Mr. HOWARD., Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment of the Senfrom issouri, and also to the substitute offered for it by the Senfrom Vermont; and although I have already addressed the Senate on this subject at greater length than I expected to do when the discussion commenced, I shall further ask their indulgence for a few minutes while I state some of the views I entertain. I do not believe that under the Constitution Congress has any authority to impose conditions, in the nature of fundamental conditions, interfering with the political rights and powers of a State, as conditions of the admission of new States. Here is the point I take, and upon this ground I propose to stand, no matter whether the condition may relate to negro suffrage, to white suffrage, to female suffrage, or any matter or thing over which a State in the ohas jurisdiction and control in virtue of its being a State of the Union. Now, sir, what is the amendment offered by the Senfrom Missouri? He proposes to add to the very brief bill reported by the honorable chairman of the ComTerrito ries for the admission of Nebraska the following provision: “That this act shall not take effect” That is, that Nebraska shall not be admitted as a State “except upon the fundamental condition that within the State of Nebraska there shall be no denial of the elective franchise or of any other right to any person by reason of race or color; and upon the further condition that the fundamental condition shall be submitted to the votersof the Territory of Nebraska at an election to be held, ” &c. Now, sir, after this contemplated election shall have been held and I admit the power of Congress to direct such an election to be held, because the people are in a territorial condition and subject to our laws the mover of this amendment proceeds to say that If a majority of such votes shall be for this condition, the Governor shall certify that fact to the POTUS, who shall by proclamation announce the fact; whereupon, without further procodin; on the part of Congress, this act shall take effect.” That is to say, upon the vote of a majority of the people of the Territory being obtained in favor of this fundamental condition alreadymentioned, Nebraska shall be admitted into the Union. Well, sir, suppose she is thus admitted into the Union after such an election, what becomes of the objectionable feature in her constitution declaring that nobody but white persons shall vote? what at that moment is the constitution of Nebraska? Has it been altered or amended by our act? No, sir. The constitution of Nebraska under which she will have been admitted into the Union contains the following clause: “Every male person of the ageof 21 years or upward, belonging to either of the following classes, who shall have resided in the State, county, precinct, and ward for the time provided by law shall be an elector, namely, 1st, white citizens of the U.S.; 2nd, white persons of foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens conformable to the laws of the U.S. on the subject of naturalization.” These are the classes, and these are the only classes which by the constitution of Nebraska, as it would then stand, are to exercise the privilege of voting at the polls. Now, under this amendment, although the people of Nebraska, by their votes, adopt this socalled fundamental condition and thus agree in their primary capa city, as a Territory, that there. be no restriction of the right of suffrage on account of race or color, the legal. plainly is, that under the constitution of the State, which by that vote has not been repealed or altered in any of its features, colored persons would not be allowed to vote. So that the amendment would fail of its object entirely. Again, Mr. President, have we the power under the Constitution to prescribe to a new State such terms as seem to be contemplated l in this amendment? I insist that we have not. The whole power of Congress over the subject of the admission of new States is contained in a single clause of the Constitution, declaring that new States may be admitted into this Union. But, says the Senfrom Vermont, if congress have the power of admission, Congress may admit upon conditions. I grant it Congress might affix this condition to an act of admission: that 1/2 of the population of the new State should, before they became a State, visit California or China, or go to London, because until that condition antecedently imposed is complied with the State is not admitted and does not possess the faculties of a State; but after that condition is complied with, then I insist that Congress have no power or authority over the subject of State rights at all. If a State is admitted, as I have said heretofore, it must be admitted upon equal terms with other States. The very term “State” itself implies this political equality. Congress have no power, and no power has ever been claimed on the part of Congress, to interfere with the exercise of those rights which pertain to a State as a political community. we have no such power, how can we contrive to attain, effectually and prac tically, the same end by insisting upon a fund amental condition subsequent? Sir, we have no such power. Congress has not received it at the hands of the people of the U.S., but, on the other hand, that people have declared expressly in the Constitution that all power not therein delegated is reserved to the States respeckvely or to the people. Is there any power in the Constitution, express or implied, authorizing Congress to interfere with the domestic rights and privileges of the States of the Union? None whatever; and if they cannot do it directly in the shape of a positive act of Congress after the State is admitted into the Union, I ask you upon what principle of law it is that they may do it indirectly and conditionally in the shape of either of these amendments? If we may undertake in this way to regulate suffrage in the State of Nebraska we may for the same reason, and no other reason, go still further; we may undertake to enact in our law authorizing the admission of this Territory as a State what sort of judiciary shall be organized there; we may descend to the small business of regulating the descent of property, the distribution of estates, the mode of collecting debts, the right of inheritance and of making wills, the marital rights; indeed, all the other rights which every State exercises in virtue of its sovereign power as a State, no matter what that right may be. No, sir; this principle will not bear examination, and Congress has never attempted in any essential respect to impose any such condition upon the new States, interfering with their acknowledged political powers. The honorable Senfrom Missouri, when he spoke in advocacy of his amendment, referred to the act enabling the people of Mis: souri to form a State constitution. It is but a recital of the provisions contained in almost every act for the admission of new States. It is not a condition, it is a positive enactment and provision of the statute; it reads as follows: “Provided, that the same " That is the constitution of Missouri– r“ewphuegnneavnetr formed, shall be republican, and not to the Constitution of the U.S.; and that the Legislature of said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the U.S., nor o, any regulations Congress may find necessaryfor securing the titles of such soil to bonafide purchasers; and that no tax shall be imposed on lands, the property of the U.S., and in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents.” These are the stereotyped provisions upon which most of the new States have been admitted. Allow me to say one word upon these provisions, sometimes called conditions. The 1st is that the constitution shall be repub. lican. Is that of any use? Is such a provision of any benefit or any binding force? When the State calls a convention and frames a constitution it does not become the constitution of the State until laid before Congress, and until Congress has passed its judgment and decided whether it be or be not republican. The 2nd provision is, that the State Le shall never interfere with the primary isposal of the soil of the U.S. This provision is inserted from abundant caution. here were at the commencement of the government some persons who contended for State rights so strongly as to take the ground that a State, after having been admitted into the Union, might lawfully interfere with the right of disposal of the soil by Congress. In other words, that all the public lands lying within the limits of a new State became by the very act of admission the property of the State itself. That doctrine, however, is plainly in consistent with the Constitution and the rights of the U.S. No State, new or old, is competent to interfere with the primary disosal of the soil of the U.S. The U.S. is the owner of land within the limits of new States. Of course, if it is the owner of land, it has the right not only of juris diction, if it sees fit to exercise it, but the right of disposition also. It holds it as owner by virtue of its sovereign power as a Government, and a State cannot interfere with that owner ship, so that that condition is but formal and nugatory. The next provision is, that “no tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the U.S. ” Certainly no gentleman will pretend that there is any force or efficacy in this provision, for the reason that the property of the U.S. cannot be taxed by the State governments, a principle which has been ecided repeatedly by the Supreme Court. The only remaining clause which I think deserves any comment is the last, and is as follows: “In no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents.” I do not believe that this clause is constitutional or valid, because it is undoubtedly the right of every State, in the exercise of its legislative power, should it see fit to do such an act of inequality and injustice, to make taxation une qual. Every State Legislature has full and unlimited scope and power over the subject of the taxation of property within its limits, and unless.its constitution may impose unequal taxes and higher taxes upon the property of a non-resident than upon that of a res: ident. It grows out of the sovereign power of the State over this particular subject of taxation, and the Legislature is responsible only to its constituents for the exercise of the power. Now, sir, I oppose both these amendments, because I think F. in them the inaugu ration of a policy in regard to new States upon which we can never stand. If the old States represented in Congress have the right to impose conditions limiting and restricting the sovereign power of the new States after their admission into the Union, how long will it be before the representatives of the old States, for their own advantage because they can plead no exemption from the frailties of human nature will lay prostrate every new State at their feet and make them no better than hewers of wood and drawers of water to the States which happen to be in the Union? No, sir; let us embark in no such experiment, either in regard to suffrage or to any other matter over which a State legislature has confessedly full and ample control. I am not prepared to assert here in my seat that Congress have the power to say to the Territory of Colorado, or to any other Territory applying for admission as a State, “We have a right to declare what sort of institutions of learning shall be established in your State; we have a right to declare where you shall trade and for what price you shall sell your commod ities.” I have no idea of entering upon this terra incognita of experimental legislation; and I am content to vote for the admission of Nebraska as one of the States of the Union, and am confident that she will do right on the subject of negro suffrage, just as confidênt as I am that the present States will correct any errors which they may have committed in this regard, if they be errors. It is enough for me to insist, as I do insist, that Congress have no power to annex this fundamental condition to the admission of the people of Nebraska or of any other Territory as a State. We have not the power; it is withheld from us, and very wisely withheld from us. I shall therefore vote against both the amendments, and hope the bifi may be passed in its naked form as it was reported from the ComTerrito rles.