Mr. SUMNER. I doubt whether it is advisable to go into any such question of motives on this occasion. I do not mean to raise any such question. I have a great many papers and letters that raise questions with regard to the gentlemen who are here. I do not. propose to make any allusion to them. There are letters and papers here on my table which. I do not propose to read, but which, if I should read, would reflect seriously upon those gentlemen. I read a few words from Mr. I do not propose to make any reflection upon anybody. I am speakin of the facts. have here a table of the total vote at the elections in different years. In August, 1861, the vote was 10, 580; in December, 12:61, 9, 354; in October, 1802, 8, 224; in September, 1804, 6, 700; in September, 1865, 6, 805; so that you will perceive that from 1801 to 1865 the vote constantly diminished, being at the beginning upward of 10,000, and at the end something upward of 5,000 and when the constitution was submitted only 8, 025 voted for it, while 2, 870 voted against it. Now, the precise question is, whether 5, 895 voters shall be invested with the powers of a State; whether they shall send into this Chamber 2 Senators whose votes shall be equal to the vote of NewYork, of Pennsylvania, of Ohio, or of Massachusetts? Is thatjust! Is it fair? When a State is once admitted into the Union, we all know our obligations to it under the Constitution; that is, it is admitted on a footing of perfect equalit; and certainly we should well consider in a vance before we receive a State into that high equality, whether it is in the numbers at least/en titled to that equality. It is not an answer to me to so that Pennsylvania, NewYork, Ohio, and assachusetts have a large political weight in the other House which this new State, should it be received, will not have. The question is, whether in this Senate it will not have a weight to which such a number ofvoters cannot bejustly entitled. That leads me to ask you to consider for one moment the functions of the Senate. The Senate of the U.S. is a peculiar body, utterly without precedent or without arallelin the history of any other constitutiona Government differin clearly from the upper House of the English arliament, differing from the upperHouse of the French Chambers, differing from the upper House in Prussia, from the upperHouse in taly, and in this respect the Senate of the U.S. has 3 functions, one legislative, one diplomatic, and one executive. By its legislative function it acts in cooperation with the other House on all laws of the country. By its diplomatic function it acts, without any coo eration with the other House, on all treaties of the country; and by its executive function it acts, without the other House, on allthe nominations of the President. Whatever may be the preon derance of power that the larger States may have in the HoRep that will not affect theSe 2 last functions which are exercised by the Senate of the U.S., the diplomatic and the executive; and the question is, whether a few more than 5,000 voters in a distant Territory shall be organized so as to come into this Chamber and on questions of did lomacy and on executivequestions to neutralize the vote of the large States to which I have referred. Sir, even conceding that on legislative questions through the preEmderance of the large States in the other House there may be a certain remedy to this disorder, there is no such remedy in the exercise of these 2 other important functions of the Senate. I submit, therefore, that it is not advisable for us at this moment to invest this small number of voters with these large political powers. They must wait a little longer, wait until the are more numerous, so as at least to be entitle to one full Representative in the other House. When the time comes we shall gladly welcome them. At present, I submit that the time has not come. But then, sir, there is another objection, and that is on the face of their constitution. submit that it is not republican in form and in harmony with the DeclarIndep. he requirement of this very enabling act under which the have pretended to proceed, but which, as have shown, was already exhausted before they entered upon these proceedings, is as follows: “That the constitution, when formed shall be republican and not repugnant to the Constitution of the U.S and the principles of the DeclarIndep." Now, what is the constitution? Article 3, entitled “Suffrage and Elections, ” begins as follows: "Sac. 1. Every white male citizen of the age of 21 years niiil upward.who is by birth, or has become by naturalization ir by treaty, or shall have declared his intention to become a citizen of the U.S. according to the laws thereof and who shull have resided in the State of Colorado for 6 months preceding any election and shall have been a dent for ten daysof the precinct or election resi where he district offers to rate shall be deemed a qualified elector and entitled to vote at the same.” There on have the requirement, “every white made citizen;” in other words, nobody who is not “white” under this constitution is recognized as entitled to the elective franchise. Now, sir, I insist, and on that head I challenge a reply from any Senator on this floor, that such a constitution does not comply with the requirement, that it is not republican, and that it is repugnant to the principles of the Declaration of ndependence. I say that it is not republican, for the 1st principle of republican government is equality. Let that be denied, and you fail in your republican government. I say still further that the 1st principle of republican government is equality; equality in rights is the 1st of rights.