Mr. WADE. I hope that section will not be stricken out. We have all thus far, I suppose, proceeded upon this subject on the hy pothesis that the ‘encral Government had not the power to regulate the elective franchise in the States of this Union; but of course we have the power of legislation to all intents and purposes in the Territories of the U.S., and I believe it is pretty well understood here, now that when a Territory shall refuse to grant this franchise in its most extensive Signification, the Senate will refuse to receive that Territory into the Union as a State. It is that, perhaps, which pt‘events usniow from assing a certain bill over the veto of the Presient, because the constitution of the State which that bill proposed to admit has not this stipulation in it. I do not now suppose it is necessary to go into the argument that is ordinarily resorted to, either proor con, as to the right of franchise and the expediency of granting it generally, because the whole subject has been so often up and so thoroughly debated that in my judgment no good would come from prolongs 'dis cussion at this stage of the session. I only wish the Senate to understand what the question is. The section now proposed to be stricken out provides that these Territories c shall make no discrimination in the elective franchise between any races of people within their limits. The' question is fairly raised by this motion whether the Senate will make that provision for a Territory where we have entire power or control ever the subject, or whether they will not. I think that it is time it was understood that when Territories come knocking at our doors to be admitted as States they are not to be admitted if they have improper provisions in their constitutions, and now is the time to test the question by impos in such revisions as we think proper, so that all the erritories framing constitutions and bringing them here for our sanction may know on what terms they may expect to be admit ted. It is for that purpose that this section wasdinserted here, and think it ought to be tric. For myself, at this period of the session and in this year of grace, surely need not say that I am for the most extensive right of suffrage to every human being who is rational who is above the age of 21 years, and who is a citizen of the U.S. I am for that on all occasions. I am inclined to think and I do believe that it is one of those inherent and “inalienable” rights which were alluded to by our fathers in that great Declaration which has had so much effect upon the destinies of the w I believe that in civilized communities i is a right which pertains to a man from the same high source and in the same way that any other of his rights to person or property are held. That is my judgment, and think that the DeclarIndep in this respect was only declaratory of the great law of nature itself, and introduced no new principle. I am for living up to that Declaration, and I am for bringing the Territories to understand that if they come here for admission they must come without any taint of aristocracy in their constitutions but must make them conform to the reforme state of public opinion now existing. Therefore, sir, I am opposed to striking out this section, and I hope that the Senate will keep it in and that it will be passed into a law.