Mr. POMEROY. The Senfrom Ver mont, in reply to a remark I made last evening, in which I said I was embarrassed in voting on this amendment on account of some previons legislation of Congress, answers me by sayin that he thinks I would be equally. i if the State should present itself with a constitution permitting or inaugurating slavery because in the organic act to which I referr not only did the fegislature have the right to.the qualification for voting, but it also ad the right to establish that institution; the people might vote it up or vote it down, but they had the right of voting on it. The inference was, that I would be embarrassed if I voted against the admission of Nebraska, if it came as a slave State; to which I, reply in a word that I should not feel that embarrassment for this reason, and this is the very least of the reasons that I should offer, Congress has repealed it; Congress repealed it before the people of the Territory took any action on it and acquired any rights under it. That is a sufficient answer. In the legislation of 1854 they did establish it, but before any action was had by the people of that Territory, in 1864 they said, in so many words, “Slavery or involuntary servitude shall be forever prohibited.” One part of this statute, therefore, has been repealed by the power that made it and which had the right to repeal it. But how is it about voting and about the qualifications for voting?. In 1854 Congress said that the people of this Territory in their legislative capacity should prescribe the qualifications for voting. Then in 1864, in the enabling act, Congress declared and I voted for it with the other Senators that the law of the Territory should be the law of suffrage in forming the State constitution. The reason why I would not be embarrassed in the one case and am embarrassed in the other is simply this: that in the one case the statute was repealed, and it was wrong, even if it had not been repealed; and in the other case, the statute has not only not been repealed, but it has been recnacted. But the real difference between the Senfrom Vermont and myself is this: I believe Congress can admit States; he believes congress can create States. I do not believe congress can create a State any more than they can create a world. The power never was given to Congress to make States, but only to admit them. Nebraska today is as much a State as any other State not represented in Congress. Nebraska today, without the action of Congress, is as much a State as SCarolina or Georgia or Alabama. It has got boundaries; it has got a government, not recognized to be sure; it has got officers; and so have Alabama and Georgia. They are all States. That provision of the Constitution which provides that Congress may admit new States means of course that they have got to be States when admitted. They are not made States by Congress. California was made a State before it was admitted here; Congress did not make it. It never had a territorial government. Other States have been made. Vermont remained a State for 14 years before it was admitted. Kansas was a State for years before it was admitted. The people, under the legislation of Congress, make a State and then afterward, when Congress recognizes it, it be comes a State in the Union.