asked, Strong replied to a letter of Thurston's, confirming the position taken by the delegate, that after the first election, until their naturalization was completed, no foreigner could be allowed to vote.[1] The inference was plain; if not allowed to vote, not a citizen; if not a citizen, not entitled to the benefits of the land law. Thurston also procured the expression of a similar opinion from the chairman of the judiciary of the house of representatives, and from the chairman of the committee on territories, which he had published in the Spectator. Under these influences, the legislature of 1850–1 substantially reënacted the Iowa law adopted in 1849, but Deady succeeded in procuring the passage of a proviso giving foreigners who had resided in the country five years prior to that time, and who had declared, as most of them had, their intention of becoming citizens, a right to vote.[2]
The Thurston interest, asserting that congress had not intended to invest the foreign-born inhabitants of Oregon with the privileges of citizens, declared that it was not necessary that the oath to support the government of the United States and the organic act should be taken before a court of record, but might for such purpose be done before a common magistrate. Could they delude the ignorant into making this error, advantage could be taken of it to invalidate subsequent proceedings. But Pratt pointed out that while part of the proceedings, namely, the taking of the oath required, could have been done before a magistrate, the declaration of intention to become a citizen could only be made according to the form and before the court prescribed in the naturalization laws; and that the act of congress setting forth what was necessary to be done to become entitled to the right to vote at the first election in Oregon did not separate them—from
