doors, because they 'did not want to expose their ignorance of making laws.' They feared that they 'might be ashamed of what they had done.' In such a case copies of the laws of other States, by which to model their own acts, would be invaluable. They happened to have the laws of Iowa, and nothing else, and so these laws were adopted. They were adopted because of the copy which the committee possessed, and that was reason enough. There could be no question about adopting the laws of Missouri, since there wasn't a copy of the laws of that State in the country at the time. Professor Herriott probably assumes that the framers of the Provisional Government of July, 1848, were mainly immigrants from the states of Iowa and Missouri, as was the case with reference to the population after the immigration of the fall of 1843. As a matter of fact, the framers of the original Provisional Government were missionaries, lay members and Rocky Mountain men, together with some of the representatives of the Hudson Hay Company. It is doubtful if either Iowa or Missouri was represented upon the legislative committee in question. Gray was a New York man, and was an active promoter in the organization. I believe that most of the other American members of that committee were from New York, or other extreme Eastern States. Newell, one of the mountain men, was, I believe, originally from Ohio. The provisions of the Linn bill for the extension of the laws of Iowa over Oregon, were probably not known by the members of that committee, and there is nothing to indicate that the question of anti-slavery opposition to the adoption of Oregon by the General Government was ever thought of. Gray has undertaken to give a full report of the proceedings of the committee, and a matter of that importance, if it had been discussed, or even thought of, would certainly have been referred to in the proceedings which be has reported. Anent Dr. Herriott's suggestion that the laws of Iowa, rather than those of Missouri, were adopted for fear of anti-slavery influence in opposition to the recognition of the new government, the pro-slavery influence in Congress would likely have
