Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

but 15,000, taking your calculation from the vote that was cast.

ident. The disproportion would be very great, and it would give to a man in Colorado far greater power and voice in the selection of a President than to a man in the State of Indiana. As to the two electors that are based upon the senatorial representation, my argument is correct. Colorado at the next presidential election,. if she is admitted, will elect two senatorial electors, and those two senatorial electors will cast a vote equal to the two senatorial electors that are selected by the 1,300,000 people of Indiana. In respect to the two senatorial delegates, my argument is correct, that one man in Colorado would have a voice equal to ninety men in Indiana.

But, sir, the Senator from Oregon, with great force and earnestness, appeals to us to give to these people the right to vote for President of the United States, to control the legislation of Congress, to control the financial policy of the Government. He referred in his remarks to these matters; and to give force to his argument he alludes to the position of the Senator from Massachusetts, that taxation without representation is tyranny. Sir, is it possible that a small community in the formation of the laws shall have the same voice that a great community shall have? Representa. tion must be equal and just, else representation of itself becomes tyranny. If you say that 15,000 persons in Colorado shall have the same voice in the legislation of the country that the 1,300,000 people of Indiana have, you adopt a tyranny as oppressive as to deny rep resentation altogether. What has been the policy of the Government upon this question? The first position assumed by the Government was before the adoption of the Constitution, in the celebrated Ordinance of 1787, by which it was provided that out of the Territory of the Northwest, which now has in this Union such great empire States, there might be formed three or five States, but that no State should be admitted until it had a population of 60,000,||ably discussed by the Senator from Pennsylabout double of what was then the ratio of representation in the House of Representatives; and my colleague and I represent a State that came into this Union under that provision. The people of Indiana had no voice in the making of the Federal laws, the people of Indiana had no voice in the selection of the President of the United States, until they could num. ber 60,000, until they could show a population entitling them to a Representative in the other House. But now it is claimed as tyranny if this Territory with a population of 15,000 shall not have a voice in the Senate of the United States, equal to the 1,300,000 people of Indiana.

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Do I understand the Senator from Indiana to say that the policy of our Government and the Constitution of ourGovernment require equality in these things? Mr. HENDRICKS. No, sir, I do not say so. Mr. KIRKWOOD. Take the State of Delaware, take the State of Florida, which the Senator is so anxious to get in, and he will find an inequality, if not so great, yet very great between those States and the State he so ably represents here. It is not the policy of our Government, I apprehend, to have equality in these things, and we do not have it.

Why, Mr. President, contemplate the proposition of the Senator from Oregon for a moment. He says that it is an act of injustice, that it is an act of tyranny, if the people of Colorado shall not have a voice in the selection of President of the United States. Her population, in comparison with the population of the State which my colleague and I represent, is about as one to ninety. In the Senate of the United States one man in Colorado will have the voice of ninety men in the State of Indiana. Is that equality? Is that democracy? Is that justice? Or is it tyranny? And when you come to select a President of the United States in 1868, is it right, is it just, is it consistent with the policy of our Government, that one man in Colorado shall have the voice of ninety men in Indiana? How many it would be in New York, I know not. But the Senator says he has heard no complaint from New York; no complaint from the great State of Pennsylvania. As one of the representatives from Indiana, I differ from my colleague, and I am not willing that in the selection of a President at the next great election, which is to be a very sensitive period in our history, one man in Colorado shall equal ninety of the men whom I represent. It is not according to the policy of the Government. It is not accord

ing

He

Mr. STEWART. I should like to inquire of the Senator how he figures that out. says that Indiana, as compared with Colorado, estimating her population at fifteen thousand, has ninety to one in population; but Colorado will not have the same number of votes in electing a President that Indiana has. Mr. HENDRICKS. The criticism of the Senator is right in respect to the election of a President. have not made the calculation as to what would be the disproportion in the election of a President. I made my calculation in respect to the voice in the passage of laws through this body, and then applied it without very much reflection to the election of a Pres

Mr. HENDRICKS. The existing inequality in the Senate of the United States was so

vania [Mr. BUCKALEW] some time since, and has been answered, or attempted, at least, to be answered by some Senators, that it is not necessary now for the Senator from Iowa or myself to rediscuss that question. The fact that there is inequality in the old States that came in as colonies into the Union and helped to make this Government does not justify us in carrying that inequality beyond any point known in our history heretofore. In 1787, as I have said, when a territorial government was given to the Northwestern Territory, it was required that before the admission of a State from that Territory there should be a population entitling the State to two Representatives in the House-a population of sixty thousand. I believe the same provision is found in the territorial government for the Southwestern Territory, and in the territorial government for the Territory of Louisiana, showing a policy and purpose by our forefathers; and I understood the chairman of the Committee on Territories to say that that has been the sentiment constantly from the foundation of the Government up to the present time, sometimes, for particular reasons, departed from, as in the case of Kansas.

Mr. STEWART. Was it not departed from in the case of Florida and Arkansas to a greater extent than in the case of Kansas? Neither of them, as I understand, had as much as fifteen thousand.

of Colorado, because of their assumed loyalty, a voice ninety times greater than to the men of Indiana.

Mr. President, it is claimed that the Territory can be very much more prosperous with a State government than with a territorial govern ment. I have never lived under a territorial government, and have not the experience of the Senator from Oregon or the Senator from Nevada in that respect; but why is it that a Territory may not be prosperous? Why may she not be comparatively independent in the regulation of her own domestic affairs? She does not have the selection of her Governor, or of her judges; but she selects all her local officers; she selects her Legislature. Her Legislature, by the laws which it enacts, regulates all her domestic affairs. If they need a combination of wealth, the Territorial Legislature may establish corporations, and may do all those things which the local interests of the people may require. I think the history of the Territories does not support the Senator from Oregon in the position that they are less prosperous during their territorial existence than afterward. I think there is not much weight in the argument of the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Nevada upon that point. The Territories up to this time have not complained, so far as I know, of the legislation of Congress that applies to them. It seems to me to have been just and fair; and in respect to their domestic affairs, they regulate them for themselves.

I have said about all that I desire to say on this question. I know of no change that has taken place in the population of Colorado or in the regularity of the proceedings by which this constitution was adopted since this bill was rejected by the Senate. I am curious to know what shall change the judgment of Senators in regard to it. My colleague says that he has not joined in any whispering that we need two additional Senators here, and yet he did say before he closed his speech that he was glad to have additional Senators if they represented a loyal constituency. Mr. President, I shall, as readily as my colleague, as readily as any other Senator, welcome Senators who come here from new States with a population which justly, fairly, and rightly entitles them to seats in this body; but I am not prepared to say that the small popnlation of Colorado shall have an equal voice in the Senate with the large population of Indiana.

Mr. STEWART. There have been several allusions in the debate to the fact that this bill has been once defeated. I desire to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that it was not defeated in a full Senate. The votes against it were only 21, and those for it 14, so that there were only thirty-five Senators voting. When we have a full Senate there are fortynine here, there being twenty-five States repre

Mr. HENDRICKS. I was quoting the remark of the Senator from Ohio as authority.sented. I say consequently that vote was not If the Senator from Nevada is not content with the argument that I present, I shall be obliged to him if he will answer it when I get through.

a fair test when there were only thirty-five members voting.

The assumption that the population of ColThe Senator from Ohio, in the argument of orado is only 15,000 is not a fair statement of this question a few weeks since, when he op- the case. I think, myself, that the population posed the admission of Colorado with very is small; but placing it at 15,000 is certainly a great ability, stated, as I understood him, that very great exaggeration-a greater exaggera the policy of the Government had been, though tion than it would be to place it at 50,000. sometimes departed from under peculiar cir- From the evidence fairly before us it is shown cumstances, to require a population entitling that at the last election for State officers they the people to a Representative in the House cast over seven thousand votes. Gentlemen of Representatives. Now, sir, it would require say that is just as good a criterion of the amount about one hundred and twenty thousand to of population as the vote in 1861 was. I deny secure a Representative in the House of Rep-it. Since that time families have been moving resentatives; and here with a population, upon the best information we can get, of about fifteen thousand, it is asked to give two Senators and a Representative to Colorado. I think the people of Indiana will hardly be satisfied with the argument of my colleague, based upon the loyalty of the people of Colorado, when he says, that in the making of the laws, so far as they depend upon the action of the Senate, and in the selection of a President of the United States, so far as it depends upon senatorial electors, he is willing to give to the people

in; there were not so many miners roaming over the country that are only transient; there is a more settled population, and the numbers of voters in proportion to the population now is not as great as it was in 1861.

In 1861 they were huddled together in one or two small mining camps. Now they are scattered all over the Territory, and many of them following agricultural pursuits with their families. A vote of 7,000 now would indicate a larger population than a vote of 10,000 did when they were in one or two mining camps

[ocr errors]

all voting, all males, before they had brought their families there. The population has changed from a mining to an agricultural one to a great extent, and the vote of 7,000 of last year to me indicates a larger population than a vote of 10,000 would situated as they were in 1861, not having extended their population over the Territory and being huddled together where they could all readily vote. Now they have spread over the Territory; they have brought their families; and a vote of 7,000 at this time indicates to my mind a population of at least 35,000, because they are so situated that they do not come to the polls so regularly; they are a long distance from the polls; they have settled in the little valleys all over the country as any person traveling through will see. I am justified, then, in saying that a vote of 7,000 at this time indicates a larger population than a vote of 10,000 would situated as they were in 1861; and I think that when we have before us the fact that they cast 7,000 votes it is an extreme exaggeration to say that their population does not exceed 15,000.

But Congress has passed upon the question of population. The Senate twice passed upon it by passing an enabling act in 1863, and again in 1864. The population is certainly as great now as it was then, and is increasing, and the prospects before the Territory are infinitely superior to what they were in 1864. In 1864 they were cut off by an Indian war; they were embarrassed in every possible way; their prospect for the future was gloomy to what it is now. The rebellion is over; they have a railroad approaching them very rapidly; they have learned something of irrigation, and they have learned, too, how to dispose of grasshoppers, so that they will not be so ruinous perhaps as they were before. The grasshopper question, the irrigation question, and the Indian war question are all better understood. The prospects of the country are good. The mines have proved to be very rich. The various ores are being worked now to better advantage, and the Territory is in a much better condition than it was in 1864. It has a larger population than it had when you passed on the question; and I say, with the Senator from Oregon, [Mr. WILLIAMS,] that it would be bad faith, after having given this invitation, and after this constitution has been formed and these representatives have come here, to change the invitation and deny them admission. Hereafter if you want to establish a different rule, establish it; but now, under all the circumstances, I say that upon any fair construction of these votes there is a larger population in Colorado than there was in 1864, and everything_connected with that Territory shows that it is better able to support a State government, with better prospects, than when you passed the enabling act, and I contend that it is bad faith to deny

them admission.

thousand votes in the Territory of Colorado? I speak with a knowledge that is not uninformed, for I have lived on the frontier from my young manhood, and inhabited about that part of the world, and I was in Colorado, I believe, before any gentleman on this floor. Seven thousand votes there would indicate a population of about fifteen thousand, not more. It has been regarded heretofore as a rule that no State should come into the Federal Union until her population would come up to what was required by the enumeration for a member of the House of Representatives. I do not remember the precise number now required, but I know it is something over one hundred thousand. Two Senators in the Federal Senate for a population of fifteen thousand would be a great injustice; and to that injustice I cannot be a party. I did vote for this bill in the first instance. I did it for the reason that I want to build up the interests of the Pacific and the mountains; but I cannot on consideration agree to such a wrong. This is not a community yet established: its foundations have not yet been laid. When they are well laid, with the proper population, a well-organized society, then they shall be of the community of States by my voice, but not now.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, I was not present in the Senate at the time the vote was taken rejecting the bill. Had I been here I should have voted for the bill, and I regret very much that I did not happen at that time to be in my seat, because I have a very strong conviction of the expediency and propriety of admitting Colorado as one of the States of the

Union.

There appear to be two objections raised against the admission of Colorado. The first is insufficient population according to the opinion of some gentlemen, and the second is that the right of suffrage as defined in the constitution itself is too limited in excluding colored persons.

Now, sir, I confess that I do not regard either of these objections of sufficient weight to induce me to vote against the admission of Colorado. I consider the objection based upon the alleged insufficiency of the population in point of numbers as out of place entirely. On the 21st of March, 1864, Congress declared in very plain

terms that

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

It is said that this statute, which in its subsequent clauses provides the mode by which the people shall organize themselves into a State has spent its force and become functus officio; and we are therefore called upon, by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts esMr. McDOUGALL. Mr. President, I wish pecially, to pay no regard to the act of 1864. I it were quite as convenient to think as to talk, do not regard the statute in that light; I do not for in thought there is counsel, but in words regard it as having spent its force. I regard there is often great want of wisdom. I said this first section, which I have read, as conyesterday that on the former occasion I was intaining a pledge of the Government of the error as to facts which led me to a wrong conclusion. There is no man on this Senate floor more concerned in building up the interests of the mountains and the Pacific and the great West than myself; I have labored in it from my youth upward; but I cannot justify myself to myself in sustaining this measure, for the reasons that I will state briefly, for I do not propose to go into a discourse or make it matter of argument.

United States to the people of Colorado that whenever they shall form themselves into a State and provide for themselves a government, they shall, so far at least as population is concerned, be admitted into the Union.

I have said we passed this statute in March, 1864, and in the same breath we passed another statute giving the same privilege to the Territory of Nebraska, and another giving the same privilege to the then Territory of NeThis Government was organized upon a sys- vada; and we did it at a time when the populatem. In this Senate Chamber each State is tion of these several Territories, as ascertained represented by two Senators, although it may by the official agents of the Government who be entitled to but one Representative in the took the census in 1860, was as follows: the other end of this building. To adjust the population of the Territory of Colorado at that equilibrium was one of the great troubles of time, according to the census from which I our grandsires. That for some factitious pur-give these figures, was 34,277; that of Dakota pose a State should be introduced not possess ing the qualifications that should justify it in claiming a member of the House of Represent atives would be a wrong upon the system as it has been best understood. What are seven

Territory 4,837; that of Nebraska Territory 28,841; and that of the then Territory of Nevada, perched like an eagle's nest upon mountains, was 6,857.

The people of the Territory of Nevada pro

ceeded regularly, as required by the statute, to institute for themselves a State government at a time when they certainly had not a smaller population than six thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven. The probability is that in 1864, when they went through the process of forming themselves into a State government, the population was larger, but what it was I am not now able to say. It was certainly, as I presume, not greater than the population of Colorado. If I am wrong in this my friend from Nevada will be able to correct me. We have admitted Nevada as a State of the Union, which in 1860, being then a Territory, had a population of only six thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven inhabitants.

If the Territory of Colorado in 1864 possessed a sufficient population to justify Congress in granting them the privilege of forming themselves into a State government, and if, as is indubitably the truth, that population has not diminished since then, upon what ground is it, I ask, that gentlemen allege insufficient population as a reason for refusing admission to Colorado? I insist, sir, that so far as Congress are concerned, so far as the spirit of the law is concerned, we are estopped from insisting upon this objection.

Mr. McDOUGALL. Will my friend from Michigan allow me to ask him, is there any such thing as an estoppel as against a judge on the bench, he being bound to do justice? Is there any such thing as an estoppel where one has authority? It may be applied to parties litigant, but not to the judge.

Mr. HOWARD. I am not speaking of technical estoppels in trials at law. We all know right well that estoppels are mutual. What I mean to say is that we are upon every political and moral principle precluded from urging now, as an objection against the admission of Colorado, that she has not sufficient population, because we acted upon that identical question in 1864, and said to Colorado and said to the whole nation that Colorado then possessed a sufficient population to justify us in forming her into a State.

Does the

Mr. McDOUGALL. Allow me. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator from Michigan yield the floor to the

Senator from California?

Mr. HOWARD. With a great deal of pleas ure. I hope my learned friend from California will now indicate his ideas in a tone of voice which will enable me to catch them on this side of the Chamber.

Mr. McDOUGALL. Only one word. Sup pose I was wrong then; suppose I acted unadvisedly

Mr. HOWARD. That is not a supposable

case.

Mr. McDOUGALL. And I change my opinions, have I not a right to express it by my voice? Answer me that.

Mr. HOWARD. I suppose, according to the Senator's speech, he has availed himself of that high privilege of changing his opinion and changing his vote. I will now ask him a question; and that is, whether he did not vote for the act of 1864, giving this privilege to Colorado?

Mr. McDOUGALL. I believe I did.

Mr. HOWARD. And I think, as I am informed, he voted for the bill which was recently under discussion in this Chamber. Mr. MCDOUGALL. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. HOWARD. And made a speech, too, a very good speech, undoubtedly, in favor of it. Most undoubtedly every gentleman has a right to change his opinion; but I say that without further light upon a given subject, without further facts to justify such a mental mutation as my friend from California seems to have undergone, he can scarcely say that he has a moral right so to change his opinion as to change the proper course of legislation upon the question.

However, sir, that is a question which he must settle for himself. I cannot act as casuist in so grave a matter. He must be his own judge.

Mr. MCDOUGALL. The Senator from California takes care of his own conscience.

Mr. HOWARD. I hope he has a very considerable task at times in doing so. [Laughter.] Mr. MCDOUGALL. Very.

Mr. HOWARD. And now, Mr. President, I think that I have answered that objection, certainly in a manner satisfactory to my own mind, however unsatisfactory I may have been in regard to the minds of others.

The next objection relied upon by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts appears to be that the constitution which has been actually framed and is now before us is not in perfect accordance with that clause of the enabling act which requires that the constitution shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States nor to the principles of the Declaration of Independence; and he seems to hold that the restriction upon the right of suffrage found in the constitution of Colorado, by which all who are not white persons are expersons cluded from the electoral privilege, is a departure from that clause of the enabling act, the clause in the State constitution declaring that every white male citizen of the age of twentyone years, &c., shall have the right to vote."

I do not understand that this is any violation of or departure from the principles of the Declaration of Independence. I was never able to discover in the Declaration of Independence that it was the right of every person, white and black, to vote at the polls. There is certainly no such clause contained in it, and I believe it has never received such a construction.

Mr. SUMNER. I would ask my learned friend if the Declaration of Independence does not contain the proposition that all men are equal in rights.

Mr. HOWARD. The Declaration of Independence declares that "all men are created equal."

Mr. SUMNER. That means equal in rights. Mr. HOWARD. And that "they are endowed with certain inalienable rights."

Mr. SUMNER. Then permit me to ask him, does it not go further and say that all just government stands on the consent of the governed? My learned friend will see that by this constitution one whole class is excluded.

Mr. HOWARD. I see plainly that one whole class is excluded by this constitution. That is very true; but it does not follow from that fact that it is a violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, in my judgment. I suppose that notwithstanding the Declaration of Independence, it is the right of every organized political community to regulate the right of suffrage according to the opinions and desires of a majority of that community. When we come to the question of government in a republican country the great and only final test is the will of the majority, whatever may be the component parts of the population. If, therefore, it be the will of a majority to exclude certain classes from the right of suffrage, where that will is exercised freely, I do not know any higher law pertaining to a republican government than that will. It must be submitted to. It may be right or it may be wrong in point of morals, in point of philosophic principles, but it must be submitted to as a practical rule of conduct, whatever may be the theory in regard to it.

I do not, I confess, Mr. President, regard this restriction of the right of suffrage in the Colorado constitution as of importance enough to withhold my vote from the bill now under consideration. If there was a large portion of the people of Colorado who were colored, if they were an important portion of the population, the question would then present itself in a different aspect, and it might become a very serious question whether they ought not to be admitted to a participation in the privileges of government; but as I understand it, the number there is only some forty or fifty.

Mr. SUMNER. One hundred. Mr. HOWARD. Suppose there are 100, and Suppose the population of the present Territory of Colorado to be 30,000 or 35,000 or 40,000

or 50,000; I ask you, sir, especially as Congress has already passed upon this question, according to my apprehension, whether we ought now to hesitate and to keep the State out of the Union simply because her people happen to have exercised the same right, the same power, be it right or wrong, which is exercised in the constitution of almost every other State in the Union.

Mr. SUMNER. DoIunderstand my learned friend as arguing that you may deny rights to one hundred persons but you may not deny them to a thousand?

Mr. HOWARD. I leave that question to the decision of the majority of the people of Colorado as the best test, as the most satisfactory rule for my conduct at present, especially as the number of that class of persons is so very small. I beg to say, however, and this I speak from my deepest convictions, that I think the time is not far distant when every citizen of the United States, black or white, ought to be and will be admitted to the right of suffrage. I could wish it were otherwise in the present case; I could wish that the people of Colorado in forming this constitution had seen fit to omit the word "white" as a qualifying provision before "person," in reference to suffrage, and I shall vote under the expectation that that generous and enterprising people who have done so much according to their numbers to uphold the Government of the United States during the late war will see to it hereafter that this error shall be corrected in their constitution, and that all persons, black and white, shall be permitted to vote in that State. I hope the same principle will be carried throughout the States, and that we shall all live to see the day-I expect to live to see it, and at no very distant period-when there shall be no such distinction in respect to suffrage as "colored" or "white." I believe that it is as much the right of the colored man to vote at an election as the white man; but still we must look to these matters in a practical sense; we must contemplate them as practical questions of legislation, and not as mere theoretical questions.

But, sir, it is said that this constitution originated irregularly, without the sanction of law, and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HENDRICKS] has passed some severe criticisms on this feature of the case. I do not regard this constitution as having originated without law. I look upon the statute of 1864 as containing, as I before remarked, a pledge to the people of Colorado that they should come into the Union, as a pledge to them of the privilege of forming a State constitution, Congress having adjudged that their numbers were sufficient and that their situation at that remote point was such as to make it necessary and proper that they should form a State constitution and be admitted into the Union. It is very true that certain provisions of the act of 1864, relating to the proceedings to be taken in the Territory, had lapsed and ceased to be operative in consequence of the lapse of time. In such a question as this, Mr. President, is the mere lapse of a few months' time of such importance as to justify gentlemen in saying that Congress is under no obligation to the people of Colorado? We know very well that in all legal proceedings, even in proceedings of the most solemn character, where life itself is at stake in a court of justice, the court, in most cases, holds time to be merely immaterial; it is the substance of the thing to which the court looks; and it seems to me, in this case, it is the substance, it is the promise, the encouragement, the pledge which we in our sincerity held out to the people of Colorado, that ought to govern us, and not the mere question of the lapse of time.

Now, sir, I have not heard any complaint made that in the proceedings preliminary to the election of delegates to the convention that framed this constitution there was any fraud or unfairness whatever. The Senator from Massachusetts has made no such allegation. He does not pretend, nor does any Senator pretend, that

[ocr errors]

the mode of taking the vote was unfair, that there was any fraud or corruption in the whole proceeding; and I take it that if Senators are silent upon this, which would appear to be a very grave objection, it may be taken for granted that the proceedings were entirely fair; that although the constitution originated spontaneously with the people, and was carried forward by their consent until it finally became consummated in the form of a constitution, that is no reason whatever why we should disregard the constitution itself, or look upon it with suspicion.

I have in my mind, sir, a precedent which may not be without its interest on this occasion. It is one relating to my own State. The State of Michigan organized itself under an act of the territorial government of the Territory of Michigan, and utterly without the sanction of Congress or any fundamental law, in the year 1835. It called a convention, which assem bled, framed and adopted a State constitution, and that constitution was submitted formally to the vote of the people of the Territory in the fall of 1835, if my memory serves me, and the people of the Territory assented to the constitution and ratified it. Subsequently, in 1836, Congress passed an act declaring that Michigan should be admitted into the Union as a State, provided a convention of her people should give their assent to a change of her boundaries on the southern border. The Senator from Ohio, perhaps, is old enough to recollect that rather stirring controversy between his great and gigantic State and the little Territory of Michigan. The Territory of Michigan called a convention in pursuance of a regular territorial statute. That convention met and took into solemn consideration the proposition of Congress to assent to a change of boundaries which stripped us of several townships on our southern border, and decided that they would not consent to it; and the convention dispersed and went home. The Democratic party, then entirely omnipotent in the State, discovering that it might be necessary in order to give strength to Mr. Van Buren, who was then a candidate for the Presidency, took upon themselves, through their leaders, to call a pop. ular convention, which the boys at that time were in the habit of calling the frost-bitten convention. A vote was taken in a most irregular manner throughout the Territory, without oath, without challenge, without any of the forms of law ordinarily observed at such elections. Another convention was elected in this irregu⚫ lar way; that convention assembled together, although it was supposed that the law itself had spent its force under which the former convention was called, and gave the assent of the Territory to this change of boundary; whereupon a no less distinguished individual than Andrew Jackson, then President of the United States, issued his proclamation, founded entirely upon the assent of this irregular popular convention, and announced to the people of the United States that the State of Michigan was admitted into the Union. I do not refer to this precedent as one to be followed in all cases. At the time I regarded it more as a warning and as an admonition for the future than as a thing to be approved; but there it is upon the statute-book, and there is the proc lamation of President Jackson, and here stands Michigan to-day admitted into the Union in virtue of such a popular decree.

Mr. President, I have consumed more time than I intended upon this subject. I regard, as I said before, the statute of 1864 as holding out to the people of Colorado the pledge of Congress, that upon the formation of a constitution by them which is republican in form, and not inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence, they shall be admitted into Congress as one of the States of the Union on an equality with the other States; and I shall vote to reconsider the bill, and I hope to have the good luck to vote for the bill upon its final passage and to see it adopted by a very respectable majority of the Senate.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, as I feel

constrained to vote against this reconsideration, and as the reasons which impel me to that course are somewhat different in degree, if not in kind, from those which have been advanced by other Senators upon this floor, I beg the indulgence of the Senate for a very few moments while I state them.

The principal objection which induces me to oppose the admission of this Territory at this time, and to oppose it in spite of the personal respect and esteem which I feel for the distinguished gentlemen who would otherwise represent her in this body, is found in the nature of the constitution itself which she has presented, rather than in the irregularity with which it has been adopted or in the want of a sufficient population to entitle her to admission; and I presume that nobody will suppose that I misrepresent Vermont on this question when I say that it grows out of this much discussed word, "white."

In my own State from its foundation, when it was an independent State for many years, not a member of the Union, its constitution from the beginning to this day has adhered to what I understand to be the principles of the Declaration of Independence thoroughly. It has tolerated no distinctions between human rights of one race and another, or of one color and another, or of one sect and another. While my State, as all other States do, recognizes distinctions among men, while it acknowledges the paramount right and the paramount duty of a majority of the whole people to determine what are the true qualifications of electors, it discards the dogma of delusion and of wrong which declares that these qualifications and distinctions are to rest upon unreal and accidental foundations. Its laws always have, as the laws of all States do, provided that luna"tics, non compotes, criminals, and a variety of classes of persons upon whom the law under similar circumstances operates equally everywhere, are not entitled to exercise a voice in the government of the State.

believe is the cardinal one, which has been
stated by the Senator from Massachusetts, of
the equality of man, and that further principle
which has been stated by him, which that
instrument emphatically declares, that the obli-
gation and the right of those who govern is
derived from those who are governed.

Now, there is offered to us a constitution
which contains in it the fundamental declara-
tion that the obligation to obey law, the power
of those who are to exercise law, does not de-
pend upon the consent of some portion of the
governed at all; but that by reason of the acci
dent of the color of a man's skin or of his race,
of origin, independent of color-because I take
it the word "white" in this constitution means
white as a race distinguished from the negro
race a portion of the people are to be ex-
cluded from participation in the government.
We are called upon under this constitution, I
say, to declare, if we approve it and submit it
to this people, that a provision, fundamental in
its nature, in this constitution of that descrip-
tion is correct. I cannot consent to the doc-
trine. If I rightly understand the theory of
the formation of government, it is that consti-
tutions are formed (aside from the mere frame-
work and machinery of government) for the
protection of private rights and the fundamen-
tal rights of minorities and individuals against
the powers of majorities, against the exercise
of arbitrary power or of tyranny on the part of
the Government.

frage on the part of the black man, as to
require it to be inserted in the fundamental
law of the Government.

You will find, sir, and Senators will find, that
this constitution contains the usual clause that
two thirds of the Legislature are requisite to
amend it in any particular. It is not, there-
fore, as I said before, the question whether it
is right or fit that a State should decide for
itself who or what portion of its citizens should
vote, but it is the fundamental question whether
we will allow a Territory over which we have
control to impose upon itself an obligation
which it cannot recede from, to exclude from
any of the political rights of government any
class of its citizens. That is the question. I
do not know but that if this were left, as the
original enabling act left it, to the people of
that Territory to declare of themselves when
and under what circumstances the colored race
should be clothed with political rights, I should
not be satisfied. I should then have preferred
indeed that we should have some voice in the
matter; but I fail to perceive how we can be
appealed to to give to these people a constitu-
tion which ties up their own hands from doing
what every one of my political brethren says
is an act of justice.

Now, sir, what is there so sacred, what is there so fundamental in the right of the white men to rule the black, that the white men cannot be trusted with the power of wielding it by a majority? What is there in the nature of this question which makes it our duty to say to the people of Colorado, "We will not trust a majority of your voters to repeal the clause, but we will allow you to put it in your fundamental law so that the free will of your majority can never get it out?" I fail to see what there is so sacred in this right of white sufNow, sir, in the case we have before us, in-frage and in the duty of the absence of sufdependent of the question what are State rights, independent of the propriety of anything in the constitution of any State which already exists, we are called upon, in the exercise of a constitutional power, to decide as a matter of propriety for which we are responsible, what is fit and necessary to be contained in the constitution of a State which we are about to admit. We have entire power over the subject. It appeals to our sense of justice and to our duty to the country. It appeals to that sense of justice and to that duty in the lessons we have derived from the past and the hopes which we have for the future. I am not to be told, for one, that the rejection of a constitution because it imposes the qualification of color upon its electors is a thing that has never been done before. As the honorable Senator from Massachusetts said the other day, when is the time to begin if it is not now? In all preceding time the condition of the country, the rights of States, the situation of the people were different. We have reached the culminating point where the bitter fruits of errors of years ago have been reaped in a large degree, and where now, turning our faces once more toward the arts of peace and the hopes of prosperity and of equality, and fraternity too, I should hope, we are to begin a new era. There is, therefore, eminent fitness according to the spirit of the times, there is great appropriateness that now when we have the first opportunity after what has passed we should put ourselves right upon the fundamental principles of government; and accordingly there have been in this spirit introduced already in these enabling acts qualifications and requirements which were never introduced before. It has not been usual, according to my recollection, to insert in these enabling acts that "the constitution when formed shall be republican and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence." That ancient charter of our liberties has again been referred to, and among its principles I

[ocr errors]

What is there so sacred in this thing that this same constitution does not require the Legislature, by two thirds of its members, to allow any other class of citizens to vote? Is it not the subject of ordinary legislation to declare who shall vote and under what circumstances? And if so, why is it necessary to insert in a constitution which cannot be controlled by a majority of white men, that the mere accident of race or color shall be a fundamental objection to any allowance on the part of the whites to the blacks of the right to vote?

Mr. President, it appears to me, without enlarging upon this topic, that the aristocracy of class, the aristocracy of caste, is as bad as the aristocracy of kings. It is the same evil, anti

democratic spirit precisely as that which ani-
mates the aristocracies that govern the mon-
archies of the Old World, only the form of the
aristocracy is developed in a different way.
For myself, I am a Democrat in the thorough
sense of the term, as I understand it. I
believe in the political equality of all men.
believe in the sacredness of the private rights
of all men. And yet I am asked as a political
friend of these gentlemen, as one having an
ardent political desire that my party as it rep-
resents, as we suppose, the hopes of the coun
try, should succeed-I am asked to deny my
principles in order to achieve a temporary suc-
cess. Sir, I cannot deny, I cannot turn my
back to those principles which are cardinal and
essential for the sake of any temporary suc-
cess. A success of that description, in my
judgment, is one not worth winning upon mere
grounds of policy. It is one which no man who
is convinced as I am of the cardinal error in
this constitution can possibly be influenced by.
But where is the harm, Mr. President, to
put
it upon mere grounds of temporary pol-
icy? Are not these people still in the Terri-
tory? Can we not send this constitution back
to them and say, "Try your hand at it again;
reconsider your reconsideration once more;
see if you cannot trust yourselves by a major
ity to declare whether you will allow negroes
to vote or not? Have you not confidence
enough in yourselves to leave it out of your
constitution and not to tie yourselves up for-
evermore to a principle of this description?"
And then, on the first Monday of December,
if a majority of that people are still desirous
of being represented in this body, can they not
present themselves to us with a constitution to
which no objection can be made, which sets
no bad precedent in morals or in fundamental
right that will come to plague us by and by
when we apply necessary legislation to other
portions of the country? And will these peo-
ple have been harmed? The tyranny of taxa-
tion without representation, if it be a tyranny,
will not then have lasted long. I see no diffi-
culty in that course, and without occupying
the time of the Senate in dilating upon these
questions, I say therefore it is that I feel com-
pelled for one, representing in part, as I do, a
State whose sentiments on that subject have
never been mistaken; I feel compelled, against
my sense of what I should desire to do person-
ally for the respectable gentlemen who come
here; in spite of my wishes to accede to the
desires of that young and growing population,
I feel compelled by a sense of duty which can-
not be put aside by temporary considerations
to vote against this reconsideration.

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, I cannot forbear returning my thanks to the Senator from Vermont for the noble utterance that we have heard from him. He has reminded you of the true principle on which you are to pass. He has held up before you the dignity of the occasion, and has rallied this Senate to its duty. I thank him, sir. His speech ought to produce an effect on his associates in this Chamber. It ought to remind them that there is a truth which cannot be put aside for any temporary expediency. I am grateful to the Senator for the speech he has made. I think the Senate will do well to sleep upon it to-night, to reflect upon it, and when they come here to-morrow to do their duty in maintaining those principles which he has so clearly advocated. I move that the Senate do now adjourn. ["No," "No."]

The motion was not agreed to.

Mr. CRESWELL. Mr. President, when this question was before the Senate on a former occasion I voted against the admission of Colorado as a State, and were it not that I to-day propose to change my vote I should not trespass on the time of the Senate, at so late a period of the discussion, to make any remarks whatever touching the issue now presented by the motion for reconsideration.

The difficulty in my mind, and which induced my vote in the negative on the occasion to which I have just alluded, was not any of

those which the Senator from Massachusetts or the Senator from Vermont has presented, nor was it a difficulty arising out of the paucity of population or the regularity of the election. My trouble was with regard to the permanency of the population. I think I can safely say that the practice of the Government heretofore has never been to require any stated population as a condition-precedent to the admission of a State, nor has it ever required any special form of proceedings with a view to qualify the people of a Territory for the rights of State Sovereignty. With regard to all that I was satisfied, but doubts were entertained by me with regard to the permanency of the population then and now occupying the soil of Colorado.

Since the discussion on the occasion to which I have referred with reference to the admission of Colorado I have examined with more care into the state of affairs existing in that Territory, and I shall refer to the statement of facts made by Messrs. Chaffee and Evans, so far as it is not contradicted by the statement of the remonstrance or the statements of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, in support of the position I propose to take to-day in now voting for the admission of Colorado. The proposed State of Colorado, according to the facts adduced, contains about one hundred and six thousand square miles, of which fortytwo thousand square miles lie east of the Rocky mountains, and the residue, some sixty-four thousand square miles, west of the mountains. The region lying to the east of the mountains is nearly all valuable by reason of its adaptability to the pasturage of cattle; that lying to west of the mountains constitutes the great mining region of the State. With regard to the quantity of land actually in cultivation there seems to be some difference in point of fact, some gentlemen contending that not more than two hundred and fifty thousand acres are now in cultivation, while others contend that nearer ten times that amount is in cultivation. As to the quantity that is susceptible of cultivation there is also a difference of opinion. I think it is clear or can be clearly deduced from the statements of fact presented that all that portion of the Territory lying east of the mountains is valuable by reason either of its adaptation to agricultural or pastoral pursuits.

With regard to the mineral resources of the State the testimony seems to be entirely clear. So far as the mining interest is concerned, I quote from the Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for 1864, page 81:

"That Colorado is a rich mining country, no one acquainted with its resources can for a moment doubt. The gold occurs in veins of copper and iron pyrites, varying in thickness from six inches to forty feet, and in the yield from $15 to $500 per ton. I am not far out of the way in saying that there is no gold-bearing vein in Colorado that will not pay with proper machinery and economical working. I send you herewith a map of the gold region of Colorado, in which I have colored the parts that are known to be gold-bearing by actual development.

"In the county of Gilpin alone, the smallest of the gold counties, and I think no richer than others, there are now on record over seven thousand gold-bearing lodes: on these an average of twenty claims of one hundred feet each have been recorded, making one hundred and forty thousand claims in that county alone, and every day adds to the number of lodes. Comparatively few of these lodes have as yet been fully developed, but enough have been worked to show that under proper management a great majority of them can be made to pay.

"Rich mines of silver have been discovered this summer, and the latent wealth of the Territory has been vastly improved."

But it is not in the precious metals alone, Mr. President, that the soil of Colorado is richly endowed. General Pierce, the surveyor general of Colorado, in his report for 1865and by the way that report of General Pierce has been referred to by gentlemen on the other side of this discussion as being entirely correct and very thorough in its examination-says:

"To a geologist nothing can be more certain than that at least one third of the plains of Colorado contain coal, and it has been found in enough localities to prove that that theory is correct. As yet very few coal veins have been opened and worked, and most of these are in lands that had been surveyed previous to the discovery of the coal, so that the amount found and returned by the surveyors is comparatively small. 39TH CONG. 1ST SESS.-No. 137.

In a country where there is not a stream that does not contain some indications of coal, it is difficult to say what land should be reserved as coal land, and I have colored on the plats only such as is proved to contain workable veins that are accessible."

So much for the mineral wealth of Colorado, around which a permanent population may be settled. Now, sir, what are the facts with reference to the population already in that Territory? It may not be very large; different estimates have been presented to the Senate varying from twenty-five thousand (and one gentleman, I believe, stated it to be as low as fifteen thousand) up to fifty thousand. I shall not make a point with regard to the numbers, because, in my mind, the necessity resting upon this Government to fill up that vast extent of territory stretching from the western portion of Kansas and the other States lying north of it, to the eastern frontier of the States lying on the Pacific is paramount. I believe that the sooner we fill up that vast territory with States, remove from the arena of angry and perhaps dangerous controversy on the floor of Congress all that immense section of country, the sooner shall we be in a position to bear our present heavy burdens of taxation, and to advance more rapidly in the path of prosperity.

Already in Colorado the people, according to the statement of the remonstrance filed here against its admission, and their friends, have expended thirty millions in one year with a view to permanent improvement for mining purposes. In Gilpin county alone there are seventy-five or eighty quartz mills, which cost from $25,000 to $100,000 each. The smelting works of one company cost about two hundred thousand dollars. The mineral developments in the other counties indicate beyond a doubt equally rich and more extensive mines of both gold and silver. The report of the Superintendent of the United States Mint shows that Colorado, as a gold-producing territory, is second only to California.

This last assertion, I very well remember, the Senator from Massachusetts in some measure attempted to controvert as to its precise accuracy. I will only say that I cannot take issue with that gentleman, although certainly it appears from the statements adduced by him that the gold and silver product of Colorado is sufficient to assert their right to claim that they stand among the first States in the Union in regard to their mining products. They have a population there which seem to be civilized in a measure; they seem to avail themselves of the ordinary pursuits of mankind, and not only that, but they seem willing and able to pay their taxes. When gentlemen speak of their inability to maintain a State government, I beg leave to refer them to the figures compiled in the bureau for the collection of internal revenue.

In Colorado there were collected last year $130,052 01 for the purposes of internal revenue, independent of the receipts for stamps. The tax of six per cent. on clothing and other articles of dress amounted to $705 59. The tax of six per cent. on furniture and other articles made of wood amounted to $1,372 77. The tax on the manufacture of iron castings amounted to $216 61. The tax of one eighth of one per cent. on brokers' sales of merchandise and other goods amounted to $1,876 05. The tax of six per cent. on bill-heads, cards, and circulars, printed law blanks, and other paid by bankers amounted to $1,100; licenses printed forms amounted to $410 20. Licenses stock-brokers, $658 33; licenses for builders of commercial brokers, $1,353 36; licenses for and contractors, $462 51; licenses for business and trade, or professions, $354 16; licenses of butchers who sell butchers' meat at retail, $497 50; licenses for livery stables, $215 01; licenses of peddlers who travel with two horses or mules, $2,246 07; income tax, $38,079 67; tax on banks and insurance companies, $765 04; licenses of wholesale dealers, $3,581 83; licenses of retail dealers, $3,755 01; licenses of hotels, $2,205 41; licenses of lawyers, $593 33.

This indicates clearly to my mind that the population of Colorado must remain there from the very necessities of their case. We have scriptural authority for saying that where the treasure is there will the heart be also; and it seems that these people have not only invested their means, but invested their means largely, in these various pursuits which necessarily fix them in that locality, attach them to that soil. So far as lawyers are concerned, we find a tax of $593 33. I know they are called a parasitic class of society, but I think that the fact that $593 was paid for lawyers' licenses in that locality, when lawyers pay but ten dollars a year, indicates a very considerable fungus growth with regard to the institutions of Colorado which I think indicates permanency. Being a lawyer myself, I may be permitted to make that remark. [Laughter.] So it is with reference to many other of these pursuits. They are permanent pursuits, and only such as men engage in who intend to remain, perhaps, the balance of their lives in the localities where they settle.

This doubt, then, being removed from my mind by an inspection of the facts as applicable to Colorado, I am prepared to-day to vote for her admission. I am glad to be able to do so, because I voted against her before very reluctantly.

One more remark, and then I shall close. It has been intimated as to the motives which actuate gentlemen in voting on our side of the question, that we have been prompted by a desire to increase the force of our own side on certain questions in this body. I hope I may be permitted to say, without intending any rudeness to the gentleman from Massachusetts, that I think that assertion was a very unwarrantable one. At the time this question was before the Senate before there were pending then great issues about which this whole nation, from one end of it to the other, felt the most profound concern. If I had been actuated then by any such motive, I should, without questioning for a moment the propriety of the admission of these gentlemen from Colorado, have voted, not as I did, but rather in favor of the bill then pending. That necessity has been in a measure removed. Those questions have been settled; the Senate has declared itself with regard to them, and they are definitely disposed of. What may come in the future is only conjecture. We then had the certainty staring us in the face of perhaps a very closely contested contest with the President upon those measures. So far as I am concerned, that consideration does not in any way affect my vote. I stand prepared, so long as I shall remain a representative of my State upon this floor, to vote always in accordance strictly with my conviction of right and justice, and to repel every imputation that I may be controlled upon any measure by any such motive as the gentleman has attributed.

Mr. WILSON. I hope we shall now proceed to take the vote on the reconsideration. I think we have spent sufficient time in this discussion.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am willing to say what little I have to say now, or in the morning if it is the pleasure of the Senate at this time to adjourn; but I do not ask an adjournment on my account. What I propose to say I can submit within a reasonably brief period.

I am opposed to the admission of Colorado, and I am opposed to it upon two grounds, the first of which would, of itself, be sufficient without the other. My opposition to it in the first place is the want of the necessary population. The Senate are aware, every member of the body must be aware, that in the deliberations of the Convention by which the present Constitution was adopted, the cause of all others which threatened most the defeat of the object which they had in view was the disparity between the States. From day to day the patriotic men who constituted that body were solicitous to avoid, if possible, the giving to the smaller States a voice in the Senate of the

« PoprzedniaDalej »