passed up to the Secretary to be read. One of these was to make the 109th
meridian the western boundary of "Idaho"' instead of the 110th. The
reason for this change was, as he stated it, that as some of the inhabitants
of* Utah Territory had settled east of the 110th, the western boundary
would, if it remained as it stood, "have a tendency to divide" the people
of that Territory; "they had better remain together". He had "no oIj-
jection to that modification". The other change was to exclude from
"Idalio" the Xew Mexico "notch'", and thus to leave the latter under its old
jurisdiction. After sa\ ing that, while he was opposed to it, he had included
this in the amendment which he had submitted because he wanted "the
thing all settled", Senator Green continued his remarks:
"The onh- thing I can say is this: the Delegate from that Territory [New
Mexico] says a portion of his people â€” natives of New ]\Ie.xico, speaking that lan-
guage â€” hare settled up there [in the "notch"], and he wants a homogeneous people
all kept together. There is some force in that; but still, I think, in parceling out
and shaping Territories and States, we ought to have reference to the permanent
good of tlie Territory, rather than a temporary accommodation."
Without roll-call, the western boundary of the proposed Idaho Terri-
tory was changed from the 110th meridian to the 109th, but the proposition
to permit New Mexico to retain the "notch" was not adopted. The bill
when it finally became a law defined the boundaries as thus fixed, and
which were the same as those of the State of Colorado. The phraseology of
a clause in section 6, relating to taxation, then was rectified ; and of what
followed next, I quote from the record:
"Jlr. Wilson [of ^Massachusetts]. 'I move to amend the name of the Territory
by striking out "Idaho" and inserting "Colorado". I do it at the request of the
delegate from that Territory, who is very anxious about it, and came to see me
to-day to have that change made. He said that the Colorado river arose in the
Territory", and that there was a sort of fitness in it; but this word "Idaho" meant
nothing. There is nothing in it'."
"Mr. Green. 'Tlie name of "Idaho" was put in at the instance of the Delegate
from the Territory'."
"Mr. Wilson. 'He has change his opinion'."
"Mr. Green. 'But I prefer Colorado. It is more appropriate and more har-
monious. ... I prefer that name, and will vote with the Senator'."
Senator Wilson's amendment was adopted immediately, and the name
it proposed became that of the new Territory.
HISTOKY OF COLORADO :113
The amendments accepted as in Committee of the Whole now were
concurred in bj- the Senate, and the bill was read the tliird time. It was
then passed (on February 4th) without roll-call. At that time six States
had seceded and their twelve Senators had withdrawn.
At this juncture a new delegate from the Pike's Peak region appeared
in Washington. On February 5th, Eepresentative John F. Farnsworth, of
Illinois,, arising in the House to a question of privilege, said he desired
"to present the certificate of Honorable Charles L. Morgan, elected as
Delegate from the Territory of Idaho", and asked that the credential be
referred to the Committee on Territories. Mr. Cox (of Ohio) objected,
saying "there is no such Territory in existence." But the Speaker thought
the certificate could be received, under the rules, as a memorial, and so
admitted it and passed it to Mr. Grow's committee, which took no action
upon it. Delegate Morgan had been elected by a faction which had
"seceded" from the home-made "JefEerson Territory" and had held a con-
vention at Central City on October 24, 1860, to form a temporary local
governmental organization to bridge the gap between existing conditions
and the advent of lawful government, under the authority of Congress.
Holding, or pretending to hold, that Mr. Williams had been elected to
represent the Pike'sPeak people only in the first session of that Congress,
tlifiy had sent Mr. Morgan to serve in that capacitj- in the second session.
Some further particulars of the doings of these seceders appear in the next
chapter of this volume. Notwithstanding the presence of a rival delegate,
Mr. Williams continued to be the recognized representative of the Pike's
Peakers at Washington until that session of Congress adjourned.
As I have mentioned several pages back, the House received notice on
Februar}- 6th of the passage of the "Colorado" bill by the Senate. On the
next day, Mr. Grow, Chairman of the House Committee on Territories,
asked and received the consent of the House to have the bill printed. Two
days later, an amendment, submitted by Mr. Cox, also was ordered printed.
On the 11th, the cause of the Pike's Peak people received some outside
support in the form of joint resolutions, by the Legislature of Nebraska
Territory, strongly recommending the organization of the "Territon- of
Jefferson". These, by unanimous consent, were presented to the House
by Samuel G. Dailey, the Nebraska Delegate, and were referred to the
Committee on Territories.
No further action was taken upon the Senate bill for "Colorado" by
the House until February 18th, when Mr. Grow took the floor and said that
he desired "to take up Senate bill No. 366 to provide a temporary govern-
ment for the Tenitory of Colorado, in order to put it on its passage." In
response to several requests, the bill was read informally; and when it had
been read, Eepresentative Daniel E. Sickles, of New York, remarked that
he had wanted the bill read for the purpose of seeing "if the Wilmot proviso
was in it", and that he had noticed that "that principle is abandoned".
This was the provision, contained in House bills for a TerritoiT in the Pike's
Peak country, "That whereas slavery has no legal existence in said Terri-
tory, nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize or permit its
existence therein." It did not appear in the present Senate bill. The rules
having been suspended, by a vote of 110 to 37, upon the motion of Mr. Grow,
and the bill having been read a first and secorid time, he arose and said :
314 HISTOKY OF COLOEADO
"According to an agreement had with the Chairman of the Senate Committee
on Territories, and in order to make this bill correspond with two bills pending in
the Senate for the organization of other Territories, I offer the following resolution:
'"In section nine, strike out the following: "Except only that, in all cases
involving title to slaves, the said writs of error or appeals shall be allowed and de-
cided by the said supreme court, without regard to the value of the matter, property,
or title in controversy; and except, also, that a writ of error or appeal shall also be
allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, from the decisions of the said
supreme court created bj' this act, or of any judge thereof, or of the district courts
created by this act, or of any judge thereof, upon any writ of haheas corpus involving
the question of personal freedom" '."
After a brief inten-uption and in reply to a question, llr. Grow con-
"We are acting on a Senate bill to organize the Territory of Colorado, which
was called Idaho in the bill reported in the House. The Committee on Territories
in the Senate have reported two other bills â€” one for Nevada and one for Dakota.
. . . As there is nothing said anywhere else in the [Colorado] bill in regard to
slaves, then this extract should be struck out. If we, are to organize a government
for this people, we ought to do it in a way to secure for them a government by
passing a bill which will meet the approbation of the legislative and executive
departments of the [National] Government. . . .
"That portion of the Territory comprising what remained of Kansas Territory,
according to the returns of the census taken five or six months ago, as furnished
me by the Superintendent of the Census, contains a little rising of thirty-four thou-
sand inhabitants. Tliat taken from New Mexico, from the best evidence I can
obtain â€” for the census returns as yet furnish no data â€” contains about two thousand
five hundred or three thousand inhabitants.
[Miguel A. Otero, Delegate from New Mexico, here interjected: "Seven thou-
"That is the gentleman's opinion. There are no census returns, and I believe
will not exceed three thousand. The portion taken from Nebraska contains three,
four, or five thousand. So that the whole Territory, from the best information I
have, will contain a population of from forty-five to fifty thousand : more than
were residing in the Territory of Oregon when it was admitted into the Union as
a State. Here, sir, is a population, as I have said, of forty-five or fifty thousand,
living under the control of no organized government, and acknowledging no law but
that of the bowie knife and revolver.
"I now move the previous question on the third reading ol the bill."
Some protests against attaching any part of N'ew ^lexico to Colorado
Territory having been made, Mr. Grow said in rebuttal :
"Now, sir, the Committee on Territories have had this matter under considera-
tion for tlie last three sessions of Congress, and they have uniformly agreed that
the boundaries now fixed were proper ones. And why? If you take their social
relations as a political communitj' â€” having no reference, of course, to party politics
â€” you will find that there is a large tract of land, comprising the headwaters of the
Arkansas and Red rivers [the sources of the Red were not commonly known in the
States even in so late a period as this], containing much arable soil and some gold
and mining resources. ... I will say, that within the last year a large number
of persons have gone down there from the Pike's Peak region, and I believe number
more to-day than the Mexican population who reside there ; so that, in that point
of view, there is certainly no reason for not detaching them from New Mexico, when
the geography of the Territory requires it shall be done, and every other considera-
Delegate Otero pleaded with Chairman Grow to permit him to submit
an amendment "which will leave that portion taken from the Territory
of Xew Mexico within its present Jurisdiction", and made an able speech
against the despoilment of his Territory. Mr. Cox insisted upon consid-
HISTORY OF COLORADO ^m
eration of the amendment he had offered, which would have made all the
officers of the new Territory elective by the people and restored to New
Mexico the area that the bill detached from her domain. Several memliers
favored the changes urged by Otero and Cox, but Mr. Grow, in full control
under his motion for the previous question, would not consent to a vote
upon them. His resolution to strike out from section 9 the clause relating
to cases involving title to slaves was adopted, after some feeble attempts at
filibustering by the opposition, by a vote of 87 to 52. The bill then was
put upon its passage, and was passed by 90 ayes to 44 nays. Mr. Grow
followed with a motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed,
and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table. Agreement
to the latter clinched the House proceedings.
The bill now was returned to the Senate for concurrence in the elision
from section 9. But in the meantime some unfriendly Senators had started
a movement yet to defeat it. On February 5th, Senator Alfred 0. P. Nich-
olson, of Tennessee, had moved "that the Senate reconsider the vote on
the passage of the bill to provide a temporary government for the Territory
of Colorado". Consideration of the motion was postponed until tlie next
day, when, at the instance of Senator Douglas, the motion was taken up
and agreed to. A prolonged discussion then ensued. Senator Benjamin F.
Wade, of Ohio, was the first to speak :
"I hope the vote will not be reconsidered. Tliat bill, settling, so far as this
body is concerned, a very disputable maUur, has already passed, and gone to the
House of Representatives; and I hope that we shall not have it up again. . . ."
Senator Green also protested against reconsideration, saying :
"Tlie bill is plain and simple in its provisions, containing nothing that infringes
upon the peculiar views of anj'body; and for that reason, I hope tlie bill will be
permitted to stand as the judgment of the Senate; and that the people of Pike's
Peak, numbering sixty thousand, may have government and protection according
to law. ..."
In reply to some remarks by Senator Douglas. Mr. Wade said :
". ... I do not mean to say that the bill satisfies me ; but it was a matter
of compromise among us. I did not like it very well; but it was necessary that
provision should be made for the people of that Territory, and therefore we agreed
upon the bill, sucli =<s it was, as a compromise. . . ."
Senator Douglas was the leader of those who favored reconsideration.
After intimating that the bill had been put through the Senate under an
agreement between Democratic and Repuljlican Senators that had a dishon-
orable savor, he went on to say :
"In the first place, I object to the boundary named in the bill. Tliis boundary
cuts off a large portion of New Mexico, and annexes it to the new Territory of Colo-
rado. The portion thus cut off is New Mexican territory, and formerly belonged to
the Republic of Mexico. The land titles are derived from that Government; the in-
habitants are mostly Mexicans; they are governed by Mexican laws and usages
entirely incompatible with the laws we are in the habit of making for our own
people; and I see no reason why they should thus be separated. Besides that, there
are strong reasons why it should not be done. By the laws of New Mexico that [the
"notch"] is slave territory. Slavery exists there by law to-day. This is detaching
that portion of slave territory, a piece of country occupied by men of Mexican birth
and habits, entirely identified with New Mexico, and not with the new Territory of
Colorado, and attaching it to the new Territory of Colorado. What is to be the con-
316 HISTORY OP COLORADO
dition of that territory [the "notch"] by being incorporated into Colorado? Is the
effect of this bill to abolish slavery in [the] part of the Territory [Colorado] thus
cut off from New Mexico, and to make it free territory ? Is that the compromise
that has been made.? If so, so far as the question of slavery is concerned, I do not
feel disposed to interfere: but I find, after it is thus cut off. a peculiar provision is
inserted that the Territorial Legislature shall pass no law destroying the rights of
private property, ^^^lat is the meaning of that ? Does it mean that the Territorial
Legislature shall pass no law whereby the right to hold slaves, according to the laws
of New Mexico, shall be abolished? Is that the object? Certainly there is some ob-
ject in inserting that provision. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Green] had some
object in putting that provision in the bill. If it has been the result of a compromise,
by which the Republican side agreed that this slave territory shall be incorporated
into the other Territor}-, and that the Territorial Legislature [of Colorado] shall
never exclude slavery from it â€” if that is their agreement, I do not wish to interfere
with it; but I have a further objection to that clause. At first, it struck me as
harmless; but I have a further objection. That clause, declaring that the Territorial
Legislature shall pass no law destructive of the rights of private property, deprives
the Territorial Legislature of the power of laying out a road, a county road, a Terri-
torial road, a railroad, or any description of highway. They must have the right to
condemn private property for public purposes, in order to be able to make means of
communication. It seems that, in your zeal to deprive the Territorial Legislature of
the power of excluding sli\very. you go so far as to deprive them of the power of
making roads of any kind in that Territorj-. . . ."
In the course of his reply to tlie remarks of Mr. Douglas, Senator
Green said :
". . . Honorable gentlemen have conferred together, and they have concocted
a bill which is unexceptionable in all respects ; and if honorable gentlemen cannot
do that, then I do not know what legislators are sent here for. It is better to meet
together outside of the Senate, in the committee-rooms, than to come in here and
consume time in debating it. . . . Sir, this bill is plain and simple in "all its
features. It brings up no exciting subject of dispute; it stirs the passions of no
section of the Union: it simply gives organization â€” organism to a people entitled to
it. On the subject of the proposed southern boxindary of this Territory, cutting off
a portion of New ilexico. I must be permitted to make this remark: that I thought
it ought not to be cut off; but at the same time I was compelled to say that I
thought so simply from my desire to please the Delegate from that Territory; and
that the proper division of the territory required it to be cut off. It does not cut
off five inhabitants, according to my opinion, and not a single 'nigger' [Laughter].
The idea, therefore, of throwing slave property into a new organization, where it is
doubtful whether it will be protected, or not, is 'all in my eye'. There is not a
word of truth in it. There is not a slave in it. I am told by the Senator from
New York that there are only twenty-four in the whole of New Mexico. Up there
around Fort Massachusetts, north of 37 degrees, there is not one single slave.
rSenator CoUamer here interjected the remark; "Twenty- four is the number
that appears by the census returns".]
"I understand [Mr. Green continuing]. Now, Mr. President, here are Union-
loving and L'nion-saving people petitioning and begging for 36 degrees 30 minutes
to be the line between tlie slave and non-slavehokiing territory. If we are all so
keen for 36 degrees 30 minutes, when I agree to 37 degrees I am surely not doing
very wrong. But one word beyond that. This bill does not prohibit slavery any-
where, and it does not establish slavery anywhere : it is a perfect carte hlanche.
It is without expression on the subject either way. The Senator [Mr. Douglas] says
that there is a very peculiar provision put there, 'that no law shall be passed impair-
ing the rights of private property'. If there is not such a provision in every consti-
tution in the thirty-four States of this Union, I am deceived; and if the Senator the
other day did not say he took no exception to that, I am deceived again. . . ."
In his rejoinder to Mr. Green's defense of tlie bill. Senator Douglas
HISTOKY OF COLORADO 317
"Those boundaries, in my opinion, are wrong, because tliey divide New Mexico.
Whether an}' of the negro slaves returned by the census are in that part of the
Territory or not, I do not know, nor does he [ilr. Green] : hence he cannot assert,
with any more knowledge of the truth, that tliey are not within that part of the
Territory, than I can that they are. I do not know, nor does he. It is slave terri-
tory by law; and there is a provision in this Territorial bill [for Colorado], that
they shall not destroy private property. Xow. sir, if the provision was not intended
to apply to the slavery question, what is it put there for? The Senator is mistaken
in supposing that there is the same provision in the State constitutions. Tlie provi-
sion of the State constitutions is, that private property shall not be taken for public
uses without full compensation. If he will put in that clause, he will bring it within
Eome known principle of legislation. But here is a provision that private property
shall not be taken for any purpose, with or without compensation. What is it put
there for? The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade] says 'compromise'. . . ."
So the debate upon the soiithem boundary of "Colorado" and also upon
the "peculiar provision" ran on and on. Finally, Senator William il. Gwin,
of California, introduced the following new and quite different rea.son? for
recalling the bill :
"I will vote to reconsider, because I have'lieen cheated out of the name. Tlie
Territory in which the Colorado river is, through which it runs, I think ought to have
the name of Colorado. I think it is the handsomest name that could be given to any
Territory or State. I am going to vote to reconsider, in order to strike that name
out. That is my objection to the bill. I want to give that name to the Territory
Immediately after Jlr. Gwin's remarks, the question was taken by yeas
and nays, and the Senate refused to reconsider the vote on the passage of
the bill, by nays 31, yeas 10; the vote of Senator Wilson, of Massachusetts,
being among the latter.
On Februan' 19th, the House notified the Senate that it had passed
the Senate's bill for "Colorado" with an amendment, and asked the upj^er
house to concur therein. But the bill as amended was not taken up in the
Senate until February 26th. After the House amendment, eliminating
from section 9 the clause relative to cases involving title to slaves, had been
read, Senator Douglas arose and said :
"The bill seems to have been based on the theory of striking out the word
'slavery', or 'slave', wherever they api^eared in former bills. In pursuance of that
theory, they have stricken out, in the first section, the words :
" 'And that when the said Territory shall be admitted into the Union as a
State, it shall be received with slavery or without, as its constitution may prescribe
at the time of admission.'
"As the bill stood when the Senate passed it, the decision of the Territorial
Court on a question affecting slave property could be appealed to the Supreme Court
of the United States. By this amendment the right of appeal is taken away : and
the decision of the Territorial Courts is made final and conclusive in regard to the
question of slave property.
"The Territorial judges are to be appointed by a Republican President, and the
presumption is that they will be men who will agree with their [the Republicans']
theory of the slavery question. They will appoint Territorial judges who hold the
doctrine that there is no such thing as a right of property in slaves. They having
the power to appoint all judges, and intending to exercise that power so as to have
judges of their own way of thinking, of course they will have a decision adverse to
slavery in every instance."
Mr. Douglas also pointed out that the organic act for the Territories
of Kansas and ISTebraska, which was passed in May, 1854, had provided for
such appeals to the Supreme Court of the United .States, without serious
318 HISTOEY OF COLOEADO
objection by any one. But the majority of the Senators were not moved
by his remarks, and the debate was not greatly prolonged. By a yote prac-
tically the same as that which had defeated the motion to reconsider, the
Senate concurred in the House amendment. The bill went to the President
on the next day, and on the 28th (of February-) the two houses of Congress
received notice from him that he had signed it.
As a new TeiTitory without an appropriation from the National Treas-
ury would turn out to be a shadow rather than a substance, the following
provisions financing Colorado Territory were hurriedly inserted in the
pending appropriation bill for sundry civil purposes, for the fiscal year
beginning on July 1, 1861, and which was signed by the President on
March 2d :
"For salaries of Governor, three judges, and Secretary, ten thousand tive
'Tor contingent expenses of said Territory, one thousand five hundred dollars.
"For compensation and mileage of the members of the Legislative Assembly,
officers, clerks, and contingent expenses of the Assembly, twenty thousand dollars."
The Senate bills for organizing the "Territories of Nevada and Dakota"
also were passed at that session of Congress, immediately after the final
action upon the Colorado measure, and were signed by the President on
March 2d. But the pending bill for "Arizona"' failed to be taken up for
As Senator Douglas had stated, the organic act for Colorado (wliich is
appended to this chapter) is dumb as to slaver}-, unless the "peculiar pro-
vision'" for preserving the rights of private property (see section 6, of the
organic act) might have been construed as applying to slave property. So,
also, as to the acts for Nevada and Dakota, which contained the same clause.
Slave-owners were at liberty to take their servants into any of the three new
Territories and there to hold them without lawful molestation; wliile that