Mr. COWAN. Why should I not? What was Providence doing in that? If Providence had made me equal to the honorable Senator I should not have needed his counsel, and I should have ridden, too, on the topmost wave. Laughter] If Providence rules the world, if Providence is acting in all these things, I should like to ask my honorable friend what Providence has been doing about this negro business for the last 10,000 years. As far as we can go back they have been terribly neglected;. even today in Africa, where they live, what is their condition? Isuppose that Dr. Livingstone is authority, an orthodox gentleman, a clergyman, a kind of divine man who goes over there moved by the most beney olent purposes, and he gives the most terrible account of those people, who are free, one would think, there if anywhere, to act according to the dictates of Providence and to carry out the will of Providence, if He had any especial will in this matter. There was another gentleman who went there through terrible tribulation and suffering, a certain Mr. Baker, who had a wife lovely beyond her sex; I think enduring beyond any of the sex of whom I have ever read. She accompanied Mr. Baker, and they gave us accounts of these people in Africa. If the honorable Senator now insists upon the equality of men, the actual equality of men I do not mean their equality as to personal rights; I agree to that; they all have a personal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; I think that is all true; but if this equality is to extend everywhere, if they have a right to govern, if they have a right to be equal socially, I should like to know if Providence rules the world and if Providence is over all, as He unquestionably is, how the honorable Senator explains the condition of Africa today. How can that be done? Hisancestors and myancestors, 1000s of years ago perhaps, before development had progressed as it has to end in such specimens as we are of the stock from all we can learn I am apprehensive perhaps that they were not in a much better condition than the negroes of Africa. We cannot tell exactly that they were. Their history is lost in the mists of remote an tiquity; but if they did work themselves on if they did work themselves up and produc such a result as we see in the U.S.A., as we see in France, as we see in England, as we see as the result of the race everywhere, I should like the honorable senator to explain why it was that the race in Africa during these 1000s of years did not make the same progress. Can the honorable Senator tell why they never invented an alpha bet? Can he tell othey never built a city, why they never had a nationality, why they never had a history, why they never had traditions, why they never had a literature, why they never had anything of that kind which character.izes the man of progress, the civilized man? All that has been going on under the eye of Providence; but Providence now, at the prompting of Massachusetts philanthropy, I suppose, has waked up to the necessity of, at a single bound, lifting this barbarous people upon the same elevation with the advanced races in the strug gle of civilization. God knows I wish as heartily as anybody else that could be done. But, Mr. President, when that is done, and when it is done actually, really, in good faith, and according to the laws of Providence, it will be done by that slow development which has brought this race, our race, the vanguard of civilization, to its present position; and that will be through struggle and toil and suffering, and slavery, if you please. There are a great many collar marks about our civilization of today. Mr. President, you are a lawyer, and you know that the language of the law even today is not divested of the symbols of the slavery of our race at a former period. We still retain the word “servant” and the word “villain.” We still retain a knowledge at least of the tenures by which the men of our race held their lands and their rights, too, in former times. Now, Mr. President, I am opposed to the admission of Nebraska as a State because she is not a State. That is the reason of it. Not because she has chosen for herself to exclude E.of a different race from being among her governing classes; I am opposed to her admission because she is not a State. What is a State, Mr. President? A State consists of a number of distinct, independent people inhabiting over a certain Territory oil. they themselves own, which they have a right to i and over which they have a right to make aws. The people of Nebraska, if I understand it, do not form such a people. They do not own the State of Nebraska, to start with. The State of Nebraska, the large mass of it, is yet owned by the people of the U.S. There are fewer people in the State of Nebraska today than there are in the county in which I inhabit in Pennsylvania. All the peoR. of the U.S. have a right to go to Webraska and settle there if they choose. certainly o have a right to go there from all parts of the States of the U.S., and if they go there have they not a right to form the institutions of Nebraska, to determine upon their character, to fix and mold them according to such a result as would be produced by all the people of the several States going into a new Territory? I think it was Mr. Calhoun who once asked what right has the 1st hand full of squatters who go into a Territory to fix its institutions? No right, especially when it is not necessary for their protection, for their security; but it may be exceedingly detrimental to the old States. Now, I might ask upon what principle of fairness is Nebraska here with fewer people than inhabit Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania? Upon what principle are they to be constituted a State? Are they not in the enjoyment now of all that which we call American liberty? Have they not courts and juries and the means of enforcing just laws? Have they not just laws themselves? Are they not safe and secure? Why do they want to be a State? Not that they are to gain anything in the way of securing their rights, but that they are to become a governing portion of the people of this Union. The same plea precisely is set up for the few people in Nebraska which my honorable friendfrom Massachusetts sets up with regard to the negro. There are 2 or 3 dozen negroes in the Territory, and be says they must belong to the governing class, they must have their share in the government of the country. There are 50 or 60,000 people in Nebraska, and my honorable friendfrom Ohio says the people of Nebraska must have a share in the government of the country. Why? Is it because their numbers entitle them to that share? Not at all. Is it because it is necessary for their security and their welfare? Not at all. What is it for? The truth of the matter is, and that is about the whole of it, that it is to have here a member of Congress and 2 Senators. If you were to take away that tempting, glittering bait from the leading men of Nebraska, I very much question whether anybody there would want it to be a State; I rather incline to think from the vote, they took some time ago that the owould be against being a State. d what are these Senators to do when they come here on the floor of the Senate? What interest will they represent? What great interest can 60 or 70,000 people have to be represented here upon the floor of the Senate? What are these men to do? Really do nothing except to interfere perhaps in the policies of the older States. I represent the State of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a tariff State. Pennsylvania thinks that a protective tariff is essential to her interests. Whether she is right or wrong I do not stop here to discuss; but that is her belief; that is the belief of both parties in the State of Pennsylvania. What if the 60 or 70,000 people of Nebraska have no interest in the tariff question at all, care nothing about it, do not care whether you have tariff or no tariff, and if they have any interest in it are rather interested against it? They are to come upon the floor here and to weigh in the determination of that question as much as the 3 and a half millions of Pennsylvania do. Is that fair? Is it according to the terms of the original compact 7 Is that fair in any sense of the word? Is it fair even according to the DeclarIndep, where it is said all men are equal? That is not my reading; that is my brother's reading. I believe the language is that they were created equal.