Page:Oregon Historical Quarterly vol. 20.pdf/398

 LESTER BURRELL SHIPPEE

380

by a majority of 7,559; and the constitution itself was adopted by a majority of 4,000. In February, 1858, Lane presented an official copy of the constitution to the House of Representatives and it was ordered Mr. printed and referred to the Committee on Territories. Lane, however, did not press for action. Moreover, when Senator Gwin of California asked Douglas why the Oregon bill

could not be

made an amendment

of the Minnesota

bill

then before Jthe Senate, the latter replied that he had no official information of the facts of the case Lane had told him it

would be better to let the matter rest until after the contest over Minnesota and Kansas had been ended. Thus prodded, Mr. Lane transmitted to Senator Douglas a copy of the constitution, and the Senator, when he presented it to the Senate, remarked that he did not desire to have the impression go forth that Mr. Lane had failed in his duty. With the constitution in its possession the Senate was in a position to proceed with the Oregon bill, and in May, when the slavery controversy was in one of its quiescent stages,

was resumed. The Dred Scott decision of the previous year had been a score for those who desired the extension of slavery; Kansas' attitude on the Lecompton conWhile the manner in stitution had caused Congress to act. which the constitution had been referred back to the people of Kansas had not been just that desired by the majority, it had been such that Kansas must become a State where slavery was legal or remain inj the status of a territory. In either case the Southern wing of the Democratic party had scored at least a technical point. There had never been any real question about the admission of Minnesota because it was in the old Northwest Territory, in part. Congress could, then, proceed with Oregon. Such, at any rate, was the opinion of those the debate

who

advocated the doctrine of popular sovereignty, for Oregon had, in the adoption of the constitution, exemplified that doctrine, untrammelled by such chicanery as had characterized the Kansas situation.