against the wishes of the inhabitants, that the introduction of slaves into Oregon shall not be prohibited?

Mr. President, I desire it not to be understood, in putting these inquiries, that I am in favor of leaving to the inhabitants of territories the decision of a question not only affecting them, but of vital importance to the prosperity of the whole community. I have always regarded it as one of the high duties of the Federal government to give direction and shape to the institutions of the inhabitants of a territory while preparing themselves for admission into the Union. This temporary subordination was deemed necessary for the northwest territory, even though settled by the unmixed population of the thirteen original States, trained to self-government and to the exercise of political rights under institutions of the most faultless character. How much more necessary is such a supervision now, when territories are becoming annexed to the Union inhabited by the most heterogeneous races, and wholly unused to the enjoyment or exercise of rational freedom?

An honorable Senator from North Carolina1 denominated this submission of power to the inhabitants of the territories a republican measure, or as in accordance with the genius of our republican institutions. Sir, it was not so considered in former times in the earlier and better days of the Republic. Let me state some historical facts touching this question.

In 1805, an act was passed for the government of the territory of Orleans. While the bill was under discussion in the Senate, certain amendments were offered, the effect of which would have been to give the inhabitants of the territory of Orleans the management of their own domestic concerns, uncontrolled by Congress. The Journal of the Senate does not show by whom the amendments were offered; but on searching the records of that period, I find the manuscript copy indorsed, "Mr. Tracy's motion to amend

1 Mr. Badger

bill." I think this may be regarded as the original, to which subsequent attempts to emancipate the territories from the control of the Federal government, before they have the population necessary to give them a representation in Congress, may be referred. Whatever the doctrine may be considered at the present day, it derived little support from republican sources then. It was brought forward by Mr. Tracy, an able and respectable Federalist from Connecticut. On the division, which was called on his motion to strike out for the purpose of inserting his amendments, it received but eight votes, including his own. They were given by Timothy Pickering and John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts; Uriah Tracy, the mover, and James Hillhouse, of Connecticut; James A. Bayard and Stephen White, of Delaware; Simeon Olcott, of New Hampshire; and James Jackson, of Georgia. With the exception of Mr. Jackson, all these gentlemen were Federalists, for it was not until several years later that Mr. Adams acted with the Republican party. Some of them were among the brightest ornaments of the Federal party of that day, both in respect to talents and private character, and all were strenuous opponents of Mr. Jefferson's administration. Against these eight ayes were twenty-four noes, given by the great body of Mr. Jefferson's supporters and some of his opponents. Among the former were Baldwin of Georgia, Giles of Virginia, and Smith of Maryland. The supporters of the measure were, with one exception, Federalists, and opponents of Mr. Jefferson's administration. Its opponents were chiefly Republicans, and supporters of his administration.

At the same session of Congress, memorials were presented to both Houses from the inhabitants of the territory of Orleans, and from the District of Louisiana. The former prayed to be admitted immediately into the Union, and insisted that they had a right to such admission under the treaty of cession. The latter asked for

a territorial government; the whole territory, or District of Louisiana, as it was called, lying north of the 33d parallel of latitude, having been virtually subjected, in respect to the administration of its legislative, executive, and judicial powers, to the Governor and judges of the Indiana territory. In both cases the inhabitants prayed for the privilege of importing slaves. These memorials were referred, in the House of Representatives, to a committee of which Mr. John Randolph was chairman.

On the 25th of January, 1805, Mr. Randolph made a report, which will be found at page 417 of vol. 20, American State Papers, printed by Gales & Seaton, concluding with a resolution, "that provision ought to be made by law for extending to the inhabitants of Louisiana the right of self-government." This resolution was agreed to, on the 28th of January, without a division.

Mr. Randolph's report, while asserting that " every indulgence, not incompatible with the interests of the Union," should be extended to the inhabitants of Louisiana, and while declaring that the object of the committee was "to give to Louisiana a government of its own choice, administered by officers of its own appointment," maintained at the same time, that, in "recommending the extension of this privilege to the people of that country, it [was]

not the intention of the committee that it should be unaccompanied by wise and salutary restrictions. Among these may be numbered a prohibition of the importation of foreign slaves, equally dictated by humanity and policy, [here follows an enumeration of other restrictions,] to which may be added, (for further security,) that such of the laws as may be disapproved by Congress, within a limited time after their passage, shall be of no force and effect.

The report of Mr. Randolph asserted, to the full extent, the right of Congress to provide for the government of the territories, to impose on them such restrictions as were demanded by the interests of the Union, and to prohibit the

introduction of slaves from foreign countries, as a measure of humanity and policy.

Such was the action of the two Houses of Congress on this subject, involving the question of yielding to the inhabitants of territories the control of their own domestic affairs, and exempting their legislation from the supervisory and repealing power of Congress. If we regard it as a party measure, all the republican sanctions of that day were against it. And if we consider it as a political question, to be determined, with regard to its complexion, by a reference to the genius of our institutions, it is singular that those who were most deeply imbued with the spirit of republicanism should have been arrayed against it.

Let me now examine for a moment the question immediately before us. A motion is made to strike out the twelfth section of this bill. The section provides: 1st. That "the inhabitants of the said territory shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities heretofore granted and secured to the territory of Iowa, and to its inhabitants."

2d. That "the existing laws now in force in the territory of Oregon, under the authority of the provisional government established by the people thereof, shall continue to be valid and operative therein, so far as the same be not incompatible with the provisions of this act, subject, nevertheless, to be altered, modified, or repealed by the Governor and Legislative Assembly of the said territory of Oregon."

3d. That the laws of the United States are hereby extended over and declared to be in force in said territory, so far as the same or any provision thereof may be applicable."

In order to see what rights, privileges, and immunities the people of Oregon are to acquire, we must refer to the act organizing the territory of Iowa. The twelfth section of this act provides, "that the inhabitants of the said territory shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities heretofore granted and secured to the territory of Wisconsin and its inhabitants," &c.

We must next have recourse to the act organizing the territory of Wisconsin. The twelfth section of this act provides, "that the inhabitants of the said territory shall be entitled to, and enjoy, all and singular the rights, privileges, and advantages granted and secured to the people of the territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, by the articles of the compact contained in the ordinance for the government of the said territory, passed on the 13th day of July, 1787; and shall be subject to all the conditions and restrictions and prohibitions in said articles of compact imposed upon the people of the said territory.'

It will be seen that there is an essential difference in the language of the two sections. The twelfth section of the act organizing the territory of Iowa secures the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to the territory of Wisconsin and its inhabitants, including the ordinance of 1787; but it does not expressly impose the conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions contained in that ordinance. Now, I suppose the exclusion of slavery from the northwest territory by the ordinance is to be referred rather to the class of restrictions and prohibitions than to that of privileges and immunities. Under such a construction of the act, slavery would not have been excluded from Iowa by the twelfth section of the act establishing a government for that territory, nor would it be excluded from Oregon by that portion of this bill which secures to the inhabitants "the rights, privileges, and immunities heretofore granted and secured to the territory of Iowa and its inhabitants."

I know there is a difference of opinion in respect to the true construction of the twelfth section of the act organizing a government for the territory of Iowa. The Senator from Maryland,1 whose legal opinions are entitled to great weight, is of opinion that the slavery restrictions contained in the twelfth section of the act organizing a territorial government for Wisconsin, from which territory Iowa

1 Mr. Johnson.