had submitted his proofs? In other words, would an im- partial and enlightened historian seek, by the use of such epithets, to prejudice his readers against the accused in advance, and before the testimony was submitted? It will be seen that the writer emphasi/es the phrase, "His Jesuitical Reverence." so that the reader may not forget this derisive and bitter expression. A decent respect for the feelings of others, as well as a due regard to the dignity of history, would have restrained the impartial historian from the use of such language at every stage of the investigation. Whenever either a good or a bad motive may plausibly be given for the same act, the historian is very apt to impute the bad motive, as he did in this case. I do not think a single instance can be found in the whole book of 624 pages whew the author has erred on the side of charity. He is not one of those noble and exalted natures that would magnanimously state the case more clearly in behalf of the accused than the accused would be able to do himself.
In reference to the act in regard to slavery, free negroes, and mulattoes, I find these entries in the journal of the House of Representatives, July 1 and 3, 1845 ("Oregon Laws and Archives," pages 83 and 85):
Mr. Garrison introduced a bill to repeal the several acts in regard to negroes in Oregon. . . .
The House went into committee of the whole. Mr. Straight in the chair.
When the committee rose, the chairman reported that the committee had had under consideration:
The bill to divorce M. J. Rice;
The act to repeal the several acts on slavery;
An act to fix the time and place of the sittings of the Legislature;
An act to divorce F. Hathaway; also
The report of the committee on revision, which had been adopted.
Report was received, and the bill to divorce F. Hathaway was read a third time and passed; also, the bill to divorce M. J. Rice; also, the bill concerning acts on slavery.
