Mr. JOHNSON. The motion made by the honorable member from Indiana is not to take u the bill now, except for the purpose of ugixing some day on which it shall be consid cred. He has proposed tomorrow. Perhaps that is too short a time, and as the friends of the bill ought to have, in some measure, the fixing of the time at which it is to be considered, I would suggest to them that they name some day when the matter shall be considered. I regretted very much to see the Senate a few days since refuse to take up the message; and I also regretted to see that treated as an intention by the Senate to act discourteously toward the Psident, and I still more regret ted to see it stated that that was considered to he the purpose of the honorable member from Maine and those who a eed with him at that time and who objecte to the consideration of the message. I certainly never supposed that the honorable member from Maine intended any such thing or was capable at an time of showing any discourtesyto any branc of the Government. As far as I am concerned his disclaimer was perfectly unnecessar and I amequally sure that the majority of the Senate could not have contemplated any such discourtesy to the President; but I submit to the friends of the bill for the admission of colorado whether it is not reer that some day should be fixed on which the subject may be considered. If tomorrow is too soon, say tomorrow week or this day week; we shall all then be notified of the time when the matter is to be called up and can all be at our posts to vote as we may think it our duty to vote. I will add that although so far no discourtesy has been designed to be shown to the POTUS, yet perhaps it would look a little discourteous, whether designed or not, if we should refuse to fix some day at which the question shall be considered. I appeal, therefore, to my friendfrom Ohioto name some day next week or this week on which he will agree to take the measure up. It is not my purpose, because the matter is not before the Senate, to answer one of the suggestions of the honorable member from Ohio, which would have been more proper, perhaps, if the bill were before Senate than simply on a motion to take it up, that this is the 1st time when a POTUS has vetoed a bill for the introduction of a State into the Union. That maybe true; but it is not the less true that he has the constitutional right to veto it; just as much right to veto a bill of that description as any other bill that the Congress of the U.S. may pass. The honorable member is mistaken in supposing, too, as he seems to suppose, that this measure comes before us by force of an enabling act. I do not understand that to be the condition of things. What the enabling act authorized the people of the Territory to do was to vote under certain restrictions and at certain times, and at the election held under the authority of that act they rejected the constitution by a majority of some 3 or 4000. But I conclude with asking the honorable member from Ohio, or the friends of this measure, whether it is not advisable, looking to the wishes of all the members of the senate, that some day should be set aside at which this measure should be considered.