Mr. SUMNER. If I can have the attention of the Senate for afew moments, I think I can satisfy the Senate that there are grounds at least for hesitation in regard to the admission of this Territory into the Union as a State. I say “hcsitation;. but perhaps when Senators listen to all that may he sai they will 0. rec that something more than hesitation will be required from us in the discharge of our duty. I (To not, sir, undertake to oppose even, as I shall now, the admission of n new State into the Union without hesitation and reluctance, both of which I feel sincerely; but it is my duty, hnving given some little attention to this case, to lnygbefore the Senate the result of my inquiry. t seems to me that there are 3 distinct objections at this moment to the admission of Colorado as a State and I will speak of them in their order: 1st the irre larity of the proceedings which have on ed in the seeming adoption of the constitution presented to us; 2nd, the small number of people constitutin the population of that Territory, not being ancient, as I submit, to justify iisin investing it with all the great prerogatives of a State; and in the 3rd place, it does not come before us now according to the requirements of the enubling act with a constitution republican in form, and consistent with the DeclarIndep., Either one of these objections would be sufficient, sir, to make you pause; all of them, if sustained, I think, will carry you to the conclusion that this constitution, at least in its present form, cannot receive the sanction of the Senate. Now, sir, in the 1st place, with regard to the irregularity of the proceedings, and I pray the attention of the Senate to that point, because I have heard it said in conversation that We are concluded by the enabling act, that it is no longer on open question, that we have got to receive this constitution which has been sent to us, because at a certain date we passed an enabling act under which it is said the people inthis distant Territory have proceeded to form themselves into a State. On that point allow me to call attention 1st to the language of the President in his message communicating to the Senate the papers in this case: 1b the Senate and HoRep: I transmit herewith a communication addressed to mo by Messrs. John Evans and J. Chartres.as. " U.S. Senators electfrom the State of colorado.” togetherwith the accompanying documents. Under authority of the act of Conness, approved the 2lst day of March. lbdl. the peopleof Colorado, through a convention. formed a constitution making provismn for a State government, which. when submitted to the qualified voters of the Territory, was leiccted. In the snmuicrot 18c}a 2nd convention was called by the executive committees of the several political parties in the Territory. which nsscin bled at. Denver on the 8th of August 186.). On the 11h of that month this convention adopted a State nstituticn. which was submitted to the people on the 5th of September, 1866 and ratified by u, inruority of 15tive oi the qualified voters. The proceedingsin the 2nd instance tor the formation of aStiilo government having differed in time and mode fromthose specifiedin the act of March 21. I have declined to issuethe proclamationfor which provision is madein the 5th scotion of the law, and thereforesubmit the question for the consideration and further action of Conervss. AndrewJohnson. WASHINGTON.January 12.1806. There, in those few words. you have a statement by the President merely in outline of the irregularity of this proceeding. There was, Senators Wlll bear in mind, an enablin act which I now have before me, approved It arch 21,1864, entitled “An act to enaile the people of Coloradopto form a constitution and State government, and for the admissionof such State into the Union on an equal footing With the original States.” This act is formed on the model of most of the previous enabling acts. Among its provisions is this, in the 4th section, with reference to the meeting of the convention to form a State constitution: “That the membersof the convention.thuselected shall meetat the capitalof suidTerritory on the 1st Monday in July next. and, after organization shall declare onbehalfof the peopleof said Territory. that they adopt the Constitution of the liU.S.; whereupon thq said convention shall be, and it is hereby. authorized to form a constitution and State government for said Territory.” Then follow the customary conditions introduced into such acts. Now it appears that there was an effort under this act to create acoustitution, but that it failed; the constitution was rejected. The question naturally recurs, then, whether by the rejection of the constitution at that time this act was not so far exhausted that the people in this Territory could no longer derive under it any authority for those preliminary proceedings that were required in the formation of a State government. But, sir. in addition to this important fact, whichd may say is of record, and with regard to which there can be no question, there were other irregularities which are not so precisely ot record, to which it is my duty to call your attention. I have in my hand a memorandum, given to me yesterday, preared and Slglied by a Gentfrom Colora 0, who arrived in town, I believe, yesterday morning, and who is actually prestdent of the Territorial Council, Henry C. Leach. He has undertaken very briefly to set forth sonic of the irregularities that occurred; and I Will read them: 1. The convention which framed the constitution wasnot electedby the people.buingsimply delegates appointed by caucusesiirdered bypolitical iartics. 2. The counties of El lusu, Pueblo. lluerliine , Cos tilla and Concjos, were not reircsented in the convention and had no pnrtin maing the constitution. These countiesrepresent1/3rd of the population of colorado. 3. The constitution was submitted to the people without the safeguards and protection of law one week in advanceof the annual territorial election; it was publicly assertedthat ifsubmitted on the same day “the people would vote it down." 4. Information that the constitutionwasto bevoted ondid nutrcach the county of Concjosuntil tenoclock on the mornim, iof the election. 5. hone of tic provisions of the enabling act of 1964were complied with, except the submission of the constitution to the people, and this was done without authority or protection of law 6. The total vote was In favor of the constitution. 3.0.5 Against. 9R70 Majority T55 This vote was obtained by a union of the politi cians of all parties and the support of all thenewspa persin the Territory. there being no organized oppostilOn, and no protection of law from fraudulent votina. ff. The election for State otticersin Novemb was Without authority or protection of law, and rge frauds were perpetrated.the entire vote of the 1st ward in Denver being declared fraudulent by the canvasscrs. The L exislative Assembly were elected at the sametime and by the same role. 8. 58 voters in therountyof summit clected tworepresentutivesand one senatorto the “State” Legislature. HENRY C. LEACH. such is what I haye to say on the irrerrularity of these proceedings. perhaps it wag not necessary to go into these details of the irregularitv, for it is I enough to show that the people did not act by Virtue of any enabling stat nte; that the act, though passed by Congress, was exhausted: that therefore all subsequent proceedings were in the nature of volunteer proceedings, to be respected like any otherproceeding of the people, butnot having any sanetion derived from a preliminary act of Congress. It is on this account that I insist Congress is not in any way compromised or bound by its previous enabling act, and it can approach this whole question frpe from all embarrassment. it may treat it as if no enabling act had ever been passed. This brings me to the 2nd objection, which is the want of a properpopulation. On this head the evidence is very strong. The gentlemen who appear here With credentials as senators do not undertake to state with any confidence what the population is. After several conversations Wit those ver respectable Gentlemen, I have found that they were not prepared with anyprecise statement on that question. They are, in short, without any otheial evidence With regard to the poulation. In that respect, therefore, they stan on an equality with other gentlemen of intelligence in the Territory. I have in my hand a letter from a gentleman whose. character and intelligence I can vouch, an original Massachusetts citizen, who had been in the Senate of Massachusetts and mayor ofhis town, which was NewBedford, which Senators well know is certainly one of the most importaut of the towns in Massachusetts and who has carried his household gods and his fortune to that distant Territory, Hon. Rodney French, well known also in the polities of Massachusetts. He writes me under date of January 3, as follows:. “Pardon me, but I trustyouwill beable to discover that our State movementis entirely premature. We have not over 25,000. if indeed we have 20,000 inhabitantsiii the Territory. The friends of the movement claim 105votes majority for the State constitution. Never believe it car ried. as theynever published the official vote.simpl v the 155majority. Our property valuation toput the taxesupon is only some 8 or 9 millions. The whole movement was got up with money by a few interested." That is the testimony of one gentleman.