Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-11-01

In the review we took yesterday of the course
of Col. Joseph Johnson, in regard to the Oregon
bill of the session of 1857 we fell into ons in
accuracy, which. however, did not strengthen the
case made out against him, and therefore did him
no injustice. The Oregon bill was not, as we
hastily stated, passed by both Houses of Congress
at that session. 1t passed the House of Repre-
sentatvss under the circumstances we detailed
yesterday, but did not get through the Senate. 1t
was during the ensuing session of l847-'8, that
the bill finally passed by Congress and signed
by Mr.. Polk. But the bill of 1867 was sub
stantially if not literally the same with that of
ls47-'8. 1t organized territorial government,
and provided in effect that slavery should be for.
ever prohibited in the Territory.
To make this clear. the reader will recollect,
that Mr.. Douglas, the patron of the bill, when
Intercepted whether it contained any restrictions
against slavery, replied by reading the 18th section
in the following words:
Sec. 12-And be it further enacted, That the iuhab-
ants Of said Territory shall be entitled!o enjoy all and
singular the rights and privileges audadvanages gran
ted and red to cur people of the territory Of he
States northwest of the Ohio liver by an article Of
compact contained in the ordinance Tor the govern
men OF said territory, the 18th day OF July, 1887
EuaH uo suUlect 10 eOuuluODs ana reStrlc
rions and prohitions in said articles of compact i'm
posed upon the people OF said territory.
This section, Mr.. Douglas said, ''exen DIS the
provisions of the Ordinance of 1887 to the Ore
gon Territory, and he presumed the gentleman
would find slavery expressly prohibited by that
ordinance" And this no man could gansay, for
the sixth article Of the Ordinance contains this
memorable provision
"There shall be no slavery nor involuntary seryitude
the said territory otherwise in the pun shnent
OF crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted"
The 18th section of the Oregon bill was uni.
vSrsay understood In Congress- to be intended to
prohibit slavery ia Oregon. Mr.. Burt, as we have
seen, moved to inssrt certain words in the sec.
ton which would assign, as reason for the pro-
hibition, the fact that the Territory lay north of
sc. so. But the North would not consent in this
manner, to commit itself to the extension of the
MISSOURI line, and gave fair notice that it insisted
upon the prohibition not only in Oregon but in
all territory that should be acquired
The Oregon bill, of l847-8 contained pro.
vision in precisely the same aoords az the 18th
section Of the bill Of the preceding session above
cited In the House of Representatives, a mo-
lion prevailed, III committees vi the whole, to
strike this provision cut; but when the bill was
reported to the House, the amendment proposed
by the committee was rejected, ayes SO, noes
ia and the provision WAS left unaltsred. The
bill in this form was passed by the House. The
Senate, at first, amended it by Incorporating
section distinctly extending the Missouri line to
the Pacific; bat the House refused to concur in
the amendment; and tls Senate, on the 18th of
August 1913, agreed to r.cede from it by vote of
ayes %, noes IS. This was the memorable oc-
easion on which Senators Benton and Houston
betrayed the Southern cause; by voting to rscsde
they defeated beyond hope the extension Of the
Missouri line, and caused the bill to be passed in
the shape in which i. came from the House
Nobody have forgotten how bitterly they
were denounced throughout the Southern States.
Yet their offence was not a whit greater than
thai which was Committed by CoI Joseph Jotn-
son, in the preceding Congress. They agreed to
support the Oregon bin with provision prohib-
ting slavery; and he did the very same thing
The circumstances attending the defeat Of Mr..