Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 26/The Creation of Oregon as a State

by Charles Henry Carey

THE QUARTERLY

of the

Oregon Historical Society

---

---

---

---

Copyright, 1923, by the Oregon Historical Society
The Quarterly disavows responsibility for the positions taken by contributors to its pages.

THE CREATION OF OREGON AS A STATE^[1]

By CHARLES H. CAREY

I.

INTRODUCTORY

Immediately after Oregon was organized as a Territory it began to aspire to statehood. In fact, at the very first session of the new territorial legislature the formation of a constitution for a state was proposed, and in the following ten years, that covered the life of the Territory, the question of statehood was voted upon by the people several times.

The territorial government had begun to function immediately upon the arrival at Oregon City of General Joseph Lane, of Indiana, who had been appointed by President Polk as governor, and who had traveled to Oregon in company with Joseph Meek, the newly appointed United States marshal. Polk's administration, which was to end on the inauguration of his successor, March 4, 1849, was entitled to the credit of having settled the long pending Oregon Question, and of having negotiated with success the boundary treaty with Great Britain. It was during this administration that the bill organizing Oregon Territory had been passed, after bitter and protracted debates, and the new officers owed their appointments to President Polk. Lane very earnestly desired to effect the change from the Provisional Government to the Territory while Polk was still president, and in spite of delays incident to the long journey by way of Leavenworth and the Santa Fe trail to California, and thence to the Columbia River by ship, he had the satisfaction of reaching Ms destination in time to issue his proclamation and to assume the duties of the new government on the last day of Polk's presidency, March 3, 1849.

The first news of the action taken by congress creating the Territory had reached Oregon early in February by way of the Sandwich Islands, and was announced by Governor Abernethy to the legislative assembly of the Provisional Government in his message of February 5, 1849. That body had met for an adjourned session, after failure in the December preceding to secure a quorum for the transaction of business, owing to a general exodus of the male population to the gold mines in California. Many of the members had resigned, and some had simply gone away without taking the trouble to resign. However, the Governor by proclamation had called a special election to fill vacancies, and he had designated February 5, as the date for a special session, in harmony with the date fixed upon adjournment by the minority members of the legislative body. When the adjourned session convened, the Governor delivered a message, in which he said: "We have received information that our Territory has been provided for; that the officers necessary to carry on the government have been appointed and are now on their way to this Territory, and will no doubt soon be in our midst." He advised, since the legislature of the new organization would probably soon convene, that an adjournment be taken as soon as indispensable business of the session was attended to.

The new governor, bearing his commission from the government at Washington, arrived and issued his proclamation, and then addressed a letter to Governor Abernethy inviting him to call. But the latter, with a sense of the proprieties, indicated in a dignified answer that he would be glad to receive Governor Lane should the latter call to pay his respects. This fencing for points of official etiquette seems rather amusing in its setting in the little western village of Oregon City in 1849, but the settlers' self-created government, while ready to give way to a more regular organization, nevertheless claimed the authority of a de facto government until duly superseded.

The new government assumed its duties without especial ceremonies. Governor Lane was sworn in by the secretary of the Provisional Government, S. M. Holderness, but, to make assurance of legality, he afterwards took the oath again before Gabriel Walling, justice of the peace. Holderness continued to act as secretary until April 9, 1849, when he was succeeded by the President's appointee, Kintzing Prichette.

One of Governor Lane's first official acts was to issue a proclamation for a general election to be held on the first Monday of June, 1849, for the election of members of the legislative assembly and for delegate to congress, and he designated Monday, July 16, as the time for the meeting of the legislature, at Oregon City.

In his first message to the legislature Governor Lane alluded to the fact that many of the settlers who had gone to the mines were now returning, determined to remain and to cultivate again the abandoned farms, and he estimated that upwards of two million dollars in gold dust had been brought to Oregon. The Oregon population, he believed, was about nine thousand, but thought that it would be doubled within twelve months.^[2] Thus, without friction and without undue pomp and pretense, the Teritory of Oregon began its functions. But the little colony was not altogether satisfied, and already began to look forward to statehood.

In the first territorial legislative assembly, August 20, 1849, a bill was offered "to take the expression of the people for and against a convention to form a state government," but it was later laid upon the table. That session adjourned September 29, 1849, but in the proceedings in the next session held in May, 1850, a joint resolution was pending "to enquire into the propriety of calling a convention for the purpose of framing a state constitution, preparatory to admitting this Territory into the Union." However, according to the report in the Oregon Spectator, the proposal was "shoved off the track" by the adoption of a resolution requesting the delegate in congress to use his influence to have the Organic Law so amended that the governor and the secretary of the Territory be elected by the people.^[3] The Spectator in a later issue said that the question of state Constitution was not referred to the people for the reason that the time of the election was too near, but that the measure was decidedly popular, and would undoubtedly be acted upon at the next legislative session.^[4]

Up to this time there had been no division of the people of Oregon upon political party lines. The Spectator commenting on this condition said:

"It is usual on the assembling of legislative bodies to inquire into the political character of its members. But happily political parties have no existence in Oregon, and hence the persons elected to this legislature were chosen for other than party considerations, and during the whole of its session there was no question agitated on party grounds. One object brought it together, and that one object engrossed the entire attention of the members. The Territory was without law and without officers and all felt that the public wants were pressing and everyone was animated with the patriotic desire of providing a good code of laws."

"The only ground of difference among members was found in the fact that each was most partial to the laws of the state from which he had recently emigrated, and with the operation of which, of course, he was most familiar. The difficulty growing out of this difference of partialities was seriously felt, and retarded to the very last day of the session the progress of business."^[5] But this absence of party organization was not to continue. The democrats called a convention to meet at Salem, May 4, 1850, to nominate county officers for Marion County, including members of the territorial legislature from that county, and then a mass meeting of democratic citizens was held at Oregon City on the 14th day of the same month, where the legislature was in session. The mass meeting issued an address to the members of the party. This was denominated a "circular" and began with the following:

"Far removed as you now are from those fondly remembered homes where pure party spirit was wont to warm and animate your hearts, no doubt you have frequently thought and felt that the day was not far distant when it would become your privilege and duty to buckle on your political armor and again do battle in the time-honored service of democracy. In the opinion of this meeting the day for organization preparatory to such action is at hand."^[6]

The mass meeting also passed resolutions commending the administration of Governor Lane who was about to leave for southern Oregon to negotiate with the Rogue River Indians for peace. The resolutions denounced the action of the whig president, Taylor, in removing Governor Lane and in appointing Governor Gaines in his stead. Thus, into Arcadian Oregon was first introduced party politics, and as time went forward partizanship became intensely bitter, while the advocacy of statehood soon resolved itself into a party question.

Governor Gaines reached Oregon City, August 18, 1850, by the sloop, Falmouth, and with him came the new Secretary, Edward Hamilton. In the meantime Lane had been elected delegate in congress to succeed Thurston, then recently deceased. Soon after, a heated controversy arose over the question of the location of the state capital, in which Governor Gaines, Secretary Hamilton, and United States Attorney Amory Holbrook were supported by but few members of the legislature. Their claim that Oregon City remained the capital notwithstanding a legislative enactment attempting to change it to Salem, (which had also the approval of two members of the supreme court, Judges Nelson and Strong,) was denounced in scathing terms by the majority members of the legislature, who insisted upon holding the session at Salem. The latter members, who were mostly democrats, were encouraged by the opinion of Judge O. C. Pratt, one of the Supreme Judges, who appeared before the legislature and read a long and carefully prepared address, criticising his associates on the supreme bench, and arguing in favor of the legality of the enactment. The question reached Washington for decision upon request of Governor Gaines, and the President and his Attorney General held that the Salem Act was invalid. It took an act of congress under the guidance of Delegate Lane to straighten out the tangle and to confirm the change of location of the capital to Salem.

This controversy generated political heat beyond its apparent importance and has its place here for that reason. Party spirit was intense, and the democrat majority at Salem showed a rancor that through the ten-year period of the Territory and afterward in the early years of statehood, was always characteristic of the political relations of the times. The democrats objected to the whig president appointing executive and judicial officers for the Territory and demanded the right of local self-government. They believed that if the state could be organized under a constitution of its own, the unsatisfactory condition of dependence upon distant Washington would come to an end.

The agitation for statehood was renewed in the December, 1850, legislative session, where on the ninth of that month, a resolution was adopted providing for the appointment of a committee of five to enquire into the propriety of calling a convention for the purpose of forming a constitution.^[7] Another such committee was appointed at the December session of the following year^[8] upon a new resolution of the same import, and a bill was reported that was adopted by both houses, reciting the fact that the legislative assembly had memorialized congress to permit the qualified voters of the Territory to elect the officers of the executive and judicial departments, but that if the then current session of congress should adjourn without granting the prayer of the Memorial, a proclamation should be issued by the President of the Council and the Speaker of the House, within two months after adjournment, authorizing a poll on the question of calling a convention to frame a Constitution.^[9] However, it seems that nothing was done to put the law into effect and no such election was held.

The principal newspapers during the territorial period were the Weekly Oregonian, published at Portland as a whig advocate, and the Oregon Statesman which first made its appearance at Oregon City but later was moved to Salem. In 1855 while the capital was at Corvallis the Statesman was published there, but it returned the same year to Salem. Its first issue was at Oregon City, March 21, 1851. It was edited by Asahel Bush, an ardent democrat. The editor of the Oregonian was Thomas J. Dryer, who reached Portland from California and issued the first number, December 4, 1850, having been engaged to come to the ambitious city by Col. W . W. Chapman and Gen. Stephen Coffin of that place. The two papers were conducted with intense and unexampled partizanship and were widely read. Both indulged in unsparing personalities and each resorted to abuse of the other as well as of various men in political and public life. The out-pouring of the newspapers in this respect was but a product of the times in which citizens espoused party causes with enthusiasm and party lines were sharply drawn. Gradually, under the guidance of Mr. Bush, a group of democrats gained great influence in that party and came to be known as the Salem Clique, the personnel of which undefined political force changed from time to time. It originated measures, ordained party policy, decided upon candidates for office and awarded political honors.^[10]

Besides the Oregonian and Statesman, the principal Oregon newspapers having a political bias published at some time during the period between 1850 and 1860, included the following pro-slavery democrat papers: At Albany, Oregon Democrat, (against the Salem Clique); at Corvallis, Occidental Messenger; at Eugene, Democratic Herald; at Jacksonville, Table Rock Sentinel, later Oregon Sentinel; at Portland, Daily Advertiser, (against the Salem clique), the Democratic Standard, (the latter, however, not for slavery or statehood) and Oregon Weekly Times, (previously Milwaukie Western Star). The principal republican newspaper was the Oregon Argus, published at Oregon City.^[11]

Very early in the winter of 1853 the proposal for a state Constitution was renewed. The Oregon Statesman in reporting the legislative proceedings of January 10, mentioned the fact that a bill offered by Representative Cole to take the sense of the people on the formation of a state government provoked a discussion upon the method of voting, whether by viva voce vote or by ballot, and that objections as to expense were raised. When the measure came up for further debate, two days afterwards, amendments were adopted, and Mr. Simpson moved to amend, so that the question would be submitted to popular vote in 1854, arguing that because of sparse population, and because of the burden of taxation for a state government, the people would not sooner be ready to vote upon the question. The bill passed the house by a good majority but was defeated in the Council.^[12]

Regarding this, there is an explanation to be found in an editorial of the Statesman March 20, 1855, which is interesting. Editor Bush said:

"At the session of 1851-2, a conditional bill for submitting the question was passed, but no action was had under it. At the next session, by some strange metamorphosis, the whig members became special friends of a state government, and sought to take the initiative towards the formation of one. A bill for that purpose passed the house that session by a vote of fourteen to nine, every whig but one voting aye. The bill went to the council, and was there rather summarily rejected, in consequence of which the whig members of the House, in a pet, all voted to adjourn and the adjournment was carried at their instance, before any business had been transacted, and as a punishment of the contumacious council."

The next attempt, however, was more successful in getting the measure before the people, but it was defeated by popular vote. The bill was introduced January 11, 1854, in the House, by Representative Moffitt. It was referred to a select committee of five, and was passed and then sent to the Council, where after further amendments it was adopted.^[13] In the campaign that followed, statehood was opposed by the whig Oregonian, principally on the ground of expense, and was ardently advocated by the Statesman. The election was held June 5, 1854. The vote was 3210 for the constitutional Convention, and 4079 against, a majority of 869 in the negative. At the same session of the legislature that passed the statehood bill, a Memorial was adopted and was forwarded to congress as follows:

Memorial

"H. M . 3. To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled.

"Your memoralists, the legislative assembly of the Territory of Oregon, would respectfully represent that in view of the rapidly accumulating population of our Territory, its numerous and increasing interests, and the inefficiency and anti-republican character of a territorial form of government, we believe that the period is at hand when the people of Oregon will desire to terminate the existence of the territorial organization by which they are governed, and ask the admission of Oregon, as a state, into the Union on an equal footing with the original states. And, therefore, to this end, you are respectfully and earnestly memoralized for the early passage of an act to enable the people of the Territory of Oregon to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the Union."

While the local measure for the formation of a state Constitution was under consideration, the Oregonian objected that the state, if formed, would be small and weak, with insufficient population and property to support the necessary expense. It said that those in favor of statehood assume that the population will be 65,000 and the taxable property as much as fifty-three millions by the time the state is established, and argue that the total expense of state government will not exceed $50,000 per year, which could be paid by a poll tax of one dollar for each inhabitant, whereas, the actual fact was that in 1850 the total population was but 13,000, and the taxable property but $8,000,000. Not more than one in seven are taxpayers and personal property alone pays taxes. The burden, therefore, would fall upon farmers, merchants and mechanics. We have as yet no public buildings at the seat of government, and there are few county court houses, jails or roads. Under state government all these would have to be borne by local tax instead of being furnished by federal appropriations, and besides this the state government would cost the people not less than $150,000 per year. It was claimed that the proposal was advocated by democrats for the advance of their party leaders.^[14]

The Statesman favored holding a convention to form the state Constitution, saying that it would be at least two and a half years before Oregon could be admitted as a state, and in the meantime the population would have reached 80,000. It urged that this was the way to get needed harbor improvements, lighthouses and railroads.^[15]

The Statesman in announcing the unfavorable result of the election said: "The vote in Jackson County was 760 against, which defeats the Constitution, the only reason of opposition being a desire for a division of the Territory."^[16]

The allusion of the Statesman was to a measure known as H. J. R. 32, introduced in the territorial legislature of 1853, by Representative Martin of Douglas County, which was:

"Resolved by the House, the Council concurring, That our delegate in congress be and hereby is requested to use his best endeavors, and to act in concert with the senators of California, to procure the passage of a law creating and organizing a new territory to be known by the name of Jackson Territory, including all that part of Oregon Territory lying south of the latitude of 43 degrees and 45 minutes, and all that portion of California lying north of the Trinity Mountains."

At the expense of some digression from the main topic, it may serve to recall an almost forgotten episode in local history to give some further details of the proposal to create Jackson Territory. The Territory of Washington, north of the Columbia River had been created by act of Congress March 3, 1853, with the consent of the legislature of the Territory of Oregon, and with the active aid of General Lane in congress. In the Statesman of January 24, 1854, appeared the usual legislative summary, in which there was a statement that a convention would be held at Jacksonville January 25, 1854, for the furtherance of the object of creating another territory out of Oregon, and this seems to be the first public reference to the project to form a pro-slave state from the southern counties. The meeting was held at Jacksonville, January 26, 1854, and was organized by electing H. G. Ferris, of Siskiyou, California, as president, and E. Steele, of Siskiyou, California, as vice-president; S. Culver, of Jacksonville, Oregon, vice-president, and Messrs. T . McF. Patton and C. S . Drew, of Jacksonville, Oregon, as secretaries. The purpose of the meeting was stated to be to take measures to organize from parts of Oregon and California a new territory to include the district of California north of Trinity Mountains and in Oregon from the Calapooia Mountains, south, (Jackson, Douglas and Umpqua Counties). The following preamble and resolution was adopted:

"Whereas, the legislative assembly of the Territory of Oregon have introduced and passed an act providing for the sense of the people to be taken in reference to the formation of a state government. Therefore,

"Resolved, that we will use every exertion to prevent the formation of a state government in Oregon with its present boundaries."

This motion was offered by L. F . Mosher, a son-in-law of Joseph Lane, who was then in Washington as delegate to congress. The meeting adjourned to meet at Jacksonville on Monday, April 17, 1854, after appointing three committees as follows: For drafting memorial to congress, E. Steele, L. F . Mosher and E. J. Curtis. To memorialize Oregon legislature, George F. Snelling, T. McF. Patton and D. M. Kinney. To memoralize California legislature, C. N. Thornbury, E. Moore and W. A . Robinson.

At the Oregon territorial legislative session of 1854, Representative Ladd introduced a Memorial instructing delegates in congress to create a new Territory out of northern California and southern Oregon, but nothing came of this, as consideration was indefinitely postponed. However, the following afterward appeared in the Umpqua Gazette, written by General Lane:

"Some time since I wrote a letter for publication in relation to the division of Oregon Territory, as proposed by the people of Jacksonville and Yreka, in which I gave my views in opposition to such a division and urged the establishment of a state government for reasons I think will be considered legitimate and proper. A new Territory cannot be made as proposed. The delegation from California does not think of entertaining the idea of clipping their state."

It seems that the promoters of this scheme ascertained that the California delegation in congress did not favor creation of such a new Territory and the plan was dropped. Nevertheless, the subject came up again at the Oregon constitutional convention of 1857, when Marple, a delegate from Coos County, offered a resolution providing that at such time as the electors of that portion of the state lying south of the Calapooia Mountains or a part thereof shall desire to detach the same from this state and unite with a portion of California in the formation of a new state they shall be permitted to do so. But the provision was not adopted and nothing more was heard of Jackson State or Territory.

Those favoring the "Democratic Dogma of Statehood," were no sooner apprised of the adverse vote in the June election of 1854 than they laid plans for another campaign. When the legislature met in December of that year a bill was at once introduced. This was followed by the adoption of a joint resolution to provide for a joint committee of the two houses, whose duty it would be to draft a Constitution and submit it to the people for adoption, but after appointment of the committee another resolution was adopted, discharging this committee; still another house bill was offered for a 'state Convention, but was finally defeated, while a Council bill of similar tenor was adopted January 30, 1855. This measure provided for an election to elect delegates, on the first Monday of June, 1855, and required the delegates to meet on the first Monday of February, 1856. The number of delegates was to be seventy, and the constitution when prepared was to be submitted to the people for adoption.^[17]

At the democrat convention held at Salem, April 11, 1855, a resolution was adopted as follows:

"Resolved, That in the opinion of this convention the time has arrived when Oregon should assume the position of a sovereign state; that the numbers, wealth and intelligence of the population entitle her to become the latest and brightest star of the Union, bearing the farthest westward the standard of the Pacific."

The election, June 4, 1855, resulted in a majority of 415 against statehood and constitutional convention, a smaller negative majority than in the 1854 election. The vote was 4420 in favor and 4835 against. The democrats, therefore, were not discouraged, and immediately took steps to have the question again submitted to the people in 1856.

In the meantime, in accordance with the Memorial of 1854, Lane had offered a bill in congress authorizing Oregon to form a Constitution and to apply for admission as a state, and the bill passed the House, January 29, 1855. It was reported to the Senate, February 28, 1855, by Stephen A. Douglas, chairman of the Senate committee on territories and came to a vote March 3, when a motion to lay on the table was defeated by a close vote of 18 to 20, and then an amendment offered by the committee on territories to require a population of not less than 60,000 as a condition to statehood was adopted. This being the last day of the session, however, it could not be brought to a final vote on third reading, although the chairman strongly urged it. It was, in consequence, lost. It may be added that the bill as reported to the Senate had fixed the eastern boundary of the proposed state at the summit of the Cascade Mountains. This stirred up the Oregonian, which in an editorial, March 24, 1855, called attention to this feature, denouncing as treachery this curtailment of area, but in a later issue the paper reported Lane's statement that Douglas had so changed the bill in committee of the Senate. On the other hand, the Statesman, reporting the bill as having passed the House of Representatives said that as passed it placed the eastern boundary at the Cascade Mountains, but upon a later date it corrected the editorial statement to say that the boundaries under the pending bill were to be fixed by the convention in Oregon.^[18]

The following editorial in the Oregonian of February 13, 1871, was written by Mr. H. W. Scott, who, doubtless, had authority for the facts stated therein:

"About the time that Oregon was admitted into the Union, Joseph Lane, who was then a power in Oregon politics, delivered a political speech at Lafayette, Oregon, in which he related that there was much opposition in Congress to the admission of Oregon with the boundaries proposed. Stephen A. Douglas, then chairman of the Senate committee on territories, insisted that the Cascade Mountains should be the eastern boundary of Oregon. Lane related that he was in the committee room when the matter was under consideration. Mr. Douglas walked up and down, discussing the question. Stopping before a large map, he drew his cane across it on the shaded line indicated as the Cascade Mountains, and exclaimed, 'There is your natural boundary! This is the line marked by nature as the eastern boundary of your state. Oregon should lie wholly west of the Cascade Mountains.' And, as Lane related, Douglas went on to show why it would not be desirable to include in the new state any of the country lying east of that range, and pointed out the very inconveniences that have since arisen. Lane related this to show what opposition he had to meet in securing the admission of the state in its present shape.^[19]"

In the meantime, at a democratic caucus held January 29, 1856, at Salem, by members of the legislature, Judge Reuben P. Boise, chairman of a committee previously appointed, reported an address to the people as a preamble to a proposed bill re-submitting the question of state government to the people, and the report was unanimously adopted. The bill had been offered by Representative Tichenor in the Legislative Assembly at Salem, four days before, for the purpose of taking the sense of the people of Oregon relative to the formation of a state government and calling for an election on the first Monday of April, 1856. The bill was adopted, with the preamble, which laid especial emphasis upon the fact that there were recent gold discoveries east of the Cascade Mountains, both on the Pend d'Oreille and in Wasco County, and which referred to the resources for agriculture in that section that would induce settlement there. It argued that failure to enter the Union at once as a state would lose the 500,000 acres of eastern Oregon and would result in a division of the Territory. Other familiar arguments in favor of early statehood were repeated and amplified.^[20]

The Oregonian came out with a virulent attack on this program. It was denounced as the most visionary and foolish policy that could be adopted, as statehood would impoverish the people and bankrupt, the state in less than two years, and would result in driving capital from the country and retarding settlement. The opposition was put quite frankly upon distrust of the sponsors, since no good thing could come from such a source, referring specifically to Delazon Smith, Asahel Bush "and their infamous cohorts."^[21]

This attack was but the preliminary for a series of editorials by Editor Dryer in his best style, which began with a full statement of the points urged by proponents in favor of statehood, and then disposed of them in succession, answering one by one the arguments set out in the preamble to the bill as prepared by Judge Boise. It was urged that Oregon would command attention and respect in proportion to its agricultural, manufacturing and commercial resources. Foreign capital for the establishment of manufactories, and for the building of works of internal improvement would not be introduced until there was proper basis for investment and employment. There must be population and reproductive wealth, the only foundation of prosperity. Immigration had been and would be retarded by the Indian war. There was nothing in the claim that Oregon would gain by increased representation in congress, since with the one delegate representing the Territory there was no divided counsel, and there was an advantage in unity in action. Acquisition of public lands by a state would but beget fraud and would prove a temptation for for public plunder. Until congress had provided public buildings and other improvements usually made in territories, statehood would be a burden upon a people few in number and already in debt. There was no reason to suppose that congress would not pay Indian 'war claims, as it had done in the case of other Indian wars. It was preposterous to talk of voting for state government in the midst of the Indian wars. Appropriations would be no more readily granted to a state than to a territory, and to say that state government would not largely increase taxation was futile and false. There were really no vacant lands in the Willamette, Umpqua or Rogue River valleys, and the only available lands were east of the Cascades, which could not be had until after the Indian war was over and they were surveyed by the government. A state government would cost at least $60,000 per year, and this and the amount necessary for statehouse and penitentiary would require a nine-mill tax, since one mill at present raises but $13,000 revenue. The expense of the territorial government was about $50,000 per year, all paid by the United States, and this would be withdrawn. The inevitable increase of taxation would divert immigration from Oregon to California and stockraisers and farmers would remove. The state would have to assume a large war debt.^[22]

The Oregonian was the only paper opposing the adoption of a state constitution. The Pacific Christian Advocate, a religious paper, in answer to requests to publish contributed articles on one side or the other, declined to do so, excusing itself on the ground that although not deemed to be a party question, a discussion of it would lead to the belief that the paper was taking part in politics.^[23] The Statesman, on the other hand, pointed out that nine out of fifteen counties had voted favorably in 1854, and eleven out of seventeen in 1855. It claimed that the only real objection was expense of state government, but the population was already between 50,000 and 60,000, and as Oregon had been longer settled and was greater in number of population, and had more solid wealth than other territories that had become states, it could undertake to maintain and support an economical state government, and thus derive the obvious benefits, both political and pecuniary, that statehood would bring. Such benefits would greatly outweigh the disadvantages. 22 In the same issue, a letter from Delazon Smith was published making a strong appeal for a convention for state government, especially because the Memorials to Congress asking aid on account of the various needs of the people of the Territory were of little avail and there was need of a strong representation in congress. One of the arguments advanced by the Statesman was based upon a low estimate of salaries for state officers, and upon the proposal to have biennial sessions of the state legislature instead of the annual sessions. The successive issues of the paper vigorously upheld its side of the argument, and for the first time the negro question, always in the background, appeared in answer to a suggestion of the Oregonian regarding the voting of free negroes, who were admitted as voters in other states, and the proposal to extend the time of probation of foreigners wishing to be naturalized.^[24]

The Oregon Argus left the discussion of state government to its correspondents, several of whom, including Orange Jacobs and A. G . Hovey, wrote long articles pro and con, that were published in its columns. But in the number of April 5, 1856, immediately before the election, the editor confessed that the reason for his silence was that he had not been able to make up his mind. The editorial was a model of the art of using words without saying anything.

The vote taken at the special election in April, 1856, was 4186 for, and 4435 against a constitutional convention, the measure being thus lost by 249 votes.^[25]

Meantime, Lane introduced his bill again in the House of Representatives at Washington February 18, 1856. On June 23, 1856, a debate arose and, after a slight amendment, a motion was made by Grow in committee of the whole, that it be reported favorably for passage. This was opposed by Jones, of Tennessee, who moved an amendment to insert words making it conditional upon having a population equal to the ratio of one representative under the census of 1850.^[26] Lane protested against the amendment and urged that practically this same bill had passed the House in the previous year, although it had failed in the Senate on account of the late day in the session when it passed the House. He promised that if the bill were adopted now the people of Oregon would present their constitution at the next congress when they would be certain to have a population sufficient, if (as he did not admit) they did not already have a sufficient number. The spirited debate was participated in by many members, the committee of the whole arrived at no conclusion, and the bill did not pass. During the debate Cadwallader proposed an amendment fixing the eastern boundary at the summit of the Cascade Mountains, but this was successfully opposed by Lane, who urged that the people of Oregon should be allowed to fix their own boundaries.^[27] Amendments were also offered to require the voters to be citizens of the United States. Lane finally gave up his fight for the bill, doubtless foreseeing defeat, and it did not come to formal vote. The failure of the bill was partly due to the feeling that the population was insufficient, but the members of the whig party feared that if admitted the state would send a pro-slavery delegation to congress.

Governor Curry, in a message which he read to the Territorial legislature, December 10, 1856, included the following:

"The organization of a State government for Oregon, with the experience obtained at Washington in reference to the treatment of territorial interests there, I deem a subject of first consequence. There are many disadvantages and positive grievances entailed by the territorial form of government, in that, in the acquisition of new territory by the United States, the consideration of congress must inevitably be given to the remodeling and improvement of the whole system. The noble principle enunciated in the Kansas-Nebraska Act is a step in advance, and may be regarded as an evidence of the encouragement that is in the future in this respect. The Indian difficulties upon our frontiers have, and will for a time, deter an increase of our population by the ordinary means of overland immigration, which has been the usual source of important yearly accessions, chiefly to the agricultural class of our inhabitants. Hundreds of industrious and enterprising people would have started from the states in the ensuing spring, by the overland route, to make homes in Oregon, but for the unprotected condition of the route. Military posts at Fort Boise and Fort Hall, are imperatively required to insure safe and unobstructed travel in the Indian country, and as links to connect the chain of the mountains. An independent sovereignty will be certain to induce, by the only other means of access, a character of population, differing in interest, but quite as requisite to the permanent prosperity of the country."

This statement was intended to convey the idea that although Oregon had fewer people than might be deemed necessary before she could be admitted as a state, this shortage was due to failure of the general government to protect overland emigrants, and that if statehood could be granted, the fact of "independent sovereignty" would be sufficient to draw new inhabitants by way of the ocean route and the deficiency would soon be made up.

But, even before the Governor's message was read, a new bill for a Constitutional Convention had beeri introduced at Salem. It was offered December 4, 1856, and, strange as it may seem in view of the earlier efforts, the bill by the eighteenth day of that month had passed both houses and had been signed. It differed in no essential particular from its unsuccessful predecessors, but now a different situation was presented and the former opposition had become reconciled to statehood, so that the prospect of adoption if submitted again to popular vote was excellent. The bill was hurried through both houses, and was adopted without a dissenting vote.

The new election was held on the first Monday of June, 1857, under favorable auspices, ane at last the people voted in favor of statehood and elected delegates to a Constitutional Convention. The vote for Convention was 7617, and the negative mustered but 1679 votes, so that the sweeping victory shown by the majority of 5938 was the more remarkable in view of the previous repeated rejections.^[28] In the seven years of territorial existence the question had been voted upon by the territorial legislature in one form or another nine times, and by popular vote four times, while congress had considered Oregon statehood bills at two sessions.

The explanation is found in the fact that as early as November 1, 1856, the Oregonian had withdrawn all opposition and had announced its intention not to oppose state government. It was agreed upon all sides that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention would be elected at the same time the popular vote was taken on the question of statehood, and the Act so provided. The change of attitude upon the part of those opposed to slavery was because of a growing belief that President Buchanan's in-coming administration was planning to force slavery upon free territories by federal action. "The moment Kansas is admitted as a slave state," said the Oregonian in an editorial upon the Buchanan administration, in which that intention as to Kansas was prophesied, "the whole power and force of the slavery propagandists will be concentrated to make Oregon a slave state also." "If we are to have the institution of slavery forced upon us here, we desire the people resident in Oregon to do it, and not the will and power of a few politicians in Washington City," was one of the Oregonian's declarations.^[29]

However, in order fully to understand the sudden change of sentiment by which those that had opposed statehood now joined in support of the measure, a glance at the political situation will be necessary. As late as 1854, Oregon was calmly confident that slavery could not be introduced there. The Missouri Compromise had settled that, for Oregon was north of the compromise line. Moreover by a decision of the Oregon Courts it had been held that slavery could not exist in the Territory and that slaves brought there were free.^[30] But congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska bill in 1854, providing for the organization of the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and asserting the doctrine of "squatter-sovereignty," or local option for territories on slavery and other questions, in effect repealing the Missouri Compromise. One indirect result of this enactment was to disrupt the national whig party, and ultimately to create the republican party.

Oregon, therefore, after this bitterly fought legislation, became debatable ground, and instead of being free from active local interest, at once became the scene of agitation, and the slavery question was the basis of political discussion and conduct. The legislature of 1854-5 had debated at great length the series of resolutions offered by Delazon Smith, endorsing the KansasNebraska Act, which he claimed had the effect to repeal any and all provisions of the fundamental laws that prohibited slavery in Oregon. In April, 1855, the Yamhill County Whig Convention denounced squatter-sovereignty, and on June 27, 1855, a general convention of those opposed to slavery was held at Albany.^[31] In May, 1856, the first republican meeting was held by citizens of Jackson County to nominate county officers and it adopted a strong platform declaring for freedom throughout the United States. This was followed August 20, 1856, by a meeting of "a number of friends of the republican cause," at Albany, to organize a republican party.^[32] Many of the same men were present who had attended the whig free-soil convention in Yamhill county the preceding year, and the principles laid down by the Philadelphia national convention of the republican party were approved and the national Fremont-Dayton ticket was endorsed. At the same time, steps were taken to organize county and precinct conventions, and to stimulate friends of the movement throughout the Territory to support men for office who were in harmony with the party aims. The Oregonian, while not at first cordial, stated as early as December 6, 1856, that almost every county had held a republican convention and adopted a republican platform.

The "free-state republican platform" adopted at Albany February 11, 1857, declared unequivocally in favor of the admission of Oregon into the Union, but as a free state.

Then, the Argus, published at Oregon City, became the organ of the new party, and strongly supported its principles. It was ably edited by W. L. Adams, who had early declared his adhesion to the new organization.^[33]

It was on May 22, 1856, that Sumner was assaulted by Brooks in the United States Senate at Washington, and when Brooks challenged Senator Wilson to a duel, Lane acted as the second for the challenger. The feeling was growing throughout the Territory that Lane and the Buchanan administration would force slavery upon Oregon. While negroes, either slave or free, were not wanted by the majority of the people of the Territory, it was now generally agreed that statehood and slavery should be again submitted to vote as soon as possible, and with those the question whether free negroes would be allowed to settle in the new state.

Dryer was elected as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention as a representative of Multnomah and Wash- ington Counties, by nomination of the Washington County convention of the American party, held April 25, 1857, and that convention declared itself uncondi- tionally opposed to the introduction of slavery into Ore- gon. John R. McBride, then a very young man, was elected from Yamhill County upon nomination of a repub- lican convention opposed to slavery and favoring admis- sion as a free state. Besides these, the free state dele- gates included E. D. Shattuck, John S. White and Levi Anderson of Washington County; Jesse Applegate and Levi Scott of Umpqua County; Martin Olds, R. V . Short, R. C. Kinney, of Yamhill County; David Logan, of Mul- tnomah County; John W. Watts, of Columbia County; William Matzger, Henry B. Nichols and Haman C. Lewis, of Benton County; and W. H . Watkins of Josephine County. These were of various political views, but were mostly old time whigs with pronounced bias in favor of a free state. The remainder of the convention, about forty-two in number, were democrats of various shades.

The platform adopted at Salem, April 13, 1857, at the democrat state convention, which Dryer called "an august body of office holders, office seekers, and Lane worshippers," provided by resolution that in the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention no discrim- ination would be made between democrats favoring or opposing slavery in the future state of Oregon, and the question should be submitted in a separate clause to be voted on by the people.^[34]

Although the democrats were in the majority in the state, they were by this time becoming hopelessly divided. Some leading men of the party, while unwilling to have slavery introduced, thought that all negroes should be excluded, and on this point alone the right and left wings of the party seemed to be in accord.

In the meantime in the House of Representatives at Washington there was another bill authorizing the people of Oregon to form a state Constitution and state government. This was House Bill 7, and came from the Committee on Territories as a substitute bill, January 31, 1857, and as reported fixed the eastern boundary of the proposed state at 120° of longitude, approximately the eastern California line. The bill was amended after debate to restrict the voters for statehood to citizens of the United States, and to require the constitution when framed to be submitted to the people for approval and ratification. The debate, which raised several other suggestions for amendment, followed immediately after debate on the Minnesota bill, which had been sent back to the Committee on Territories. The Oregon bill, however, passed the House without a call for yeas and nays. Both the Minnesota bill, which subsequently passed the House, and the Oregon bill were referred in the Senate to the Committee on Territories, February 2, 1857. The latter measure was reported by Senator Douglas of the Committee, with amendments, on February 18, 1857, and came on for debate on the twenty-first day of that month. The senate committee had changed the eastern boundary to the Shoshone or Snake River as far south as the mouth of the Owyhee River, and thence south to the Forty-second parallel of north latitude, and the remainder of Oregon Territory was to be put under the jurisdiction of Washington Territory. However, the Senate adjourned without taking a vote, and the session closed on March third without again reaching the bill.^[35] The last amendment offered was one by Senator Green, in the nature of a rider to the bill to the effect that Kansas be put upon the same basis to authorize her to form a constitution. Whether this affected the defeat or not, the Oregon bill was at an end for this session. When the election in Oregon of delegates to the Constitutional Convention came on in June, 1857, it was definitely known in the Territory that congress had again failed to act, and Bush of the Statesman began to suspect his political ally, Lane, of luke-warmness, if not of actual treachery.

(To be continued)

1. The substance of this paper was given in an address by its author at the Annual Meeting of the Oregon Historical Society, October 24, 1925.
2. The census taken under Governor Lane's directions showed a population of 9083 consisting of 8785 American citizens and 298 foreigners. Of these, there were 5410 males and 3673 females. Another census, taken in 1850, showed a total population of 13,294.
3. Proceedings of May 13, 1850. Oregon Spectator, May 16, 1850. This issue is the only source of information as to this session, which is not mentioned in the official lists of legislative sessions.
4. Oregon Spectator, May 30, 1850. In the issue of the Spectator of April 18, 1850, there was a long editorial, which began by saying: "We find the opinion that Oregon should be immediately erected into a state, much more prevalent than we had anticipated." All of the arguments in favor of statehood were presented.
5. Oregon Spectator, October 18, 1849.
6. Oregon Spectator, May 30, 1850.
7. House Jour., 1850–1, in Western Star, December 19, 1850. The following were appointed: Messrs. King, Matlock, St. Clair, Holmes and Walters. The committee seems to have taken no action.
8. H. J., 1851–2, p. 16, 17, 19. Messrs. Wilcox, Anderson, Simpson, Drew and White were appointed on this committee.
9. Laws, 1851–2, p. 62; H. J. 1851-2, pp. 16, 17, 19, 59, 68, 75, 76, 85, 96, 97–102.
10. John R. McBride included the following as supposed at times to be within the magic circle: Asahel Bush, L. F. Grover, Ben. Harding, R. P. Boise, of Marion County; J. W. Nesmith and Fred Waymire, of Polk County; M. P. Deady, of Yamhill County; S. F. Chadwick, of Douglas County; J. W . Drew, of Umpqua County; George L. Curry, of Clackamas County; William Tichenor, of Coos County, and Delazon Smith, of Linn County. (See McBride's address on the Constitutional Convention, delivered before the Oregon Pioneers in 1897).
11. See an article by Flora Belle Ludington in Vol XXVI, Or. Hist. Quar., p. 229, for a list of newspapers and magazines published in Oregon prior to 1870.
12. Oregon Statesman, Jan. 22 and 29, 1853. Proceedings of Jan. 10, 12, 14 and 15, 1853.
13. The bill was House Bill No. 44, H. J. 1853-4, pp. 89, 94, 139, C. J., 1853-4, pp. 82, 94. Laws 1853-4, p. 504. The memorial was H. M. 3, and is in the appendix of the last mentioned volume, p. 40. See as to the Memorial, C. J., 1853-4, pp. 94, 95, 98.
14. Oregonian, Apr. 1, 15, May 6, 13, 1854.
15. Oregon Statesman, Feb. 21, Mar. 7, May 9, 16, 1854.
16. Oregon Statesman, June 27, 1854. A letter from A. L. Humphrey to General Joseph Lane dated July 17, 1854, reports to him that Jackson County's vote was against constitutional convention. A letter of April 4, 1854, from Richard Irwin to Lane indicated that Benton County would be favorable, Mss. Or. Hist. Soc.
17. H. B. 14, was indefinitely postponed Jan. 10, 1855. H. J. 1854–5 pp. 32, 35, 37, 68.
    C. J. R. 7 was lost, but on reconsideration was passed and committee was appointed. C. J. 1854–5 pp. 47, 49; H. J. 1854–5 81, 83 101-103, 108, and Appendix p. 61. Oregon Statesman, Jan. 23, 1855.
    C. J. R. 11, was adopted discharging committee appointed under C. J. R. 7. H. J. 1854–5 p. 135, and Appendix p. 61. H. B. 84, was indefinitely postponed Jan. 26, 1855. pp. 134, 137.
    C. B. 34 was adopted Jan. 30, 1855. C. J. 1854–5 pp 92, 97, 106–7; H. J. 1854–5 163. Oregon Statesman, February 6, 1855; id., February 13, 1855.
18. Oregonian, March 24, April 28 and May 26, 1855. Statesman, March 20, May 19, 1855. Cong. Globe, 1854-5, 33-2 pt. 1, p. 455, 494; 33-2; pt. 2, p. 991, 1151.
19. Reprinted in Scott's History of the Oregon Country, vol. V., p. 13.
20. H. J. 1855–6, pp. 159, 160, 195, 206. The preamble is set out in the Appendix, pp. 150–3. C. J. 1855–6, pp. 145, 146, 163. The result of the election is given in Statesman, June 10, 1856. The Oregon Weekly Time of March 1, 1856, published the preamble on the editorial page.
21. Oregonian, January 26, 1856. Compare Statesman, February 5, 1856.
22. Oregonian, February 16, 23; March 1, 8, 15; 29; May 3, 1856.
23. Pacific Christian Advocate, March 29, 1856.
24. Statesman, March 25, May 6, 1856.
25. Statesman, June 10, 1856.
26. The ratio of population to one representative in Congress had been 70,680 from 1843 to 1853, but was 93,500 from 1853 to 1863. The question was raised as to how many persons were in Oregon, and Lane was pressed for a definite statement The Oregon census of 1850 showed 13,294 persons.
27. Cong. Globe 34th Cong. 1 Sess. v, 39 pt. 2, pp. 1452-8
28. Statesman, June 30, 1857. The vote is given by counties, July 7, 1857.
29. Oregonian, November 1, 1856.
30. Judge George H. Williams allowed a writ of habeas corpus to free slaves brought by Nathaniel Ford of Polk County. See his article in Or. Hist. Quarterly (1901) v. 2, p. 1. See also the articles by Fred Lockley, "The Case of Robin Holmes v. Nathaniel Ford," id., XXIII, p. 111; "Some Documentary Records of Slavery in Oregon," id., XVIII, 107.
31. Oregonian, July 7, 1855. And Delazon Smith's comments on this convention in the Statesman, July 14, 1855.
32. Argus, June 7, 1856.
33. Argus, November 1, 1856.
34. Statesman, April 21, 1857.
35. Cong. Globe, v. 42, 43, pts. 1 and 2, 3rd Sess. 34th Cong. (1856-7), pp. 519, 520, 535; 542, 734, 821.