answer, the same remedy every other man has who has a legal right to vote and who is excluded from the polls. Precisely. He may apply to the courts; he may bring suit for this wrongful exclusion. He may apply to the courts for a mandamus to compel the judges of election to take his vote if he has the legal right to vote. If the act of Congress gives him the right to vote it gives him all the rights which the constitution of the State would give for the purpose and all the remedies.