Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 27/The Creation of Oregon As a State, Part 2

VOLUME XXVII

The constitutional convention met in the courthouse at Salem, August 17, 1857. The deliberations were concluded September 18, when the convention adjourned sine die. The constitution as prepared was voted on in the special election held November 9, with the result it was adopted by a vote of 7,195 for, as against 3,125 opposed to, the constitution, being a favorable majority of 3,980 votes. At the same time slavery was voted down by a majority of 5,082 votes, there being 2645 for and 7,727 against permitting slaves to be held in the state. And there were given 1,081 votes in favor of permitting residence of free negroes, and 8,640 against the same, a majority of 7,559. This result was announced by proclamation of Governor George L. Curry, December 9, 1857, and the information was sent to congress at Washington. The convention of 60 elected delegates was dominated by the democrats, who cast 39 votes for Judge Matthew P. Deady for president, as against 15 votes for the opposition candidate, Martin Olds, the latter number com-

prising whigs and free-state republicans and some others. Chester N. Terry was selected as secretary by the majority members, the others voting blank. The usual standing committees were named; rules of procedure were adopted, and after some days of speeches by gentle men who were, or thought they were orators, or who particularly desired to utilize the opportunity to attract attention to themselves, the convention settled down to steady work with little loss of time. Delazon Smith was the principal orator of the convention. He made the most speeches and the longest speeches, and delivered a masterly final address at the close of the convention, summarizing what had been accomplished and praising the instrument about to be submitted to the people's vote. The question of limiting the length of speeches was raised several times during the period of the convention, and various proposals were made by members who thought that the limit of 40 minutes permitted by the rules was too long. Smith, who was alluded to by Nesmith by his political sobriquet as "The Lion of Linn," and who accepted the designation with good humor and some apparent satisfaction, protested vigorously that there should be no limit to debate, practically saying that the convention would get much benefit from his fluency as a talker, as distinguished from other gentlemen who were not talkers, and in this he was upheld by the convention. Williams mentioned the fact that the Massachusetts constitutional convention resorted to a five-minute rule at a time, near the close of its session, when most important questions were up for discussion, having used up much of its time in the earlier days of its session by long discussions upon unimportant matters. He urged economy of time of the convention by seasonable adoption of a limit upon debates. At one time in the session Logan proposed that the official reporter charge each member a part of the expense of reporting, proportioned to the length of the remarks of the speaker. This was

evidently a drive at Smith and the latter again took occasion to vindicate himself as a speechmaker at great length.

Another question that brought out a great flow of de bate was upon the advisability of incorporating a bill of rights, as such, in the constitution. Judge Williams, for the committee on rules, advocated "having all the essentials embodied under appropriate headings in the body of the constitution itself." But a committee on bill of rights was added to the list of standing committees, and ultimately this feature of the constitution, as framed, followed very closely the phraseology of similar provisions in the Indiana constitution of 1851. Indeed, the Indiana constitution was used throughout the convention as the chief model for substance and phraseology.

There was a contest for the seat of delegate from Coos county between Lockhart, seated by the credentials committee report, and Marple. This was referred to a special committee which reported the facts but made no recommendation. The convention decided in favor of Marple, and he was, upon motion, duly seated and was given Lockhart's places on the committees. Lockhart was the auditor in Coos county, and as such he counted the election votes in that county, rejecting the votes of one precinct because not lawfully established, and be cause it did not appear from the returns by whom the judges were sworn. The convention showed a disposition to brush aside technicalities, and decided that the precinct vote should be counted, thus holding that Marple was the elected delegate.

All of the supreme judges of the territory, namely, George H. Williams, Cyrus Olney and Matthew P. Deady, were members. Thirty-three, or over one-half of the entire number, were farmers, and there were 18 lawyers, 5 miners, 2 newspaper writers, and 1 civil engineer. The committee on bill of rights was headed by Grover,

as chairman, Kelly was chairman of the committee on executive department, and Williams was chairman of the committee on judicial department. Boise was at the head of the committee on legislative department, as well as of the committee on seat of government and public buildings. These were the principal committees, and these men were leaders of the policies of the convention. It was proposed to annex to the constitution a schedule which would be voted upon separately and would involve questions of slavery, free negroes, and apportionment of representation. There was much discussion of the proper reference of the schedule to a select committee, the proposal to send it to the judiciary committee being opposed by several influential members, one of whom alluded to the schedule as the most important of subjects for consideration. It was finally referred to a special committee, but there was much debate as to whether this should be a committee of one from each county, or a smaller number, and there was much heat generated in the discussion. A committee of nine having been agreed upon, the president appointed Grover, Smith, Boise, McCormick, Prim, Bristow, Chadwick, Olney and Kelsay as the committee, all democrats, and most of them proslavery men, but when the report was brought in it met with no serious opposition or criticism.

The convention was obviously controlled by the spirit of economy, as was shown throughout the instrument. An excellent provision of the constitution limited the power of the state to contract debts to fifty thousand dollars, excepting in case of war, or to repel invasion, or to suppress insurrection. There was a limit of five thousand dollars upon the power of counties to create debts or liabilities; and state, counties, cities, towns and other municipal corporations, were prohibited from be coming stockholders or lending credit to a company, corporation or association. These provisions kept the

public indebtedness to the lowest limit for more than fifty years, and it was not until the restraint was thrown off by amendments that the use of public credit by state and counties became common and indebtedness was incurred for future generations to carry.

The debate on limiting liability of stockholders of corporations developed a difference of opinion, but the convention finally decided that the individual liability of stockholders for the indebtedness of a corporation should be no more than the amount of their subscribed and unpaid stock obligation. Some of the members, including Williams, wanted to make them individually liable for indebtedness to labor. President Deady took an active part in the debate, opposing this discrimination, but he confessed to a deep prejudice against corporations as agencies of modern business. In this he shared the views of another leader among the democrats, Waymire, who gave a humorous turn to the discussion by inti mating that his own prejudice against corporations could be accounted for, in part at least, by the circumstance that he had recently been entangled in the wire of a tele graph company, which was building the first telegraph line in the Williamette valley, along the highway. It may be added that Deady kept the original report of the committee relating to corporations, and many years afterward was able to clear up an uncertainty as to the true meaning of the section relating to state banks, by reference to the punctuation of the original draft.' The eastern boundary of the proposed state would have been at the summit of the Cascade mountains if Meigs, the member from Wasco county, had had his way. His county, as he said, was greater in area than the entire Willamette valley. It extended from the Cascades to the Snake river. He thought its interests differed from those

Deady's Diary, March 6, 1880. This diary and the manuscript draft are in possession of Oregon Historical Society.

of the western portion of the territory and its few inhabitants desired to remain under congressional direction as a separate territory for a time. However, his proposal recived no support, and was voted down.

Years afterward, Jesse Applegate in writing to Judge Deady criticised the language of the western and the northern boundary as adopted, saying that it had been made meaningless by the amendments of the convention. He repudiated the work of the convention on that ground, but also and principally because the convention refused to adopt the resolution offered by him prohibiting discussion of slavery, and furthermore adopted the schedule provision for voting upon the right of free negroes to live in the state. As to this latter provision he said, "It is hard to realize that men having hearts and consciences, some of them today in the front ranks of the defenders of human rights, could be led so far by party prejudice as to put such an article in the frame of government intended to be free and just."

This recalls the curious fact that prior to the meeting of the convention a correspondent of the Statesman signing himself "Douglas" wrote to the effect that Apple gate declares that he will introduce a resolution on the assembling of the convention, prohibiting slavery forever in Oregon, "and if it is voted down, he and his friends will withdraw from the convention and set their faces against state government.



Old Jesse will be a difficult customer to deal with. If he can not have everything his own way he will make a fuss, get mad, and leave, just as he has announced that he will do"

Although very early in the convention the slavery question was brought forward, all suggestions and resolutions on the subject were disposed of effectually by reference to the standing committee. Just as foretold, however, Applegate offered a resolution, reciting in its preamble that the delegates had been chosen with the understanding that the question of slavery would be submitted to the voters, and declaring that debate on the subject would be out of place, and that the committee on rules should be instructed to declare all debate upon the subject of slavery, either as an abstract proposition or as a mere matter of policy, out of order. Delazon Smith, who opposed the adoption of the resolution, agreed that there was an understanding that there would be no final decision by the convention, but that it would be left to the people. In the fervor of oratory he declared, "So far as I am concerned, I would as soon sever my right hand as to vote for a constitution that would either inhibit or adopt slavery here." Dryer, for once, agreed with Smith that the convention should leave the slavery issue to be decided by popular vote, but he favored discussion for the purpose of putting delegates on record. Logan and Shattuck, who opposed slavery, said that some counties had elected delegates to the convention with the express understanding that they should support a free state constitution, and they favored open discussion. This was the view taken by leading men of both parties, but outside of this particular debate little was said in the open convention on the burning topic.

In this connection it may be stated that as early as March 31, prior to the election of delegates, the States man, in an editorial, took the ground that the only question that should be considered by the people of Oregon with reference to slavery was whether it would pay in

this state. Three weeks before the convention began its deliberations, Judge Williams, who was a democrat holding his commission as judge from the democrat president, wrote a letter which was published in the same newspaper, in which he argued that slavery would not pay in Oregon, and that farmers could employ free labor, in seasons in which they could employ any labor, more cheaply than they could maintain slaves. He therefore opposed slavery in Oregon on economic grounds, as it would inevitably degrade free labor of the country and result in injury to all concerned. The Statesman followed this up in the next issue by saying editorially that the paper was not opposed to the institution of slavery, but deemed it unsuited to Oregon. The Oregonian, noting the fact that the Statesman had said that it would favor a free-state constitution provided certain restrictions (relating to free negroes) were included, charged that this was equivalent to giving in for a proslavery constitution, and that it was a first feeler thrown out to prepare the way for a final plunge into the ranks of the proslavery party. In discussing the convention immediately before it began its session, the Oregonian pointed out that while Deady was the only delegate elected who openly advocated slavery, and no newspaper before the election was for slavery, now five out of eight published in the territory were in favor. The following letter from Judge Williams was written many years later, but it clearly depicts the slavery issue as it stood at the time of the convention:

August 26, 1907.

Geo. H. Himes, Assistant Secretary Historical Society, Portland, Oregon.

I have received from you a copy of the letter I wrote in 1857 as to the introduction of slavery into Oregon. This is quite a revelation to me for though I had not for gotten that I wrote such a letter its contents had almost entirely escaped my recollection. There was a good deal of excitement in the country about slavery at the time this letter was written. The troubles were then brewing which broke out into a civil war in 1861. I then belonged to the democratic party and was chief justice of Oregon territory by the appointment of Franklin Pierce, a democrat president, and though I belonged to that party and contended that the slave-holding states should have all the rights guaranteed to them by the constitution I was opposed and had been opposed since I became a voter to the extension of slavery into the new states. Many of the emigrants to Oregon before the formation of the state government were from Missouri, Tennessee and other Southern states, and were favorable to slavery and were anxious to have Oregon made a slave-holding state. They were generally holders of donation land claims consisting of 640 acres, and they not only wanted slaves for household servants and to cultivate their lands but they wanted as far as was possible to create and preserve an equilibrium between the slave-holding and the non-slave holding states. Those who favored slavery talked loud and made a good deal of noise, and many of the leading democrats, with General Joseph Lane at their head (a man of great personal influence in the territory), were open and pronounced advocates of slavery; and under an apprehension that they might succeed I wrote the letter which was published in the Oregon Statesman, then conducted by Asahel Bush. As it turned out a majority of the people favored a free state. I do not know how much or how little this letter had to do with the result but I know that I was the only man in the democratic party of any prominence who took an open and decided stand against the proslavery movement. The fact was that those democrats who figured in politics were looking forward to official position, under the state government and were afraid to say anything against slavery fearing that they would thereby injure their chances for success,

for in these days to be a sound democrat if it was not necessary to openly advocate slavery it was necessary to keep still upon the subject. I had been chief justice of the territory for four years and my administration of the office was quite satisfactory to the people and I was largely talked about as one of the first senators in congress from the state, and my prospects appeared quite flattering. But when I published that letter they went "glimmering" and politically for the time being I was as dead as a mackerel. The proslavery men claimed that though I pretended to be a democrat I was an abolitionist in disguise, and to be called an abolitionist then, especially in Oregon, was to be classed among outlaws and enemies to the peace of the country. When the convention assembled in 1857 to form a state constitution the same timidity as to saying or doing anything adverse to slavery characterized a majority of the members of that body, and in order to avoid any personal responsibility upon the subject the convention decided to submit to the people at the time the vote was taken upon the constitution the question as to whether or not slavery should exist in the state. One of the arguments of the advocates of slavery was that if slavery was not adopted our state would be overrun with free negroes; and to avoid the effect of this argument the convention agreed to submit to the people with the constitution a provision that free negroes should not be allowed to come into or hold real estate, or make contracts or maintain suits in the state. This was done to propitiate the slavery propaganda, and was, to use a common expression, "A tub thrown to the whale." This provision, to the disgrace of Oregon, was adopted, but has since been nullified by an amendment to the constitution of the United States. The change in public sentiment upon slavery since my letter was written has been as great as the change in the material advancement of the country.

Yours very truly,

GEO. H. WILLIAMS.

The question of prohibition came before the convention upon the petition of Luther Woodward and 15 others, citizens of Linn county, praying that the constitution provide that the legislature might at any time pass a

prohibitory liquor law; and, in the debate that followed its reading, Mr. Kelly suggested that the legislature might pass a law to submit the question to the people, and he saw no objection to giving the legislature this power in clear terms, while others thought no such clause was necessary. It is of interest now to observe that here, in 1857, Oregon was considering both prohibition and the referendum. This petition, with three others on the same subject, subsequently offered, was referred to the committee on the judicial department, which failed to report on this matter, and allowed the proposals to die. A resolution offered by Smith to submit the prohibitory liquor law to vote of the people, as proposed concerning slavery, was laid upon the table and never acted upon. A resolution offered by Farrar to restrict the legislature in granting licenses to vend intoxicating liquors was referred to the legislative committee, with similar results.

The convention having finished its labors, September 18, 1857, Judge Deady in announcing the vote to adjourn delivered a brief address, commenting on the work accomplished, and indicating the hope that the constitution, although perhaps not wholly satisfactory, would be adopted. He had not regretted delay in assuming state hood, but was most willing with this constitution to enter upon the new form of government.

The proceedings of the convention as shown by its journal were not printed soon after the convention, as was talked of in the convention, and as was confidently expected by some of the delegates. However, they were printed as a public document in 1882, pursuant to a joint resolution adopted by the legislative assembly in that year. The pamphlet, which is now out of print and scarce, did not contain the debates. During the sittings

of the convention the Oregonian had a very full report of the debates and proceedings, mostly prepared by Patrick Malone, under the direction of Mr. Dryer.

These appeared from week to week during the session. The Statesman also had a report, but not so full, pre pared by W. W. Page, under the direct supervision of Editor Bush. The Pacific Christian Advocate was rep resented by Mr. Pearne during part of the proceedings, but his report is not available. The Oregon Argus began a very good summary of the proceedings with its issue of August 29, 1857. Other than these, there were no detailed reports of the debates of the convention, although some discussion of the merits of the instrument continued in the press and upon the political platform until the November election. The Oregonian openly opposed adoption, and the Oregon Argus denounced the black democratic majority in control of the convention, inti mating the use of money and imported votes to support slavery and prophesying "something ominous" to develop within three months.9 Dryer, and several other members, were not satisfied with the result, and after the adjournment they opposed adoption. Some of these members had voted in the convention against final adoption of the constitution as enrolled. These included Anderson, Dryer, Farrar, Hendershott, Kinney, Logan, Olds, White, Watts and Watkins, ten in all, but all of these, excepting Olds and Watkins, signed the instrument. Several others, known to be opposed, were absent on the final day of the convention when the vote was taken, including Applegate, Meigs, Olney, Reed, Scott and Shat ^ Oregon Argus, Aug. 22, 1857. In an editorial Sept. 19, 1857, the Argus called attention to a misprint in its report, and said that the sentence "Smith introduced an amendment to the end of the section (on the judiciay) providing that the jury be the gudgeons of the lawyers, under the instructions of the court, carried," should have stated that the jurors were to be the "judges of the law."

tuck.10 The original signed document is in the office of the secretary of state at Salem. Fifty-two of the 60 delegates signed the instrument, although some of the signatures may have been affixed at a later period." Nesmith wrote to Deady, October 24, 1857, that the prospects of the adoption by the people at the November election were encouraging, but he was doubtful of the success of the "peculiar institution," using the phrase of the day to designate slavery, and Deady received letters from several other citizens of Oregon on the subject.'2

As early as July 18, 1857, the Oregonian had expressed doubts whether the people would approve the constitution, as it was purely a democratic production. The principal objections urged were the limitations upon the power of the legislature, and the boundaries were indefinite, so that it would be for congress to fix the eastern boundary. The judicial clauses were criticized, and the failure squarely to meet the slavery question was urged, besides all of which it was pointed out there were not enough men of capacity in the territory to fill the new state offices. It was also argued that taxes would be increased, the payment of the Indian war debt would be jeopardized and requisite amendments to the constitution could not be secured for several years.13 Even

10 An editorial in the Oregon Argus, Sept. 5, 1857, said:: "We learn that Jesse Applegate and Mr. Scott, delegates to the convention from Umpqua County, have left the convention and gone home. Mr. Apple gate thought that under the rules of caucus-sovereignty an opposition member was as useless as a fifth wheel to a wagon." Applegate's name is often printed as though signed to the instrument, but the original in the secretary of state's office does not have his name thereon.

11 The original instrument in the office of the secretary of state now bears this indorsement: "Found rolled up and placed in one corner of the vault. Pressed out, arranged and bound this 8th day of March, 1880. R. P. Earhart, secretary of state."

12 0r. Hist. Soc. Mss.: Letters to Deady from Pratt, July 15, 1857; from Pyle, Aug. 4, 1857; from Simpson, June 22, 1857; from Gibbs, Feb. 3, 1857.

13 Oregonian, Sept. 26, Oct. 10, 1857.

after the election, Dryer continued pessimistic, and prophesied that congress would not admit Oregon, and no free state would be created under the Buchanan administration. He urged, furthermore, that the free negro clause was opposed to the Declaration of Independence and the federal constitution, and he denounced the clause against the Chinese. 14 of course, the Statesman answered all these criticisms and objections in its own trenchant style, and they were answered by democrat orators such as Delazon Smith and others upon the stump. The editor of the Statesman urged Lane to press for an early action by congress, and apparently Bush was heartily in favor of statehood at this time, whatever may have been his view later in the same year, when he was charged with half-heartedness.

The ninth regular session of the territorial legislature, notwithstanding the approval of the state constitution by popular vote, was held at the usual time, beginning December 7, 1857. It finally adjourned February 5, 1858, having adopted little new legislation, because it was assumed that congressional approval would soon be voted and the state would soon be organized. How ever, a resolution of Representative Jeffers to bind the session to conform its legislative action as far as possible to the provisions of the new constitution was rejected.15 The delegate in congress was by concurrent resolution instructed to procure from that body an appropriation to pay the expenses of the convention, but nothing came of this.16 The session adopted a memorial to congress 1^Oregonian1 Nov. 14, 21, 1857. Some argument was made about the indefiniteness of the boundaries, and the joint jurisdiction with adjoining states on the Columbia and Snake rivers.

15H. J., 1857-8, pages 36, 38.

l6/?-, pages 66y 73, 99; C. J ., page 52; Or. Laws, 1857, Apx., page 21. See also action by convention on the subject, afternoon session, Sept. 12, 1857. The territorial legislature of 1858-9 passed a bill introduced by Dryer directing payment of the expenses of the convention. H. J., pages 218, 258, 296; C. J ., 148, 154; Laws 1858-9, page 40.

praying the admission of the state of Oregon into the Union.'7 This state paper reads as follows:

A MEMORIAL RELATING TO THE ADMISSION OF OREGON AS A STATE IN THE UNION

To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled: Your memorialists, the legislative assembly of the "territory of Oregon," most respectfully represent that the people of Oregon, during the joint occupancy of said territory by Great Britain and the United States, established and maintained for themselves a government, re publican in form, and American in character. They organized its different departments; they adopted and enforced a code of laws; they opened post roads and established mail routes and postoffices; they regulated Indian relations, and successfully colonized a wild, distant region, occupied and surrounded by large tribes of the most savage and warlike Indians of the continent. In a word they exhibited, to the fullest extent their capacity of self-government.

Since the organization of the present territorial government, the population of said territory has been largely increased by immigration, so that its present numbers exceed those of a large majority of the states of the Union at the time of their admission.

On the first Monday of June, 1857, by act of the legislative assembly of said territory, the question of holding a convention to frame a constitution and state government for Oregon was submitted to a vote of the people. This question was answered in the affirmative, after a full and fair canvass, in which all parties joined, by the decisive result of near six thousand majority. Whereupon delegates were elected at a general election in June, 1857, to said convention to frame a constitution. Said convention convened at Salem in said territory, on the third Monday of August, 1857 ,and proceeded to the discharge of their duties. After an industrious and well ordered session of thirty-two days, they brought their labors to a close.

17C. J., 1857-8, page 190; H. J., page 249. The memorial is set out in Or. Laws, 1857, Apx., page 4.

In the schedule of said constitution, provision was made for the acceptance or rejection of the same, by a submission to a vote of the people of the proposed state, on the second Monday of; November, 1857. The question of slavery and of the admission of free negroes to Oregon, being much agitated in the country, were submitted to a separate vote. Said election was duly held, and said questions duly passed upon, the results of which have been declared by the proclamation of the governor of said territory and appended to the copy of the constitution duly authenticated and forwarded to the proper department of the government for presentation to congress. Your memorialists, therefore, pray your honorable bodies to pass an act authorizing the admission of Oregon as a state of the Union.

At this session of the territorial legislature of De cember, 1857, Representative Allen introduced a resolution which referred to the Dred Scott decision of the supreme court of the United States that had been rendered in March of that year, and which denied that congress had power to prohibit slavery in the territories. The resolution was for the appointment of a committee of three to report what legislation was necessary to protect the title of persons holding slaves, and in the debate that followed it was openly claimed that slaves were then held in Oregon.18

The fact that slaves were held in bondage in the territory appears to have been accepted as true, although slavery was contrary to the principle of the early decision of the territorial supreme court already mentioned, and

18 Oregonian, Dec. 26, 1857. See also Woodward, Political Parties in Oregon, pages 122-4. Mr. Hill, a member of the house, said in the debate that there were some slaves held in the territory and the house should not refuse to listen to the calls of their masters for protection of their property. Mr. Mack said: "It makes no difference whether the constitution prohibits slavery or not, the fact is there are men here who own property in slaves." And Mr. Craner argued that men who brought their slaves to the territory did so with their eyes open, knowing slavery to be prohibited under the Organic Act, and slaves so brought could have had freedom by claiming it, "hence the assertion of the gentleman that those slaves were brought here expecting, and being entitled to, protection, falls to the ground."

up to the time of the Dred Scott decision it had been assumed that there was no property right in slaves in Oregon.

As early as 1844, when Oregon was still jointly occupied by Great Britain and the United States, and when the bill was under debate in the house of representatives at Washington providing for setting up a government under the laws of the United States for that region, Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, had proposed an amendment involving the principle of the ordinance of 1787, forbidding slavery and involuntary servitude therein, except for crime whereof the party should be first duly convicted.

That bill did not pass, as it failed in the senate, but after the boundary had been settled by treaty with Great Britain, in 1846, another bill to provide for a government for Oregon was reported in the house of representatives by Stephen A. Douglas, who was then a member of that body and chairman of its committee on territories. The bill was amended to prohibit slavery, and as so amended passed the house, but it did not pass the senate for lack of time. Thereupon, another bill at the next session passed the house with an amendment to prohibit slavery on the express ground that Oregon was territory north of 36 degrees, 30 minutes, which was the line of the Missouri compromise. This bill also failed in the senate. In 1848 Douglas was a member of the senate, and, as chairman of the committee on territories, he introduced a bill of similar import and again an amendment was offered prohibiting slavery. This was the be ginning of a series of debates in both houses, long, exciting and bitterly partisan, which involved many legislative proposals relating to the slavery question, with particular reference to Oregon, the final outcome being the passage of the act, approved August 14, 1848,

creating the Oregon territorial government.19 This Organic Act, as adopted, did not, indeed, contain an express provision prohibiting slavery, either upon general principle or for the reason that the territory was north of the Missouri compromise line, but it did recognize as valid the laws adopted by the settlers in their provisional government, by the terms of which in habitants were given the rights, privileges and immunities secured to the inhabitants of Iowa, where slavery was prohibited, as the laws of that state had been taken over bodily by the settlers' government. The decisions of the territorial supreme court had therefore, as already stated, held that slaves became free when brought into Oregon.20

President Buchanan was inaugurated March 4, 1857. The famous Dred Scott decision was rendered by the supreme court of the United States two days afterward, holding that the Missouri compromise of 1820 was not warranted by the federal constitution, and was therefore void. In rendering the opinion of the majority members

19 Cong. Globe, 30th Cong. 1st Sess., volume XVIII, pages 1060, 1061.

20 J. Quinn Thornton in addressing the Oregon Pioneer Association, in 1874, on the History of the Provisional Government, and in speaking of his activities at Washington in 1848, said: "In the bill for organizing a territorial government, I had incorporated a provision prohibiting slavery in Oregon. This I took from the ordinance of 1787, and was induced to make it a part of the bill, not only because of my own convictions on the subject of human rights, but also for the reason that the people of Oregon had, under the provisional government, sternly pronounced rigid inter diction of slavery. I believed the bill would become a law; but because the opposition from southern members on account of the prohibition of slavery might delay its passage until it would be too late to come to a final vote on the land bill, * * *" he then inserted a provision designed in general terms as a recognition of the provisional government, con firming the validity of the laws passed by it, but eliminating the specific provision relating to slavery. (Oregon Pioneer Proceedings, 1875, page 87; and Thornton's Historical Letter, id., 1882, page 50. See also address of Colonel James K. Kelley, in the proceedings, 1882, page 22y and the speech of John A. Dix, of New York, in the senate, June 26, 1848, in de bating the Oregon bill in which the laws of the provisional government of Oregon, relating to slavery are set out and discussed. For explanation of the anti-negro legislation of the provisional government, see Burnett's Recollections, page 212; Gray, Hist, of Oregon, page 378.)

of the court, Chief Justice Taney had practically said that no slave had any rights, and that a master could take his slaves anywhere in the United States, as he could any other property, and would be protected in his property rights; and that any act of congress prohibiting owning property of this kind in any territory of the United States was invalid, because congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the domain of the United States. In consequence of this decision, it was argued by slavery advocates that the vote of Oregon to exclude slaves, and to prohibit negroes in the state, was contrary to the law as so announced, and they further claimed that if congress could not make laws prohibiting slavery, a state could not by popular vote do so. While this argument may not have been strictly logical, it was insisted upon with vehemence, in the press and in debate. This was a time of political tension in which the slave question was now always uppermost. The admission of Kansas as well as Oregon was in the foreground. The theme of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in Illinois in the early fall of 1858 was the subject discussed at every place in the territory where citizens would have occasion to meet. Section 6 of the schedule of the new constitution, in anticipation of early congressional action, provided that if the constitution be ratified then a special election would be held on the first Monday in June, 1858, for the election of members of the legislative assembly, of a representative in congress and also of state and county officers, and that a special session of the state legislative assembly would be convened on the first Monday of July, 1858, which should proceed to elect two senators in congress, and make further provision, as necessary, to complete the organization of a state government. It was soon evident that the convention had made the mistake of setting these dates too early. Congress did not act promptly to create the state, and, indeed, from

the growing intensity of political feeling, it looked doubtful whether the state would be admitted at all. Lane, writing from Washington to the Statesman, indicated his hope that he might be elected as one of the senators, and advised that the state legislature should hold its regular session in September under the constitution, and the state should begin to function without waiting for congressional action.21 His advice was not followed, but there is no proof that he then entertained the wish (as afterward suspected by some of his political opponents) that, as a state neither in nor out of the Union, Oregon might later fall into the secession movement, to which he became more and more committed as time went on. However, as the spring of 1858 opened, the time came for the various party conventions. These, while nominating state tickets, and members of the state legislature, took the precaution of nominating territorial officers also, a forethought that proved fortunate and saved an otherwise impossible situation. These party conventions were rancorous and partisan in the extreme. By this time, in the nation and in the territory, the split in the democrat party was widening, so that for the first time in Oregon separate tickets were put up by the "state democrats," constituting the thorough-going proslavery element, or "hards," as they were sometimes called, and by the "national democrats," constituting the more moderate wing of the party, or "softs."

The platform of the state democrat party, which held its convention at Salem, March 16, 1858, inconsistently endorsed both the Kansas-Nebraska act and the principles of the Dred Scott decision, and declared it to be a 21General Lane's name was carried at the head of the columns of the Statesman and the Times in 1855 and 1856 as candidate for president, in 1856, "subject to decision of the democratic national conveniton." The Oregon delegation to the convention of 1860 was instructed to vote for him for the presidential nomination, and he was nominated as vice-president on the Breckenridge ticket.

fundamental principle that a people in framing a state constitution have the unconditional right to form and adopt the government which they may think best calculated to secure their liberty, without imposition by congress of any condition as to slavery. L. F. Grover was nominated for congress by this group, and an advocate of slavery, John Whiteaker, was nominated as governor. On the other hand, members of the national democrat party in the legislative assembly, charging that the state group of democrats (the Salem clique) had juggled with the apportionment of delegates to the convention, "for the election of officers in view of the admission as a state into the federal Union," favored a convention of their own variety of democracy, which was held at Eugene, April 8, 1858, and which nominated James K. Kelly for congress, and E. M. Barnum for governor; and yet at the same time this convention endorsed the record of proslavery Lane, as delegate. Such was the inconsistency of political conventions of the times. The republican state convention, held at Salem, April 2, 1858, adopted a resolution denouncing traffic in slaves, and declaring that the slavery question should be determined by each state for itself. It nominated John R. McBride for congress, and John Denny for governor. The result of the June election was a complete victory for the so-called "state" or proslavery faction of the democrats, who elected their entire state ticket and most of the state legislature. They elected Grover as member of congress. They elected also for the territorial legislature nine members of the council and 30 members of the house. Thus, the people of Oregon that had just adopted a free-state constitution elected violent advocates of slavery for the first state officers and chose a pro slavery congressman, and they now proceeded to select proslavery senators to represent them in the senate at Washington.

As directed in the schedule of the new constitution, the state legislature met at Salem, July 5, 1858, in a preliminary first session, notwithstanding the fact that no word had been received from congress, and although there was as yet no state of Oregon. William G. T'Vault was elected speaker and Chester N. Terry clerk of the house, while Luther Elkins was elected president and George Carpenter chief clerk of the senate. Practically nothing was done, however, at this session excepting to elect Joseph Lane and Delazon Smith as United States senators. Lane was already at Washington, and Smith and Grover departed at once from Salem for the capital. State Governor Whiteaker was escorted into the legislative hall at Salem, July 8, 1858, and, after the oath of office had been administered by Judge R. P. Boise, he read an inaugural address, in which the first paragraph was as follows:

You are assembled here today under the provisions of the fundamental law of the state. The people by their own act called a convention; that convention framed a constitution; the people ratified it, and today we put on the habiliments of a full grown man and emerge from territorial vassalage and into state sovereignty. It is worthy of note that while the people of Oregon were preparing for a state organization the government of the United States was menaced and greatly imperiled by the acts of a sister territory (Kansas) while framing for itself a constitution preparatory to entering the Union. It is a matter of gratification that no such lawless conduct and violation of rights characterized the people of our young and fair state while preparing to become one of the members of this great confederacy, and it is attributable to the fact that Oregon was peopled by a high order of citizens, a people possessing a due sense of their moral and political duties to themselves and a spirit of forbear ance one toward another. The transition from a territorial existence to that of a state sovereignty is always attended with more or less disorder and delay; but when we consider the change that Oregon has passed through, the people when but a handful organized and success

fully maintained a provisional government, which government was superseded by an organic act, and General Lane sent here as our first governor, the people readily accommodated themselves to the governor and his authority, and' now they declare they are ready for another change and assume state sovereignty.

The session lasted but four days, and although the validity of its action in electing senators was never challenged the session is not now officially recognized as one of the numbered state assemblies.

The summer drifted away without bringing the hoped for news from Washington. Rather against the advice of leading democrats, but in accordance with Lane's recommendation, a first regular session of the house of representatives of the legislative assembly of the state was then attempted at Salem, September 13, 1858, that being the second Monday in September, the day fixed by the new constitution for the first regular meeting of the legislative assembly. This, like the preceding special session, was too early, and it evidently could not act for a state that as yet had no legal existence, for it was generally understood by the members that congress had adjourned without passing the Oregon bill. After the speaker, W. G. T'Vault, took the chair and called the house to order, C. N. Terry, chief clerk, and J. Henry Brown, doorkeeper, appeared. Representatives Burch, Cochran, Cruzan, Crooks, Dryer, Hannah, Hedges, Jennings and Tichenor, nine in number, appeared and adjourned until the next day, but as only one additional member came at that time the house then adjourned sine die. Two members of the senate appeared, Messrs. Florence and Bristow, but no formal meeting of that body was held except to adjourn. This abortive effort is not counted in the state records as a first regular legislative session.

The question in Oregon was which of its two governors was in authority. As congress could not act until the

December session, Governor Whiteaker and the state officers decided to give way to territorial Governor Curry, and the tenth and last Oregon territorial legislature was assembled December 6, 1858, pursuant to the old provisions of territorial law. The session was opened at Salem, and, after organization, a committee was appointed to wait upon territorial Governor Curry and to inform him that the two houses had effected organization and that they were ready to receive communications.

The governor then read a lengthy message in which he said:

Notwithstanding the accumulation of doubt which has settled upon the question, we indulge the hope that at the present session of congress Oregon will be admitted as a state in the Union. If its population is numerically insufficient to entitle it to a representative in congress and if after all it is to be excluded on that account, we shall be obliged to hold the general government itself in a great measure responsible for the circumstances. The message principally discussed states' rights and the slavery question. But Governor Curry, inconsistent ly enough, while officially acting as territorial governor, took the position that, in view of the Dred Scott decision, congress had no right to establish territorial governments "or to ordain organic laws for the government of any civil community anywhere within boundaries of the United States." He argued in the same breath that the organic act amounted to an inviolable guarantee by congress that Oregon would be admitted as a state when it had sufficient population, and he said, "Most assuredly we ought to insist upon the fulfilment of the terms of that compact."

At this session the question that had made trouble in the preceding territorial legislature, about slaves held in Oregon, arose again. Mr. Chapman presented a petition from Lane county asking the legislature to recognize the right of citizens of Oregon in the protection of slave property.22 Mr. T'Vault then presented three petitions

on the same subject. Subsequently there was a majority report by the judiciary committee, through Mr. Chapman, favoring this legislation, with arguments in support thereof. The bill introduced by the majority made it a penal offense to harbor a slave without the master's consent, or to carry a slave out of the territory by boat; it also made slave property assessable, and pro vided that any person or persons bringing slaves to the territory and owning property in such slaves, according to the constitution of the United States as construed by the supreme court in the Dred Scott case, should have the rights and remedies in the courts of the territory allowed for protection and recovery of any other personal property of like value. There were two minority reports, one by Mr. Craner, supporting the theory that slave property was already protected by law under the Dred Scott decision, and the other by Mr. Shattuck, denying the right of the territory to make slaves property, and claiming that the Dred Scott decision did not alter the legality of the territorial prohibition of slavery. The bill passed the council by a vote of 13 to 9, but did not reach a vote in the house, and so failed. Little but routine work was undertaken during the session, as the members felt the uncertainty of their position, and this final session of the territory of Oregon adjourned January 22, 1859.

Thus it was that a bill for the protection of slave owners in Oregon was very nearly passed, just after the people had voted to adopt a constitution prohibiting slave holding. And the debates in congress on the Oregon bill, carried on during the same winter in which the Salem legislature was considering this proslavery measure, make it plain that had the measure been adopted republicans would not have voted for the statehood bill,

22H. J., 1858-9, page 111. Oregonian, Jan. 22, reporting proceedings of Jan. 10, 1859.

and it would have been defeated. It will be necessary to review events at Washington.

The bill to admit Oregon had come up for debate in the senate of the United States, May 5, 1858, and ques tion was then raised as to the sufficiency of the population. Senator Gwin of California assured the senate that he had been informed by Lane that the latter had no doubt the population was as much as eighty thousand, and Senator Douglas then expressed the opinion that the territorial popular vote of near eleven thousand for the constitution indicated a population of about fifty or fifty five thousand, since he was informed by the delegate that as there had been no serious contest in the election there was not a full vote. Another question was raised in the debate as to the unjust discrimination against Chinamen by the terms of the proposed constitution. But the real discussion was upon the attitude of the new state toward people of color, and the stringent prohibition of free negroes was the ground for negative arguments and negative votes by those objecting to this discrimination and opposing slavery. A strong support, however, came from Seward, who, although opposed to slave holding and favoring justice to free persons of color, thought the ad mission of Oregon was necessary to the completion of the republic. The debate was adjourned, after speeches by many of the ablest senators, but came up again May 18. A motion to postpone consideration until December was then lost by a vote of 16 yeas to 38 nays. A final vote in the senate was then reached and the bill passed by a vote of 35 to 17.23 However, it was prevented from

23 The vote in the senate was: Yeas, Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benjamin, Bigler, Bright, Broderick, Brown, Cameron, Chandler, Clingman, Colla mer, Dixon, Doolittle, Douglas, Foot, Foster, Green, Gwin, Harlan, Hous ton, Johnston of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Jones, King, Polk, Pugh, Sebastian, Shields, Simmons, Slidell, Stuart, Toombs, Wiight and Yulee? 35. Nays: Messrs. Bell, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Durkee, Fessenden, Fitz patrick, Hale, Hamlin, Hammond, Henderson, Hunter, Iverson, Kennedy, Mason, Trumbull and Wade?17.

reaching a vote in the house by the adjournment of the session, June 16, 1858. It went over to the December session.24

The debate in the senate showed that the pronounced pro-slavery senators, opposed as they were to the admission of any more northern states, would not support the Buchanan administration in voting for the bill. On the other extreme, it was the program of the republican minority to oppose the bill for the several reasons that democrats had already been elected as senators from the new state, and the past had sufficiently demonstrated that Oregon was and would continue in the control of democrats, and finally that the anti-slavery provision annexed to the constitution was not sincere and was a mere temporary make-believe to enable the state to get in. There were, however, 15 republicans in the senate who broke away from their associates and refused to regard the bill in the light of a party measure, and who voted with the moderate democrats from whom came the larger number of votes for the bill.

After the adjournment of congress there was a long interval of waiting between June and December for the next session. The Oregon senators and representative in congress diligently sought out and interviewed the mem bers of both houses and were eager to get their seats and to begin drawing their salaries. The course of the States man, however, since the constitutional convention, had been peculiarly disconcerting. In the issue of June 29, 1858, it had reported the passage of the Oregon bill by the senate, but the adjournment had left the measure without hope for the time being, and the delay seemed to discour age the editor. The protracted debates upon the Kansas bill, with which Oregon admission seemed entangled, rendered doubtful in the opinion of Bush the prospect

^Cong. Globe, 35th Cong. (1857-8), 1st Sess. , pt. 3, Senate, pages 1963, 2203 ; House, pages 2241, 2719.

of Oregon's admission, especially as one objection successfully urged against Kansas was that it had insufficient population, and this same argument applied with equal force to Oregon. The Statesman ventured the opinion that Oregon would be coupled with Kansas under the rule that a new state must have enough people to qualify under the minimum required for a representative in congress. In the issue of October 19, 1858, the news paper reprinted a quotation from a speech delivered over thirty years previously by Senator Dickerson, of New Jersey, as prophesying that Oregon would never become a state, as the Union was already too extensive, and Ore gon was too remote.25 This was followed in the States man's issue of November 16, 1858, with the estimate that Oregon's total population was but 42,862, hardly half of the number required for a representative.

Some of these and similar statements of the news papers in Oregon reached the members of congress. Smith was much concerned. He was anxious to get his seat as senator, he was getting tired of waiting at Washington, and he had incurred considerable expense. He wrote a complaining letter to Nesmith, with whom he was on good terms, and who had at this time some interest with Bush in the newspaper. No doubt the letter was in tended to be shown to Bush. It was dated November 30, 1858, just before the second session of the thirty-fifth congress was to convene, and the following excerpts will show its tenor:



You may bet high on the admission of Oregon early in the session. I have seen every member now in the city, and you better believe I have "labored" with them! Everybody is for us. The sergeant-at-arms of the senate has had desks, chairs, etc., made for the Oregon senators, and they will occupy them before the close of the tenth day of the session. * * * I must say, in all

25 Quoted from Cong. Debates, 1824-5, I. , 69 2 in Bancroft's Hist. Northwest Coast, II, 425.

candor, that I derive but very little satisfaction from the perusal of our Oregon papers. It requires more labor here in Washington to counteract the influence of the Oregon press than it does to meet and vanquish all its other enemies! If we talk about the admission of Oregon, the payment of our war debt, etc., we are told to look at the declarations contained in the Oregon newspapers. The position, tone and influence of even the Statesman is with Dryer & O'Meara against the admission of Oregon! What in God's name is meant by this? The rejection of our application for admission would not only bankrupt me, but it would, in my humble judgment, be greatly injurious to the country, forfeit a great partisan victory already won, and, perhaps, prostrate the democratic party.

I do not know that our friend Bush really desires the defeat of our application, or that he really designs to oppose it; but it really amounts to quite the same thing, when he gives it up. *** I have not made the foregoing allusions to our admission, and the position of the Oregon press relative thereto, because of any influence the press is going to have on that question in time to come, for congress meets next Monday and within ten days of that date Oregon will be a state. * * *

Smith's prophecy as to early passage of the bill was not realized, and during the first two months of the new congressional session progress seemed slow to him.' But in the meantime the growing breach between Editor Bush and the senators-elect from Oregon became permanent and it was destined to have a profound effect upon political conditions in the new state.

It was charged by the Oregon Sentinel in a series of articles in that paper in 1859, that Senator Smith and Representative Grover, on leaving Oregon for Washing ton, had had an understanding with Bush that they would procure, if possible, evidence tending to support the editor's growing suspicion that Delegate Lane had "kept Oregon out of the Union" in the previous congress. This is confirmed and fully disclosed by correspondence of the period. The following is an extract from a letter of Bush

to Smith, December 25, 1858, written after the latter reached the city of Washington, but before Nesmith could have received Smith's complaint above mentioned: I would like to have you see Cox about his speech in Ohio respecting Lane and his request to him to have the state bill postponed. I presume Lane will endeavor to get him to plaster it up. I do not wish to compromise you or Grover, but should like to have you furnish me with any evidence you can get of what I believe to be a fact that Lane prevented the passage of the bill. I have taken issue with him on that as you will see, and I should like all the proofs I can get. Since the break has been made you would be surprised at the number of men who have thought for several years that he was an old humbug. That is a pretty generally expressed opinion now. Representative S. S. Cox was an Ohio member of congress. Smith replied to Bush that he could find nothing to indicate any such act or neglect on Lane's part; but this, instead of satisfying Bush, turned him against Smith, who was put under the ban by the Statesman. Smith again, in the meantime, wrote in confidence to Nesmith, renewing his complaint that the course of the newspapers in Oregon, and particularly the course pursued by the Statesman, was injuring the cause, but he nevertheless prophesied success. His criticisms of Bush were tinged with bitterness, and the two men soon became relentless enemies. This resulted later in the defeat of Smith for reelection as senator, and, moreover, it led him, after his return to Oregon, to begin the publication of a news paper of his own, the Oregon Democrat, issued from Albany with the avowed object of destroying the political influence of Bush and the prestige of the Statesman. An other letter written to Nesmith, less than ten days before the bill finally became a law, continued his complaints, and referred specifically to the Statesman's estimate of the Oregon population. He still believed the bill would pass before the session would come to a close on March

3, 1859 . The letter bears date February 4, 1859, and part of it reads as follows:

ate-would have been in the position to which I was elected by the good people of Oregon, or rather by their representatives. I will do what I can as an humble out sider, but it is hard to be stricken down by professed friends in order that they may reach General Lane! Notwithstanding the difficulties thrown in our way by the newspaper press of Oregon and the know nothing and black republican opposition here, I think we will be ad mitted before the adjournment of congress. It is much to be regretted, and both embarrassing and mortifying in the extreme, that the Oregon delegation here can not have the co-operation of the press at home. But it is so. As the frogs said to the boys in the fable, so say I to those in Oregon who are trying to keep the state out of the Union -"It may be sport for you, but is death to us." Of course bankruptcy and ruin to myself and family, and long years of anxiety, poverty and toil will be the bitter fruits of the defeat of our present application for admission. * * *
 * * * But for Bush's manufactured "census returns" (?) I would now have been in my seat in the sen

The Statesman containing the "census returns" is used and constantly stuck in our faces by our black republican and know nothing opponents!! Whilst our friend Bush is arraying assumed facts and arguments to convict General Lane of infidelity to the interests of Oregon, by neglecting, or failing, to secure our admission at the last session of congress, may he not be suspected of designedly adopting a course which is calculated and intended to produce the very result this session, which he charges to have been brought about by the negligence or design of General Lane at the last session? And this, too, for the purpose of punishing the general for his sins of omission and com mission?

If General Lane can not be crushed without crushing others, and keeping Oregon out of the Union, and dismembering and breaking up the democratic party, he had better be suffered to live.

I do not write the foregoing in a spirit of anger or even resentment; but rather in a spirit of despondency and regret. For a man to labor as I have labored for the ten weeks last past (half the time without a dollar in his pocket, and all the time living upon borrowed funds), as I have done, contending against political enemies, who are opposed to our admission chiefly because we are uncompromisingly democratic, law-abiding and Union-loving; and to find myself baffled, thwarted and kept out by the unnecessary, unkind and ill-timed articles published in our own Oregon democratic newspapers, makes me sick at heart.

I still hope that Oregon will yet be admitted before the adjournment of congress. I shall continue to labor to secure that result and to promote the general interests of Oregon. * * *

The final vote in the house was delayed until February, 1859. The bill had been received from the senate, May 19, 1858, and Alexander Stephens, of Georgia, who was chairman of the house committee on territories, had caused it to be referred to his committee, June 5, 1858, as also a substitute bill submitted by Representative Bing ham. When, on the tenth day of the following February, after long delay, the committee reported back the senate bill without recommendations, the chairman indicated a doubt as to the sufficiency of the population to justify ad mission, and suggested also a question as to the regularity of the proceedings by which the constitution had been adopted, and a question as to the form of the government provided for in that instrument. However, he indicated a strong inclination to favor the bill. In the debate that followed, Delegate Lane gave it as his personal opinion that the population is "very nearly equal to the ratio upon which representation is based," which would mean that he estimated the population as near 93,000, or just about twice the number given in the Statesman's estimate. A written opinion to the same effect that had been given to the committee on territories by the Oregon dele

gate under date of December 15, 1858, was produced during the debate, by Representative Hughes, of Indiana, who made a strong speech in favor of the bill.26

An adverse minority report of the house committee on territories, signed by Grow, Granger and Knapp, of the committee, was read, and the substitute bill offered by Bingham was also read. Grow vigorously opposed the admission of the state on the ground of the injustice of a constitution that discriminated against a whole class born on American soil, and in the debate he was supported by Maynard, Marshall, Farnsworth and Granger. Thayer, of Massachusetts, argued that the provision was fa.ir; that as there were three parties in Oregon, the free-state party, the slave-state party, and the anti-negro party, a compromise had been effected, whereby free negroes were to be excluded, and that the republican and free-state democrats had combined to adopt the free-negro provision.27 Another Massachusetts man, Comins, reluctantly decided to vote for the bill in spite of that provision, which he regretted; and Case, of Indiana,-followed with much the same kind of statement of his position. Those opposed made eloquent speeches against the barbarity of the negro clause, Cochrane, of New York, and Dawes, of Massachusetts, and Bingham, of Ohio, and Hoard, of New York, putting the argument against the bill entirely upon the inhumanity and injustice of the constitution.28

26 The census of 1860 showed a population of 52,405.

27 See as to Thayer and Seward's part in helping to make Oregon a state, Scott, Hist. Or. Country, volume V, page 4, quoting editorial from Oregonian of May 5, 1906.

28 For narrative of the admission of Oregon as a state see the editorials in the Oregonian, Feb. 14, 1899, Feb. 21, 1909, Dec 4, 1909. An address of Frederick N. Judson of St. Louis, delivered at the state capitol at Salem, Feb. 15, 1909, on the "Admission of Oregon," is printed in the Oregonian of Feb. 21, 1909. It is a curious fact that this provision of the Oregon constitution against free negroes is still a part of that instrument. Although supposed to be nullified by the fourteenth amendment it has never been repealed. The legislature submitted a repeal amendment in 1916, but it failed to receive a sufficient numbr of votes to carry. The vote was 100,027 for, and 100,701 against, repeal.

Several amendments offered by Marshall, and others, were voted down. Representative Zollicoffer, from the committee of territories, submitted a lengthy minority report opposing admission on the ground that the population was insufficient, and also because of the provision of the proposed constitution which permitted unnaturalized citizens to vote for members of the legislature, which he deemed violative of the fundamental principle of the constitution of the United States.

The final scene was enacted February 12, 1859, when the debate closed, and, the amendments and substitutes having been defeated, Stephens moved the previous ques tion and the vote taken showed that the bill was carried by a vote of 114 for and 103 against.29

29 Alabama: Yeas, ?; nays, Cobb, Curry, Dowdell, Houston, Moore, Shorter, Stallworth. Arkansas: Yeas, Greenwood; nays, ?; California: Yeas, Scott, McKibben. Connecticut: Yeas, Arnold; nays, Clark (E.), Dean. Delaware: Yeas, Whiteley. Florida: Yeas, Hawkins. Georgia: Yeas, Cartrell, Jackson, Seward, Stephens, Wright; nays, Crawford, Hill, Trippe. Illinois: Yeas, Hodges, Marshall (S. S.), Morris (I. N .), Shaw (A.), Smith, Roberts; nays, Farnsworth, Kellogg, Lovejoy, Washburne (E. B.). Indiana: Yeas, Case, Coif ax, Davis, English, Foley, Gregg, Hughes, Kilgore, Niblack, Pettit; nays, Wilson. Iowa: Yeas, Curtis; nays, Davis. Kentucky: Yeas, Burnett, Clay, Elliott, Jewett, Mason, Peyton, Stevenson, Talbot; nays, Marshall (H.), Underwood. Louisiana: Yeas, Davidson, Sandidge, Taylor (M.). Maine: Yeas, Foster, Wood; nays, Abbott, Gilman, Morse (F. H.), Washburn (I.). Maryland: Yeas, Bowie, Stewart (J. A.); nays, Davis, Harris, Ricaud. Massachusetts: Yeas, Comins, Thayer; nays, Buffinton, Burlingame, Chaffee, Dawes, Gooch, Hall (R. B .), Knapp. Michigan: Nays, Howard, Leach, Wal bridge, Waldron. Minnesota: Yeas, Cavanaugh, Phelps (W. W.). Mis sissippi: Yeas, Barksdale, Lamar, Singleton, Davis, McRae. Missouri: Yeas, Caruthers, Clark (J. B .), Phelps (J. S .), Craig; nays, Blair, Wood son. New Hampshire: Yeas, Craigin; nays, Pike, Tappan. New Jersey: Yeas, Adrian, Huyler, Wortendyke; nays, Clawson, Robbins, Roberts. New York: Yeas, Barr, Cochrane (J.), Corning, Hatch, Maclay, Russell, Searing, Taylor (G.), Ward; nays, Andrews, Burroughs, Clark (H. F.), Cochrane (C. B .), Dodd, Fenton, Goodwin, Granger, Haskins, Hoard, Kelsey, Matteson, Morgan. Morse (O. A .), Murray, Olin, Palmer, Parker, Pottle, Sherman (J. W .), Spinner, Thompson. North Carolina: Yeas, Branch, Craige, Ruf fin, Winslow; nays, Gilmer, Scales, Shaw (H. M.), Vance. Ohio: Yeas, Burns, Cockerill, Cox, Groesbeck, Hall (L. W.), Horton, Lawrence, Leiter, Miller, Nichols, Pendleton, Vallandigham; nays, Bingham, Giddings, Mott, Stanton, Tompkins, Wade, Harlan. Pennsyl vania: Yeas, Ahl, Chapman, Dewart, Dimmick, Florence, Gillis, Jones (O.), Kunkel (J. C), Landy, Leidy, Montgomery, Phillips, Reilly, White; (Continued on bottom of page 35.)

The result as announced was received with applause by the galleries, and the dramatic and bitter legislative contest was ended. The bill went to President Buchanan, who signed it on the 14th day of February, 1859, and Oregon became a state. That is to say, it began to function as a state, although as a matter of fact the act so adopted, which was entitled "An act for the admission of Oregon into the Union," not only prescribed slightly different boundaries from those adopted by the people in their constitution, but it also offered certain "propositions," on the condition that the people of Oregon should provide by ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that the state would never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within the United States, or with any regulations congress might find necessary for securing the title in the soil to bona fide purchasers thereof, and that in no case should nonresident proprietors be taxed higher than residents, and, further more, that the state should never tax the lands or prop erty of the United States. The propositions set out in the act were, in the main, patterned after similar conditional clauses used in admitting other states, and they embodied liberal grants of lands for schools and universities, and for public buildings, besides donating salt springs, and giving part of the proceeds of public land sales in the state for roads and public improvements. The Oregon legislature passed an act, approved June 3, 1859, accepting these terms, but statehood is dated from February 14, 1859, and not from June 3, 1859.

nays, Covode, Dick, Edie, Grow, Keim, Purviance, Ritchie, Stewart (Wm.), Morris (E. J .). Rhode Island: Nays, Brayton, Durfee. South Carolina: Nays, Bonham, Boyce, Keitt, McQueen, Miles. Tennessee: Yeas, Atkins, Avery, Jones (G. W.), Savage, Smith (S. A .), Watkins, Wright; nays, Zollicoffer. Texas: Yeas, Reagan; nays, Bryan. Vermont: Nays, Morrill, Royce, Walton. Virginia: Yeas, Bocock, Caskie, Edmundson, Hopkins, Jenkins, Letcher, Powell; nays, Millson, Smith (Wm.). Wisconsin: Yeas, Billinghurst; nays, Potter, Washburn (C. ?.). Total vote, 217; yeas 114, nays 103, majority, 11; yeas, democrats 100, republicans 14, total, 114; nays, democrats 21, republicans 76, American or know nothing, 6, total 103.

The credentials of Senator Lane were presented by Senator Pugh to the senate on the day the president signed the Oregon bill, while Senator Grow presented those of Senator Smith. They were at once sworn in and assigned to seats. A resolution providing for the drawing of lots for the terms was adopted and Lane won the long term, expiring March 3, 1861, and Smith the short term of 17 days, expiring March 3, 1859.

That the bitter contest over the Oregon bill had a direct bearing on the fortunes of candidates for the re publican nomination as president is shown by a confidential letter to Governor Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, at this time a receptive candidate for the nomination, writ ten by a republican member of the house of representatives and now in the possession of the New York Historical Society. It is dated February 14, 1859, at Washington City, the same day the bill was signed by the president. This letter says:

We have had a time and trial on the Oregon question. I have felt myself in no danger from my former infirmity until I became excited on this question. Bingham's speech, and Clark B. Cochran's, will show you the ground of our resistance. We should have succeeded except for the fact that Seward had advocated its admission while the bill was before that body (the senate). It was hard to rally our friends after he approved the bill. But we showed a good vote. 114 ayes to 103 noes. You will see the names of those who voted with the democrats. Colfax had the Indiana delegation. Hle says Bailey of the Fra nromnised to suppnort them. I nresume he will, but the vote has created a strong feeling against Seward among the New York delegation. His best friends stood by us as firmly as any members we had. Some openly say it will destroy his prospects. I think he is materially damaged. Of course, the papers will either say nothing or speak little on the subject, but the fact will be remembered. There has at this time been less done in the line of president-making than I had expected. The Massachu-

setts delegation have lost their influence mostly. I do not like to speak of some of them as I think they deserve. Indeed, I think that congress is destined to exert less in fluence on the subject than ever before. Has Blair writ ten you on the subject of his tour east? I see some of the papers charge him with being on a president-making tour. But he has said nothing to me on the subject. All who converse with me seem to admit that you and Seward are the only candidates who will stand a chance for nomination, and I do not think Seward as good now as I thought he was in December.

This, it will be noted, was written the year before the republican convention was held in Chicago, which nominated Lincoln for the presidency, and at which convention Seward was opposed by Horace Greeley, of New York, who voted upon an Oregon proxy.30 Oregon's part in that nomination was important, and yet not less was the indirect effect upon Seward's aspirations because of the record he made in voting with the democrats and the support he gave to the bill with its anti-negro constitution.

The fact of the admission of Oregon was soon known to the people of the new state.

The Oregonian many years afterward related that the news was received by the arrival of the steamer "Brother Jonathan," Captain George H. Staples, at Portland, at half past 4 o'clock on the morning of March 15, from San Francisco, and was forwarded to the Oregon City on the same morning. The news came to San Francisco by overland mail, or pony express, and had left St. Louis on February 14, and arrived at San Francisco on March 10, 1859.

There were no telegraph lines, nor daily mails in Oregon. Communication was maintained up and down the Willamette valley almost wholly by boats on Willamette so Leslie M. Scott in Or. Hist. Quar., XVII, 205 ; ; Carey's History of Oregon, 636.

river. No boat was to start from Canemah to Salem that day, and it was supposed that the people at the capital would like to hear the news. Accordingly, about noon that day a young man named Stephen Senter, then living at Canemah, started on horseback for Salem, spreading the news as he went. Little interest was manifested in it by the people. But the state officials, who had been elected and were waiting to take office, were greatly elated by the news.

This message, which had left Washington before the president had signed the bill, was confirmed on the arrival at Portland, March 22, 1859, of the steamship Northerner, Captain W. L. Dall, which brought the news that the Oregon bill was approved February 14, 1859. Governor Whiteaker called a special session of the state legislature, which was the third attempt of that body to assemble and transact legislative business, al though it is officially designated as the "first extra session." It convened at Salem May 16, and remained at work until June 4, 1859. Luther Elkins was president of the senate, and E. E. Haft chief clerk of that body. Messrs. T'Vault and Terry were respectively speaker and chief clerk of the house, as before. The journal does not show the report of the credentials committee and there is some uncertainty as to members actually seated, but it seems that there were 16 senators and 33 representatives entitled to seats. The conflict among the democrats was sufficient to prevent the reelection of Delazon Smith to the senate,and as neither faction had a majority a successor was not agreed upon, and Oregon continued to have but one senator until March 4, 1861.

The democrat state convention refused to renominate Grover for congress, although he was supported by the Salem clique, and Lansing Stout was named and subsequently elected at the June election of 1859. This was the first defeat suffered by Editor Bush and his faction. David Logan was nominated by the republican state con-

vention to oppose Stout, but was defeated in the election. Stout got most of his votes in the southern counties, where Lane was strongest, and the use of Stout votes as a basis of apportionment for the election of delegates to the next democratic convention resulted in a permanent defection of the anti-Lane democrats and a schism in the party. Lane became a candidate of the slave advocates for vice-president of the United States on the Breckenridge ticket but the great majority of the democrats of the state loyally supported the Union in the national conflict that followed. Some of those who had favored slavery were not willing to countenance secession.

The new state of Oregon superseded the territory and on the eve of the war between the states began to take its part in national affairs. The story, however, would not be complete without adding that, at the very next session of the state legislature (the first regular session), which met September 10, 1860, there was a resolution offered to surrender statehood. It will not be possible here to de scribe in detail the political events which had resulted in giving the Breckenridge and Lane democrats an insufficient number of votes to control the legislature, or to elect Delazon Smith to a place in the senate, or to elect a successor to Senator Lane. The Douglas democrats succeeded in electing the speaker and the president of the senate, but did not have votes enough to elect two United States senators. A coalition between the latter faction and the republicans was possible, but six of the Brecken ridge democrats in the senate bolted and remained in hid ing to prevent a quorum of that body. The deadlock was complete until September 24, during which period the legislature took ballots without avail, and a resolution was offered in the house by Holbrook as follows: "Resolved, that the committee on judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of surrendering state sovereignty and returning to the condition of territorial gov

ernment." The resolution was not adopted, but after an abortive effort of the house to adjourn without the concurrence of the senate the missing members were at last brought in and censured, and a final ballot was then taken, resulting in the election of Col. E . D. Baker, re publican, for the long term, and Col. J. W. Nesmith, Douglas democrat, for the short term. This was the result of a combination by which democrats had voted for Baker, and republicans had voted for Nesmith. Instead of resigning sovereignty, or joining the secession movement, the state of Oregon decided to go on with the Union.

POPULAR VOTE ON CONVENTION BY YEARS

(From Oregon Statesman, July 11, 1854; June 30, 1855; May 27, 1856; July 7, 1857.)

1854 1855 1856 1857 YesNoYesNoYesNoYesNo Marion. .................. 297 690 412 768 593 492 785 271 Linn ...... 356 361 773 400 705 356 1049 68 Benton ........................ 202 231 276 231 288 273 535 50 Lane ...... 518 67 476 344 495 333 800 76 Yamhill ...... 246 267 292 379 182 399 548 195 Clackamas ...... 288 458 352 310 204 366 509 121 Multnomah. . . 227 332 150 365 586 89 Columbia......236218666638 Clatsop .-- 1157410228425212512 Douglas. 234 156 346 257 254 191 408 130 Coos .-- -- - - 113751291042816407 Polk .- - 271 187 359 318 309 235 517 62 Washington ....... 160 726 191 368 109 349 363 163 Jackson ....... 20 723 312 734 216 281 553 180 Tillamook ... ... 19 6 8 12 ...... ...... .... -- Umpqua .-- --- --- -- --- --- - 143491421889611416077 Curry .......... ...... .. 108 9 Wasco .... .............. 28 9 ... 9765768 Josephine ........................ - . . . . ..... . ...... 408 63 Southern brigade volun teers. -- -- . . . . 234 301 .. ... Northern regiment volun teers .. ....................... . 254 170 .... .. Total .- 3210 4079 4420 4835 4186 4435 7617 1679 Majority ....... ... 869 ........ 415 .... -. 249 5938 ......