Mr. BUCKALEW. If there has been a recent census of the population in that Territory, it was preper. it was in fact required, that it should be produced here before us that we might judge of the fact of numbers. We caii not take verbal statements on a subject of this kind, but according to this statement the population was then only 41,000; and we have nothing to guide us in coming to a conclusion that the poulation is now greater except the opinions o gentlemen who are no doubt somewhat influenced by their desire that we shall admit this State as a member of the Union. I remember that when the enabling act in the case of Colorado was passed we were told here that that Territory contained 60,000 inhabitants and that it was rapidly increasing. I think the minimum was put at 60,000; it might be, it was said, considerably greater, but it was at least that. That was the representation under which we passed the enabling act to permit the people of Colorado to form for themselves a State constitution; and the Delegate from that Territory was quoted as the authority for that statement; and yet it appeared afterward, when we came to an ascertainment of the fact, that the population at that very time could not have exceeded 30,000 and probably did not much exceed 20,000. Now, I have learned by my experience in the Senate to place very little dependence upon these vague, Indefinite, neral, sweeping, and nevertheless most positive statements about the number of people in a Territory. There is no safety in proceeding upon questions of this kind without a census or some other specific and legal ascertainment of the fact which we have not here. We have nothing except the statement that there was a census 16 months ago which showed that the population was about 40,000; nothing in the world beside that exec t more opinions of gentlemen that the opuation has increased since. But the cone usion to be drawn from the number of votes polled in June of the present year is that the po inlation remains about what it was when the alleged census was taken. There is another consideration to be mentioned in this connection. Take the case of NewMexico. I believe as far back as 1360 the population was 70,000 0 up it has increased since that time, and we have recently accounts of mining interests growin up in that Territory. The last estimate Iglieard was that the population of NewMexico at this time amounts to between 90,000 and 100,000, probably a population 2 or 2 and a half times as great as that of Nebraska; yet, sir, the Senfrom Ohio does not introduce an enabling act for NewMexico; the Senfrom Ohio does not propose that that Territory shall be admitted into this Union as a State. Is this equal treatment? You are to admit a Territory into the Union as a State with 40,000 or 50.,000 inhabitants, and you make no legal revision whatever for the admission of a erritory into the Union which contains probably 90,000. Is not this an odious policy? Is it not unequal? Will it not subject our legislation to just and severe criticism; to the imutation that we do not treat our Territories in the same manner, that we admit them on principles of partiality in stead of principles of equal and even handed justice? If there were no other consideration oppoeed to this measure, I should hesitate in votingl for the admission of NebraskaasaState into t 0.Union upon this distinct ground. Mr. President, we are at a new ioint in our history upon the question of admitting States into the non-an we have also very trouble some questions upon the restoration of former and existing States of this Union. It is right that we should proceed with caution and with care, that we should examine carefully the ground upon which we stand, that we shall be certain that we adopt and act upon a policy which will exist in the future, which will continuc, which will be permanent, and which will be salutary. And will not one rule of future action, and a proper rule of future action, be this: that a State shall not. be admitted into the Union until it has an adequate number of inhabitants to authorize it to have one member in the HoRep under the ratio which may exist at the time? That rule has been frequently talked about. There seems to be a general assent that it would be a reasonable and a proper rule, that it would be salutar in its consequences, that it would prevent mile of difficulty and debate in connection with the organization of Territories into States and their admission into the Union. According to the best information which we have here the Territory of Nebraska has less than 1/2 the number of inhabitants necessary for a member of Congress. Even ifyon estimate that it has 60,000 inhabitants, it has only 1/2 the numbe‘r requisite to elect a member in the HoRep, but according to the statistics which we have before as the population must be much less than that. I conclude, then, by saying (I had no intention of addressing the Senate at such length) that I believe that upon the particular facts which pertain to this case, and also upon the principles of general policy which should obtain in the admission of States. Nebraska ought not now by our votes to be admitted as a State into this nion; but if we are to entertain this subject at all, if we are to proceed with it and to determine it upon its merits, independent of the considerations which I have suggested, nothing can be clearer than that we should have an investigation, that we should understand how the truth is, that we should not incur the peril of admitting a State into the Union when a majority of the qualified electors of that State have actually voted against it, that we should admit a State upon a return which is assailed, and assailed strongly, both in this Chamber and in the public press of the country. And let me say to the Senfrom Ohio that upon questions of this kind in parliamentary proceedings we are not to require judicial evidence, we are not to demand specific proof to put us upon investigation. The old parliament ary rule is that common report is a snilicicut ground for parliamentary action. We have that constantly noted to us in the proceedings of the British aovemment, and it is a rule of good sense upon which all legislative bodies must proceed. When we are morally assured from statements made to us, whether by the press or by individuals, that an election which has been I l l held to organize it new State is of doubtful validity or of doubtful fairness, according to parliamentary practice and according to principles of reason we are bound to investigate, and we are not to wait here until there is a regular indictment drawn up and the names of ivit nessesgiven and the specific particulars of their evidence reduced to form, and all this produced here. That may be well enough in courts, but it is impossible in legislative bodies.