FEDERAL RELATIONS OF OREGON

275

tion of Congress the words of Washington, where he warned his countrymen against allowing sectionalism to tinge their deliberations. 20

In both houses, bills for the territorial government of Oregon were introduced early in the session. In the Senate it was Stephen A. Douglas, who now had left the House and was entering upon his eventful career in the upper body, to whom was granted the honor of introducing the measure which was immediately referred to the Committee on Terri21

The Senate, however, did not take up this- bill until House bill had been under discussion for over a month, hence, since each House pursued its own course, it is with the latter that we must deal first. The House Committee on Territories introduced a bill on the ninth of February it was made a special order of the day for the fourteenth of March and on the twenty-eighth of March tories.

after the

it

was

called

up by Wentworth, an

Illinois

sidered in Committee of the Whole. 22

Democrat, and con-

The

slavery debate,

which had to that time fastened upon other topics the Loan Bill, the Deficiency Appropriation Bill, and nearly every other measure before the House now seized upon that which, together with the bills for the organization of New Mexico and California, gave the most legitimate excuse for its consideration. John Gayle, of Alabama (Whig), and Ephraim K. of Maine (Democrat), occupied the time upon this Smart, 1

day with their views upon the constitutional power of Congress in legislating for the territories. The Southerner took the ground that hitherto legislation and decisions of the first

Supreme Court had considered States and territories as upon same legal footing; Congress could not legislate upon

the

domestic affairs within the States, consequently it could not for the territories. Furthermore, territorial governments could not of themselves exclude slavery for that would infringe

upon the

rights of citizens of certain States

20 Globe, XVIII, lo-n. 20 Ibid., 136. 21 Ibid., 136. 22 Ibid., 322; debate of 28 March, 542-8.

who might

desire