Mr. WADE. I did not intend to say anything more about this matter, but the Senfrom Indiana has insinuated that I have vacil lated a good deal on this question. I agree that my course upon it has not been entirely what would seem consistent to one acquainted with all the facts of the case. I oted against this bill at 1st, and on the reconsideration I voted for it. I gave no reasons for my last vote, because I do not care so much about giving reasons generally for the course I take here. I suppose that my reasons are to be judged by my votes. My votes always manifest the strongest reasons. Whoever searches the record will find my opinions much oftener from my votes than from anything I say in the senate. ButI think I had very good reason in this case to change my vote between the time I 1st voted against the bill and afterward on the reconsideration voted for it. Although I was upon the committee that reported the bill, and endeavored to obtain all the facts within my reach, I found that Ihad not got hold of all the facts that really existed in the case, when the bill was reported. When the bill was reported I differed mm the other members of the ComTerritor who thought that there were sutheient reasons for permitting the State to come in. But after that vote was given we had a great deal of additional light thrown upon the subject from the records of the different Depts of this Government showing the popnlation to be greater than was supposed when the bill was 1st up, and when that vote was given, and that the wealth and the ability of the Territory to maintain a State government were infinitely renter than any member of the Senate had betore supposed. I believe the fact to be that no Territory in the West had shown at the time of its admission as a State a greater amount of wealth or equaled the amount of taxation paid in this Territory. I shall detain the Senate but a moment further, for I am not going to argue the question nor enter into a lengthy explanation as to my votes on the subject. I wish simply to ask whether ever before in the history of this government there was a veto by a President of a bill for the admission of a State. You may trace every Administration from the time that States were 1st admitted till now, and this is the 1st instance when an Administration has seen fit to veto a bill which Congress had passed admitting a State into this Union. There has been no uniformity in regard to the practice of Congress in the admission of new States, and consequentl they have been admitted some times with a arger and sometimes witha. smaller population, and that has hardly formed any criterion. It has been said, and I think rop erly said, as a general thing, there should be about population enough for a Representative in Congress; but that rule has not been adhered to; we have vacillated one way and the other just as the circumstances of the case seemed to require. But the question is one peculiarly within the jurisdiction of Congress, and less than any at or within the province and observation of the POTUS This is the 1st instance where the people of a Territory wanted to come into the nion and where Congress had passed an enabling act for that.urpose, that e President has turned roundhznd put his veto upon the bill for their admission, so as to keep them out. You cannot find any other instance in which it has been done, and you will probably never find one again. We have not been very exacting of the Territories when they desired to become States. Generally, whenever the people of a Territory have come together and said they were able to maintain a State government, Congress has lather considered the question as one belonging to them than to anybody else. We are not the guardians of Territories so as to say that when they are willing to relieve the General Government of the burden of sustaining a territorial government and they are able to maintain themselves we will prevent them from doing it; but we have generally accommodated them and said, “ If you are willingto relieve us from the burden of sustaininga territorial government and to take upon yourselves a State governrnent, we are very glad to invite you in.” hat has been the general course of Congress, butit has been departed from by the President upon this occasion, and I am not going now to scrutinize his reasons for it. He may have (1reasons. Undoubtedly they are satisfactory to himself; but they are not quite as sut isfiictory to me and I hope they are notto many members of this Congress. His action is novel, and I hope it will not be repeated by any Executive hereafter when Congress gives its assent to the admission of a State. But I am not going to argue that point now. If I have voted both ways upon this subject, I have only to say that the evidence was made to appear very differ ontly on the different occasions when the measurewas up, and that is the reason I changed my vote.