"The bill before us is objectionable in its provisions, as well as in the manner in which it is presented. It comes in a triangular shape, with Oregon as the base, and California and New Mexico for its side lines. Oregon has no connection with the other territories, and why, then, are they chained and thus connected together? Why not let each stand by itself? Why make the one depend upon the fate of the other? I can see no sufficient reason. For years the people of Oregon have been demanding a government, and bill after bill has passed the other House, but as often as they have reached this body they have been either permitted to sleep the sleep that knows no waking,' or they have been defeated by those who now claim to be the most vigilant sentinels. During this session, and within a few weeks past, Congress has been admonished, in a message from the President, that savage hordes were committing depredations upon the whites, and the bill was not passed. The bill was before the Senate, and in accordance with the prayer of the people of Oregon, it contained a section inhibiting slavery from the territory. It was the general impression that that section could not be stricken out. A motion was made to recommit to a committee of eight, which was carried, and the bill comes back to us chained to the other territories, and with that section in the bill restricting slavery in Oregon so modified that it secures freedom for three months only after the first Territorial Legislature shall meet. This bill is called by some a compromise; all that I can see which entitles it to that name, is, that it does provide that the laws in Oregon which exclude slavery shall remain in force for three months. A compromise, indeed!"

Mr. CLAYTON." If the senator will allow me, it may not be inappropriate to make an explanation upon this

point concerning which an inquiry has been made. Section 12 provides that the laws now existing in the Territory of Oregon shall remain as they are until three. months after the first meeting of the Legislature of the Territory. The senator from Maine understands, of course-I take it for granted that is his doctrine-that the Legislature of Oregon will have the power upon the subject of slavery. Gentlemen who argue as he does, argue that the Territorial Legislature has full power over this subject. Now, take the sixth section in connection with the twelfth. The sixth section provides that the legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with the Constitution and the provisions of this act. The gentleman holds that the Legislature can, consistently with the provisions of the Constitution, legislate on the subject. of slavery. If it can do this, it will do it. If it can not do this consistently with the Constitution, it ought not to do it. Now, take the twelfth and sixth sections together, and the whole will be, I think, plain to the mind of any one. I do not see how gentlemen, advocating the opinions which are advocated by the gentleman from Maine, can object to this provision of the bill."

MR. HAMLIN." From the explanation which the honorable chairman of the committee has given, I apprehend that I did not misunderstand the scope and meaning of the twelfth section of this bill, and if the gentleman had listened to the conclusion which I drew from that section, taken in connection with the sixth, he would have had no occasion to interrupt me. I repeat, then, that the compromise of this bill is one which concedes that the fundamental law now existing in the Territory of Oregon shall remain in force for three months, and for only three months. That is the only concession which I can find in

the bill, and if for that it is to be taken as a compromise bill, why then let it be called such. The twelfth section concedes that the laws of the Territory shall remain in force for three months after the Territorial Government shall have met. They will then cease and be no longer in force, unless the Territorial Government shall see fit to re-enact them, and send them here for the approval of Congress. Now, if it were intended as a compromise, why repeal all the laws of the Territory? Why was the law regarding the exclusion of slavery not permitted to remain in force until the Territorial Legislature should see fit to change it? Why abrogate, and then compel them to re-enact their laws? Sir, it is not worth the name of compromise. This is the fundamental objection. It repeals all the laws of the Territory after three months, and the seventeenth section provides that

"All laws passed by the Legislative Assembly shall be submitted to the Congress of the United States, and if disapproved, shall be null and of no effect;'

thus making the legislative acts of Oregon depend on our approval or disapproval. Is it not, then, literally true, that this bill concedes the free principle to Oregon for only three months, after which it must depend upon action here? So I understand it.

"There is, to my mind, another and most peculiar feature in this bill, rendering it most inconsistent in its character. It creates for Oregon a territorial government, and gives it a Legislature elected by the people thereof. It is a government in which the people participate. Every

"Free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of said Territory at the

time of the passage of this act, shall be entitled to vote at the first election.'

"And it gives the Legislature power over all rightful subjects of legislation. In California and New Mexico this bill deprives the people of all power, and of any participation in the government over them. It creates an odious oligarchy over that people of the most objectionable kind. It sets up a government, not with the consent and participation of the people, but rather in defiance of their just rights.

"SECT. 26. The legislative power of said Territory, shall, until Congress shall otherwise provide, be vested in the Governor, Secretary, and Judges of the Supreme Court, who, or a majority of them, shall have power to pass any law for the administration of justice in said Territory, which shall not be repugnant to this act, or inconsistent with the laws and Constitution of the United States. But no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil, respecting an establishment of religion, or respecting slavery; and no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States, nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents. All the laws shall be submitted to the Congress of the United States, and, if disapproved, shall be null and void.'

"What good reason there may be for intrusting full power and sovereignty to the people of Oregon, while you wholly deny it to California, I do not understand. Why adopt one system for Oregon, and another for California? Is it said that the people of California are not yet suited to participate in a free government or in the enactments. of laws? If such even were the fact, why wholly exclude them from all rights? But Senators know, that at this day there are some five or six thousand American citizens there, and they are ruthlessly excluded. Is their capacity for free government to be mistrusted? Is it

not rather from the fact that they would set up a free government indeed, that they are deprived of all power? I know there is a mixed population in California, and so it is in Oregon; but the same limitations and restrictions which apply in one case can be applied in the other. The right of voting has been confined in Oregon to the "free white inhabitants." The same limitation may apply to California. No sound distinction can be drawn in these cases, yet a republican government is established in one case, and an oligarchy in the others. These people were but a short time since the subjects of a foreign power, and sound policy would dictate that we should not set up a despotism over them. Is it not better to authorize our own people to participate in this government, and allow the free white Castilian race the same power? Is it not sound policy as well as correct in principle? Will it not fraternize them with our people and our Government? On the other hand, without power in the local laws by which they are governed, will they not be alien to our Union, and unfraternal to our people? It must not be forgotten that all laws which would be passed in California, as in Oregon, would be subject to the approval or disapproval by Congress. This system is wholly repugnant to our form of government. It is in violation of that fundamental principle which recognizes the 'consent of the governed,' as the basis of government. We are told that such is the early form of our territorial governments. Be it so. It is not the form of later years. If it were, the application should be uniform, not applied to the free white population of one territory and not to another.

The settlement of the question of slavery by this bill, it is said, is to be determined by the Supreme Court. I