Mr. HOWE. I was about to remark, Mr. President, that I have some time or other heard it said that this Government of the U.S. is a Government of delegated powers. Indeed, I have heard it said so often that I sometimes think I never heard anything else, [laughter;] but I agree to the truth of the observation. The only comment I have to make upon it now is simply to say that because its powers are delegated it does not follow thatv they should not be exerted. I have also heard it asserted that all powers not delegated to the Government of the U.S. are reserved to the States or to the people; and I agree to that, simply remarking that I do not conceive a power to be any more sacred because it is reserved than it would be if it were delegated. When we speak of admitting a State into the Union, which is the specific work on which we are employed at the present time, I understand it to mean simply this: to clothe a community with 2 great political prerogatives or rights. One is the right to exert a certain share. the power which, under the Constitution, belongs to the U.S., and the other is to exert all the powers which, under the Constitution, are reserved to the States. The powers which are delegated to the U.S. are those mainly which pertain to the defense of the national authority. To participate in the Government of the U.S., therefore, it is only essential that one should love the U.S. better than any other sovereignty; should be willing to uphold and.?": U.S. against all other sovereignties. What we call loyalty, therefore, seems to me to be the great prerequisite to the admission of a people to a share in this Government. I believe no one denies this sentiment to the people of Nebraska. So far as I know that constituency I believe they are as loyal as the people of any other portion of the country. hy not then admit them to this participation in the Government of the U.S.? It is said that the people of Nebraska are few in numbers, and admit them we must allow to them 2 Representatives in this Cham ber and one in the other House; and it is said that that is a larger representation than they are entitled to upon the score of numbers. That is true; and if the Constitution intended that representation in the legislative dept of the Government should be in proportion to numbers, it would not be just for the people of Nebraska to demand admission at this time; but we know, on the contrary, that such is not the intention of the Constitution; that those who framed the Constitution deliberately, considerately ignored that idea; and we know that, let them come into the Union when they will, they will not be represented in the legislative dept of the Government equally with other States in proportion to their numbers. This disparity we find in representation between all the States, and the Constitution contemplated, or those who made the Constitution contemplated, that States would be admitted into the Union having a population less than that prescribed by law by your stat utes for the choice of representatives, and contemplating that, anticipating that, it was provided that every State should have at least one vote in the off. of Representatives. I do not regard, therefore, this disparity of numbers to be a serious objection. I do not regard it to be an objection at all, so far as our interests are concerned. It is one that concerns mainly the people themselves. If they feel that they are able to maintain the expense of a State government, and are willing to take upon themselves that burden, and to take upon themselves the obligations which the Constitution imposes upon every State, I am perfectly willing to concede that right to them at the present time. What other objection is there, then, to the admission of Nebraska? The Senfrom Maryland {Mr. JOHNson] the other day started the most serious objection which I have heard urged in the course of this debate, and it was mainly to reply to that objection that I sought this opportunity to address the Senate. The Senfrom Maryland reminded particularly the Senators from the eastern or Atlantic States that the western States were fast gaining an ascendency, and he seemed to feel, at least he seemed to urge, that that ascendency was likely to prove injurious to the interests of the Atlantic States. He reminded us that the western States were growing rapidly; and he recited to us a portion of the argument of one of those who participated in framing the Constitution of the U.S., who urged that the Constitu.tion should restrict the number of representatives from the western States so that they never should exceed the number of representatives from the Atlantic or sea board States. I was very sorry, for one, to hear that argument introduced. I was very sorry to see, atthis stage in our history, a new attempt to inaugurate a sectional controversy. For years we have witnessed a systematic effort to imbrue the northern and southern portions of the country in a sectional controversy. We have just emerged from the worst stages of that controversy. For the last 6 years those 2 portions of the country have had each other by the throat. They have but just let go of each other; and I hope no Senator on this floor enjoys the spec tacle they present today. Both of them have bled deeply, and are bleeding still; and in view of that terrible struggle and of its results, I do not think any statesman of today ought to be ambitious of inaugurating a new controversy between the eastern and the western portions of the Union, and I am sure there is no need of any such controversy. And I want to say right here that, if the argument has any validity at all, if it be valid today, it is valid always: if the eastern States think it important for them to protect themselves against the growth of the West, then they have but one duty to do, and that is to resist from this time forward the admission of any more States into the Union; to say that they will admit not another one to participate in the powers belonging to the Government of the U.S. I do not think they are prepared to take that position. I do not think the honor or the interests of the country will warrant them in assuming that position, and I do not think the honor or the interests of the Atlantic States would warrant them in assuming it. Sir, it is not so very extraordinary that Mr. Gouverneur Morris, standing as he did in the Convention which framed the Constitution, in the very morning of the Republic, in the dim twilight which hung over that early hour in its history, should have supposed then that a necessary rivalry might exist between the East and the West, and that he, as an eastern representative, should have thought it incumbent upon him to do something, to put something into the Constitution, to protect the East against the day when that rivalry might spring up; but I think it very o: that an statesman standing in the light of today should find any wisdom in the suggestions of Mr. Gouverneur Morris, should think the lessons of that hour were worth repeating in the light of today. I am sure I cannot find any wisdom in that suggestion, and I do not believe the country will recognize its wisdom. I do not believe the Atlantic States are prejudiced by the growth of the western States. I do not believe they have proved injurious to the welfare of the eastern States. Certainly we were of no detriment to you of the East, sir, during the late struggle. We performed, I think, our full share of the labor which has been found necessary to save the integrity of the country. We contributed our full share of money, of blood, and of life. When the bat talions of the West moved down the valley of the Mississippi, through Wicksburg and Port Hudson, and sent the commerce of that great stream tumbling on its way to the Gulf, I do not think that that was felt to be an injury to the Atlantic States or to any portion of the country; and when those same battalions took up their march to the East and struck the At lantic coast at Savannah, I do not think that that march to the sea was felt to be any serious detriment to the Atlantic States; and when those victorious battalions turned their faces to the North and swept through the Carolinas, clearing out every one of those forts on the sea board held still under the rebel flag, I do not believe that the growth of the West was felt in any portion of the country to be detrimental or prejudicial to the whole. What, then, is this danger that threatens the Atlantic States from the growth of the West? The Senator has not left us to surmise what it is; he has pointed us to it. He has told us that when the Constitution was framed the Atlantic States were engaged in commercial pursuits; that they believed those pursuits were to be the permanent pursuits of the country. He tells us that those interests have already been sacrificed. He tells us that the eastern States have been forced, by no fault of their own, in a great measure to drop the business in which they were then engaged, and which they supposed would constitute their principal business in all time to come, and to engage in the business of manufactures. Thus then the States of the West are arraigned here upon the charge of having wrested the commerce of the eastern States from their hands. Sir, it is true that the commerce of that da is gone. Perhaps, before we lament too muc over that fact, we had better consider for a moment what that commerce was. In 1791 the domestic and foreign tonnage entering the Atlantic ports amounted to 6 4,000 3two tons. The value of commodities exported during that year was $19,012,041. The value of the goods imported during the same year was $29, 200,000. That was the commerce of the year 1791. That was the commerce of the country at the time the Constitution was framed. That was the commerce to which the Senfrom Maryland supposes that the States which formed the Constitution dedicated themselves to the protection and to the nurture of. Where did these exports come from? Mr. Tench Coxe has preserved a table, and as I think it full of instruction on this very point I shall produce it. I read from a table, not for the year 1791, but for the year 1793: Value of goods, wares, and merchandise exportedfrom eachState: NewHampshire. $181, 407 Massachusetts. RhdIsland. 4 Connecticut. 749, 925 NewYork. NewJersey Pennsylvan 3,830,343 Delaware. Maryland. Virginia. NCarolina. SCarolina Georgia. o Total $21,005, 568 Thus you see that at that day each State was exporting its own products. They were drawn to the sea board by wagons mainly. A pair of stout horses could make a journey from the sea coast to your frontiers. It will be seen. that then the State of NewYork, instead of being the 1st State in the Union in the matter of its exports, was, as I think, either the 5th or the 6th State of the Union. That was the commerce of that day. That commerce is indeed gone. They have dropped it, says the Senfrom No. they have been forced to drop it, says the Senfrom Maryland., Yes, Mr. President, they have been forced to drop it. If you hold your hand full of marbles you would be forced to drop them in order to pick up the koh i noor diamond. By no fault of their own, says the Senfrom Maryland, have they been forced to drop this commerce. No, Mr. President, I do not attribute any fault to them for it. I think the country and the world will hold them justified in dropping it when you consider for a moment what they have picked up in lieu of it. If we have not that commerce we have another one. In lieu of that commerce we had one in the year 1866 which employed a foreign tonnage of 7, 821,560 tons, and a domestic tonnage of 7, 782, 484 tons, and that fleet exported from this country a value amounting to $565, 426, 894, and imported $437,640,854. Qf these exports more than $19,000,000 more than the whole export of 1791 were in wheat, and more than $27,000,000 were in flour. And where does this commerce come from? It is not produced in the States which framed the Consti.tution; it is not brought to the sea board with ox teams nor with horse teams. There are long lines of canal and railway reaching far beyond what were the frontiers of the Union at the time Mr. Gouverneur Morris gave his advice to the country. At the time that Mr. Gouverneur Morris made the suggestion which was repeated to us by the Senfrom Maryland the other day the city of Chicago had not been heard of; old Beau bien had not begun to keep tavern there then: there is quite a town there now. It sends off annually more than 50 million bushels of cereals to the sea board to swell the commerce of the U.S. The city of Chicago sends a commerce annually over the StClair flats amounting to about 113 million dollars more than twice the whole commerce of the country which Mr. Gouverneur Morris thought the country ought to nurseas its peculiar business. The State of Minnesota, one among the last of the States admitted into the Union, sends off more wheat every year than the whole U.S. exported in 1791. Some 13 or 14 years after Mr. Gouverneur Morris made this suggestion a party of exploration started from the Missouri river to cross the continent to the Pacific. They were some 2 years in making that journey. During the last season a railroad construction train has traveled almost as far between the Missouri and the Pacific as that party of exploration traveled in 1804. Considering what the West has contributed to the new commerce of the country, I do not think that the Atlantic States have any occasion to regret the growth of the West or to lament the loss of that commerce which they possessed in 1791; and I like the sentiment avowed on one occasion by the Senfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. WILsoN] He said they were not alarmed about the West; they regarded us all as their children. That is the true paternal feeling. We are the children of the eastern States; we are not at all likely to devour our mother; that is no part of our purpose. I have heard of some barbarous states men who were in the habit of putting female children to death in their infancy; but that was not because they promised to be strong; it was because they promised not to be strong; not because they promised to add too much strength to the State, but because they did not promise to bring strength enough to the State. Never till this late day have I read or heard anywhere of a statesmanship which would put children to death because they promised to be strong. So, Mr. President, if I were an eastern representative instead of a western representative as I am, I think I would still insist upon the old policy of admitting States into the Union. when they feel themselves capable of o taking themselves the obligations of a member of the Union; when they manifest a disposition to discharge the duties which belong to every State in the Union. I am perfectly sat isfied with the disposition entertained by the people of Nebraska toward the Government of the U.S., and am willing to admit her as she stands to a participation in this Government; but if she comes in at all, she must not only, as I said, exercise a part of the power which belongs to the Government of the U.S., but she must exercise all the powers which belong to a State. It is not only necessary that she should be animated by that sentiment of loyalty which will induce. to be faithful to the demands of the General Government, but, she should be animated by that sentiment of justice which should secure to all the people of her own borders the protection which o;must have from some government, and which, under our system of laws, they must get from the government of the State wherever a State exists. Are the people of Nebraska animated by that sentiment of justice toward each other which entitles them to take upon themselves the exercise of those powers which belong to a State? In 190king at the organic law which the people of that State are said to have adopted for the regulation of the home government, I find it provided that all colored people are excluded from the right to vote under that government, and that the ballot is conceded only to white persons. I am told there are colored persons there. It is said there are but few. Just how many there are I do not know; and in asking for the colored people a right to vote in Nebraska, I do not hold myself to be the advocate simply of the colored people who are in Nebraska; I hold myself to be the advocate of the whole colored population of the U.S. There are 4 millions of them who want the right to vote: in Nebraska when they are in Nebraska, in Wisconsin when they are in Wisconsin, and in other States when they are in other States; and if you deny this right to those who are now in Nebraska, you deny it to all who may hereafter wish or seek to go to Nebraska; you say to the whole colored race of the U.S., “You cannot enter within the borders of Nebraska without leaving behind you the right to vote, provided you live in any portion of the Union where you enjoy that right today.” Now, Mr. President, I have never said a word on this floor in reference to the question of negro suffrage. I have voted upon it repeatedly here and elsewhere. It is either right or wrong, just or unjust, that colored men should vote in Nebraska. If it is just, the responsibility is with the Congress of the U.S. if they do not see that that justice is secure. If it is unjust that they should vote there, then we have today committed a fatal mistake, because if it is unjust for them to vote in Nebraska it is unjust for them to vote in the DistCol. We have today, by a very large majority, as on another occasion, declared it to be our opinion that it was just, and not unjust, for them to vote in the DistCol. I did not vote to put the ballot into the hands of the colored men of the DistCol by way of penalty upon the District; I had no wish to punish anybody, white or black, by the vote I gave; I voted to secure them that right here in the District as I had uniformly voted to secure them that right in Nebraska, and as I should vote to secure them that right in Virginia or in NewYork, whenever and joifind myself entitled to vote upon a specific question. Upon the question as to who shall and who shall not vote in the Territory of Nebraska the Congress of the U.S. has exclusive control. If they are debarred from the privilege of voting there, as I said before, we are responsible for it, not the people of Nebraska alone, but the Congress of the U.S., which assents to that exclusion. To be consistent with myself, Mr. President, I must insist, it seems to me, upon their right to vote in Nebraska. We have heard it said today upon this general question of the right of negroes to vote, as we have heard it said often elsewhere, that they are unfit to vote. That is true; God knows how true that is, and I think He alone knows how true it is. But it is not only true of the negro race in the U.S.; it is true of the white race; it is true of the body of the American people that they are not fitted by intellectual culture for the exercise of the right of suffrage. The American citizen, with the ballot in his hands, in the estimation of the American people, is a sovereign. Once a year he passes judgment upon you and me, upon President, upon judges, upon laws, upon poli cies, upon measures; and to be fitted for that great work he should comprehend them all; measures and men he should be familiar with: and to be really fitted to exercise the right of suffrage he should be better endowed than we are. We can be intrusted here to vote on specific laws, but when we come to review and criticise and pass judgment upon great policies, the of us are hardly equal to that great work. All that can be said in favor of our right to the ballot is this: that we can handle it for our selves, we the people, better than anybody else can handle it. us. And that is not only true of the best educated and of the half educated, but it is true, as I solemnly believe, of those who are not educated at all. They can handle it for themselves better than anybody else can handle it for them. Whenever you come to vote for a class, a large class of people, with whom you have no interests in common, for whom you have no affection, that class will suffer. The history of the world proves that. It is not because I think this colored race is fitted for the right of suffrage that I now demand their admission to it; it is because I feel and know they never will be fitted for it, and they never will be allowed to become fit for it until you put the ballot into their hands. Why, Mr. President, the white race, for the last 50 years, have had the ballot in their hands exclusively; they have had the whole authority and power of Government. What have we got to show for it? What is the net result? You are taunted every day that you have 4 million colored people who are not fit to vote; who cannot read and write, it is said. You have more than that. You have in those ten communities down here lately in rebellion against the authority of the State, almost half a million of white adult males and females who cannot read or write. Mr. President, we cannot boast very loudly of the achievements of the white race in the matter of government when they have only such fruits as these to produce. I believe, sir, the only way in which we are ever to raise up and to fit these men to exercise the right of suffrage is to put them at the work now; put the ballot into their hands. I do not think your institutions will be particularly stronger for that single act; but I believe that when the American people see that every man has the ballot in his hands they will be made to see the common, public, urgent necessity of fitting every one of them for the use of it; and that we shall take hold of the work of education when we have completed the work of emancipation. I believe that will be necessary; I believe it ought to be done. But what is the great danger, in the mean time of putting the ballot into their hands? The most ignorant man you can find on the continent cannot by possibility vote worse than the most cultivated men have voted within the last 6 years. Every man of them will be identified with one or the other of the 2 great parties. In each of the great parties and in all of the great parties we have ever had we have bad men of high culture; and they will not vote worse than one or the other of these 2 parties. Why, Mr. President, take a man who is utterly stupid, insensate, and with the ballot in his hands there is just an even chance that he will vote on the right side. There are only 2 ways he can vote, the wrong side and the right side, and it is just an even chance that he will vote right; and where there is one chance in 2 of his going right the odds are not very much against you. But after all, Mr. President, ignorance is not the thing which disqualifies a man most from voting. I would rather trust the ballot today or any day in the hands of a man who does not know what to do with it, than to trust the ballot in the hands of men who do know what ought to be done with it, but who do what they know ought not to be done with it; rather trust it in the hands of ignorant men, who are true to such convictions as they have than trust it, as you see it every day, in the hands of men whose convictions are clear enough, but who will sacrifice their convictions for some purpose of personal, present interest. I believe there is much more ignorance among the people of the U.S. than there ought to be; but I am bound to say that, in my judgment, igno rance is not the worst difficulty we have got to contend with, and it is a difficulty that we can remove more readily than some others that we do have to contend with. And so, Mr. President, I think these colored men ought to be allowed to vote in Nebraska. I thought last winter they ought to be allowed to vote in Colorado, and because that right was denied to them in the constitution of colorado, as it is denied in the constitution of Nebraska, I once voted against the admission of Colorado. But subsequent to that vote I found the country confronted by a.grave emergency. The people of the U.S. had sent to these Halls a body of representatives equal in numbers to the enactment of laws even against the veto of the President; they had put into the presidential chair also one whom they supposed to be in harmony with themselves and in harmony with that t majority they sent here; but we found in the course of the last session that that har mony no longer existed between the Executive and the majority in Congress or the majority of the people which sent us here and placed him there. Had he still been in harmony with us we could have sacrificed a few members of this Senate and a few members of the HoRep, and yet have taken care of the interests of the country; but when we found that the President was no longer in line with us, it became the more necessary that we should preserve our majority in the 2 Houses. But the same calamity which took from our ranks the POTUS took from our ranks also one, two, 3, or perhaps 4 members, of this body, “erling brethren, ” as I really think, of this House; and so at one time I really thought that we had not the power, this Union, this Republican, this loyal party of the country and its Representatives had not the power to enact a law without the assent of the President, and his assent we could not get. So it happened to me, as I dare say it happened to others, that I began to look about for reinforcements. did not see exactly where they were to come from unless we drew on the West, on which we had been in the habit of drawing very freely during the late struggle. Here was one loyal constituency, with loyal representatives standing at our doors, willing to come to our aid and help us to carry on the great work which we oupon our shoulders, but under which for a little while we did stagger a little, and you know it. I thought, stricken as we were, we had better seize the greater good even at the sacrifice of a temporary evil; and I reconsidered the vote which I 1st gave on the question of admitting Colorado and voted finally for her admission. It was urged then, and with a good deal of force, that Colorado had adopted her constitution before the new dispensation had ever been proclaimed to her people. I thought there was some weight in the argument, but it did not influence me to any great extent. It was the necessity resting upon me, which finally oed me to vote for the admission of Colorado. But that emergency has passed by. The Senfrom j."." I am very sorry he is not in his seat this afternoon, since I have to allude to him so often really thought we were urging in Nebraska today for partisan purposes. Why, sir, he must have a very extraordinary opinion of us to suppose that we are still craving more strength in the Senate or in the House or in the country. The vetoes of the President have no sort of influence, as we have seen this afternoon, on the legislation of the country now. We have 2/3rds of both Houses assured men. We can do business by ourselves and as it ought to be done. What do we want of any more votes? Be side, it is only 2 years before we shall go to the people again, and then the small remnant of opposition which is still here will give way and loyal representatives will take their places; plenty of time to reenforce in the or dinary methods, even if we needed any reen forcements, but we do not. I said that emergency had passed by. Youpremember of old, when Judea was looking in all directions for a Saviour. He at last apbeared to them very unexpectedly from Naza reth.. While we were looking about our fron: tiers for reinforcements to the Legislatures of the country, lo, our savior came from NewJersey. I scarcely looked for a savior from that quarter any more than Judea for hers from Nazareth; but then we recognized ours when they came, which was more than Judea did of hers. They are here; the necessity has passed by; and now I think justice remains to be done. But, Mr. President, because I think that we should not permit our sanction to rest upon this constitution as it stands, L. do not think we should formally exclude Nebraska from the Union. That does not to me seem necessary. If we invite the people of Nebraska to remove this objection from her constitution, I do not doubt that the people of Nebraska will gladly do it. I i. the invitation should go to them. Several propositions have been made to the Senate having that object in view. The Senfrom Missouri [Mr. BRowNJ offered the 1st one, the one which I am inclined to support; that submits the question to the people of Nebraska. It invites the people of Nebraska to reconsider this question and to strike that clause from her constitution. There can be no possible doubt but what, if we take that course, and the people of Nebraska assent to that act, the constitution will be as valid in every respect as it would if the constitution had been originally presented to us in that form. It matters not at all who submits a constitutional proposition to a people seeking admission into the Union if the people assent to it, and then Congress approves, and sanctions the act; there is a State, and the constitution is beyond all question a valid instrument. It is said it will impose some inconvenience upon the people of Nebraska. So it will. It will require. citizens to go to an election upon some one day and give a i. vote upon this That is not a very great hardship. t need not postpone the admission of the State for more than 60 days. The election can be ordered on a specific day, and there need be no subsequent action of Congress. It does seem to me that this is an inconvenience to which the people of Nebraska ought to be entirely willing to submit, rather than to require that we, in this stage of our history, should assent to the exclusion which now stands in their constitution. A shorter method of attaining the same thing is proposed by . the Senfrom Massachusetts, Wilson] He proposes to require, not the assent of the people of Nebraska, but the assent of the Legislature of Nebraska. I do not like that proposition, yet I will not under take to say that that would not make a valid change in the constitution; but it is a work that we ought not to impose upon the Legislature of Nebraska. They were not selected for any such purpose; they have not been instructed upon that point; they ought not to be required to vote upon such a measure as that at the dictation of the General Government. They are, like ourselves, representatives, and prefer, as we do, to represent the known wishes of their people rather than to guess at their wishes upon any subject on which they are not well informed. The Senfrom Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDs] has offered another provision looking to the same object. He proposes that, without reference to the people of Nebraska, and without reference to their representatives in the Legislature, we, the representatives of the people of the U.S., shall admit that State into the Union with this declaration: “That this act sh.all take effect with the fundamental and condition that within said State of ebraska there shall be no abridgment or denial of the elective franchise, or of any other right to any person by reason of race or color, excepting Indians not taxed.” Now, Mr. President, I do hold it to be a very grave ques.tion whether we can insert a clause in the constitution of Nebraska or any other incoming State, or whether we can override a clause in their constitution by this mode of proceeding. That question of constitutional power I do not mean to argue on this occasion. I know there are good lawyers who doubt and deny it; I think there is grave reason to doubt it myself: but if we had the clearestAuthority in the world for doing it, it does not seem to me a right thing to do. We have an undoubted right to say to the people of Nebraska as a Territory, “The ballot shall be put into the hands of all your citizens, white and black.” That we can say to them as a Territory, and we can say that the several agencies which they are authorized to choose in a territorial condition they shall choose by the votes of all their people. That we can say; that I think we ought to say; that is a proper thing to say. But they have chosen representatives to wield entirely different powers from what are intrusted to the Legislature of a Territory or to the Governor of a Territory. They have undertaken to say that they will not permit colored people to participate in the choice of these agencies; and we undertake to say that they shall That is the force of the amendment offered by the Senfrom Vermont. They have asked us to admit them with a constitution such as it stands, and with a government selected to wield the powers conferred by that constitution. We are called upon by this amendment to accept the State, to accept that government, to set them up in the exercise of the powers belonging to a State; making them responsible, however, to a radically different constituency from what their own constitution does. That it seems to me, in brief, is substantially the Lecompton question over again. If we have the right to impose such a condition upon the people of that State, it seems to me we ought not to do it. The precedent is a dangerous one. Certainly we could not compel them to come into the Union; certainly we could not compel them to assent to a constitution; that is not attempted to be done. But we take a constitution which they say is satisfactory to them; we take a government which they have selected; we clothe that government with the powers of a State; but in the same act by which we confer these powers upon that government we make a radical change in the organic law presented to us by the people selecting the government. It does not seem to me just; it does not seem to me necessary. It seems to me a great deal better that we should put the people of Nebraska to the slight inconvenience of once more passing upon this question of putting the into the hands of their colored men; and therefore, Mr. Presidênt, I shall be compelled to vote against the amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts; I shall be compelled to vote against the amendment Polo. by the Senfrom Vermont, and I shall vote with great pleasure for the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Missouri; and if it is adopted, I shall vote with great pleasure for the passage of the bill.