Mr. STEWART. I cannot see the point of the illustration made by the Senfrom missouri. He says that Congress may delegate its authority to legislate for the reason that it admits a State upon condition that that State will perform some particular set. Let me remind him that the admission of a State into this Union is not a matter wholly within the power of congress; it requires the concurrent action of the ‘tate and of Congress, and their respective acts are dependent upon each other. It is not within the power oft e legislation of congress to make States and bri them into the nion without the action of the States. But it is within the power of congress to pass laws without asking a little squa of peop e to sanction those laws. There is no parallel whatever between the cases. Because we admit States and negotiate with States to bring them into the Union, requiring them to do certain things before the shall have a voice here, it does not follow that we may make our laws dependent upon the action of thapeople of a particular locality. A State has a right to be heard upon the question whether it will come into the Union. ’ou cannotbrin a State into the Union mercly b your legisation. But where a matter is within the see c of legislation it is the duty of Congress to legislate, and not ask a little squad of voters to legislate for it. There is not a case in all the books in which such legislation has not been held to be invalid; no, will not say that, because in the 1st instance, 'some of the inferior courts were disposed to respect such acts, but I believe it has become umversal now in the highest courts of all the States, where the question has come up, to hold that the legislative authority cannot be delegated; and say that the case of the admission of a State upon complying with its part of the conditions proposed, concurrent action being required, is not analogous. The act 1!]question here does not deafwith a.s'overeign State; it deals with the people liying along the other side of the Potomac for a few miles, and asks them to vote upon the question of whether it shall be a law or not; refers it to them. Where is the record ofyonr law? How are the rights of persons and property to be determihed hereafter, 100s of years hence, if the Government shall continue that long, when you have no recordevidence of your law? Laws so framed have not been held to be constitutional in the States. No precedent that is worthy of consideration can e found in favor of such a law. It shows very conclusively that there is no precedent in poiutwhen the Senfrom Missouri is forced to illustrate his view of the case by a reference to our dealin s with sovereign States.