Mr. HENDRIokS. 88,000 people would give a popular vote of probably 16,000, and more than that I should say at Picast 20,000. In the older States, where there are large families represented by the head, the vote is about one 5th of the entire population. In the State of Indiana, where the settlements are now old and where families have grown up and become numerous, the population is about 1, 400,000, and the vote is very nearly 300,000, showing about one voter to every 5 persons in the State. Now, I submit to Senators that the vote in a Territory, in new settlements, is much larger in proportion to the entire population than in old settlements. It is known to the Senfrom Ohio, it is known to every western man, that the proportion of unmarried men in the Territories is larger than in the older States, and that the families of the emi grants as a general thing are not so large as in the older States, so that the voting population: is larger in new settlements in proportion to the entire population than in the older States. Then, sir, I am justified, I think, in. that the voting population of Nebraska would be very nearly 20,000 if there was an entire population of 88,000. With a voting population of from 16 to 20,000, we are asked to admit the State into the Union upon an affirmative vote of 3, 938. The constitution had no force until it received the sanction and approval of the people. No act of the territorial Legislature could give it any legal force and power. All the power and validity that it should have as a State constitution and form of government was to be derived from the vote of the people. Then, out of an entire vote of 16 to 20,000 we have 3, 938 persons voting in favor of this constitution. Is that such an expression of the popular will as justifies Congress in receiving a State whose constitution has been so irregularly formed and adopted? The Senfrom Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] then, I think, is not able to maintain his position that we are committed by the enabling act; in his language, bound to admit the State because We passed the enabling act. If the people of the Territory had complied with that enabling act, had come here pursuant to its provisions in every respect, then there would be much force in his position; but in the absence of a compliance with almost every requirement of the enabling act, I do not feel that there is any moral obligation on me to vote for the admission. The next question that presents itself is whether there is such a population in Nebraska as is claimed for it and as will justify us in the admission of the State. I do not believe that there are 88,000 people in that Territory, although the Senfrom Ohio reads.ou. from some bureau in the Treasury Dept which undertakes to furnish statisticsto that Dept. The Senator was not informed as to the means at the command of that bureau for ascertaining the population of Nebraska, and I think I am justified in saying that that bureau has no data on which it unay make a calculation. There is nothing in the execution of the internalrevenue law which furnishes any information upon that subject. There is no tax upon the head which enables the revenue officers to know the number of persons by the assessment. There is no census required to be taken by the revenue officers. It is no part of their official duty, and if they have expressed any opinion. on the subject, it is simply an opinion and not based upon any information in the office; and I think, sir, the opinion expressed by the head of that bureau is not correct. In 1860, when the census of the U.S. was taken, Nebraska had 28, 841 inhabitants. It is known to every Senator that since 1860 the population of the western States and the Territories has not to any considerable extent increased. The war stopped emigration from the eastern portion of the country to the territories; Iundertake to express the opinion that at the close of the war it is very doubtful whether Nebraska had as large a population as she had in 1860. I doubt whether in the spring of 1865, at the surrender of the southern armies, there was so large a population in the Territory of Nebraska as there was when the census was taken in 1860. I admit that since the close of the war immigration has again set in to the Territories, and that the immigration is now in very large numbers to Nebraska; that the construction of the great railroad from Omaha westward has invited immigration. But, sir, that is not an answer to the objection which is now made that when this constitution was submitted to the people and it received a popular vote, there was not a population that justified the formation of a State government. suppose that next year there may be 100,000 people in Nebraska, that 100,000 ought to have a voice in the making of the State government. If in June last, when the vote was had upon the constitution, there were but 30, 40, or 50,000, had that 30, 40, or 50,000 people a right to form the State government which shall be over the 100 or 150,000 that may be there next year? When the population is filled up to such a number as justifies the formation of a State government, that entire population ought to have a voice in the formation of the government that shall be established. In June, upon a very interesting question, the question of a State constitution, the entire vote was 7, 776, showing a population of perhaps 35,000. I understood the Senfrom Ohio to say that in October at the popular election for State officers, for a Legislature, for a member of Congress, a very important election, when all the voters were likely to be out, the entire vote was about 9,000. Now. sir, if the voting population is about one 5th of the entire population, that would show the entire population of Nebraska to be in October about 45,000, about 1/2 the number as sumed by the Senfrom Ohio. If there are about 88,000 people in Nebraska, then the vote in October ought to have been about twice as large as it was. A population in a Territory of 88,000 will show a voting population of at least 18,000, perhaps 20,000; but that votin population is not there. When they vote upon their constitution less than 8,000 votes were polled, and when they voted under the State government for all the officers of the State, for the member of Congress, and for the Legislature that was to elect Senators, upon a most exciting occasion, when the political exitement perhaps was as high as it has ever been in the Territories, only about 9,000 votes were east. Is any Senator justified, then, in saying that the population of Nebraska is above 40 or 50,000? I assume that the evidence before us does not justify the opinion that the population is above that number. With a census in 1860 of 28,000, with a vote in June upon the constitution of about 7, 773, with a vote in October upon an election that called out the entire population, at least as fully as any popular election, can call out the voting population, the entire vote was but 9,000. Then, sir, from the information that is before the Senate, (I exclude the opinion that came from the Bureau of Statistics,) we are not justified in saying that the entire population of Nebraska at the time of the adoption of the constitution was more than 35,000, at the time of the State election more than 40 or 45,000; and then, it presents the question whether that population ought to form a State government and be admitted to representation in this Hall and in the other House. I know very well, as was said by the Senfrom Ohio, that there is no law upon the subject and no very uniform practice; but it has come to be the opinion that before a territory shall be admitted as a State it ought to have a population entitling it to a Representative in the other House, or very nearly so. In the States each section of country is entitled to a Representative in the House when the population is about 127,000, and with a less population than that a section of a State is not entitled to a Representative. Upon what principle, then, has 1/3rd of that population or 1/2 of that population in a Territory the right to a voice in the HoRep? Upon what principle can 40,000 people living in the Territory of Nebraska claim the same voice in the Senate of the U.S. that is. to the million and a half of o:of the State of Indiana? I am not upon this occasion going to complain of the unequal distribution of political power in the Senate; we all know it; it is felt by the country; but it is under a compromise of the constitution, and I make no war against it now. But, sir, when we feel it, shall we increase it? Shall we give to a people in a Territory 2 Senators in this iod; when they have a population not half enough to entitle them to a Representative in the HoRep? I think it ought not to be; and upon that ground, and that ground only, I vote against this bill., Had there been a sufficient population in Nebraska and had the people in fact of that Territory expressed themselves in favor of this Constitution, I should most cheer fully vote for her admission. I think that the consideration to which ref. erence has been made in the course of this debate does not influence my judgment. The fact that Senators and a Representative belonging to a particular political party have been elected, I think would not influence my judgment. I simply ask that when a new State seeks admission she shall have such a population as reasonably and fairly entitles her to a Representative in the House; and I think that is consistent with the principles of the government and with the almost uniform practice of the Government. The Senfrom Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] referred to another subject, not connected with the admission of this State, to which I shall allude but for a moment. He expressed the opinion that the constitutional amendment which received the sanction of this body and of the other House at the last session was a mild proposition, and was just and fair toward the southern States. I think I recollect to have asked that Senator at the last session a question which he did not then answer, and I will repeat the question to him now, and let him then, as a representative of one of the States of this Union, say whether one of the provisions of the constitutional amendment is air. That amendment was so carefully and artfully framed as to leave the northern States a representation of from 15 to 20 Representatives in the other House, based upon a non-voting population. It was so carefully framed as to leave to Missouri, to Tennessee, to WestVirginia, and to Maryland their full representation, when 1/2 of their people by State policy and legislation are denied the right of voting. A full representation is allowed to 4 States, notwithstanding 1/2 of their population is disfranchised. A full representation, including a basis of non-voting population, securing 20 Representatives in the House, is left to the northern States. Now, is it right in a constitutional amendment to give to one State a representation based upon a non-voting population and to deny it to another State because a particular population is not allowed toyote? Is it right, is it just, is it a mild and fair proposition to say that NewYork may retain 4 or 5 Representatives based upon a non-voting population and to deny to 8. representation for her non-voting population? Is it equal and just that one State shall be represented for her non-voting population and another State not represented for her non-voting population? That is the question. The Senator at the last session did not answer it, and I think it cannot be answered. I know it may be said that these people in the South have been in a state of rebellion. The wickedness and folly of the southern States in going into that rebellion cannot be too strongly expressed by the Senfrom Ohio; but when they come back by their representation into this body and into the other House do they come as States?