that slaves will never be taken to Oregon. With all deference to their opinions, I differ with them totally. I believe, if permitted, slaves would be carried there, and that slavery would continue at least as long as in Maryland or Virginia. The Pacific coast is totally different in temperature from the Atlantic. It is far milder. Lines of equal temperature — isothermal lines, as they are technically denominated traverse the surface of earth in curves of varied eccentricity in reference to the parallels of latitude. These curves are nowhere, perhaps, greater than on this continent. In the latitude of Nova Scotia, which is bound for nearly half the year in fetters of ice, snow on the Pacific does not lie more than three or four weeks. In the valley of the Wilhamette, above the 45th degree of north latitude, -the parallel of Montreal,-grass grows the whole winter, and cattle are rarely if ever housed. Green pease are eaten at Oregon city, in the same parallel, at Christmas. Where is the corresponding climate to be found on this side of the continent? Where we sit near the 39th? No, sir, far to the south of us. The latitude of Georgia gives on the Pacific a tropical climate.

When I say this is a practical question, I do not rely on reasoning alone. The prohibition of slavery in the laws. of Oregon was adopted for the express purpose of excluding slaves. A few had been brought in; further importations were expected; and it was with a view to put a stop to them that the prohibitory act was passed.

Shall we, then, refuse to ratify this prohibition? Are we unwilling to extend to the inhabitants of Oregon a privilege they ask for themselves? Shall we, by our judgment solemnly pronounced here, declare that the territory of Oregon shall be open to the introduction of slaves, unless the people, through their legislative assembly, reënact the prohibition? I might go further, and ask, in reference to a proposed amendment, whether we are prepared to say,

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 direc tion 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 ter ritories 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 administra

tion.

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.