States may receive the same benefit as now enjoyed by relatives of soldiers as regards bounty, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs; which was agreed to.

Mr. WILLEY, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 202) for the relief of Captain Phelps Paine, of Illinois, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Joseph Segar, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 575) for the relief of Joseph Segar. The bill was read and passed to a second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.

WILLIAM HENRY OTIS.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I ask the consent of the Senate to take up Senate bill No. 279, for the relief of Mr. Otis, of Indiana.

Mr. HOWARD. I ask the Senator from Indiana whether it is likely that this bill will occupy much time in discussion?

Mr. HENDRICKS. I think not.

Mr. HOWARD. I am very anxious this morning to call up Senate bill No. 256, relating to the Central Branch Union Pacific Railroad. Mr. CONNESS. I also desire to give notice that I am very anxious to call up a bill this morning.

Mr. HOWARD. I will make no objection to taking up the bill of the Senator from Indiana, if he assures us that it will consume very

assurance as to what other gentlemen may think of this bill. The Committee on Claims thought it all right, and made a unanimous report in its favor, and I think it is right. That is all I can say.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator moves that the committee be discharged, and that the petitioner have leave to withdraw his papers..

The motion was agreed to.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. SHERMAN. In the debate the other day on the proposition to regulate the publica tion of advertisements in this District, I stated that the Clerk of the House of Representatives was authorized to select, and did select, the two newspapers in which the advertisements were published. The Clerk calls my attention to the fact that in this I not only misunderstood the law, but, perhaps, did injustice to him. I find by reference to the law-and at his request I make the statement-that these papers were selected as the two newspapers in the city of Washington having the largest circulation, as required by law, and he had no part in the selection of these papers except in compliance with the law. I make this statement at his request. I certainly did not wish to do that very excellent officer any injustice.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed a bill (H. R. No. 1284) to change and more effectually secure the collection of internal taxes on distilled spirits and tobacco, and to amend the tax on banks, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

BILLS INTROduced.

Mr. COLE asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leåve to introduce a bill (S. No. 576) relating to the district courts of Utah Territory; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CRAGIN asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 577) to amend an act entitled "An act to exempt certain manufacturers from internal tax, and for other purposes," approved March 31, 1868; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. RAMSEY asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 578) to regulate trade between the United States and the British North American provinces, and for other purposes; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. THAYER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 579) to establish a new land district in the State of Nebraska; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. HOWARD. Very well.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Indiana.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 279) for the relief of William Henry Otis, the pending question being on concurring in the amendment read as in Committee of the Whole, to strike out all of the bill after the enacting clause and in lieu of the words stricken out to insert the following:

That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and required to pay, or cause to be paid, to William Henry Otis, of Indianapolis, in the State of Indiana, the sum of $3,000, in full consideration for growing crop, fencing, and fruit trees destroyed upon, and damages done by the United States troops in and to forty-five and a half acres of land belonging to the said William Henry Otis, know as Camp Burnside, lying and being adjacent to the said city of Indianapolis, while said land was occupied by said troops from the year 1861 to the year 1865.

Mr. HENDRICKS. There is a report accompanying the bill, which will make a better explanation than anything I can say, and therefore I call for its reading.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The report will be read.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I beg pardon. I had forgotten that the report was read before. It need not be read again.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole.

The amendment was concurred in.

Mr. CONKLING. I have no recollection of the report having been read before. There was a statement made about this bill, and at the request of the Senator from Illinois it went over. I should like to hear the report read to know how much it involves.

The Chief Clerk commenced the reading of the report of the Committee on Claims, and after having proceeded for some time,

Mr. CONKLING. If this report is being read, as I believe it is, on my motion, I desire to say that I have looked at the bill, and I see that the amount is reduced from over twenty thousand dollars to $3,000, and as there is some relief in that I do not insist on the further reading of the report. I shall vote against the bill, but inasmuch as about eighteen thousand dollars has been deducted I am willing to waive the reading of the report.

Mr. CAMERON. I should like to know how much we are giving for these damages. What is the sum appropriated?

The CHIEF CLERK. Three thousand dollars.

Mr. HOWARD. The claim was nearly thirty

thousand dollars.

Mr. CAMERON. And he got over four thousand dollars rent, I understand.

Mr. HOWARD. The authorities paid him about four thousand dollars for rent.

Mr. CAMERON. I do not see that we ought to pay any more.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

Mr. SHERMAN. I ask that the tax bill be taken up, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Finance.

The bill (H. R. No. 1284) to change and more effectually secure the collection of internal taxes on distilled spirits and tobacco, and to amend the tax on banks, was read twice by its title.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Committee on Finance have already been considering the bill while it was under consideration in the House. I ask leave of the Senate for the members of the Committee on Finance to sit during the sessions of the Senate.

Leave was granted.

ADMISSION OF COLORADO.

Mr. YATES. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 11. Mr. CONNESS. What is that?

Mr. YATES. The Colorado bill. We can get a vote upon it now, I think.

Mr. CONNESS. It will be impossible to dispose of that now.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. N. 11) to admit the State of Colorado into the Union, the pending question being on the amendment reported by the Committee on Territories, to add the following as an additional section:

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the acting Governor of the Territory of Colorado, as soon as practicable after the passage of this act, by proclamation, to call a general election to choose members of the State Legislature and State officers to fill the places of all whose terms of office shall have expired under said constitution. Said election shall be held, and the legal voters registered under the laws now in force in said Territory. The time for holding said election shall be fixed not more than ninety days after the passage of this act, and the time for the meeting of the Legislature at the capital of the Territory and the installation of the State officers shall be fixed not more than thirty days after said election, by said proclamation. All the officers so elected shall continue in office until the commencement of the next constitutional term of their offices respectively; Provided, That before being admitted to representation in Congress, the Legislature so elected and convened shall ratify the amendment to the Constitution of the United States known as the fourteenth article; and also the fundamental conditions hercin imposed. And in case said Legislature shall refuse to ratify said amendment and said conditions, this act shall be null and void.

Mr. DAVIS. I move to amend the bill by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting a substitute, which I ask to have read. I will state that my amendment consists of a proposition to pass an enabling act to authorize the Territories of Montana and Colorado to form constitutions and State governments preparatory to their admission as States into the Union.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will state that the amendment of the Committee being to perfect the original bill is first in order. After that the substitute can be proposed. The question now is on agreeing to the amendment of the Committee on Territories.

Mr. HOWE. I ask the Senator from Illinois if he will not consent to amend the amendment so as to provide that this act shall be void either in case the Legislature refuses to ratify the amendment, or in case the Legislature refuses to be admitted or to vote for admission; so as to take the sense of this Legislature that is to be elected upon the question of admission.

Mr. SUMNER. I will suggest to my friend to put that in legislative shape.

Mr. HOWE. I move to insert after the word "conditions," in the last line of the being admitted into the Union;" so that the amendment, the words "or shall decide against

clause will read :

And in case said Legislature shall refuse to ratify said amendment and said conditions, or shall decide against being admitted into the Union, this act shall be null and void.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FERRY. I desire to propose an amendment, to come in at the end of the fourth section reported by the committee, following immediately, I suppose, the amendment just made. That came in at the end of the fourth section.

Mr. HOWE. Not at the end, but near the end.

Mr. FERRY. I propose to insert at the end of the fourth section reported by the committee the following:

And the said Legislature shall proceed according to law to the election of Senators in Congress, if said Legislature shall decide in favor of the admission of said State.

Mr. RAMSEY. That is all right.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the committee, as amended.

Mr. DAVIS. I will offer an amendment to the amendment. After the word "constitution," at the end of the sixth line, I move to insert the words "and which Legislature shall on assembling proceed to choose two Senators to the Congress of the United States."

Mr. YATES. That is already provided for by an amendment adopted a few minutes ago. Mr. DAVIS. It must have been adopted while I was out. I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. CONKLING. As I have not been able to see this amendment as it stands, I wish to inquire of the honorable Senator having the measure in charge whether there is any provision, in case the amendment and bill be adopted, by which the people are to be enabled to vote upon the constitution or to amend it if they

wish?

Mr. YATES. If the Senator will examine the last section-section four-he will see that it is the duty of the Governor of the Territory by proclamation to call a general election of members of the State Legislature and State officers, and this Legislature, when chosen, is to decide the question whether the State shall be admitted upon the constitution heretofore adopted, and also upon the question of ratifying the constitutional amendment and the conditions attached to this bill. If they decide in favor of the constitutional amendment and those conditions they come in, and if not, this act is null and void.

Mr. CONKLING. It seems, then, Mr. President, that no provision is made for the adoption or rejection of this constitution, or its amendment if the people see fit to amend it. I am aware that there might be a good practical objection, if the bill were in such form as to provide for the admission without the holding of a popular election, to requiring a vote upon the constitution; but I submit to the honorable Senator, as the bill already requires a popular election to choose a Legislature, what is the objection to inserting a provision that at that same election the people shall agree or disagree to this constitution? I know there is a conflict of understanding as to what has happened in the Territory touching the ratification of the constitution. It is asserted on the one hand that a vote was given recently which constructively affirmed in some way the wish of the majority to adopt this constitution and be admitted under it, but that is stoutly denied on the other side. Now, I suggest that to avoid all difficulty, as there is to be an election by the people preceding the admission, the constitution itself ought to be submitted at that election. Why not? It will make no added trouble; and I inquire of the Senator whether any objection occurs to him to submitting the constitution to the popular vote.

Mr. YATES. I will state to the Senator that there seems to be no objection in the Territory on the part of any person or any party to the constitution. The only question is whether the Territory should be admitted as a State. There was some objection on the part of some persons to the members-elect to the Senate taking their seats, but that objection is now obviated by the amendment which has

been offered by the Senator from Connecticut. There is no sort of objection to the constitution, and I believe the Senator himself would agree to it. In all the communications before the committee, and in the various petitions and memorials, there has been no objection whatever to the constitution. By the bill as we have now amended it the whole question is submitted to the Legislature, and they can come in or not as they see proper, adopting the conditions proposed and the constitutional amendment. That is the sum and substance of the amendment we propose.

Mr. CONKLING. Conceding the force of what the Senator says, I beg to make a sug. gestion to him. I have read this constitution; I have no fault to find with it on its face. It is true, however, that a constitution was formed regularly in the Territory of Colorado, which constitution was rejected by the people. In saying this I state what is a historical fact. A constitution was framed in the Territory by a regularly constituted authority for that purpose, and that constitution was rejected by the popular vote of the Territory. Then another constitution, to wit: this constitution was framed irregularly by a convention informal, if you please-I do not wish to apply too strong a word a convention not assembled in accordance with the usage and the understanding applicable to such things. Now, the Senator says that nobody in the Territory objects to it. That is a mixed question, a question composed of a great many uncertain elements. All sorts of representations have been made as to the particular questions upon which votes were taken and the particular understandings which prevailed during those elections. I submit to the Senate that if this constitution is satisfactory to the people of the Territory of all parties, and if a popular election is to be held with a view to choosing a Legislature that is to select Senators and to adopt fundamental compacts, it would be very harmless, and I think wise, to include in that election a vote on the constitution. It would be a mere pro forma vote, as the Senator supposes; but considering the inception of this constitution, considering the want of regularity in its origin, I think it would round out this proceeding and make it much more complete to allow the popular vote to be taken upon the constitution than to assume that it is satisfactory to the people of the Territory.

As I have said, I would not press the sug gestion if it involved the holding of an election for that purpose alone; nor should I be induced to do it if it involved delay; but I beg Senators again to remember that it involves neither. It makes no added trouble. It is nothing but the provision of an additional ballot-box, at which the same electors shall deposit their votes upon this question as well as upon the others, which, at the election already provided for, are to be submitted.

Mr. CAMERON. I desire to say to the Senator from New York that I do not think the amendment of the committee as it is printed provides for a general election. It provides only for an election to fill up vacancies. Mr. FERRY. But as some of them are State officers it will require a general election.

Mr. CAMERON. It may have been gotten up for that purpose, but if so, it does not meet the object. The provision is:

That it shall be the duty of the acting Governor of the Territory of Colorado as soon as practicable after the passage of this act, by proclamation, to call a general election to choose members of the State Legislature and State officers to fill the places of all whose terms of office shall have expired under said constitution.

under this act. Surely the chairman of the Committee on Territories did not intend to pass a section which would have one meaning to himself and one to the public. Therefore I take it for granted that he will agree with me in striking out the words I have indicated.

Mr. YATES. I see no objection to that. Mr. NYE. Mr. President, I shall take but a moment in what I have to say, and what I have to say on this subject will be directly in reply to the Senator from New York. This constitution was adopted in Colorado in the manner prescribed by itself; and if this State be admitted it will have been declared to be the fundamental law there for some time past. If the position of the Senator from New York is sustained we are not here admitting a State, but we are passing an enabling act providing that if they will make a constitution or readopt this they can come in. I submit to the Senator that that is trifling with the interests of the people of Colorado. It is not worth while every time they have a general election in that State, this year or any other year, to require them to readopt their constitution. It is adopted.

We have no objection to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania, so as to provide for a general election of all the State officers and members of the Legislature. But I submit that when this State has been hanging here for two years it comes with an ill grace from the friends of this measure now to insist that the constitution shall be referred back to the people. It seems to me entirely useless, and it is applying a rule to the admission of Colorado that has been applied to no other State which has been admitted into this Union, that the people shall readopt their constitution. Mr. WILSON. I believe one o'clock has arrived.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The morning hour having expired, the unfinished business of yesterday is regularly before the Senate, being the bill (S. No. 529) establishing rules and articles for the government of the armies of the United States.

Mr. WILSON. If the chairman of the Committee on Territories thinks he can get a vote in a few minutes on the Colorado bill, I will allow the regular order to be passed by informally for that purpose.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The unfinished business of yesterday will be passed over informally, there being no objection.

Mr. TIPTON. I wish to say in regard to the question raised by the Senator from New York, that indirectly, and indeed for all practical purposes directly, the question of the constitution will be involved in any vote that shall be taken for the election of members of the Legislature. If there are two opinions in the State upon that question those who are in favor of admission with this constitution will vote for members of the Legislature to carry out that view. If there is a party in Colorado opposed to the constitution they will vote for members of the Legislature to carry out their views. Therefore the question in regard to the constitution will be sufficiently brought before the people by any vote which shall be taken in Colorado for the election of members of the Legislature.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CAMERON] to the amendment of the committee.

Mr. CAMERON. I understood the chairman of the Committee on Territories to accept that amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It cannot be accepted without a vote of the Senate. Mr. YATES. I make no objection to it. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CONKLING. I do not understand precisely how the question is now before the Senate. Is it on the amendment of the coinmittee as amended?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, sir. Mr. CONKLING. Then I beg to submit

to the chairman of the committee this amendment, to be inserted after the word "Territory," in the eighth line:

And at said election there shall be submitted the question of the ratification of the constitution proposed by said Territory,

The effect of the amendment will be simply to provide that there shall be an additional ballot-box, into which anybody opposed to this constitution may put his ballot, and those in favor of it may put theirs.

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. NYE] says that I am turning this bill to admit a State into an enabling act. Why, sir, the other day I remember that the Senator from Kansas, [Mr. POMEROY,] when this bill came up, was for having it passed in the morning hour at once, because, he said, it was now nothing but an enabling act; it was not an act to admit a State. I supposed that was the view; that the purpose was to remit the question to the vote of the people. If that is not the view, I submit to the Senator why should we displace the Senators who have been elected; why provide for the election of two new Senators; why provide for displacing the Legislature? We have just stricken out the clause confining the election to the filling of vacancies, so as to provide for a new organization, an election de novo. That all goes, I submit, on the theory that this is an enabling act in substance, and assumes that the people are to vote upon the question.

Mr. HOWE. Will the Senator allow me to make a suggestion?

Mr. CONKLING. Certainly.

Mr. HOWE. If I understand the bill, the only difference between it and the bill as the Senator would have it is that as the bill stands the decision of the State is to be taken from the action of a Legislature chosen for the express purpose of deciding this question, passing upon the constitution, and saying whether they will be admitted under it or not; and as he would have the bill it would be a direct vote of the people. That would be, perhaps, the most convenient, but the Legislature is required to be convened for another purpose, and I think it would be safe enough to take the decision of the Legislature on the question.

Mr. CONKLING. Will my honorable friend point out to me the language of the bill upon which he relies, which says that the Legislature shall pass upon that question?

Mr. HOWE. The amendment I had incorporated, which provides that if the Legislature decides against the admission the act shall be void.

Mr. CONKLING. Let us hear that amendment.

The CHIEF CLERK. The amendment referred to was to insert after the word "conditions," in the twenty-third line, the words "or shall decide against being admitted into the Union;" so as to make the clause read:

And in case said Legislature shall refuse to ratify said amendment and said condition, or shall deeide against being admitted into the Union, this act shall e null and void.

Mr. CONKLING. I have two suggestions to make in answer to the Senator from Wisconsin. In the first place, it seems to me it is a novelty and an innovation to commit to a Legislature, and to withdraw from the people, the province of passing upon the ratification of a constitution. I think that of itself would be ground broad enough to base my amendment upon.

Mr. NYE. Let me ask the Senator from New York a question. Is it not a novel thing, after a State has adopted a constitution, to call upon them to readopt it, directly or indirectly? I submit that it has never been prescribed to any other State.

Mr. CONKLING. No, Mr. President, I answer the Senator. I think it is not an unusual thing in this case to do precisely what he suggests. I did not intend to go into this debate at any length; but I can give the Senator many reasons why it is not only not unusual, but a very important thing. In the first place, there is a great deal of controversy as

to how this constitution was adopted. It is entirely clear that it was irregular in its inception. The Senator and I do not differ about that. That in itself is enough to distinguish it from ordinary cases.

Mr. NYE. Í should like to ask the Senator what irregularity there was about it.

Mr. CONKLING. The irregularity was that it had its origin in a body which had no authority whatever in the ordinary mode to propose a constitution. I will not say, as my honorable friend from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] did the other day, that it was proposed by a mob; because, although that is a good word, it is a word of various definitions. It was not proposed by a mob in the sense of a turbulent assembly, but it was proposed by an assemblage of men who voluntarily assembled, who assembled of their own motion, in other words, and that warrants me in saying that it was irregular. There can be no doubt about that. But, to go a little further, let me answer the Senator by asking him a question. If this is the ordinary case of a constitution ratified, why is it that we are passing such an act as this? Why do we propose that Senators shall be elected afresh, when this so-called State has elected Senators already? Why do we propose that another Legislature shall be elected, and that we shall submit it to that Legislature, as the Senator from Wisconsin proposes in his amendment?

Mr. NYE. I should like to answer the Senator right there. It is because just such technical objections as the Senator from New York is now urging have kept these people out for more than two years. When this measure was up before my honorable friend on my left [Mr. SUMNER] would not go for it because the word "white" was in the constitution, and away it went back to Colorado to be submitted to the Legislature to strike that out; and now that that is stricken out

Mr: EDMUNDS. I want to ask my friend from Nevada if he was for passing it with the word "white" in it either? Is that the style of constitution that he approves of?

Mr. NYE. If the honorable Senator from Vermont has ever done me the honor to read the remarks I made on that occasion his answer will be found there. I suppose that I am as Senator from Vermont; but at that time there orthodox on that question as the honorable were not half a dozen black people there, and the enabling act did not require such a provision, and they had complied with the law.

Mr. EDMUNDS. The enabling act did require it.

Mr. NYE. The enabling act did not require it, if my recollection is correct.

Mr. SUMNER. The enabling act requires the constitution to be republican.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It required it to be based on the Declaration of Independence.

Mr. NYE. This is the third time that I have attempted to get a word in edgeways in relation to this bill; and as often as I do there are at least three on me at once to choke me

down. I rose for the purpose of answering the Senator from New York, who appealed to me to know why it was we were sending this back. I answer, it is because these technical objections, such as he now raises, have been urged against this bill in every form and in every stage. Now, sir, I desire to repeat what I said the other day: I care not how a constitution is made so be it that the people of a State ratify it, the Senator and everybody else is estopped from calling it irregular. The moment that the people ratify the proceedings of any body of men and adopt it as their constitution the hour for irregularity is past; it is the voice of the people. Michigan was admitted in the same way.

Mr. CONKLING. I wish now to cite against the Senator the Senator himself. He says this act is here because, for three years just such objections as I now make have prevailed in the two Houses of Congress. Then I cite against him the action of Congress for the last three years to validate the objections I make. Il

know they have prevailed for three years; and I am free to say I hope they will prevail for three years longer unless they are removed. It is a very easy thing, in phrase, to belittle an objection by calling it technical. It is very easy to baptize an objection or an argument technical; but that does not change its character. Now, let me submit to the Senator from Nevada the question whether these are technical objections. In the first place is the origin of this constitution as I have suggested it to him? In the next place is the votes which have been given pro and con. in the Territory since-I do not go into them, because we should differ as to what they meant and how they are to be interpreted. In the next place is the fact that Congress has changed this constitution since it was adopted, or since it was argued that it was adopted by anybody, changed it materially and essentially, and now propose conditions with regard to it. Why, sir, these are not technical objections. They are objections which go to the essence of the constitution itself, and they go to prove just as much the propriety of submitting it to the popular vote, as they do of submitting it to the Legislature.

There is another suggestion I wish to make to the honorable Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. HowE,] in answer to the suggestion he made to me. By his amendment the Legislature is confined simply to the question whether they are in favor of coming in at this time under this constitution or not. That is not the question that I propose to submit to the people at all. The people might be in favor of coming in, but they might disapprove of this constitution, and vote it down, and take steps to have another constitution with which they would be content; whereas, under the provision of the Senator from Wisconsin, they are not remitted to any remedy. If the Legislature say, "We do not choose to come in under this constitution," what then? That is the only question upon which they have passed. But to the people I propose to submit the simple question of the constitution itself, divested of the question whether they wish to come in or to remain out. It is a very different question. Therefore, as the bill stands, we propose, in the first place, to commit to the Legislature a question which I submit peculiarly and universally in practice and in philosophy belongs to the people themselves; and then, in the second place, we propose to submit that question in such a form that the Legislature is not to pass upon the constitution independently, but simply to pass upon the question whether at this time, and under this constitution, and upon these terms, they are in favor of coming into the Union or

not.

Now, Mr. President, in the face of these objections, I cannot hear so far any argument whatever against this suggestion. Confessedly, the objection made by the Senator from Connecticut is removed. Here is to be an election generally, so general that everything in that State is to depend upon it, including the admission of the State and the election of Sen

ators as well as of the officers of the State. Thus a full vote is to be brought out; and now the objection is to allowing the inspectors of election to provide an additional box in which the electors may cast their votes upon this changed and modified constitution.

Mr. HOWARD. I rise to obtain some information from the honorable Senator from New York, if he has no objection. He proposes that in the election contemplated in the bill the electors of the Territory shall pass directly upon the question of ratifying the present Constitution. My first question is, whether it is not an ascertained fact that the majority of the people of that Territory have already passed in the affirmative upon that question?

Mr. CONKLING. No, sir; I answer the Senator just there, if he will allow me.

Mr. HOWARD. If the majority of the people have so voted, what good is likely to result from the resubmission of the same question to the people of the Territory? Was there

the constitution of California was formed by a convention that was not called together in pursuance of an act of Congress. Such was the case, I believe, in Michigan, and perhaps in other States. It makes no differenee how the constitution is formed; but the material question is whether it has been subsequently ratified by a majority of the people. If it has, that makes it all right.

Now, sir, there is one question that I want to submit, and I think there is something in it. This constitution was ratified three years ago. We are told by the friends of the admission of Colorado that there has been a large immigration to that Territory since. The people who have gone there since have had no opportunity of expressing themselves on the question. Three years is a long time in the life of a Territory.

Mr. NYE. Will the Senator allow me to ask him one question?

Mr. MORTON. Certainly.

Mr. NYE. Has anybody who has gone to the State of Indiana since the adoption of the constitution of that State had the privilege of expressing his sentiments on the question of that constitution?

submitting these questions to the Legislature. We are told that if the people do not want this constitution they will elect members of the Legislature who are unfavorable to it. Is not that a very imperfect way of submitting a question of this kind? There are a thousand considerations that enter into the choice of members of the Legislature, and it is not a fair way of submitting the question. We recognize the great principle that when it comes to the forming of a fundamental law it is not to be submitted to a Legislature, and the question is not to be determined by selecting members of the Legislature, but it is to be determined by submitting it to the people themselves.

Let us, then, submit this constitution to all the people of Colorado. Gentlemen say a large addition has been made to the population of that Territory in three years. Three years in a Territory, as I before remarked, are equal, perhaps, to twenty-five years in a State. It was so in California and other Territories; and if gentlemen are right in their statement, the past three years have made a greater change in the ratio of population in Colorado than the next fifteen years will. If this constitution is the choice of the people, they will say so when the election is held that you already provide for.

Besides, Mr. President, notwithstanding the vote on the Arkansas bill, I must be allowed to say that in my opinion the Legislature of a State is not the proper body to ratify and establish fundamental conditions. It is against the theory and the practice in the formation of State governments. In the older States, and in nearly all the new States, we have required the fundamental law of the State to be submitted to the people and not to a Legislature. Here you make important changes in the constitution of Colorado, changes that I agree to, that I am in favor of; but it ceases to be the same instrument, and the people have just as much right in their primary capacity to pass on those changes as upon any provision in the constitution. Now, when that is so easy, when it takes no more time than what you already provide for by this bill, as the bill provides for a general election, why not submit this constitution, together with these fundamental con

Mr. MORTON. I do not see that that bears any relevancy to this question. When a constitution is once formed and goes into operation it continues in operation in the State until it shall have been properly changed. But, sir, it is proposed now to force upon this State a constitution ratified, it is said, three years ago, which is a long time in the life of a Territory; and for the purpose of procuring the admission of Colorado we are told that from forty to fifty thousand people have gone there in the last three years; the Territory is growing rapidly in population; and yet this large body of people who have gone there since, have had no opportunity of expressing themselves on this question. There would be propriety from this consideration alone, if there were no other, in again submitting it. If the constitution had got every vote in Colorado in 1865, and a large population has gone there since, it ought to be submitted again in all propriety. Who can deny it? I again ask my friend from Nevada the question, if there is any doubt about a majority of the people|ditions, to the people? There can be but one being in favor of this constitution why do you hesitate a moment as to submitting it to the people? It makes no more delay than you are already proposing to make.

There is another consideration about this vote. I have the aggregate vote both for and against this constitution in 1865, and I believe it is fifty-eight hundred and ninety-five. How many votes were cast for it in 1865? I am told the majority for the constitution is only three hundred.

Mr. EDMUNDS. One hundred and fiftyfive is the exact number.

Mr. MORTON. One hundred and fifty-five; so that the constitution got less than three thousand votes in 1865. Think of it, sir; a constitution being fixed upon a Territory by less than three thousand votes, a fundamental law, especially when we are told that such a large population has gone in there since that

time!

I have not a particle of feeling on this subject. I should like to admit Colorado, if she were ready for it; and if the circumstances are proper I prefer to do it. I am not enlisted on either side of this question. But, sir, if things are right, I ask my friend what objection there is to submitting this constitution again, especially when it makes no more delay than you are already providing for by holding another election? Think of it; this constitution, having less than three thousand votes, is now to be imposed upon a Territory which, it is said, contains a population of from seventyfive to one hundred thousand. It does not look well. It looks as if there was something weak about this transaction in some quarter, and it could not stand the test of another election.

Now, Mr. President, one word in regard to

reason, in my judgment, for not doing it; and that is the expectation that it will be voted down.

Mr. YATES. I hardly understand the last remark of the Senator who has just taken his seat.

I can assure that Senator that so far as the committee were concerned the question whether the constitution will be voted up or voted down was not taken into consideration; and I am sure that not one member of the committee acted upon any such ground in the decision to which they came.

A plain statement of facts will sometimes do away with a great deal of mystery and remove apparent difficulties. Congress passed an enabling act in March, 1864. If there was any question as to the population of Colorado it was for Congress to determine it at that time. Whether there was population sufficient in Colorado to justify her admission as a State into the Union was a question decided by Congress at the time that enabling act was passed.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Allow me to make one suggestion to the Senator in regard to the point he is now on. The information that the Senate then had, as is shown by the debates, was the statement made by the chairman of the Committee on Territories at that time, the distinguished Senator now presiding over this body; and as I now recollect, the statement was that the population was then about sixty thousand, and was so rapidly increasing in that Territory that it would very soon be above one hundred thousand. That is my recollection of the statement, and I think the debates will show it. When this bill came up two years ago that same distinguished Senator said to the Senate that he was misinformed in regard to the popula tion; that it was not near as large as he had supposed, and that it had not increased as the

evidences before the committee at that time had induced him to believe it would increase.

Mr. YATES. As I said, that question was passed upon by Congress in the passage of the enabling act in March, 1864. It is true that when submitted to the people the constitution formed by the convention called under that act was rejected, and rejected by a very small majority, rejected by a party vote. I believe the facts will bear me out in that statement. The testimony before the committee and we have received several petitions on the subject, and a memorial from the territorial Legislature

is that after this rejection all parties came to the conclusion that it would be better to have a State organization, and the chairman of the executive committees of the respective political parties agreed to publish a call for a convention. That convention was held, and adopted a constitution. That constitution thus formed was submitted to the people without any opposition from any quarter whatever, and it was ratified by the popular vote.

This is a plain statement of the facts of the case, and is a complete answer to the argument both of the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from New York, and I ask now what sense or propriety there is in having this constitution submitted for the third time to the people of the Territory, especially when, I repeat, not one single objection from any quarter whatever has come from the Territory against the constitution itself. Why, then, require the people to decide upon that question again? That question is not in issue, I repeat. There were some minor questions, and there was some party opposition, and there was some personal opposition to the Senators who were elected taking their seats; but all difficulty on these points is removed by the amendments we have made; and I think that if we now leave it to the people there through their Legislature to decide in effect whether they will be admitted as a State into the Union upon the constitution as adopted, and ratify the constitutional amendment, and accept the conditions here provided, there can be nothing whatever unfair in it.

The Senator from Indiana makes a grave charge against the adoption of this constitution, that there were only six thousand votes polled, when it is a matter of fact, and a matter of record as, Senators will see, if they will examine the debates which have preceded this debate on this very question, that Kansas was admitted into the Union when only forty-six hundred votes were polled in favor of her constitution. Mr. EDMUNDS. Is that the general practice?

Mr. YATES. I do not say it is a good general practice; but I do not see why the Senators from the eastern States now, when we propose to admit another Territory as a State into the Union, should adopt a step-mother policy which they did not adopt in the case of Kansas and other Territories.

Mr. MORTON. Allow me to ask my friend from Illinois what objection there is to taking the vote of the people on the constitution at the same time that they are to elect a Legislature? It costs nothing.

Mr. YATES. I will state candidly that I have no sort of objection individually to that proposition; but the committee cannot see the propriety of having the constitution for the third time submitted to the people. The ques tion was not made before the committee; but some of the committee here now cannot see the propriety of having this constitution again submitted to the people. They think it an