Mr. SUMNER. I said I have good ground of complaint against my excellent friendfrom Illinois. He undertook to answer what Inever said; that is, he attributed to me something and then he found it very easy to answer. Now, sir, I never said that the argument that the enabling actwas defunct was never answered on this floor. I said that the argument was made. I made it; others made it; the Senfrom Iowa, many Senators made it. I did not say that it was not answere. I remember well the effort of the Senfrom Illinois to answer it. Whether he succeeded or not, I givemo opinion. What I (lid say, however, was this: that on that occasion the suggestion was made, which my excel lent colleague has made today, that I was guilty of an inconsistency; and I said that then and there I answered that argument. M colleague was not here, and he did not hear the answer, and therefore he has today without knowing the facts revived that charge of inconsistency. Holding the documents in my hand on that occasion I showed that the enabling act provided as follows: “ That all personsqualified by law to vote for Representativesto the General Amcmhly of said Territory, at the date of the passageof this act, shall be qualified to be elected: and they are herebyauthorized to vote for and ehooserepresentativesto form a convention." That is, the electors, according to this enabling act, were the electors at that time, authorized as such by the territorial statutes. Holdin the territorial statutes in my hand, I showe you that when that act was pending in the Senate of the U.S., all persons, without distinction of color, were authorized to be elect ors. That was the answer that I gave before; that is the answer that I givenow. Therefore, sir, I say that when I voted for this enabling act, I did not vote with any idea that there could be a discrimination founded on color; on the contrar, I voted with the positive conviction that al possibility of such discrimination was excluded, and still further, in that very enabling act I voted for this proposition: “The constitution, when formed shall be republican, and not reliimant to the Constitution of the U.S and the principles of the DeclarIndep." Now, sir, I insist that the constitution which has been presented to us is not republican, and I further insist that it is inconsistent with the DeclarIndep. My excel lent collea no will certainly not maintain the contrary of that proposition. He will not say that a constitution which undertakes to exclude persons from their rights on account of color is consistent with the fundamental principles of the DeclarIndep, and t at, sir, is the very requirement of this enabling act for which I then voted. I insist that if on appeal to that enabling act you shall apps. to it not in any particular part, but in its whole. I appeal to it in that fundamental requirement that what is done shall be in harmony with the DeclarIndep. But, sir, I did not intend to argue the nestion. What I have said is merely in rep to my friendfrom Illinois and now as to wion we shall rocced with this question. If Senators think) the ever should proceed with it, if Senators thin that an effort like this to fly in the face of the DeclarIndep, to fly in the face of those fundamental principles which we at this moment are striving to carry out through so large a portion of our country should be fora moment tolerated in this Chamber, then I am willing that you should fix a time to proceed with it. I think it on ht not to he proceeded with at all. I think t rat the cause ofhuman rights suffers every moment that you give to the consideration of the question. But I began the debate this morning by simply opposing your consideration of it today. If you choose to make a sacrifice of human rights do it on some other day than this.