Mr. HENDRICKS. Before the passage of this bill I intend simply to refer to the facts that were brought out in debate at the last session. The proceedings by which the constitution was adopted in this case were much more irregular, if possible, than those upon the adoption of a constitution in Nebraska. There was not even the action of the territorial Legislature upon the subject. o 1st rejected the constitution that was adopted by a convention pursuant to the enabling act; and after that, after such rejection, the chairman of the committees of the political parties of the Territory called another convention, and upon that most ol.proceeding a constitution was presented and was voted upon by the people, I believe not according to law. I do not recollect certainly upon that subject; but I believe that even the vote upon the constitution was not at any regular election or pursuant to any law of the Territory whatever. pon that vote less than 6,000 persons voted, and it was claimed that a majority of 150 was cast in favor of the constitution. Now, upon that showing it is claimed that the State ought to be admitted. I cannot bring my judgment to agree to that. Nor has it ever been claimed that in the Territory of Colorado there is nearly so large a population as in Nebraska. I think the evience before the Senate shows the fact that in Colorado there is less than 80,000 people. I judge, sir, by the census of 1860 the cen sustaken in 1860, the vote taken in 1861, and the vote at the subsequent elections. When by the census of 1860 she had a population of 25,000 the vote was 10,000. When the people of the Territory came to vote upon this constitution it was less I believe than 6,000: I may not be exactly correct; less perhaps than 7,000; much less, at any rate, than at the election of 1861, showing, so far as we may judge by the popular vote, a less population at the time this constitution was voted upon than when the census was taken, which showed the entire population of the Territory to be but 25,000. Now, sir, as a representative from the State of Indiana, a State with a population very nearly if not quite a million and a half, I cannot vote to give 30,000 oin the Territory of Colorado the voice in the Senate which is given under the Constitution to the million and a half of people that I in part represent. It is not right, Mr. President. There is no evidence before the Senate that shows the population to be larger than I have suggested; and I understood this morning, though I will not say that it is certainly so, that in a recent message delivered to the Legislature by the Governor of the Territory he makes the population to be 29,000. I have not seen that message or communication, but I understood that such an opinion has been expressed by the Governor of the Territory, that the population is about 29,000; not, in his judgment, to exceed that. If I am misinformed upon this subject I should like to be corrected; but taking the evidence that we have before us the population cannot exceed 30 or 35,000 at the very extreme. I believe 35,000 was claimed at the last session by the advocates of this bill. Then, Mr. President, it is proposed now to bring into the Union as a State a section of country with a population of 30 or 30 5,000. o submit to Senators whether this is according to the spirit of our institutions, or other, as between the States, it is just and right. But, sir, if the population were ever so sufficient I could not vote for the bill with the amendment which has just been adopted the amendment odby the Senfrom Vermont. That amendment is simply on the part of Congress a proposition to change the constitution of the proposed State, to incorporate a provision not found there when it came from the hands of the people. So far as I know this is the 1st time that the Congress of the U.S. has under taken to change the constitution adopted by the people '. a bill proposing to admit a State. The Senfrom Vermont claims that this provision of the bill will pass into the State constitution, or rather will control it and be permanent in its character, for he uses the word “perpetual, ” I believe, in the amendment.