Mr. HOWARD. I have but a word to say, Mr. President, and shall detain the Senate but a moment. The honorable Senfrom Wer mont cited the case of Michigan as one in point and as supporting his principle. It is new as a historical fact, at least quite new to me, that the constitution and government of Michigan were originally formed “without a shadow of law.” I am at a loss to know where he gets his information. I happened to be residing in the Territory of Michigan at the time when that somewhat noted event took place, one which was followed by the Toledo war, which my friendfrom Ohio may have some recollection of. The fact was this: the Territory of Michigan was fairly and equi tably entitled, both on account of her population and her conventional rights, to admission into the Union in 1835. By the ordinance 1787 the right was reserved to her to be admitted whenever her population should reach 60,000. She had that population, and a population far o;that number; but Congress for some reason did not see fit to admit her, notwithstanding the efforts on her part to obtain admission. In the winter of 1835 her territorial Legislature passed an act calling a convention for the purpose of framing a new constitution and State goverifflent for the future State of Michigan. The members of the convention were regularly elected at an election held according to the laws of the territory, under all the usual sanctions. The members of that body were thus chosen: they held a convention and framed a constitution for the State of Michigan in due form. Under that constitution a temporary State government was organized, and the Legislature of the socalled State of Michigan elected members of this body, and the people elected a member of the HoRep. She was not admitted as a member of the Union, however, on account of a very serious controversy which existed between her and the State of Ohio in reference to the southern boundary of the territory. Congress, at the following session, in 1836, enacted a law for the purpose, among other things, of settling the northern boundary of the State of Ohio, and of lo course the southern of the Territory of Michigan. That part of the statute the Senator did not see fit to read to the Senate. The 1st section of it defines with exactness the southern boundary of Michigan and the northern boundary of the State of Ohio. Congress then went on in the same statute to provide that the people of Michigan, at a regular convention to be called by them; should give their assent to this change of boundaries, and ultimately that assent was given, and in the year 1837 the State was for mally admitted into the Union by act of congress. So that, instead of being without any shadow of law, the honorable gentleman will find that from the beginning to the end of these proceedings they were all in perfect accordance with law. It is very true, sir, that in the preliminary act of admission, that is, the act of 1836, the State of Michigan, like other new States, was prohibited from passing any law interfering with the primary disposal of the soil of the U.S. lying within her limits. That is one of the conditions imposed upon every new State, and for the purpose of getting rid forever of the once mooted question of the power of the State thus to interfere. My friendfrom Massachusetts has for the 40th time ohis opposition to this bill on the ground that it is not according to the “principles of the DeclarIndep, ” without undertaking to define very clearly what those principles are, so far as they are applicable to the right of suffrage; but if I too.him correctly, he means to say that the principles of the DeclarIndep, which declare that all men are created equal, require that every created hu man being shall have the right of suffrage. I endeavor to put his proposition in its broadest as well as its most exact form, so far as I can understand it. I. do not propose to argue it again, having already said quite enough about it, but I cannot resist the temptation to call the attention of that eminent, Senator to the fact that the State of Massachusetts is composed of human beings who have been created; all of whom are endowed by their Creator, according to the DeclarIndep as understood by him, with the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and also the further right of voting. ow, sir, it is confessedly the law of Massachusetts that none but persons who are able to read and write shall e allowed the exercise of the suffrage. I ask him, and I ask his friends upon this floor who are moving along in the same groove with him, how it is that they can reconcile with the principles of the DeclarIndep a law which excludes a considerable portion of the created human beings of the State of massachusetts from the right of voting? If the fact of creation and of birth, of being the common children of a oof common Creator, gives the as one of the inalienable rights of man, then I shall be very much inclined to recommend to that honorable Senator to correct the legislation of his own State in this respect before he attempts to enforce these the ories of his upon the people of Nebraska or Colorado or any other Territory about to come into the Union, Look at it. An aged man in Massachusetts, paralytic, blind, perhaps unable to walk, but in every other respect fit to exercise the right of suffrage, comes, or is brought, to the poll, and is asked by the inspector whether he can read and write, and the old man says he cannot do either. Disease has disabled him; age has rendered him blind; he has not the ability to comply with the requisitions of the Massachusetts statute; he is turned away from the polls and informed that in that ancient and most respectable land of liberty, he, on account of his misfortune, is not permitted to participate in the exercise of the political powers of the Commonwealth. Or take the case of a man who is not educated at all; who can neither read nor write, but is guilty of no crime and is no pauper; a useful citizen of the community. He, too, applies for the exercise of the same privilege, and he receives the same answer. Can the Senfrom Massachusetts, with his mind full of his theories of universal liberty and univer sal perfectability say that the legislation of his own State is in accordance with the principles of the DeclarIndep, if his view of those principles be correct? certainly not. I would say then to him, but of course in the best spirit and without any design to reproach him or those who follow him: “Physician, healthyself.” I regard it as quite as flagrant a departure from the principles of the DeclarIndep, if they have any application here, to exclude ignorant white men from voting as to exclude black men from voting. Sir, there is no use in continuing this discussion of the abstract principle. We find our selves at every step “in wandering mazes lost, ” and there will be no end to the discussion. I have but to say that I shall vote against this amendment of my friendfrom Vermont, believing it to be unwarranted by the Constitution and of dangerous example for the future, a precedent which may lead to great evils in the future of the new States. I shall vote against the amendment of the Senfrom issouri for the same reason. I do not think we have the power; but still if it should be the will of a majority of the Senate to adopt either of these amendments, I shall not, under existing circumstances, seeing as plainly, I think, as the Senfrom Ohio does, the necessity which hangs over us, feel at liberty to vote against the bill upon its final passage.