- " -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