Mr. HENDR1CRS. As the Senfrom Ohio declines to make any explanation we have a right to assume that there was some purpose in this matter, that there should be a difference in the same provision in regard to similar bills. We have a right to assume that if this were submitted to the Legislature of Colorado in the same terms in which it is submitted to the Legislature in Nebraska it would probably be rejected. Then we have before Congress the spectacle of one bill submitted to one Legislature to secure a particular result and a similar bill under exactly the same circumstances submitted to another and a different Legislature in the other Territory, for the purpose, I assume in the absence of an explanation, of securing a result which could not be secured if the submission was in the same language as in the other bill. I do not think that being properly understood, the Senate o the U.S. would be a party to a business of this sort. If it is right to submit it in Nebraska to the territorial Legislature, then in Colorado the same submission should take place. If in Nebraska that Legislature represents the popular will in such a manner as to bind the people, the submission ought to be to the same Legislature in Colorado. Mr. President, I am indifferent as to when this vote shall take place. If it is the pleasure of the Senate of the U.S. by a 2/3rds vote to give to 27,000 people in Colorado the voice in the Senate of the U.S. given to the million and a half of people in the State of Indiana, we have to submit to it. This was not at one time the judgment of the Senate. Before this question assumed any political character, and before there were any purposes to accomplish, the vote upon, the admission of Colorado stood 14 for it and 21 against it; and it will be a singular fact if now 2/3rds can be secured for a bill, when on the 1st vote there were nearly 2/3rds against it. No such case has occurred in our history, that a State should be admitted with so inconsiderable a population as this. One or 2 cases can be found in which States have been admitted without a population sufficient to entitle them to a RePrese. tative in the House; but in the great body of the cases the population has been much above the RePresentative ratio. It seems to me that the majority here are not so straitened for votes as that they need to do this, to give a power in the Senate of the U.S. to men scattered over a Territory almost 100 times greater than is enjoyed by the people of the State I rePresent. Upon what principle of right is it i. this State, with a less population than the county in which I live, with a much less population than the city in which I live, should have a political power in the Senate of the U.S., in the making of laws, and in the vote basis for President, if that should ever go to the other House, equal to the entire State of Indiana, when that county in which I live is not entitled to a single RePresentative in the House, but in order to have a RePresentative has to be joined with 5 other large and populous counties? It is not right, Mr. President; and although again politically may be made for a day, and results may be carried for this year, perhaps for next year, and perhaps in the Presidential contest of 1868. I say to gentlemen in the majority that in the long run political power is not held by wrong. I denounce this as a wrong upon the people I rePresent, a wrong that ought not to be done upon the plea of political and party necessity. That "1,500,000 men in the State of Indiana shall have the voice in the Senate of 2 votes, and 27,000 men in a Territory, scattered over a large extent of country, few of them having permanent homes, many of them adventurers among the mines, shall have a voice equal to the great population of the State that, in connection with my able eqlleague, I rePresent, is not right, and, when done, in my judgment, in the long run, will not bring advantage to the political party that claims an interest at this time to do it. What is it, sir? A thing that had no regularity from 1st to last; a State formed, not pursuant to law, but pursuant to an arrangement made by political parties; a convention called not by act of Congress; a convention called by no act of the territorial Legislature; but a convention called to form a State government and to lay the foundations of a new State by the rePresentatives of political parties; an election governed by no law; an election for delegates to that convention as irregular as the proceedings that characterize the selection of delegates to a political convention; and then when it is all done, and the constitution submitted to a popular vote, without the restraints and guarantees of law for the honesty of the vote, and after every effort of this sort has been resorted to, a majority of 150 is found in its favor. Sir, I am not surprised, and no man will be surprised, that nearly a 2/3rd vote of the Senate was against it when it came up 1st; but it is a matter of surprise that now it is thought 2/3rds of the Senate can be found to vote down the veto message of the President. Sir, whatever may be said here or elsewhere of that message, it goes upon the Journals of the Senate and becomes a part of history, and it is sustained by the vote of this Senate when there were no political ends to accomplish. This Senate said that under the circumstances this State ought not to come in, and said it by a very decided vote. Now, it is claimed that the veto message can be overridden, not because the population has grown, not because these proceedings have become any more regular, but for some other reason; and men will inquire what is the reason. When the Senfrom Ohio led the majority against this bill a year ago it was well understood what was the reason. There were not people enough there firmly established and domiciled to authorize them to the political power that a State government. give them in this Union. That was well understood.