Mr. STEWART. There are plenty of precedents. There is no trouble on that point. There have been several States admitted without any enablin" act. There is only a technical difficulty in fhe way. If that technical dif ficulty had not occurred, ifthe had come here in the manner prescribed byt e enabling act, they would not require an act of Congress now; but the President would be authorized to issue his proclamation declaring the State in the Union. The spirit of your action has been comlied with, and now there ought to be some goo reason before you change your policy. But the Senfrom Massachusetts proposes to admit them if new conditions be imosed, and he cites the case of Missouri as authority for this action. I deny that thrt is authority for action like this. It is no authority unless the Senator is correct in his position that that clause of the Constitution of the U.S. which provides that the U.S shall guaranty to each State a RFG prevents a State from inserting in its constitution a clause like that of which the Senator comlains in this case; that is, that it takes away from the States the power to regulate the question of suffrage. f he is correct in that, he is perfectly logical. If he is incor rect in that, as I believe nearly all the Senate have expressed their opinion that he is. then it is no precedent. Missouriwas sent back the express ground that the provision inupoenr constitution requiring the Legislature to use an act excluding negroes and mulattoes om coming into the State was in conflict with the Constitution of the U.S and therefore void; and Mr. Clay held that the U.S. had a right to require a State to repw diate its attempt to violate the Constitution of the U.S. That was the 1st decision, and a veryimportant decision, to the effect that negroes and mulattoes were citizens. The Dred Scott ease overruled that decision, butI think there was more weight in that decision of congress at that time t ian in the Dred Scott decision.I believe it was the correct opinion. I believe that the clause of the Constitution which declares that the citizens of each State shall have the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several5 States, it.plies to all native born citizens. It was held by Congress, after deliberate consideration, in 1821, that that clause in the ConstitutiOn was violated by any State refusing to allow negroes and mulattoes to come within its borders. They said: "It being a violation of the Constitution. the Legislature mustresolvethat it will not pass a law in open violation of the Constitution of the U.S., orwe will not admit.her into the Union." It was a.very important decision. It decided that negroes and muluttoes were citizens. It decided, furthermore, that the Congress of the U.S. could require a State, upon its admission, to abandon a reposition to violate the Constitution of the U.S. But what, is this case? Here is a proposition to send the State constitution back, pointing out to the people what provisions they shall put in it, and that, too, in a matter where it is not in conflict with the Constitution of the U.S. I shall not go into that diseassion at length; but at the formation of the Constitution many of the States were slave States. 19 of the free States now exclude black persons from the right of suffrage. The construction of the Constitution from the earliest time down 11 left that. matter to the States. Whether th allow negroes to vote or not, is a matter for themselves, and their action either way is not in conflict with the Constitution of the U.S. We have no right to make a consttion for a State. If their constitution has in it anything in conflict with the Constitution of the U.S., we can say to them, “You must agree not to enforce it, ” but we are not here to make a constitution for the State of Colorado. We are here with power to restrain her from violating the Constitution of the U.S., and that is all. If on can make this part of the constitution of 01 orado, you can make an entire constitution for her. If you can say she shall come into the Union on anequal tootingwith the other States, provided she shall not have the power to regulate the question of suffrage as the other States have, you can say she shall come in on an equal footing, provide she would pass some other favorite law of yours, and you could carry it through and make her come in with a constitution made for her by you. I think this would be a very dangerous precedent for the Congress of the U.S. to set. It would be making constitutions for the States by the Congress of the U.S. If this clause be inserted and the State sent. back to insert it, and it be held to be binding. Colorado will not be in the Union on an equal footing with the other States. because she will have no control over the question of suffrage and it has been repeatedly held that that matter is in the control of the States. It would take away from her one of her rights as a sovereign State. I must oppose this amendment on principle. I do not believe the people of Colorado would accept it. If they cannot now come in on an aqua footing with the other States, I think it Will be better for them to struggle along as they are for the present; and if they do not pros peras well as they otherwise would, let them wait until they can come in with a constitution made by themselves. Colorado has complied with your conditions. She has embodied your constitutional amendment abolishing slavery in an ordinance irrevocable. She has adopted in the same way the other requirements contained by your enabling act. It seems to me that good faith, fair dealing requires that we should act upon this question without making a new constitution for Colorado. It seems to me that the interests of the whole country will be subserved by letting her come in now. She will certainly prospermore this year by being in than otherwise, and no great harm will be done to anybody.