Mr. DELANO. Well, sir, in the few remarks that I shall make I shall endeavor to discuss that question. I understand that the objection, to the government of Nebraska as being antirepublican is, that it does not extend the right of suffrage to the negro race. I. know of no other objection to it, and I shall take it for granted that that is the only objection to it. Now, if the State government of Nebraska is for this reason not republican in form, I ask how many State governments in this Union are republican in form? I live in a State having exactly the same constitution in that respect; and NewYork has the same form virtually, there being only qualified negro suffrage in NewYork. And I venture to assert that there is not over one or 2 States in the Union that have governments republican in form if the form of government presented to us by the peoSpirle, of Nebraska is not republican in form. it is worse than idle for us now to assert that the form of government presented by Nebraska is not republican in form, for that assertion cannot be sustained. The whole history of our nation gives the lie, so to speak, to the assertion that the Nebraska State government is not republican in form. Yet we are asked to refuse the admission of this State, because it has not conformed to the modern idea that we have adopted, that suffrage should be extended to the black race. When the question comes to me in the State of Ohio whether I will vote to reform her constitution or not, I am not prepared to say that I should not vote for its reformation, because I do not wish to be understood as standing behind any gentleman in reference to the question of universal rights and privileges; but I do say that the whole history of our Government shows that we have recognized such governments as this of Nebraska as republican in form, and have admitted the States having them into the Union. And how can we stand back now and deny to this young State the right to come in as a member of the Union upon the same terms? How can we impose upon her conditions which have never been imposed upon the other States now in the Union?. Upon what principle can we say to the people who live in Nebraska, “You shall not come into this Union as a State unless you come upon conditions other than those which have been recognized as fit to constitute a State a partner in the great Government of the U.S. ever since that Government was formed 7” We are called upon to meet this great question, and we may as well meet it here and at once; for I say if we adopt this principle of refusing the admission of a State for this reason and this reason alone, then we condemn ourselves and we condemn a majority of the governments of the States which now constitute portions of the Federal Union. This principle was not admitted or conceded in the constitutional amendment which we proposed at the last session as the basis of the restoration of the ten States yet unrepresented here. On the contrary, as has been already said, a directly different principle was admitted in that amendment. And so in regard to the restoration of the State of Tennessee; we restored her at the last session of Congress with precisely, the same principle in her constitution. And we will stultify our action of that time if we deny at this time to the free people of Nebraska the rights which they are demanding at our hands. Sir, let us see to it that no vain theory or speculative opinions lead us into legislation which will cause us to stand before the world in a position where we cannot defend our selves. Perhaps I may say that I would rather that the constitution of Nebraska did provide for the exercise of the right of suffrage by the 600 or less of black people there, giving a voting population of not more than 100. But dare we say to the people of Nebraska, “You shall not be admitted into the Union because you have not incorporated such a provision in your constitution of State government?”.I. put the question to the Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Boutwell] and others who hold with him: dare we say to this State that it shall not be admitted be. cause it does not subscribe to the new theory which we intend hereafter to adopt? Go to Pennsylvania and take out of its constitution the same objectionable provision. Try to remove the “beam” from your own eye before you seek to impose such a principle as this upon a young Territory seeking admission into this Union as a State; “for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”