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 .
-