Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, when the bills for the admission as States of Nebraska and Colorado were under consideration at the last session I committed myself simply by voting for them and took no part in the debate. Since that time I have looked a little more into the question, and have had some personal observation of the condition of both these territories, and perhaps it is due to myself and the subject that I should say a few words; I do not wish to detain the Senate long. I felt bound by the enabling act, passed by Congress on the 19th of April, 1864, to admit the people of Nebraska as a State of the Union whenever they should comply with the provisions of that law. There is now no doubt that they have complied with its provisions. No Senator can deny that the people of Nebraska have accepted our proposition in good faith. That proposition was made to them in the midst of the war, in April, 1864. We imposed the terms and conditions upon which those people might be admitted into the Union. We required no condition as to population; we required no condition as to d. terms of their constitution that they have not literally complied with. Now, as a sentiment of honor, as well as of good policy, we are bound to admit these people into the Union as a State, unless there is some overriding policy or reason which would justify us in waiving this question of honor. It was on that point mainly that I cast my vote at the last session. You made them an offer; they accepted your offer? you never withdrew it; you let it stand upon the statute book; it is there now; they have accepted it, and you cannot refuse to admit them on the condltions you yourself proposed. It is now proposed by the Senfrom missouri [Mr. BrowNJ to make an ol. additional an additional condition. Is that air to a people who after their struggles among themselves have finally settled down upon accepting your proposition? Is it fair now to put them to the expense of calling their convention together again to pass upon a new proposition, a new condition that was notmentioned in the original law? Certainly not. Even if I agreed with the Senator that it was wise to impose upon a State any limitation over its control of the elective franchise, I certainly would not impose that condition now, when 2 years ago we refused to require it. In the very law which enabled the people of Nebraska to organize a State government we limited the right of suffrage to white voters in the Territory. We authorized all those who under the territorial law could vote to vote at the election for del egates to frame the constitution; and by the territorial law, which was then upon our tables, the elective franchise was confined to the white people of the Territory, so that we authorized the white people of the Territory alone to frame this constitution. Now, shall we, after these people have complied with that condition, turn around and insist that we will not stand by our offer, but will impose other conditions? I think it is not fair to do so. It would not be fair in dealing between men, and I think it is not fair in dealing in political questions between a great nation and a community seeking to come into the Union as a State. The only conditions we imposed upon these people by the enabling act were in these words, which I read from that act: “Said constitution shall provide, by an article forever irrevocable without the consent of the Congress of the U.S.: “1. That slavery or involuntary servitude shall be foreyer prohibited in said State. “2. That perfect toleration of religious senti;ment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said State shall eyer be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship. “3. That, the people inhabiting said. Territo do agreeand declare that they forever disclaim al right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said Territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the U.S.; and that the lands belonging to citizens of the U.S., residing, without the said State shall never be taxed higher than the land belongitig to residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said State on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by the U.S.” These are the 3 conditions that have been for many years imposed on new States. These conditions have been literally complied with 12 in the constitution now submitted to us. I ask Senators whether, under these circumstances, it is reasonable and fair to send these people back and require an additional condition not imposed by the enabling act, compelling them to undergo the expense of again convening their convention (for that is the only way in which they can accept it) to pass upon this new proposition. Even if the proposition was important, it would not be fair and right to do so; but in my judgment it is totally unim portant, and the provision is one that these people will probably make for themselves in the course of time. When this is the case it seems to me a cruel thing to a people so poor and young as these are to impose this condition upon them and keep them out. Mr. President, a cursory remark was made by the Senfrom Massachusetts on a subject to which my colleague also alluded, and which, it seems to me, ought to be discussed more carefully at a future time; but as it is per tinent to the discussion of the nature of this enabling act I may be justified in saying, a word upon it. We made a proposition to the southern States at the last session of Congress. It was made after the gravest and fullest consideration probably that any measure ever received from any Congress of the U.S. No legislative act of Congress since the foundation of this Government was surrounded with more difficult questions than the one we acted upon at the last session. After long debate, after considering all the propositions that were made on either side, if. Congress of the U.S. made to the people of the southern States a deliberate proposition. We submitted to them joine. It seems to me that no one can avoid the irre sistible logic that if they accepted those amendments we were bound to carry them out. I know I voted for those amendments with that understanding. I felt that I would be bound by that action. I felt that if they accepted those amendments they were States in the Union, entitled to Sens&Reps precisely like the State of Massachusetts and i. State of Ohio. I did not dream that there was any doubt about that matter. And, sir, let me say to you that if the southern people had accepted, or if they do accept, the constitutional amendments, those States are just as certain to be represented here by Senators and members as the State of Ohio or the State of Massachusetts. I know that my friendfrom Massachusetts, and perhaps some other Senators, were dissatisfied with the constitutional amendments. They did not meet their expectations; they did not impose the terms and conditions that they hoped to impose on the southern people; they did not probably meet their sense of duty; but still, the people of the U.S. have felt themselves bound by those terms; and if the southern Po" would now accept them, the people of the U.S. would hail their acceptance as the most joyful event since the surrender of Lee's army. I believe now that that proposition made by Congress contained all that is vital, and all that is necessary to secure peace and quiet and harmony in this great country of ours. And, sir, it seems to me the saddest, the most foolish act of the southern people for them to reject the constitutional amendments. I never shall cease to grieve that the POTUS has committed himself against that important proposition. He never could have done anything more injurious to the people of the southern States than his course encouragin them to refuse to ratify the constitutiona amendments. I read this morning that the Legislature of Arkansas, in considering these amendments, anaong other grounds of objection, claimed that this Congress which pro .them was not the Congress of the U.S., and took other grounds similar to those understood to have been held by the President. Sir, if the southern people have not yet discovered that this is the Congress of the U.S. I do not know what will make them know it. They have been subdued and subjudgated by acts of Congress and by the armies of the U.S., acting under the authority of the acts of Congress, and a Congress composed of Sens&Reps from those States which are now here represented. I hope yet that that offer made by the people of the U.S. will be accepted by the southern States; they will have an opportunity this winter to do it, their State Legislatures are convening and acting upon it; but if they do not accept it, then what is left for us? We have either got to be ruled by those people, or we have got to rule them; and when that choice comes, I prefer to rule them. I say that sooner than allow the States recently in rebellion to come into these Halls with increased political power, arrogant and domineering, banishing loyal people from among them, overriding even the Constitution and laws of the U.S., denying protection to the people who were true and i.i.the war, keep them out. If they come in that spirit I will not admit them. They shall never enter here until they have entirely changed their tone and manner. They will. the people of the northern States, unwillingly as they are, to organize new governments there, and they will have to submit to those governments, whether they are organized upon the black basis or the white basis or the loyal basis. We have made them a liberal offer; if they reject it it is their own fault, not ours. We have made them an offer which, in the judgment of foreign nations and in the judgment of our own people, is moderate, reasonable, and fair. And allow me to say that when we made our appeal to the people of the U.S. in the recent elections nothing gave us such strength as the moderation of the constitutional amendment. I never heard a man, either on the stump or in the forum, successfully deny that it was fair in all its parts and reasonable in all its terms. We were divided here some what upon the terms and conditions, the language and phraseology of the amendment, but the result of our deliberations was a proposition which, by the judgment of the American people, was such a one as we ought to have made to our brothers who had been in error. I never heard a Democrat or anybody else who could controvert it. Indeed, they generally avoided the issue. They talked about our want of power to impose it, but they never did and never would fairly and fully discuss the merits of the constitutional amendment. We can stand upon it; we did stand upon it, and went to our people upon it. Whatever may have been said in other States, in Ohio it was the only question. Our Union convention passed no other resolution, except to approve and ratify the constitutional amendment. Our party went before the people on that amendment, rejecting all mine r issues; and we all understood, without an exception, that if that amendment was adopted by the southern people it was the be all of reconstruction, and that Sens&Reps from those States were to be admitted into Congress; and we all cited, as an evidence of the intention of Congress on that subject, the actual fact of the admission of the State of Tennessee, following her adoption of the constitutional amendment. After Tennessee had adopted the constitutional amendment we set the example of admitting her promptly. The people of the State of Ohio, at least, understood that if any State in the South accepted this constitutional amendment its Sens&Reps should take their seats by our side. But this is aside from the question before us, although it grows out of the remarks made in the course of the debate. I have said that I would rest my vote on this b"ill.solely upon the fact that Congress had an enabling act, and that the people of Nebraska had substantially complied with its terms. It is sometimes said, and it was said in the debate at the last session, that at the 1st vote the people of Nebraska rejected the proposition to admit them as a State. If they did so, and tho, offer of Congress was with drawn, or if, from the nature of things, it was an offer that had to be accepted or rejected at once, probably that argument might hold good. It might be like the offef of an individual in the making of a contract, and the offer being rejected might be considered as withdrawn. But here was a continuing offer standing upon the statute book, and these people were allowed to go on and hold election after election involving the admission of the State of Nebraska without objection, and the power conferred by Congress was never withdrawn. It is said that upon the final vote the majority was very small. So it was; but, sir, the vote was not against the admission of Nebraska. That was not simply the question in the recent election in the Territory of Nebraska. It was a political controversy growing somewhat out of the position of the political power. The Democrats in Nebraska, many."them, voted against the admission of Nebraska because they did not like the present political status of the Territory of Nebraska. Without going out of the record I can probably say that I know the fact that many Democrats in Nebraska desire the admission of the State on its own merits, but they desire to have the organization of the State government themselves, or what is more potent, many of them desire that the excutive authority now exercised in the Territory of Nebraska may be continued, and that they may have the political power and patronage of the executive authorities in the Territory of Nebraska. We know very well that in the adoption of a State government the question merely of the admission of the State is very rarely the chief question. The chief question is a question between parties; and upon this political or par. tisan question the majority in Nebraska was very small; but on the question of the admission of the State of Nebraska into the Union I have no doubt, from all the information that I can gather, that 4 5th s of the people of Nebraska, without regard to party, are in favor of it. It is true the Democratic portion of the " might desire to have it postponed in the ope that in the changes of political parties in this country they would have the organization of the State government, and they might therefore vote against the admission of Nebraska for the time being; but upon the question of the formation of a State government in Nebraska there is no doubt about the sentiment of the people of Nebraska. Here, then, is an offer made by Congress and accepted by the people of Nebraska in the very terms in which it was made. Now, upon what ground can Senators refuse to allow this State to take its place here, a place that we have tendered to it? They have elected Sens&Reps; they have gone through the form of a convention; they have submitted the action of their legislative body to the people; the people have ratified that action; here is their constitution, Republican in form, complying in all respects with the terms and conditions imposed by you. Now, how can you refuse their admission? say that upon this ground alone I should feel bound to vote for the admission of Nebraska, even if I had not voted for the enabling act. But, sir, it is commonly said that the population of Nebraska is not sufficient. Let us examine that. There is no law fixing the ulation. The general idea prevails, and probably it is a correct one in the main, that a new Territory proposing to be admitted into the Union ought to have a representative population equivalent to what is necessary to elect one Representative in Congress; but that rule has never been enforced. It has been talked about, but it has never been made a condition. You did not make it a condition when you passed the enabling act. You did not require a census to be taken; you did not require the inhabitants to be numbered to ascertain that fact. Is it right now to impose that condition o But, sir, I say to you the evidence is conclusive that Nebraska, this day has more population than any but 3 of the States that ever were admitted into this Union. The best evidence we have before us is that Nebraska in April last had something like 50,000. The recent immigration during the last year was about 37,000, according to their mode of computing. Perhaps it is not exactly accurate. We cannot tell whether it was 500 more or 1,000 less, because in a new Territory like that they cannot accurately count the waves and mutations in population. But at the election in October last, over 9,100 votes were cast, and nobody could vote at the election unless he had been a resident of the territory 6 months and established a residence under the law. All who went in there during the last sum mer a great mass of people, because it was observable everywhere that the population was turning from the East to the West; the war was over and people were going there in large numbers were excluded, and yet, excluding the immigration of last summer there were over 9,000 100 voters, indicating a population of at least 50,000 upon those voters. But from an actual investigation made by a bureau of the Government perhaps not friendly to the admission of the State of Nebraska, made by a gentleman of opposing politics, the new head of that bureau, e upon statistical information that enabled him to arrive substantially at the conclusion of population, he estimates the population at 88,000. That is more than any State but 3 that have ever been admitted into this Union had at the time of its admission. I have no doubt they have more than that, but we have no official data on which to place it. But admitting that it is 88,000, admitting that this gentleman's statements are substantially reliable, let us see the population that other States had when admitted into the Union. Georgia, which was one of the original States, contained at the time she came into the Union and finally agreed to the Constitution, 82, 548; Vermont had 85, 539; Kentucky had but 73,077; Tennessee had but 77,000; Ohio had but 41,000, and even upon the basis of representation then she had not enough for one Representative.