Mr. WADE. I do not like to be skirmishing on the outside of this question any longer; but as gentlemen endeavor to put me in a position inconsistent with myself, and might, perhaps, make an impression on the Senate that my course in regard to these bills needed some explanation, i shall be o: pardoned for again tres on the Senate. To gentlemen who have been in the Senate all the while, any explanation from me is unnecessary. W. expect that certain gentlemen will resort to all the subter fuges that legislation permits to stave off and get rid of a measure the political bearings of which they do not like. That is natural enough; and I make no objection to it; but who ever before heard that a Senator at the head of a committee having 2 or 3 propositions in charge had not the right to bring them forward in the order that the committee directed, or if they did not direct him, in the order that his own judgment might dictate? Why is it that gentlemen on the other side insist that one of these propositions has the right of priority over the other? They are against both, I understand. So far as their votes are concerned, it will make no difference what is the order in which the measures are considered. A word now as to the course of proceeding at the last session on the Colorado bill. The Senfrom Indiana says that I was inconsistent with myself; for I 1st made an argument against the admission of Colorado, and afterward voted for it. That is true; I did speak against it at 1st, because upon the data that I had in my possession at that time I did not think it was proper that she should be admitted. The question was comparatively a new one, and we had not very much light on the subject. On further consideration, and after new light had been presented, I became satisfied that the course which I had taken was wrong, and that Colorado was really entitled to admission as a State. I gave my reasons for both of these opinions, and the gentleman was perfectly at oto take the one that he thought the most of.I suppose he thought my 1st argument was the best; or at any rate, the light which I thought sufficient to convince me that I ought to change, did not convince him. But was there anything wrong on my part? When the facts and circumstances which came before me convinced me that I had acted without sufficient light, and on further consideration it became apparent to me, at all events, that this Territory was sufficient in inhabitants, that she had all the elements of self government, and ought to be admitted into the Union as a State upon the same principle that all other Territories had been since fia. been in the Senate, I ask if I was guilty of any wrong? There is not a single principle which has been presented in argument against the admission of Colorado and Nebraska as States now, that might not have been urged against almost every other Territory that has been admitted as a State since I have had a seat in this body. I believe now that with the light I had ori ginally my 1st argument was right; and I think also that on the further light I received my 2nd position was also right. That is my judgment, but it is not the judgment of the Senfrom Indiana. But the Senator says that after the veto message of the Colorado bill came in it was not immediately taken up. Well, sir, the explanation is very simple. The strength to carry my side of the question did not seem to be here; I did not think there would be a fair trial then. Now, my rule is this: I will never be for a measure unless I think it is right; but even when I believe a measure is right I shall not urge it when in my judgment it is apparent that the Senate is not in a condition to give my side a fair hearing. If that doctrine is wrong, I am wrong. I would move today to postpone this bill, which I am zealously in favor of, if I believed that we could not consider it to as much advantage now as we could a week hence. If there is a anything wrong in that course of action, I am willing to submit to correction. But, sir, let me say to the Senfrom Indiana that I do not propose to take up the veto message at all, because new light has come before our eyes showing the propriety of the admission of Colorado, and showing it as I believe, to the POTUS so that, on the presentation of a new bill, he will be very glad to let it pass without his veto. I have no doubt of it. I do not know that it is so; I express no opinion on that point; but I know that if the President shall object to the admission of Colorado into the Union today, upon the facts and circumstances which will be presented, he will do that which no other President has ever done. I do not believe that he will do it. I believe that if you were to consult him today you would find it to be his wish that we should present him a new Colorado bill, so that he would give it fresh consideration, and, as I believe, he would not veto it. Upon that hypothesis I have introduced a new bill. I hope now that gentlemen will understand the reason that has induced me to take the course I have seen fit to take, both at this session and at the former session. Now, what is the difference between these 2 bills, one for Nebraska and one for Colorado? They are both before us. If gentlemen would let us get at them, would not stand here to debate: than they can give light on the subject, my judgment is that during the day we ean pass them both. They stand here together. I have moved to take up the Nebraska bill 1st, imore from accident, perhaps, than anything Iam anxious to take up and consider Oth.