to the Doctor-, he laid out a town, which he named "Gunnison Citr', in
further honor of Captain Gunnison.

Dr. Richardson's colony did not prosper. Shortly after their ar-
rival, some of its members abandoned their lands and took to prospecting;
and in the autumn of that year all hands that were left went back to
Denver. Of these, only the Doctor and two others returned to "Gunnison
City'" in the spring of 1875, after which they were joined by a few stran-
gers. In the next year a new town company was organized by other in-
terests, and which laid out a town upon land adjacent to Richardson's
plat. But this also was unsuccessful, and it was not until later in that
decade that the present city of Gunnison came into existence, about coin-
cident with the formation and organization of Gunnison County. Nev-
ertheless, Dr. Richardson's place in the history of that section of Colo-
rado is that of its foremost pioneer.

During the late years of Territorial Government in Colorado there
was some movement of people into the Middle Park, where a little placer
mining had been done since the middle '60s. While that mountain valley,
as well as the Xorth Park, became parts of Grand County, formed in
1874, it is probable that the population of both did not exceed two hun-
dred at the end of that year. Each was isolated and difficult of access,
and it was not until the next decade that active development of either was
begun, and this by individual immigration. As late as 1870, the only
places in the Middle Park that bore names were Hamilton — a small
mining-camp. Sulphur Springs — where the county seat of the present
Grand County stands, and Jonesville — a [ilace rather than a "ville": but



HISTOEY OF COLORADO 463

none of these was of sufficient impoitance to be a post-office. At the same
time, the Xorth Park contained notliing in the way of a named settle-
ment.

While the establishment of colonies and the founding of new towns
in the Territory was going on, as outlined upon the pages of this chapter,
the older communities also had been keeping step with the march of
progress. Denver, which liad 4,759 people in 1870, had in less than four
years treljled its population. According to a census of the city taken in
January, 1874, by city authority, the numl^er of its people then was
14,197. The city now was a bustling metropolis, with several miles of
street railway in operation, togethcT' witli water-works, gas-works and other
municipal conveniences. Pueblo had done equally well proportionally,
and was, in general importance, as well as in the number of its people, the
second city in the State. In 1875, its population, including the residents
of South Pueblo, the two practically being one community, probably num-
bered more than 2,500; whereas in 1870 there were only 66G in that
locality. C'aiion City, Golden, and Boulder City had increased numer-
ically in corresponding ratio. Colorado City had recovered much that it
had lost, while the pioneer mining-towns. in the Clear Creek District had
regained a large measure of their former prestige. The population of the
Territory, 39,864 in 1870, now was close to 100,000.

The circumstances of this period had given rise to a demand for the
organization of new counties, fi\e having been authorized by the Tenth
Legislative Assembly; but in the readjustment one of the former counties
was abolished. By two acts of that Assembly, that were approved on
February 2, 1874, Elbert and Grand counties were formed, the area of
the first having been taken from Douglas and Greenwood counties, and
that of the second from Summit County. Each of these new divisions was
of greater size than it is at present. Grand, as I have mentioned above,
included the Middle and Xorth parks, and extended west to Utah, above
the nortli boundary of the Ute Reservation. Greenwood County was, as I
have remarked in a former chapter, abolished at this time by Section 3,
of an act, approved on February 6th, *'to change the Boundaries of Bent
County", and by which the part of Greenwood that had not been included
in Elbert was attached to Bent; the latter and Greenwood having been es-
tablished in February, 1870. By a "treble-barrelled" act of the Tenth
Assembly, approved on February 10th (1874), tlie counties of Hinsdale,
La Plata, and Eio Grande were authorized, from areas detached from Lake,
Saguache, and Conejos counties.

The Eleventh (and last) Assembly added one new member to the
county divisions of the Territory. By an act of this body, approved on
January 31, 1876, the county of San Juan was formed, for the convenience
of the mining interests, its area having been cut off from Lake, Hinsdale,
and La Plata counties.

The county additions made by these two Assemblies raised the number
of such divisions of the Territory to twenty-six, at which it stood when
Colorado became a State.

Provisions had been made by an act of the Ninth Assembly, that was
approved on February 9, 1872, for the formation of "'Platte County", upon
condition that the voters resident in its proposed area should, at an elec-
tion to lie held for the purpose, sanction the proposition. The contem-



464 HISTOEY OF COLORADO

plated new division was to cover the eastern four-fifths of pioneer Weld
County — that is to say, that part of Weld "lying east of the township line
between ranges 62 and 63, west of the Sixth Principal Meridian'. But as
the voters did not approve the project, "Platte County" was not organized ;
and by act of the Tenth Assembly, approved February 9, 1874, the "en-
abling act"' for the proposed county was repealed.

Colorado now was about to lay oS her Territorial garb and to put
on the more attractive habiliments of a State of the American Union.
The trail she had traveled in reaching this goal had been long and rough,
as thg reader may see in the contents of the nest chapter.




GOVERNOR JOB A. COOPER



CHAPTEE XXII.

Colorado's road to statehood. — first potextial proposition. — state-
hood QUESTION IX the TERRITORY'S SECOND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. — •

bills for ax enabling act for colorado ix the thiry-seventh con-
gress. — memorial by the third legislative assembly. — enactment
of the enabling law of 1864. proceedings thereunder in colo-
rado. — failure of the constitution to be r.\tified by the people.
reasons for its defeat. — statehood movement of 1865. — con-
stitution ratified. — election of state officers and of united

states senators and a representative in congress. president

Johnson's refusal to proclaim Colorado a state. — enactment by
congress of a law to recognize the statehood proceedings of

1865. THE president's VETO OF THE MEASURE. — FAILURE TO OVER-
RIDE THE VETO. — PAS.SAGE OF A SECOND BILL OF LIKE TENOR. — PROTEST
BY COLORADO LEGISLATORS. — ANOTHER VETO. THE PRE.SIDENT'S OBJEC-
TIONS TO THE BILL. — QUESTION OF NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN COLOR.iDO. —
FAILURE TO OVERRIDE SECOND VETO. — STATEHOOD NOT DESIRED BY A
MAJORITY OF COLORADO PEOPLE. — FURTHER FUTILE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN

ADMISSION UNDER THE PROCEEDINGS OF 1865. ATTEMPTS IN CONGRESS

TO PASS NEW ENABLING BILLS. — BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE LONG

SERIES OF FRUITLESS TRIALS FOR STATEHOOD. IMPROVED CONDITIONS

AND CHANGED PUBLIC SENTIMENT IN COLORADO. — PRESIDENT GRANT's
RECOMMENDATION OF COLORADO'S ADMISSION. — ENACTMENT OF THE

ENABLING LAW OF 1875. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. — ADOPTION

OF A CONSTITUTION AND ORGANIZATION OF A STATE GOVERNMENT. — COL-
ORADO ADMITTED INTO THE UNION. — INAUGURATION OF STATE OFFI-
CERS. — TERMS OF THE GOVERNORS OF THE STATE. — COLORADO'S SEN-
ATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN THE FEDERAL CONGRESS. — TEXT OF THE
ENABLING ACT.

The first really potential proposition to provide for Colorado's ad-
mission into our Union of States was submitted to the lower division of
the Federal Congress in the spring of the year 1860. The attempt of
our Pike's Peakers, in 1859, to organize the "State of Jefferson", in ex-
pectation that Congress might recognize and accept it, was. as the reader
has seen, without any authorization from the National Legislature, in
which is lodged the only power to warrant the formation of a State and
to admit it into the Union. On May 10, I860, when the bill to provide
for establishing a Territory in the Pike's Peak country was under consid-
eration by the House of Representatives, and which became a law late
in the next February, Eepresentative John B. Haskins, of N"ew York, pro-
posed to amend the bill by adding to it the following, the broad and truly
democratic provisions of which were to be extended to all Territories of
the United States: «

"And be it farther enacted. That whenever said Territory shall contain the
requisite population for a member of Congress, to be ascertained by a census taken
in pursuance of law for that purpose, it shall be lawful for the Legislature thereof
to provide by law for the election of delegates to a convention to frame a constitution
preliminary to admission as a State into the Union on an equal footing with the
otiier States; which constitution shall be submitted to the legal voters of the said
Territory at a fair election held in pursuance of law for that purpose, for ratiticatifln
or rejection ; and when ratified it the polls in the manner aforesaid, shall be trans-

Vol. 1—30 465



466 HISTOEY OF COLORADO .

mitted to Congress for acceptance. This section shall be and hereby is incorporated
into and made a part of the original act in the organic act of each Territory of the
United States, and shall constitute the rule of action upon which said Territories
shall be permitted to form constitutions preparatory to their admission as States
into the Union. ' '

This proposed amendment, which automatically would have opened
the doors for the admission of Colorado and the other Territories whenever
any of them had a population suiBcient to entitle it to a Representative
in the Federal Congress and had framed a State Constitution in accordance
with the Federal Constitution, was not permitted to become a part of the
bill. However, as events proved, its presence in Colorado's organic act
would not have enabled the Territory to gain admission as a State at a
time earlier than that in which the change was made. In the decade of
the '60s representation in Congress was based upon a ratio of 137,000 of
population.

As in every Territory of the United States since the first was
formed, there was in Colorado from the beginning an element, led by am-
bitious men who desired to attain higher place and greater power than
were within reach under the Territorial system of local government, that
sought an early transformation of the Territory into a State of the Union.
The first movement toward effecting this purpose was instituted before
the government of the Territory was a year old.

On July 10, 1862. Representative Charles F. Holly, of Boulder County,
introduced into tiie Second Legislative Assembly, while it was stationed
at Colorado City, House Bill Xo. 2, which was entitled "An Act to frame
a Constitution and State Government for the State of Colorado''. This
measure proposed to provide for the formation of a State Government
without authority from Congress for so doing. But its sponsors expected
that in the emergency which had lieen precipatated V)y the secession of
southern States the National Legislature would recognize their State after
the fact and admit its Senators and Representative, who would be Union
men favoring a vigorous prosecution of the war by the Federal Government,
and thus strengthen the forces in Congress that were loyal to that vital
policy. After its first and second readings, Holly's bill was referred to a
special committee, which consisted of the bill's author, Edwin Scudder,
and 0. A. Whittemore. On July 17th, the committee submitted to the
House a report favoring the bill's passage, signed by Holly and Scudder.
While Whittemore withheld from it his signature, he did not make a minor-
ity report. The document, which is not without interest even in the present
time, here follows in full:

"To the Son. House of Representatives:

"The undersigned, your special committee, to whom was referred H. B. No. 2,
introduced by Mr. Holly, for an act to provide a State government, beg leave to
report that they have»had the same under consideration, and are in favor of the bill,
submitting for your consideration the following hasty suggestions:

' ' The advantages of an early State organization must be apparent to all. It
will give permanency to our institutions which no other organization can do. Indeed,
it is the ultimate aim of all territorial or provisional governments. Situated as we
are, so remote from the seat of the national government, the ' self-government ' which
alone can be secured under a state of organization [a State organization], is even
a necessity of our position. Our school lands must remain in abeyance, until we
emerge from our present crystalline condition, and become qualified to use and
dispose of them. Without a liberal common school system we cannot expect the



HISTORY OF COLORADO 467

populatiiin uiiioh our natural resources would so well justify. The liberal appropria-
tions made by the parent government, for that purpose, only enures to the future
State, and can never be made available until its organization. Were there no other,
this should be a sufficient inducement for the step now proposed.

' ' It will give stability to legislation. It will invite capital and population. It
will add to the resources of the community. It will disseminate the advantages of
education. It is demanded by the spirit of the age and the progress of the Anglo-
Saxon race. It is contemplated in the workings of the National Constitution.

' ' The grants usually made to new States for University and Capitol purposes,
will more than compensate for the loss of the meagre pittance now doled out for
legislative and executive purposes.

"Experience has demonstrated that indiviilual taxation is less under a judicious
State organization than under our present one. At present, while we are exempt
from few of the burdens incident to a State, we have, indeed, very few of its
advantages. Taxation and representation are generally considered mutually depend-
ent. But while we are directly taxed to aid in the support of the National govern-
ment, we are most unjustly denied a representation in the National Councils, and
can have no voice in its imposition. A State organization, alone, can secure us this
right. A territorial form of government, for a free people, at best, must be odious,
from the fact that the power which enforces the laws, as well as the power which
construes them, do not emanate from the people governed and affected by them, and
are not responsible to them. Our rickety form is especially so. While the odious
' veto ' power is held over the right to make even our meniable laws, we can be nothing
but political vassals. Beneficent as is the power which governs us, yet it does not
emanate directly from the governed, and its exercise, therefore, is not in harmony
with the genius of our people.

•'Denied the usual appropriations for territorial and capitol purposes, we are
at a loss to understand what reason remains why we should not, as all other terri-
tories have done, embrace the earliest opportunity of throwing off our swaddling
cluthes, and assume the toga and garb of political manhood. The times invite this
opportunity. It is surely consistent with the purest loyalty, that while some of the
States appear to have been insanely seeking to escape from the blessings of a -National
government, never felt upon them except in its beneficence, the sturdy pioneers of
these vast fermations ["formations" — the Eocky Mountains?] shall seek, with
proud eclat, to span another star of equal brilliancy, in the glorious escutcheon of
the National banner.

"Nor will the want of a sufficient population be an obstacle. Already polling a
laiger vote than Oregon when admitted to the Union, who can question that by the
time we can make application for such admission, we shall have a population equal
to most of the new States at the date of their admission!

' ' Other things being equal, all will admit that it were preferable, that the
sej'vants of the people should be elected by them. Every citizen amenable to. the law
has a direct interest, not only in making the law but in designating the officer he
deems best titted to construe and execute it. Without the right to select a single
Territorial Executive or judicial officer, or to remove or cancel them when selected,
or even to make the local law, without revision, for a single county, is it strange
that the people, who have been rocked in the cradle of free self-govern-
ment, should see no reason why because they have changed their habitations from the
States of the sea board, or of the Mississippi, and are now developing the resources
of these central mountains and plains, and thus adding to the general resources of
the whole country, since they are still American citizens, under the a?gis of the
American flag, they shall still endure their present colonial servitude, and shall be
deprived a moment longer than necessary, of their glorious birthright of self-govern-
ment transmitted to them by their illustrious ancestry.

' ' The details of the bill proposed we consider to be judicious. The blanks in
the bill we recommend the House, in Committee of the Whole, to fill.

• ' Earnestly recommending the passage of the bill, we subscribe ourselves,
' ' Your committee,

' ' Chas. F. Holly, Ch 'n.
' ' Edwin Scudder. ' '

"Julv 17, 186i."



468 HISTOEY OF COLORADO

As the population of the Territory was waning, and the mining indus-
try, then its principal dependence, was becoming seriously depressed, this
series of able but ex parte arguments failed to convince the majority of
the House that Statehood was Colorado's greatest necessitj% and that it
was "demanded by the spirit of the age and the progress of tlie Anglo-
Saxon race". Therefore, when the bill was taken up, on July "^otli, its con-
sideration was indefinitely postponed by a vote of 14 to 9 ; and the measure
was heard of no more. Those who voted against it did so because they be-
lieved the lowering conditions existing in the Territory forbade assumption
of the financial burdens of a State Government by its people, who then
numbered considerably less than 25,000.

When the Thirtj'-seveuth Congress met in the following December
(1862), in its last session, those of Colorado's citizens who advocated an
immediate change from their Territorial to the State form of government
appealed to that body for aid and comfort in their efforts to attain the
object of their desires. On the 2-2A day of that month, Eepresentative
James H. Ashley, of Ohio, who was Chairman of the House Committee on
Territories, introduced into the House "A Bill to enable the people of
Colorado to form a constitution and State government, and for the ad-
mission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original
States." On the same day Ashley also introduced Statehood bills for Ne-
braska, Utah, and Nevada. His Colorado bill, together with the three
others, were given their first and second readings and then referred to the
House Committee on Territories.

On Janury 5, 1863, Colorado's Delegate, Hiram P. Bennet, introduced
into tlie House "A Bill to provide a State government for Colorado",
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Territories. As
Ashley's bill for Colorado was given precedence, nothing further was done
with Bennet's proposition.

On February 11th, the House Committee on Territories, having left
Utah in the lurch, reported Ashley's bills for Colorado, Nebraska, and Ne-
vada, which were ordered to be printed and then recommitted to that com-
mittee. On the next day the committee reported back the three Statehood
bills, and its chairman asked that "Saturday week be set aside for their
consideration". Eepresentative Clement L. Yallandigham, of Ohio, ob-
jected to the assignment of any day for the consideration of the bills. "I
think we had better", said he, "get back the States which are absent before
we make provision for any new states". Ashley now formally reported the
three bills with a recommendation that they be passed. They were again
read and again recommitted to the Committee on Territories.

On this day. Senator James H. Lane, of Kansas, introduced into the
Senate a Statehood bill for Colorado, the title of which was the same as
that of Eepresentative Ashley's bill ; and also bills for the proposed States
of Nebraska, Montana, and Nevada. The four were referred to the Senate
Committee on the Territories, which, on February 20th, reported the Colo-
rado bill, without amendment. On the 25th, Senator Lane moved to take
up the Colorado bill, but failed to obtain consent. On the third day after-
ward, he again moved to take up the Colorado measure, but its considera-
tion was again postponed. In a short debate that followed Lane's motion.
Senator William P. Fessenden, of Maine, said :



HISTOEY OF COLORADO 469

"It is hardly worth while to pass that bill without understanding something
about it. . . . There is no statement at all before the Senate in regard to the
population [of Colorado] nor anything about it. Are we to make a State without
any information before the Senate in regard to it? It is a very singular proceeding.
We do strange things here, but this certainly ought to attract some attention. I do
not know what population they have; I do not know anythiug about its necessity.
There is no statement whatever made with reference to it. ' '

In response to this, Senator Lane remarked :

"The settlements in Colorado have been made since the last census [?], so that
she is in the same situation as California was when she was admitted. There has
been no enumeration made of her inhabitants [1]. The last election [evidently mean-
ing that for a Delegate in the Thirty-eighth Congress, in 1862] shows a vote of some
twelve or twenty thousand, and after a full examination by the committee the bill
was ordered to be reported with a recommendation that it pass. The people of
Colorado believe that they are able to support a State government, and are desirous
to have one. From the best information that the committee have. I should estimate
the population of Colorado to-day at from thirty-five to fifty thousand."

Lane also mentioned that "the people [of Colorado] have taken the
initiatory steps for the foimation of a State government", a statement that
seems to have been based upon some knowledge of the movement by a minor-
ity that was responsible for Holly's indefinitely-postponed proposition.

On March 3d, immediately after the Senate had passed the Nevada
bill, which was a duplicate of that for Colorado, excepting as to name and
boundaries, Senator Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio, moved to take up Senator
Lane's Colorado bill, and to which consent was given. Senator Lyman
Trumbull, of Illinois, opposed the admission of Colorado, partly for the
same reasons that had caused Senator Fessenden to object to the bill's
consideration. The Senate had no certain general information as to the
Territory's population, resources, conditions, and prospects; and beside
this. Senator Trumbull thought there was "too much readiness to pass
Statehood bills without due consideration". However, by unanimous con-
sent the bill was laid aside until a later hour in the day, when it was taken
up and passed by the close-shaving vote of 18 to 17. The House was at
once notified that the Senate had passed Statehood bills for Colorado and
Nevada, in which action the concurrence of that body was requested.

In the forenoon of March 4th, Eepresentative Blihu B. Washburne,
of Illinois, moved "to suspend the rules, for the purpose of taking from the
Speaker's table the Senate bills for the organization of the States of Colo-
rado and Nevada", and upon which question there were 65 yeas and 48
nays. As two-thirds had not voted in the aiBrmative, the rules were not
suspended and therefore the bills were not taken up. The House adjourned
sine die at noon of that day, leaving both Statehood measures lying upon the
Speaker's table. As nothing effective had been done in the meantime with
Ashley's House bills, the Statehood programme for that session had gone
by the board.

But the failure caused no general disappointment in Colorado, as the
greater number of the Territory's citizens still were averse to adding to