234 



CONGKESS, UITCTED STATES. 



ing up very fast, and there is no reason to sup- 

 pose that a large population will go into the 

 Territory, that is a reason why we should re- 

 quire more when they are admitted ; for cer- 

 tainly, in order to admit a State into the Union, 

 there should be some criterion as to popula- 

 tion. 



" In my judgment this Territory is not in such 

 a condition as that in justice to her own people 

 and in justice to the other States of the Union, 

 she should now be admitted into the Union. 



" As to this word ' white ' in the constitu- 

 tion, I have but one word to say. In my judg- 

 ment that of itself constitutes a very great 

 reason why she should not be admitted. It 

 will not do to tell me that I have voted hereto- 

 fore for the admission of States with the word 

 'white' in their constitutions, excluding the 

 colored population. I have no doubt that every 

 Senator who has been here long has done it. 

 Why, sir, the man who has made no progress 

 upon the great subject of human rights within 

 the last five or six years belongs to the fossil 

 race; he must be clear down to the old red 

 sandstone. We are now demanding free suf- 

 frage everywhere. How long have we been 

 doing so ? How long is it that slavery has been 

 abolished throughout this whole Union ? How 

 could a man five years ago stand upon this 

 floor and claim that the black population should 

 have the right of suffrage in every Territory 

 admitted into this Union ? We were contend- 

 ing then, not for the admission of the blacks to 

 the right of voting in the Territories, but we 

 were endeavoring to fence out slavery itself in 

 the Territories. We were fighting in a death 

 struggle to keep slavery out. It would have 

 been preposterous then to talk about admitting 

 one with the right of the colored people to vote, 

 and the man that would have insisted upon it 

 would have been an impractical man." 



Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, said: "I think it 

 wholly out of place to go into this question of 

 population now. The Senate is committed, 

 Congress is committed, by its previous action, 

 and the question of population has nothing to 

 do, as it seems to me, with our votes on the 

 present occasion ; we are bound by our action 

 on that question." 



Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, said : " ~8ow, as it 

 seems to me, dealing in perfect good faith with 

 the Territory of Colorado and with ourselves, 

 in the belief that they had a population of forty 

 or fifty thousand at the time, and in the belief 

 that that population would increase, we author- 

 ized them to hold a convention, form a constitu- 

 tion, and submit the question to the people 

 whether they would have a State government 

 or not. All that was done and the people said 

 no. As it seems to me, all power under this 

 act was expended when that thing was accom- 

 plished ; and now the question returns as an 

 original proposition. I do not feel that we are 

 bound by what we have done to close our eyes 

 to the fact of the present condition of the peo- 

 ple of Colorado, and that it does come before 



us substantially as a new and original prop 

 osition for us to consider whether in our opin- 

 ion Colorado is this day now to assume the 

 position and the responsibilities, and discharge 

 the duties of a State in this Union. I come to 

 this conclusion against my hopes and against 

 my wishes in relation to Colorado, for I had 

 hoped she would have the requisite population 

 at this time. 1 ' 



Mr. Sumner withdrew his amendment. 



Mr. Williams, of Oregon, said : " I shall vote 

 for this bill expressly on the ground that Con- 

 gress has passed an enabling act authorizing the 

 people of this Territory to form a State con- 

 stitution. I know it has been said here, and 

 there is force in the statement, that the ena- 

 bling act has exhausted itself, and that the peo- 

 ple had no right to proceed to form a State 

 constitution not in accordance with the pro- 

 visions of that act ; but the main objection 

 made to the passage of this bill is that the pop- 

 ulation of the Territory is insufficient. That, 

 sir, was a legitimate argument to urge against 

 the passage of the enabling act ; and that argu- 

 ment was then adduced, or ought to have been 

 adduced, to show that Congress should not au- 

 thorize the people of the Territory to form a 

 State constitution. But Congress at that time 

 determined that question. Congress then de- 

 cided that the population of the Territory was 

 sufficient to authorize the people to form a 

 State constitution ; and I say that the people 

 of the Territory had a right to expect that that 

 question was settled by the action of Congress. 

 And now when this application is made for ad- 

 mission, they ought not to be met and defeated 

 upon the ground that the population of the 

 Territory is not sufficient to authorize the for- 

 mation of a State government." 



The vote was then taken on the bill, and it 

 was rejected, as follows : 



YEAS Messrs. Chandler, Cragin, Kirkwood, Lane 

 of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Nesmith, 

 Norton, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Stewart, Trum- 

 bull, and Williams 14. 



NAYS Messrs. Buckalew, Conness, Creswell, Da- 

 vis, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Guthrie, 

 Harris, Hendricks, Morgan, Morrill, Poland, Riddle, 

 Sprague, Stockton, Sumner, Van Winkle, Wade, and 

 Wilson 21. 



ABSENT Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Clark, Cowan, 

 Dixon, Foot, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Johnson, 

 Nye, Saulsbury, Willey, Wright, and Yates 15. 



On April 17th, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, 

 moved to reconsider this vote. He said : '* I 

 voted the other day against that admission, but 

 I must confess that in doing so I did not feel 

 satisfied that I was dealing fairly with the 

 people of Colorado. I do not think it is fair 

 play, after we passed the bill, which we did 

 pass in 1864, and after the most enterprising 

 and vigorous men in that Territory, who agree 

 with a majority of us in this Chamber, have 

 framed a constitution, and came here for ad- 

 mission, for us to refuse their application on the 

 ground of a distinction which they have made in 

 their constitution, when we did not ask them to 



