Page:Oregon Historical Quarterly vol. 4.djvu/200

190 Kelly, of Clackamas County, Reuben P. Boise, of Polk County, and Daniel R. Bigelow, of Thurston County.

Being first elected, I acted as chairman of the board, and notified the other commissioners of the time of our first meeting, which took place some time in March, 1853. We met in the council chamber of the legislative building, where all our subsequent meetings were held.

The first two or three days were occupied in discussing the general outline of our duties and the kind of code to be prepared. By common consent we agreed to accept the New York code of practice as the basis of our own, but with a notable exception in regard to proceedings in equity. Mr. Bigelow strongly insisted upon having no separate court of equity or of equity proceedings, but urged that we should follow the example of California in this respect. Mr. Boise and I differed from Mr. Bigelow. We contended that in the organic act of August 14, 1848, a separate system of equity proceedings was contemplated, wherein it is provided that "each district court or judge thereof shall appoint its clerk, who shall be the register in chancery": Act, August 14, 1848, § 9.

That it was so understood by the members of the first legislative assembly appears by the act of September 14, 1849, directing the mode of proceedings in chancery: See Hamilton Laws.

The system of equity jurisprudence and proceedings in equity adopted by the first code commissioners has now prevailed in Oregon for forty years, and during all that time I think has met the approbation of both bench and the bar.

Another thing agreed upon by the commissioners was that the code should be prepared so that it might be adopted by the legislative assembly in several acts instead of one, as was done in the Chapman Code in 1850. This was done in order to comply with the provisions of the