Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Oregon statesman. (Oregon City, O.T. [Or.]) 1851-1866 | View Entire Issue (Sept. 15, 1857)
- " -ft. ,x ' i II VOLUME 7. SALEM, OREGON TERRITORY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1857. NUMBER 27. Ct)c Ortrjon atoltBtnnn. uuniitn.1 k a-rtpaM wfcjt tx awodu ; foar dbi! pr aaaon IT -pata muim Booth; three dousis-wr MINN, U b dbeeimwd. ataM t U epUoa of MiliHimmiMinMM. i. MM.7ttfi Uawor !en)thre HUilW SiU MIWn I iBMftio. MOO. ... ... . . . i i will D a-M njnnr, aaii mna at arast b Btt-ptM to ia- pMttXN UtSmot, btlrs, alrorc. tttacb- -t i i i) nilrw if imt mm mmltl mM Itm i liai ' X ortrriac Mm an pbHak4. Ti M IM UBI Mam, UM UM LAWS MM t Twtiluct of Omroa, by twtkoeitj-. IT- fl I III - nM.r, a. it, CepL tth, 185 T. tlrl UcCIIOS tOrtflft preamble and reatiaUoa veUiBX fori the fact that this wu tka Utrtt day a Cm. Lafayette, la re n ibraace of wkkh In desired that the conrtatioa shoald adjourn at IS it, to-day. tlr. SMITH said that he was ia favor of ealibratiag the occasion, bat preferred that It shoald be doae this treeing. We are tprasaai for time; hare much to do, and we f&oaM imitate the character of Lafayette by doing that which is required of as. - Sir. OROVER thought we shoald per rem doable the work on thjs occasion. IM resolution was lost. tlr. MEIGS, chairman on corporations and improvements, snbmitted the report, Which came ap on its third reading. Mr. ELKINS moved to refer the report back to the committee with Instructions to strike oat the Sd section. Messrs. McBride and Marple opposed the motion. Mr. SMITH wished to bare the report referred, bat desired that it should lay orer for the present. Mr. ELKINS withdrew his motion to refer the report back to the committee, and mored to lay the report oa the table, which preTailed. The convention went into committee of the whole, Mr. Olney in the chair, on the legislative article of the constitution. Mr. WILLIAMS mored.to amend so as forbid the presentation of any claim to the legislatire assembly antil after it had been presented to the auditor bat that the leg islature, by a majority vote may allow a claim disallowed by the auditor, or may al low a disallowed claim, prorided two-thirds of the members of both booses voted in the aSrmative. Mr. BOISE suggested thst final action by the legislature upon any claim shoald be a bar to its farther presentation. Mr. WILLIAMS accepted the amend ment, lie wanted to guard against the al lowance of improper claims. lie thought aay jest claim coald get a two-thirds Tote ia the legislature. He was willing also to make final action concIusiTe, and a bar to the claim. Mr. DRYER was cwwd to the amend- meat; it gare the auditor loo nnrcn ivn the auditor was but a clerical officer, and not a lodge. He preferred to trust the al lowance of claims to a majority of the legts !M? BOISE wished the decision of the legislature upon a claim to stapf " record artast it. This persisted Pta 7? JV 17-: ree year, notwtthstand ?" ?IWSfbad become a great "Jf. Such claims, howerer unjust, ""Xrtty apt to be allowed in time. Such been the history of Oregon. Mr. McBRIDE was opposed to the amendment. He was in favor of leering the subject of claims to the courts. He would make no distinction between claims against the State or claims against individ uals. The latter class yoa sent to the courts of justice for enforcement, and why not also send the former there? Mr. KELLY objected to refering all claims to the courts. It would subject the State to immense expense. Counsel must be employed in every case, and when the claim ant recovered a just claim, he would recov er a bill of costs against the State. If we are going to adopt this plan, we should elect an attorney general, and make it his duty to attend to these claims. An auditor was not merely a clerical officer; it was his province to exercise his judgment in respect to claims. He was the proper officer to pass upon all claims against the State. It might be suf ficient to require a majority of the legisla ture to overrule the decision of the auditor be was not strenuous on that point would be satisfied with a majority or two thirds rote. But he was decidedly in favor of having the decision of the legislature a bar to the claim foreyar. If a claim is once rejected, it would b cheaper for the claim art to give it up than to pursue it, Mr. MARPLE opposed the amendment, and thought it would work great hardship and injustice. Mr. DEADY was in faror of the report as it stood, and opposed to the amendment The auditor was a mere clerical officer be kept the accounts of the State. The law thve a man a defined claim against the late. It was the duty of the auditor to Ascertain the amount of the claim, the per son to whom due, and draw his warrant for the same, opoa sach fund as the legislature Vnay have appropriated for the payment. The claims which arise against the State but of the regular coarse of things, from un vsaal circamstaaces, not provided for by taw, should be referred to the courts. That was the safest and jdstest tribunal. Expe rience demonstrated that this class of claims should not be submitted for final decision to either the legislature or the auditor. It had been said that the State would be compell ed to employ attorneys if these cases were sent to the courts; We bad to employ them already this constitution contemplated the employment of prosecuting attorneys all over the State, to do the business of the State; make it their duty to defend the interests of the State in the matter of these claims. Mr. W ATKINS was opposed to the ref erence of claims to the legislature, for rea sons urged by others, and for the additional reason that many of these claims were in some way connected with polities, and polit ical considerations influenced their settle ment ia the legislatare. Mr. KELSAY was for their settlement by the auditor and legislatare. He thought there was do reason to fear political wflu- If" imm , ! AMjaaam tint ap ftamatnafr m itlaim Tk would be so swayed was rotten. WV va wa Kaaaav e Vie I US. X IIV Ulaall WUV Mr. SMITH said the class of claims we were seeking to provide for were not the ordinary claims against the State, but they were claims of an extraordinary character many oi tnem involved legal points, and turned upon questions of law only; they ought properly to be decided by the courts of the countrr. Anr legislative bodr af forded great facilities for the allowance of Improper claims. A two thirds vote was not full security against them. The expense oi considering claims before a court would be less to the State than before a legislature. It had been argued that the sympathies of a jury were naturally with a claimant, as against the Etate. This objection could be obviated by Submitting the claims to a court without a jury. i Mr. WILLIAMS thought from the in- dicatioas that this amendment would fail, but he believed notwithstanding that it provided the best mode of settlement of claims against the State. Courts furnished as many facilities for plundering in the case of those claims as the legislature, while that system would place the finances of the State beyond the control of the legislature. Experience had satisfied him that it was perfectly futile for a State to defend a claim against an individual; the argument was that the State was endeavoring to wrong and crush the individual, and the sympathy of the jury went with the claimant and judgmeut went against the State. The claim of Joaquin Young had been referred to by those who oppose this claim in support of their position, it was said that that was a trumped up claim. Well, what were the facts concerning that claim, which the gen tlemen said was fraudulent? He had got a judgment in the courts of Oregon for thous ands of dollars ag inst this Territory, and adopt the plan proposed by those who op pose this amendment, and he would collect it of the Slate of Oregon, and the Territory would be powerless to prerent it. Witnesses in California and New Mexico witnesses that nobody knew had sworn to Joaquin Young being the heir of awing loung, in the txaet language nf Grtenleaf on evidence they had sworn jast what Oreenleaf on evidence bad said was necessary. There depositions were presented to the court; there was no rebutting testimony and the court had no alternatire but to render judg ment. But the legislature had forbidden the payment of the claim. Take this power from the Iegislature,and rest it in the courts, and the last dollar of that claim most now be paid by the Stale. He would adopt a course which would stop these leakages from the public treasury. Mr. SMITH maintained that Mr. Wil liams had misunderstood the effect of the section as it stood, and proclaimed results to flow from it which only had existence in his imagination had magnified the difficulties on one side, and belittled tbcm on the other. Fie argued in support of his former posi tions. The case of Joaquin Young proved as much on one side as the other; if a court had allowed the laimon p TryitpL fM!?)0i?' lowance on exparte testimony. Committee rose, and convention arij'd. Afternoon Sesiiov, 1th. The committe of the whole resumed con sideration of the legislative article. Mr. OROVER thought the section un der consideration when the convention ad journed properly belonged to the finance de partment, and he favored its incorporation there. Mr. KELSAY was. opposed to giving any individual power to sue the State. It would operate nard upou the small claims. and in many cases amount to be a denial of justice. Frequently a claimant would have to pay a lawyer the amount of Ins claim to get him into court. He was in favor of Mr. Williams' amendment. Mr. DRYER would vest the power of passing upon claims in the legislature, and would not require a two-thirds vote to over rule the decision. Mr. BOISE differed with Mr. Williams in the construction of the section as it stands; he did not think it placed out of the bands of the legislature the control of the treasury. He believed under it, the legislature might refuse to pay a claim allowed by a court, as it had refused in the cose of Joaquin Young. Air. LUUA said the cost of a govern ment did not consist alone of the salaries and other usual expenses, which could be Counted up at the beginning of the year. lint they consisted mainly in. the mttcring away of the people's money by the legisla ture. And if there was any way to keep the bands of the legislature out of the pub iio treasury, he was for adoptinir it. The Joaquin Young claim bad been referred to; tne legislature of Oregon bad allowed it. He was then in the legislature and resisted it; he bad always believed that claim fraud ulent. The Clatsop road claim was another of the same class; several thousand dollars of claims for surveying that road had been allowed by the legislature ; he was convers ant with the facts concerning those claims A party started out, really to bant elk, say ing they would go orer the route, and the legislature might allow them pay for survey ing a road ; they started out well prorided, but alter awhile their wuistey gave out. and then they bad a serious time; bnt they wan dered back to Astoria, cursiug the country, and saying a bird could not fly over it. Whether any ever got through or. not, they did not theu know. But afterwards tbey claimed that tbey did get throngh, and sent in their claims to the legislature, lie was a member of that body, and opposed the claims, but they were put through. And so it bad been with other claims, and so it wonld be as long as these claims were al lowed to go before the legislatare. He was for the section as it stood. Mr. Williams' amendment was lost ayes 10, nays 32. Mr. DEADY moved to require that laws shall not take effect until 60 days after their publication by authority withdrawn. Mr. WILLIAMS moved to make acts Uke effect 90 days after the session adopt ed. Mr. W ATKINS moved to add, the se sion at which it was passed adopted. Mr. MARPLE moved to make it acts of a general nature. Lost 14 yeas, 22 nays. Mr. FARRAR moved to fix the pay of members of the legislature at $2,00 per day, instead of $3,00. Lost 10 yeas, 23 nays. Mr. FARRAR mored to limit special sessions of the legislatare to 15 days lost, yeas 12, nays 26. Mr. DEADY moted 20 carried. Mr. WAYMIRE moved to limit regular sessions of legislation to 45 days. Messrs. Smith and Deady preferred 40. Mr. KELLY thought gentlemen were seised with a sudden fit of economy. We now had sessions of 60 days, annually and we were about to limit biennial sessions to 40 days. He was opposed to less than 60. If we were going to have a populous State here, we should need the full 60 days. Mr. WAYMIRE was wiilinir to go even below 40, bnt thought he wonld give them about 5 days to organise in if they should nave difficulty as they did in Congress some times, and then give them 40 data to do the putHiv-basinees lu. .. : - ' Mr. Waymirc's motion was lost. Mr. DEADY moved 40 days. Mr. SMITH thought 40 days would fur nish ample time, lie believed all the healthy, honest legislation of- past sessions could have been transacted in 20 days. When Iowa was a Territory they always exhausted the 60 days, but when they become a btate, with more business, they found 50 sufficient. Mr. Kelly said we were seised with a fit of economy. Well, that was the sentiment and if we retrenched, here was a good place to do it. Mr. AiAKl'Lt; tnongbt the sessions should be 60 days. The business of the first session could not be transacted in less thsn 60 days. Mr. DEADY was in favor of 40 days, not ouly because it retrenched expeuses, but because it would cut off excessive legis lation he wanted to avoid that evil. No legislature could make a code of laws, and when ever we wanted to revise the code, we should hare to do as we did before, after trying two or three years to get one in the legislatare, appoint a commission to do it. Mr. Peady's amendment was adopted. Mr. STARKWEATHER mored to pay the speaker only the per diem of a member lost, 13 yenn, 23 nsys. Mr. DEADY mored to make his pay double that of a member that was the rule in most of the States, and if we were going to gire him any increase, and we bad agreed to, let us be decent about it. It was double now. Mr. WAYMIRE thought au increase of one half was sufficient. He hoped to sup port the State government on a tax of 1 J mills 2 mills was his extreme limit. Mr. WILLIAMS saw no reason for par ing a speaker more than any other member. Patriots would always be found to serve. Mr. KELSAY thought there ought to be an increase the speaker had to qualify himself, and ought to be better paid. The laborer is worthy of his hire. Mr. KELLY would prefer no increase. He thought the duties of a speaker were not as arduous as that of members; tp dul-H: . .. -..-a t kbc ,riu-1 map m r 1 1 n fiiriiiTiit . zMnw - cipal wore was uone. ii or was sufficient without ) iase of pay. ' ;re irclas? to increase tue Fpekersw-A we coolant gire him less than double. He would not split hairs. Mr. DEADY'S amendment was lost, ayes 15, nays 23. Mr. SMITH moved to amend so as to in clude the President of the Senate with the Speaker of the House. He thought the re sponsibilities and duties of the presiding of ficer were greater than those of a member. He must be constantly in the hall members went in and out at convenience. He would increase his pay. Committee rose, and the convention ad journed. Ti-rsdat, a. m , Sept. 8th, 1851. Pursuant to notice given yesterday by Mr. Olney, the rale was changed so as to limit speeches to five minutes SO yeas, 6 nays. The convention went into committee of the whole on the legislative department, Mr Olney in the chair. Mr. G ROVER moved that the 2d Mon day of September be fixed for the meeting of the annual sessions of the legislature. By a conference with his constituents, he found they were oppoeed to changing the time of the election from the month of June. And he thought from that to November was too long a time to intervene between the election and the meeting of the legislature. Mr. SMITH should support the motion, though be had been for November, and still thought that time would best suit the peo ple of tho Willamette. But tho members from the south regarded this an important matter to their section of country; that it was extremely difficult for them to reach, or communicate with this valley in the winter, and he was willing to change the time to greatly accommodate that section, though it might slightly incommode this portion of the Territory, It would only moderately incommode those who might go to the legis lature from this valley. Mr. DRYER thought the change of th position of members upon this question was astonishing, and that there mast hare been a caucus of the party. Mr. OROVER said Mr. Dryer's party bad their caucus before the question was first up, and all went together, even those from the extreme south. Mr. W ATKINS had roted for Novem ber on Saturday, because he thought it the best time for Josephine county; he still thought that tho most favorable time for that county, bet upon consultation with his colleague, who had voted with him, they had concluded to change to accommodate other portions of the south, and should now go with Mr. O rover for September. Mr. SMITH said this 'caucus' and 'lash' had got very stale was not believed by those who mouthed it, or by anybody else. Mr. MARPLE offered an amendment, fixing a basis of apportionment giving to counties containing 100 voters, a representa tive, &c. He occupied the 10 minutes al lowed by the rales in two speeches in sup port of his motion. The hammer fell each time and cut him off in the heat of his argu ment. He asked leave to go on lost, 5 only roting ave. Mr. PACKWOOD briefiy opposed the motion, on account of increase of members of the Assembly, and increase of expense. He thought 100 voters waa too small a num ber for a representative. Mr. WILLIAMS moved to amend so as to provide that the general appropriation bills should not contain any other proris ions. He said it was the practice to load down general appropriation bills with other matters, and matters that could not stand by themselves. He wanted every tub to stand on its own bottom, i1 The amendment was adopted. Mr. WILLIAMS mored that no money should be drawn from the treasury of the State except when appropriated by law, and that the receipts and expenditures - of Iiublic money should be published with the aws of each session. Mr. OROVER approved of the proposi tion, but thought it should go to the finance department. Mr. WILLI KUS satt tfear was no nance comr r-1 tt iJ tot Laow tL.t tbr-,wout.4 r orart- uacuw . - ; V-! .7 ." The ama-uaett was t J f ; MAM Mr. STARKWEATHER moved to amend so as to let all contracts far station ery and for priuting to the lowest bidder Mr. DRYER was opposed to the amend ment, because the constitution was already longer than that of any other State, aud be cause it belonged to the legislature to per form such duties. There was a great dispo sition in tbis body to legislate we might as well dispense with the legislature, as this convention was disposed to do all the legis lation for tne next 100 years. It was au insult to the honesty and intelligence of the legislature. Mr. DEADY did not know that he should support this proposition, though he had no objection to it. But the length of the con stitution was no objection to the incorpora tion of any necessary article. It was not not now longer than any other constitution, though it mattered not if it was. He was in faror of some constitutional prorision re specting the incidental expenses of the gov ernment, such as stationery, printing, 4c. He did not know whether this was the best plan, or whether it would be better to cre ate the office of public printer. Mr. WILUA.MS concurred with Mr. Deady in the main. He preferred the crea tion of the' office of public printer, to be selected by the people for four years." Tho' lie did not propose to submit any proposi tion, and should rote for this. Mr. MARPLE agreed with Mr. Dryer that there was too much disposition here to intrude upon the duties of the legislature; they should not tread upon those confines. The five minutes limit cut Mr. Marple short. Air. (JUAUWICK. was opposed to the amendment. It was too loose, and under it he was satisfied we 6koul get poorly exe cuted printing. We shoald get better work, at cheaper rates he believed if the whole subject was left to the legislature; they could consult and confer and let bv contract if tbey thought best. Mr. WATKIISS would be in favor of the proposition if ha thought it caul J rer fied it wj, .-premeium, 8t)cs -os had.'lwayi e-..- atriklar K.. c4l this. o aitentioa ever was awJ to tha "lowest ladder" rstrtctiou in fuct. Everybody knew tbis. Mr. LOGAN was in favor of the amend ment. He was in favor of tying the hands of the legislature in all matters of money. If be did not distrust the honesty of legis latures he distrusted their prudence. His experience in Illinois had led him to distrust them. Mr. W ATKINS moved to strike out responsible," and leave it to be let to the lowest bidder. Lowest bids were always rejected under this "responsible" clause, aud the contract let to a favorite f the domi nant party, whichever it was. Mr. KhLSAl, was for the amendment. "responsible' and all. He believed the re striction would be observed. Mr. W ATKINS said tbis very restriction had once been tried in New York respecting the printing, and wholly failed. Mr. LOGAN was for "responsible." He believed that it would be observed in good faith. To strike out responsible was to defeat the object of the amendment. Mr. DRYER was opposed to striking out responsible.and opposed to the whole amend ment. So far as his experience went, no State in the Union which had tried this contract system bad adhered to it. But he did know many that had returned to the old system, and elected a public priutcr. They found their work botched, and useless, and gladly returned to a system under which tbey paid a fair price, and got work accord ingly. Men talked here as though they knew all about priuting.and they were going to work to save a few dollars by cheating sorao printer. The printer was worthy of bire, as much as any other man. Mr. t AltUAIl was in favor or letting these contracts to the lowest bidder; that was the way the State transacted other business, and he saw no reason for a distinc tion. Mr. LOGAN said Illinois had adopted the contract system, and still adhered to it. Mr. Wntkins withdrew his amendment. Mr. DEADY moved to amend so as to provide for the election of a public printer for four years, by the people; that theIeg islature should fix his rates of pay, which should not be increased or diminished during the term for which he is elected. If that did not prevail, he would go for the contract system, though be preferred the other. His business was not like an occasional contract which a State had, such as building a State house, sc. It was something which the State wonld require all the time, and regu larly. His pay was but the fees of otuce. He would not endeavor to get this work done for less than its cost; the State did not wish to get the work and material of a printer without remunerating him; he would pay good, fair prices, and no more. There was one evil arising under the contract sys tem which had not been referred to that of taking the printing at less than cost rates, and then coming to the legislature for relief. This was often practiced. Mr. BOISE thought this was not the proper place for the introduction of tbis sub ject. Mr. ucady concurred. Mr. MARPLE shoald support the amend ment. The people ought to elect the prin ter. Mr. DRYER should support Mr. Deady 's amendment. He thought this the correct system, and that tha people the proper pow er to elect the printer. Mr. WAYMIRE was opposed to electing a printer, and leaving the legislature to fix bin rates; it furnished an opportunity for cbisseling, for the legislature might put them high. He was for the contract system there were dollars to be saved, besides confu sion id elections. He was opposed to let ting contracts for stationery, wood Arc. We would never get a decent article. Mr. PACKWOOD said this lowest re sponsible bidder was a perfect humbug. He was opposed to the amendment of Mr. Starkweather. He was opposed to electing ft public printer by the people (though be f (referred that to the contract system) but n favor of leaving the legislature to regu iata tho pwblio Priativf . IIr. CHADWI'. favored Mr. Deady's amendment. Ha t Hit we should bave a " TTlrrlraai khoa!4 U elcctci . tie pfccple, aw -sponsible to. them. The office of -public printer waa permanent, and entirely different from that of a con tractor. It was like that of any other of fice. He thought the legislature could be safely trusted to fix the rates of printing, and that they would give him a fair price, as be ought to have. He believed we should get better work, and at substantially cheap er rates. Mr. WATKINS favored Mr. Deady's ameudment. He believed the most expen sive manner of doing the public printing was mat of tne contract system. Mr. McBRIDE was opposed to Mr.1,, ' , , . , .? . . Deady's amendment. If the legislature fix- oil 111 rat a: liter mirrlit 1: wo! I gAanl public printer. The people cared nothing abont tbis matter, except to get the work cheap. Mr. MARPLE again addressed the house in support of Mr. Deady's amendment. Mr. DLADY said he apprehended the people wished to pay fair rates for the pub lic printing not extravagant or starving rates. Tue legislature, under his amend ment, fixed the fees of office, without know ing who was to fill the office, and without ony inducement to give more than fair prices. under tbe amendment of .Mr. Starkweather the word "responsible" gave the legisla ture substantially the power to elect the public printer. Mr. STARKWEATHER was not tena cious of his amendment, bnt he was opposed to the proposition of Mr. Deady. He was for the contract system in some shape. .Mr. UllUiijLt favored the proposition of Mr. Deady; be thought tbis matter' of public printing onrht to be settled ia the constitution, aud he preferred the plan of electing a priuter Ly the people, but if that failed, he should support Mr. Starkweath er's motion. Tbe experience here in Oreeon in the matter of public printing, reminded him of an anecdote related of the boys in INcw lork. It was their practice there to run after the omnibuses, and jumping npon tbe step behind, ride. Those who failed to get on would instantly cry to the driver. whip behind, there is a boy on the step." So it bad been here. Wbeucver the lesisla- r V4 a printer t tlact. th nrintpraef j r 1 1 it 1 1 the place they ran a political race there, andthowbo wera unsuccessful immediately commenced "whipping bchiud" at the suc cessful one. Mr. DRYER said he had never beeu on the stf p, or " whipped behind." Mr. OLDS was for the contract system. Mr. Deady's amendment was adopted in lieu of Mr. Starkweather's yeas 22, nays 11. Mr. G ROVER moved to increase the Senate to 16 members, and the house to 32 it was found difficult to make a satisfac tory apportionment to all parts with 15 and 30. Committee rose, and tbe house adjourned. Afternoox Skssiox, Sept. 8th. The convention went into committee of the whole on the bill of rights, Mr. Lovejoy in tho chair. Mr. CAMPBELL moved to strike out that portion forbidding the drawing money from the treasury for the compensation of religious services. He thought the provision nn innovation, and not found in any constitu tion of the thirty-one States. If adopted, it would prevent any compensation of chap Iain's. He thought all deliberative and leg islative bodies should employ chaplains, nnd that they should be compensated from the treasury. It was not by chance we were now here making a constitution; it was not by chance we enjoyed civil liberty. Then the first busiuess of a legislative body should be to acknowledge the power which had gnided this nation. Moral power, was supe rior to physical. It was this moral power to which our army ia Mexico was indebted for many of their successes. Mr. WAYMIRE said we had just adopt ed a section declaring, " no law shall gire preference to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship; and no man shall be com pelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his conseut." If we adopted tbis amendment, we must rescind the foregoing, for the two were unquestionably in conflict. Unless we rescinded the first section, we could not consistently draw money from tho treasury to compensate chaplains. And he was opposed to the amendment. The peo ple of this country were composed of every shade of opiniou npon the subject of religion, from the half-crazy religious fanatic to the unbelieving atheist. And we bad no right to compel by law the support of any from the pockets of all; that was what this would do. Some ministers of tbe leading denomi nations would be selected as chaplains, aud to perform other religious services, and all tbe smaller denominations, and all who pro fessed no religion, and all who believed in none, would be taxed to pay them. Was this right ? Manifestly it was not. It was a compulsory support of the church at war with our institutions, aud at war with civil and religious liberty. If legislators wished prayers he had no objection to their having them. But he did object to compellinj? any man against his will paying for them. There would always be men who would serve as chaplains, if desired to, without fee or re ward, except such as is laid np in heaven. There were plenty of such men here, and they were holy meu. On the other hand, there were here professed ministers who wanted to get hold of the government teat, and would use praying as a means of doing so He wanted do snch men to pray for him- their prayers wonld never reach heaven would never rise higher than their head. I The speeches of Messrs. G rover and Ueady upon this question will be found on tne inside of the Statesman. Mr. MARPLE should rote for the amendment. What wonld be said in the States if we should adopt this provision He thonght.it monstrous and infidel, and subversive of Christianity and good morals, Mr, KELSAY was for the amendment. They had chaplains everywhere; and let ns not prohibit them here, tiet ns leave the legislature to say whether or not they want tnem; if they don't, they needn't elect them, and if tbey do, in God's name let them bave them. And if they won't serve without be ing paid, give the right to par them, be said It wouldn't be a great deal. Mr. WAstwiNS thought the provision reported was uncalled for ana unnecessary (The re!:i023 portion of the people of tbis Territory wouid tBThfclt was deasgwed to siot religion cjd religious wrf and it would lose votes for the constitution. Mr. MOORES should go for the amend ment, because other States had chaplains. and because the people on the other side of the mountains wonld think we bad a little' infidelity hitched into ns. Other States had chaplians, and he would not go for cutting it all off now. Mr. FARRAR favored the amendment. The refussl of this convention to take iuto consideration tue question oi electing a i ' emyA ''A nn T constitution we could rend out. It was idle to deny that, lie bad been accustomed to witness the opening of ses sions of legislatures, and courts of justice with prayer, and that might be the reason why he was partial to the proceeding. He could not say. But for some reason it did seem appropriate to him. It might be the result of habit, or it misht not, but he was in favr of it, and in favor of its being paid for. Refuse to ndopt this amendment, af ter the discission which has taken place in this ball, and the religioas portion of this community wonld oppose and defeat your constitution. If you want your constitution defeated, reject this motion, and leave the prorision as the committee reported it. He wonld bsTe all sessions of deliberative bod ies commence with an invocation for the blessing of Almighty God. Mr. BOISE was inclined to favor the amendment. He thought the provision of the report went too far. It was the custom of all governments to employ chaplains in their penitentiaries and asylums; reforma tion was declared to be one object of pun ishment. Tbe employment of chaplains was one mode of reformation. He would forbid the appropriation of money for the bentfiU of any religions or thelogical institution, but he would not apply the prohibition to chaplains. lie wonld leave that to tbe leg islature. Mr. WATTS was for the amendment. Public opinion wonld regulate the matter. Should we set np a new principle. He' was nqtinfavor of prohibiting chaplain III 11 1 i -h i wu lie would nave chaplains, and have the state pay for tbem. The provision of this report was infidelity, and nothing else. Mr. WILLIAMS moved to amend so as to forbid the drawing of money from the treasury for compensation of religious ser vices in either branch of the legislature. He thought tbe report went too far, and he thought the religious portion of the country would be of that opinion the language was unnecessarily strong to accomplish the object . sought. He would modify it ia accordance with his amendment. He was opposed to the employment of chaplains iu any legisla tive body he was opposed to the employ-, mcnt of chaplains in Congress, and were he there he would oppose their election, or the appropriation of public money to pay them He d.d not believe the constitution of the United States provided for the office of chaplain, or that the conventioc that framed it contemplated the creation of the office. Nor did he believe that Congress had any right to take the public money, contributed by the people, of all creeds arid faith, to pay for religious teachings. It was a vio lent stretch of power, and an unauthorised one. A man in this country had a right to be a Methodist, Baptist, Roman Catholic, or what else he chose, but no government had the moral right to tax all of these creeds and classes to inculcate directly or indirectly the tenets of any one of them. Mr. CHADWICK was not opposed to chaplains in penitentiaries or leislatures, if men chose to have them, but he was opposed to compensating them from the pnblic treas ury. He would have no connection of church and State. The clergyman who would stop at the prison door to demand his salary before he would enter was un worthy of the name of minister, and inca pable of imparting cousolation and benefit to the unfortunate inmate. He was taught to reverence prayer, and religious services. and he was also educated in the doctrine of the divorce oi church and State, and he would uot do violence to that sacred doc trine by voting for this amendment. He was for the article as it stood. Mr. WILLIAMS was not opposed to prayers in a legislature.butbe would protect the rights of conscience. -' Suppose a Uni versalist should be elected chaplain in oar legislative assembly ; would not the Metho dist complain of being taxed for the propa gation of what they believed false doctrin? Most assuredly they would. And the.Uni versalists would in like manner complain if a Methodist was chosen. And so it would be with all the other denominations, or with those of no religious faith. The principle waa wrong, and the people should not be taxed to give preference to one creed over another. It had been said that no State bad adopted a provision similar to this. lie found in the constitution of Michigan a provision in' nearly the words of his' ameud ment. He did not propose to prohibit chap lains in penitentiaries and asylums, bnt be would not employ them iu the legislatures, and pay them from the public treasury. The .principle was wrong and founded in injustice. Mr. McBRIDE had snpposed this report would go through as it was, as it came from a prominent member of the democratic party, bat as be saw some of the dominant party opposing it, he began to have hopes of its defeat. He was in faror of the amendment T.n State ousht to have chaplains.aud they ought to pay tnem, as ! to pay any other officer. ought to pay them, as much as they ought Mr. OLNEY considered tbe subject a mere pbantohl, an abstraction of no practi- -cat importance, and he was willing to vote for any clause which would make the most friends for the constitution. Upon a mere phantom, he wonld not be willing to array so large a body of citizens against this con stitution as tbe religious portion of the com munity. He thought it all important that tbis constitution should succeed, aud would make some sacrifices, not of principle to se cure support of it. He thought tbe amend ment of Mr. Williams famished a comprom ise upon whiab all might stand, and should support It. Mr. SMITH should support the amend ment. Not that be would unite church and? State, for be would not. He thought that union was sufficiently provided against la other parts of the constitution. He would not recognize religion in tne constitution, but he maintained that government' might use religion in carrying oat its boai Scent rules. Personally be had no. objection to tbe provision of the Michigan constitution if Mr. Campbell's amendment was adopted he did not suppose chaplains would ever be employed in our legislatare, or that money would erer be drawn from tbe treasury to pay tbem. He thought they mibt some times be employed with profit in penitentia ries. Hut be was not strenuous about lt.and should TOtefor the constitution whether this amendment was adopted or Whether the sec tion should be adopted as reported. Mr. WAYMIRE said tbe question was. Shall the people be taxed to pay for reli gious services ? In his county there were 20 or 30 ministers, and not three of the number would vote to pay a chaplain. Tbe Uampbellites, .Baptists, and other denomina tions, were opposed to the system. It couldn't be said that he was opposed to prayers and religion. He bad been for seven- years a Methodist, and was now a Mason, and a man could not be either without be lieviug in a God. He wanted no prayers made to him for money. He wanted minis ters should preach for tbe reward offered by his Lord and Master. If be has souls for his hire, that is all be needs. But some of them in tbis eountry worked for money and bad built nne bouses, lbev dtd not. like John Wesley, intend to die worth not .40. t ith them their religion was sti institution to collect money; and the wheels could noff move unless the ear was loaded down with gold. They were not going forth into the world to preach the gospel of Christ, with out purse or scrip. But tbe ground of his objection was the unjust principle of taxing' people to support doctrines tbey did not be lieve. Suppose a Roman Catholic should be elected chaplain; every other religions denomination in Oregon would be in open rebellion. Every one here knew that. Yet yoa taxed Roman Catholics to pay for Protestant chaplains, and why not tax Pro testants to pay Roman Catholics. Tbe prin ciple was the same, and it was a poor rne that would not work both ways. Mr. Williams' aroenmt r- fref lol6. - - Mr. MARPLE offered an amendment exempting ministers from road tax and military duty, and from tax to tbe amount of $600. and rendering them ineligible to any office except county office lost. Committee rose, and convention odjJ.. Wedxesdat, a. k., Sept. $, 185T. Mr. DRYER moved that the convention go into committee of the whole on tbe min ority report on education adoptedMr. Dryer in the chair. Mr. OLNEY mored that the committee rise and report this article to the house with a recomendation that it do not pass. He thought we had not time to' consider it. Mr. FARRAR opposed the motion. He did not like this rough and decisive method: of strangling this report.- He wanted to bear tbe anthor of it (Mr. Marple) in its support. He liked tbe report, and ha didn't like this choking process. Mr. Olney's motion was carried, 18 yeas, 16 nays. Tbe convention went into committee of the whole, on the bill of rights, Mr. Love joy in the chair. Considerable debate took place npon the section relating to prosecutions for libel several amendments proposed and withdrawn The section was finally stricken out. Mr. DEADY moved to strike out tha provision giving juries, in criminal cssesv the right to determine both tbe law and the facts, and amend by making it the province of the court to decide the law. Mr. SMITH hoped the motion would not prevail. He thought the jury th safest depository of the power of determia ing the law, in criminal cases. To give that power to the court, was giving one man too much power, and making the trial by jury a farce. If the court was alone to determine tbe law, why not let him decide the case at once, aud take the responsibility, and not shirk off what is really bis own act, npon twelve men, who, perchance have decided against their own convictions, ia obedience to the decision of the judge. Mr. KELSAY hoped the amendment would be adopted. Attorneys had argued the unconstitutionality of laws to the jury, and thus there waa no system. The court ought to decide the law. . Mr. MARPLE favored the motion. To take from the court tbe right to decide the law, was to deprive it of its proper dignity, and place a dangerous power ia the hands of ignorant men that of passing upon iife, liberty and property. What need of a judge, if you take from him this power ? Mr. LOGAN was decidedly oppoeed tc the amendment. It was the business of the judge to preside over the trial, listen to the facts, and if the jury do not render a rerdiet in accordance with the law and the facts, to grant a new trial. He had an important duty. Give the judge the power of deter mining the law, and if he is biased he will warp those facts to fit any law, and extort a verdict in accordance with his bias. Yoa might as well abolish the jury at once, if yoa do not give them the right to decide the law. Mr. DRYER was opposed to tha amend ment. Every juryman of sense could under stand the law and judge of it just as well aa any judge who erer sat upon tha bench. Mea had escaped hanging ia tkis Territory, because, the judge mistified and misconstrued tha law. The judges wonld concentrate power In their own bands, that they might direct and control juries. They sometime