Mr. JOHNSON. But does the honorable member deny the fact which I have stated, that for the most part the emigrants, particularly to a Territory such as Colorado, are emigrants without families? That I suppose we all know to be true beyond all doubt and the general rule as to the proportion of voters to people does not appl to such a population as is in one of these Territories. Butindepondent of that, if you deduct the 6 or 10,000 Mexicans who form now a art of the populntion of that Territory from the 35,000 “claiming to be there, and suppose that 1/2 of those who did vol e were voters without families, you find the population to he in all probability not more than 15,000. But suppose it to be 85,000. It is true that the constitution of the U.S. in no part of it, with reference to the admission of new States, prescribes any number of population ofwhich the State is to consist; but if they had contemplated as possible that the Congress of the U.S. under that authority would have admitted any State with a population such as is the population of Colorado, supposing it to be the largest number which any person has stated it to be, they would have prevented it, in my judgment, by constitutional prohibition. What did they do? A great many of the members of the Convention were members of the 1st Congress. In 1790Congress directed the 1st census to be taken. In 1792, when they came to apportion the members the States were to have, they directed that there should be only one Representative for every 32 or 33,000 of the population. so that the very men, or most of the leading men whoconstituted the Convention, when they came to act upon the question how the people were to be represented, provided that 33,000 should be necessary ine r er to be represented by one representative and now what are we about to 0? To let these 20 or 30,000 persons be represented by one member certainlyin the HoRep. although the number now required as the basis ofrepresentation in that llouse is 127,000, and to give them 2 Senators on this floor, and why 1 I do not speculate as to motive; l have no right to speculate as to motive; but why is it necessary? Is it to protect the people of the territo? Cannot we protect them by our own legisation? What is the condition of the people of this District, numbering now more than 100,000? They are not to constitute a State at any time. We are their representatives, and under the Constitution we are alike the representatives of all who may settle in these Territories before they are in a condition to be received into the Union of States. In my judgment. the admission of States into this Union is ahigh function and a very important function. Some of the honorable gentlemen who are favoring this bill may, perhaps, not consider it so important as I do, because they give a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution, of which, in myjudgment. it does not admit. They seem to believe that they can legislate for the States after they get into the Union. My opinion is that the moment the State is admitted it is wholly independent of any legislation that Congress may adopt, except such as falls within its delegated powers; that nearly the whole sphere of subjects with which the local rights of the State are concerned or the business of the people of the State is concerned, is to be submitted to the legislation of the State, and entirely independent of that which Congress may think proper to adopt and I submit to those who are about to vote for this proposition that it is not republican in point of fibrin. I do not mean upon the ground upon which my friendfrom Massachusetts places it, or on which the Senfrom Vermont places it; but in the true sense of a republican government, it is not right in principle to give to 15 or 20,000 people an equal voice in this body with one or 2 or 3 millions. The time may come when those who are for receiving now the State of Colorado, with that limited population, may regret the precedent that will be established if she shall be received. The admission of States is not to terminate with that of Colorado. There is an immense territory yet to come in when it comes to be sufficieutly peopled. There is in some of these States now territory enough and population enough to make a dozen States. I the Union is restored actually tomorrow, and the whole of the southern States come in, they mayhave a policy of their own. They may think it necessary, in order to carry out that policy, to divide their own States; to make of Texas 4; to make of Georgia just as man almost as they may think proper to make, for s e has 40 times the population of Colorado; to make of Virginia as many; and what will the States of NewEngland be able to say in opposition if Colorado should be admitted? Wirginia will insist, because it is sure to be so in the end, that having a population of 5 or ten millions she ought to be represented upon this floor by more than 2 Senators, and insist upon a division of her State into as man States as her policy for the timemay dictate. Hhw can you refuse to allow it? In the 1st place, you cannot refuse her on principles. In the 2nd place, upon the hypothesis which I have assumed, {pu will not be able to refuse her by votes. hat is to become of the NewEngland States and the smaller States which are here upon the sea board? I do notmention it by way of a threat, for threats are thrown away, as I trust, upon the members of this body; lap cal to it merely for the purpose of bringing tot e attention of the Senate a fact which I think should enter into their deliberations as statesmen upon the possible tendency of this asure. The honorable member fro Nevada [Mr. NYE] who s okc so well yesterday an the same thing lies been said in substance by others seemed to suppose that these people have a right to bemitted because of the extent of this Territory and the extent of the mineral wealth. That is notmyideaofaState, Mr. Presidentand that is not the idea that our fathers had. The States that they designed were States to be composed of men and not of mere wealth. Otherwise the city of NewYork might furnish 50 States if wealth only was to be the test by which States are to be constituted. It is not the wealth in the mountains or the wealth in the pockets of the citizens; it is the citizens. The mere suggestion that 20 or 30,000 people of all sorts, constituted of men, women, and children, native Mex icans, and others, are to be put upon the same footingin this body with the great State of NewYork seems to me I was about to say to be so absurdto be so antirepublican that the people of the country will never sanction it. f you can let a State in with 15,000, why not let her in with 5,000? The honorable member from Oregon stated that there was nothing in the Constitution which limits the number of people that is to constitute a State. That is true. Well, if in the absence of any particularprovision on that subject in the Constitution, you can let in Colorado although she has a population of only 15 or 20,000 you could let in any other territorial possession that we have if it should turn out to have a population of 3,000 and should ask for it. It is, therefore, upon the ground of the want of population principally that I am opposed to the measure, but there is another reason which operates influentially with me. There is nothing to show that the people of the Territory even desire it nothing satisfactory to my judgment. The only majority claimed is 165 out of a vote of some 6000, and I suppose it is perfectly legitimate to infer that in the 6,000 who voted not one of the native Mexican population is to be found and how was the election held? Not held under your enablin act of March, 1864. They did not pretend to old it under that enablin act.