Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not think the amendment proposed by the Senfrom Massachusetts ought to be adopted without some reflection on the part of the Senate. Although it has the form of the enactment of 1821 in relation to Missouri, I do not think the cases are at all analogous, and upon that subject I wish to submit just one or 2 remarks. The act of Congress of 1821 proposed that Missouri should be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever “Upon the fundamental condition that the 4th clause of the 26th section of the 3rd article of the constitution submitted on the part of the said State to Congress shall never beconstrued to authorize the passage of any law, and that, no law shall be passed in conformity thereto, by which any citizen of either of the States of this Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and inn munities to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of the U.S. ” It was claimed in Congress that one of the provisions of the constitution of Missouri was itself in violation of the Constitution of the U.S. One of the provisions of that constitution prohibited the immigration into that State of free persons of color; and it was claimed by some.they being citizens of the U.S. could not, under the Federal Constitution, be excluded from the right of immigration to the State of Missouri. To settle that question, as a matter of compromise, this act was adopted which amounts to just this, that that clause in the constitution of the State of Missouri shall not be so construed by the Legislature of Missourias to authorize the enactment of any law in violation of the Constitution of the U.S. This act of congress accepted by Missouri did not propose to change the constitution of Missouri at all, but was a declaration that the constitution of missouri should not be construed so as to make it in violation of the Constitution of the U.S. But what is proposed here?. It is proposed by the Senfrom Missouri to change the constitution of Nebraska. Now, does Nebraska come here as a State with a constitution? If a constitution, then how was that constitution adopted? No Senator has claimed that the constitution of Nebraska was adopted merely by the act of the Legislature. It has greater force altogether than a mere legislative act. It is claimed to be a fundamental law deriving its validity and its force and power from the will and act of the people. A constitutional convention, it is understood, may adopt a constitution without, submitting it to the people, because the delegates are elected for that purpose. The act of the delegates in constitutional conventions is the act of the people, and they may make a law above an enactment by a Legislature, a law that shall govern a Legislature. Then it was the act of the people in voting upon this constitution that gave it the force of a constitution. Now, how can that constitution that is adopted be changed? Can Congress do it? The Senfrom Ohio, who has charge of this bill has argued most emphatically that Congress cannot. Congress cannot change the constitution of a State proposing admission into the Union. Then this act of Congress proposed by the Senfrom Missouri will not change the constitution of Nebraska. Then how is it to be changed? By submitting this act of congress to the Legislature of Nebraska, and then saying that the Legislature of Nebraska acting with Congress may change the constitution; in other words, Congress and the Legislature of a State may make a bargain by which the constitution of that State may be changed. I presume that this constitution has some provision in regard to its own amendment and how it shall be amended, and I suppose that that is by some formal proceeding which shall secure the judgment and wish of the people on the subject; but we propose to change the constitution upon a subject over which the State has exclusive control. Upon the subject of franchise we propose to change that constitution and in effect to strike out the word “white” and to allow white and black to vote, not by the voice of the people, not in any form of proceeding which has ever been recognized as changing a constitution, but by a bargain between Congress and the Legislature of the State. I submit to Senators whether that can be done. Can we now propose to the Legislature of Nebraska to change this Constitution which was adopted by the people; and if the Legislature of Nebraska agrees to it, will that make a constitution for Nebraska? If we can make one provision of a constitution, can we not make an entire constitution in that way; and is it possible that Congress can submit to a territorial Legislature a proposed constitution and that being accepted by the territorial Legislature it shall become a government for the people and bind all future legislation? I do not understand the most liberal to have ever gone so far. This, sir, is all I desire to say on this point.