Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I will vote for this amendment, and if it should be adopted by the House I will vote for the passage of this bill; but without this amendment I will not vote for the passage of the bill. For, sir, I have firmly resolved never to vote for the admission of any State into this Union which embodies within its constitution the objection able proposition to be found in the one presented by the people of Nebraska. The time has gone by for us to recognize that distinction of rights because of the question of the color of the skin or of race or of birth. And I hope, sir, it may never receive any recognition at the hands of the Congress of the U.S. Mr. Speaker, I will not enter upon the discussion of the question which has been propounded by several gentlemen as to whether the State of Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Iowa possesses a RFG. The limitation which is found in the constitution of Nebraska is found in the constitution of Iowa today; but, sir, I hope before many months have passed we will have stricken that limitation out of our constitution. I have full confidence that the people mean to do it. Now, as to the effect of this amendment; will it be binding? Will it effect anything? Can the people of Nebraska after its admission as a State remove this obligation resting upon them and reincorporate into their constitution this limitation. If my time will allow me I will endeavor to answer this question. Gentlemen in this discussion seem to forget that the Legislature of a State may do that which it is not restricted from doing; that the legislature of a State is not bound by the same rules of constitutional law as the Congress of the U.S.; that unless an act is prohibited by the Constitution a State Legislature can do it. The Congress of the U.S. may do such acts as its delegated powers authorize, and such as are necessary to the enjoyment of the powers thus delegated; that is, exercise implied powers incidental and necessary to those delegated. The Legislature of a State is not bound by the constitutional law applicable to this body. Can, then, the Legislature of Nebraska assent to the proposition embraced in this amendment? Gentlemen will say no. Why? Because it is not the Legislature of the State. Admit it. We send this proposition to a body of men known to the constitution which has been sent to us here as the constitution of Nebraska, as the Legislature of the State of Nebraska. They are bound by the authority of the amendment it is proposed to be incorporated into this bill. They pass upon this proposition, and in the name j.behalf of the people of Nebraska they accept this proposition. It may be said their power is not sufficiently extensive to warrant this. They are the agents chosen by the people of the Territory asking for admission as a State. After the acceptance of the condition by this body of men thus authorized to act for the people within the bounds of their Constitution, the people of the new State act upon the condition themselves and accept and ratify the action of the Legislature. Now, sir, if they consent to act in their capacity of a State organization upon the condition thus accepted by their legislative body, I insist that they ratify that action of their Legislature, and it becomes binding upon the people. If they do not accept it then they do not appear here in the person of Representatives as a State of the Union; they remain just where they are; they acquire no status in the Union as a member of it. If, on the other hand, as I have remarked, they by accepting the position of a State in the Union ratify the action of the body called the State Legislature, it becomes binding upon them. Now, if this be true, then this proposition will be effective and will reach and accomplish the object we so much desire. But it is said, even if this should be binding upon the people of Nebraska after admission, that after they have been clothed with the power of a State they may at once amend the constitution and reinsert this limited right of suffrage. I deny it. The idea that a people of a Territory may apply to Congress for admission as a State, promising all that the government of the U.S and the people of the U.S. ask them to perform, promising for the purpose of deceiving the government of the U.S. after their promise has been accepted by the Congress of the U.S., o the State is admitted into the family of States, the doctrine that they can the next day repudiate all and reverse the principles of this constitution, I deny. Why, sir, to establish a doctrine of that kind is but to place within the power of the people of any Territory the means to contravcne a most solemn act of the Government of the U.S. in the admission of a State. Now, sir, I have a theory of my own I know not how many may be willing to indorse it in regard to these changes of State constitutions. The Government of the U.S. is required by the Constitution to guaranty a RFG to the several States of the Union. The people of a Territory present a constitution Congress declares to be republican in form, and to conform to the requirements exacted by Congress. Now, my doctrine in regard to these constitutions is that changes which the people may subsequently seek to make in them should be submitted to Congress the same as the original constitution is submitted. Here the hammer fell]