Mr. SUMNER. Very well; the Senator will do as he pleases. He is a gentleman in the public service. In looking at this question we are met at the threshhold by the fact that in a vote of nearly 7,000, there were little over 3,000, with a majority of only 100 in favor of the constitution which you are now asked to accept. It is at the call of little more than 3,000 voters that you are to recognize a State government which begins its in dependent life by defiance to the fundamental truths of the DeclarIndep. For myself, I am at a loss to understand the grounds on which this can be done, unless in your anxiety to gratify the desires of a few persons and to welcome the excellent gentlemen from Nebraska, you are willing to set aside great principles of duty at a critical moment of national history. It is pleasant to be “amiable, ” but you have no right to be amiable at the expense of Human Rights. It is pleasant to be “lenient, ” as the Senfrom Ohio, Mr. WADE, who is pressing this bill, expresses it; but take care that in lenity to this Territory you are not unjust. There can be no such thing as “lenity” where Human Rights are in question. The language is entirely inapplicable. The Senfrom Ohio, over the way, [Mr. SHERMAN] does not leave any room for discretion. He says we are bound by the enabling act passed some time ago, authorizing proceedings to form a State government. Very well; assume that the Senator is right, and that the enabling act will create an obligation on the part of Congress, all of which I deny. I insist that there has been no compliance with the enabling act, either in form or substance. I repeat there has been a failure both in form and Substance.. If we look at the enabling act we shall find that it has not been complied with in form. This can be placed beyond question. By this act, which I now hold in my hands, it is provided that a “Convention” of the people of Nebraska shall be chosen by the people; that the election for such “Convention” shall be held on “the 1st Monday in June thereafter;” and that “the members of the Convention thus elected shall meet at the capitol of said Territory on the 1st Monday in July next.” Now, in point of fact, such Convention was duly chosen, and it met, according to the provisions of the enabling act. Thus far all was right. But after meeting it voluntarily adjourned on, dissolved without framing a Constitution. Af. terward the territorial Legislature undertook to do what the Convention had failed to do. The territorial Legislature adopted a Constitution and submitted it to the people; and this is the Constitution now before you. Nothing. can be clearer in this statement than this; there has been no compliance with the provisions of the enabling act, so far as they prescribe the proceedings for the formation of a Constitution. The act positively prescribes a Convention at a particular date. Instead of a convention at the date prescribed we have the Legislature acting at a different date; so that there is plainly a failure in the proceedings for the adoption of the Constitution, The enabling act is in no respect complied with. It is vain, therefore, to refer to it. As well refer to Ho mer's Iliad or the Book of Job. But the failure in substance is graver still. By that enabling act it is further provided that the Constitution, when formed, shall be “republican, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the U.S and the principles of the DeclarIndep.” Mark, especially these latter words, introduced for the 1st time into an enabling act. Here are essential conditions which must be complied with: the Constitution must be “republican.” Now, I insist that a Constitution which denies Equality of Rights cannot be “republican.” It may be “republican” according to the imperfect notions of an earlier period, or even according to the standard of Montesquieu, but it cannot be “republican” in a country which began its national life in disregard of received notions and the standards of the past. In fixing for the 1st time an authoritative definition of this requirement, you cannot forget the new vows to Human Rights uttered by our fathers; you cannot forget that our Republic is an example to mankind. Here is an occasion which must not be lost of acting not only for the present in time and place, but for the distant also: But there is another consideration, which, if possible, is more decisive. I say nothing now of the requirement that the new Constitution shall be “not repugnant to the Constitution of the U.S.;” but I call attention to the pos itive condition that it must be “not repugnant to the principles of the DeclarIndep.” And yet, sir, in the face of this plain requirement we have a new Constitution which disfranchises persons on account of color, and establishes what is compelliously called “a white man's government.” This new Constitution sets at naught the great principles that all men are equal, and that Governments stand on the consen of the governed. Therefore, I say confidently that this new Constitution now before us is not according to the “principles of the DeclarIndep.” Is this doubted? Can it be doubted? You must raze living words, you must kill undying truths, before you can announce any such conformity. As long as those words exist, as long as those truths shine forth in that Declaration, you must condemn this new Constitution. I remember gratefully the electric power with which the Senfrom Ohio, [Mr. W.on a former occasion, not many years ago, confronting the representatives of slavery, bravely vindicated these principles as “self evident truths.” “There was a Brutus once who would brook the eternal devil” as soon as any denial of these “self evident truths.” Would that he would speak now as then, and insist on their practical application everywhere within the power of congress, and thus set up a wall of defense for the down trodden I Thus the question stands under the enabling act. This act has not been complied with in any respect, whether of form or substance. In form it has been openly disregarded; in substance it has been insulted. The failure in form may be pardoned; the failure in substance must be fatal, unless in some way corrected by Congress. Nobody doubts that Congress, in providing for the formation of a State Constitution, may affix conditions. This has been done from the beginning of our history. There is no instance where it has been omitted. Search the enablin acts of all the new States, and you will fin these conditions. There they are in your statute book, constant witnesses to the power l Congress, unquestioned and unquestion al)!0. Thus, for instance, the enabling act for Nebraska requires 3, things of the new State as conditions precedent: 1st. That slavery shall be forever prohibited. 2nd ly. That no person shall be molested in person or property on account of religious worship. 3rd ly. That the unappropriated public lands shall remain at the sole disposition of the U.S., without being subject to local taxation. Read the enabling act, and you will find these conditions. any Senator doubt their validity? Impossible. But this is not all. In addition to these 3 conditions are 3 others, which in order, if not in importance, stand even before these. They are domained in word, whichi have already quoted, but which have been strangely forgotten in this debate. Here they are: “That the Constitution when formed shall be republican, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the U.S and the principles of the DeclarIndep.” Consider this clause; you will find it contains 3 conditions, each of vital force. 1st. The Constitution, must be “republican.” It does not say “in form” merely, but “republican;” of course “republican” in substance and reality. 2nd ly. The Constitution must be “not repugnant to the Constitution of the U.S. ” But surely any Constitution which contains a discrimination of rights on account of color must be “repugnant” to the Constitution of the U.S., which contains no such discrimination. The text of the national Constitution is blameless; but the text of this new Constitution is not blameless; hence its repugnancy. 3rd ly. The Constitution must be “not repugnant to the principles of the DeclarIndep.” These plain words allow no equivocation;, Solemnly you have required this just and noble conformity. But is it not an insult to the understanding when you offer a Constitution which contains a discrimination of rights on account of color? Now in all these 3 requirements, so authoritatively made as the conditions of the new constitution, Nebraska fails wretchedly fails. It is vain to say that the people there were not warned. They were warned. These requirements were in the very title deed under which they now claim. Mr. President, pardon me, I entreat you, if I am tenacious in my position. At this moment there is one great question in our country on which all other questions pivot. It is justice to the colored race. Without this I see small chance of security, tranquillity, or even of peace. The war will still continue. Therefore, as a servant of truth and a lover of my country, I cannot allow this cause to be sacri: ficed or discredited by my vote. Others will do as they please; but if I stand alone I will hold this bridge.