A History of Oregon, 1792-1849

“Adjourned to 1.30 P. M.

“House called to order by Speaker.

“On motion, house went into committee of the whole upon reports of committees, Gray in the chair. It was soon found that the business before the committee of the whole was not in a shape to be properly acted upon, and that by an open and informal meeting of the members, it could be brought into shape for action, or rather that the several members of the different committees had not had a full expression upon the reports that were before them, and these expressions could be shortened by separate committee consultation and agreement among the members of the several committees; hence an adjournment of one hour was agreed upon.

“At the close of the hour the house met and agreed, went into committee of the whole as to the number of districts. The report of the committee accepted, as amended in committee of the whole.”

The question arises here why did not this committee on districts, and the whole Legislative Committee, specify all north of the Columbia River?

It will be remembered that the Hudson’s Bay Company, with all the influence and votes they, with the priests, could collect, had met the settlers at Champoeg on the 2d of May previous, and opposed the entire organization; and the French priest had sent to the Legislative Committee a protest against any organization; at least the districting committee was aware that such would be the case, as the protest already given was in the hands of Le Breton, the secretary of the committee, and of the whole house. In specifying the districts beyond the limits named, or north of the Columbia, the additional votes and personal influence of the company would be thrown against us. The district committee contended that that influence and vote would defeat us, and make us an English or Hudson’s Bay Company settlement. We could, without the interference of the company, manage our own affairs with such of the French settlers as chose to remain and vote with us. Such as did not like our laws could have a place to which they could continue their allegiance. Besides, we were confident we should receive a large immigration in the fall, and in that case we could extend our settlements and districts and laws to that section of the country.

Another prominent, and perhaps the most prominent reason of all was, we were afraid to attempt to enforce any laws we might wish to adopt, or think necessary among ourselves, upon the servants of the company. We did not acknowledge their right to enforce any English laws over us, and we, as the writer thought then, and still thinks, wisely concluded if they would not openly interfere with us, we would not openly interfere with them, till we were strong enough to outnumber and control them, as will hereafter be clearly demonstrated.

The journal of the proceedings of that committee shows that there were frequent short adjournments. These moments were all occupied in discussing and agreeing upon some report that was soon to be acted upon, and in coming to a unanimous vote as to the final result; there was but one thought and but one object with the majority of the members of the Legislative Committee.

That thought and object was, to establish the provisional government they had undertaken to organize. They felt that union in their action was absolutely necessary, as the opposing elements were so strong, that without it we must fail, and subject ourselves and the settlement to the worst possible tyranny and humiliation from Dr. White and the Hudson’s Bay Company.

After the second recess, during the second day, the report of the military committee was before the house and instructions asked. Newell was opposed to any military arrangements at all. Hubbard was undecided. Gray insisted on carrying out the instructions and ideas of the meeting of the 2d of May in regard to military officers that had been appointed at that meeting, and in preparing rules to govern them in organizing and drilling the men. He was unwilling to leave the military power without any responsibility to any one but themselves; hence instruction was asked, and given, to proceed as indicated in the meeting at Champoeg, and prepare a military law, to be included in the articles of organic compact.

“May 18, 1843. – House met pursuant to adjournment. Session was opened by prayer. Minutes of yesterday’s session read, corrected, and accepted.

“Robert Newell moved, and was seconded, that a committee be appointed to prepare a paper for the signature of all persons wishing an organization.”

The reader is already informed of the appearance of the French protest, and that it was in the possession of Le Breton. It is possible that Newell may have received it from the French priest. The writer has never been able to learn the exact facts in the case. At all events Newell’s resolution shows, that however willing and ready he was to commence the organization of an American government with his adopted countrymen, he is now in doubt as to the propriety of the step he, with others, had undertaken.

He presents a resolution to get up a committee to prepare a paper to circulate among the people, to find out who were in favor of the organization we were then attempting to bring into shape, under the instructions already received.

Perhaps the reader will understand Mr. Newell better if he is more fully informed as to his real genealogy, as there has always been a little doubt whether he belonged to the American or British nation. From the best information we could get about him, he was formerly from Cincinnati, Ohio, and the Rocky Mountains. From the earliest history we have of him, he has claimed to be an American, and represented the interests of a foreign monopoly, under a religious belief that he was conscientiously right in so doing. By keeping himself talking strong American sentiments to Americans, and acting strongly anti-American while in the mountains and in the settlement, he succeeded in obtaining and holding positions to benefit the trade of the Hudson’s Bay Company; also a place in the Legislative Committee, and in the settler’s government, to shield and protect those who were seeking the destruction of all American trade and influence in the country. He was a man of quite ordinary ability, yet smooth and insinuating in his manners, with a great abundance of plausible stories, to make a stranger believe he was learned in a profession. His real sentiments could never be learned except by his vote; his thoughts only read by his acts, which always tended to complicate and confuse legislation. This probably arose from a disposition to seek popularity and places he was incompetent to fill; as, also, from the title he assumed in early life, it naturally made him a hypocrite in action as well as profession. He had not the moral principle requisite to make known the truth, and to assume his proper position and be regarded as a plain man without a title. As plain Bob Newell he could be respected for his natural and genial talent. As Dr. Newell he assumes an air to correspond with the title, and shows the hypocrisy of his life. He was at this time, and has continued to be, a faithful representative of the Hudson’s Bay Company and Jesuit interests in the country, for which service they should enter his name upon their calendar of saints. As a public man, we are not aware that he ever originated a single act or law; but as representing a clique, or the interests of his masters, he has always been ready to do his utmost in every possible way. At the time we were called to vote upon Mr. Newell’s first resolution, his position was fully known to but few, yet enough was understood of his duplicity to reject his proposition at once, and the house proceeded to amend its rules and add a ninth to those already adopted.

The report of the military committee was recommitted with instructions for further notion. Mr. Hubbard was considerably under the influence of Newell, and in consequence of this fact the military rules or laws were remodeled in committee of the whole. Newell and Hubbard were disposed to defeat it altogether as unnecessary, as intimated in the tenth proposition in the French priest’s address. In fact, Mr. Newell acted all through the proceedings of the Legislative Committee upon the ideas contained in that address, and opposed all measures looking beyond the suggestions contained in it.

At this point, the judiciary committee, consisting of Beers, Hubbard, and Shortess, reported in part on the executive power, and opened the eyes of Dr. Newell to the awful responsibility and to a full realization of the fact that a majority of the committee were in favor of an organization, and a real, actual American government. He took the floor and commenced: “Wall, reelly now, Mr. Chairman, this ’ere report is a stumper, I see from the report of this ’ere committee that you are going on a little too fast. I think you had better find out if we can carry this thing through before we go too far. We have a good many people that don’t know what we are about, and I think we had better adjourn before we go too far.”

In the midst of this speech, which was a repetition of the reasons for getting up the paper to find out who were favorable to our proposed government, the house was so uncourteous as to adjourn and leave the balance of Dr. Newell’s speech unrepeated. Suffice it to say, that in those short adjournments as noted in the Oregon archives, nearly or quite all the little differences of opinion were quickly explained and understood by a majority of the members. The exact subjects that were before them at the several meetings we have no documents to indicate, and we can only be governed by such documents as we have, to wit, the record and our own memory.

Newell was the only prominent opposer of the report of the judiciary committee, which was prepared by Robert Shortess, to whose memory we are indebted for a remarkable speech of Hon. Mr. Robert Newell on that occasion. Mr. Shortess says the discussion was on the question of who should be deemed voters. Most of the committee were in favor of universal suffrage, and, as Dr. Newell had a native wife, naturally supposed he would be quite as liberal as those who had full white families; but the doctor gave us one of his “stumpers,” or, as he calls it, “big fir-tree speeches,” by saying: “Wall, now, Mr. Speaker, I think we have got quite high enough among the dark clouds; I do not believe we ought to go any higher. It is well enough to admit the English, the French, the Spanish, and the half-breeds, but the Indian and the negro is a little too dark for me. I think we had better stop at the half-breeds. I am in favor of limiting the right to vote to them, and going no further into the dark clouds to admit the negro.”

We confess that till Mr. Shortess reminded us of this speech, and the manner of its delivery, it had escaped our memory, and that, without it, Mr. Newell could scarcely receive his proper position in the history of our early struggle for American liberty upon this coast. His position and the patronage he received from the Hudson’s Bay Company were sufficient for him to work effectually in their interests through all our struggle.

“At the evening session of May 18, the committee on ways and means were instructed to prepare a subscription for presenting at the general meeting, to procure funds to defray the expenses of the government, after spending a short time in committee of the whole.

“Adjourned till next day.

“May 19, 1843. – House met pursuant to adjournment. Opened with prayer. Moved that the minutes of the 18th be accepted. Taking the whole subject of the organization into consideration, Gray presented the following resolution that a committee of three be appointed to prepare and arrange all the business that has been done, or may be done hereafter at this session, revising statutes of Iowa, etc., report at the next session of the committee, and request the clerk to copy the same.

“Resolution adopted.

“Messrs. Gray, Beers, and O’Neil were appointed; these three living within fifteen miles of each other, it was thought could meet and superintend and revise the whole proceedings, and get them in shape for the public meeting.

“Committee of ways and means reported a subscription, which was accepted, and the military committee reported in part, which was accepted.

“Adjourned to 2 P. M.

“At 2 P. M. house met. The judiciary committee reported in full. Report accepted.”

On the 20th page of the archives, and in reference to the proviso in the fourth article of the organic law, the record does not give us the fact. The proviso referred to was prepared but not included in the original act, as reported and read at Champoeg, but was adopted at Champoeg. The report was duly referred to the revising committee, and the proviso left in the hands of Le Breton to be withheld or presented, as the occasion might require, in the final action of the people. The large pretensions to lands by the Methodist and Catholic missions were fully understood by the entire committee. They wished to curtail them as much as possible, and were fully aware that any direct action to this end would bring the whole influence of both missions against them.

CHAPTER XLIV

Fourth of July, 1843. – Oration by Mr. Hines. – Meeting of July 5. – Debate on the land law. – How the Jesuits and the Hudson’s Bay Company secured their land claims. – Speech of the Rev. G. Hines against the proposed Executive Committee. – The committee supported by O’Neil, Shortess, and Lee. – W. H. Gray closes the debate. – The report of the committee adopted. – Committee appointed to report to Congress, another to make a Digest of Territorial laws, and a third to prepare and administer an oath of office.

On the 4th of July our national anniversary was observed, and an oration was delivered by the Rev. G. Hines. The committee favored the selection of Mr. Hines as orator, that they might gain his views, and be ready to meet him on the main questions that would be brought up on the fifth. In this, however, we failed, as he dwelt principally upon the subjects of temperance, the glorious deeds of our forefathers on the other side of the Rocky Mountains, and the influences and blessings of the day. No Englishman, or foreigner, could have taken any exceptions to his sentiments or language. On the 5th, Dr. Babcock, chairman of the meeting of May 2, being absent, the meeting was called to order by G. W. Le Breton, one of the secretaries of the May meeting. On motion, the Rev. Gustavus Hines was elected president of the convention by acclamation. R. Moore, Esq., chairman of the Legislative Committee, presented his report, which was read by Secretary Le Breton, and on motion accepted. Rev. L. H. Judson moved that the report of the committee on ways and means be accepted. This motion brought the land law up for discussion. The Legislative Committee as a whole reported that law entire, to the proviso in the fourth article. Upon the first part of that article a discussion arose between Mr. Newell and the members of the Methodist Mission, as to the right of any single individual to hold a claim of 640 acres upon a city or town site, or extensive water privilege. Mr. Moore agreed with Mr. Newell on that question, as he claimed one side of the Wallamet River at the falls, and Dr. McLaughlin the other. The Methodist Mission also claimed a right to the east side of the Wallamet, and the Milling Company claimed the island, upon which they were erecting mills. Mr. Newell opposed the fourth article, to favor Dr. McLaughlin; the Methodist Mission and Milling Company favored the article on the ground that it secured them in their rights, and prevented a monopoly of that water-power by any single individual. Rev. Jason Lee was anxious to secure the rights and claims of the Methodist Mission. So far as the water privilege and town sites were concerned, there were no fears on the part of the committee, but in reference to the large claims of the Methodist Mission, there were fears that Mr. Lee and Mr. Hines would oppose our whole effort, and combine the influence of their mission against the organization. To satisfy Rev. Jason Lee, Le Breton presented the proviso as contained in the fourth article, which removed his objection. The committee were well assured that the Jesuit missions would claim the same right to land, and in this way, the one mission would he induced to give up to curtail the other. This occurred as anticipated, only the Methodist Mission held on to their claims, and attempted to maintain them publicly, while the Jesuits did the same thing silently, and by having their lands recorded in the supposed names of their members, or priests, the same as the Hudson’s Bay Company recorded all their improvements and forts in the names of their different servants, so as to hold them for the company; the company and the Jesuits having, as they supposed, secured their own claims to land in the name of their respective servants, joined with the new immigrants, in condemning the large pretensions of the Methodist Mission, and in this way prejudiced the minds of the settlers against it for doing, openly, just what they had done in the names of their servants, secretly.

On the final vote there were but few dissenting voices, except upon the adoption of the proviso. It may be asked why the land law was brought up first. The minutes as recorded on the twenty-third and twenty-fourth pages of the Oregon archives, show that Mr. Judson moved the adoption of the report of the committee on ways and means. This was all the minute that was made, as the business and discussion progressed. The report on the land law was deemed, by the committee, to be of the first importance, as all were personally interested in the law about land claims; and upon the discussion of that report, they could learn the result of the whole effort, and the feelings of the people as to the permanence of the proposed government. The notice of the report of the committee on ways and means, on page 24, and of the proviso, is entered, to show that the amendments alluded to were made. We are of the opinion, that had Mr. Le Breton lived to copy those minutes, he would have so changed them. He says such amendment and proviso were adopted. To this fact we have affirmed under oath as being a part of the provisional law adopted at that meeting. This brings us to the first clause of the organic law, as adopted by the people in mass convention.

The preamble and first article were adopted on motion of Joseph McLaughlin, the second son of Dr. John McLaughlin, who took an active part in favoring the organization, against the wishes and influence of his family.

The second article was read, and, on motion of L. H. Judson, was adopted.

The third, on motion of C. McRoy, and the fourth, on motion of Joseph Holman, were also adopted.

On motion to adopt the fifth article, “on the executive power,” it was plain to be seen that the Rev. Mr. Hines was swelling and becoming uneasy, in proportion as the Rev. Jason Lee appeared to be satisfied with the proceedings. He hesitated to put the motion, called Robert Moore, the chairman of the Legislative Committee, to the chair, and commenced: —

“Mr. President, gentlemen, and fellow-citizens, – The Legislative Committee which you appointed to prepare certain laws, and perform a certain duty, have assumed to present for your approval something they had no right, in all the instructions given them, to present. They have commenced a course which, if not checked, will lead to the worst possible form of despotism. Grant them the privilege which they now ask, of imposing upon this settlement, upon you and me and our families, this hydra-headed monster in the shape of an Executive Committee, and we have but the repetition of the Roman Triumvirate – the Cæsars upon the throne. We may be told by them, in excuse for the violation of plain and positive instructions, that they found it difficult to proceed with the organizing of a temporary government without an executive; and here they have brought before you this monstrosity– this black bear– this hydra-headed monster, in the shape of an Executive Committee; and ask you to adopt it, as necessary to preserve your civil liberties and rights.

“Gentlemen and fellow-citizens, – You have but to look to past history, to warn you of the dangers of so palpable a violation of instructions on the part of public servants. You instructed them to do a certain work, to prepare certain laws. If they could not do as instructed, let them resign and go home. So far as they performed the duties assigned them, we can approve of their acts; but when they attempt to force upon us what we have not asked of them, but said to them we do not want this monstrosity with three heads, yet they persist in saying we do; and have gone on and made their laws to correspond with this absurd and outrageous thing they call Executive Committee. Is it wise, is it reasonable, that we should submit to it? What assurance have we that the next Legislative Committee, or body we may appoint, following the example set by this one, will not give us a king or emperor, and tell us it is necessary to complete our organization?”

Many of the persons present at Champoeg on the 5th of July, 1843, will recollect this speech, and the strong and emphatic manner in which it was delivered. Why Mr. Hines did not move to strike out the executive clause has always been a mystery to us. When he had resumed his seat as president of the convention, Mr. O’Neil made a few remarks, explaining the position of the committee. Mr. Shortess followed, denying the assumption of power attributed to the committee, or a disposition to go beyond their instructions, and urged the necessity of a head or some controlling influence somewhere. Could we rely upon Captains McCarty, or McKay, or Smith to call out their companies; or Major Howard? Should the military control the civil power? “The thing is absurd,” said Shortess. Rev. Jason Lee could not see the proposed executive head of the proposed provisional government in the light Mr. Hines did. If it was thought necessary to have a government at all, it was necessary to have a head, and an executive, or the laws were of no effect.

It was arranged with the Legislative Committee, that Gray should meet Hines on this question, and make the last speech in favor of the executive department. Hence O’Neil and Shortess both spoke in favor of it. Dr. Babcock was opposed, on account of its going beyond present necessities, and looking too much like a permanent and independent government; whereas we only wished to form a temporary one. He thought with Mr. Hines, that the committee had gone beyond their instructions in providing for this executive power, still he was willing to abide the decision of the people. There was a little uncertainty us to Mr. Lee’s final vote. Dr. Babcock was clearly against us. Mr. Hines made but the one speech. From the course the debate had taken, Gray had no fears as to the final result, and waited until it was evident that no more opposing speeches would be made when he commenced: —

“Mr. President and fellow-citizens, – The speech which we have just listened to, from our presiding officer, is in the main correct. It is true that the Legislative Committee were not instructed to bring before you an executive department in the laws and government you proposed to form, when you appointed your committee to prepare those laws. It is also true, that when that committee met, they found that they could not advance one step in accomplishing the work you instructed them to perform, without some supervising influence, or power, somewhere; in short, without a head. Their instructions were against a governor. They have provided an Executive Committee, in place of a single man for governor. This executive head is to act in the place of senate, council, and governor. This provision is before you for your approval or rejection. With this Executive Committee our organization is complete; without it we have no head; no one to see that our laws are executed, and no one to grant a reprieve or pardon in case a law should be enforced against the life or property of any one, for the violation of any law, no matter what the circumstances connected with that real or supposed violation might be. The pardon and mercy part of our law is in that ‘horrible hydra-headed monster’ that the gentleman spoke about, and warned us against; and instead of its being as black as his ‘bear,’ it becomes light and mercy to the erring and the ignorant. As to the example set by your committee for future despots to rob us of our liberty, and place over us a king or an emperor, you and I have no fears so long as we elect our own legislative bodies.