sovereignty, the President was authorized to use the Army, the Navy, and the militia, then numbering eighty thousand, to enforce and protect that sovereignty in Louisiana; also to provide a form of government for the territory and inhabitants. (Annals of Congress, 1803, p. 488.)

The House appointed a special committee, with John Randolph as chairman, which immediately reported a bill emanating from the President. (Adams's History, vol. 2, p. 119.) The bill provided that: all the military, civil, and judicial powers exercised by the officers of the existing government of the same shall be vested in such person and persons, and shall be exercised in such manner, as the President of the United States shall direct. Stat. L., p. 245.)

(2 U.S.

The "existing government" in that territory at that time was the one established by Spain, it having been continued by France. The effect and purpose of this law was to substitute Jefferson for the King of Spain and authorize him to exercise royal powers.

Mr. Rodney, of Delaware, speaking for the administration, explained the theory on which was founded the government proposed by the bill by declaring that:

Congress have a power in the territories which they can not exercise in the States, and that the limitations of power found in the Constitution are applicable to States and not Territories. (Annals of Congress, 1803, p. 514.)

Randolph defended the bill on the ground of necessity, and declared that the United States possessed unlimited powers of sovereignty in Louisiana, saying:

They (Congress) will see the necessity of the United States taking possession of this country in the capacity of sovereigns in the same extent as that of the existing government of the province. ( (Annals of Congress, 1803, p. 514.)

Jefferson's fiercest foe in Congress (or out of it for that matter) was Senator Pickering, of Massachusetts, who opposed the treaty, but declared that he

Had never doubted the right of the United States to acquire new territory either by purchase or by conquest, and to govern the territory so acquired as a dependent province; and in this way might Louisiana have become territory of the United States, and have received a form of government infinitely preferable to that to which its inhabitants are now subject. (Annals of Congress, 1803, p. 45.)

The bill passed by a party vote and was signed by Jefferson, October 31, 1803.

This law was a temporary measure. Four weeks later the Senate appointed a committee to prepare a bill for territorial government of Louisiana. The committee was composed of Breckenridge, of Kentucky, Jackson and Baldwin, of Georgia, and John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts; and they reported a bill that definitely determined the principle on which the new territory was to be governed. (Adams says this bill "was probably drawn by Madison in cooperation with

the President." Adams's History, vol. 2, p. 121.) The bill provided for a territorial government in which the people of Louisiana had no share. It set the new territory apart, as a peculiar estate, to be governed by a power implied from the right to acquire it.

The bill provided for a governor and secretary, to be appointed by the President. The legislative power was to be exercised by the governor and a legislative council of thirteen, appointed annually by the President. The laws were to be reported to the President, and, if disapproved by Congress, were to be of no force. There was a further restriction that "no law shall be valid which is inconsistent with the Constitution." The bill gave the governor the authority to "convene and prorogue" the legislative council at his pleasure. The judicial officers were to be appointed by the President. Trial by jury in civil cases was restricted to cases involving more than $20, and in criminal cases to those wherein the death penalty might be imposed. The bill was considered in the Senate for six weeks, but the debate was not reported. It passed the Senate by a vote of 20 to 5. When the bill reached the House it was vigorously assailed by members of both parties. The opponents of the bill did not contend that the Constitution was in force in Louisiana. They did not insist that the inhabitants of the Territory possessed the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States. They did insist that by the terms of article 3 of the treaty the United States was bound to some time incorporate the Territory and its inhabitants into the Union, and thereby bring them within the Constitution and permit them to participate in the Government. They called attention to the fact that the population consisted of Americans, Frenchmen, Spaniards, and Creolescivilized, Christianized, intelligent people and urged that it was safe and advisable to permit them to participate in the government of the Territory to the limited extent of electing the members of the legislative council and thereby familiarize themselves with our system of self-government. The unlimited power conferred upon the President and the authority given the governor were denounced in unmeasured terms.

Mr. Leib, of Pennsylvania, an extreme Democrat, took exception to the word "prorogue," and denounced the power of the governor to prorogue the council as "royal." (Annals of Congress, 1803, p. 1055.) Mr. Gregg, of Pennsylvania, said:

He was opposed to the power it gave the President to appoint the members of the legislative council. It appeared to him a mere burlesque to say they shall be appointed by the President. (Annals of Congress, 1803, p. 1055.)

Mr. Varnum, of Massachusetts,

Was of opinion that the bill provided such a kind of government as had never been known in the United States. He thought sound policy, no less than justice, dictated the propriety of making provision for the election of a legislative body by the people. There was not only the common obligation of justice imposed upon Congress

to do this, but they were bound by treaty. The treaty makes it obligatory on the United States to admit the inhabitants of Louisiana, as soon as possible, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States. (Annals of Congress, 1803, p. 1056.)

Mr. Lyon, of Kentucky, vehemently opposed the selection of the legislative council by appointment. Such a government, he declared, reduced the inhabitants to "slavery" and gave Jefferson the powers of Bonaparte. (Annals of Congress, 1803, pp. 1059–1060.)

Mr. Campbell, of Tennessee, said of the bill:

It really establishes a complete despotism; it does not evince a single trait of liberty; it does not confer one single right to which they are entitled under the treaty; it does not extend to them the benefits of the Federal Constitution, or declare when, hereafter, they shall receive them.

Mr. Campbell believed that the inhabitants possessed the right to participate in the government, independent of the Constitution, and that said right was limited only by their intelligence and ability to exercise it. He believed the inhabitants of Louisiana were sufficiently informed as to the workings of our Government and devoted to the principles of civil liberty to be allowed to exercise the elective franchise in selecting the legislative council. (Annals of Congress, 1803, pp. 1063-1067. See also amendment offered by Campbell, p. 1078.) Mr. Jackson could not agree that the inhabitants of Louisiana were not qualified to receive a free government. He said:

It is urged by gentlemen that we ought to give to this people liberty by degrees. I believe, however, there is no danger of giving them too much of it; and I am unwilling to tarnish the national character by sanctioning the detestable calumny that man is not fitted for freedom. What will the world say if we sanction this principle? They will see we possess the principle of despotism under the garb of republicans, and that we are insincere, with whatever solemnity we may declare it, in pronouncing all men equal. They will tell us that we have emphatically declared to the American people and to the world, in our first act evincive of emancipation from the tyranny of England, that all men are equal, and that all governments derive their rightful power from the consent of the governed, and that notwithstanding, when the occasion offers, we exercise despotic power under the pretext that the people are unable to govern themselves. (Annals of Congress, 1803, p. 1071.) Mr. Sloan said:

I was yesterday about to rise to express my disapprobation of the section now under consideration, and my concern on hearing sentiments adduced in support of its principle, which I consider as repugnant to justice and sound policy as frost is to fire, or darkness to light, when my friend from Tennessee (Mr. G. W. Campbell) rose, and in so clear and explicit a manner opposed the bill and exposed its unjust, impolitic, dangerous, and despotic principle, that nothing appeared necessary to be added; after which I flattered myself no further attempts would be made to support a principle subversive of the inalienable rights of man, but, to my surprise, I hear a repetition of sentiments urged in favor of this principle.

Here let me ask, Can anything be more repugnant to the principles of just government; can anything be more despotic than for a president to appoint a governor and legistative council, the governor having a negative on all their acts, and power to prorogue them at pleasure? What liberty, what power is here vested in the people? (Annals of Congress, 1803, p. 1074.)

In support of the bill, Mr. Eustis, of Massachusetts, said:

It is extremely difficult to form any system of government for this Territory with our ideas of civil liberty under the Constitution of the United States. It appears to me that before we determine the principle on which the council is to be formed it is necessary distinctly to understand the genius, the manners, the disposition, and the state of the people to be governed. The treaty has been resorted to by my colleague to show that they are entitled to elect their own legistature. It says:

"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States."

Are the people of Louisiana admitted at this time or not, with all the rights of citizens of the United States? The answer to this inquiry will lead to a right decision of the question under discussion. If they are so admitted they are entitled to all the rights of citizens of the United States. And if they are thus entitled there remains another inquiry: Are they qualified from habit and from the circumstances in which they are placed to exercise these high privileges? If they are both entitled and qualified to enjoy them we can have no hesitation in pronouncing the bill grounded on a wrong principle, that it ought to be rejected, and another a bill, of a far different nature, be introduced in its room. But I do not consider the subject in this light. The people, in my opinion, are at present unprepared for and undesirous of exercising the elective franchise. The first object of the Government is to hold the country. How? By protecting the people in all their rights, and by administering the government in such a manner as to prevent any disagreement among them, to use no other term. Suppose the people called upon to choose those who are to make laws for them, does the information we possess justify the belief that this privilege would be so exercised as to conduce to the peace, happiness, and tranquillity of the country? I apprehend not.

The government laid down in this bill is certainly a new thing in the United States; but the people of this country differ materially from the citizens of the United States. I speak of the character of the people at the present time. When they shall be better acquainted with the principles of our Government, and shall have become desirous of participating in our privileges, it will be full time to extend to them the elective franchise. Have not the House been informed from an authentic source, since the cession, that the provisions of our institutions are inapplicable to them? If so, why attempt, in pursuit of a vain theory, to extend political institutions to them for which they are not prepared? I am one of those who believe that the principles of civil liberty can not suddenly be ingrafted on a people accustomed to a regimen of a directly opposite hue. The approach of such a people to liberty must be gradual. I believe them at present totally unqualified to exercise it. If this opinion be erroneous, then the principles of the bill are unfounded. If, on the contrary, this opinion is sound, it results that neither the power given to the President to appoint the members of the council or of the governor to prorogue them are unsafe or unnecessary. The extension of the elective franchise may be considered by the people of Louisiana a burden instead of a benefit. I have understood there is none of that equality among them which exists in the United States; grades are there more highly marked, and they may deem it rather a matter of oppression to extend to them the privileges which we deem inestimable, and with the value of which we have been long familiar. Before we decide this principle it is absolutely necessary to consider the relation of these people to the United States. I consider them as standing in nearly the same relation to us as if they were a conquered country. By the treaty they are, it is true, entitled to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of

citizens of the United States and to be incorporated into the Union as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution. But can they be admitted now? Are they at this moment so admitted? If not, they are not entitled to these rights; but if they were I should doubt the propriety of extending them to them.

If the present provisions of the bill are carried into effect there will be more security than will arise under the motion of my colleague. It is very natural and honorable to gentlemen of liberal minds to be desirous of extending to this people the privileges enjoyed by our own citizens, but sentiments of this kind, however liberal and praiseworthy, may be carried in the face of facts and may operate injuriously on those they are intended to benefit.

*

*

*

*

Upon the whole, as the bill only purports to provide for a temporary government, and as in the course of a year we shall have more information respecting the country, when it will be in our power, in case such information shall justify it, to extend all the privileges which gentlemen seem so desirous of doing, I hope the committee will not rise or agree to strike out this section. (Annals of Congress, 1803, pp. 1058-1059.)

Mr. Holland, replying to Mr. Jackson, said:

As my ideas are very different from those of the gentleman who has preceded me, and as I do not believe that either policy or moral obligation recommends the adoption of a system such as he has avowed to be proper, I will, in a few words, state the sentiments I entertain. I do not view this discussion as involving the question whether the people of Louisiana shall be admitted into the United States. The only question is whether we shall extend to them the right of free suffrage in its fullest extent and such as is enjoyed by the people of the United States. Gentlemen in favor of striking out this section seem impressed with the idea that every gentleman friendly to the section is in favor of an absolute despotism, is inimical to their rights, is desirous of making the people of Louisiana slaves. They take the ground that if we deny them this right we deny them everything; but there is a wide difference between denying them the privilege of election and extending to them other high privileges, more, perhaps, than they are capable of enjoying. This law will extend to them the privileges of 21 acts of the United States to which the freemen of the United States are subject. Is this nothing? Gentlemen say they ought not to be subjected but to laws of their own making, but the whole frame of this bill contradicts the assertion, as it principally consists in imposing laws which the people never made or ought to participate in making. Will the gentleman take the broad ground that people should never be governed but by laws of their own making? This is, indeed, the amount of the argument, and proving too much it proves nothing. Mr. H. said he believed the people of St. Domingo who had been alluded to, not qualified to support a free government, not possessed of sufficient knowledge. People who never had an opportunity to obtain knowledge can not be supposed to possess it, and no kind of knowledge was more difficult to obtain than that which qualified men to be legislators. Can gentlemen conceive the people of Louisiana, who have just thrown off their chains, qualified to make laws? Under the late system the people had no concern in the Government, and it was even criminal for them to concern themselves with it; they were set at a distance from the Government, and all required from their hands was to be passive and obedient. Can it be supposed such a people made the subject of government their study, or can it be presumed they know anything about the principles of the Constitution of the United States? Would persons thus elected be of any service to the Government? So far from being an assistance, they would be an incumbrance. Why, then, impose this burden upon them? The object of this bill is to extend the laws of the United States over Louisiana, not to enable the