1845.—Public meetings to elect delegates to convention.—Candidates for governor.—Members elected to the Legislative Committee.—Oath of office.—Mr. Applegate’s announcement.—Dr. McLaughlin’s amphibiousness.—Description of the members of the Legislative Committee.—Business of the session.—Ermatinger’s election contested.—Mr. Garrison’s resolutions.—Anti-slavery resolution.—Organic law revised.—Improvements and condition of the country.

1845.—Public meetings had been held in most of the districts, and nominations made for the Legislative Committee. Delegates were elected to meet at Champoeg in convention, to nominate candidates for governor, supreme judge, and Territorial recorder.

In this convention A. L. Lovejoy, George Abernethy, O. Russell, and Dr. Bailey were candidates for governor. After several ballotings, Mr. Lovejoy received a majority of the votes, and was declared the regularly nominated candidate. Mr. Russell’s friends were dissatisfied, and in the final vote at the June election, joined with Mr. Abernethy’s friends and elected him, although he was absent from the country. This left the old Executive Committee in power until after the meeting of the Legislative Committee, and revision of the organic laws, which was the first business the committee attended to, and submitted the amended organic compact to the people for their approval.

The members elected were:—

From Clackamas County: H. A. G. Lee, W. H. Gray, H. Straight.

From Champoeg County: R. Newell, J. M. Garrison, M. G. Foisy, and B. Lee.

From Yamhill County: Jesse Applegate and A. Hendricks.

From Tualatin County: M. M. McCarver, J. W. Smith, and David Hill.

From Clatsop County: John McClure.

The oath administered to this Legislative Committee shows the feelings of the mover (Mr. Applegate) toward the Hudson’s Bay Company.

Oath of Office.—“I do solemnly swear that I will support the organic laws of the provisional government of Oregon, so far as the said organic laws are consistent with my duties as a citizen of the United States, or a subject of Great Britain, and faithfully demean myself in office. So help me God.”

In starting from Missouri to come to this country in 1843, Mr. Applegate announced to his traveling companions, as we have been credibly informed, that he meant to drive the Hudson’s Bay Company from the country. To reach the country independent of them, he had sold or mortgaged his cattle to get supplies at Wallawalla. On arriving at Vancouver, he found Dr. McLaughlin to be much of a gentleman, and disposed to aid him in every way he could. The doctor advised him to keep his cattle and gave him employment as a surveyor, and credit for all he required. This kind treatment closed Mr. Applegate’s open statements of opposition to the company, and secured his friendship and his influence to keep his Missouri friends from doing violence to them. He carried this kind feeling for them into the Legislative Committee.

At this point the amphibious disposition of Dr. McLaughlin (a term applied to the doctor, by a member of the company, for his supposed friendship to the American cause) began to develop itself; and in proportion as he favored American interests he fell in the estimation of the company and the English government.

The oath of office presented by Mr. Applegate, and supported by Messrs. Newell, Foisy, McCarver, Garrison, Smith, and Hendricks, shows that these men were favorable to a union with the company or the English party in the country. This would have been right and honorable, had there been a corresponding honorable confidence on their part; but, as the sequel will show, this was not the case. They were willing to favor our organization and give it a quasi support while it served their purposes and afforded them an opportunity to work for its final overthrow.

As a citizen, Mr. Applegate has been one of our best; as a politician, he has acted on the old Whig platform, that, with him, has never been revised. Though half the American continent has been changed since he adopted it, yet his political creed is the same as that announced by Hamilton in the Federalist. My first impression of him was, that he was better versed in the principles of that party than in those of religion, or the general interests of a new country. The fact that the Hudson’s Bay Company, or rather Dr. McLaughlin, early secured his personal friendship, was the cause of his losing caste among his Missouri friends, and also among the larger portion of the settlers that the company were not disposed to favor. In his legislative capacity he was invaluable. His mind was clear and distinct, and he was generally correct in his conclusions. Though not a good debater, yet his mathematical calculations, and straight lines, always came close to the mark. He was kind and obliging to a friend or favorite, but severe on his enemies.

Mr. Abijah Hendricks, from the same county, was a plain farmer, who followed the lead of Mr. Applegate, causing him to always count two in any vote.

Mr. J. H. Smith, of Tualatin County, was also a plain farmer, and generally voted with Mr. Hill.

Mr. M. G. Foisy, from Champoeg, a Frenchman, followed the lead of Mr. Newell.

Mr. Barton Lee was of the independent Democratic pro-slavery school, generally voting against mission interests, from personal prejudice, and was equally ignorant of and prejudiced against the Hudson’s Bay Company; following the lead of H. A. G. Lee.

J. M. Garrison was a perfect weathercock, and none could tell from his speeches or actions what his vote would be.

H. Straight, of Clackamas County, was a man of strong prejudices and but little legislative ability, pro-slavery in sentiment, and strongly opposed to the company and mission influences. He generally voted with Mr. Hill, of Tualatin District.

John McClure, of Clatsop County, a man of fine appearance and generally respected for his age, but, as a politician, having no influence—merely occupying a place. He was of the pro-slavery school—extremely bitter and sarcastic in his conversation against all who fell under his displeasure, yet liberal to personal friends, and kind to strangers; but severe alike on the Hudson’s Bay Company and religious societies. He was inclined in his own religious ideas to Romanism.

H. A. G. Lee was a young man of talent, firmness, and unimpeachable character. He acted with caution, and generally right. He was not a verbose, but a conclusive debater. In short, the words of a debate were uttered by McCarver, and the conclusions and final action followed Lee, who was always ready, with Applegate and Gray, to do his full share of writing and labor.

As we have before stated, the first business of this Legislative Committee was, to revise and prepare an organic law, which could be submitted for the adoption of the people. The whole number of voters was about eight hundred.

While this was being done by a special committee consisting of H. A. G. Lee, Newell, Applegate, Smith, and McClure,—one from each county represented,—another special committee, consisting of Gray, Applegate, H. A. G. Lee, McClure, and D. Hill, were appointed to draft a memorial and petition, to be forwarded to the Congress of the United States, setting forth the condition, situation, relations, and wants of this country. These two objects occupied the greater portion of the time of this Legislative Committee, during their session of eleven days.

On the third day of the session, the question as to the legality of allowing Francis Ermatinger to hold the office of treasurer came up, and it was finally decided that there were not sufficient grounds for contesting the election. Ermatinger was then a member of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and so was Dr. McLaughlin. Hill and Straight were the only two who voted against Ermatinger’s holding that office. I have no doubt, from the feeling and influence just then operating among the officers and servants of the company and English colonists (which subsequent events have proved), that they were laboring to divide the American influence, by coming in and appearing to act with us. Ermatinger was popular among the Americans, and received the entire French vote, and was declared duly elected by the Legislative Committee.

On the fifth day of the session, J. M. Garrison (I think he was called Rev. in those days) brought in a set of resolutions which speak for themselves.

“On motion of Mr. Garrison—

“Resolved, That whereas the people of Oregon, assembled en masse, did, on the 2d day of May, 1843, resolve that no tax should be levied upon this people, confirming the same by the adoption of the report of the committee of ways and means, adopted by the Legislative Committee and referred to the people en masse, and by them enacted on the 5th day of July, 1843; therefore,

“Resolved, That this house has no right to levy a tax of any kind, without the consent of the free voters of this Territory previously obtained.

“Resolved, That all acts and parts of acts on that subject passed by the Legislative Committee were contrary to the express resolution and action of the people.”

These resolutions were referred to committee of the whole, where they found a silent grave.

Dr. White by this time is coming up for a big splurge. Our young friend H. A. G. Lee proposes to make him the bearer of our memorial to Congress, by introducing a resolution, “That the clerk be required to furnish to Dr. E. White a copy of the memorial to Congress, as soon as it shall be properly signed, as per resolution of yesterday.”

This resolution elicited a little discussion, and a statement that Dr. White was not to be trusted with any public document to the government, as he would more than probably change, or so arrange those documents as to secure his own personal ends, whatever they might be. By those unacquainted with Dr. White this was considered strange and unreasonable prejudice against him; so that on the final question there were but Gray, Hill, and Straight who voted against placing the documents in his hands.

On the last day of this session Mr. Applegate introduced a test question on the subject of slavery, precisely the same as that introduced by Garrison four days previous.

“Resolved, That this government can recognize the right of one person to the services of another only upon bona-fide contract made and entered into, and equally binding on both parties.”

Yeas—Applegate, Gray, Smith, McCarver, Garrison, Hill, H. A. G. Lee, Hendricks, and Foisy—10.

Nays—Straight, B. Lee, and McClure—3.

We must now adjourn our Legislative Committee a few days, and see what is going on outside.

The organic laws of the people first adopted at Champoeg, July 5, 1843, had been revised, and unanimously adopted by the Legislative Committee, and submitted for the vote of the people, July 26, 1845.

On page 431 of Mr. Hines’ book, he says: “In the spring of 1844 a new Legislative Committee was elected, which embraced two or three lawyers, who arrived in the country the previous fall. This committee passed a vote recommending several important alterations in the organic laws, which were found to be, in their practical operations, somewhat defective. As the people had not yet surrendered their law-making power into the hands of the Legislative Committee, it was necessary to call an election to ascertain the will of the people in relation to the proposed alterations and amendments. This election took place, and resulted in the adoption of the organic laws, with the proposed alterations and amendments, by an overwhelming majority. The principal alterations thus effected relate to the three powers of government,—the legislative, executive, and judicial. Instead of a committee of nine, whose acts were to be confirmed or rejected by a subsequent vote of the people, the legislative power was vested in a House of Representatives, to consist of not less than thirteen nor more than sixty-one members, possessing all the powers usual to such bodies. Instead of a committee of three, the executive power was vested in one person, to be elected by the qualified voters at the annual election, and possessing the powers common to the governors of the different States.”

We are unable to understand Mr. Hines when he says, “As the people had not yet surrendered their law-making power into the hands of the Legislative Committee, it was necessary to call an election to ascertain the will of the people.” This statement shows the ignorance of Mr. Hines as regards the organic laws adopted by the people of Champoeg. Mr. Saxton, who was in the country at the time, and took copies of those laws attested by Mr. Le Breton (which have already been given), found an organic law with an executive, legislative, and judicial department, the same as the committee of 1845, and all that was requisite was to revise, select out, and define the powers and duties of the several departments.

As a matter of policy, and to harmonize and consolidate, as much as was possible, all the conflicting interests and influences in the country, the presence of British subjects was admitted, their treaty rights were acknowledged by our laws, and they were admitted to a voice and representation in the provisional government.

The liberal course pursued by the Legislature of 1845 has fixed the deep stain of ingratitude and infamy upon the British subjects who participated in our organization, and received its benefits and protection, till they had completed their arrangements for its destruction, just as slavery grew under the fostering care of a liberal and generous government, and then attempted to crush and destroy its protector.

From a review of Mr. Hines’ book, I find that he was on a tour from Oregon to New York by way of China, during 1845 and 1846. This will account for his want of information regarding the political events that were taking place during that time; and also shows the views he entertained on leaving the country.

Dr. McLaughlin had completed his saw-mill and flour-mill at Oregon City. The Milling Company had also put up mills at that place which were now in successful operation, and the country generally was in a prosperous condition.

Dr. Whitman had much annoyance and difficulty with the Indians on account of interference and tales told them by old Toupin, Doreo, Gervais, the priests, and others who were jealous of his labors and success among them.

He had purchased the Dalles station of the Methodist Mission, and engaged Mr. Hinman to occupy it until other arrangements could be made.

Mr. Spalding was engaged in improving his farm, also printing books in the Nez PercÉ language on his small press, and translating and printing portions of the Bible, for the use of the natives. He had a saw-mill and grist-mill at his station; and about three hundred of his Indians, and one hundred at Dr. Whitman’s, were cultivating patches of ground.

Messrs. Walker and Eells were staying at Cimakain, ready to depart any time, as stated by Mr. Brouillet. On page 9 of his narrative, he says: “A missionary of the Spokans, writing to Dr. Whitman, as early as 1839, has said: ‘The failure of this mission is so strongly impressed upon my mind, that I feel it necessary to have cane in hand, and as much as one shoe on, ready for a move. I see nothing but the power of God that can save us.’” Query.—Where did Rev. Vicar-General Brouillet get this letter, and for what purpose did he preserve it? Did he find it among Dr. Whitman’s papers, when he was hunting them over to find the vial of poison to show the Indians as per deposition in the case?

Brouillet continues: “These facts and statements prove clearly, I think, that there existed among the Indians, long before the arrival of the bishop of Wallawalla and his clergy, strong causes of dissatisfaction against the Protestant missionaries and the Americans in general, and that they formed a leaven that had been fermenting several years.” This statement of Vicar-General Brouillet is unquestionably true, but, unfortunately for him, he is standing on the outer line of the circle, and has no personal knowledge of inside influences; hence he reasons from effect and guesses at the cause. He is anxious to so arrange cause and effect, as to remove suspicion of crime from a sect, and thereby involves his friends and himself, and furnishes the strongest proof of the complicity and guilt of both in the crime alleged against them. The “leaven” that had been fermenting is just what we are bringing to light.

The Hudson’s Bay Company were repairing and strengthening their forts, under the plea that they wished some bastions from which they could salute her Majesty’s ships on their arrival and departure from the river; at the same time they were laboring to secure political influence in the settlements, through their American dupes and tools.

While combining the Indian tribes, they were encouraging Jesuitical religious teachers among them; and while preparing for self-defense, they were dividing the settlement into parties and factions.

The Methodist Mission influence was but little, and mission credit was worse than greenbacks in 1864. As to commerce, it was nearly or quite under the control of the Hudson’s Bay Company, also the market value of all produce in the country.