The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-03-31

the Oregon Constitution. But it does seem, at
the hrst view, that it,was a wanton and unpro-
voked outrage upon therights of these men who
are excluded from that State. l think there is
a real apology for the action of the States of
illinois and Indiana. They are in close prox-
unity to the institution of Slavery They are
under the shadow of the dying tree of Slavery,
and its decaying limbs are constantly threaten
ing to fall upon their heads and / cannot Gen.
sure them for taking such means as they see fit
to protect themselves from such imminent peril.
am not disposed to call into question the right
or consttutonality of their action.
Is there no apology, then, for the people OF
Oregon Have they committed wanton and
unprovoked outrage upon the rights of negroes
and mulattoes, in excluding them from that
Territory? l say that there IS an apology, and
that it consists in this they believed that they
were Obliged to choose between free-State con-
stitution with this provision, and slave-State
Constitution without it. There were three par
ties in the Territory at the time this Constitu-
ton was made and adopted. There was the
Free-State party, which was composed of Free
State Democrats and Republicans. There was
the Pro-Slavery party in favor of slave State.
| There was, between these two, very consider
able party, supposed to hold the balance of
power, and that partyI may characterize as the
anti-negro party. They said that they would
sooner vote for slave State than for free
State with Constitution admitting free negroes
and mulattoes. They preferred to have slaves
in Oregon rather than free negroes; and it was
for the purpose of securing their vote for free
State that the Republicans and Free-State Dem
ocrats inserted and advocated this provision.
The leading Republicans Of that Territory ad-
vocated the adoption of the Constitution con-
tanning this provision. Mr.. Logan, who received
every Republican vote for United States Sena-
tor, advocated, on the stump, the adoption of
the Constitution with this clause.
What was the vote? Why, sir, this clause Of
the Constitution had majority of seven thou
sand FIVE hundred and ftty-nine votes; while
the Constitution itself had majority of only
four thousand votes. The Democratic majority
in the Territory, shown In the election of
Representative to this House, was only one
thousand six hundred and thirteen votes Then
it is proved, by the official record, that the Re
publican party combined with the Free-State
Democratic party to sanction and ratify this
provision of the Constitution which is here
called in question. There is also abundant
evidence, outside of the record, to satisfy any
one that such is the fact. This, then, is the
apology for the action of the people of Oregon
on this question. What Republican, or what
friend of free States, is justified, under these
circumstances, in voting to exclude the people
of Oregon from this Confederacy on account of
this provision, which is only an expedient, and
not thing for practical use? 1t is very easy,
at this distance to censure the people of Ore
gon, and to pronounce judgment against them
but such Judgment may be neither wise nor
just.
'Then at the balance let's be mute,
We never can ADJUST il;
What's done we partly may compute,
But know not what's resisted"
But sir, there is another objection urged from
certain quarters, with great pertinacity. | mean
the objection to the suffrage of aliens. The
Constitution of Oregon, in respect to alien suf
frage, is certainly more stringent than the law
of some of the States of the Union, and less
stringent than that of others. 1t is the same as
the Territorial law has been during the last ten
years. 1t requires a residence of twelve months
in the United States, and of six months in Ore
gon. 1t requires that the sworn declaration of
an intention to become citizen of the United
States shall have been on file at least one year.
What was the inducement for that encourage
ment of aliens? The wages of labor are now,
and have been, in Oregon, double what they are
on the Atlantic coast; and l ask, would it be
expedient or wise for Oregon to drive away
from her borders the emigration from Europe,
on which she has to rely for developing the re-
sources of the country2 Certainly not. Such
policy would have been disastrous in the ex-
treme to the young State. 1t was wise and pru-
dent, therefore, for Oregon to invite and en-
courage that immigration which she so much
needs, to develop her great resources, and to
secure for her the products of her natural
wealth. O
These, sir are among the plausible and os-
tensible objections that have been urged on this
side of the House against the admission of Ore
gon. There is yet another argument: that
Kansas has been excluded from the Union by
the action Of the Democratic party and that,
therefore, Republicans ought to exclude Ore.
gon. The argument amounts to this that we
should abuse Oregon because the Democratic
party have abused Kansas. Now /, for one,
am quite content that the record of the Repubh
cans, in respect to Oregon, should be better than
the record of the Democratic party in respect
to Kansas. / am quite content that the record
of the Democratic party, in respect to Kansas,
should be just what it is; and / do not think it
is possible very much to improve the Repubh-
can record, or to impair the Democratic record.
Are we to sacrifice our own political principles
and advantages, for the sake of compelling the
Democratic party to consistency of action? Are
we bound, as party, to sacrifice own con-
sstency in doing so? Certainly not. l think
the Republican party has another, and, to my
mind, less difficult mission to perform and
that is, to preserve its own consistency.
These are some of the palpable objections
that have been urged on this floor. l come
now to some for which thank the gentleman
from Indiana, Mr.. HUGHES. He has present
ed to the House some secret objections which
the Republicans are said to have to the admis-
sion of Oregon. The first is, that the Republi-
cans are opposed to the admission Of Oregon
because it is a Democratic State. Now, sir,
does not the gentleman from Indiana under
stand that the Republican party is not so devoid
of sagacity to fail to that to reject young
State for the reason that it is Democratic would
make it Democratic forever? Does the gentle
man from Indiana find anything in the history
of the Republican party which justifes such
conviction of its stupidity, as would lead him
to say that the Republican party, as party, is
opposed to the admission of free State be-
cause her people had chosen such politics as
seemed to them best Does he not see that
sagacious Republicans, finding that the Re-
publican party in Oregon is now in a minority
of only few hundred votes, understand that if
Oregon be admitted by their action, and were
thus set free from the influence of Executive
patronage, she would very soon become "A Re-
publican State?
But further than that the gentleman brings
up another secret reason why the Republicans
would oppose the admission of Oregon. That
secret reason Isl that in of the failure of the
people to elect President, and in case of that
election coming to this House, there will be
vote from Oregon against the Republican can
didate, which may procure his defeat. Now,
does not the gentleman from Indiana under
stand that any such position of the Republican
party would secure its defeat? that if it were
stupid enough to take a position against the
admission of free States, because their Consti-
tu+;ons wore not universally annroved If would