unite in passing the bill and preventing any further Indian massacres.
Then Westcott of Florida took occasion to resent an insinuation against the judiciary committee, that it had retarded the passage of the bill[1] by thrusting on the senate the question of free territory. "It was not," he said, "thrust on the senate by that committee, but by the house bill (of 1847); and it was not then or now thrust on the senate by any senator from the south. It was not thrust upon them by the committee on territories. The amendment was entirely unnecessary, as it is already in the bill under consideration. The laws of Oregon already inhibit slavery. These laws were submitted to the judiciary committee last session, and will be found among the documents. If the bill should pass as it has been reported, it will contain a perfect inhibition of slavery."[2] In conclusion he gave notice that he would move to amend the bill by substituting the bill of the previous session as amended by the senate. Davis of Mississippi declared that no one could more earnestly desire that Oregon might have a territorial government than himself, but he wanted time for consideration. The laws of Iowa,[3] he declared, were not adapted to Oregon, which required different ordinances. He would recommend the recommitment of the bill to the judiciary committee, with instructions to report immediately.
Berrien of Georgia suggested that the shortest way to a final vote would be to adopt Westcott's amendment of substituting the former senate bill; and Calhoun was not disposed to occasion any delay which his duty did not imperatively require. He wished to give a government to the territory of Oregon imme-
- ↑ This is a reference to the amendments made by the judiciary committee of the senate to the Oregon bill at the previous session, which were rejected by the house. They may be found in the Or. Spectator, Sept. 16, 1847.
- ↑ Cong. Globe, 1847–8, 805. See Thornton's pretensions in note 8.
- ↑ I find several references to the fact that the Oregon bill was drawn up on the plan of the territorial acts of Iowa and Wisconsin. Id. Bright says, page 809, that 'the bill is substantially the same as the bills for the admission of Wisconsin and Iowa, with the exception of the 12th section.'
