Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, sir, I am aware of that fact. Now, sir, assuming that a population of 25,000 in 1861 could give a vote of10,000, then what population does a vote of 6,000 in 1865 indicate? Just 16,000. On the same ratio, upon a more interesting question, instead of having 25,000, according to the vote in 1865 the Territory has a population of but 15,000, if we make an estimate upon the vote that was cast upon this constitution. Then I assume that the Territo at the time of the adoption of this constitution had a population O less than 20,000. I have a right to assume that it is but 15,000, taking your calculation from the vote that was cast. But, sir, the Senfrom Oregon, with great force and earnestness, appeals to us to give to these Lpeopleuthe right to vote for POTUS, to control the legislation of congress, to control the financial policy of the government. He referred in his remarks to these matters; and to give 3 to his argument he alludes to the position of the Senfrom Massachusetts, that taxation without representation is tyranny. Sir, is it possible that a small community in the formation of the laws shall have the some voice that a great communit shall have? Representation must be e no and just, else representation of itself becomes tyranny. If you say that 15,000 persons in Colorado shall have the same voice in the legislation of the OQuutly that the 1, 300,000 people of Indiana have. you adopt a.tyranny as oppressive as to deny representation altogether. What has been the policy of the GoVernment upon this question? he 1st position assumed by the Government was before the adoption of the Constitution, in the celebrated Ordinance of 1787, by which it was provided that out of the Territory of the Nort west, which now has in this Union such Kent empire States, there might be formed 3 or 5 States but that no State should be admitted until it had a population of 60,000, about double of what was then the ratio of representation in the HoRep; and my colleague and I represent a State that came into this Union under that revision. The peeple of Indiana had no voice in the i making of the Federal laws, the people of Indians, adno voice in the selection of the POTUS, until they could number 00,000, until the could show a poulation entitling them to a I representative in the other House. But now it is claimed as tyranny if this Territory with apopulation of 15,000 shall not have a voice in the Senate of the U.S., equal to the 1, 300,000 people of In rana. Why, Mr. President, contemplate the proposition of the Senfrom Oregon for a moment. He says that it is an act ofinjustice, that it is an act oftyranny, if the people of Colorado shall not have a voice in the selection of a POTUS Her population, in comparison with the poulation of the State which my colleague and represent, is about as one to 90. In the Senate of the U.S. one man in Colorado will have the voice of 90 men in the State of Indiana. Is that equality? Is that democracy? Is that justice? Or is it tyranny? and when on come to select a POTUS in 1868, is it right, is it just, is it consistent with the policy of our Government, that one man in Colorado shall have the voice of 90 men in Indiana? How many it would be in NewYork, I know not. But the Senator says he has heard no complaint from NewYork; no complaint from the great State of Pennsylvania. As one of the representatives from Indiana, I differ from my colleague, and I am not willing that in the selection of a President at the next great election, which is to be aver? sensitive cried in our history, one man in colorado shalI equal 90 of the men whom I represent. It is not according to the policy of the Government. It is not accord mv.