In a letter of January 31, 1804, to Robert R. Livingston, Madison stated that a form of government was under discussion but its precise form was not yet known. It was certain, however, that:

The provisions generally contemplated will leave the people of the District for awhile without the organization of power dictated by Republican theory; but it is evident that a sudden transition to a condition so much in contrast with that in which their ideas and habits have been formed, would be as inacceptable and as little beneficial to them as it would be difficult for the Government of the United States. It may fairly be expected that every blessing of liberty will be extended to them as fast as they shall be prepared and disposed to receive it.57

The extent to which Congress at that time considered the Louisianians prepared to receive the "blessings of liberty" will now be related.

57 Madison, Writings (Hunt, ed.), VIII, 115.

CHAPTER VII

THE DEBATE IN THE SENATE ON THE LOUISIANA

GOVERNMENT BILL1

The law of October 31, 1803, which had placed the administration of the Louisiana territory, until further action by Congress, in the hands of the President, was recognized as a temporary measure and steps were soon taken to provide a different government. With this object in view, it was moved in the Senate on November 28 that a committee be appointed to form such a government. This motion was taken into consideration. December 5, and being agreed to, Senators Breckinridge of Kentucky, Wright of Maryland, Jackson and Baldwin of Georgia. and Adams of Massachusetts were selected. The committee, through Breckinridge, reported on December 30 the bill which bears Breckinridge's name. According to the provisions of the bill, as finally passed, the purchased territory was divided into

1 The material used in the writing of this chapter is taken principally from Senator William Plumer's "Memorandum of the proceedings of Congress, Particularly of the Senate, from October 17, 1803, to March 27, 1804,'' cited as Plumer's "Memorandum.'' The part of the "Memorandum" which reports the Senate debate of January-February, 1804, on the Louisiana Government Bill was contributed by the present writer to the American Historical Review, XXII, 340-364.

Plumer's "Memorandum" seems to have escaped the attention of previous writers of American history. William Plumer, Jr., beyond quoting a few paragraphs from it, did not make use of it in his Life of William Plumer. The statement that this debate in the Senate was not reported has been made by Henry Adams, History of the United Statse, II, 122-123; F. A. Ogg, The Opening of the Mississippi, 571; and Curtis M. Geer, The Louisiana Purchase and the Westward Movement, 242.

Chapter VII, therefore, is an entirely new contribution to United States history.

2 Annals of Congress, 8 Cong., 1 Sess. (1803-1804), 106.

3 Ibid., 211.

4 Ibid., 223. As might be inferred from the personnel of the committee, the framing of this bill was not accomplished without considerable difficulty. Senator John Smith of Ohio wrote to Jefferson that the committee "have met two or three times but cannot agree on the principles of the bill.'' December, 1803. [Letter received December 12.] Jefferson Papers, "Letters received at Washington, 2d Series," LXXVI.

two parts, that north of the thirty-third parallel to be called the "District of Louisiana," and connected, for purposes of government, with the territory of Indiana. The name "Territory of Orleans," was applied to the southern area. For this region the bill provided for a governor, appointed by the President for a term of three years; a secretary, similarly appointed, for four years; and a legislative council of thirteen members, appointed annually by the President. The governor was given power to convene and prorogue the council at will. The judicial officers were to be appointed by the President for a term of four years. The right of trial by jury was granted in capital cases in criminal prosecutions; and in all cases, criminal and civil, in the superior court, if either party required it. The slave trade in the territory was restricted to slaves brought from states of the Union by American citizens going there to settle, and who at the time were bona fide owners of such slaves. The importation of slaves from abroad into Orleans Territory was prohibited, and slaves imported since May 1, 1798, were to be excluded from the territory.

The provisions of the Breckinridge Bill and of amendments thereto formed part of the programme in the Senate from January 10, when Adams moved the three resolutions already noted, until February 18, 1804, when the bill passed the Senate.

5 For a discussion of the terms territory and district, see Max Farrand, "Territory and District," in Am. Hist. Rev., V, 676–681.

6 For the full text of the bill, approved by Jefferson, March 26, 1804, see the Annals of Congress, 8 Cong., 1 Sess. (1803-1804), Appendix, 12931300; Statutes at Large, II, 283.

The act of April 7, 1798, which authorized the establishment of a government in the Mississippi territory, contained a section forbidding the introduction into that territory of slaves from without the United States. On this point see Du Bois, The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade, 88-89, and Appendix B, 239. The act of 1798, together with the fact that it antedated the reopening of the foreign slave trade by South Carolina, explains the reason for the insertion of the date 1798 in the Louisiana bill.

7 See above; also Annals of Congress, 8 Cong., 1 Sess. (1803-1804), 228-229; Adams, Writings (Ford, ed.), III, 25–30; Adams, Memoirs, I, 286-287.

Senators Dayton, Nicholas and Jackson considered Adams's resolutions as being alarming and dangerous in principle; however, they did not point out any particular evil that would result from their adoption. Plumer held them to be "mere abstract propositions, not connected with any business immediately before the Senate," and declared that a vote in favor of them would settle nothing.8

On January 16, Worthington of Ohio moved to amend the fourth section, which made provision for the appointment and powers of the legislative council, so as to authorize that body. to elect a delegate to Congress with the right to debate but not vote. This motion gave rise to an interesting debate concerning the status of the inhabitants of the ceded territory. Breckinridge of Kentucky favored the motion as a means of conveying useful knowledge to Congress. Samuel Smith of Maryland held a somewhat similar view. So, too, did John Smith of Ohio, who considered the amendment both necessary and important. Dayton of New Jersey, on the other hand, thought the legislative council of the territory could better inform Congress of conditions in the territory by memorials. Pickering of Massachusetts took the stand that since Louisiana was not incorporated into the Union, it would be absurd to admit a delegate from there to debate in Congress. Louisiana was a purchased province and must be governed as such. Opposition came also from White of Delaware, who argued that since the legislative council was to be created by the President and vested with the power of choosing a delegate to Congress, this delegate would be in reality the representative of the President, an arrangement which he denounced as wrong. Bradley of Vermont held the same point of view. Jackson of Georgia was of the opinion that it was

8 Plumer, "Memorandum," Tuesday [January] 10, 1804. 9 Annals of Congress, 8 Cong., 1 Sess. (1803-1804), 233.

too soon to allow the Louisianians representation in Congress. Worthington came to the support of his motion with the assurance that no danger could arise from the measure. Dayton, again participating in the debate, declared the motion unconstitutional. He said:

The Constitution has provided only for the representation of States, and no man will pretend that Louisiana is a State. It is true by the confederation10 provision was made for delegates from territories and our Constitution has provided that all contracts and engagements entered into before its adoption shall be valid (Art 6th) but no man will have the hardihood to say that Louisiana was included in that engagement.

John Quincy Adams also sided with the opposition, owing to constitutional scruples. Cocke of Tennessee saw no comparison between the government of Louisiana and other territorial governments. He realized that the Senate was face to face with a new problem, an original system, founded on new principles, which must be worked out on its own merits. He denied that the bill violated the Constitution, and, answering the argument that the people were ignorant, he claimed that they, knowing the necessity of it, would always elect worthy representatives. He expressed his veneration for these people because they lived in the west. Breckinridge added his voice to those who denied. there was any infringement of the Constitution, and Samuel Smith brought the debate to a close with the argument that since the Constitution did not prevent the Senate from admitting delegates from old territories he could see no power restraining that body from allowing Louisiana to send a delegate to the other House. The motion failed by a vote of eighteen nays to twelve yeas.

12

11

10 By the Ordinance of 1787, sec. 12.

11 Plumer, "Memorandum," Monday, January 16. Compare the statement in John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, I, 290, under the same date: "The Louisiana Government bill was further discussed; but no decision had."

12 Annals of Congress, 8 Cong., 1 Sess. (1803-1804), 233-234. The liberal tendencies of the West are seen in the vote on this measure. With