Page:Oregon Historical Quarterly vol. 9.djvu/192

174 as soon thereafter as they shall deem expedient, the legislative assembly shall proceed to locate and establish the seat of government for said Territory at such place as they may deem eligible, which place, however, shall thereafter be subject to be changed by said legislative assembly. (Sec. 15 of act of Congress establishing Territorial Government.)

According to the act. Governor Lane named Oregon City as the first meeting place of the territorial legislature, and in pursuance of his proclamation, the first legislature of the Territory of Oregon met at the above named place July 16, 1849. At this session a bill was introduced by Mr. Buck, Senator from Clackamas County, to locate the seat of government. The bill did not carry and the journal does not show what place it intended for the territorial capital. No final action being taken at this session regarding the location of the seat of government, the second session met at Oregon City, pursuant to act of Congress and proclamation of the Governor. During this session, however, a bill was passed locating the seat of the Territorial Government at Salem, where it remained until 1855.

This act not only located the capital at Salem, but also located the penitentiary at Portland and the university at Corvallis. The Governor, who believed that he should have been consulted regarding the location of these territorial institutions, claimed that the act was unconstitutional. He based his contention on the ground that the act dealt with more than one specific object, which, according to the act of Congress establishing a territorial government (this provided that no law should embrace more than one object and that should be expressed in the title) was unlawful. The case was taken before the Territorial Supreme Court, which sustained the Governor's contention, claiming that the law did contain a multiplicity of objects, and was, therefore, unconstitutional. This opinion was concurred in by Messrs. Justice Nelson and Strong, while Mr. Justice Pratt dissented, claiming that the act did not contain more than one subject. The people generally believed that Pratt was right, and when the time ar-