upon the table by an immense majority. The decision of the chairman of the convention was that they were lost, that the motion to lay upon the table had carried. I am not here to say that that was not the fact, because the convention was not divided; but I think I am warranted in saying that it could not have been by a very large majority of the convention, because I have been informed by a great many very candid gentlemen who were members of that convention that, judging by the sound, there was actually a majority against laying the resolutions on the table, but the chairman decided otherwise. I believe it was the last vote taken in the convention, after a great many members had left the building and left the town, when all were in a hurry to go. It was the last vote taken except the formal vote of adjournment, and the convention was not divided. But, Mr. President, that the Union party of Wisconsin did think that the ballot ought to be put into the hands of the colored population in Wisconsin my colleague will not deny. That a very large majority of them voted in favor of putting the ballot into their hands, he certainly will not deny, for the record proves it. My colleague thought, and so advised, that it was unsafe to commit the party to that proposition. I thought otherwise then. I told him that I thought otherwise. I think otherwise now. With all the light which the late election has given me on the subject, I think it would have been wise for that convention to have recommended to the people of Wisconsin to accord suffrage to the few hundred black men within the limits of that State. My colleague says that he voted for extending the right of suffrage and he advocated it before the people. I am glad to hear him say that he voted for it. I shall not undertake to say that he did not advocate it; but my colleague will allow me to say to him that if he did advocate the extension of suffrage in our State last fall, he did not do himself full justice; that he is capable of advocating a cause more ably, more conclusively, and, when he is advocating a good cause, as that was-he admits it or he would not have advocated it at all-he is capable of advocating it more successfully than he did that. Irecollected, when he made this statement yesterday, a speech which he made in the city of Milwaukee, and which was published extensively through that State, and which was published in the National Intelligencer in this city, and was headed his "speech on negro suffrage." That was the only speech of his I ever saw or heard of advocating negro suffrage; and now I want to call his attention more particularly to one or two extracts from that speech, to vindicate what I have just told him, that it was not his best style of advocacy: "Now, then, fellow-citizens, while I myself, more than twenty years ago, in the State of New York advocated the extension of suffrage to the colored men there, because I believed that a large majority of them were of sufficient intelligence to exercise that right, and although when it was submitted in Wisconsin I voted for its extension and expect to vote for it again when I go to the polls, I tell you I will not consent to make this question a matter of close communion in the Union party in Wisconsin. Gentlemen tell me that this is arguing from motives of expediency. Sir, it is arguing from the highest expediency, doing that which is right, and therefore is always the best. I maintain that at the present time the highest duty of the members of the Union party is to maintain their supremacy in the administration of this Government until the rebellion is over, and until the fruits of this struggle are gathered. It is not only suicidal but a crime of the highest magnitude in us now to become divided and disorganized, and thus surrender the Government into the hands of a party who has opposed and embarrassed it during the prosecution of the war. You know very well and we all know that this matter of prejudice, for you may call it by that name, if by no other, is the most difficult of all things to manage in the human heart. You cannot reason with it, but it is a stubborn fact." Now, Mr. President, I think I have read all there is in that speech in support of extending the right of suffrage to the negro. I am not complaining of my colleague for not saying any more last fall in defense of that law. Mr. DOOLITTLE. My colleague will allow me to state, without interrupting him, that in the convention to which he refers, I stated the Mr. HOWE. I do not dispute but that my Sir, if you look at the return of that vote you Mr. President, the three measures upon which ers of the Freedmen's Bureau be passed notwithstanding the objections of the President? and thirdly, the vote he recently gave upon the proposition to pass the civil rights bill, so called, under the same circumstances and over the veto of the President. Now, I must be allowed to say, and to say very frankly, that not only is no one of these votes sanctioned by the action of the late State convention in Wisconsin, but every one of them is condemned by the express action of my colleague himself. He himself has declared individually against every one of these votes. The record has been presented here over and over again, showing that two years ago he voted for a proposition declaring in very words that no one of these States should send back representatives here until the assent of Congress was declared. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I will ask my colleague how he voted on that question; for or against it? Mr. HOWE. Mr. President Mr. JOHNSON. If the honorable members will excuse me, I rise for the purpose of inquiring what is the question before the Senate. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Shall the vote refusing to admit the Territory of Colorado as a State into the Union be reconsidered? Mr. JOHNSON. I do not see that this discussion has much reference to that question. Mr. HOWE. I am surprised that the honorable Senator from Maryland does not see the point. [Laughter.] Mr. JOHNSON. I do not. Mr. HOWE. If this is not germane to that question, I cannot conceive very well what should be. [Laughter.] I am very clear that it is germane to the debate which has taken place on the question, and I supposed that the present debate was strictly in order; therefore in carrying it out I supposed that I was strictly in order. But to answer the question of my colleague, I believe the record shows that I did not vote on that question. I believe the investigation shows that I was engaged at the time on the Finance Committee. I want to say that if I had been here, I do not think there is any rational doubt that I should have voted for that proposition, because the record of the debates which have taken place here will show that I have made repeated demands since 1861 for such a legislative declaration as that was. Mr. President, I refer to that little passage of history now in connection with the statement of my colleague that his vote was sanc tioned by the State convention, simply, as I said, to show that not only the State convention was silent upon that precise point, but that he himself had committed himself to the doctrine which is now entertained by the great bulk of his friends on this floor. The second vote which he gave here, and which has occasioned great regret among our friends at home, was the vote he gave on the passage of the Freedmen's Bureau bill, so called, over the veto of the President. The expediency of that measure, and its constitutionality, I suppose, he had himself declared, as I understand, having voted in favor of its passage when it passed the Senate. To that he had given his assent. Of course, when he voted for that bill he was not voting in defiance of instructions which the late State convention had given him. He did not understand that that State convention had incorporated any thing into their platform which precluded him from voting for the passage of that bill. had, he would not have voted for it If he When the civil rights bill, so called, passed the Senate, I believe my colleague did not vote for it; but I believe he did say, subsequently, that if he had been in his place he should have voted for it; and would he have said so, will he assert now that he would have made such a declaration, if he had supposed that the late State convention had instructed him against giving any such vote? I do not conceive that he would have made any such declaration. I conclude, therefore, that I am abundantly justified in saying that to each one of the measures upon which he has given a vote which has occasioned regret in our State he And now I had previously given his assent. think I have a right, and I think it is my duty, to plead these facts in defense, not of myself, nor by way of prosecuting my colleague for one moment or by one inch, but to plead them in justification of the action of the recent Legislature of Wisconsin. He asserts that that Legislature, in instructing him to resign or instructing him as to his votes, have themselves violated instructions given to them by the convention from which he says they originated. In the first place, I think, it is fair to say that the members of the Legislature are in no way bound by the action of that convention. The members of the Legislature represent precisely the same constituency that the convention did. They do not take instructions from any convention. It would be fair to say this, perhaps, of officers elected by the State and selected by the convention; but the members who represented that State in its Senate and in its House of Representatives were not selected by that convention, do not represent it, are not respon sible to it. Secondly, I say once more, what I have already said, that the convention from which he says that Legislature sprang gave no such instructions as he has appealed to. Mr. President, I believe this is all I need say in defense of the Legislature of Wisconsin. I cannot quit the subject without saying once more that my purpose in saying this is not in any way to attack my colleague. I thought was bound to say something in defense of the Legislature. I believe they acted in entire good faith. I believe the difference of opinion which has developed between them and my colleague has occasioned them heartfelt regret; but that they have represented the loyal-no, I will not use that term now, speaking of political partiesthat they have represented the Union party of that State, I must be allowed to say there is no longer any room or any excuse for denying. That should be conceded. It has become the fashion, which my honorable friend from Nevada [Mr. NYE] yesterday legitimated-it never was legitimate before-to read from letters extensively. As I received one yesterday from a gentleman who never allowed himself to be called anything but a Democrat until this war broke out, a gentleman holding a very high official position in our State, a position assigned to him by the Democratic party, and holding it in a very strong Democratic neighborhood and district, I feel tempted here, upon this point and in this connection, to read one paragraph. He has been known in our State since the rebellion broke out as a war Democrat, so classified in the nomenclature of parties in that State. He says: "The Union party, including the war Democrats stand by Congress in Wisconsin, and no palavering will wheedle our people on this simple issue. We are for reconstruction on the basis of justice, and not for the incorporation of the rebel element without either reconstruction or justice. Congress is right and the President wrong on this issue." Mr. DOOLITTLE. What is the name? Mr. HOWE. My colleague asks me the name of the writer of this letter. I think I have described him so well that my colleague cannot be mistaken as to who he is; but I think every gentleman will see that I ought not to repeat his name because I have no authority for repeating it. I do not think he would hesitate to be held responsible for every sentiment that is there contained; but still, without hav ing the authority to use his name, I certainly should not do so. So much in reference to the State of Wisconsin and to the action of her Legislature; and being, very much to my regret, on the floor, I believe I ought to say a word or two about the proposed State of Colorado. I would not allude to the subject only that I believe the Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] rather insists that that is the pending question. [Laughter.] Mr DOOLITTLE. My colleague will allow me, before he enters on that subject, simply to say that I will not now take the time or ask the time of the Senate to discuss this question between the Legislature of Wisconsin and myself until those resolutions arrive here which it has been said were passed; but at some time I will take up the question and then I will consider the subjects which my colleague has to-day presented. I simply intended to reply to-day to what was stated by my honorable friend from Nevada [Mr. NYE] yesterday; but my colleague has gone into some two or three other matters; and when the resolutions come here, I will express myself in full upon the whole subject and will reply to what my colleague has said. and that they were set upon by a Colonel Chivington and murdered, men, women, and chil dren, a charge well calculated to shock the moral sensibilities of the whole people. The committee took it for granted, as it seems to me, in their report that that charge was true; and because Governor Evans did not indorse the charge they accused him of prevarication. Now, what were the facts, as shown by the report of the Indian Bureau and the Secretary of War, which I have before me? If any gentleman controverts what I say, I am prepared to prove every word that I shall say. In the first place, these Cheyenne Indians Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, that is all per- were not friendly Indians; they were at war fectly satisfactory, of course. I declared that with the people of the United States; they had I was about to say a few words on the pending been engaged in indiscriminate slaughter, plunquestion; but I am aware that I took the floor der, robbery, and murder upon the plains. To from my friend from Indiana, and I took it for show that they were friendly Indians, the comthe purpose of making this explanation, speak-mittee on the conduct of the war report the ing on a point really irrelevant to the issue. I do not think I have a right to keep it for any other purpose, and I now yield it to the Senator from Indiana. Mr. LANE, of Indiana. Mr. President, I do not propose to enter at any considerable length into the general discussion of the subject before the Senate. I rise more especially for the purpose of performing an act of justice toward an old, long-tried, trusted, and true friend, whom I have known for thirty years. If the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] had contented himself yesterday with referring simply to considerations growing out of the condition of Colorado and what he regards as the exceptionable features in the constitution of that State, I should not have felt bound or called upon to say one word further in the discussion of this subject. The Senator from Massachusetts undertook, however, to disparage statements contained in the pamphlet signed by the two Senators-elect from Colorado by reference to the report of the committee on the conduct of the war, in which the name of Governor Evans, one of the Senators-elect from Colorado, occurs. That report was made under a misapprehension of the facts. The evidence was taken first before three members of a committee consisting of nine, then before two, and finally, as I understand, only one member of the committee was present. They acted, doubtless, with perfectly fair and honest intentions, but they did injustice unintentionally to Governor Evans, as I am prepared to show by an abstract of all the documents bearing upon the subject. The report of the committee accuses Governor Evans of prevarication as a witness before that committee. The point in issue was this Mr. WADE. As I do not know that I shall make any speech on the subject, and allusion has once or twice been made to what occurred before the committee on the conduct of the war, I barely wish to say that at the investigation which is alluded to here I was not present, although my name appears as chairman of the committee appended to the report. The evidence of Governor Evans, and all the rest of the witnesses, will be found in the report precisely, I suppose, as it was taken down, and every one can consult that and ascertain how it was. I only wish to say that I was absent in New York and Boston prosecuting another investigation connected with that committee at the time Governor Evans's testimony was taken, and therefore had no connection with this. Mr. LANE, of Indiana. That is true; and if the Senator had waited one moment I should have so stated. I make no charge of unfairness against the committee. The evidence is all reported, word for word; but they misapprehended the character of Governor Evans's testimony, as the published facts will show to any candid mind. I have no doubt their report was perfectly fair. The report, however, charges Governor Evans with prevarication as a witness, in this: the charge was that the Cheyenne Indians were a friendly tribe; that they had been brought to Fort Lyon under the invitation of Governor Evans and the Indian Bureau to make a treaty; further fact that although they had seven white prisoners with them they had purchased the prisoners. The proof taken before the council is, that every prisoner had been taken from murdered trains upon the plains by the very men who had them, and there was no purchase in it. The committee assumed another fact, that Governor Evans offered a premium to the people of Colorado to go out and scalp Indians, men, women, and children, friendly or unfriendly. I have the proclamation of Governor Evans here, word for word, in which he expressly excludes all friendly Indians; and who else? All who had been invited to Fort Lyon to enter into treaty, where the massacre is said to have occurred. I have the further fact that Governor Evans was not in the Territory at the time, and was no more responsible for that massacre than any member of this Senate. I have the further fact from the War Department and the Indian Bureau that long before this massacre Governor Evans had turned over the whole administration of Indian affairs in that Territory to the War Department. As Governor of Colorado he was ex officio superintendent of Indian affairs; but when war broke out, when troops were sent to suppress Indian hostility, he very properly turned over the whole management of Indian affairs to the War Department, and Colonel Chivington was there, not under any order of his, but simply under the orders of the War Department. He was in no way responsible for anything that happened at that massacre. He had not only the authority of the War Department, but he had telegraphed to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and resigned the administration into the hands of the officers sent there by the General Government. Now, you see the entire unfairness of an attack upon one of the Senators-elect growing out of this state of things, and I am utterly astonished that the Senator from Massachusetts, without having read these documents and looked at these facts, which are incontrovertible, should have gone out of the record to make an attack upon a Senator-elect who has no right upon this floor to reply. I speak as an act of justice for one who has no right to speak for himself. I give voice to the dumb and voice to my sense of right and of duty in rebuking such an attack as this. I can see no possible reason for it. Suppose there was a personal objection to one of the Senators-elect, is that any reason why Colorado should not be admitted as a State? Try personal objections to the member when the member presents himself; but it does not in the slightest degree affect the right of Colorado to admission as a State upon this floor. I cannot see any possible object in it except as a mere make-weight. The Senator from Massachusetts, it seems to me, too, departed from his usual courtesy and prudence in another thing, when he said there were known and avowed arguments, and there were arguments whispered in this Chamber, that these men should be admitted because we needed their votes. Now, I know the Sen ator from Massachusetts would not say that his fellow-Senators, all of them, or any one of them, would be influenced by an unworthy partisan motive to admit a State not entitled to admission simply to carry partisan measures. I know he would make no such charge. I have done but little whispering since my wooing days were over, and I speak here in language heard by all present. Whatsoever I think to be right I avow it. I did say the other day that I should vote for the admission of Colorado for this, among other reasons, that they were organized upon a thoroughly loyal basis; and I shall vote in view of that very identical reason. If I thought they were organized upon a disloyal basis, I perhaps should not be quite so ready to admit them on this floor; neither, I am persuaded, would the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. They are organized on a loyal basis, and that, to my mind, is one reason why we should admit them. We may need their votes; we may need the votes of loyal men; we shall need their votes, doubtless, before this great controversy is over; and if they are entitled to admission on other grounds, that is surely no reason, to my mind, why they should be rejected, simply because they have been elected and their State has been organized on a loyal basis. The great controversy is transferred from the field of battle to this high Chamber, and we need votes and support here as much as we ever did during our military campaigns. I believe that Colorado should be admitted. I shall vote to admit her for good and substantial reasons, and among those reasons is the very fact that I regard her people as essentially and intensely and thoroughly loyal. For no mere partisan purpose-my purpose rises higher than party-for the good of the country, the safety of the country, and to prolong the lifetime of the nation, I wish loyal votes to be multiplied here. But the distinguished Senator, in order further to disparage this pamphlet of the Senatorselect from Colorado, takes the ground that the surveyor general has said that agricultural interests cannot be successfully prosecuted in Colorado except by irrigation, and from that he argues that no great agricultural population can ever exist in Colorado. Does the history of the world prove that? Look at the agriculture of ancient Egypt, the granary of the world, upon which were built the great cities of Cairo, Memphis, Thebes, and Alexandria, which made that little peninsula the storehouse for the whole ancient world. Every grain raised and every vegetable sold there was the result of irrigation. That civilization which built those wonderful pyramids, the grandest conceptions in architecture of human genius, which have outlived the mutations of forty centuries and outlived even the memory of their founders, was based upon an agriculture the result of irrigation. How was it with the agriculture upon the Euphrates, the original site of our civilization, perhaps the original birthplace of the human family; and Babylon, wonderful Babylon, with her hundred gates commanding the whole East for five hundred years? All the agriculture that supported Babylon and the nations on the Euphrates was the result of irrigation. The agriculture that built the great city of Mexico and that inaugurated a civilization, under Montezuma and his predecessors, higher in point of fact than the civilization of their Spanish conquerors, was all the result of irrigation. The agriculture that sustained and built up the wonderful empire of the Incas, which resulted in those grand temples dedicated to the worship of the sun at which scholars yet wonder, was all the result of irrigation. Nor has that experiment failed here. The one hundred thousand people residing in the valley of the Salt Lake owe their daily bread to irrigation alone. Then supposing that irrigation may be neces sary to develop the agricultural interests of Colorado, that is no reason why that cultivation should not be most eminently successful. I shall not refer to the "grasshopper' argument, because my distinguished friend from Nevada [Mr. NYE] has, I think, sufficiently exhausted that subject. [Laughter.] Mr. President, when I had occasion to address the Senate a few days since on this subject I gave very briefly my reasons for the admission of Colorado. I have not changed those reasons. Why is that admission opposed? || Because there is not enough population there. That is a mere matter of guess-work and speculation; no one knows what the population amounts to, and each one comes to a different conclusion. The mayor of Denver says the population is probably thirty-five or forty thousand; the Territorial Legislature thinks it is as much as fifty thousand; some other gentlemen put it down at twenty-five thousand. Why do I vote, then, to admit them with this small population? Because even though they did not comply technically with the enabling act, they did comply substantially; and granting, in the language of the Senator from Massachusetts, that that enabling act is null and void and expired by its own terms, what had the people of Colorado a right to infer from the passage of that act? That Congress was willing that they should organize a State government; and although they did not comply with the terms of the enabling act, States have been admitted without any enabling act at all; and we are so far bound at least by the passage of that enabling act, that it was an invitation to them to come, an intimation that their coming would be welcome; and even though they had acted upon their own motion, taken their own plan and not ours, they had a right to infer that they would be welcome when they formed a State government. I suppose, however, the real objection is the word "white" in this constitution. I have already said I should prefer that that word were not in the constitution of Colorado. I should prefer that that word was not in the constitution of any State in the United States. But I will not vote to exclude Colorado simply because she does not permit negro suffrage. I will not vote to exclude any of the rebel States simply because they do not permit negro suf frage. If I believe that they are essentially right and loyal in every other respect, and if they disfranchise their rebel voters, I would not stand upon this qualification, because the whole practice of the Government has been different. Why is it necessary to strike out the word "white?" Because, we are told, it is in contravention of that provision of the Constitution which says that Congress shall guaranty to each State in the Union a republican form of government. From the foundation of the Government down to the present hour that interpretation of the Constitution has never for one moment obtained in Congress or in any other department of the Government. Every single Territory has been organized without questioning the right to determine the qualification of voters. Every single new State has been admitted with the word "white" in its constitution. We have recognized them as republican in form for three quarters of a century. The grand triumphs of this country in three wars, and its grand improvement in material interests have all been brought out under this interpretation of the fathers that a State might be republican in form and still have the word "white" in it. I look forward in the future, and no distant future, when the force of public opinion, mightier in this land than an army with banners, will strike the word "white" out of every State constitution; but I do not propose to make this a test in the case of Colorado when it has never been made a test in the case of any other State or Territory. I have no fancy for dipping buckets into empty wells and growing old drawing up nothing. I believe in a more practical statesmanship than that. Here you have a people of vast wealth and untold mining interests knocking at your doors for admission, with a full-framed constitution and legally elected officers, claiming representation upon this floor, and representing from thirty to fifty thousand people, and among that number there are, as I am told, some seventy or eighty negroes, all told; and because the negroes are not allowed to vote, they are not to be permitted to enter, and they are to be thrown across the pathway in the victorious march of this grand young empire midway between the Pacific and the Mississippi. We are to stop and have our hands tied because these seventy or eighty negroes are not permitted to vote. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, as it seems to me, is still dipping buckets into empty wells, and will grow old drawing up nothing. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I propose to say a few words upon the pending question. Several objections are made to the admission of Colorado, and the chief one seems to be that it does not contain the requisite population to entitle it to become a State in the Union. I have to say as to that objection, that there is no provision of the Constitution, no law of Congress, and no precedents in our history that require a Territory to contain any partic ular number of inhabitants to be qualified for admission into the Union. Territories have been admitted as new States with populations varying from 30,000 to 200,000; and no rule, therefore, has been established upon the subject; but each application has been decided upon its individual merits, and according to the circumstances under which it was made. Florida was admitted with a population of about 30,000 white people. Arkansas was admitted with about the same population of white people. Oregon, at the time of its admission as a State, did not contain more than 40,000 or 50,000 inhabitants; and so from the formation of the Government up to this time Territories have been admitted without respect to numbers, and the question of population has been subordinated to other questions that have concerned the 'admission of the Territory. To insist that Colorado, under existing cir cumstances, should be admitted as a State, is not to controvert any principle established by the founders of this Government. When the Union was formed, the State of New York contained eight or ten times the population contained in the State of Rhode Island; Pennsylvania contained eight or ten times the population of the State of Delaware; but those small States were allowed equal suffrage in the Senate with the large States, and their proportionate power was preserved in the House of Representatives; and it is still preserved; and if Colorado shall be admitted, New York will have her thirty-one Representatives in the lower branch of Congress while. Colorado will have but one. Mr. President, I am almost persuaded that I see in these arguments that are urged against the admission of Colorado as a State, the shadow at least of that doctrine which has so long dis tracted the country and has finally developed itself in a protracted and bloody civil war. Objection is made to the admission of Colorado because it is not as large in population as the State of New York, or the State of Pennsyl vania, or some other States of the Union, assuming that there must necessarily be some antagonism between the State of Colorado and the State of New York and other States, in consequence of which there is a necessity of preserving in the Senate the relative power possessed at this time by the State of New York, the State of Pennsylvania, or the State of Mas sachusetts. State power, State pride, State jealousy, State rights are more than intimated in this argument which is urged here against the admission of Colorado. Senators say in effect, will not the admission of Colorado, allowing her to have two. Senators upon this floor, impair the State power of the State of New York? I have not heard the Senators from that State make the suggestion, but for that State it is suggested that she would be wronged if Colorado with her population should be admitted as a State into the Union. No doubt that the local interests of Colorado may need the immediate and exclusive attention of the Senators who may represent her upon this floor; but I undertake to say that in ninetynine cases out of a hundred of general legislation, tending to the prosperity, greatness, and glory of this nation, Colorado would have the same interest as the State of New York; and there is therefore no necessary conflict or antagonism between the two States. Sir, look at this subject in another point of view. Take that vast territory lying west of Iowa, of Arkansas, of Kansas, stretching from Mexico to British America, a distance of more than two thousand miles, spreading westward to the Pacific ocean, boundless and inexhaustible in all the elements and resources of national power and greatness and glory; that vast domain, with all its great future, at this time has only six Senators in Congress and five Representatives. And now, when it is proposed to admit two more Senators and another Representative from that vast region, a great outcry is made as though it was an effort to introduce into the councils of the nation some dangerous and foreign element of power. Mr. President, who are these people in Colorado that are asking for admission as a State? Are they strangers, aliens, foreigners? Are they not our own acquaintances, our relatives, our friends? Did they not go out from the homes of New England and the middle States, carrying with them an undying attachment to the places of their nativity, to make new homes in this distant Territory? Are not these the persons who are asking for recognition here as a State? What good reason can be given, I ask, if these people are willing to assume the burdens and responsibilities of a State, why they should not be permitted to do so? I ask if the agricultural interests of the State of Ohio will be prejudiced by the admission of Colorado as a State? Will the manufacturing interests of the State of Massachusetts be prejudiced by the admission of Colorado? Will the commercial interests of New York be prejudiced by the adoption of this bill? Are not the people of that Territory as patriotic as any other people? Will they not cooperate with us in building up the national power? Is there anything in the circumstances or population of that Territory that should make the Senators from New York afraid to associate here with the Senators from Colorado? Can any Senator show any way in which any prejudice will be worked to any portion of the United States by the admission of Colorado as a State? The interests of this Territory will be promoted by this change, as the people believe, and as I have no doubt; and when any step is taken to promote the interests of Colorado or any other one of these western States or Territories, it is a step which promotes the interests of all the States and all the Territories, for their interests are identical; they are bound up together in the same common destiny, and equally concerned in everything that relates to the welfare of our common country. Objection is made by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] to the admission of Colorado because the people have not formed a State constitution in conformity with his wishes. I suppose that the theory which has been recognized, and will now be recognized, is, that the people of a Territory have a right to make their own constitution. If the doctrine which is advocated by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts be the correct doctrine, then it is unnecessary to pass any enabling act, but the most direct way would be for Congress to make a constitution, submit it to the people, and say to them, "Take this or take nothing." The argument is, that this constitution does not correspond with the wishes of members of Congress, and therefore ought not to be accepted. Objection is made by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts that this constitution excludes black persons from the right of suf frage; but I desire to call the attention of that honorable Senator to the effect of his argument and his position. Here are twenty-five or thirty thousand white American citizens of the United States living in the Territory of Colorado; they come to Congress and say, "We have no choice in the selection of the men who govern us; we have no representation in Con gress; we have no voice as to who shall be the Chief Magistrate of the nation; we do not enjoy the rights and privileges of American citizenship under this territorial organization; and we ask Congress to consent to a change, so that we may resume those rights and privileges of which we have been deprived by living under a territorial government;" and the honorable Senator meets these twenty-five or thirty thousand white people of that country with the objection that they shall not have these rights and privileges because they have seen proper by their constitution to exclude a few dozen of blacks from the right of suffrage! Now, sir, when a proposition was before the Senate of the United States to organize the Territory of Idaho, I remember that the honorable chairman of the Committee on Territories, in discussing that question, said it was a matter of very little consequence as to whether the organic act did.or did not exclude black persons from the right of suffrage, because there were no black persons there upon whom such a provision could take effect, and it was, therefore, a mere abstraction; and it is so substantially in reference to Colorado. It is more of an abstraction than anything else, and the honorable Senator from Massachusetts persists in this objection more to advocate a certain theory than to produce any practical results. If Congress is bound upon this occasion to determine whether the thirty thousand white people of the State of Colorado shall have the right of suffrage, or whether seventy-five or one hundred black men shall have that right-and that is the question presented-I ask if it is not wise and just on our part to extend to these thousands of white men the right of suffrage and their privileges as American citizens rather than to deny them those rights and privileges for the supposed necessity of providing similar rights and privileges for a handful of black people. Sir, the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, I remember, delivered an elaborate and an eloquent speech here, not many days ago, in which he proclaimed in learned words and thundering sound the doctrine that taxation without representation was tyranny. The twentyfive or thirty thousand white people of the Territory of Colorado are taxed like the citizens of Massachusetts, and they have paid within the last year more income tax and more revenue tax than some of the States of this Union; and yet those people have no representation whatever in the Government which imposes these taxes. I take up what the honorable Senator then said; I apply it to this case; I answer his argument with it, and I say that taxation without representation is tyranny. I suggest to the honorable Senator that he ought not to be severe upon the people of Colorado because they adopted a constitution in this form, for I will remind him that on the 3d of March, 1863, he voted, without question or objection, to organize the Territory of Idaho with an exclusion of black people there from the right of suffrage. I do not advert to this circumstance to show the inconsistency of the honorable Senator, for I acknowledge that the opinions of men everywhere have undergone great changes on this subject, but I do it simply to show that he ought not to be too harsh upon the people of Colorado because they thought in 1865 just as he thought in 1863. They live in a distant Territory; they live under the shadows of great mountains; they have no immediate communication with the States of the Atlantic slope, and it cannot be expected that they would change their opinions as suddenly as the honorable Senator may, who lives in the full blaze of the intellectual day that fills the State of Massachusetts. Moreover, I say that the people of Colorado ought not to be censured because they put this provision in their constitution; for, at the same session at which their enabling act was passed, and about the same time, the question arose in Congress as to whether or not the act organizing the Territory of Montana should or should not exclude blacks from the right of suffrage, and after a long discussion and due deliberation, the Congress of the United States, at that time overwhelmingly Republican, determined that the act organizing the Territory of Montana should exclude blacks from the right of suffrage. In 1864 the Congress of the United States decided that the organic act of a Territory should exclude black men from the right of suffrage; and can Congress now, with any consistency, turn around and condemn the people of Colorado because they, about the same time, decided in the same way? Had they not good reason to suppose that this decision, under the precedents and under the circumstances, would be entirely acceptable to Congress? I would prefer this constitution if it did not exclude any class of persons from the right of suffrage; but it does not follow that they will be perpetually excluded if we adopt this constitution. I cannot concur in what the honorable Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. DOOLITTLE] has said, that the time will never come when the States will adopt negro suffrage. I believe that the day is not far distant when the Constitution of the United States will be so changed as to entitle men of all classes, without distinction of race or color, to enjoy the elective franchise. Mr. JOHNSON. The Senator from Wisconsin did not say, as I understood him, that the States never would agree to it. He only said they would not agree that Congress should pass a provision on the subject. Mr. WILLIAMS. I understood the honorable Senator from Wisconsin to say that they would never sanction a proposed amendment. to the Constitution of the United States extending the right of suffrage to black persons. He may be right in that opinion; I may be in error; but I have misjudged the signs of the times if the day is not approaching when all distinctions as to classes will be abolished, so far as the elective franchise and civil rights are concerned, in this country. The States are moving in this matter as States; and it is not to be supposed that the public opinion which will produce such a change in any of the eastern or northern or middle States will not reach across the mountains and the plains to Colorado and there produce the same effect. If this constitution shall be accepted and this State admitted, it may be, as predicted by the honorable Senator from Nevada, [Mr. NYE,] that within a year, or perhaps some longer but not remote period of time, this constitution may be so amended as to allow all men the right of suffrage. The honorable Senator from Massachusetts said in effect, if I did not misunderstand him, that no man could consistently favor the admission of Colorado as a State under this constitution and at the same time insist that negro suffrage should be required of the States lately in rebellion. I think there is a vast difference between the two cases. If negro suffrage be required of the States lately in rebellion, it must be upon two grounds: first, because the black people of those States constitute a large proportion of the population; they are largely interested in all State matters and State questions, and there is such a deep-rooted prejudice against them that suffrage becomes necessary for them as a protection for their lives, liberty, and property; and again upon the ground that these black men have everywhere been unchangeably loyal to the Government during the late struggle, and by extending to them the right of suffrage we enable the loyal sentiment of that country to predominate over the rebel and disorganizing sentiment, and in that way secure the perpetuity, the peace, and the integrity of the nation. These are two good and valid reasons, if it be necessary to discuss that question at this time, that might exist for requiring negro suffrage in the lately rebellious States which do not exist so far as the Territory of Colorado is concerned; for there there is but a handful of negroes, a few dozen; and there is no feeling or prejudice, I imagine, in that Territory that would greatly endanger the substantial rights and privileges of the colored people. Now, sir, I have this to say on the question of population: admitting that the population at this time is not sufficient in the estimation of honorable Senators, I claim that upon all principles of good faith Congress is estopped at this time from controverting that question. Whatever legal or technical questions may be made upon the enabling act, I say that Congress then deliberately decided that the population of that Territory was sufficient to justify it in becoming a State. So far as that question of fact is concerned, it was then decided. Mr. MCDOUGALL. I should like to ask the Senator from Oregon how we can be estopped on this question. I know that is a term in the common law in some of the courts, and there is a law of estoppel; but it cannot apply to this case. Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not plead any legal estoppel upon Congress. I acknowledge that Congress has the physical and legal power to change its opinion, but I say that Congress did decide at that time that Colorado had a popu lation sufficient to entitle her to become a State, and when that decision was made, the people of Colorado, acting in good faith, proceeded to form a State government. Mr. MCDOUGALL. I will ask the Senator, did that conclude us? Mr. WILLIAMS. I think, in good morals and in good faith, it did conclude us. I think when Congress has said to the people of a Territory, "You may go forward and form a State government, and when that State government is made we will allow you to become a State in the Union," and the people, upon the strength of that promise, proceeded to organize a State government and apply for admission and are rejected, they have a right to complain that they have been disappointed and not fairly treated by Congress. It is said that this enabling act is functus officio, because the elections were not held in conformity with its provisions; but, sir, that is sticking in the bark. me justice and good policy dictate the consent of Congress, for by the multiplication of new States we add to the greatness and power of the nation. Mr. President, I claim that there is enough before us to justify and require Congress at this time to admit Colorado as a State. I hope, therefore, that the vote rejecting the bill will be reconsidered, and that we shall soon have an opportunity to see another State added to the American Union. Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, if the question whether Colorado should be admitted as a State depended upon the height of her mountains, the richness of her valleys, and the productiveness of her placers, I would admit that the Senator from Nevada [Mr. NYE] has the force of the argument; but if it is to be decided upon the question whether first the proceedings organizing the State government have been regular or in conformity to law, and whether, in the second place, there is such a population there as entitles them to admission, I think there was not that weight in the Senator's argument that we had a right to expect. The first question that naturally presents itself for our consideration is, whether Congress is now bound by the act which we passed in March, 1864, providing for the organization of a State government. I am not able to see that, as the Senator from Oregon says, we are in morals and in good faith bound by the action of Congress at that time. What did Congress do? Congress provided that the people at a time specified might elect delegates, that those delegates should convene and organize into a convention, and being thus organized, should frame a constitution for the people of that Territory, and that that constitution thus made should be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection. Such an election was held; the convention met; a constitution was framed; it was submitted to the people, and by a large vote, three to one, they rejected it. Now, I ask, was it competent for the people of Colorado to proceed further under the act of Congress? Could the people take another step under the act of Congress? They rejected the constitution that was formed pursuant to the act of Congress. What difference does it make to Congress whether the election in Colorado was held in June or August or September? What difference does it make when or where or how a convention was held, so long Then, sir, what is the nature of the proceedas a constitution was formed and submitted to ing which we are now called upon to indorse? the people, and they adopted it, and upon that If the Territorial Legislature of Colorado had constitution ask for admission? The only legit- provided for the calling of another convention, imate objection which Congress can make at I would have given that legislative proceeding any time is that the populatiou is not sufficient; great respect and weight; but the Legislature I say Congress has made a decision which did no such thing. In no authoritative and ought to conclude its action upon that question. legal manner was the will of the people exMr. President, I have helped to make two pressed upon that subject; but the chairmen of Territories into States, and it is in vain for the three political parties there, of the Demany man to tell me that a Territory is in as ocratic party, the Anti-Slavery party, and the good a condition as a State. It is as unreason- Union Central Committee, not authorized even able to expect that a Territory should have the by a convention of their respective parties, but same power, the same strength, and the same upon their own motion, called a convention. resources as a State, as it would be to expect That convention was held, and they adopted a of a child the strength of a man, or to expect constitution irregular in every respect, not havthat a community ten, twenty, or twenty-five ing the stamp of legal authority in any respect years of age should have all the power and whatever. The convention was held; a conresources of a community that has been grow- stitution was adopted by that convention and ing and improving for two hundred years. submitted to the people; and what was the This Territory, according to my understanding, vote? A vote giving a majority of but 155 in has a people who are willing to undertake the favor of the constitution thus so irregularly burdens and responsibilities of a State govern-adopted. I ask Senators if there be anything ment. They believe that a State organization in this proceeding that binds the conscience of will promote their interests. They are the Congress. The constitution adopted pursuant proper persons to decide upon that question; to the act of Congress stands to-day rejected and it seems to me that when they ask to by the people; and a constitution formed upon become a State, instead of meeting them with the motion of the chairmen of the political distrust and hostility, it is our true policy to parties of the Territory stands indorsed but by take them by the hand, and say to them, the small majority of 155. Then, sir, I give no "Come up higher and go with us, and we will weight or authority whatever to the proceeding do you good.' by which this constitution was adopted. Sir, territorial organizations only result from That bring us to the next question, which I necessity, and are incompatible with the spirit consider the important one in this discussion; and genius of our Government; for under them and that is, has the Territory of Colorado such American citizens are ruled by a Government a population as entitles it to admission? Upon in the making of which they have no voice. the other subject, the weight that should be They are in a state of colonial dependence and given to the proceeding under the act of Consubjection; and whenever the people in such a gress, and also upon the question of populaTerritory are competent to maintain a State||tion, I call the attention of the Senate to the government, and desire so to do, it seems to only information that was before this body when the enabling act was passed in regard to population. When the enabling act was before the Senate the distinguished Senator from Vermont, now dead, (Mr. Collamer,) asked this question: "I wish to inquire of the chairman of the Committee on Territories whether he has any information as to the extent of the population of this Territory?" What reply was made? I read: "Mr. WADE. Nothing that I can rely upon with a very great deal of confidence. I have taken some pains to ascertain the facts from the Delegate in the other House, and from Mr. Edmunds, of the Land Office, who has some information on that subject. I understand there must be now about 60,000 inhabitants in Colorado; some think a great deal more. than that. That is the smallest number I find intimated by those who profess to know anything about it. It is a Territory which is filling up very rapidly. Judge Edmunds tells me that he has not the least doubt in the world that before they finish their arrangements and become a State there will be suffi cient population there for a Representative in Congress according to the ratio of representation fixed by the last census. That is about the information I got." That was the response of the chairman of the Committee on Territories to a question propounded to him when the enabling act was before this body, expressing the opinion that at that time there were 60,000 people in the Territory, and that the Territory was rapidly filling up and would soon have a population entitling her to a Representative in the other House. The Senate unquestionably acted upon that information. Was the chairman misled in regard to it? I think to-day he will admit that he was; that his statement to the Senate, upon which the Senate acted, was not reliable. He relied upon information that he received from the Delegate and from another party that he mentions, and that information now proves not to have been reliable. What have we now before us that is reliable? In the first place, we have the census that was taken in 1861. At that time the population of the Territory was 25,329; and upon that population the Territory at the first election thereafter was enabled to give a vote of 10,580. With a population of 25,000 a vote of 10,000 was cast. What does the vote since that time indicate? It shows the fact that at every election from that time to this the popu lation of Colorado has been decreasing instead of increasing, until when the vote was taken upon the constitution that is now before us in September, 1865, the aggregate vote was 5,895. Less than 6,000 votes were cast when it is claimed this constitution was adopted or ratified by the people. It is claimed by the Senator from Nevada that a vote is not a very satisfactory indication of the population. The vote in 1861, perhaps, did not very clearly indicate the population. What were the people voting on then? Upon the election of a Delegate, the trifling matter of selecting one man for an office instead of another man. In 1865 they came to cast their votes upon the most interesting and exciting question that can ever be presented to any free people, the question whether they shall adopt a State government and what sort of a State government they shall adopt; and upon that question, that is calcu lated to call out the last voter of the Territory if they take any interest in their great questions at all, they could command less than 6,000 voters. Mr. STEWART. Is the Senator aware that immediately after that, in the fall of 1865, in the election of State officers, 7,000 votes were cast? Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, sir, I am aware of that fact. Now, sir, assuming that a population of 25,000 in 1861 could give a vote of 10,000, then what population does a vote of 6,000 in 1865 indicate? Just 15,000. On the same ratio, upon a more interesting question, instead of having 25,000, according to the vote in 1865 the Territory has a population of but 15,000, if we make an estimate upon the vote that was cast upon this constitution. Then I assume that the Territory at the time of the adoption of this constitution had a population of less than 20,000. I have a right to assume that it |