Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 27/Pioneer Pot Pourri

Pioneer Pot Pourri

By CHARLES B. MOORES

We appear on this occasion, not as a self-starter, but as a conscript, in an attempt to fill space that was declined by another. We are not commissioned to discuss, or limited to, any topic. To avoid being hampered by the discussion of any particular subject Artemus Ward occasionally adopted as the heading of his favorite discourses “The Babes of the Wood.”

Our subject this evening will be “Pioneer Pot Pourri,” which is elastic, as well as comprehensive.

As pioneers of Oregon we are today facing conditions entirely different from those of the real pioneer era. Most of us are only nominally pioneers. Few of us ever had to subsist on a diet of boiled wheat, or wear moccasins and buckskin suits, but many of us remember the days when for water we went to the well sweep and the pump instead of the faucet, when we sprinkled our lawns with a tin sprinkler instead of a hose, when we heated our water in a wash boiler and bathed in the family wash tub, when we played seven-up and casino instead of bridge whist, and danced the old-time quadrilles and the Virginia reel instead of the fox trot, the Charleston and the bunny hug. We were making history then without knowing it, and were not interested in historical controversies of any kind. We woke up about 30 or 40 years ago. Since then we have been writing considerable history and manufacturing considerable of it on the side. Various historical controversies have arisen, and our dreams, and the meditations of our waking hours have been disturbed by outbreaks that should have been settled in the quiescent days of long ago. These controversies have usually been bloodless but a number of them have been acrimonious and extremely irritating. They still exist and postponement of their final settlement results in continuous complications. Although we are now in the recent 1920s, a president has revamped and given his quasi-approval of the fable that Dr. Whitman saved Oregon. The school children of the state have been invited to turn in their pennies for the erection of a memorial to Judge J. Q. Thornton for giving them the 36th section, and the story that Col. Jos. L. Meek turned the tide and settled the question of American sovereignty at Champoeg by calling for "a divide" is still being continuously propagated. To cap the climax, an Oregon historian, backed by a “School Masters' Club,” has told the world that a recent typical Oregon Legislature was an aggregation of "briefless lawyers, farmless farmers, business failures, bar-room loafers, and political thugs, the larger part of whom were ignorant, illiterate, lazy politically, and personally immoral, among whom drunkenness and debauchery commonly prevailed.”

The authority for all this is a salaried muckraker writing at a time when muckraking was one of the leading industries of the country. The sins of an average legislature are flagrant enough without being treated with an elaborate embellishment of this kind. Napoleon has told us that "history is fable agreed upon." Henry Ford says "all history is bunk,” which is simply his way of saying that he agrees with Napoleon. Considering much that has been promulgated as history one might be excused for accepting the dictum of both Ford and Napoleon. The elimination of what is bunk in history is one of the sacred duties of the historian. To establish the verities of history should be his constant aim. We have been repeatedly told that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. 'То which might be added it is also the price of historical accuracy. It is a dangerous and unwelcome task to question any popular fable, so deeply does it take root, and so fond is the average man of the unusual, or of anything that runs along the border line of the spectacular. History, properly, is founded solely on facts. It is said that Cromwell once rejected a portrait of himself because the artist had eliminated a large wart which was one of his conspicuous facial adornments. We have been told that Bacon wrote the plays of Shakespeare. It was a good job, whoever did it. But whoever did should have the credit.

Seven cities claimed the Homer dead Through which the living Homer begged his bread. The essential point in this case is that Homer really lived, and that he gave to the world the Iliad and the Odyssey. The place of his birth is negligible. One of the burning questions for many years with us is "Who saved Oregon?” Many seem obsessed with the idea that some single man or single event rescued her from the clutches of Great Britain. On the contrary it was the task of a good many men for a great many years. It is a satisfaction to know, amid the clash of many claims, that she is really saved, but credit for the splendid service in bringing this about should be equitably distributed , and not monopolized by any one man or any one group. Historic truths do not rest on romance, or raphsody, or hysterical rhetoric. They do not rest on spectacular stunts , or extravagant adulation. Extravagant claims invite resentment and array group against group.

“The strength of our persuasions is no evidence of their rectitude. Men may be as positive in error as in truth.”

The most prolonged and bitterly contested controversy that has divided the ranks of pioneers and pioneer historians is what is known as the Whitman legend. Possibly not ten per cent of the people of the state have anything but a passing interest in this controversy or special knowledge of the merits of the question.

question. It was over twenty years after Whitman's ride before it attracted any general attention. The Whitman mission was a child of the American Board of Foreign Missions. Dr. Whitman was its representative in the Oregon country. He suffered many hardships and encountered many perils in endeavoring to carry out the ambitious plans of the Board, and after years of faithful service finally became the most prominent victim of a deplorable tragedy. His many trials were aggravated by the unruly tongue and the erratic and unbalanced conduct of one of his associates. The consequent turmoil, bickering and dissension which arose nullified much of his work and determined the American Board to take steps to discontinue

the whole enterprise. This was a staggering blow to Dr. Whitman and determined him to make his famous ride back to the States, to protest against the proposed abandonment of the mission. Mrs. Whitman in a letter addressed to her brother and sister, on the 29th of September, 1842, referring to Dr. Whitman's proposed ride, says: “He wishes to reach Boston as early as possible. The interests of the missionary cause call him home.”

Writing the next day to her parents she says: "My husband goes on important business as connected with the missionary cause — the cause of Christ in the land."

From this ride, upon this business, over twenty years later, arose the genesis of the Whitman legend, concerning which Edward G. Bourne, professor of history in Yale University, declares:

“The growth and diffusion of the legend of Marcus Whitman is one of the strangest things in the history of American literature.” When Whitman reached Boston to go before the Board he met a very cool, unwelcome and even hostile reception. It was a bitter experience and very humiliating. It was undeserved, but it emphasizes the fact that his differences with the Board were very serious and deep-seated, and that he certainly knew the feeling of the Board and sensed the gravity of the situation before he left Oregon. The over-zealous pretense of his alleged friends that the primary object of his trip was to save Oregon is responsible for the contention that has divided Oregon pioneers, largely along sectarian lines, and that has led to unwarranted criticism of Whitman himself. Dr. Nixon, one of the authors of the legend, says: "He left Boston with an aching heart," and Barrows, Mowry and other friends agree, while still adhering to the untenable claim that the primary object of the ride was to save Oregon. The story has done Whitman an injustice, especially when it has been coupled with the claim that he was the organizer of the immigration of 1843. The true Whitman, the devoted , heroic missionary , who braved every hardship and imperiled his life, is not to be saddled with responsibility for all that his friends have claimed. Referring to the visit of Whitman a few hours in Washington on his way to Boston, one authority declares that "there is no doubt but that the

arrival of Dr. Whitman in 1843 was opportune. The visit of Whitman committed the President against fixing the boundary line at the 49th parallel to the Columbia and then down the river to the Pacific Ocean." This, says Nixon, “is a clear statement summarizing the great historic event and forever silencing effectively the slanderous tongues that have in modern times attempted to deprive the old hero of his great and deserving tribute.”

Proponents of the legend have been prolific in evidence and arguments of this kind. One story was that Webster wanted to trade our interests in Oregon for cod fisheries owned by the British on our northeast coast, but Dr. Barrows, a champion of the legend, is honest enough to confess "I can find nothing in Webster's speeches, correspondence, official papers, or life, going to suggest that it was ever a plan with him to exchange American interests in Oregon for English interests in fisheries . ” Relative to the claim that Whitman, after his six weeks visit in the East, was the organizer of the immigration of 1843, Jesse Applegate, after complimenting him for services rendered , says in his history of the cow column , "I would not obtrude the name of Dr. Whitman, if he were of our party, for his stay with us was transient.” Hon. J.W. Nesmith in a public address, referring to the immigration of 1843, says: " Capt. John Gantt was guide as far as Green River . Here Whitman, who had overtaken us , took charge and rendered valuable service. At Fort Hall the Cayuse Chief, Sticcus, became our guide."

Although Dr. Whitman was in the East but little over a month, and although he did not overtake the immigration until it was 150 miles upon its way, and left it at Fort Hall , Messrs. Nixon, Barrows and others constantly referred to it as “Whitman's Company," and "Whitman's Caravan,” and declared that he organized it. Nixon tells us: "It is just as certain that the large immigration of that year was incited by the movement of Whitman and Lovejoy as any fact could be . There is no other way of explaining it. ” He also says : “Whitman's wagon was an inspired wagon, the very implement upon which the fate of Oregon would turn .” We are also told that " under the full belief that Whitman would bring with

him a large delegation the Americans met and organized before he reached Oregon. " All of these fantastic stories come from one who, in another effusion , tells us that " biography to be of value must be accurate. ” Time and space will not permit a recital of the remarkable and varied character of the alleged arguments offered to sustain the "saved Ore gon ” story . It is only necessary to say that it relegates to historical obscurity Capt . Robert Gray, John Jacob Astor, Thomas Jefferson , Lewis and Clark , Sacajawea , Hall J. Kelley , John Floyd , Thos . H. Benton , Dr. Lewis Linn , and the 13 months campaign in twelve states on the Atlantic seaboard and in the Middle West , made in 1839 and 1840 by Jason Lee . For any one desirous of reading an unanswer able dissection of all the arguments submitted in support of the Whitman legend the work of Professor Wm . I . Mar shall , entitled “ The Acquisition of Oregon ” is recommended . It is a work of two volumes of 800 pages and represents 28 years of laborious and painstaking research . Chief Justice Thos . A . McBride of the Oregon Supreme Court has well summarized the merits of this whole contention in an ad dress given by him at the 30th annual Reunion of the Ore gon State Pioneer Association. In this address, speaking of Dr. Whitman, he says : “ The name of this good man rests upon too enduring a basis of truth to justify any attempt to add to it by an unfounded claim that he saved Oregon Oregon never needed saving from the days of Lewis and Clark's return. And from that date until the final treaty of June 15th, 1846 , the United States never wavered in its claim to Oregon, and never offered to accept less territory than was given by the treaty. Benton in his argument in favor of the ratification of the treaty re called the fact that the 49th parallel was the line offered Great Britain by Jefferson in 1807, by Monroe in 1818 , by Adams in 1826, by Tyler in 1842, and by Polk in 1845. Webster's own statement was, “the United States never offered any line south of 49 and it never will. " Judge J. Quinn Thornton, who laid claim to having been the originator of the legislation that reserved Section 36 for the support of the public schools of the state , is referred 1

to in a sketch written by Governor Grover as a " native of Virginia who took a course in the State University of Vir ginia, and spent a year in London at one of the inns of Court there . He came to Oregon in 1846 and was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1847 , and in 1848 was sent to Washington to aid in the frame - work and pas sage of the Oregon Territorial organization act .” He was active and aggressive and of a combative temperament . During the session of 1847 , J . W. Nesmith offered a resolution for the sending of " a remonstrance of this House to the President of the United States against the appointment of J. Quinn Thornton to any office in this Territory .” It was beaten by a close vote, but its introduction illustrates how bitter were the animosities of the territorial days. Gov. Grover says that "few men were ever better prepared to come to the bar than he was. He had a great fund of legal knowledge . He was a good writer and was a fair and cogent speaker, but for some occult reason he never could make the most of himself . " In spite of this estimate of Gov. Grover it must be admitted that he rendered the Territory some splendid service during his short sojourn in Washington. His claim of having secured the 36th section for our public schools brought him into controversy with Mrs., author of "The River of the West.” In 1846 a bill for the admission of Wisconsin as a state was introduced and was reported favorably by Senator Stephen A. Douglas , chairman of the Committee on Territories . It provided only for the reservation of section 16. Before being placed on its passage John A. Rockwell of Connecticut moved an amendment to include a reservation of section 36. This appeared to have been the first time such a reservation was ever proposed. When the Oregon bill was first introduced it contained a provision for the reservation of section 36. This was prior to Thornton's appearance in Washington. This matter is treated at considerable length by Mrs. Victor in volume I of the Oregon Historical Quarterly and seems to be conclusive. In a foot note she uses the following language: " Mr. J. Quinn Thornton has several times during his lifetime publicly asserted, in written articles and in addresses delivered before the Pioneer Association , that he was the author of the Douglas Bill. By comparing dates it will be seen that he could have had nothing to do with the bill which was introduced in the House December 23rd, 1846 , soon after the boundary treaty. It passed the House January 16 , 1847, was sent to the Senate , amended and laid on the table March 3rd, 1847. In 1848 Douglas was a senator and chairman of the Committee on Territories. On the 10th of January the Oregon Bill came up, was referred to Douglas' committee, and reported , without amendments, February 7. This was the identical bill over which senators wrangled in so dramatic a fashion until the last hours of the session , in August, 1848. A compromise bill was devised by the Southern members, by which Oregon could come in in com pany with New Mexico and California, but Congress would have none of it. There was no opportunity during Thornton's stay in Washington to alter or amend the Oregon Bill, which when it passed the Senate, was in all essential features, including school lands , the same bill which was published in the Oregon Spectator of September 16, 1847, more than a month before Thornton set sail for his destination. As the Spectator was the only newspaper in Oregon at that time, and owned and controlled by the Governor , it is fair to presume that it was read by the Governor's appointee. Notwithstanding these adverse circumstances and con clusions, Mr. Thornton never ceased to claim the author ship of the organic act of Oregon, nor to congratulate him self upon having bestowed upon this and other new states the priceless benefit of school lands. “I will frankly admit,” he says in his autobiography, "that when to this section (the 16th) of the public lands, the 36th was added by the passage of this bill , the thought that Providence had made me the instrument by which so great a boon was bestowed on posterity , filled my heart with emotions as pure and deep as can be experienced by man,” and goes on to anticipate being recognized as a benefactor of his race when his toils and responsibilities should be over . ( See Transactions of the Oregon Pioneer Association for 1874 , etc. ) >

The discussion of what happened on May 2, 1843 , at Champoeg , and what effect the Jos. L. Meek call for a divide had upon that meeting and upon the question of American Sovereignty has not been so irritating and widespread as the Whitman story, because it was relatively of minor importance , but the continuous habit of making it the one important thing that happened on May 2, 1843 , and the relegating to the background of every other participant in that meeting, has developed a quiet , but serious protest that has been reflected in the editorial columns of our leading newspaper. It has been an injustice to Meek himself, for it makes that call the dominant and outstanding achievement in the life of a really conspicuous and popular figure of pioneer days. Meek, before he came to the Willamette Valley , and in later years, as sheriff and U. S. marshal , and in his arduous and dangerous trip across the continent as a messenger to Washington, rendered service compared with which the call at Champoeg was utterly insignificant. Those who gather annually at Champoeg hear continuously about a call for a divide which it is reasonably certain did not change a single vote. But Meek's courage , his knowledge of woodcraft, his physical equipment , his powers of endurance, and his genial personality are seldom exploited. He is made the particular star for a single per formance, while his associates , a number of them conspicuous as constructive factors , constitute a voiceless chorus on the back seats. How many people make annual attendance at Champoeg nothing but a picnic rendezvous without sens ing the spirit and significance of the occasion. How many know and give consideration to the part played in pioneer days by Harvey L. Clark, Pres. of Pacific University ; by Wm. H. Gray and Gustavus Hines, Oregon historians ; by Geo. W. Le Breton, by Medorem Crawford , by David Leslie , by Dr. Robert Newell, by Gay , Beers , Parrish and Willson , and by Jason Lee and Dr. I. L. Babcock at prior and subse quent meetings ? The first published report of the meeting of May 2 seems to have appeared in Gray's History of Ore gon in 1866—23 years after it was held. The first published

9 1 compilation of the names of the alleged 52 participating in the meeting and voting for organization was made in May , 1901—58 years after the meeting was held. A list of the 50 negative voters was first published in May, 1902. Prior to this, in 1900 , Mr. George H. Himes , in a letter to The Ore gonian, gives a list of those " assembled ( May 2 , 1843 ) to organize themselves into a civil government ,” which , he says , " are such as have been obtained and believed to be substantially correct. " This list includes the names of John Ford, George Abernethy , F . W. Pettygrove , Larison , Rev. W. W. Kone , L. W. Hastings , Peter H. Hatch , Barnaby and A. F . Waller , none of whom were among the 52 later agreed upon . Among the French Canadians are about a dozen , none of whom are among the 50 of the opposition . So it appears that even sixty years after the meet ing knowledge of its personnel was extremely vague . The names of the 52 had not been agreed upon when the monument was dedicated May 2 , 1901. The integrity and good faith of Mr. Matthieu , upon which the alleged personnel of the two lists depends , cannot be questioned , but it is a remarkable memory that can recall and classify the votes of over one hundred men 59 years after they were cast , and upon a question that did not personally or directly affect him. Mr. T. C. Elliott, now and for years, one of the Di rectors of the Oregon Historical Society , has recently pro duced a letter, written to the Oregon Herald of December 9 , 1866, by Dr. Robert Newell , in which he challenges the statement made in Gray's History of Oregon that the vote on organization on May 2, 1843 was 52 to 50. This letter was written only 23 years after the event. Gray himself says that before the motion of Le Breton calling for a di vide was made, and before Meek's call was made , that he and Le Breton had counted the votes and felt safe in risking it. Newell's letter was one detailing what was done at that famous meeting. He was one of the most conspicuous of the early pioneers. He was a well -known " mountain man, " before he came to the Willamette Valley. He was regularly chosen as a member of the provisional committee up to 1849, and was twice chosen as speaker of that body. In his 1

letter Dr. Newell makes no mention of Meek's speech, but he describes the action taken at the meeting and declares that there was a majority of five in favor of organization , and further, that , “ having taken an active part in the af firmative , I recollect some of the Frenchmen who voted with us and here they are : Joseph Gervais, Etienne Lucier , Pierre Belleque, Bernier , Xavier Ladroot , David Donpierre and others. ” In later years four of these members have been listed with the 50. This is the testimony of one of the most active and prominent of the men at the meeting. In Gray's History, published in 1866–23 years after the meeting there appears — apparently for the first time — the state ment that the vote was 52 to 50, and , in what purports to be a copy of the minutes of the meeting , he has them say that the motion in favor of organization was carried by a majority, instead of a great majority. The record of the minutes on file in the office of the Secretary of State declare that the motion favoring organization carried by a great majority. Mr. Gray does not explain why the qualifying adjective " great ” was deleted in his purported copy of the minutes of the meeting . Mr. Geo . W. Le Breton, who was secretary of the meeting , was the first secretary of the Provisional Government and has been described as a highly educated man . He was murdered by an Indian desperado in defending the settlement at Oregon City March 4 , 1844. The minutes relating to the vote taken are as follows :

"It was moved by Mr. Le Breton, and accepted by Mr. Gray , that the meeting divide preparatory to being counted , those in favor of the objects of the meeting taking the right hand and those of a contrary mind taking the left , which being carried by acclamation , and a great majority being found in favor of organization , the greater part of the dissenters withdrew . "

Gustavus Hines, who was at the meeting , says in his history, published in 1857 , only fourteen years after the meeting, that the vote to organize carried by a large majority. ( See Hines ' Oregon History, page 423 and Carey's History , volume I , page 379 ). All of the meetings held prior to May 2nd were dominated by the American element , as was indicated by the fact that that element elected all the

officials. Of the committee of 12 that prepared and re ported the plan for organizing the Provisional Government , nine were listed among the 52, two were not present at the May meeting, and only one , Jos. Gervais, is listed as one of the 50 , and Dr. Newell declares that he too voted with him in favor of organization. The weight of evidence seems clearly in favor of the minutes of Le Breton, and the decla ration of Gustavus Hines, and of the positive declaration of Dr. Newell , given in reply to , and just after the first pub lication of the statement that the vote was 52 to 50, a state ment that made its first appearance 23 years after the meet ing, and does not accord with the minutes of the meeting. The story of the alleged 52 to 50 vote was flatly disputed as soon as it originated, but the widely circulated volume that originated it, and the general disposition of later historians to follow copy accounts for its later wide acceptance. The fixing of the close vote of 50 to 52, honestly no doubt de termined upon , 59 years after the event , was an adjust ment that added to the plausibility and importance of a spectacular call for a divide. No proponent, however, of the contention that Meek alone saved the day can take the list of 52 and name a man whose vote was in doubt. The par ticipants knew the object of the meeting and they attended it with their minds made up. There is nothing to justify the suggestion that Matthieu hesitated. In volume I of the Oregon Historical Quarterly appears “ Reminiscences of F. X. Matthieu " by H. S. Lyman, in which Matthieu , in re ferring to the Champoeg meeting , says : " My mind was made up ever since I left Canada. I knew what it was to live and die a slave under British rule. " Attached to these reminiscences as a footnote there appears the following statement, signed by Mr. Matthieu : " I have examined the above manuscript of Mr. Lyman's and find it correct. No body can contradict it. It could not be written more correctly. ”

Mr. Lucier, too , with whom Mr. Matthieu made his home, was a well - balanced man who knew his own mind , McRobert H. Down five or six years ago compiled some of the evidence supporting this contention, but did not secure its publication . -EDITOR QUARTERLY .

and voted understandingly in favor of organization. Mrs. Victor, a great admirer of Meek and who makes him her hero in the “ River of the West ,” says that "he was a ‘mountain man ' and that only . ” That "he was a gay and boastful mountaineer who did not belong by nature to the bashful brigade and that he never lost an opportunity to see and beseen.” This in no way lessens the credit due for any heroic exploit. The tendency to extravagance in hero worship is well illustrated in the following estimate of Meek quoted in one of the publications of the Oregon Pioneer As sociation : " The Oregon of today was only made as U. S . territory by the action of Joe Meek . Had he not that day at Champoeg walked out and shouted for all who favored the United States to follow him and stand up and be counted — had he remained quiet on that memorable occasion, it is more than likely — almost a certainty , that this would today be British soil.” Another puts the proposition still stronger when he says : “ All the money and all the power in the world could have accomplished no more than Jo Meek did on that beautiful day in May, in 1843. " Explosions of this kind based upon a healthy , popular and well - groomed story are unpleasant things t o encounter . Both the story o f the effect and the scope o f the call o f Meek , and the action taken o n that day a t Champoeg have been grossly exag gerated . The vote taken did not establish American sov ereignty . The adoption o f the report o f the committee o n organization was simply the expression o f a desire t o establish a government for their own protection and regu lation . I t was a step toward securing a quasi government that would insure and protect their immediate , domestic and temporary needs . Upon i t s organization , the legis lative committee o f the Provisional Government prescribed the following oath t o b e taken b y i t s members

“ I do solemnly swear that I will support the organic laws o f the Provisional Government o f Oregon , s o far a s the said o r ganic laws are consistent with my duties a s a citizen o f the United States o r a subject o f Great Britain , and faithfully demean myself i n office , s o help me God . " The meeting o f May 2, 1843 , bore n o relation t o the immigration o f that

year which was then 2000 miles away and just on the point of starting across the continent. That immigration of 1000 souls would have come to Oregon if the Champoeg meeting had never been held and if Meek had never made a call for a divide. The arrival of that multitude alone would have determined the outcome of the controversy between the United States and Great Britain. Nothing was definitely and finally settled at Champoeg. Seldom does the fate of an empire hinge on the act of a single man or the occurrence of a single event. The meeting of May 2 simply opened the door a little more widely to welcome the caravan of 1843 , the movement which, Horace Greeley declared , bore “an aspect of insanity. ” That was several years before he sounded the slogan "Go west young man .” It is a singular coincidence that led to the saving of Oregon twice in the same year, once by Whitman in March and later by Meek in the ensuing May . It would be well to make a more gen erous distribution of the credit for that splendid outcome. The action of the Champoeg meeting was but one of a series of influences that brought about the desired culmina tion . Whitman , Meek and Thornton were not myths. They were influential entities who are entitled to their meed of credit , but they have been awarded more than their pro portionate share . There must be a more reasonable adjust ment . The plain , ordinary , garden variety of history is a l l that i s needed i n a land that i s a s richly endowed a s i s the Oregon country . The fame o f the most important factors o f our pioneer days rests upon something more substantial than fanciful episodes that will not bear analysis and cannot b e sustained . A surplus o f rhetoric , o f romance and o f rhapsody ultimately grows extremely tiresome . There i s enough that i s attractive i n the homely recital o f the real trials and hardships and achievements o f our early days . We hold our anual reunions a t Champoeg a s a his toric center , and we celebrate there a concentration o f a series o f achievements and notable events that have marked the development o f the entire Oregon country . The great westward trek across the American continent i n the ' 40s and ' 50s was the movement o f a people whose mental and

moral equipment was equal, if not superior , to that of al most any other human migration in the history of the world. The goal sought was an almost incomparable Eldorado in climate, in scenery and in natural resources. Our pioneer leaders were of a superior, stalwart and courageous type , and our pioneer women, in facing the drudgery , the perils , the isolation and the forced economies of pioneer life dis played a courage that was not of a fitful or impulsive type , but a continuous habit that enabled them to fearlessly face any emergency. The story of these men and thes women almost forces a mild form of pioneer hero worship that is so deprecated by the critics of the " School Masters ' Club . " Oregon has a million people. A bare 1000 of them at tend our annual reunions. In a way this indicates how small a percentage of them have any real interest in the heroic exploits of our early days. Herein there is mani fested an apparent apathy that is but an i l l requital for the sacrifices and privations that have brought about the won derful developments the full fruition o f which we now en joy . The story o f a six o r eight months ' journey across the continent i n a covered wagon makes n o impression upon the man who has just grumbled his way across i n a tire some three o r four days ' trip i n a luxurious Pullman . I t i s ancient history that h e does not appreciate o r comprehend , but i t constitutes a continuous epic o f exploit , o f adventure , and o f achievement that ought t o excite the interest and stir the blood o f every patriotic American . I t tells the story o f isolation , o f lack o f home comforts and o f lack o f diversion and social intercourse . I t tells the story o f the prolonged domestic tragedies o f heart hunger for com panionships and associations o f the old home never t o b e seen again . I t tells the story o f hunger , starvation and death faced by the Donner party , o f the heroic defense o f Mrs. Harris , and o f the lonesome and desolate days o f Mrs. Cornelius Smith and her dying husband . I t tells the story o f a hundred o r more Indian battlefields . I t tells the story o f the cold blooded massacre o f nearly 2000 men , women and children . I t tells the story o f ten thousand who perished from hardships , disease and violence and o f thousands o f

graves that border the line of a great continental highway. Blinded forsooth by pioneer hero worship ! Pray tell us at what shrine we should pay the homage of our devotion. There still survive many to whom these old time memories are sacred. There should be a high resolve that the epics of the days that are gone shall be perpetuated. Those who have crossed over the mysterious frontier of life, like the dead on Flanders Fields, " to us have thrown the torch " and bade us to hold it high by honoring their memory and send ing down through a l l the coming days some continuous token o f our appreciation o f the splendid heritage they have bestowed upon us.