Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Oregon statesman. (Oregon City, O.T. [Or.]) 1851-1866 | View Entire Issue (Sept. 1, 1857)
a' c f i!? ":' . :'.,J' T cvcv VOLUME 7. SALEM, OREGON TERRITORY SEPTEMBER 1,1857. NUMBER 25. Cl)c Occgon Otattoman. i ASAIIBI. Bl'IH, Irprler u K 41 tar. Tnu. Pnbl tahrd weekly, ml dotlam per annam. If awt paid wft&ta an muM s raw doitara per annum, If paid within tlx months 5 thi dollar per annum, IT Mia in aarmncc Re paper wtU be tinned, onlc at the option or the pantauMr. aatu all airearaa are pai. Aaraa trtia. One aVarm-itw9lrm,'i!T.1m'Z,? a if hval iarfnrtiM will ha aaada yearly, wAIf and MrtKna. aano ; rag trcrr uaiROMii . n. TWairat adrartiMOMato stoat bt pre-paid to la- Mottreaeai aadallleg egai aoticaa. if no pre-paid .will bo chara. as BOitMa nsiin. awira, ict,iwk aa la tale Batter are pobiiabed the Lawa.Reeohrtioes .1 " - - -.j-riM we aame naMianea . ..j iwiiM a tba United Mateo, as 4 too Laws and Reaotutioao of the Ttrritorr ot Dragon, by aathorttr. Ttc Ccstit;thsd Ccarestka. Uordat, A. M., Any. 94, l85t. I 'the report of discussion upon the Coot County contested Mat, it was- stated thnt Mr. Packwood supported the claim of Mnrple. lie adrocated the claim of Lock Dart. The Chaff announced the special commit tee upon schedule Grorer, Smith, Boise, McConntck, Bristow, Prim, Chad wick, and Kelsay. Mr. MEIQS, from the committee on In corportions aud Internal Improvement, re ported. Mr. LOO AX said, as no action would be had upon the article until it wat print ed, he moved that the reading be dispensed with. Mr. OLNEY favored the reading. Mr. Q ROVER said tinder the roles the first reading was for information, and the reading could not be dispensed with without two-thirds rote. He desired the informa tion. Mr. LOO AX withdrew the motion. Mr. KELLV from the committee on ex ecutive department,, reported. The article proTides for a two years' term for the seve rai officers connected with this department, and that they shall be eligible not more than fonr years of any term of six. Mr. BBISTOW offered the following res olution: Whereas, the people of this Territory re quire at onr nanus economy in every ue- leriiinereoi - Therefore be it 111 1 1I1 il i'IHwiM I 11 of finance be instructed to submit apT lion for theprohibition of the circulation paper currency in the future State of Ore gon from tber States and Territories and clause providing for the public printing. Mr. SMITH saw no necessity for adout - ing the re.o!ation. The preamble impliedly assumed that tow convention would not adopt aa economical gorernment if the peo- t - I . r rwit . fie nne nut inur 01 11. ine ciaase in relation to bankiag had been already antici pated hr one of the reports which prohibit d it. The only other subject would doubt lew be inclnded in some report. Mr. FARRAR offered the following: Rtstftfii, That a prorisfon be incorjora ted ia the constrtatioa to restrict the legis lature front granting license to vend spir ituous liquors ii the State of Oregon. Mr. WILLIAMS moved its reference to the committee rn legislative department adopted. The article of the constitution relating to the militia was read a second time, and on motion f Mr. OJney, referred to committee or the whole. On motion of Mr. KELLY the conven ioa went into committee of the whole -Mr. Kelly in the ehair. -On motion of Mr. WATTS, the article -on boundry was taken np. Mr. MbiuS moved to amend so as to make the eastern boundary range on or near the summit of the Cascade range, leaving iXiie iiallcs ont or the Mate. Mr. DRTER was opposed to the amend- tnent. lie was opposed to a small State. 'Jit was in favor of taking ia the Territory -east of tae Cascade. If we arc going to nave a state, let ns nave a large one we have -land enough. There were some people at the Dalles ia favor of a new Territory, but he never heard any reason given for it. He was in favor of going to Missouri and taking id j mil it we coma. The question was called for. Mr. SMITH was surprised that Mr. JUeigs should let his motion go to a vote without giving any reasons for it. He could not vote for the amendment, with the light be had at present. 118 was for a large itate. c ought not to lose sight of the fact that a large portion of the surface of our country was covered with mountains. The arable portion of the Willamette valley was nearly all appropriated. If we adopt this boundary what would it avail ns or our children that Congress gave to new States on their admission 500,000 acres of land? Where could we find them? The govern ment had given other States immense quan tities of lands, and would doubtless do the same for Oregon. Bat what would avail us if we had no valuable lands to take? He -saw no good purpose to be promoted by -adopting this motion. He could see no mo tive the people of Wasco County could have ' for desiring it to be done. Toe Dal!es was gate through which the people and mer chandise of both sides of the Cascades must pass through. The only argument he bad fceard, was that small States would give ns more senators that was true, but when would we have them? He regretted that 'Washington Territory had been cut off, and bad we it now, he would be in favor of the Cascades as our eastern boundary. He had pride of State and pride of country; he liked large States and large countries, and he thanked God that he belonged to one a powerful one, that commanded the respect and excited the fear of the other nations of the world. It was true small States had as many votes as large ones, but they had noth ing like as much inflaence. If a constitn tion was to" be submitted with the Cascades as a bouadary, it would not get rotes -enough to make a shirt collar. He could 'not rote to include the portion of Washing ton Territory inclnded in the original report, unless satisfied that it would not be objected to at Washington. He thought it would be. Mr. G ROVER said we had more waste land proportionately and less arable laud than the other States of the Union. If we were to make the Cascades the boundary. we should hare about the same amount of arable land New Jersey; which ranks as one of the small States or the Union, bad. He said it was the desire of the cltltena living in the portion or w aanington included in the boundary, that the Cascades should be the boundary, but If it was not, they prefer red the Itoundary named la the report. Thev could only communicate with the Territory of Washington, through the Territory of Oregon. The consideration of the donation of lands was an important one. The 600, 000 acres was bat a small portion of what we idouiu get. lie was for the boundary reported by the committee. He considered the country east of the Cascades more ratu ble than it was thought to be. If he was a citizen ef Wasco county he would favor that boundary. The Dalle was destined to be come one of the largest inland towns of Or egon. Ail eastern Uregon, and the busi ness thereof, must pass through It to western Oregon. It would be a place Of more political .importance, be Uttered, as a part or Oregon, than at a new Territory. It was not Improbable that at some day not distant the Dalles would be the seat of gor ernment of Oregon. Its position was like ly to be more central to the future State of Oregon, than any other. Mr. AlhlUS said he had expected others than himself would have supported the Cas cades boundary, but it seemed be stood alone in support of it. There were two distinct interests in our government slavery and anti-slavery struggling for the mastery. ?o state with the exception or Massachu setts bad ever been divided. There Maine was struck off to come in as an offset to Mis souri. Thence, when we "fixed our bono daries they would forever remain. That the Cascades should be our eastern boundary was a self evident proposition. It was a maxim or political science that great nat ural boundaries should be observed in the organization of States and governments. The Cascades constituted such a boundary. There were bnt three known traiJs over those mountains and those trails were Im passable for six or eight mouths of the year. It was entirely gratuitous to presume that the interests of the people cast of the Cas cades would be promoted by being attached to Oregon. Tbey understood the question, and were united in the opinion that they would be bettered by separation. He tho't the Territory east of the Cascades would make a sufficiently large State that it would contain much more aroble land than Mr. G rover supposed. The main reason iwed for the reported boundary, was that was tha't ilfcT'vUJThe idea with them Congress and yon season yoBT lfrtHiRfSl with cents, and your logic with dollars, and it would always be popular. But there were times when it became the duty of statesmen to combat the desires anr" opinions of the people. He believed there was land enough vacant west of the Cascades for al such purposes. It had been said that if the Cascades was made the boundary, the people west oi toose mountains would be leu lu a state of vassalage." The people there preferred to be in a state of vassa'age to the United States than to this part of Oregon. Mr. MAKfLb thoueht this question ougnt not to be decided upon sectional coo siderations. He spoke at lenzth. but cave way at ine request oi Mr. uiuey, to a mo tion to adjourn for dinner, St being past the nsuai boar. Adjourned. Afterxoox Sessiox, Aug. 24th. Un motion ot .Mr. Kfc.J.ljl the conven tion resolved itself into committee of the Whole on the business before it Mr. Kel ly in the chair. Mr. G ROVER mored to take up the re consideration of the boundary question adopted. Mr. MARPLE resumed his speech. He was for taking the portion of Washington believed it would be doing the people rcsid ing there a service, lie considered it inex pedient that a strip of Territory should be left between Utah and Oregon. The amendment of Mr. Meigs was lost. Mr. FARRAR mored to amend so as to include one marine league of the Pacific ocean. He said such was the enstom in de scribing all boundaries of States bordering upon the ocean. . Mr. LOVEJOY wanted to know if there was any practical difference between the boundary reported and that proposed by his amendment: Mr. FARRAR replied that there was. He said the United states exercised j oris diction over all crimes committed within that distance of her territory. He wanted that jurisdiction to be given to the State of Oregon in this case, - Mr. SMITH thought Mr. Farrar had misunderstood Mr. Lovejoy. He thought the boundary named by the report carried jurisdiction one marine league beyond land. Mr. I AUK A K doubted whether the boundary reported would giro the State power of police regulation for one league at sea. Mr. OLXEV thought we ought to adopt the amendment of Mr. Farrar, or a similar one. it was sumcicut mat mere was aouot whether or not the reported boundary ex tended jurisdiction one league at sea to cause ns to make it certain in defining our boun daries. Mr. OIney moved to amend by sub stituting the following for the original re- PLt: . . .Beginning in the 1'acinc uccan, at me mouth of the Columbia river, one marine league at sea, and running thence east to and np the middle of the main channel of the said rirer, and of Snake mer to the mouth of the Owyhee river, thence south to the parallel of latitude 42 degrees north ; thence west along said parallel to the Paci fic Ocean one marine league at sea; thence north, parallel with the coast to the place of beginning, including all t arbors bays and inlets, and all islands west of this State and appertaining to the continent, and including jurisdiction of offences committed on the Columbia river and snake river concurrently J with States and Territories of which those I rivers shall form a boundary. in common with this State. - - , Mr. SMITH mored to amend the amend ment by adding the following proviso, at the end of the original article yiz: Provided nothing herein contained shall be so con strued as to prevent, or deny the right of Congress upon the admission of this State into the TJuion so to amend these bounda ries as to make the 46th parallel of . north latitude the north boundary of this State so far as the same is now made the line di riding the Territories of Washington and Oregon. He was inclined to . favor the boundary as reported if there was no doubt about our getting Into the Union with that boundary. Uut the people or Wasulugton Territory and their delegate ir Congress would resist our admission with that bound ary. If they succeeded the constitution, with its restricted boundary would again re quire to be submitted to the people of Ore gon. Thus would our admission be delayed. Mr. MARPLH said that there was no consonance in the amendments of the gen tleman from Linn? , Mr. LOVEJOV said it would be a seri ous detriment to the Walla Walla valley to divide It upon the present line of Oregon and Washington. ' The people who shall In the future inhabit that country would be materially Injured by division. ' It wits true erery people Was tenacious of their Terri tory, and Wftsltiactnn tuia-'it bo : uowilliaa; to relinquih this, liul we have bad thrown off much more in Boise and other valltys. If the people in that Territory asked to be attached to Oregon.tho delegate from Wash ington had no right to say yon belong tons, and we intend to keep you, against your wishes and interests. Mr. SMITH withdrew his motion, that it might be acted on separately. - Mr. WAY MIIII'- was opposed ton propo sition for a conditional State south. The west side of the Willamette might as well reserve the right of erecting herself into an independent State the east side ditto. The country east of the Cascades was only valuable for pastoral purposes, but in that respect it was very valuable. Mr. 1- AKKAR objected to the substitute of Mr. OIney. He thought the original re port as amended covered everything sub stantial the proposed substitute did. The substitute only contained more words. The fewest possible words which expressed the meaning desired were the best. Mr. OIney had given no reason why the committee should adopt this substitute. He must hear some before he supported it. That portion of the amendment giving the Stat? of Ore gon and tin Territory of Washington con current jurisdiction over the waters of the Columbia river, he specially objected to. In that case, a citizen of Oregon committing an offence anywhere on the river would be subject to trial under the criminal Saws of Washington. He might also be subjected to arraignmeut, though not punishment tit both State and Territory. The act of Congress organizing Washington Ttr-Uorr, gave each Territory jurisdiction over its side of the river to the middle and it did not IerleYfeVf'wftU'iction:.,We had .mi. nianiun auiHHjrieu uppuneu t t r Mr. Farrar, and opposed tho atnenduieu r Mr. OIney. Mr. DEADY favored tho substitute of Mr. OIney. The not of Congress creating the Territory of Washington gave to the two Territories concurrent jurisdiction over all offences committed npon the Columbia river just what the amendment of Mr. OIney proposes to do. (Mr. Deady read from the said act of Congress.) The hardship men tioned by Mr. Farrar would never exist in fact. Whichever of the two governments should first take cognizauce of an offence would exhaust the subject. But to divide the jurisdiction upon the line of the middle of the river wouid raise innumerable ques tions of fact questions which could never be settled. Mr. LOGAN opposed the amendment, and supported the report. There was no difference between theai, or about the same difference there is between twecdle-dtim and twccdle-dee. Probably during our lifetime a question would never arise ns to which side of the channel of the river an offence had been committed npon. But concurrent jurisdiction would create embarrassment and conflict. In no instance in the boundary of states by rivers nad concurrent jurisdiction been given Mr. APPLEGATE raised a point of or der that this discussion of the question of jurisdiction was out of order under the sub ject or boundary. The Chair ovcrrnled the point of order. Baying jurisdiction was an incidental question. Mr. IjOUA resumed. Mr. WILLIAMS moved to amend Mr. Olney's amendment by inserting "criminal" before jurisdiction. Mr. OLEl accepted the amendment Mr. APPLEGATE again raised his point or order, and argued it bnelly. Mr. DLAD1 said a point of order could not be decided in committee of the whole. under our rules. V . The Chair thought the discussion was In order. Mr. WIILIAMS moved to amend tho amendment of Mr. OIney by providing for beginning one marine league opposite the mouth of the Columbia river. Mr. OIney ac cepted the amendment. Mr. WILLIAMS proceeded this ques tion of jurisdiction was an important one difficulties bad arisen under it in the States bordering on tho Ohio, and other rivers. He favored concurrent jurisdiction. - Other wise difficult questions of fact would arise. and under them not unfrcqnently criminals would go free.' Concurrent jurisdiction of dif ferent powers was common, and no inconve nience or evil arose from it. States border ing on the Mississippi had concurrcue juris diction. Mr. SM1TII mored that the committee rise carried adjourned. TrusDAT, Ang. 25, 1857. Mr. SMITH presented the petition of Luther P. Woodward and 15 others of Linn county, asking the convention to declare a prohibitory liquor law constitutional. lie mored its reference to the judiciary com mittee. Mr. KELLY suggested that the legisla tive committee would be more appropriate. Mr. SMITH said the question was a legal and judicial one, aud he prefcrcd the refer ence to the judiciary committee. He did not regard the question one of mere legislative expediency. It would be a question whether or not such a law could be enacted wituous entrenching npon the natural rights of man. This was a question for the consideration of judges and lawyers. A report from them would be more satisfactory to the house and to the country. Mr. WILLIAMS thousht the petition should be referred to the legislative commit tee as it aseu tor a graut of Legislative powers. , It was a question of expediency and not constitutional law. If such a law was enacted, the question of Its constitution ality would be a judicial one. -; Bnt If such a law was declared to be constitutional in the constitution, it weald bo so, and no court could declare It oti e. Mr. LOO AN said ns) members might differ with Mr. William la the opinion that If such a law was declared constitutional in the constitution, that It troald be so. Oth ers ought then doubt aelity. He idary com- thought an opinion fr tnittee on tba qnestlc J desirable, and he favored the rtv hat commit tee. . Mr. KELLY thougU subject purely one of legislation, and that It ought to be referred to that committer. If the consti tution declared sues L.woCDttuuuonal, Jo apprehended there wriJ be ao donbt boat the eoartitotlwnali' -tba 4iw. It was a Otfeatiuu of afduG, mad ought to ro the legislative eomnilltee. if after the enactment of such a law, question of its legality should arise, it would be a judicial due. Mr. LOO AN asked if the constitution should declare a prohibitory liquor law con stitutional, would there not still be a ques tion as to the power of the legislature to enact a valid law? Mr. KELLY said if so, it would be a ju dicial nne6tion. Mr. WILLIAMS said the supreme court of the United States had expressly decided that a State -might enact prohibitory laws, if not in conflict with the State constitution, so that there was no question. Mr. LOGAN said that an opinion upon that point was just what was wanted from the judiciary committee, and they preferred to have it in a written report thai in a ver bal statement. Mr. SMITH still thought the question not one of mere expediency he thought it a legal question. Opinions of csurts and veto messages of Governors, had gone be yond questions of expediency, and considered its compatibility with fundamental law, and tho inalienablo rights of man rights given by God, and above the reach of govern ments He did not wish to be understood as taking ground ngainst the prayer of this retition. That was not his present purpose, f it was a mere question of expediency, he was for the law. But though considera tions of that character might be urged, yet, underlying them was a settled belief in the miuds of a large portion of the American people that such laws were in derogation of ine imprescriptible rights or man. lie had hitherto beeu opposed to the enactment of a Maine law aud primarily because he tho't it in violation of the inalienable rights of the citizeu. And he wanted the opinion of the judiciary committee as to whether or nttpse objections were well taken. He ;i Tg ere 1Ie coal not conceive ..... ciuciena prohibitory law could be ,.eu wuuout violation of oar reported Mil v at, uis, - . The motion of Mr. Smith was adopted. Mr. UROYER moved that the questiou of boundary be taken from committee of the whole and referred to the committee on boundary for further consideration by them. The discussion npon amendments had devel oped a necessity for some revision of their report. They were fully competent to the discharge of this duty. Some important questions had beeu raised worthy of the con sidcratiou of both of tho committee and the convention. The older Slates had paid utile attention to tho question of concur rent jurisdiction Upon rivers and islands. and their settlement had been through pro longed and expensive litigation. W e ought to careiuuy consider ami adjust tnese ques tions here. Mr. G rover recited some in teresting instances of conflict aud difficulty in support ot uis position. Mr. IvLLD raised a point of order whether this general discussion of the ques tion was not out of order upon a motion to reier. The Chair decided not. Mr. G ROVER resumed. The constitu tion of Iowa, as framed, did not settle this question of jurisdiction; Congress, aware of the trouble between States upon the sub ject, incorporated a definite provision luto their constitution. If we were to leave it unsettled in onrs, most probably it would be sent bacx to ns amended by vongress. Mr. KEiuoAi was opposed to the mo tion. It could just as well be amended in this body, bend it back to the committeo and we had got the whole thing to go over again, lie thought the report as it came from the committee a pretty fair bill, nnd tho discussion bad not changed his ' opinion.' It wos true the amendment of Mr. Farrar had made explicit what was before under stood. He was in favor of the middle of the river for the line, nnd opposed to con current jurisdiction. That subjected men to trial nnd punishment twice, in both Oregon and Washington. Ho would violate two laws, and couldn't plcnd one in the bar of the other. He differed from Messrs. Wil liams and Dcady on this point. He was op posed to double punishmeut. It was a ri diculous position to place a man in. He would speak aud vote against concurrent ju risdiction. He thought the amendment of Mr. Smith had merit. Mr. MARPLE coiisid"t it a question rolving the resources f ' e time of the couvention. ' He add re. e convention eloquently on this head, w lengthily upon tho general question. Ho read a substitute which be proposed to offer, and discussed its superiority over the original report aud the several amendments. At this stage, the seats of tho members were found cone rally vacant. On motion of Mr. DRxER a call of the House was bad. He said be wanted every member should enjoy this intellectual feast. The clerk called the roll, whereupon, On motion of Mr. SM11H. the further call was dispensed with. Mr. REED moved that Mr. Morple be requested to take a little stick and point out on the map the Uinerence between bis boundaries and those named in the report. Mr. LOGAN asked several explanations of Mr. Marple which were satisfactorily elu cidated by the latter gentlemen. Mr. Mar- pie then proceeded to the consideration of the motion to recommit the report of the boundary committee, and earnestly opposed the motion. Mr. FARRAR read an amendment which be proposed to offer at the proper time. It fixed as the starting point of the northern boundary the north 6hip channel of the Co lumbia river.. The future State of Oregon would enact laws upon the subject of pilots and pilotage, audit should ha$ jurisdiction upon that subject over the north channel Used by steamers of the larger class enter ing the Columbia. The boundary proposed by him also Included the Islands of the Co lumbia in the State of Oregon. To run the line as proposed yesterday would divide many of those islands, and create serious difficulties. . . - . ! Mr. MEIGS moved to amend the motion of Mr. G rover by instructing the committee to report the summit of the Cascades as the eastern boundary He .did this simply to get a vote opdd that .. question, and not to annoy the house. ' Mr. LOGAN moved the previous ques tiou upon the motion of Mr. Meigs. Sus tained. . . , Mr. Mates motion wax loaU-es &avi Mr. FARRAR offered bis substitute, and moved that the committee on boundaries be Instructed to report it. ' Mr. OLXEY said i the cbairma.i of the bouudary committee had been indisposed, and was not yet sufficiently recovered to consider this matter. And he thought it had better be referred to a select committee. He would not make the motion. Mr. SMITH favored the motion of Mr. 0 rover. They bad listened to the discussion and could embody In a second report the j views of the bouse. Mr. APPLEGATE moved a reference to the judiciary committee not seconded. Mr. Dili ER said the bouudary commit tee could embody ia their second report the light of some of the brilliant srneclies. Mr. larrar modified bis motion so as to simply refer his amendment to the committee. Mr. GRO V LK changed his motion so as refer the subject to the committee with in structions to consider all accompanjing. propositions. Adopted and adjourned. ArTER.sooN Sesiiox, 2ith. The article of the constitution relating to judiciary was read the second time. Mr. sMiril, from the committee ou suf frage and elections, reported. Ou motion of Mr. SMll lithe conven tion resolved itself into committee of the thole. Ou motion of Mr. KELLY the commit tee took up the reitort of the military committee. Mr. DRYEIl moved to amend by strik ing out "free" before " white male citizens '' He could not conceive that there could be any white citizens not free. Mr. LOGAN asked what be would do with those white male citizens in the peni tentiary. Mr. DRYER said they would not be citizens that by the commissiou of crime they had forfeited the rights of citizenship. He would do uothiuir with them, but let hciu icmaia iq the ncuilentioxx. nt let. tli 1 run avay, as they bad beeu doing lor the last four or five rears. Mr. KELSAY said that he had framed this section with the view that slavery might' be adopted here. In that case this word free was important. Ho had 6ecn iu Missouri slaves as white as any member up on this floor and others strongly tinged with w hite blood. Strike out this word free, and those slaves would be placed upon a level with freemen in the army. He did not wish to be placed on an equal footing with them If we adopt slavery such slaves would be brought here. Mr. DRYER thought Mr. Kclsav'a ob jection was far-fetched. He did not know what had he seen in the slave States in the way of white slaves he might have seen them as white as he says; he might himself bo an escaped fugitive for anything be knew, liut be did not lunik it was im portant here to proceed upon the possibility that this would be a slave State. God had roado white citizens free, and he did did not want any insinuation that they were not frco. Mr. KELSAY said Mr. Dryer had insin uated that he was a fugitive from a slave State. Insinuated that be was a fugitive from a slave State 1 You never hear fugi tivcs advocating tbo thing, x ou never see thiefs advocating penitentiaries. Mr. Dry er was here advocating the rights of fugi tive slaves, and be miirht bo one ; for ho bad seen iu Missouri and Kentucky slaves whiter than he was. Yes sir. Mr. LEWIS said a few words which could not be heard at the reporter's desk. Mr. OLSE1 thought that both " Tree" and " white" ought to be stricken out. lie thought tho convention ought not to imply that anybody not free and white could become citizens here. As none but whites and tree uersons could becomo citizens, none other could perform military duty under the head of citizens. Mr. MARPLE was opposed to striking out the word free. Mr. KELLY favored the striking ont. He said it might bo doubtful whether ap prentices, aud persons under 18, were free in the sense contemplated by this provision. He would remove all question by striking out. Besides he did not want it to be im plied any not white could bo citizens. Mr. UEAUi supported the motion to strike out both free and white. Another portion of the constitution had defined the word citizen, and he inougut tins repetition improper, rue term citizen snoma do once defined in the constitution,' and but once. Mr. APPLEGATE moved to amend so as to require none nnder 51 to perform mil itary duty. He thought none unentitled to exercise the powers ot tue citizen snoma be required to perform military duty; lost: 30 nays to 18 yeas. Mr. OL.Niii moved to strike out tue word white; carried. , Mr. PACKW OOU moved to amend so as to provide for enrolling all between the ages of 18 and 40 as militia. Mr. Arl'LEiUAiJa movea to sinse out 18, and insert under 40; lost. Mr. OLrvEx mored to amend so as to declare who should constitute the militia. and not that they should be enrolled. That was a requirement for the consideration ot the legislature. - Mr miitiK said u the phraseology was changed at nil, it must be all through. Mr. Olney's motion was tost. Mr. Pack wood's motion was lost. Mr. OLNEY thought the provision ex empting those exempted by laws of the United States, ought to ue stricken out. 1 Mr. LOGAN thought all: the constitu tions made this exception, and conld see no reason why we should not. There must be some good reason for this exception, though ft might not occur to us now. . " Mr. FARRAIl said the reason was ap parent. .Without this exception, the State authorities might endeavor to prevent Uni ted States marshals from enforcing the laws of the United States. ' Mr. OLNEYfsaid he bad made no motion to amend, and thought now that none ought to be ma.de. . , The section vrae adopted. ; . ! Mr. G ROVER moved ' to amend the second section so as to make It grammati cal. . Mr. KELSAY accepted the amendment. The committee were so hurried that be bad not time to pay the necessary attention to the grammar, .Hp wonld give some rraj ecte why men of f csrtain ralijionti pcorss--tons should be required, to bear arms in time of war; they might be excused in peace on paying commutation. In time of war they ought to be made to bear arms or furnish a' substitute. The laws of the country protect them and their religion, and they ought to be made to raise their arm in support of the laws. If country was acquired in war, these conscientious, over religious persons were first to move upon it, aud avail them selves of the benefit of it. Tbey ought also to be made to do a share of the fighting or furnish a substitute. Mr. W ATKINS said if Mr. Kelsay insist ed upon a substitute, 6oine might turu ont those able bodied white citizens not free, be sjoke of. - Mr. KLLLi moved to amend so as to exempt only in times of peace. Mr. G rover accepted the anieudtuent. Mr. LOGAN ejected, to the motion. The difficulty in doing anything here was that we nmended everything till there was nothing left. If it was nngrammatical, let it so go, aud people seeing it iu the States would couclude that we had got op some thing original, and not followed precedent. Mr. REED was against the amendment, for the purpose of discouraging this interm inable practice of ameudiug. Mr. G ROVER'S motion was lost, and the section adopted. A'discussiou sprang up upon the subject of "staff" and military matters generally, iu which Messrs G rover, Fackwood, Logan, Farrar, Marple, Waymire, Moores, Wel kins, Kelly and Kelsay participated. A re port would not be interesting to the public. The several sections were read and adopted. On motion of Mr. LOGAN the article was reported to the bouse. Mr. PACKWOOD moved that the com mittee recommend that this article be not adopted lost. On motion of Mr. KELLY the article relating to the judiciary was taken up, and rend. . On motion of Mr.. WILLIAMS, the committee rose. The amendments to the military article were adopted. Adjourned, 27 to 515. Wednesday, Aug. 26, 1857. Mr.WHITE preseuted a Maine law peti tion of V ui. ltoyal, and 93 Others referred to the judiciary committee. Mr. BRATTAIN, of Lane, presented another referred as above. Mr. PEEBLES, from the committee on education and school lands reported. Mr. MARPLE, from the same comniit the presented a minority report. Read. Mr. WAYMIRE moved to reject the mi nority report lest, yeas 16, nays 43. Mr. BOISE, from the committee on the legislative department reported. Ou motion of Mr. LOVEJOY the bill of rights was referred to the committee of the w hole, and on motion of Mr. Smith the convention went into committee. Ou motion of Mr. KELLY the judiciary article was taken np. Mr. LOGAN moved to amend so ns to constitute municipal courts, courts of gene ral jurisdiction and courts of record. Mr. WILLIAMS said the practice in this country was to incorporate small towns, and ho thought their petty recorder's courts ought not to be ruudo courts of general ju risdiction and record. As well might justi ces courts bo so made. He thought, it ought to be left to the legislature incorpo rating a town to declare the jurisdiction of its courts. Mr. OLNEY objected to the motion. This article contemplated a general system of jurisprudence for tho State. This amend ment would lead to conflict of jurisdiction, and introduce confusion. Mr. LOGAN said the gentlemen were quite touchy concerning amendment of their offspring. If cities were given courts, give them courts that will bo worth something. They needed at Portland a court of record and genera! jurisdiction. Such a court would not interfere with the circuit courts. Mr. FARRAR thought it was as neces sary that municipal courts should keep a record of their proceedings as that the coun ty and circuit courts should. He was op posed to the creation of any court, not com pelled to keep a record of proceedings. Mr. WILLIAMS asked if Mr. Farrar did uot Know tne word " record" was a technical term as a member of the le profession he ought to know that fact. Mu nicipal courts and justices courts did keep a record of their proceedings, yet these were not courts of record, within the technical mcauing of that term. There was no city iu tho Uuion the muuicipal courts of which had general jurisdiction. Pass this amend ment, and the municipal courts of every lit tle incorporated city in the Territory would bavo general jurisdiction, and power to try and sentence criminals to the penitentiary. Did the municipal courts of Portland re quire powers that those of New York, Bos ton, iew Orleans, St. Louis, &c. did not: Mr. FARRAR sn'd the courts of the city of Boston and N York had general jurisdic tion. The constitution of Massachusetts, adopted in 1S53, gave the municipal court of Boston general jurisdiction. Mr. DRYER favored the ' amendment. He hod seen the evils growing out of the present organization of municipal courts. lie wanted a change, and this article, as reported, made no change. In Portland the recorder refuses to carry ont the ordinances of the city council. He wanted something to be done to incite men to elect suitable officers, of these municipal courts. Mr M ARPLE conceived that the arti- ticle gave to the legislature power to give these municipal courts such jurisdiction as they thought feroper, and therefore he should oppose the amendment.- : The motion to amend was lost, and the section adopted. : Mr. MARPLE mored to amend so as that one judge instead of three, should con stitute the supreme courts-lost. I Mr. BOISE moved to amend so as to re quire any judge- of the supreme court to bo a citizen of the United States, and to bavo .been for tbre years a resident of the State. Mr. KELLY, opposed the motion. , He thought some residence should be required, but that 3 years was too long. Many law yers would refuse to go upon the bench on account of low salaries. Others would re fuse on account of the required oath that . the judge "would not accept , any other officeidurlng the term for which he is elect ed aud for ooe rear aflorwaril. Theu where were we to get judges? He thought , one year's residence long enough. . Mr. BOISE thought the amendment a : very necessary one to the people of Oregon. . This was the most important article of the constitution. The judiciary was the only efficient arm of the government, and with that weak or corrupt, re woold have no government, or one which would be a shame -and reproach. If we had not men enough, and should not in the future have men enough competent for judges, who would -take the office, except as a stepping-stone to political preferment, let cs remaio as we are. 11 went for the Oath, in all its strictness. Offer a judge the wealth of the Indies and he would spurn the bribe. But hold out to him the glittering hope of fame, and he could be purchased. He wanted the judge . to reside long enough in Oregon before go ing upon the bench to enable the people of Oregon to Icarn of his character and his qualifications. Mr. OLNEY went for the three years residence he thought that quite short enough. Three years Was as little time a3 would be required to enable a mau to be come acquainted with our laws, institutious aud people. Mr. KELLY moved to amend by substi tuting two years; lost. Mr. MARPLE was opposed to more than one year. The amendment of Mr. Boise was adopt ed. Adjourned. Afteb-voos Sessiox, 26th. Mr. SMITH moved that the convention hold evening sessions. Mr. OLNEY moved to amend by insert ing 8 o'clock iu the morning lost. Mr. DRYER moved 9 o'clock accepted by Mr. Smith, and adopted. Mr. LOVEJOY moved that the military article bo made the order of the day for next Monday. Mr. LOGAN objected thought we had better dispose of it now Mr. DRYER thought we' had better-fin- ish the judiciary article now, and favored the motion of Mr. Lovejoy. " - Mr. OLNEY favored the postponement he thought the executive article ought not to be considered before the military. The article was postponed; ayes 34, nays 22. On motiou of Mr. SMITH, tho conven- . tion resolved itself into committeje of the whole on judiciary clause, Mr. Smith in the chair. Mr. BRISTOW moved to fill blanks. Mr. OLNEY asked that the motion might" be withdrawn, to permit him to make one, Mr. BRISTOW withdrew. Mr. Farrar objected. The motion was lost. Mr. OLNEY moved to amend so as to change the phraseology, , and providing for limiting the term of office. Mr. OIney thought if members of the judiciary com mittee were to amend this report that it had better bo- referred to them. And be mov ed to refer it to them. They should come here with perfect work. , The Chair said the committee of the whole could not refer the report. Mr. DRYER moved that the committee rise, and report this article to the conven tion, with recommendation to refer to the judiciary committee. Mr. WILLIAMS said the article as it stood provided for a perfect system. And the motion of Mr. OIney did not disturb it. Mr. LOGAN said the committee cn ju diciary bad agreed npon a bill providing for four judges, but this was not the bill agreed npon. lie should like to amend by incorporating four judges, but it seemed to be useless for one of bis politics to attempt to do anything here. . If the majority were to ride roughshod over them, they wished to know it. Mr. DRYER addressed the committee, in which he charged upon the majority party unfairness. Mr. G ROVER said he was glad to see this feeling coming out; he thought it was ' like the measles when it broke out, the subject soon got well. He defended the ju diciary committee against charges of bad faith. - Mr. DEADY thought we bad better go through the article, and get the sense of the house respecting it, before it is referred back to the judiciary committee. They could then hare the opinions of this body to guide them. He would like to propose an amend ment that there should not be more than five judges until the State should hare & population of 100,000. It would take about twenty years, he thought, to give ns that population, sad till then he was of the opin ion that we should not have more than five judges. Mr. .Dryers motion was lost. Mr. BOISE was in favor of a long term of judges. It took some time for a man to become a good judge, though he night bo a good lawyer when he went npon the bench. He wanted that the term should be long too, that the incumbent might have an ambition to be a judge, and a good one. If yon want ed wise, impartial and pare judges, elect them for long terms. . .. Mr. KELSAY was opposed to a longer term than 6 years. He was in favor of short terms. A good lawyer was a good judge as soon as be could get npon the bench. He was in favor of rotation in effice, and in favor of giving other and common men a chance. Some men might like to be Uni ted States senators &e., who would be will ing to go on the bench for six years' per baps. But here yon bind him np by oath for twelve years. . , , - ' - Mr. WILLIAMS thought the discussion was not altogether pertinent to the ques tion. This constitution must provide for tns