The House of Representatives disagreed to the Senate amendment, and a Committee of Conference was ordered, which reported in its favor. But the House again disagreed, and, April 15th, another Committee of Conference was appointed, under instructions, moved by Mr. Webster, of Maryland, “to agree to no report that authorizes any other than _free white male citizens_, and those who have declared their intention to become such, to vote.” The vote of the House on these instructions stood, Yeas 75, Nays 67. The Senate refused a further conference upon the terms proposed, which were abandoned by the House, and a conference without limitation was agreed to. May 19th, the Conference Committee reported, in lieu of the Senate amendment, the following clause: “All citizens of the United States, and those who have declared their intention to become such, and who are otherwise described and qualified under the fifth section of the Act of Congress providing for a temporary government for the Territory of Idaho, approved March 3, 1863.” The reference to the Idaho Act required explanation, when the following dialogue took place. MR. SUMNER. I should like to know the nature of the substitute, if the Senator from Maine [Mr. MORRILL] will be good enough to state it. MR. MORRILL. I will state in a word that the effect of the amendment of the Committee of Conference is to authorize the temporary organization of the Government of Montana by that class of persons that were authorized to organize the Territory of Idaho. MR. SUMNER. What class of persons was that? MR. MORRILL. They were, as I recollect the qualification, white citizens of the United States, and such others as had declared their intention to become citizens. As it now stands, the qualification in Montana will be that the voters at the first election will be citizens of the United States, and such as have declared their intention to be citizens of the United States, and such as are qualified by the fifth section of the Act organizing the Territory of Idaho. MR. SUMNER. That is, free white persons, I understand. MR. MORRILL. That is what it comes to.… MR. SUMNER. Is not the new proposition almost identical with the original House proposition on the question of color? MR. MORRILL. On the question of the exclusion of colored men it is identical. It does exclude colored men. MR. SUMNER. I understand that the point of difference between the two Houses was simply as to the word “white” or “black.” MR. MORRILL. That was the principal question, and on that point I desire to say precisely how the Committee found the question.…