Mr. SUMNER. November 6, 1861, and it was passed in pursuance of the organic act. I have already referred to it amply; I do not. wish to take up too much time in this discussion. So the Senate will see that the question presented by my friendfrom Illinois did not arise there. There was noquestion of citizenshi. The language was road and General; it was applicable to every male person of the age of 21 years or upward, and was the statute which in 1864 was reversed. In further exhibition of the retrograde spirit which prevails in this Territory. I shall read a brief extract from a letter which I hold in my hand from a gentleman well known to my colleague, who left Massachusetts to make a home in Colorado Hon. Rodney French.v My colleague knows him as an excellent person, devoted to human rights, hating slavery, anx ious for freedom everywhere and always. He is now at home in Massachusetts, and he writes me as follows under date of April lS you will perceive that it is a very recent letter: “The only colored man in the Territory who dared to otlerto voteiuzainst the constitution wasshot down deadlike a dolr in the street the other day and no more notice taken of it. by the authorities than if he had been a beast. I sincerely hope and trust the motion to reconsidermay not prevail." and now, sir.we are asked to admit this territory thus deficient in population, thus deficient in agricultural resources, thus failing in miningvaesources, thus failing in the Post Of fice. e are asked to admit this Territory with a constitution denyiu human rights. Will you admit it? Will you y any such vote interfere, as you surely will, with that just influence which you ought to exercise in the reconstruction of the States lately in rebellion? You have in those States this same question, shall the word “ white” be allowed to continue in constitutions and statutes? and how can you insist that it shall be excluded from constitutions and statutes there, when you receive into the Union this new community with a constitution which tolerates this principle of exclusion 7Ihave alread said that you have complete control of the whole question; it is within your absolute discretion; you may shut this State out if you lease; you may admit it if you lease; but call upon you to exercise that ise retion so that human rights may not fail. Do not tell me that Connecticut ailed to overthrow this prescription. Sir, do not imitate Connecticut. If you recognize this proscription, you will be as had as Connecticut and now, sir, what is the argument, if argument it be called, which is brought forward in favor of the admission of this community as a State of the Union? I know of but one, unless there be another which occurs in n whis perand not in debate, to which before I close may refer. I know of but one argument which has been adduced in debate and that is founded on the enabling act of March 21, 1864, which is entitled “An act to enable the people of Coloradopto form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such tote into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.” If I understand the argument, it is that Congress by this statute pledged itself in advance to admit this community as a State into this Union; that we are bound by this statute so that we cannot ese ape this obligation; that, in short, we are tied up by this statute. This is a strong assumption; but I believe it is an accurate statement of the position of the other side. Now, sir, I think I can easily show that this is a great mistake. I may remind you in the 1st place that the President to whom this question was naturally submitted 1st, in a message to the Senate has expressly stated to you that in his opinion the newconstitution which is now before the Senate was not formed in pursuance of the enabling act. In that mes sage he sets forth the character of this enabling act. shows that there was an attempt to form a constitution in pursuance of it which failed and that there was another constitution forme by political bodies independent of the enabling act, which he has submitted to your consideration. Of this 2nd constitution he says: " The proceedings in the 2nd instance for the formation of a State government having differed in time and mode from those specified in the act of March 21, IBM. I have declined to issue the reels nation for which provision is made in the ti th section of the law, and therefore submit the question for the consideration and further action of “em n Thus, sir, the President did not feel authorized to issue his proclamation in pursuance of this enabling act declarin Colorado a State in the Union; he referred the question to you, and you must decide it; an here, again, I shall read another dispatch from the same tel egraphic correspondent that I read from before, as follows: " "Dnsvrii CITY, COLORADOJ, anuary 18.1866. Please contradict in the newspapersthestoriesso industriously published at the East that the recent has State movementwas in compliancewith the terms of the enabling act. Not one singlecondition of the enabling act was observed, and many of its provisions were clearly violated. particularly that one which says the State constitution should accord with the principles of the DeclarIndep. If we examine these proceedings in detail, we shall see clearly how they differ from the requirements of the enabling act. In short, they are inconsistent with it, or outside of it so far as to derive no support from this act. This is clear as da. It appears that this enabling act was approved on the 21st of March, 1864. Among other things it provides in section 3 that the Governor shall “by proclamation on or before the 1st Monday of May next, order an election of representatives” “to be held on the 1st Monda in June thereafter throughout the Territory. ” ou will observe that this election is to be held at a specified time, the 1st Monday in June. This is a fixed point. Then, again, by another provision it is de clared that “in case a constitution and State government shall be formed for the people of said Territory of Colorado, in compliance with the provisions of this act, the said convention forming the same shall provide by ordinance for submitting said constitution to the people of the said State for their ratification or rejection at an election to be held on the 2nd Tuesday of October, 1864." There again you have another fixed date, containing a limitation in time. The constitution was to be submitted at a specified date; the representatives to the convention were to be chosen at a specified date. Then the last section of this statute provides for the admission of Colorado as a State into the Union. How 1 “ In pursuance of this act;” in no other way. Thus the State, in order to claim any benefit under this act, mustcomply with all the conditions of the act; its representatives must be chosen at the time mentioned and the constitution must be accepted by the people at the time mentioned, and everything must be “in pursuance of this act.” Those conditious failing, the act fails. ow, sir, what occurred? The Governor, in pursuance of this act, did call together a convention at the day specified, and that convention did submit a constitution to the people which, at the day specified was voted on and rejected. At that vote there were for the constitution 1,520 votes only. Against it there were 4, 672votes. When thatconstitution was rejected conthe enabling not expired; it was dfunclus Qlficzo, it had been acted upon and under. There was nothing more to be done in pursuance of it. But, sir, the next year certain parties desirous to galvanize this small community into a State, through political conventions or caucuses, actingthrough the committees of the different parties got togethera convention which proceeded to opt a constitution which, after lieing submitted to the people, was adopted by a vote of 165 majority, and you have now the question before you whether that constitution, adopted under such circumstances, shall be recognized by the Senate. Surely not in virtue of the enabling act, because in reality nothing had been done under this act. I have said that the enabling act had expired. It is in vain for Senators to cite it on this occasion. You cannot invoke it. These parties can claim nothing under it. it is like an obso lete statute which we read in the statute book, but which we never undertake to adduce for authority. It stands as a monument showing what Congress had required, and showing also what this community had failed to perform. In adducing it, you bring authority against the present pretension, for you show clearly that this pretension had no foundation inthis statute. But, sir, even assuming that the enabling act was in a condition to be employed for the organization of this Territo, which I insist that it was not, then it is mylduty to go further and show you that these parties, as this colored telegraphic correspondent from Denver says, did not in any respect comply with the enabling act. Why, sir? By the enabling act the convention was to be called by the Governor. How was it called? By the executive committees of political parties, being so many caucuses. such was the origin of the convention which is to give you a new State. What authority for that do you find in the enabling act? Be good enough, if you please, to point out a single word which can justify any such transaction and yet we have been gravely told that this strange anomalous hocus pocus was by virtue of the euablin act. As ifin every respectit was not plainl inconsistent with the sun ling act. Still further, in the 2nd place, the cue bling act declares that “the constitution shall be republican in form." Thisisa fundamental condition. I submit with confidence that a constitution which denies the 1st principle of human rights cannot be republican in form. Do not tell me that there are States in this Union which have such constitutions. That is no answer. We are not called to sit in judgment on those constitutions; we have no power to revise them; we are not to vote upon them; but here in this case we are called to sit in judgment upon this constitution, to revise it, and to vote upon it. You are to declare by your votes whether a constitution which tramples upon the principle of human equality is republican in form. I insist that it is not. Still further, this enabling act declares that “the constitution shall not be reugnant to the principles of the DeclarIndep." Ipask you, what is the 1st principle of the DeclarIndep? Is it not in solemn words that all men are created equal, and that all just government stands on the consent of the governed? Does anyone deny that these are the words? You know them by heart; your children learn them in their earliest in fancy; and whatever is done in this Territory is to be brought to these words as to a touch stone. This is a requirement of the enabling act. Therefore do I say that even ifyou insist that the enabling act is an authority for this proceeding, then do I reply, that this community has not in any respect brought itself within its terms. It has not complied with its terms either of principle or of proceeding. The proceedings were not accordin to the enabling act; the principles are in do once of the enabling act. Tried by either standard, the whole effort must miserably fail. But it is sometimes said that there is an inconsistency in opposing the admission of this State into the Union at this time when we voted l for the enabling act; and m friendfrom Ne vada put me a question a cw mornents ago whether at the time of the passage of the enabling act it was supposed here in the Senate that colored persons exercised the elective franchise. N ow, sir, as to the question of inconsistenc