him as United States Senator for six years from the 4th of March, 1865, and thereby the matter is concluded."

The amendment was then adopted, and the resolution as amended was agreed to by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Fessenden, Grimes, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Riddle, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Wade, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-23.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Guthrie, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Morgan, Nesmith, Norton, Poland, Saulsbury, Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Willey--20.

ABSENT--Messrs. Dixon, Foot, Foster, Morrill, Stewart, Stockton, and Wright-7.

On March 29th Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, said: "I move that the Secretary of the Senate be directed to communicate to the Governor of New Jersey a copy of the resolution in reference to the seat of Mr. Stockton." The motion was agreed to.

In the Senate, on July 11th, Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, moved to consider a bill to regulate the time and manner of holding elections for Senators in Congress. Mr. Clark thus explained the bill: "The object of this bill is to secure uniformity in the manner of electing Senators of the United States, that we may avoid the questions and differences that have sometimes existed. The bill provides that the Legislature chosen next preceding the expiration of a senatorial term, shall, on the second Tuesday of its session, each House by itself, vote for some person to represent the State in the Senate by viva voce vote, and shall enter upon the records the name of the person who shall have a majority in each House. On the next day of the session the two Houses are to assemble in joint convention, and if it be found that the same person has been chosen by the two Houses he is then the Senator; but if the two Houses have not selected the same person by the vote of each House, then the two Houses, in joint convention, are to proceed to ballot for a Senator, and to continue so to do until they have chosen. It provides first for an attempt to elect by a concurrent vote of the two Houses; and if the two Houses fail to do it, then they meet the next day in joint convention, and by joint ballot elect. I think this statement embraces the provisions of the bill. Its object is to secure uniformity in the election of Senators in all the States. It has been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary." A debate ensued on the necessity of the measure, when, after some verbal amendments, it passed the Senate by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Clark, Conness, Cragin, Edmunds, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harris, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Morgan, Morrill, Nesmith, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, and Williams-25. NAYS--Messrs. Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Guthrie,

Henderson, Norton, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, and Van Winkle-11.

ABSENT-Messrs. Brown, Buckalew, Chandler, Creswell, Dixon, Hendricks, Kirkwood, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Ramsey, Wilson, Wright, and Yates-13.

It was taken up in the House on July 24th, and passed without amendment-yeas 78, nays not counted.

In the Senate, on March 12th, a bill for the admission of Colorado as a State in the Union, was considered. A protest was presented against the admission; and a reply to the protest, by the representatives of the State. The following extract from the latter will explain both documents:

Your memorialists having been chosen to repre been requested by their State Legislature-elect to sent the people of Colorado in Congress, and having present their application for the admission of the State into the Union, respectfully represent:

That the people of Colorado desire said admission in accordance with the provisions of the enabling act of Congress, approved March 21, 1864, as is provided in Senate bill No. 74, now pending.

That the protest presented to your honorable body against such admission, purporting to be from colored citizens of Colorado, is without signatures, the names being printed thereon. And your memorialists have satisfactory assurances that many of said names were thus used without the knowledge or consent of the parties, and that they have expressed dissatisfaction therewith. And further, that the leading man among them regrets his inconsiderate action, and has since expressed in writing a desire for the admission of the State notwithstanding his protest. Your memorialists would further call your attention to the fact that this petition makes several misrepresentations in its statements. It represents that the framing and adoption of the Constitution were "accomplished by the utmost recklessness and disregard of law, and in many cases by actual fraud." The truth is, the convention that framed the constitution was composed of a large body of the best men in the Territory. Its deliberations were conducted in good order, with care and marked ability; This is shown by its journal of proceedings challenged universal approbation, excepting the and the admirable constitution it adopted, which has franchise clause, on account of its retaining the word "white" in its qualifications. The elections were held and conducted in compliance with the laws regulating elections in the Territory by an ordinance by fraud, the vote on the constitution was universally received as a fair verdict, and all parties yielded a ready assent to it. They all acted in good faith in After the vote on its adoption was known, the electhe subsequent proceedings under the constitution. tions for member of Congress, State officers, and members of the Legislature, were participated in by all parties, in all parts of the Territory, in good faith,

of the convention. Instead of having been carried

proving a hearty assent to the adoption of the con

stitution. And the Legislature-elect met to choose United States Senators, as provided for by ordinance, every member being present and participating in its proceedings.

And further, it is not true, as the language of the protest implies, that there is any thing in the constitution excluding colored children from public schools. Nor is there any thing in its provisions restricting the colored man from the full enjoyment of all the immunities, rights, and privileges of white men, excepting the privileges of the elective franchise; and for this, and all of its provisions, the constitution provides a ready mode of amendment.

Mr Sumner, of Massachusetts, in opposition to the bill, said: "It seems to me that there are three distinct objections at this moment to the admission of Colorado as a State, and I will speak of them in their order: first, the irregularity of the proceedings which have ended in the seeming adoption of the constitution presented to us; second, the small number of people constituting the population of that Territory, not being sufficient, as I submit, to justify us in investing it with all the great prerogatives of a State; and in the third place, it does not come before us now according to the requirements of the enabling act, with a constitution republican in form and consistent with the Declaration of Independence."

Relative to the third objection, he further said: "The requirement of this very enabling act under which they have pretended to proceed, but which, as I have shown, was already exhausted before they entered upon these proceedings, is as follows:

That the constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

"Now, what is the constitution? Article three, entitled 'Suffrage and Elections,' begins as follows:

Sec. 1.-Every white male citizen of the age of twenty-one years and upward, who is by birth, or has become by naturalization or by treaty, or shall have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States according to the laws thereof, and who shall have resided in the State of Colorado for six months preceding any election, and shall have been a resident for ten days of the precinct or election district where he offers to vote, shall be deemed a qualified elector and entitled to vote at the same. "There you have the requirement, every white male citizen;' in other words, nobody who is not 'white' under this constitution is recognized as entitled to the elective franchise. Now, sir, I insist, and on that head I challenge a reply from any Senator on this floor, that such a constitution does not comply with the requirement, that it is not republican, and that it is repugnant to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

Again, sir, I submit that at this moment, when the whole country is agitated by the great question, what shall be done for the protection of the colored race, to what extent we shall exercise the high powers of Congress in order to carry that protection into the rebel States, it will hardly be decent for us in reviewing the constitution of a new State not to apply to it the highest possible test. It will not do for us now to recognize this constitution of Colorado as republican in form. We owe it to ourselves to set an example and to require that in a State now organized under our influence a good example shall prevail. How many of us heard with regret the result last autumn in Connecticut, and again in Wisconsin, by which suffrage to the colored race was denied! We felt that by those two votes liberty had suffered, that an

enfranchised race was placed in jeopardy, that its rights were dishonored by those who ought to have upheld them; and now, sir, you have cast upon you in this chamber that same identical responsibility."

Mr. Sumner then offered the following amendment:

Insert at the end of the second section the follow

ing proviso:

Provided, That this act shall not take effect except upon the fundamental condition that within the State

there shall be no denial of the elective franchise or all persons shall be equal before the law; and the of any other rights, on account of color or race, but people of the Territory shall by a majority of the voters, at public meetings to be convened by the Gorernor of the Territory, declare their assent to this fundamental condition, and the Governor shall transmit to the President of the United States an authentic statement of such assent, whenever the same shall be given, upon receipt whereof he shall by proclamation announce the fact, whereupon without any other proceedings on the part of Congress this

act shall take effect.

Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, in reply, said: "The construction of the Constitution from the earliest time down has left that matter to the States. Whether they allow negroes to vote or not, is a matter for themselves, and their action either way is not in conflict with the Constitation of the United States. We have no right to make a constitution for a State. If their constitution has in it any thing in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, we can say to them, 'you must agree not to enforce it;' but we are not here to make a constitution for the State of Colorado. We are here with power to restrain her from violating the Constitution of the United States, and that is all. If you can make this part of the constitution of Colorado, you can make an entire constitution for her. If you can say she shall come into the Union on an equal footing with the other States, provided she shall not have the power to regu late the question of suffrage as the other States have, you can say she shall come in on an equal footing, provided she would pass some other favorite law of yours, and you could carry it through and make her come in with a constitution made for her by you. I think this would be a very dangerous precedent for the Congress of the United States to set. It would be making constitutions for the States by the Congress of the United States."

Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, said: "In reference to their want of population, all I can say is, that they proximate toward and are in the neighborhood, at any rate, of that number of population that we have always required. No specific number has ever been required. These people are now regularly organized. All parties in the Territory acquiesce in the State gov• ernment. There is no party there, as far as I can learn, hostile to it. I know I have just received a letter from Judge Wilcox, a distin guished citizen who went there from my own State, in which he says there is not a public man there, unless he holds an office under the

territorial government, opposed to it. I presume no question will be raised here as to the loyalty of the people of Colorado, because they volunteered largely, they helped us through the war, and they have sent here two of the most loyal, consistent, and earnest Republicans (if that is any test of loyalty) that they have in the Territory,"

Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, said: "I shall occupy the attention of the Senate but a moment. I wish simply to say that if I could vote for the admission of Colorado under the circumstances, I should do so with great pleasare; because I find one fact connected with the history and character of that people that commends itself to my most favorable consideration. I find that there are at least eight or nine sensible men in that Territory to one of a contrary character; because when the proposition to allow negro suffrage was submitted to the people of that Territory, there were 4,192, according to the statement laid on our tables, opposed to it, and only 476 lunatics in the whole Territory in favor of it. That is a fact that commends itself to my most favorable consideration; and had Colorado, in my judgment, a sufficient number of inhabitants to be entitled to admission into the Union, I would most cheerfully vote for her admission, because I think she has presented in this vote the evidence of the good sense of her people."

Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, in opposition, said: "It appears that a census was taken in 1861, when there was a total population in Colorado of 25,329. Of these, the adult males were 18,233: minors, 2,622; and females, 4,484. In all the Territories there is a large preponderance of adult males, and especially is that so of Colorado; and although I am told by my fellowcitizens of Iowa who are in the habit of going to Montana, soine of them almost monthly, that there has been a considerable increase of females in that Territory, yet there is a very large preponderance of adult males there yet. In 1961, when that enumeration was made, there was a vote taken, and the correct aggregate vote was 10,580. Out of a population of 25,829 there were 10,850 voters. In 1862 there was another election. What was the number of voters then? Eight thousand two hundred and twenty-four.

"In 1864, the vote of Colorado was 5,769. On the adoption of the constitution on the 12th of September, 1864, the total vote was 6,192. They had at that time a very exciting election. I was in correspondence with some of the gentlemen who were interested in that election. Every effort was made to bring out every possible voter that could be found within the limits of the Territory, and I suppose they were all brought out; and the total vote polled was 6,192. Now, just examine and see, if you please, what relation 6,192 voters bear to the total population of the State if the same ratio still exists between males and females as existed in 1861. Why, sir, you have got a population

of somewhere in the neighborhood of from twelve to fifteen thousand, not more.

"Then, again, on the 5th of September, 1865, there was another exciting election on the ques tion of the adoption of a State constitution, and what was the result then? The total vote was 5,895, less than in 1864, and the majority in favor of the adoption of the State constitution was only 155. Now it is seriously proposed here that we shall admit a State into this Union which, in an exciting election over the question whether she shall come in at all or not, when all the office-seekers who expect to be Senators and Representatives and Judges and Governors are arrayed on one side and are using all their influence to bring men to the polls, and when the tax-payers, who were conscious that they are to be oppressed with the burdens of taxation if they come into the Union, are arrayed on the other side, can only poll 5,895 votes, and that a mining State where there is a vast preponderance of males over females! I confess that it strikes me as the sublimity of impudence for the State to come here and ask to be admitted into the Union and be entitled to the same power and influence in this body as the State of Ohio or New York or Pennsylvania."

Mr. Lane, of Kansas, said: "Would the Senator have voted for the admission of Kansas with 4,600 voters, with the knowledge that that constitution not only confined suffrage to the whites, but actually excluded blacks from the State? The same day that the people of Kansas voted for the constitution confining suffrage to the whites, they voted, by a vote of 4,000 to 400, to exclude blacks from the State; and the Senator from Massachusetts, and every Republican in both branches of Congress, indorsed that constitution, and the Republican party throughout the Union indorsed it."

Mr. Wade, of Ohio, in explanation, said: "I ought to say, in justice to the committee that passed this enabling act two years ago, that the proof before us then convinced us that some very rich mines had lately been discovered in Colorado; that there was great excitement all over the country on the subject, and that people were flocking in there from all parts of the United States as they did in California when the precious metals were first discovered there; and we were assured by those who ought to know, that by the time we should get this State into the Union there would be the usual number of people there that Territories had ordinarily at the time of their admission; for as far as I know we have not been very particular as to the exact number of people that should be sufficient to constitute a State. The old rule was (and it was a very good and intelligible one), that there ought to be about as many as would furnish a Representative, whatever the ratio of apportionment should be at the time. That is a kind of gauge, but then that is departed from frequently, according to circumstances. If it is a State that is not fill

ing up very fast, and there is no reason to suppose that a large population will go into the Territory, that is a reason why we should require more when they are admitted; for certainly, in order to admit a State into the Union, there should be some criterion as to population.

"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 constitution, I have but one word to say. In my judgment 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 heretofore 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 suffrage 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 contending 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: "Now, 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 authorized them to hold a convention, form a constitution, 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 accomplished; 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 people of Colorado, and that it does come before

us substantially as a new and original proposition for us to consider whether in our opinion 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."

Mr. Sumner withdrew his amendment.

Mr. Williams, of Oregon, said: "I shall vote for this bill expressly on the ground that Congress has passed an enabling act authorizing the people of this Territory to form a State constitution. I know it has been said here, and there is force in the statement, that the enabling act has exhausted itself, and that the people had no right to proceed to form a State constitution not in accordance with the provisions of that act; but the main objection made to the passage of this bill is that the population of the Territory is insufficient. That, sir, was a legitimate argument to urge against the passage of the enabling act; and that argument was then adduced, or ought to have been adduced, to show that Congress should not authorize the people of the Territory to form a State constitution. But Congress at that time determined that question. Congress then decided 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 admission, they ought not to be met and defeated upon the ground that the population of the Territory is not sufficient to authorize the formation 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, Trumbull, and Williams-14.

vis, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Guthrie, NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Conness, Creswell, DaHarris, 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 admission, 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

refrain from making such a distinction; when we imposed no conditions on them; when we did not suggest any. After this course of legisla

tion it seems to me too late now to raise a question upon that point."

A debate, extending through several days, took place on this motion to reconsider. The vote was finally taken on April 25th, and resulted in yeas 19, nays 13. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed, read a third time and passed, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, and Wil

SOD-19.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Foster, Grimes, Guthrie, Hendricks, McDougall, Morgan, Poland, Riddle, and Sumner-13. ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Cowan, Dixon, Fessenden, Harris, Henderson, Johnson, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Nesmith, Norton, Saulsbury, Wade, Williams, Wright, and Yates-17.

In the House, on the same day, it was passed without debate, by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Ames, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Banks, Barker, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Blow, Brandagee, Bromwell, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clark, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cullom, Defrees, Deming, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Grinnell, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Henderson, Holmes, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Kasson, Kelso, Ketcham, Laflin, Latham, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Marston, McClurg, McKee, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Moulton, Myers, O'Neill, Orth, Patterson, Plants, Alexander H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Shellabarger, Smith, Spalding, Francis Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Warner, Welker, Whaley, and Williams-81.

NATS-Messrs. Allison, Alley, Ancona, Baxter, Bergen, Blaine, Boutwell, Boyer, Broomall, Chanler, Coffroth, Darling, Dawson, Denison, Eldridge, Eliot, Finck, Glossbrenner, Grider, Griswold, Aaron Harding, Harris, Higby, James Humphrey, Julian, Kelley, Kuykendall, Le Blond, Lynch, Marshall, McCullough, MeRuer, Morrill, Morris, Newell, Niblack, Paine, Perham, Pike, Raymond, John H. Rice, Ritter, Ross, Bousseau, Shanklin, Stevens, Stillwell, Strouse, Taylor, Thornton, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, James F. Wilson, Windom, Winfield, Woodbridge, and Wright-57.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Baldwin, Cook, Culver, Davis, Dawes, Delano, Eggleston, Farnsworth, Goodper, Hale, Hayes, Hill, Hogan, Hooper, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Edward N. Hubbell, Hulbard, James M. Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Marvin, McIndoe, Nicholson, Noell, Phelps, Pomeny, Price, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Rogers, Schofield, Sitgreaves, Sloan, Starr, Tabor, Thayer, John L. Thomas, Trimble, Ward, William B. Washburn, Wentworth, and Stephen F. Wilson-45.

On May 16th the President returned the bill to the Senate, with his objections, as follows: To the Senate of the United States:

I return to the Senate, in which it originated, the bill which has passed both Houses of Congress, entitled "An act for the admission of the State of Colorado into the Union," with my objections to it becoming a law at this time.

1. From the best information which I have been

able to obtain, I do not consider the establishment of a State government at present necessary for the ing territorial government all the rights, privileges, welfare of the people of Colorado. Under the existand interests of the citizens are protected and secured. The qualified voters choose their own legislators and their own local officers, and are represented in Congress by a Delegate of their own selection. They make and execute their own municipal laws, subject only to revision of Congress-an authority not likely to be exercised, unless in extreme or extraordinary cases. The population is small, some estimating it so low as twenty-five thousand, while advocates of the bill reckon the number at from thirty-five thousand to forty thousand souls. The people are princi pally recent settlers, many of whom are understood to be ready for removal to other mining districts beyond the limits of the Territory if circumstances shall render them more inviting. Such a population cannot but find relief from excessive taxation if the Territorial system, which devolves the expense of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments upon the United States, is for the present continued. They cannot but find the security of person and property increased by their reliance upon the national executive power for the maintenance of law and order against the disturbances necessarily incident to all newly-organized communities.

2. It is not satisfactorily established that a majority of the citizens of Colorado desire or are prepared for an exchange of a territorial for a State gov ernment. In September, 1864, under the authority of Congress, an election was lawfully appointed and held for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the people upon that particular question. Six thousand one hundred and ninety-two votes were cast, and of this number a majority of 3,152 was given against the proposed change. In September, 1865, without any legal authority, the question was again presented to the people of the Territory with the view of obtaining a reconsideration of the result of the election held in compliance with the act of Congress, approved March 21, 1864. At this second election 5,905 votes were polled, and a majority of 155 was given in favor of State organization. It does not seem to me entirely safe to receive this last-mentioned result, so irregularly obtained, as sufficient to outweigh the one which had been legally obtained in the first election. Regularity and conformity to law are essential to the preservation of order and stable government, and should, as far as practicable, always be observed in the formation of new States.

3. The admission of Colorado at this time as a State into the Federal Union appears to me to be incompatible with the public interests of the country. While it is desired that Territories sufficiently matured should be organized as States, yet the spirit of the Constitution seems to require that there should be an approximation toward equality among the several States comprising the Union. No State can have more than two Senators in Congress; the largest State has a population of four millions, several of the States have a population exceeding two millions, and many others have a population exceeding one million.

A population of one hundred and twenty-seven thousand is the ratio of apportionment of Representatives among the several States. If this bill should become a law, the people of Colorado, thirty thou sand in number, would have in the House of Representatives one member, while New York with a population of four millions, has but thirty-one. Colorado would have in the electoral college three votes, while New York has only thirty-three. Colorado would have in the State two votes, while New York has no more.

Inequalities of this character have already occurred, but it is believed that none have happened where the inequality was so great. When such inequality has been allowed, Congress is supposed to