Mr. MAYNARD. Mr. Speaker, the power to admit States implies also the duty of exam ining and deciding whether they ought in our opinion to be admitted; jbeing had to the extent of its population, boundaries, the nature of its constitution, and everything else. What the views of the majority of this House are with reference to the main question under lying this discussion I suppose nobody doubts. It is insisted, however, that these views are embodied in the 3rd section of the bill now before us. Reference has been made in the course of this debate to the JtResolution providing for the admission of Missouri into o Union, in which a condition was referred back to the Legislature of that State, and it was provided that if before a day named in the resolution that condition was accepted by formal legislation of the State it should be admitted under proclamation of the President without any further action by Congress. My friendfrom Ohio on my left [Mr. SHEL LABARGER) intimates that the passage of this 3rd section of the bill would be a moral assurance of the adoption of the principle for which we contend. I submit to him that the moral assurance will be all the other way. The people of Nebraska have adopted a constitution, in which they have restricted the right of suffrage to white men. They have elected a Governor and a Legislature, and have chosen Senators and a Representative who are standing here ready to be admitted the moment that this or any similar bill shall pass. I concede that what are called moral guarantees in political matters are much higher and greater assurances than any forms of legal obligation; but what are the moral obligations of this case? They are that they will adhere to the limitation of the fran ehise as it stands in their constitution, and nothing else. We may, in passing this bill, intimate to them and to the country what our views and principles are, but we have no assurance that those principles will be regarded or that our views will be adopted by them. On the other hand, all the assurance we have is that they will be disregarded and that our views will not be adopted. Let us, as we did in the case of WestVirginia, submit this proposition to the people of Nebraska, either at the ballot box or in a convention called for the purpose or by the Legislature now in existence. If they will modify their constitution in this way we shall then have a moral assurance that the principle for which we contend will be incorporated as a fundamental condition into their constitution, an assurance which, to my mind, is of greater validity than any mere provision of law that we may adopt. My friendfrom Indiana [Mr. HILL] asked yesterday whether if their constitution were now in the form that we desire they might not turn round after their admission and change it. To be sure they might. Undoubtedly, as the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] intimates, they have full power to do it; but if they came to us with such a constitution we have a moral guarantee that they will not do it; we shall have the highest assurance that any people.can give of their future purposes. I think, therefore, that we ought, in justice to ourselves and to the people we represent, and to what we must regard as their deliberate judgment, to send this question back to the people of Nebraska, and see whether they are willing to give us and the country a guarantee either in the form of a popular vote, a conventional ordinance, or even an act of their Legisintore, that in the future they will adhere in good faith to this great principle of suffrage.