Let me add, that, in taking the course I do, I have nothing but friendly feelings for the Territory of Nebraska, or for the men she has sent to represent her in the Senate. I wish to see Nebraska populous and flourishing, and the home of Human Rights secured by irrevocable law; and as for her Senators, I know them now so well that I shall have peculiar pleasure in welcoming them on this floor. But there are voices from Nebraska which I wish you to hear. Here Mr. Sumner read letters against the admission of Nebraska with her present constitution, and then proceeded. In looking at this question, we are met at the threshold by the fact that in a vote of nearly eight thousand there was a majority of only one hundred in favor of this disreputable constitution.[48] At the call of less than four thousand voters, you are to recognize a State government which begins its independent life by defiance of fundamental truths. I am at a loss to understand the grounds on which this can be done, unless, in anxiety to gratify the desires of a few persons and to welcome the excellent gentlemen from Nebraska, you are willing to set aside great principles of duty at a critical moment of national history. It is pleasant to be “amiable”; but you have no right to be amiable at the expense of Human Rights. It is pleasant to be “lenient,” as the Senator [Mr. WADE] who is urging this bill expresses it; but take care, that, in lenity to this Territory, you are not unjust. There can be no such thing as “lenity” where Human Rights are in question. The other Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] does not leave room for discretion. He says we are bound by the Enabling Act passed some time ago. Assume that the Senator is right, and that the Enabling Act creates an obligation on the part of Congress,--all of which I deny,--I insist that there has been no compliance with this Act, either in form or substance.