Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, no doubt the action of Congress upon these 2 bills will be hereafter referred to as a precedent, and I desire simply to say enough to show that while I vote for the bills, I do not acquiesce in the doctrines of the amendment or the views of the gentlemen who support it. Nobody will contend I presume. author of this amendment will not contend that Congress has any power to regulate the right of suffrage in the State of Vermont; and if so, then when Nebraska becomes a State in the Union Congress has no power to regulate the right of suffrage in the State of Nebraska by any legislation prior to or subsequent to the date of its admission, unless Nebraska stands in the Union in an infe rior condition to the State of Vermont. I find in the 2nd section of the 1st article of the Constitution this provision: “The HoRep shall be composed of memberschosen every 2nd year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State sohall have the qualifications requisite for electors most numerous branch of the State Legisla ure. Now, according to all construction that has ever been put upon that section of the Constitution, the right of a State to prescribe the qualifications for the electors of the most nu merous branch of its own assembly has been recognized. Does the Senator or anybody else pretend that Congress can prescribe the qualifications for the voters in the State of Nebraska for the members of its own Legislature? If the Constitution of the U.S. confers that power upon one State, it confers the same power upon all the States; and when Nebraska is changed from a Territory to a State, the constitution, independent and regardless of any legislation by Congress, endows that State with this constitutional right. No law of Congress can deprive a State of any constitutional right. If this act of admission should prescribe as a fundamental condition that the State of Nebraska should have but one Senator in congress, I will ask the honorable Senator if it would be a valid and binding conditionf: Reference has been made to conditions attached to other acts of admission; but the honorable Senators who have referred to those acts as precedents have failed to make a pal pable distinction between the 2 cases. I undertake to say that no reference can be made to any condition attached to any act of admission that was at the time in conflict with the constitution of the State or of the U.S. The point which I make upon this amendment is, that it is in conflict with the Constitution of the U.S. as well as in conflict with the constitution of the State. Nebraska at this time is a Territory. Congress has an undoubted right to prescribe the qualifications of voters in that Territory; but when Nebraska becomes a State the right of Congress ceases. Otherwise there is no difference between a State and a Territory, and both stand upon the same footing so far as the power of Congress is concerned. That is the view that I take of this proposed condition; that it cannot be valid because it is in conflict with the Constitution of the U.S., and the State, when it is changed from a Territory, acquires under the Constitution a right that cannot be taken away by any legislation on the part of Congress. Now, it is claimed that at this time, because Nebraska is a Territory, Congress can enact some law that will operate in Nebraska after Nebraska becomes a State which Congress cannot enact after the act of admission is passed. I think there is a gross fallacy in that position. It is for these reasons, in brief, without undertaking to elaborate the subject, as it has been very thoroughly discussed, that I have opposed these amendments. I cannot consent to vote in this Senate for a doctrine which recognizes the right of Congress to say that a new State admitted into the Union shall not have the same rights in the Union under the Constitution that any of the old States have. I do not believe that it is right or constitutional for Congress to make any distinction between States; and I say that when Nebraska is admitted into the Union and her Sens&Reps take their seats on the floors of Congress, Nebraska in the Union has precisely the same power under the Constitution of the U.S. to control the right of suffrage that Vermont or NewYork has. I These are my views of the amendment; but shall vote for the bill as amended. These views have been overruled by a majority of the Senate. I believe it is of great importance to the people of Colorado that that Territory should be made a State, and I do not intend to allow a measure of this importance to be defeated, so far as my vote is concerned, because an amendment has been attached to the bill which I have opposed, and which, in my judgment, will have no force and effect. I will state one other objection to this amend.ment. When Colorado is admitted with this amendment attached to the bill the people of that State will be unable to determine what right or power they have over this question. Send this constitution with this amendment attached to it, accompanied by the conflicting views that have been expressed here today upon the subject, to the people of Colorado, and what decision can they make as to their rights? Controversy, confusion, and possibly disorder will be introduced into that Territory by the various constructions that may be put upon this amendment. Some will contend that this amendment, as has been admitted by some of its supporters here, is invalid; and so the people will be divided; doubts upon the subject will obtain; controversies will arise; and it will be, as it seems to me, more of an injury to the people than an advantage; and I doubt very much whether it will secure to the class of persons for whose benefit it is brought forward those rights which it is intended to secure to them. So long as so many of the honorable Senators here have stood upon this floor and acknowledged that it was invalid, those who are opposed to it in Colorado will take advantage of that exposition of the amendment in the Senate and claim that it has no force and effect. My opinion is that this application ought to have been rejected or it ought to have been adopted; the State ought to have been compelled to change its constitution in accordance with the wishes of Congress, or it should have been admitted with a constitution such as the people choose to make; and I regret that this amendment has been adopted, not because I think it will affect anything in Colorado, but I am apprehensive that we have put upon the record a precedent here today that will return to plague the inventors.