Mr. BROOMALL. Mr. Speaker, this is the same bill which passed this. at the last session with an additional section now put to it. At the last session I among others voted against the bill upon the ground that it dis. franchised a part of the adult male citizens of the U.S. residents of that Territory. If the bill was in the same shape at the present time I would vote against it again. It is be: cause I believe the bill has been altered in that particular effectually that I propose to vote for it. I am sorry in the limited time which will be allowed me it will be impossible to enter to any extent into the argument on which convic.tion I have reached is founded, but I will ven ture at least to state my conviction and some of the reasons which have produced it, The section to which I allude is the section which has just been read by the Clerk, and which attaches the fundamental and unalter. able condition to our enactment that no adult male shall be deprived of the right of suffrage in the future State of Nebraska. It is clear that neither the onor the Legislature of a Territory can make a State government without an act of Congress. It is also clear and the practice justifies the assertion that the act.PEongress need not neces: sarily precede the formation of the constitution by the people. It may be subsequent or it may be precedent. Where the action of Congress is precedent, in the nature of an enabling act, it .not bind Congress unless in its terms it amounts also to an act of admission. Congress may change, and in repeated instances has changed by the act of admission, the consti.tution formed by a convention of delegate: under an enabling act. This is upon the ground that the whole action emanates from Congress, and that the sole authority to create Statego"ernments within the limits of the U.S., in territory not embraced within any organized State, rests with Congress, to be exercis through a convention of delegates, o the territorial Legislature as its agents, or by its own action. I have said Congress has on various occo.sions, after an enabling act, changed andaltered the constitution presented here by a convention pursuant to the enabling act; and I will go" one or 2 instances in which that has been done. in the case of Arkansas Congress rejected" portion of the constitution formed by a vention authorized by an enabling act. In the Iowa case Congress rejected an ordi. nance of the convention and proposed a substitute. In the case of Kansas precisely the s” action was had. in the case of Louisiana, after the enao act and when the State came up for admissio Congress annexed a condition that her navi gable waters should be free to all the citi" of the U.S. th Where there is no enabling act, who h e people of their own motion have goto. in convention, or in any other unauthoriz way, and prepared a constitution and . State government, then of course tho.". vitality of the constitution arises from the: sequent action of Congress ratifying that.”ment of the people. In the case of California there was no o: bling act, and Congress at the time of o admission as a State, and in the act of osion, annexed these conditions;, ]: That no State should never interfere with thement of the U.S. in io.' wer public lands. 2. That the State shoul. d tax the public lands. 8. That the State;: not tax non-resident land owners at ". rate than resident; and 4. That the no waters of the State should always remo” to citizens of the U.S.. lifor In the case of Michigan, where a"s Califo the nia there was no enabling act, and constitution and form of government proceeded from unauthorized men, Congress in the passage of the act admitting the State limited the boundaries thereof, throwing out some of those who had actually by their representatives participated in forming the constitution. The uniform action of Congress upon the question of the admission of States, justifies me in saying that the Government of the U.S., by its Congress, either mediately or immediately makes the State constitution in all cases. I maintain that nothing that is done by the ople of the Territory, about to become a State, even by virtue of an enabling act, binds Congress, unless the enabling act itself does; that is, unlessitis itself an act of admission as well as an enabling act. n the case in question the constitution and form of government presented by Nebraska is not the result of any enabling act. No convention of the people of Nebraska have presented that form of constitution and government here. It comes from an unauthorized body of men. Some citizens of the Territory without any authority of law, got together aid made this document, and are now presenting it here for us to enact into a law. It is true there was an enabling act, but for reasons best known to themselves the citizens of that territory have not acted under it, or if they have they have chosen not to avail themselves of its provisions, and the territorial Legislature, without any authority of law whatever, have presented this document to Congress. It is true it was submitted to a vote of the citizens of the Territory, but there was no authority so to submit it, and the submission is of no further effect than to satisfy us that in the form in which it was presented during the last session, that is, without the last section here inserted, it was satisfactory to the people. Their action was not by reason of any law enabling them either to adopt or reject it. Hence no man was authorized to vote at that election, and the vote was only given for the of affording the information as to what is wish was. He was not called upon to make election in the premises. fIam right here, that Congress is doing all the business in its present enactment, is really taking up that which never had any validity and proposing to give it validity, then it is not this act alone, that we are now proposing to pass, but it is the entire Constitution that is oposed to be made; the proposed action of congress is to make a constitution for Nebraska. Now, Igrant that it is right and proper that a constitution formed for the people of the Territory and intended for their future State should be submitted to them for adoption. It is fair; but I ask where is the provision of the Constitution or laws of the U.S. requiring it? I, grant that Congress, should do nothing in violation of the principle that the people of a State should be allowed self government within constitutional State powers; but Congress may do this, and what I maintain is, that we are now getting up a constitution an form of government, for the future State of Nebraska, and that we may make it what we please so that we keep within our own powers under the Constitution. The people of the Territory, should of course have a chance of accepting or refusing, but there is no constitutional or legal obligation upon us to submit it to them. e ought to do it, and we propose to do it. Now, there are several modes by which a constitution may be submitted to the people intended to be bound by it, and one of" is by enacting that constitution into a law and letting the people say whether they will organize under it. If after the lapse of a month from the passage of such an act we find a State actually existing there, duly organized with executive, legislative, and judicial depts, with representatives in i.Houses of Congress, then history will have determined that the people of that State have accepted the provisions of the Constitution. If they organize as a State, they do it under this act. This act then becomes a part of their organic law. In fact, this act, embracing as it does the Constitution itself, becomes their organic law, and every part of it is binding upon them. They cannot accept the law and reject the proWilso. It is urged against the proviso to the bill that it is an attempt on the part of Congress to fix the right of oin a State. This is not so. It is only an attempt to fix the right of suffrage for the future State at a time when everybody will admit that no power but congress can fix it. Who but Congress can legally say what citizens of the U.S., residing in a Territory, shall vote in the organization of a State or in the State when organized? How long the proviso will bind the future State and whether the people can alter that as well as other parts of their constitution, are questions to be decided when they arise. It is no objection to it in my mind that it proposes to bind them forever. I contend that the legal effect of the proviso is to strike the word “white” out of the constitution we are proposing to legalize. congress is about to give the citizens of the U.S. residing in Nebraska, a State government. It is surely competent for us to say that we give that government to all the citizens of the U.S. residing in the Territory, and not to a portion of them; and that is just what the proviso purports to do, [Here the hammer fell]