Mr. SUMNER. The Senfrom Iowa has not been in this body very long. Had he been here longer, he !.have known that toward the people of Iowa, by my vote and voice, I have always been true. One of the earliest efforts that I made in this Chamber, now many years ago, was in protection of the interests of the people of Iowa. On that occasion, as the records will show, I received from the Senators of Iowa expressions of friendship and kindness which I cannot forget. I have never thought of the State of Iowa except with kindness and respect. I have never alluded to the State of Iowa except with kindness and respect. I have made no allusion to Iowa tonight. I have not had Iowa in my mind tonight in any remarks that I have made; and, sir, for one good reason: it is my habit when I speak in this body, so far as I am able, to speak directly to the question. fore us; her constitution has not been before us. Therefore, I have had no occasion to express any opinion upon it. But there is another constitution which has been before us and on which I have been asked to vote. On that constitution I express an opinion. I say it contains an odious and offen sive principle; and I doubt if the Senfrom Iowa would undertake to say that an exclusion from rights on account of color would be properly characterized otherwise than as odious and offensive. I did not know that the constitution of Iowa was open to that objection, or if I knew it it was not in my mind; but fdo know that the constitution of Nebraska is open to that objection, and in that respect I pronounce it odious and offensive. It contains a disfranchisement of men on account of color, and it is a little difficult to speak of that without losing perhaps a little patience. It is dif: ficult at this time, when we have such great responsibilities thrown upon us with reference to the States lately in rebellion, to look upon a candidate State like that of Nebraska, coming forward with a constitution containing this principle of disfranchisement, without feeling the strongest disposition to use language which I do not want to use, language of the utmost condemnation. I say that such a constitution at this moment from a new State does not deserve any quarter. I say the constitution ought to be a hissing and a by word; and I am at a loss to understand how any Senator at this time, having the great responsibil ities that we have. regard to the States lately in rebellion, can look upon a new constitution like this except as a hissing and a by word. Sir, it is a shame to the people that bring it here, and it will be a shame to congress if it gives it its sanction. I use that language advisedly, and I stand by it even at the of the criticism of the Senfrom OWa. But when I say this I intend no reflection The State of Iowa has not been be. upon the State of lowa. The State of Iowa is not before us. The State of Iowa is not a new State, or Territory rather, applying for admission; nor is it, thank God, a rebel State, but it is a true loyal State which in other days, some years ago, in haste and under the sinister influences of the hour, introduced words into its constitution which the Senfrom that State now brings forward into this Chamber, not for condemnation, but from his tone I should suppose for praise. Sir, he should rather follow another example and throw a cover over that part of the constitution which is unworthy of the civilization of our times. I am very sorry to have been led into these remarks. I was astonished that the Senfrom Iowa should compel me to make them. When I go back to the earlier days, I think that perhaps I might have expected other things from a Senator of Iowa. However, I have said enough on that point. And now, sir, I come again to the question which, in the opinion of the Senfrom Ohio, is so trivial, nothing more than a question of oMr. WADE. A common countin assumpsit.