254 John H. Mitchell— Oregon 
from the congressional debates during the twenty-eight years of 
joint occupancy. Did time permit, it might be interesting, in 
view of what the state of Oregon is today physically, commer- 
cially, socially, and politically, to recite some of the statements 
made in these debates. I will quote a few extracts: 
Senator McDuffie, of South Carolina, in discussing in the 
United States Senate in 1848 the bill of Senator Linn, of Mis- 
souri, extending the laws of the United States over the territory 
of Oregon and proposing grants of the public lands to American 
citizens as an inducement to settlers, which bill passed the Senate 
February 3, 1848, said: 
‘“The whole region beyond the Rocky mountains and a vast tract be- 
tween that chain and the Mississippi is a desert, without value for agri- 
cultural purposes, and which no American citizen should be compelled 
to inhabit unless as a punishment for crime. 
‘‘ Why, sir, of what use will this territory be for agricultural purposes? 
I would not for that purpose give a pinch of snuff for the whole territory. 
I wish to God we did not own it. I wish it was an impassable barrier to: 
secure us from the intrusion of others. This is the character of the 
country. Who are we going to send there? Do you think your honest. 
farmers in Pennsylvania, New York, or even in Ohio and Missouri, will 
abandon their farms to go upon any such enterprise as this? God forbid, 
if any man is to go to that country under the temptation of this bill?” 
Mr McDuffie concluded by saying: “If I had a son who was 
a fit subject for Botany bay, I would urge him to go there.” 
The historians of the time were laboring under this fearful 
delusion as to the character and value of Oregon. Greenhow, 
writing in 1844 in his “‘ History of Oregon and California,” after 
stating his knowledge and views as to the region included in 
Oregon territory, says: 
‘‘ Thus, on reviewing the agricultural, commercial and other economical 
advantages of Oregon, there appears to be no reason, founded on such con- 
siderations, which should render either of the powers claiming the pos- 
session of that country anxious to occupy it immediately or unwilling to 
concede its own pretensions to the other for a very moderate compen- 
sation.”’ 
Even Senator Benton, of Missouri, who subsequently became 
one of the great defenders of our rights in Oregon (though unfor- 
tunately never to the full extent of our rightful claim to territory 
in the north, but only to the forty-ninth parallel), as late as 1825 
regarded Oregon as not worth holding. In that year he, in his 
place in the Senate, said: 
