Mr. HENDRICKS. I was quoting the remark of the Senfrom Ohio as authority. If the Senfrom Nevada is not content with the argument that I present, I shall be obliged to him if he will answer it when I get through. The Senfrom Ohio, in the argument of thisquestion a few weeks since, when he oppose the admission of Colorado with very gfieat ability, stated, as I understood him, that the policy of the Governmenthad been, though sometimes departed from under peculiar circumstances, to require a population entitling the people to a Representative in the HoRep. Now, sir, it would require about 120,000 to secure a Representative in the HoRep; and here with a population, upon the best information we can get, of about. 15,000, it is asked to give 2 Senators and a lie Representative to Colorado. I think the people O Indiana will hardly be satisfied with the argument of my colleague, based upon the loyalty of the people of Colorado, when he says, that in the making of the laws, so far as the do end upon the action of the Senate, an in teselection of a POTUS, so far as it depends upon senatorial electors, he is willing to give to the people of Colorado, becauseof theirnssnmd loyalty, a voice 90 times greater than to the men of Indiana. Mr. President, it is claimed that the Territory can be very much more prosperous with a State government than with a territorial government. I have never lived under a territorial government, and have not the experience of the Senfrom Oregon or the Senfrom Nevada in that respect; but why is it that a Territory may not he prosperous? Why may she not be comparatively independent in the regulation of her own domestic affairs? She does not have the selection of her Governor, or of her judges; but she selects all her local officers; she selects her Legislaturc. Her Legislature, by the laws which it enacts, regulates all her domestic affairs. If they need a combination of wealth, the Territorial Legislature may establish corporations, and may do all those things which the local interests of the people may require. I think the history of the erritories does not support the Senfrom Oregon in the position tlliat they are less pros perous during their territorial existence than afterward. think there is not much weight in the argument of the Senfrom Oregon and the Senfrom Nevada upon that porut. The Territories up to this time have not complained, so far as I know of the legislation of Congress that applies to them. It seems to me to have been just and fair; and in respect to their domestic affairs, they regulate them for themselves. I have said about all that I desire to say on this question. I know of no change that has taken place in the population of Colorado or in the regularity of the proceedings by which this constitution was a opted since this bill was rejected by the Senate. I am curious to know what shall change the judgment of Senators in regard to it. My colleague so a that he has not joined in any whispering that we need 2 additional Senators here, and yet he did say before he closed his speech that he was glad to have additional Senators if they represented a loyal constituency. Mr. President, I shall, as readily as m colleague, as readily as any other Senator, we come Senators who come here from new States with a population which justly, fairly, and rightly entitles them to seats in this body; but I am not prepared to say that the small population of Colorado shall have an equal voice in the Senate with the large poulation of Indiana. Mr. STEWART. There have been sever allusions in the debate to the facfthat this bi has been once defeated. I desire to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that it. was not defeated in a full Senate. The votes against it were only 21, and those for it 14, so that there were only 35 Senators voting. When we have a full Senate there are 40 ninc here, there being 25 States represented. I say consequently that vote was not a fair test when there were only 35 members votin. I The assumption that the population of colorado is only 15,000 is not a fair statement of the case. I think, myself, that the population is small; but placing it at 15,000 is certainly a very great exaggeration a greater exaggeration than it would be to place it at 50,000. From the evidence fairly before us it is shown that at the last election for State officers they cast over 7,000 votes. Gentlemen say that is just as yood a criterion of the amount of population as tevote in 1861 was. I deny it. Since that time families have been moving in; there were not so man miners roaming over the country that are only transient; there is a more settled population, and the numbers of voters in proportion to the population now is not as great as it was in 1801. In 1801 they were huddled to other in one or 2 small mining camps. how they are scattered all over the Territory, and man of them following agricultural pursuits with their families. A vote of 7,000 now would indicate a larger population than a vote of 10,000 did when they were in one or 2 mining camps all voting, all males, before they had brought their families there. The population has changed from a mining to an agricultural one to a great extent, and the vote of 7,000 of last year to me indicates a larger population than a vote of 10,000 would situated as they were in1861, not having extended their population over the Territo and being huddled together where they couldall readily vote. Now they have spread over the Territory; they have brought their families; and a vote of 7,000 at this time indicates to my mind apopulation of at least 35,000, because they are so situated that they do not come to the polls so regularly; they are a long distance from the polls; they have settled in the little valleys all over the country as any person traveling through will see. I am justified, then, in saying that a vote of 7,000 atthis time indicates a larger population than a vote of 10.000 would situated as they were in 1861; and I think that when we have before us the fact that they cast 7,000 votes it is an extreme exaggeration to say that their population does not exceed 15,000. But Congress has passed upon the question of population. The Senate twice passed upon it by passing an enabling act in 1863, and again in 1864. The population is certainly as eat now as it was then, and is increasing, an the prospects before the Territory are infinitely superior to what they were in 1864. In 1864 they were cut off by an Indian war; they were embarrassed in every possible way; their pros pect for the future was gloomy to what it is now. The rebellion is over; they have a railroad approaching them very rapid y they have learned something of irrigation, an they have learned, too, how to dispose of grasshoppers, so that they will not be so ruine us perhaps as they were before. The grasshopperquestion, the irrigation question, and the In ian war question are all better understood. The pros pects of the country are good. The mines have proved to be very rich. The various ores are being worked now to better advantage, and the Territory is in a much better condition than it was in 1864. It has a larger population than it had when you passed on the question; and I say, with the Senfrom reon, [Mr. WiI.i.i. 1s] that it would be bad aith, after having given this invitation, and after this constitution has been formed and these representatives have come here, to change the invitation and deny them admission. Hereafter if on want to establish a different rule, establish it; but now, under all the circumstances, I say that upon any fair construction of these votes there is a larger population in Coloradopthan there was in 1864, and everything connected with that Territory shows that it is better able to support a State government, with better prospects, than when you passed the enabling act, and I contend that it is bad faith to deny them admission.