Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, Ipropose to says. few words upon the pendingquestion. Several objections are made to the a mission of Colorado, and the chief one seems to be thatitdoes not contain the requisite population to entitle it to become a State in the Union. I have to say as to that objection, that there is no provision of the Constitution, no law of Congress, and no precedents in our history that require a Territory to contain any articular number of inhabitants to be qualitiiad for admission into the Union. Territories have been admitted as new States with populations varying from 30,000 to 200,000; and no rule, therefore, has been established upon the subject; but each application has been decided upon its individual merits, and according to the circumstances under which it was made. Florida was admitted with a population of about 30,000 white people. Ar ansas was admitted with about the sanie) population of white people. Oregon, at the time of its admission as a State, did not contain more than 40,000 or 50,000 inhabitants; and so from the formation of the Government up to this time Territories have been admitted without respect to numbers, and the question of population has been subordinated to other questions that have concerned the admission of the Territory. To insist that Colorado under existing circumstances, should be admitted as a State, is not to controvert any principle established by the founders of this government. When the Union was formed, the State of NewYork contained 8 or 10 times the population contained in the State of Rhode lslan; Pennsylvania contained 8 or 10 times the population of the State of Delaware; butt ose small States were allowed equal suffrage in the Senate with the large States, and their proportionate power was preserved in the HoRep; and it is still preserved; and if Colorado shall be admitted, NewYork will have her 31 Representatives in the lower branch of Congress while Colorado will have but one. Mr. President, I am almost persuaded that I seein thesearguments thatare urged against the admission of Colorado as a State, the shadow at least of that doctrine which has so long distracted the country and has finally develoed itself in a protracted and bloody civilWar. by jection is made to the admission of Colorado because it is not as large in population as the State of NewYork, or the State of Pennsylvania, or some other States of the Union, as suming that there must necessarily be some antagonism between the State of Colorado and the State of NewYork and other States, in consequence of which there is a necessity of preserving in the Senate the relative power possessed at this time by the State of NewYork, the State of Pennsylvania, or the State of Massachusetts. State power, State pride, State jealousy, State rights are more than intimated in this argument which is urged here against the admission of Colorado. Senators say in effect, will not the admission of Colorado, allowing her to have 2 Senators upon this floor, impair the Sta“ pewer of the State of NewYork I I have. it heard the Senators from that State make the suggestion, but for that State it is suggested that she would be wroned if Colorado with her population should be admitted as a State into the Union. No doubt that the local interests of Colorado may need the immediate and exclusive attention of the Senators who may represent her upon this floor; but I undertake to say that in 99 cases out of 100 of general legislation, tending to the prosperity, greatness, and glory of this nation, Colorado would have the some interest as the State of NewYork; and there is therefore no necessary conflict or antagonism between the 2 States. Sir, look at this subject in another point of view. Take that vast territory lying west of Iowa, of Arkansas, of Kansas, stretchin from Mexico to British America, a distance O more than 2000 miles, spreading westward to the Pacific ocean, boundless and inexhaust ible in all the elements and resources of national power and greatness and glory; that vast domain, with all its great future, at this time has only 6 Senators in congress and 5 Representatives and now, when it is proposed to admit 2 more Senators and another representative from that vast region, a great on is made as though it was an effort to introduce into the councils of the nation some dangerous and foreign element of power. Mr. President, who are these people in coloradopthat are asking for admission as aState? Are they strangers, aliens, foreigners? Are they not our own no uaintance s, our relatives, our friends? Did the not go out from the homes of NewEnglan and the middle States, carrying with them an undying attachment to the places of their nativity, to make new homes in this distant Territory? Are not these the persons who are asking for recognition here as a State? What good reason can be given I ask, if these people are willing to assume the burdens and responsibilities of a State, wh the should not be permitted to do so? I as if the agricultural interests of the State of Ohio will be prejudiced by the admission of Colorado as a State? Will the manufacturing interests of the State of Massachusetts be prejudiced by the admission of Colorado? Will the commercial interests of NewYork be prejudiced by the adoption of this bill? Are not the people of that Territory as patriotic as any other people? Will they not cooperate with us in building up the national power? Is there anything in the circumstances or population of that Territory that should make the Senators from NewYork afraid to associate here with the Senators from Colorado? I Can any Senator show any way in which any Eyejudice will be worked to any portion of the U.S. by the admission of Colorado as aState? The interests of this Territor will be promoted by this change, as the people believe, and as I have no doubt; and when any step is taken to promote the interests of colorado or any other one of these western States or Territories it is a step which promotes the interests of all the States and all the Territories, for their interests are identical; they are bound up together in the same common destiny, and equally concerned in everything that relates to the welfare of our common country. Objection is made by the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] to the admission of Colorado because the people have not formed a State constitution in conformity with his wishes. I suppose that the theory which has been recognized, and will now be recognized, is, that the people of a Territory have a right to make their own constitution. If the doctrine which is advocated by the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts be the correct doctrine, then it is unnecessary to pass any enablin act, but the most direct way would be for congress to make a constitution submit it to the people, ahd say to them, “Take this or take nothing.” The argument is that this constitution does not correspond with the wishes of members of Congress, and therefore ought not to be accepted. Objection is made by the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts that this constitution excludes black persons from the right of suffrage; but I desire to call the attention of that honorable. Senator to the effect of his argument and his position. Here are 25 or 30,000 white American citizens of the U.S. living in the Territory of colorado; they come to Congress and say, “We haveno choice in the selection of the men who govern us; we have no representation in congress; we have no voice as to who shall be the Chief Magistrate of the nation; we do not enjoy the fights and privileges of American citizenship under this territorial organization; and we as Congress to consent to a change, so that we may resume those rights and privileges of which we have been deprived by iving under a territorial government, " an the honor able Senator meets these 25 or 30,000 white peopleof that country with the objection that they shall not have these rights and privileges because they have seen properb their constitution to exclude a few dozen of blocks from the right of suffragel Now, sir, when a proposition was before the Senate of the U.S. to organize the Territory of Idaho, I remember that the honorable chairman of the ComTerritor, in discussin that question, said it was a matter of very litt econsequence asto whether the organic act did or did not exclude black persons from the right of suffrage, because there were no black persons there upo whom such a provision could take effect, an it was, therefore, a mere abstraction; audit is so substantially in reference to Colorado. it is more of an abstraction than anything else, and the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts persists in this. objection more to advocate a certain theory than to produce any practical results. If Congress is bound upon this occasion to determine whether the 30,000 white people of the State of Colorado shall have the right of suffrage, or whether 75 or 100 black men shall have that right and that is the question presented I aski it is not wise and just on our part to extend to these 1,000s of white men the right of suffrage and their privileges as American citizens rather than to deny them those rights and privileges for the supposed necessity o providing simi ar rights an privileges for a and ful of black people. Sir, the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts, I remember delivered an elaborate and an eloquent s cech here, not many days ago, in which he proc aimed in learned words and thundering sound the doctrine that taxation without representation wns tyranny. The 25 or 30,000 white people of the Territory of Colorado are taxed like the citizens of Massachusetts, and they hgve paid within the last year more income tax and more revenue tax than some of the States of this Union; and yet those people have no representation whatever in the government which imposes these taxes. Itake u what the honorable senator then said;I app y it to this case; I answer his argument with it, and I say that taxation without representation is tyranny. I suggest to the honorable Senator that he on ht not to be severe upon the people of colorado because they adopted a constitution in this form, for I will remind him that on the 3d of March, 1863, he voted, without question or objection, to organize the lerritor of Idaho with an exclusion of black people there from the right of suffrage. I do not advert to this circumstance to show the inconsistency of the honorable Senator, for I acknowledge that the opinions of men everywhere have under gone great changes on this subject, but I do it simply to show that he ought not to be too harsh upon the people of Colorado because they thought in 1865just as he thought in 1863. They live in a distant Territory; they live under the shadows of great mountains; they have no immediate communication with the States of the Atlantic slope; and it cannot be expected that they would change their opinions as suddenly as the honorable Senator may, who lives in the full blaze of the intellectual do that fills the State of Massachusetts. {loreoven I say that the people of Colorado Ought not to be censured because they put this provision in their constitution; for, at the same session at which their enabling act was passed, and about the same time, the question arose in Congress as to whether or not the act organizing the Territor of Montana should or should not exclude blachs from the right of suffrage, and after a long discussion and due deliberation, the Congress of the U.S., at that time overwhelmingly republican, determined that the act organizing the Territory of Montana should exclude blacks from the right of suffrage. In 1864 the Congress of the U.S. decided that the organic act of a Territory should exclude black men from the right of suffrage; and can Congress now, with any consistencyI turn around and condemn the people of Colorado because they, about the same time, decided in the same we? Had they not good reason to suppose that is decis ion, under the precedents and under the circumstances, would be entirely acceptable to Congress? I would prefer this constitution if it did not exclude any class of persons from the right of suffrage; but it does not follow that they will be perpetually excluded if we adopt this constitution. I cannot concur in what the honor able Senfrom Wisconsin [Mr. DOOLITTLE] has said, that the time will never come when the States will adopt negro suffrage. I believe that the day is not far distant when the Constitution of the U.S. will be so chaned as to entitle men of all classes, without istinction of race or color, to enjoy the elective franchise.