Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President, I suppose that every consideration of propriety would be in favor of the Senate taking up the case of Colorado in preference to a bill relating to another proposed new State. I find by the record that the veto of the Colorado bill was sent to the Senate on the 16th of May last, and was made the special order for the 21st. Its consideration, however, went over during the whole of the remainder of the month of May, during the whole of the month of June, and during so much of the month of July as the Senate remained in session, down to the 28th. That measure remained unacted upon; it still remains among the files of the Senate, a subject undisposed of. Now, sir, I repeat that all considerations of propriety are in favor of taking up that measure and acting upon and determining it before we take up a new case and enter upon a new field of debate. It is true that this case of Nebraska was considered just before the adjournment. It came up suddenly and unexpectedly within 2 days of the adjournment. We were without full or complete information on the subject. Our Eaper.s were defective; our information was Under those circumstances we entered upon the consideration and debate of that question, and the bill passed, but it was not signed. There are, therefore, 2 undisposed of questions regarding the Organization of new States before the Senate, or liable to be brought before it. It appears strange indeed to me, and it will appear strange to others outside of our Chamber who observe our proceedings, that the Senfrom Ohio should now move to take up the more recent measure, the later question, in preference to the former one; and particularly when that older measure came back to us vetoed by the POTUS, thus imposing upon us in a peculiar manner the duty of its consideration. The Senfrom Ohio suggests that the case of Colorado was not acted upon at the last session, because he apprehended that if the judgment of the Senate were then pronounced upon the application it would be against it; at all events that it would fail of obtaining the requi site constitutional vote of 2/3rds. Mr. President, I think the mode of proceeding which seems to be favored by the Senfrom Ohio is one of very doubtful propriety, that a measure should be passed upon at one session of Congress and that at the next session it should be taken up by a single branch of the Government and d of. I believe we have a rule that a particular bill which passes the Senate or House at the 1st session of a Congress may be taken up at the next session, the year after, in the other House, voted upon and passed, so that in point of fact there may be no assent of both Houses at the same time to a measure. The assent of one House is given one year and of the other House and of the President the next year. There is thus no concurrent judgment of all the instrumentalities concerned in the enactment of a law in its passage: consent is given one year by one House and the next year by the other House and by the President. I think that practice, that rule, is open to much question. That, perhaps, ought to be debated hereafter and considered. It may happen in many cases that a bill may become a law, put upon your statute book, when one branch of the legislative dept is opposed to it at the time of its enactment, a thing which ought not to be permitted. But, sir, how much more objectionable would be such a course of proceeding as that now favored by the Senfrom Ohio, a course of proceeding for which he is responsible more than any other person to this Senate and to the country; and that is that a measure shall be considered by the President in the performance of his constitutional duties one year, and then that it shall be oup in the legislative dept another whole year, and in the interval to be the subject of popular consideration and of popular elections in the country, and then be passed upon at the next session by only one dept of the Government without any action of the President whatever, without hearing him upon the question at the time when it is to be finally.upon and disposed of. We cannot, however, change the course of action on that subject now. It has taken place. I only speak of this in order to express my objection against adopting this policy or course of action hereafter, jthe hope that we shall amend our course of conduct in this respect. I say, then, that these measures undisposed of are to be brought up, I presume, at this session for our consideration. I think the Senate ought to require, ought to demand of the Senfrom Ohio that he shall take these subjects in the order in which they were introduced, in the order in which they were considered at the former session. I agree that there is great force in the remark of the Senfrom Ohio, that those persons who are here claiming membership in our body are reason ably entitled to have their case heard and determined. It was a reasonable claim any day at the last session after this veto was sent to us; I believe it is a reasonable claim at this time, and I for one am ready to vote to take up these cases in their proper and natural order, in a reasonable manner, and act upon them; and if the Senfrom Ohio is able to obtain his 2/3rds vote against my opinion let him have it; but every consideration demands promptaction. At present, however, I shall vote against taking up the Nebraska bill because I think that the other measure ought to have prece dence, and that we ought to insist on its consideration 1st.