My friend from Wisconsin [Mr. CARPENTER] falls into another mistake,--he will pardon me, if I suggest it,--which I notice with regret. He exalts the technical State above the real State. He knows well what is the technical State, which is found in form, in technicality, in privilege, if you please,--for he has made himself to-night the advocate of privilege. To my mind the State is the people, and its highest office is their just safeguard; and when it is declared that a State hereafter shall not take away the right of any of its people, here is no infringement of anything that belongs to a State. I entreat my friend to bear the distinction in mind. A State can have no right or privilege to do wrong; nor can the denial of this pretension disparage the State, or in any way impair its complete equality with other States. The States have no power except to do justice. Any power beyond this is contrary to the Harmonies of the Universe. Since the Senator spoke, I sent into the other room for the Declaration of Independence, in order to read a sentence which is beyond question the touchstone of our institutions, to which all the powers of a State must be brought. Here it is:-- “We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in general Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.” And then it proceeds to say that-- “They have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.” Here is the claim, with its limitation,--the great claim, and its great limitation. The claim was Independence; the limitation was Justice. “Which independent States may of right do”: nothing else, nothing which a State may not of right do. Now, Sir, bear in mind, do not forget, that there is not one thing prohibited by these fundamental conditions that a State may of right do. Therefore, Sir, in the name of Right, do I insist that it is binding upon the State. It is binding, even if not there; and it is binding, being there. Its insertion is like notice or proclamation of the perpetual obligation. MR. CARPENTER. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? MR. SUMNER. Certainly. MR. CARPENTER. In speaking of a State of this Union, does not the Senator understand the term to apply to the corporation, so to speak,--the Government of the State? MR. SUMNER. I do not.