Chapter II: Part 2

This debate, like the previous one, was fraught with significant results, and the gain was substantial. Although it had failed of its immediate purpose, although it had been defeated in that body of congress in which it might most naturally look for success, and although the leader of the cause in the house, Hon. Caleb Cushing, counseled delay, because of the danger of complications with England, the effects, nevertheless, became apparent even before the debate was ended. Through the suggestion of Mr. Lee, an immediate step in advance was taken. It was decided that the government could, without violating the terms or the spirit of the existing treaty, send some one who should act as an agent of the government in dealing with the Indians, whose duty it should be to make treaties with them and establish such relations as would insure safety during the period of transition. This officer was to bear only the title of sub-Indian agent, but it was suggested to the colonists that his usefulness to them might be increased by entrusting him with such additional authority as they thought fit to grant voluntarily; that he might, if they so wished, act as a virtual governor of the colony. It will readily be seen that this office, by virtue of its indefiniteness, was one of peculiar difficulty. The effectiveness of the plan was also considerably diminished by the appointment of a man, Dr. Elijah White, who had previously been in the country and incurred some enmities. He was, however, cordially received, and entered upon his duties with hopefulness. The growing hostility of the Indians made immediate and almost continuous exercise of his authority necessary, and many treaties were made pledging the natives to respect the life and property of Americans. The previous authority of the English company had now to be shared with the American government, so far at least as Indian affairs were concerned. Thus a step in advance had been taken toward the realization of an American civil government, but it is questionable whether divided authority in dealing with Indians tended to security of life and property, especially where there was no means of enforcing the obligations of treaty agreements. In the exercise of authority along other lines, less success was experienced.

Another result was the sending of Lieutenant Charles Wilkes, Commander of the Pacific squadron, upon a cruise along the coast, with instructions to make investigations, and General John C. Fremont, to examine the overland routes. Both of these men were officers in whom confidence was reposed and whose opinions would have weight. The government did not recognize the need of such urgency of action as the people desired. It seems to have felt that its duty was discharged by commissioning officers to investigate the condition of things, by ordering an occasional vessel of war into the neighborhood, and by sending a sub-Indian agent to prevent any depredations that the Indians might be disposed to commit. It seems to have felt that the few colonists already there were in no immediate danger of suffering injury, if they used good judgment, while the natural barriers to emigration would render additions to the population very slow.

Viewed from the standpoint of the colonists, however, everything was different. The Indian agent, without military aid, could not render effective service; Lieutenant Wilkes, because he was on friendly terms with the officers of the English company, was thought to be too much under their influence; session after session of congress was passing away without any action for the establishment of military posts, or the extension of civil government over the territory. It is but natural, under the circumstances, that the colonists should take the matter into their own hands, and do what the exigencies of the situation demanded. The formation of the pioneer provisional government may be regarded, therefore, as an example of the true American spirit, exhibiting a resourcefulness equal to every emergency.

The origin of institutions is complex, and doubtless many motives combined to bring this one into existence. Its purpose as expressed in the organic laws, drawn up as the constitution of the state, was declared to be: “Mutual protection, and to secure peace and prosperity among ourselves.”[11] This general statement, however, probably sums up a number of motives not specified. Most prominent among these were the feeling of nationality, the love of a democratic type of government, the desire for power to control the character of population that should come in, anxiety to secure permanent titles to the lands taken up, equal rights in the pursuit of the fur trade, protection from the Indians, prevention of lawlessness among a mixed population, facilities for the conduct of such business as growing numbers made necessary, and, perhaps, in some cases, personal ambition to exercise authority.

The idea seems to have had its origin among the missionaries and settlers in and about the Methodist mission station in the Willamette Valley. Although the subject had been under consideration before, the first effective step taken was in February, 1841, at the funeral of a settler, who died without heirs, and for the administering of whose estate there was no authority then in existence. A resolution was passed, expressing the need of a civil government, and a call was given for a general meeting to be held at the mission. At this meeting a committee was appointed, consisting of the various elements into which the community, though small, was divided, and was instructed to draw up a plan of government and report at a specified time. A judicial officer with probate powers, together with a sheriff and two constables to meet immediate wants, were also appointed. Although an attempt had been made, in the choice of the committee, to secure harmony, yet it never met to fulfill its task. When the general meeting, therefore, assembled at St. Paul’s church, the Catholic mission station, there was nothing to report. The committee was reconstructed and a resolution passed to submit the matter to Dr. McLoughlin and Lieutenant Wilkes before further action was taken. As both of these men advised delay the matter was dropped for two years.

The idea, however, was kept alive, and was the subject of discussion at the meetings of a debating society at Willamette Falls, now Oregon City. The subject was again formally suggested at a meeting held at the house of one of the settlers, for the purpose of taking measures to protect the cattle from wild animals. At the close of a series of resolutions dealing with wolves, bears and panthers, was one calling attention to the need of a civil government, and providing for a general meeting for discussion and decision. The meeting was held as provided May 2, 1843, at Champooick, between the present sites of Salem and Oregon City, and was an occasion of great interest and excitement. Opinion had been shaping itself on both sides, and the opposing views were fully represented.

The principal cause for anxiety was the body of Hudson Bay ex-employees, who were located in the valley. Most of them were French or Canadians, Catholics, and largely under the influence of the English Company. Although some of them were favorable to a government, the majority were not, and their views are quaintly summed up in an address prepared for presentation at a later public meeting. They objected to a provisional government as too “self-interested and full of degrees, useless to our power, overloading the colony instead of improving it.” They proposed in its place a council, composed of men from all parts of the country “to judge the difficulties, punish the crimes and make regulations suitable for the people.” They regarded a militia as useless and “a danger of bad suspicion to the Indians.” The country was considered as “free at present, to all nations, till government shall have decided; open to every individual wishing to settle, without distinction of origin, and without asking him anything, either to become an English, Spanish or American citizen.” There were also some general reflections to the effect that, “The more laws there are, the more opportunity for roguery for those who make a practice of it;” and “in a new country, the more men employed and paid by the public, the less remains for industry.”

It was known that the vote was to be close. The Canadians had been drilled to vote “no” on every proposition, and their strength was determined in an amusing way, by moving a question to which they would naturally have voted “yes.” When the question of having a government was put to a vote the result was so close, that the chairman was in doubt. A division of the house was called for, and at this critical point, Joseph Meek, a typical frontier character, strode forward with the words: “Who’s for a divide? all in favor of the report and of an organization, follow me.” When the vote was counted, it was found to be in favor of a government.

After this decision had been made there was still a difference of opinion concerning the kind of government to be established. Some were in favor of complete independence, while others wanted a provisional government that should last until that of the United States should be extended over the country. The English interests, unable longer to prevent some action, now directed their influence toward securing an independent government, under the protectorate of England, if possible, and independent of the United States at any rate. The decision favored a provisional government, and a committee of nine was appointed to draft a plan to be submitted to the people at a meeting to be held at Champooick on the fifth of July, 1843. This committee is of great importance in the history of civil government in Oregon, because of the responsibility which rested upon it, and because of the excellence of its work. Its members were neither learned nor acquainted with the law, but they possessed good judgment and common sense. Their meeting place was an old barn belonging to the Methodist mission.

In the drawing up of their organ of government they very wisely adopted the ordinance of 1787, making such changes as the peculiar local conditions rendered necessary. There was, first, a bill of rights, providing for freedom of religious belief and worship, the right of _habeas corpus_ and trial by a jury of peers, proportionate representation, judicial procedure according to common law, moderate fines and reasonable punishment, encouragement of morality and knowledge, maintenance of schools, good faith toward the Indian, and the prohibition of slavery. There was, also, provision for the necessary organs of government, a legislative branch, to consist of nine members, elected annually; an executive branch, to consist of a committee of three; and a judicial department, to consist of supreme and associate judges, a probate judge, and justice of the peace. Provision was made for subordinate officials, a battalion of soldiers, and grants of land to settlers. On the appointed day the meeting convened at Champooick to receive the report. It came, opportunely, on the day following our national holiday. Although the general sentiment seems to have been friendly to the movement, yet there was enough variety of opinion to lend spice to the occasion. When the plan drawn up had been reported to the people, its provisions were readily passed. The principal discussion took place in regard to the executive. It had not been the purpose to have any executive at all, on account of the rivalry for the governorship, which unfortunately existed at a time when united action was desirable. The committee, upon their own responsibility, had recommended as a compromise an executive committee of three. Although it was characterized by the opposition as a “hydra-headed monster,” and a “repetition of the Roman Triumvirate,” it was finally accepted.

After the adoption of the organic laws, and the election of the necessary officers, the government went into operation. It had no provision for taxation, and its expenses had to be met by voluntary subscription. It had no public buildings, and for a time had to meet at private houses. It soon became apparent that there were defects in the plan of government as at first adopted. It was found to be unfitted for governing a community of any large number, or for any long period of time. It had been prepared only for a temporary purpose, and only for a short time. Its very imperfections, however, were virtues to those who feared that a more perfect government would lead to independence from the United States, which was an all-absorbing question among the colonists and the basis of their party distinctions. As time passed, however, and the United States took no action toward extending her government over the colony, it became apparent that something must be done to make the provisional government stronger and better fit to endure a longer delay, and to govern more effectively the larger numbers which were coming into the country. The first message of the executive committee, therefore, contained the following words: “At the time of our organization it was expected that the United States would have taken possession of the country before this time, but a year has rolled around, and there appears little or no prospect of aid from that quarter, consequently we are yet left to our own resources for protection. In view of the present state of affairs, we would recommend to your consideration the adoption of some measures for a more thorough organization.”[12]

The changes recommended were: Creation of a single executive in place of a committee of three; increase in the number of representatives in the legislative department; change in the judicial system, together with changes in certain specific subjects more of the nature of statute than fundamental law. The recommendation was followed and the changes were made. This first session of the governmental body, indeed, was prolific in legislation. Not only did it make these changes, but an act was passed more exactly defining the jurisdiction of the government. In the original plan it had been vague, and was by this act confined to the region south of the Columbia River. Provision was likewise made for the raising of revenue sufficient to carry on a more effective government, and all who refused to pay their taxes were denied the right of suffrage and the benefits which the government conferred. This was an effective mode of winning the support of some who had stood aloof. Acts were passed prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, and negroes and mulattoes were excluded from the territory upon penalty of whipping. It was the desire of the members of this first legislature to call a constitutional convention for making the organ of government more perfect and putting the changes already made into permanent shape. It met with opposition, however, because of the fear that it might drift into an independent government, toward which there was in many directions a strong tendency.

The session of 1845 was made up largely of the American party, and these men soon began the work of making what they refused to call a “constitution,” but called a revised “compact,” to be submitted directly to the people. The compact secured most of the changes already made, drew a distinction between statute and fundamental law, was well worded, and removed the vagueness of previous provisions. This was in accordance with the sentiment which existed in the colony, and was, therefore, adopted by vote of the people at a special election, July 26, 1845. These changes were made possible by the greater legal talent which came with the migrations of 1843 and 1844, and were made necessary by the increase in population and the delays of the national government. For three years longer the provisional government was in force, exercising all the sovereign functions of government; and, before superseded, it carried on a war with the Indians.

Thus came into existence that government which has been characterized by one who was in a position to know as, “strong without an army or navy, and rich without a treasury;” so effective “that property was safe, schools established and supported, contracts enforced, debts collected, and the majesty of the law vindicated.”[13] This is a judgment quite generally endorsed by the oldest of the pioneers who look back to it with pride and affection.[14]

The formation of the provisional government met with no opposition from congress or the President. In fact, there is nothing to show that it received any formal attention at all. It was, however, whether so recognized or not, a long step in advance. All that the United States government could wish to accomplish in securing an equal foothold in the territory, was brought about without action on its part and without complications that might have accompanied an extension of a United States territorial government over the country, as provided by the various bills. Every issue which the government itself could have forced, was forced by the pioneers themselves. A permanent break was made in the old order of things; the fur trading regime was forced to give place to an agricultural civilization. The way was prepared for a distinctly American government. The final settlement of the Oregon question was made easier than it otherwise would have been; and a splendid demonstration was given of the fact so often seen in the history of nations, that crises are settled most effectually by the people of the nation themselves. The English made an effort to adjust themselves to the new conditions and preserve their old authority. But their autocratic social machinery, which probably had been best fitted for the period of the fur trade, was unable to cope with the democratic provisional government in meeting the needs of an agricultural settlement. It was the passing away of one type of social order as the conditions themselves changed, a fact well verified by the cordial support the new order of things received from many who had opposed its formation.

The effect of the change upon the Indian people was more serious. The passing away of the old was fraught with great significance to them. The entrance of the new meant the gradual loss of their lands and the changing of their habits of wilderness existence. It was not long ere the new government found itself involved in difficulties growing out of these conditions, with which it was not able to grapple alone. When the time of greatest need drew near, however, it was possible to take another step in the gradual development of civil government, as it was necessary for the national government to take some steps in the protection of its citizens against the Indians. The events which led up to, and which made possible this result, so long struggled for, are as romantic and stirring as anything that has ever occurred in our history.

In tracing the influences which were at work to bring about the further steps in the development of civil government, we need, first, to note the effect produced by the treaty of 1842, which settled the northeastern boundary. That annoying question, which had been under dispute so long, had, by virtue of the anxious desire to reach a conclusion, done much to retard the settlement of other questions of difference, particularly that of the northwestern boundary. But, now that the settlement had been reached, the way was clear for attention to this question by itself, and freed from its bearing upon other issues. Such a condition of affairs is surely a significant one in the development of our subject. Its immediate importance was, of course, connected with the boundary question; but the extension of a civil government was waiting upon that, and its fate inseparably connected with it. In his message of December, 1842, while explaining the omission of a settlement from the treaty just concluded, Tyler manifests something of the freedom gained, in a bolder statement than had appeared from the executive department for many years: “The territory of the United States, commonly called the Oregon Territory, lying on the Pacific Ocean, north of the forty-second degree of latitude, to a portion of which Great Britain lays claim, begins to attract the attention of our fellow citizens, and the tide of population, which has reclaimed what was so lately an unbroken wilderness, in more contiguous regions, is preparing to flow over those vast districts which stretch from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. In advance of the acquirement of individual rights to those lands, sound policy dictates that every effort should be resorted to by the two governments to settle their respective claims.”

While the colonists were urging on the formation of the provisional government, and the national policy was pervaded by the greater freedom shown in Tyler’s message, another influence was brought to bear toward the accomplishment of the result. It was in the spring of 1843 that Dr. Marcus Whitman, head of the Presbyterian and Congregational mission at Waiilatpu, near the present site of Walla Walla, appeared in Washington. He had made the long and dangerous journey in the winter season, when hardy mountain trappers would scarcely dare to try it. Almost frozen by the cold, and nearly lost in the blinding snow storms, he finally reached his destination. This heroic journey was made partly in the interests of his mission work, and partly to awaken such interest in the country that immigrants would come, and that the government would protect them in their coming. Although, before this time, he had been attentive to his work among the Indians, and, by reason of the location of his mission, had been compelled to exercise caution and reserve, yet he was always an ardent admirer of American institutions and looked forward to their final extension over the country. He was a quiet yet earnest advocate of the provisional government, and was fully aware of the means by which further results were to be secured. The gradual settlement of the country by industrious and moral people, a strict and friendly observance of the terms of the treaty, a self-imposed system of government suited to existing needs, a final settlement of the boundary that would preserve the territory that rightly belonged to the United States, and a final incorporation into the nation when possible, would seem to express his position.

Both among the colonists and in the east the feeling was prevalent that in settlement rather than in congressional action lay the issue of the Oregon question. Heroic work had been done in congress, and heroic work was being done by the colonists themselves. There were indications, also, that the English were awake to the importance of settlement. Already they had a number of Canadian and French ex-employees of the company in the valley of the Willamette; a body of emigrants had just come to the country around Puget Sound, and various rumors were afloat of settlement on a larger scale. As the success of the Americans’ hopes rested now on settlement, this was, indeed, a critical moment for the advocates of provisional government and the final extension of the institutions of their native land. It was a time for heroic action, and the journey of Marcus Whitman will always be named as one of the most significant, as well as romantic events in the history of civil government in Oregon.

Such an ambassador could not fail of a hearing, and conferences were held both with the President, John Tyler, and the Secretary of State, Daniel Webster. Dr. Whitman emphasized the value of the country, and what was more significant, the possibility of reaching it by wagon. Any abandonment, however, of the Oregon cause beyond a reasonable compromise, seems scarcely possible to one who has traced the government’s relation to the question from the beginning. And even such a compromise would seem uncalled for, when the northwestern boundary question stood by itself freed from other objects. Some of the friends and associates of Dr. Whitman, however, are authority for the statement that some such sacrifice was in contemplation and had practically been made before his appearance in Washington. If the evidence that comes to light confirms the advocacy of such a policy by Mr. Webster, it would have been a surprise to every one, and would have met a storm of opposition when made public, and could hardly have been ratified, in view of the fact that popular interest had never been greater, presidential support never more hopeful, and the records and traditions regarding the boundary line had never considered seriously any settlement below the forty-ninth degree of latitude.

Upon his return west in 1843, Mr. Whitman wrote to the Secretary of War an account of his journey, and the emigration that had gone west that year. It was the first large emigration, numbering about one thousand people, and had been guided through the mountains by Dr. Whitman, making the entire journey by wagon. Accompanying this letter was the draft of a bill providing for the establishment of forts at various points along the route for the protection of further emigration. This seems to have been done in accordance with an understanding, reached during his stay at Washington, and marks the policy of the government until the end was reached.

The succeeding messages of President Tyler are firmer in their tone and give more space to the subject. In the message of December, 1843, he said: “After the most rigid, and, as far as practicable, unbiased examination of the subject, the United States have always contended that their rights appertain to the entire region between forty-two degrees of latitude and fifty-four degrees and forty minutes. * * * In the meantime it is proper to remark that many of our citizens are either already established in the territory, or are on their way thither for the purpose of forming permanent settlements, while others are preparing to follow; and, in view of these facts, I must repeat the recommendations, contained in previous messages for the establishment of military posts at such places along the line of travel as will furnish security and protection to our hardy adventurers, against hostile tribes of Indians, inhabiting those regions. Our laws should also follow them, so modified as the circumstances may seem to require. Under the influence of our free system of government new republics are destined to spring up, at no distant day, on the shores of the Pacific, similar to those existing on this side of the Rocky Mountains, and giving a wider and more extensive spread to the principles of civil and religious liberty.” Still stronger is the language of the message of December, 1844, when the notification of another conference is accompanied by the words: “The establishment of military forts along the route at suitable points upon the extended line of land travel would enable our citizens to emigrate in comparative safety to the fertile regions below the Falls of the Columbia, and make the provision of the existing convention for joint occupation of the territory more available than hitherto, to the latter. * * * Legislative enactment should also be made which should spread the ægis over him of our laws, so as to afford protection to his person and property, when he shall have reached his distant home. In the latter respect the British Government has been much more careful of the interests of such of her people as are to be found in that country, than the United States. Whatever may be the result of the pending negotiations, such measures are necessary. It will afford me the greatest pleasure to witness a happy and favorable termination to the existing negotiations upon terms compatible with the public honor, and the best efforts of the government will continue to be directed to this end.”[15]

But other influences were at work to bring about these changes. Then, as now, the scent of politicians for issues to place in their platforms for winning votes, were keen. And here was a question well fitted to their purpose. The southern wing of the democratic party was anxious to annex Texas in the interests of slavery, and an annexation of Oregon to satisfy the northern wing was a shrewd move to gain votes and place James K. Polk in the presidential chair.[16] It was a bold stroke, and might easily bring on war with England. But now all the fears of entanglement, which had furnished the theme of many an eloquent discourse were thrown aside, and the country entered upon an exciting campaign, in which the rallying cry was “Fifty-four, Forty or Fight.” In spite of angry threats of war on the part of England, Mr. Polk was elected, and the administration was committed to a settlement of the question.

In his inaugural address, Mr. Polk referred to the subject as follows: “It will become my duty to assert and maintain by all constitutional means the right of the United States to that portion of our territory which lies beyond the Rocky Mountains. Our title is ‘clear and unquestionable,’ and already our people are preparing to perfect that title by occupying it with their wives and children. But eighty years ago our population was confined on the west by the ridge of the Alleghanies. Within that period our people, increasing to many millions, have filled the eastern valley of the Mississippi, adventurously ascended the Missouri to its head springs, are already engaged in establishing the blessing of self-government in the valley of which the rivers flow to the Pacific. The world beholds the peaceful triumphs of the industry of our emigrants. To us belongs the duty of protecting them wherever they may be upon our soil. The jurisdiction of our laws and the benefits of our republican institutions should be extended over them in the distant regions which they have selected for their homes. The increasing facilities of intercourse will easily bring the states, of which the formation in that part of our territory cannot long be delayed, within the sphere of our federative Union. In the meantime every obligation imposed by treaty or conventional stipulation should be sacredly respected.” In the message of December, 1845, he said: “Beyond all question the protection of our laws and our jurisdiction, civil and criminal, ought to be immediately extended over our citizens in Oregon. They have had just cause to complain of our long neglect in this particular, and have in consequence been compelled, for their own safety and protection, to establish a provisional government for themselves. Strong in their allegiance and ardent in their attachment to the United States, they have been thus cast upon their own resources. They are anxious that our laws should be extended over them, and I recommend that this be done by congress with as little delay as possible to the full extent to which the British parliament have proceeded in regard to British subjects in that territory. * * * The British proposition of compromise, which would make the Columbia River the line, south of the forty-ninth degree, with a trifling addition of detached territory north of that river, can never for a moment be entertained by the United States.” Considerable space in the message was given to this subject, and recommendations were made for Indian agencies, custom houses, postoffices, and post roads, a surveyor of lands, liberal grants to settlers, the jurisdiction of the United States laws, and the required year’s notice to England of the expiration of the treaty of joint occupancy.

With considerable of the jingo spirit in the house, and with commendable moderation in the senate, a notice was finally prepared which would accomplish the result without giving offense. England, realizing that longer delay might only injure her cause, finally took the initiative and proposed the conference which met in 1846, and settled the boundary by a compromise at the forty-ninth degree of latitude.

The settlement of the boundary line was the result that had been looked for so many years, and it would seem that nothing longer stood in the way of a realization of the hopes of all who favored the extension of the national government as far as the Pacific Ocean. One after another the obstacles had been falling away. The knowledge and facilities of travel which enabled yearly trains of emigrants to cross the plains were eliminating the element of distance. The advance of a sturdy population carrying westward breadth of views and force of character was deciding the national policy, and the settlement of the boundary line removed a multitude of difficulties which filled the whole period of joint occupancy. Why then should there be longer delay? Action was expected by the people, the needs were growing greater every day.

It is easily explained. The very cause which had gained for the nation the territory, now operated to retard the passage of a bill which would make it a territory in government. The question in the last phase of its existence had gained entrance into the party politics of the country, which at that time were identified with the question of slavery and its extension into new territory. Though every barrier was removed, though Dr. Whitman with thirteen others had been murdered by Indians, though an urgent petition was received from the provisional government pleading for action, though two special messengers were sent to Washington to hasten legislation, though the democratic party was pledged to complete the work begun, though the President sent a special and urgent message to congress, though the territory in question was wholly outside of the belt where slavery might reasonably be expected to exist, yet an obstinate desire to maintain the abstract doctrine, and prevent any reflections upon the unholy institution of slavery, was responsible for this delay.

The President in his message of December, 1847, said: “Besides the want of legal authority for continuing their provisional government, it is wholly inadequate to protect them in their rights of person and property, or to secure to them the enjoyment of the privileges of other citizens to which they are entitled under the Constitution of the United States. They should have the right of suffrage, be represented in a territorial legislature by a delegate in congress, and possess all the rights and privileges which citizens of other portions of the United States have hitherto enjoyed, or may now enjoy.”

While the executive department was strongly urging the question, it was receiving attention likewise in congress. After the death of Senator Linn, new advocates of the subject came forward, both in the house and in the senate. Bills and resolutions were before the legislature continually. Memorials came in from bodies of prospective settlers, from city councils, and even from state legislatures. The provisional government sent petitions in behalf of the colonists, which were well worded statements of the situation. Atchison and Hughes, both of Missouri, introduced bills, in which the boundary line at fifty-four degrees, forty minutes, was asserted. The notice of the termination of the treaty of joint occupancy was given which led to the conference of 1846, and the settlement of the boundary. After the treaty, various bills were introduced for the establishment of a territorial government. For two years obstructions and delays prevented action, and the last session under Polk’s administration arrived. There were at this time two bills before congress, both practically framed by Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois. The interest manifested by Mr. Douglas in this matter again illustrates how much the development of civil government in Oregon is connected with other questions. He seems to have been largely interested in the creation of new territories out of the possessions west of the Mississippi. In a conversation before his death he stated to a friend, who has reported it in a treatise, that this interest was caused by a conviction that there was a settled policy in the east to prevent the westward growth of the nation by settling the Indian tribes, as they were gradually being moved upon the public lands west of the Mississippi. Not only would this prevent a large part of that valley from being settled and becoming a part of the nation, but would completely cut off the line of emigration to Oregon, retarding its growth, or destroying it altogether.[17]

An unfortunate amendment touching the question of slavery was made to Mr. Douglas’ bill, and from that time on the main issue was buried out of sight in the discussion of the slavery question. The representatives from the south would not sanction a denial of their right to take their slaves with them into any of the new territories. Various attempts were made to sidetrack the question by joining its destiny with that of California and New Mexico, and various efforts at compromise were made. As the last day of session came, the anxiety was intense. The bill was before the senate for decision. The subject occupied the greater part of the day, and was continued into the night. Many of the leading men took part in the discussion. It was the policy of the opposition to delay action until the expiration of congress. Mr. Benton called attention to the urgent need for immediate action in somewhat exaggerated language: “A few years ago we were ready to fight all the world to get possession; and now we are just as willing to throw her away as we were then to risk everything for her possession. She is left without a government, without laws, while at this moment she is engaged in a war with the Indians. There are twelve or fifteen thousand persons settled there who have claims on our protection. She is three thousand miles from the metropolitan seat of government. And yet, although she has set up a provisional government for herself, and that provisional government has taken on itself the enactment of laws, it is left to the will of every individual to determine for himself whether he will obey those laws or not. She has now reached a point beyond which she can exist no longer?”[18] The opposition spirit is illustrated in the equally exaggerated remarks of John C. Calhoun: “The separation of the north and south is now completed. The south has now a solemn obligation to perform to herself, to the Constitution, to the Union. She is bound to come to a decision not to permit this to go on any further, but to show that, dearly as she prizes the Union, there are questions which she regards as of greater importance. She is bound to fulfill her obligations as she may best understand them. This is not a question of territorial government, but a question involving the Union.” It is interesting to hear Mr. Webster’s views as summed up in the Congressional Globe: “His objection to slavery was irrespective of lines, and points of latitude. He was opposed to it in every shape, and in every qualification. He was against any compromise of the question.” At the close of the day a motion to lay the bill on the table was defeated. The evening was given to discussion, and a motion to adjourn was lost. As the night passed away, the friends of the bill reclined in the ante-rooms ready to vote if an opportunity came, while a few kept guard in the senate chamber. A motion at midnight to adjourn was lost. A senator from Mississippi arose for the purpose of killing time. Until 9 o’clock the following morning, which was Sunday, he gave a rambling history of the world, beginning with the story of the creation. Exhausted, either in strength, material, or obstinacy, he finally sat down. Senator Benton, ever on the alert, immediately moved the passage of the bill. It was carried in a short time, and taken to the President for his signature so that it might become a part of his administration. Thus Oregon became a territory August 14, 1848. It was a very fitting thing that Senator Benton, who had from the first championed the cause, should have the satisfaction of seeing it finished.

The provisions of the bill making Oregon a territory resembled those of other bills of a similar kind in most particulars. The special messengers, J. Quinn Thornton and Stephen L. Meek, had been able to make suggestions which fitted the bill to the peculiar needs of the new territory. It was notable in being the first bill to set aside two townships of land, instead of one, for the purpose of supporting schools. It recognized the machinery of government already in existence, and endorsed the provisions of the ordinance of 1787, which had already been adopted, in regard to slavery. The transition from the provisional government to the territorial was easily made, and Oregon started out on a new era of existence. The first Governor appointed, Gen. Joseph Lane, referring later in congress to the experience of this time said: “When I arrived there, in the winter of 1848, I found the provisional government working beautifully. Peace and plenty blessed the hills and vales, and harmony and quiet, under the benign influence of that government, reigned supreme throughout her borders. I thought it was almost a pity to disturb the existing relations, to put that government down and another up. Yet they came out to meet me, their first Governor, under the laws of the United States. They told me how proud they were to be under the laws of the United States, and how glad they were to welcome me as holding the commission of the general government.”

The period of territorial government was one of growth along all lines. Trouble with the Indians, increase of population, development of industrial life, and the various needs of a growing community, made many drafts upon the new government. It was not long before the largeness of the territory made a division desirable. The people north of the Columbia, separated from those to the south by geographical boundaries, and possessing interests of their own, voted to request the formation of the Washington Territory. This was granted by congress in 1853.

It was not long before forces began to bring about the last step in the development of civil government. There were many things which led to a desire for statehood. The people, in their provisional government, had become accustomed to the complete management of their local affairs, without the supervision of any power above them. While they valued the strength that was derived from connection with the United States, there were many restrictions which troubled them. Then, too, there were other delays incident to ratification of legislation, which was vexatious, particularly to a people who had hitherto enjoyed the quick application of their own laws. The difference between the local and national policy regarding the Indian problem was another influence at work. The people, annoyed by troubles with the Indians, which were breaking out at intervals, were inclined to a policy that would remove the Indians entirely, while the general government sought to pursue a policy that was more conservative. Nor was the local pride, which the rapid progress of California into statehood had aroused, entirely without its effect. A desire was likewise manifested for the advantage that was thought to lie in the larger representation that a state would have in congress, by the addition of two senators. Nor were ambitious politicians wanting to keep alive this belief and to accept the positions created. There were influences pulling toward the creation of a state government, with its senatorial representation, outside of the community most directly interested. There are always interests to be found in the general drift of political affairs that seek re-enforcement through the admission of new states.

So great, however, was the opposition among the people of the territory, that the calling of a constitutional convention was three times submitted to the people before it was sanctioned. There was opposition from the southern part of the territory where a plan was in contemplation for union with Northern California in the formation of a new state; there was opposition from the Whig party which was growing in power and had a vigorous organ to represent it in the _Oregonian_, and there was a feeling of conservatism which felt that things were not yet ripe for statehood, expressed later so well by Matthew P. Deady, the President of the Convention, in his closing address to that body: “I have not regretted the delay that has occurred, by the country refusing to authorize a convention before this time; but on the contrary, think it has been for the best. As to mere numbers and wealth, we have doubtless sufficient of both to maintain a state government; but a people in my opinion, require age and maturity, as well as wealth and numbers to make them competent to carry on a government successfully. As in the growth of the child and the oak so with a people. Thrown together as we have been, upon this coast, it requires time to knit together in one harmonious whole our diversified elements of population.”[19]

The Constitutional Convention met in August of 1857, at Salem, and was in session for four weeks. It consisted of sixty delegates. It was early agreed to leave the question of slavery to be decided by the people themselves, at the same time that they acted upon the constitution, and thus the greatest danger of obstruction and delay was removed. The discussions, as reported in the newspapers of the time, indicate considerable party spirit, but, for the most part, they were harmonious and marked by fairness and deliberation. Little difficulty was experienced in framing the main features of the constitution, providing for the organs of government. A general disposition favorable to economy was manifested throughout. That it sometimes went to extremes would be indicated by the dry humor of the suggestion that the chief executive of the state be requested to board around, in the good old schoolmaster fashion.

Many of the most important subjects passed with little or no discussion, but enough questions to excite differences of opinion arose to occupy the time. One of the earliest discussions was upon the boundary of the state. The sentiment was nearly all in favor of a large state, yet a proposal was made to bound it on the east by the Cascade Mountains, which were held to be the natural boundary. This, it was thought, would leave room for the creation of more states and a larger representation in the United States Senate from the west. The speeches in opposition were interesting. One of the delegates in advocating a large state expressed himself in the following words: “I am in favor of extending the area of this state as far east as we can go, go to the Missouri, if possible. I would like to take in Utah, if we could do them any good.”[20] Another said: “I like a large state; I was born and raised in one—the Empire state. Although the people of Rhode Island and Delaware may be very good people, yet I rejoice to know that I was not born in either. I do not like little states; they may have votes in the senate, but they have no political influence. Mr. Seward, black republican as he is, when he speaks in the name of the great state of New York, speaks with an authority and a weight that a Webster could not command speaking from Rhode Island.” Another discussion pertained to the introduction of a clause prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, a proposal which was finally rejected. Perhaps the longest discussion arose upon a clause rendering the stockholders of a corporation liable for its debts and obligations. It drifted into a consideration of the subject of corporations in general. The opinions expressed ranged all the way from a desire to protect the farmer against “smart gentlemen representing to them glittering schemes” to “that broader question, whether the resources of the country shall be developed or not, whether we shall have the means and facilities for creating a market here, at home, for our surplus products, and whether the capital that shall come into the country shall receive such protection as will cause it to be productive.”

In most particulars the constitution resembled, both in form and substance, those of other states of the Union. There were some distinguishing features, however. The question of slavery had been decided in the negative by vote of the people, and a clause excluding slavery introduced. There was a feeling, quite common throughout the west, against free negroes, and clauses were introduced to keep them out, by a denial of the right of suffrage, of holding real estate, and the maintenance of any suit in the courts. A somewhat similar policy was pursued toward the Chinese. The assembly was given the right to restrain and regulate immigration, although the conditions of suffrage were made easy for the foreigner. The state was saved the experience of a wildcat medium of exchange, by denial of the right to charter any institution to issue such money. The state was prohibited from being a stockholder in a corporation, and such enterprises could only be established under general laws. The danger of extravagance in the development of the state was prevented by denying the right to incur an indebtedness beyond $50,000.

This constitution, upon being submitted to the people, was adopted by a majority, and application was made to congress for admission, under its provisions. The constitution, though conservative in the main, provided well for existing needs, and for a safe and steady growth. There was nothing in it to encourage a hasty development or a speculative and harmful condition of industrial life. There is every reason to appreciate the good judgment of those who framed it and did much to mold the character of the commonwealth, as conservative, as sound in its social and industrial policy, and to be depended on for sober and considerate action. Located, as the State of Oregon is, upon the Pacific Coast, where much of the history of the next century must be made, itself the product of an enlarged national life, it must, of necessity, exercise a greater influence in the national policies of the future than it has in those of the past. Some of the provisions of the constitution have, of course, been made of no effect by the amendments to the National Constitution. No sufficient cause has yet arisen to make imperative its own amendment, but the growth of the state may render necessary some changes in the near future.

When the question came before congress the bill was passed without great delay in the senate and submitted to the house. It became the occasion of discussion, but was finally passed and received the President’s signature February 14, 1859. The principal objection made to its passage was the denial of a requisite population. No census had been taken since 1855, and approximations had to be made. The delegate from the territory, Joseph Lane, gave it as his opinion that there were from ninety thousand to one hundred thousand people, and his authority was finally accepted. An effort was made by some to join it with the Kansas question, and refuse it admission because that state, with a larger population, had been refused. Some opposed it because it prohibited slavery, and some because it prohibited free negroes; some opposed one specific clause of the constitution and some another, while some opposed it on party grounds and would not vote for a measure introduced by the democratic party. The final sentiment, and the one most generally prevailing, was well expressed by the representative from Massachusetts. “There are provisions in her constitution which, were I to vote upon them, could never receive my sanction. But I do not consider myself as responsible, in the vote which I give for her admission, for each and every item in her constitution. I vote for her admission on general principles. Her constitution is republican in form, and slavery is excluded from her territory forever. I regret with sadness that the people have deemed it expedient to adopt the article they have relative to free negroes, but I must regard it as but temporary and inoperative. I find no state west of New York ready to grant full rights and privileges of citizenship to free blacks; therefore it would be inconsistent to reject Oregon for this clause in her constitution. Oregon, at no remote day must be admitted as a state. If we delay her admission, no man can foresee what intervening circumstances may occur to embarrass and embitter future proceedings.”

As we have followed, one after another, the steps in the genesis of political authority and of a commonwealth government in Oregon, we have seen the heroic efforts made by some who have stood out conspicuous as leaders; we have seen the no less heroic efforts of many whose names have received no mention, but whose part in the result has been as great; we have seen the influence of forces which were powerfully working with or against the efforts to achieve the result. We have seen a locality well fitted for the home of man pass out from the condition of a wilderness, through all the stages of development, to that high state of civilization where every individual enjoys the privilege of citizenship in a great nation, as well as all the liberties of local freedom. And although we have been engaged upon a theme of local history, in its unfolding we have beheld at the same time a gradual enlargement of national life, and a steady progress toward greater things.

JAMES ROOD ROBERTSON.

Chapter Footnotes

-----

Footnote 1: