I Increase of judges as the increase of popula tion, and the wants of the country should demand. The time might come w an tie Bute of Oregon would hare twenty judges under this constitution. Mr. O! net's no tion provided for increase as the necessities of the conntry demanded. , Mr. LOGAN argued that this article was indefinite and uncertain as to the time of the election, and terms of office. He was for fire Judges two south of theOalapooiaand three north. Foor wai the least we should bare. " The snpromtf court was wrongly con stituted composed of three judges, one of whom tried the case in the tourt below, and necessarily took his bias upon the supremo bench, and communicated it to his asso1 elates. . He wonM prefer s separate supreme conrt, but we cannot have that, on account of t'ae expense Thcu ha insisted that we should hare four circuit Judges, who should compose the supreme court the one trying the case below not silting. 'a Mr. OLNEY was satisfied with the bill as reported, lie thought as tha. judges In crease," the terms should Increase, lie should make no rcplj to remarks on thU1 floor for eign to the question uuder consideration. lie knew neither majorities or minorities. Mr. DEADY said that Mr. Olney's amendment left the legislature 'to Ox the term of c!See. He hoped it would not pre- fl sens. . . k . 1 ne terms owui to u oxed in the constitution, and not left to the ops aud doWnaof k jistatton. " Mr. W 1LLIAMS thonght the objection was not well taken. The power was left to the legislature to Increase the judges, and he thought they might well be empowered to preserve tie classes. Mr. WAYMIRE thought we had better first determine how many judges we would hare, and then how long shall bo the terms; and then we can classify them. We were beginning the building at the roof. Mr. Olney's motion was lost. ' Mr. BURCIl moved to amend so as to make the term eight rears, and elect one judge every two years. Mr. DRYER mored to amend by insert ing foar judges instead of three. Mr. Burch accepted the amendment. , Mr. KELLY said the amendment met bis approval. There was a serious objection to having the ja.lge who tried the case sit upon the supreme leech and try the appeal, ne believed foar judges were needed to do the business, now, and be thought the people would go for that number. Mr. DRYER thought four jalgeswcre already Deeded. Oae was required soutli of the canyon, and three this side. Mr. OLNEY preferred four judges to three, and the only reason be hesitated wa3 be feared the people did not expect and were not prepared for four. Ia all the discus sions aud estimates of expenditures under a state government, more than three judges had never been mentioned. Again, if we had four instead of three, it would be more difficult to get for them an adequate conden sation. What would be given three might be divided among the four, and thus we should get poorer judges. He appreciated as much as anybody here, the objection to the trying of appeals on the supreme bench by the judge who tried the case below. Mr: WILLIAMS had practiced before courts constituted as ours are, and under a system where the Funreme court was sepa rate and distinct, lie preferred tl.e latt-.'-. But lawyers and Judges could cot have thir.gs their own way iu this country, lie doubt ed wbeler the pcc,-.!e woiid adopt a consti tution which provided for core than three judges. He bad rather have three jn lxcs, and have them wc'l paid, thau to have four poorly paid; he believed we woui 1 have bet ter courts, ne was dot himself tenacious about the cumber of three.and had put it in in deference to the opinions of others. The legislature might bestow some powers upon county courts, which would relieve us from many "of the difficulties we now labored un der. Mr. SnATTUCK thonght that four or five judges could afford to do the business for a lower salary than three could. lie thought the people wou'i lock more to the salaries than the number of judges. He should support the motion for four, and would for iive if that hid been proposed. Mr. DRYER soil sime mca here talked about salaries as though the Orcgonians were a penurious clock-peddling set of Yan kees, who looked upon a six-pence like a fall moon in Indian summer. They were not so. They ire a liberal, generous peo ple. The people of this country were able aud willing to pay their public servants. If it was necessary to hnve six cr ten judjs, the people would graat tlcai, and pay them a reasonable compeusatca. Some men were riding t'uik hobby of econo.ny ; be bad got tired of the bearing of it. It was a reflection upon the character cf the people of Oregon. It was a slander upon tlein to say that they would reject a constitution because it con tained ail the officers necessary,andpaid theru a good salary. Make a constitution with four judges, and pay the present salary, and he did not believe there were ten men in his district wbo would rote against it oa that account. He would not vote to g into car picayune system of saving. Those who wanted to ride that hobby could jump on. Mr. Deady thought we would have 100,000 inhabitants ia twenty years. He thought we should have 100,000 in two years: The motion of Mr. Burch to elect foar judges was carried. It was divided, aud the eight years term lost. Mr. PACKWOOD moved to amend by striking out the provision empowering tb legislature to iucrease the juices lot. Mr. APPLEGATE moved that toe com mittee rise and report tl.e bill to the house, with certain instructions tost. Mr. DEADY moved to amend so that cntil the State had 100,000 white iababi tants, it should not have more than fire judges, nor more than seven at any time- He was for a loug term forjudges; be tho't it maue oeuer judges ana better people. He was for electing judges for a long term, and for giving them good fair salaries. . If the people are not prepared for such a sys tem, we bad better remain as we are. He was in favor of four judges also to start with. He had said be ti.onrht we should have 100,000 people in Oregon in 20 years, This calculation was made upon the rule that the population of the United States doubled every 20 years. He did not think we bad more than 50,000 people now. Mr. OLNEY was opposed to restricting the legislature as to the number of judges Mr. WILLIAMS thought we bad better commence with three judge?, and let the leg isiatare increase them u tfcey thought ne cessary. Three was sufficient to do the bu siness bow, and be believed it enough to start with. It was his opinion that if you put the word five ia the commotion, the people would see that, and reject the -constitution. He thonght it had better be left without limit, and let the legislature judge . of. the necessity. - Jd. DEADJCdyl not offer his amendment considering whether-the people' would reject or adopt it. He offered it because he thot it right. He presumed that the people would vote for what was right and necessary, and he would uot vote for what he did not consider jut t-j right, npoa the assumption that the Kpla would not do what was right and ... Mr. BOISE waa la favor of t " J IU was unwilling to leave the let, t ,-re to inacrease the Judges Indefinitely. It waa the object cf a constitution to restrain the legislature, with the other departments of government. Certainly not more than five judge could be needed until our population was luu.uuii. lie was lor tue limit, aud we then knew what we were votinir for. Mr. FAR R All moved to amend so that whenever three-fourths of the votes of any county should desire to bo constituted a Ju dicial tl'sfriet, the said county should be so organized, aud the people thereof authorized to elect a judge' lost. ' Mr. Deady'a motion waa adopted. Mr. DRlSTOW moved that the commit tee Tise, carried and adjourned. Evsxixa Session, SGth. Mr. KELLY offered a resolution declar ing that the term for judges: should be six years. He offered thia to obtain the sense of the house. He was not strenuous himself as to the length of term. He was opposed to limiting the number of Judges; he thought we might leave that to the legislature. Mr. DRYER said we bad agreed upon four judges If they were elected for six years, they could not bs classified. We should have to make ths term eight years, and then let one' go out each two years. He was in favor of short terms if there was any war to classify them. Mr. KELLY explained that tho classifi cation would hare to be irregular. Mr. ORQYER was glad that this propo sition had been introduced. Upon it the con vention could declare its opinion respecting the term of judges disconnected from all oth er questions, lie saw no difficulty in class ing them, though we had four, and six years should be declared the term. We could not always have just half the number of judges there were years in the term even if we should so start with them. This was not a permanent arrangement. In a few years we might have five judges. Mr. SHORT moved to amend so as to require the judges to be elected in the sev eral districts, aud to make tho term four years. Mr. LOGAN was in favor of the amend ment. Mr. WAYMIRE said the plan of the amendment would leave tic districts one year without judge. He was opposed to it. Mr. MOOltES was opposed to the ann la ment. It would require annual election?, aiui he was in favor of biennial. Mr. DRYER favored the amendment, for he was iu favor of short terras. Why were gentlemen talking about biennial elections here? The convention had decided nothing of the kind. It might be when they come in here with their bienuial election scheme, they would find it defeated. Were the gen tlemen telling parly tales out of school? He was in favor of yearly elections, and yearly sessions or the legislature, ns we have hail heretofore. How do gentleman over there know we are to have biennial elections? Has there been a party caucus? Mr. W ATKINS favored a long term, and a shoit term would be a serious objec tion to the constitution with him. He could not go for'les- than eight years, lie want ed our supreme judges should bo mcu of stability, talent, learning and honesty, and tro could do, have t! with, cWt turn, find the Fa'a.-is the judges would get. With a term shorter than six years he shoe'd be inclined to vote Dgninst the constitution. Mr. SHATTUCK was ia favcr of annual editions, and thought the iuUicsts of t: Strt demanded it. It seemed from what Mr. Waymire said that the party had de cided for biennial elections. He was for a long term because he wauted our jadges should be men of judicial experience, aud they could not become such in four years. He went for six years more rather than less. Mr. BOISE was for a long term, and thoagH we ought to consider it dispnssi jn stely; it was an important question. We ought to fix these terms so long as to re move the judges from politics, and from ter.-pt at ton to the making of the jndgship steppmg-stone to political promotion to prostitute the erT.ioe to political ends. It was the great bane of impartiality and jus tice upon the bench. It had been the study of governments to guard against this evil. Elect your judges for short terms, and you would find them electioneering for the next term, upon the bench, or perhaps courting some other dice. Elect them for long terms, bind them by oath not to accept other olUce, and yon direct their ambition in toe line of tae judiciary, and have some guar inty of pure fountains of justice. States which had adopted short terms were ready to go back to the oid system. He was m favor of electing jadges, and for at least an eight years' term. Mr. MARPLE elucidated the subject at considerable length. He would vote for a loop or sbort term, but thought there was a great principle underlying this. He tho't that cuglit to be settled first. The speaker was much confused and embarrassed by calls to order. Mr. KELSAY would go for six years, but preferred less to more. Ho thought short term judges no more subject to politi cal influences than long term ones. In Mis souri they bad better courts under fliort terms than they liad under long ones. A hey now had justice dispensed ia that State in fine crdcr. Let us elect them for short terms, and if they were good ones we could elect them again. It was au stuff that an honest man could be bribed on the bench. Mr. LOGA moved to amend so as to elect one srnrem1? judge, nnd forbid the in crease of the jadges until we have 100,000 inhabitants decided out of order. Mr. SMITH was for a long term. The government of the United States Wiis a new one, was an experiment, though a very suc cessful one so far. ' The States had of late years been experimenting with their judges, and the new States had adopted very short terms. It was not probable that they would ever go back to the appointive system, but he thought some of them would return to longer terms. The frequent return of pow' er to the dcodIo was a good rule applied to the executive and legislative departments of government. It bad been said that a good lawyer made a srood judge. ' That was not always so. There were mauy men of dis tiuguished fame a3 practitioners who had not the reqnisits qualifications of the judg Xot every lawyer would make a good judg ne did not believe there were a dozen law yers in Oregon fit to be judges. He thought be had got the nnmber full high. Give the jutLje such a term as shall be an inducement for him to study bis profession, and excite his ambition in the line of the bench. Some thing bad been Paid here about biennial ses- bIie-s and the parly. It was generally ex petted that we were to have , biennial elec tions. - - i Mr. FARRAR mored the previous ques tion carried. The question beicg oo the amendment of Mr. Short, it was lost: yeas 11. nays 42 Mr. LOO AN mored to strike out six years ami insert four lost, yeas 14. nays 88 Ths rote recurring upon Mr. Kelly's reso lution, it was carried; ayes 8V, nays 23. Adjourned. ; . t . Thursdat, a. m., Aug. 21, 1857. ' Mr. SMITH offered a resolution ndmll timr within the bar Mr. Walton, of Cali fornia, a reporter for ths press of that State -adopted. Mr. LOO AN nffered a resolution In favor of the abolition of the -grand jury; with drawn. Mr. PRIM moved that one judge should constitute the supreme Court, to be inde pendent of tt' eircuit court, and be increas ed to three Judges when we bad a popula tion of 100,000 lost, nays 88. ayes 18. J Mr. SMITH gave notice of a resolution declaring that Jhe ayes and nays should not be called for except upon the Anal passage or articles, or when- demanded by 10 mem bers, lie made this motion to gain time. and cut off the factious call for ares and nays. . .. Mr. DRIER opposed the resolution it was unusual, and there was a disposition on the part of the majority to shirk responsi bility; he would not rote for a resolution which would disgrace the convention. On motion the article on executive and administrative di-partments were referred to the committee of the. whole. - The trsnrentiou wfot Into eoraraittee of the whole, Mr. Lovejoy in the chair. Air. SMITH moved - to take np the exec utive department lost. Mr. O ROVER mored to take np the bill of rights lost. Mr. LOG A moved to take up the Judl- cinry nrueic carricn. --. 1 - t- M Air. H HO VKR thought this article had better bo rP'Vrred to the Judiciary committee -tiiey could facilitate bustuess by a re-re port. . Mr. OI.NEl thought we bad better first go over it in convention, so that the com mittee would bare the sense of the house oii it ent're. Mr. G HOVER said we had spent nearly two d.tys uud one nibt upon oue section, without accomplishing anything, and he thought that article might bo separated so as to be liettcr understood by this body v itniiiawn by request. Mr. Kkhu moved to strike ont the words tlit right and jnstice may be done accord ing to law." It struck him that was bun- Ct'inbe. Mr. OLNT.Y did not think the words ma rial, but they were not buncombe. Mr. DEADY objected to striking: out tie thought ' the words had better stand. though they tiid partake a little of buncombe. Mr. Wv.vaj said be moved to strike out because it was unnecessary he went for striking out everything uot necessary, both in writing and speaking. The motion to strike out was lost. Mr. FARRAR moved to strike out the provision empowering the judzes to fix spe cial terms of court anil give that power to the legislature. He thought this provision was Included for the convenience of the judge", nnd not the people. Air. ILLIAMS thought it was for the convenience of the people, and not the judg es. e bad such a law upon our statute lcok now, and lie believed it had worked satisfactorily to tho people. He himself had held two special terms in Linn connty for niariW trial, at a. sarins nf thouf nnds Of JoTTai ixr ttrat xraunty. I oclaam of mat kind wouid frequently arise. n.r. DL.A 1) l moved to restrict the special terms to the transaction of criminal and chancery business. Mr. Farrar accepted the amendment. An animated, and in part, angry discas- sion, sprung up upon the question of propos ed amendments of this article, participated in by Messrs. larrnr, Williams, Logan, Dcady. Reed, Smith. Dryer. Woymire, fStiattuck and Marple, during which it was charged or intimated that there had been party caucussing cn the part or the majori ty of the convention, and that the majority were disposed to gag, end cram meas ures down the throats" of the minority. Mr. SMI 111 replied saying that there had been no caucuses held by the majority that there had been no desire or attempt to cram anything down anybody's throat, and the intimations that there bad been were as false as hell. Nobody bad attempt ed to rally party upon this floor, but mem bers of the opposition and they lushed them selves iuto a roge, if tho mojority did not follow. Factiou bad becau to triumph here frivolous and captions amendments, not exjiected to carry had been proposed by -tnticnicn in the opposition merely to con sume time, and confuse and confound the convention, and tho yeas and nays demand ed upon them, standing frequently 40 or 45 to 10 or 15. This whole week had been consumed by such factious proceedings Aud the mnjoiity had patiently borne and per mitted this. Did that evince a desire to gagn men or "cram measures don n their throats?" The second week of the session was drawing to a close, and we had accomplished nothing we had passed over one report, laid aside another, aud got to the third section of nnotlier, and weuad nine reports before us. It was time this st.ite of things was ended. He wanted to get through and go home. The motion to amend was lost 22 yeas, to 27 nays. . . before the question was taken Mr. Logan for himself disclaimed any factiousness, but he was opposed to this judiciary article, and should oppose it. It was a but or abomi' nations, a running sore designed to suck out the substance of the people, and if it was adopted o: d the constitution accepted by the people, there would soon , go up a call from tLcni for a new convention to give tueni a new constitution. Some slight amendments were made and the house adjourned. Afterxoox Session, 2?tb. Mr. SMITH offered a resolution declar ing that the convention regarded with frfvor the system of courts, including county courts, reported by the judiciary committee. He desired to obtain the sense of the conven tion upon the general system before we proceeded further. He apprehended there were gentlemen on the floor who were op posed to the system, and would not ultimate ly support it. Svill they were seeking to amend it as though they intended to support the system. Why exhaust time, this way? Let us first ascertain what general system the convention will have, . and then set to work to perfect it. He was not strenuous as to what system was taken, thoagh he preferred the one reported by the committee. Mr. MARPLE thought the objection to the proposed system lay against the manner in wuich the supreme court waa constituted. He entered into a lengthy and searching examirrtion of the tystem. but was frc quent.j interrupted by vexations calls to order. . Jv.. Mr. FARRAR mored to insert the word not. before approved, in the resolution. He maintained that- it was the intent of Mr. Smith's resolution to endorse the report of the Judiciary committee In all its detain. If that was the case, this conrentlon could not consistently adopt the resolution. Mr. SMITH 'said the resolution was a short oue, and easy of understanding. It simply corered the material feature of the report and the general system of courts it comprised; was it possible that any one could understand that resolution to cover the re port iu all of its details when the language or the resolution Was material features' He would accept tba amendment of, Mr. Farrar., He did not care whether the reso lution declared for or against the report Either way would accomplish his object that of determining the sense of the house. Mr. FARRAR maintained that the con rentlon had already materially changed the system, in adoDtina four Instead of three Judges of the sv-reme conrt. The system or county courts aa on untried one. The people had not asked and did not desire any change In the present system of administra tion of onr county affairs. Why then change It? . jv; !:. Mr. ELKI' to sobstitut: a re solution deck "ass of tho conren tlon to be fa. -be system of county courts reported J Judiciary committee. Mr. SMITH ured the amendment. Mr. DRYER opposed the county courts thought they re one man too much power. He was opposed to oue-korse court. He preferred the present system to the proposed ffLLet us hare tt ,vt ices or the peace to sirUtlt this conatydf e. This waa a whitewashing resolution. Mr. EL&.1&S said we had been here ten days, at an expense of $2,000 to the people, ami what bad we accomplished? nothing, absolutely nothings A little resolution could not be introduced here without con suming three or four hours, lie was dis couraged, and almost despaired of the con vention's arriving at any result. Under the course we were pursuing now, we never could form a constitution, aud we had bet ter adjourn and go home, if no amendment was to take place. Ho was in favor of the county courts thought they would be a great saving to the people. Mr. llbUU moved the previous question sustained The resolution was lost yeas 27, nays 80. The conT.t'on went into committee of the whole, Mr. Kiy in the chair. On rp.oiitu of Mr. DEADY. the house look np ths judiciary report. Mr. OLA fc.1 niovf d to amend by provid ing that tro conmiU.iioner?, to be elected in districts, siiould tit with the county judge, and with Min composo tue county court. Mr. WILLIAMS thonght the county courts tie best feature of the report of the judiciary committee. Much bod been said about one-horse courts. His theory of gov ernment was to give one man the power, and make him directly and immediately respon sible to the people. How was it now, un der our present system of county affairs? When the toon ry of the county was misap propriated or lavishly expended, who was responsible for it? . Can you trace responsi bility anywhere? No. You might run to one and another, but you could never direct responsibility anywhere. Thousands of dollars had been lost to counties in this way. Commissioners conld not leave their business could not afford to to bestow that time -upon tho affairs of tho county which the interests of the oeonlo rc-rtiu Give ns one competent man U dmiuister the affairs or the county. uowj couhk.-..--u would enable him to devote bis time to ki ilntos. and w oald hsvo a much more satisfactory and economical administration of county affairs. It would always be open also lor tue transaction of the people's business. These county courts would be a chenper sys tem than the present one, a self sustaiuing system. Tuy to this judge what you now pay to county commusiooers, judges or probate and auditors, and you would have a round salary: He was opposed to the amendment of Mr. Olney. It but compli cated and rendered more expensive the coun ty business. Ha wanted a simple system. Lv- ry State which bad adopted this system of county courts, bad adhered to It and found it to work most satisfactory. Minor, civil and criminal suits could be much mere promptly and cheaply tried than now when rorced iuto the district court. He believed the people of Oregon would to-day favor the county court. Mr. OLDS thoujrht the provision gave one man too much power. He was satisfi ed that many years would not pass uciore we Bhould have altogether a different system from what wo now have. He was in favor of township organisations. He was in tavor of giving the people tue power, anu holding them respousible, and not put all tho businesses ic one man's hands aud hold him responsible. He thought these connty courts would be more expensive than the present svstem. Mr. MARPLE moved to amend by ap pointing two justices of the peace to sit with the county indge. Mr. REED was in favor of the connty court, but would not abolish tho commis sioners court. He had not said anything about bis constituents yet, and was conside rably behind most other , members in this particular. - He would say ho had the dis tinguished honor to represent a portion of the people of Jackson county, O. T. His constitneuts were a splendid set and the most, amicable relations existed between them and their delegate. Their relntious were somewhat like those of Darnel's in the lion's den, as renreoeutcd iu the picture. Some one who looked at the picture said it appeared as though Daniel didu't care a d m about the lions, and th lions didn't care a d m about Daniel. Ho apprehend ed his constituents Vera not watching him, but were euioyiug themselves ns usual, and leaving him he TQ. suffer iu the flesh in this convention. iT Mr. DRYI ught that the revival of this subject t .a rejection by tue con vention was IA Insult to this body. But the party was still attempting to cram it down our throats. Mr. KELSAY said there had been much said about party here. He regretted to hear it. There had been no caucus he had heard of since the one that nominated the officers of this bodr. Mr. Dryer cried party, like the boy scared at a ghost. He was against tho county court, and thought the commissioners court better. Mr. W ATKINS -moved that the com mittce rise carried. Mr. OLNEY offered a resolution to meet at 8 o'clock in the morning and 2 o clock p. it., and disnenso with the night session. Mr. LOVEJOY mored to lay on the table lost. v Mr. DRYER mored a call of the house, ' Mr. KELLY moved the call be dispensed with carried. , The resolution was adopted. Adjourned, Friday, a. m., August ?8, 1857. Mr. SMITH mored the adoption of his resolution, offered yesterday, in relation to colling the yca3 cod nays. Mr. DRYER said that if this resolution passed tea men would combine together and call the yeas and nays oftener than they would be called without it. , It was an on heard of proposition. ? ' : Mr. SMITH said most people had heard of such a rule. In most legislative bodies such a rule obtained, and In Congress it re quired one-fifth of the nembers to call the yeas and nays. We hear much about the oppression of the minority here; they are whining about it continually. I need not tell you there Is a minority on this floor they bare told you this often enough. Sir, there Is a minority, here, and by their drill they have thus far controlled this conven tion. They have roted and acted together all the time, and by their factious calls for yeas and nays, hare confused the conven tion, and thus bare to this day controlled this body, and consumed the time without accomplishing anything else. How many this minority was composed of, be would not say Mr. Dryer . said it comprised thirteen. There was such a connecting link between them aud a portion of so call ed democrats that it was hard to tell the nnmber. The only .party that had caucus ed, was this very opposition. They caucus ed all the time, and tired all the time at one mark, while they thought to intimidate dem ocrats by. their whang-whanging about c-a-u-c-u-s. They would endeavor to load this constitutiou with odious features, and then go home home and say to the people, we didn't make this constitution; we are not responsible; we were in the minority, yon know, and we couldn't do anything; the rascally locofocos were In the majority, and it (s their constitution. It was bis opinion that the Democratic members had better bare a caucus, and understand what we are agreed upon and put down this factious spir it, and transact the business we have come here for. Tho opposition caucussed. He was not to be frightened by this barking about rods and caucuses, lie had beard it for three years. Mr. Dryer had threat ened the convention with a combination of leu men to call the yeas and nays, and ob struct the business if this resolution was passed. Was not this faction was here uo rod? Mr. DRYER replied with the custom ary charges agaiust the democratic party. Mr. KELLY should support the resolu tion, not because he wished to cut off any minority, but because he thought it a good rule, and one calculated to save time. It would oppress no niiuority, and be did not wiidi it should. Mr. FARRAR should oppose tho reso lution. He was in favor of incorporating a clause into this constitution requiring the yeas aud nays npou the final passage of every measure in the legislature. Mr. SMITH said this resolution provided for that very thing. Mr. OLD3 was opposed to the resolution. He knew nothing about party here. Mr. LOGAN said he bad not called for the yeas aud nays to delay business. He had not opposed every report that had come into this house he Lad supported the mili tary report just came in, because be tbouzb perfect iu all its parts. Dot he had opposed tho judiciary report, and in tended to to the end. He maintained that the minority had not mauifesA - factiousne;, or f'r . V ... yit i thought every man on this j.ii must by this time be satisfied of the necessity of this rule. We had beeu in ses sion nearly two weeks, and accomplished nothing. It was time we went to wors. He would wrong no minority, but ne would earn the time of the convention, and pre vent the call of yeas and nays npou frivolous aud trifling questions. Mr. W ATKINS was surprised, mat toe author of ths viva voce law should be in favor of avoiding the record. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Olds had said tie knew no party. Was it by accident that no re ceived every rote of the opposition for Pres ident of this body? Was it by accidtnt that be roted with the opposition whenever any thing that looked like party came up? Ig- noraut of party, indeed. Uefore the oppo sition talked more of party, they suooiu purge themselves of their hate of the dem ocratic party, and its manifestation on tuts floor. Resolution adopted; yeas 35, nays 20. Mr. REED gave notice of a motion to amend the rules so that no member could speak more than onco upon auy one ques- Uou without leave of the bouse, aua not more than twenty minutes. Mr. FAURAR gave not.co or a motion to amend so as to limit to fifteen minutes. Mc APrLEGATE asked leave of ab sence for the session, ne did not tbiuk the convention had power to detain him, but unless leave of absence was granted, be would be presumed to be iu attendance, and entitled to pay. He wauted to cut this off. He did not think he could be of any serrico iu the convention. "I have no doubt there is honesty and talent enough in this bodr to frame a constitution that will be approved by the people of Oregon without mv assistance. The majority, by the vote just taken, as well as the general character of tr.o proceedinirs ncre, nave aeraonsiraiea tueir ability to ao so, wuuout consulting members they are pleased to term the oppo sition." Mr. OLNEY opposed granting leave, on account of the reasons for asking it. Oth erwise he should have cheerfully voted for it. Mr. KELSAY should oppose it. lie thought Mr. Applcgate was an honest, and good working member, though he could not make speeches. We all sometimes got dis gusted her? but that was no reason why we should leave. ' Mr. MARPLE thought leave should be s-rauted if the reasons were sufficient, aud refused if ther were not. Mr. DRYER wanted to know whether Mr. Kelsav was distrusted with himself or the couveution? He should rote for leave. Mr. W ATKINS should rote for leave Mr.REED considered it a serious question. We were eutii'ed to life, liberty and pursuit of baoiness. Aud if a man wanted to go free ho ought not to bo mode to suffer here. Wheu he left college he burnt bis books and trot drunk because he thought he was free. He hod lived the several years since to little nnruose if he could be compelled to stand up to this rack against his will. Mr. SMITH should vote against leave, but would never rote to send the Scrgeant-at-Arras after any member who wished to leave. Mr. Applegate beat a good man and bad he been elected he thought he would have remained here attending to his constit nents business. Mr. A. could leave ' wheu he chose, and he would not undertake to say the act would not meet the favor of a majority of his county. That was a question for him to decide. . Mr. FARRAR. should oppose granting leave of absence unless there was some good reason assigned for it. He did not distinct ly understand Mr. Appleerat?, but he uot hear any good reason assigned. Mr. OLNEY thought the reason assign ed was a contempt of this body. It was, in effect, saying that it had behared badly, that it was not a fit place for him. Leare was refused, ayes 6, nays 46. Mr. LOGAN irava notice of a motion to change rules so as to require names of per sona ueuiauuiug yeas and nays to be entered upon the Journal. : . . i The article on schools and school lands Was referred to the committee of the whole. The conrention went into committee of the whole, Mr. G rover in the chair, 'and took np the judiciary article. t Mr. JJEADx preferred to amend so that the legislature may provide for two com missioners to sit with the county jndge when doing county business, or for a separate board of comity commissioners, lie thought the time would .come when the various counties of this Territory when they became popolous would reqnire a board or com missioners to transact the county business, iu addition to a county judge. Dut for the present be thonght the small connties could conduct their affairs more cheaply r without a board of commissioners. He would give the legislature discretion in the prem'ies; - Mr. WAY Ml UK said be thought t?i present administration of county affairs was too expensive. We bad too many. offi cers. . ue tuougui a system nngiu ue adopt ed, with fewer officers, which would work better and cheaper being a great saving of expense to the couuties. Iu 1850, when the old system was adopted be was in favor of a probate court, but it was then thought that the probate business must be done by tbe three county commissioners, bwee, a probate court has been created. Who com plained of that one-horse power? , He had heard much of one horse power bat it was all gammon. lie believed the county conrt system would savor to tbe count of Polk $1000 a year aud to the larger counties more. Some of the lawyers were opposed to it, because rases would be tried aud set tled by it wheu they were not on the cir cuit, and tbey would lose the fees they would get in the circuit court if there were no county courts. That was why they op- poseu it. lie was decidedly in lavor or tbe system reported by tbe judiciary commit tee. Mr. CUADWICK thousht a cbamre bad for several years been desired iu the manner ol doing county business. It bad become cumbersome and expensive. , In many instances the coituty auditor transact ed the business of the couiurssioners, while tne counties were taxed to pay the commis sioners, lie believed the system reported, or a similar one, would be a great improve ment on tbe present one. He favored the proposition of Mr. Deady, resting a discre tionary power in the legislature to create boardi of commissioners. Mr. KELLY approved the general system reported, but differed in respect to some of its details, ne was in favor of a county court; they might call it a one-horse court if they chose, it made no difference with him. The probate aud district courts were one-horse courts just as much as this would be. He would confer upon the county judges criminal aud probate jurisdiction and such other as the legislature should confer uioa them. Mr. DRYER should support the amend ment of Mr. Olney, offered yesterday. because he thltJJ.f arneu(. 4auJTtr calling this a .ouc-hor.-o court, he referred to its having the powers of county commissioners, lie waaiu favor or a county judge to do probate business, with powers of justice of the peace, and with two jus tices, greater jurisdiction, and the powers of county commissioners. Mr. BOISE, was in favor of a county judge to transact tbe county business; be lieved tbe business would be done mre ac curately, cheaply and satisfactorily than now. Much of the county business consist ed of examination of claims simply the duties of an auditor, lie believed ouo com petent man could audit accounts more quick ly and better thau three. Oue man would hare the sole responsibility, whereas now it was divided among three, and there was really none at all. lie was iu favor of simply creating the county court, and leaving the qucstiou of its jurisdiction and powers to the legislature. Mr. LOGAN was in favor of tho county court, and with soue slight amendments would support the motion of Mr. Olney. lie objected to bestowiug county commis sioners powers solely uims :t. lie did uot wish to take the judgment of oue man iu county matters when there-was bo appeal. lie preferred to unite with linn justices or commissioners, it cad been said by Mr. Waymire that the lawyers opposed this court. The more inferior the court, the better for the lawyer. The facilities were better for the people to put their foot into law. and when once in they would keep it there, and carry it np as long as there was a court to carry it to. Thus this court would be better for tbe lawyers. They might not be in at the first table, but they would come in before it was through with. Mr. ELKINS did not know that this system of county courts would work well in this country but he thought it would. He bad long thought a court between the justices and circuit court necessary. He would create the court and leave the rest to the legislature. Mr. WA11S thought the convention was generally in favor of a county court, and tho difference was upon the question of con ferring commissioners powers of it. Let us first establish the court, as we ore all agreed upon that, and then let us rote upon tbe other question. In that way only conld we get 00 here. We coupled too many things together. Mr. FAKRAR was opposed to the mo tion of Mr. Olney, and hoped it would be voted down. The couvention yesterday de clared itself opposed to the system. He was in favor of something of the kind pro posed by Mr. Dcady. , He was iu favor of a county court, but would couple with it two commissioners in the transaction of county business, and desired to see this requirement incorporated into the constitution. Mr. W ATKINS was in favor of a conn ty judge with such criminal and civil juris diction as the legislature should give it. He had no objection to declaring that tl. county judge should be a member of the board of county commissioners. He would uot go further thau that. ' . Mr. SHATTUCK was opposed to giving tbe county court commissioners powers iu the constitution. He thought in five years we should nave township organizations. Mr. KELSAY preferred the system pro posed by Mr Deady, and should rote against the motion of Mr. Olney, that it might come up. . . The motion was lost. . Mr. DEADY moved to substitute an amendment providing for a county court, with civil jurisdiction to the extent of $500.. ct iminai jurisdiction orer all offences except thoso puuiahable by death or imprisonment in the penitentary, and power to issue writs of attachment ne exeat and habeas corpns. And providing for tbe creation of a board of county commissioners, or two commis sioners with the the county judge to do connty business, if ths legislature thought fit. Adopted. : Convention rose adjourned. Aftkrwoost Ses3iow, 28th. Mr. DEADY moved to fix the number of grand jurors at 15. Mr. Kelly proposed 7; Mr. Boise 12; Mr. Lovejoy 9; Mr. Kin ney 18; tbe propositions were all rejected. Mr j LOGAN moved to substitute exam inations before a magistrate for presentment by grand jury-r-striking out the grand jury provision. .J Mr. OLNEY was in faror of five grand jurors. He thought that would be a more convenient end infinitely cheaper system, than that proposed by Mr. Logan's amend ment. People wonjd shrink from complain ing of criminals before a magistrate, and In hundred, of instances crime would go ua- . punished. It ought to be tbe office of some tribunal to complain of all offences coming to their kiiowltilp. - Mr. WAYMIRii objected to the grand jury it was also en expensive mode of pre sentment, and the people were anxious to get rid of it. , Mr. LOO AN Was not opposed to grand jurors solely on the' ground of expense, though it was en expensive system. The rea son which called into being the institution of a grand jury bad long since passed away, and the grand jury shonld bare been swept away with it. He believed the substitute furniMied a much cheaper and juster mode. But he was not tenacious of it if any bet ter can be suggested he would favor it. He objected to the grand Jury on account of its expenso, and its w-cret character. Mr. WILLIAMS was opposed to the motion, though he cuiicured in luauy of the objections urged against the grand jury. He opposed the motion on the ground that it partook too much of legislation; he was" unwilling to declare in the constitution that no criminal should be tried except he had first been examined before a magistrate; tbe circumstances of tha country wight at some time require another mode of presentment. 5 He would create a grand jury of five, and empower the legislature to abolish the sys tem if they deemed it wise. In this new country, where we are exposed to the incur sion of desperadoes from all parts of the world, and particularly from California, theie was a reason for a secret mode of en tering complaints of crime. Persons did not' like to make a complaint before a justice of the crimes of those desperadoes. It would be at tended with a heavy expense to the complainant, and might co.-t Liui tbe loss of his property buruiogof bnildings or inju ry to his person. Magistrates, through fear, favor, or mistake might discharge s criminai when be ought to have been re quired to appear for Iriul. Cases of this kind ,hud occurred and would coutinno to. And under Mr. Logai. s substitute he could not be put upon bis trial. It was true that ma licious complaints were frequently mads to grand juries, and ther were sometimes im posed upon. This was an objection to the system but no Eystem was perfect. The redaction of the uumber to five obviated tho objection oi expense, and made it a aailt 4bn tin CWfvn I I. A at fl 1 tsfc . w The expenses rdan,,, ; J gSSvethan bc- wjgisjwtj'-jjr 5lr. LOGAN changed his motion so as aboii.-h grand juries, and leave the legisla ture to create a substitute. Mr. MARPLE read from the constitu tor the U. that no persoa should be p!c eJ on trial for capital or infamous crimes un less upon indictment by a grand jury. Mr. DEADY said every question which came up here was first ti-.-eu-scd o.i tbe ground of its expens as though a govern ment could bo devised without expense. We had met here tit make a gorcrnmrat, and we could have none wiihout expense. Gov ernment undertook to protect the person. reputation tad property of its subjects it uudrtook to admiuUter criminal justice at its owu expense. But under the mode pro posed by Mr. Logan, turn it 83 yon would, the individual was compelled to set in mo tion the machiuery of the criminal law. at his own risk, and expense, and upon bis own volition. And it placed the law in the bauds of the rich, or those who could afford to put in execution the law. The poor conld not avail themselves of this remedy they could not afford to employ lawyers, or . incur other expenses. He was for a grand jury of 15, aud bad made some calculation of the expense. Two sessions of fifteen per sons per annual, at the county scat of each county, could cot cost over $400. Tho wholo expense of summoning and pnying 15 grand jurors would not be over $100 per year for. each county. That is a djucj less sum than the expense of complaints before magis trates. With that system what was crime in one connty would be innocence in anoth er, ihcn too there were boia, bad outlaws in tbe community, whose presentment re quired the power and secrecy of the grand JurJ- Mr. BOISE was for a grand jury, though he would uot object to the modification of its number he would go for 12 or 15. Ha believed it was the best system for the ar raignment of criminals jet devied. It had the sanction of ages and cf the civilised world. And while he would not reject any thing because it was new be was " ia favor of progress he would not pull down be cause of age. Ia government tbe only safe guide we bad was tho lamp of experience. It was easy to find objections to a system of government, bat it was hard to devise a sys tem without objection. Experience shows that tbe system of complaints before a m g istrate is far more expensive than by a grand jury.- lie uaa seen the system tried sid by side, llie grand jury also furnished the most vigilant system of police, and most efficient enforcement of criminal law, we could have. And if we put criminal laws upon our code, let us enforce them or l;t oa blot them out. Don't let them stand, vio lated, inviting to the commission of higher crimes. If .we are to have a government, let ns bavo au efficient one; if not let ns re main as we are. Mr. LOGAN had heard no iosnff.rablff objection to bis proposition to abolish graTU juries. It would be noticed that every gen tleman who bad attacked his proposition was a lawyer or judge. They were sticking to an old system they had got used to. The same class of persons strenuocsiy opposed the system of electing jadges, and fought it to the hilt, when first proposed. They pre dicted all sorts of eviia would Cow from it. But the experiment was tried.aud had work ed well. Yet judges for life was an insti tution as old as tho graud jury, and like it incorporated iuto the constitution cf the United States, and of all the States. Let ns be the first to abolish the grand jury, and if it worked well, as he believed it would, every new State which shall be formed, aud every old one which shall change its con stitution, will follow our example. It should be made the duty of the- prosecuting attor ney to conduct the examiuatiou before the magistrate, without fee from the complainant. Mr. DEADY moved the committee rise lost. i The motion of. Mr. Logan was lost, ayes 1P,: nays j. ? : Mr. WILUAMS moved to make five the number of tho grand jury, and give the leg islature power abolisu or modify it lost i . -