Mr. SHELLABARGER. Mr. Speaker, I think the objection, which has been urged by those who oppose the admission of this Territory upon the ground there will not be secured to the persons of African descent in that State when admitted the right to vote is well taken. In other words, if in the mind of any member it be sufficient reason for the rejection of this application that by her admission under this act persons of African descent will not in law be entitled to vote, then I think such member ought to vote against this bill, because in my judgment the proviso which has been added to the bill will not under the law secure the end its purport indicates. The reason for that is, sir, as was remarked by one gentleman, it does not make this a part of the constitution, nor is there any method, legal I mean, by which the Congress or the Government of the U.S. can, if Nebraska shall refuse to conform to the suggestions contained in this proviso, enforce that proviso. Now, then, when I have said that it seems to me, if I am not mistaken, I have suggested a vital objection, it is no answer to that objection that we are attempting to legislate in reference to the control of the right of suffrage within a State. We will not have controlled it; that will not be the effect of this proviso. Now, let me suggest right here that these objections that have been taken on the ground that we are attempting to legislate for a State upon the matter of suffrage are not well taken, because we are now legislating about a Territory and not a State. Hence it must not be said that this proviso is, on that account, in conflict with the 2nd section of the 1st article of the Constitution, to which my colleague’ [Mr. BINGHAM] alluded. The next suggestion I wish to make is the one which relates to the most common objection made to this proviso and to the admission of this State with this proviso in it. It is that the proviso itself not being a thing within the power of Congress to legislate upon so as to make it a law according to the Constitution is doing a vain and an absurd thing. That is the most grave objection that I have really heard to this proviso. It is not, however, it seems to me, a vain thing to do; and the reason that it is not so is the same that has operated again and again upon the minds of perhaps 1/2 of the Congresses that have ever legislated upon the admission of a State into the Union. It is not a vain thing, because the moral sanction and effect of this proviso will have potency and force, not in the way of being a law, but by being vastly persuasive and influential in controlling the action of the Territory that is admitted to become a State upon the terms contained in the proviso.