Mr. SHELLABARGER. I answer certainly; and if, as I said a moment ago, I occupied the position of my friendfrom Vermont, that it is a good and sufficient reason to refuse to admit a State because there are 100 people in it that will be temporarily disfranchised, then, I would be compelled to vote with him. But I deem the persuasive effect and force of this proviso sufficient to secure the universal enfranchisement that we on this side of the House desire; and hence I can vote for the bill, although this section, known as theed MUNDs amendment, will not become a law by reason of it being inserted here. Now, the moral force and persuasiveness of this clause, as it appears to me in the light of the past as well as the present, is this: that it becomes a matter of moral obligation on the part of these people to conform their legislation to the fundamental conditions upon which their members have taken their seats in this House and their States have been admitted into the Union. Let me refer to an example or 2 bearin directly upon this point. I have already state that perhaps a majority of the Congresses that have legislated on this subject have legislated in.;the direction that this proviso points. Take an example that I happen to have before me, the admission of Missouri into the Union. In the act of admission of that State on the 2d of March, 1831, which will be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large, page 645, you find this provision, which is identical in the regard in. I am looking at the matter with the proviso before the House. “That the State of Missouri shall be admitted into this Union upon the fundamental condition [adopting the very language of this proviso) that the 4th clause of the 2nd section of the 3rd article of her constitution shall never beconstrued to o authorize the of any law, and no law shall ever be passed y the State of Missouri in conformity thereto, by which any citizen of either the States of the Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any privilegesor immunities to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of the U.S. ” There, then, is a State admitted into the Union upon the fundamental condition subsequent, if you please, that she shall not there after ever pass any law of a given character. But it is said, what if Missouri should violate that fundamental condition; are you going to turn her out of the Union? How are you going to enforce this provision? I answer as I do in this case, that there is no way of enforcing it except by the moral forces which belong to the action I have suggested. My friend before me suggests what is perti nent, that this subject matter is one coming within the Federal powers and jurisdiction. Now, that is no to: to what I am saying, because I am arguing that there is no way for Congress to compel conformity to the fundamental condition. The conformity would have to be compelled, not by turning the State out of the Union, not by turning her members out of Congress, but by simply appealing to the courts to know whether the law passed by the State was or was not constitutional. And, let me remind gentlemen, that appeal to the courts would be exactly as effectual without thisfundamental condition as with it. And hence I point to the act admitting Missouri as a case showing, not that the condition becomes the law, but showing the judgment and sense of the former Congress in putting such terms into the act for admission that they might have the persuasive moral force that belongs to those acts. As my colleague [Mr. BINGHAM] well knows for he is very learned in sueh matters in the only act ever passed for the admission of our own State of 8. there was inserted a provision that for 5 years after the State should be admitted into the Union certain lands within the limits of the State should not be taxed. Now, let me ask gentlemen is not that matter of taxing lands a matter coming within State and not within Federal jurisdiction? Is not that a case of equal force with the one now before the House? Here the hammer fell]