Mr. HEND RICKS. I move that the further consideration of this bill be postponed until the 7th day of January next and made the order of the day at one o'clock; and I desire to say just one or 2 words upon that subject. It is very evident to every Senator that the discussion that is going on this evening is of no practical benefit so far as this bill is concerned. One or 2 hours have been expended in a controversy between the Senfrom massachusetts and the Senfrom Ohio, and I sympathize with both Senators, [laughter; but I do not see that it is of any particular advan age for us to stay here to continue that further. It is not a fair opportunity now, as every senator will say, to debate this bill and the amendments that are proposed. The Senfrom Pennsylvania wishes to address the Senate upon this bill; he says upon the bill itself; the Senfrom Massachusetts wishes to be heard upon the question of the rights of man; and I wish to hear both of them, but not just now, [laughter;) and neither of them wishes to speak i". now. I will say to the Senfrom Ohio, and I think he will concede the fact, that although I am opposed to his bill and will vote against it, yet I have interposed no factious opposition. I desire him to have an early and fair hearing of his bill, and if there is a majority of this body in favor of it let them pass it; if there is a majority against it, which I think is not very probable, then it will not be passed. If . the from Ohio will say that the measure is in any danger by being postponed to the 7th of January, when we can dispose of it in a reasonable time, then I will withdraw my motion; but there will be then 2 months very nearly left of the session. I do not agree with him, and I do not think there is another Senator who will agree with the Senfrom Ohio, that this is just as simple a thing as an action of assumpsit, the 1st or 2nd count in a declaration. I think it is very different. There are some actions of assumpsit that are complicated, that it takes a good lawyer to understand, but I suppose he refers to a suit on a warranty of a horse. I think that is what he is thinking about. Now, I am not able to see I do not think it is a very simple proposition made by the Senfrom Massachusetts that we shall change a constitution of a State by the joint action of Congress and of the territorial Legislature. It is a 1st principle in regard to statutes that the power which enacts a statute can repeal it. The act which we may pass upon this subject we can repeal. The act that the toor State Legislatures out there may pass can be repealed; but where is the constitution? If the territorial Legislature agrees to our present proposition, as suggested by the Senfrom Massachusetts, the next Legislature having equal power may repeal that, and what be comes of your provision of the Constitution? I am sure lawyers here will not say that this is a simple question. It is a troublesome question. If we postpone it to the 7th day of Jan uary it can be acted on. I do not think it is becoming to press a thing of this sort when Senators say they wish to discuss the merits of it, when we can easily pass it, and there is no difficulty about it, by postponing it to the 7th day of January.