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.

“Now, fellow-citizens, let us look calmly at our true situation. We are two thousand five hundred miles from any point from which we can receive the least assistance by land; and seventeen thousand miles by water. A portion of our community are organized and ready to protect themselves, and to defend all their rights and interests. Another organization of a religious character is in our midst,—I should say, two. They each have a head—an executive. How is it with us? Who is our head in all that pertains to our civil liberty, rights, and property? It is possible the gentleman may wish us to remain as unprotected, as helpless and exposed to all the dangers that surround us on every hand, as we have heretofore been. If he does, you, fellow-citizens, I am sure, do not wish to add to his feebleness by destroying the organization you have commenced, because he is afraid of what some CÆsar did in Rome some centuries past. We are acting for ourselves and those immediately dependent upon us for protection. In union there is strength. I believe you are fully satisfied that your committee have acted honestly, and, as they thought, for the good of all they represented. If such is the case, you will approve of their acts, and our organization will be complete as they have prepared it for this meeting.”

On the question being taken, there were but two or three votes against the executive, or fifth section. Mr. Lee informed the writer that he saw plainly enough that the meeting was determined to have a government of some kind, and that probably the Executive Committee was the best at first. This point gained, the remainder was soon disposed of.

The marriage fee was changed, in the seventeenth article, from three dollars to one dollar.

The resolution referred to as the nineteenth was: “Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed to draw up a digest of all the laws and proceedings of the people of this Territory, in relation to the present provisional government, and the reasons for forming the same; and forward said digest and report to the Congress of the United States for their information.” Rev. Jason Lee, Rev. Gustavus Hines, and Mr. C. M. Walker were chosen that committee, and instructed to have access to all public documents, and to call upon any individual for any information they might deem necessary in carrying out their instructions.

That committee, so far as performing their duty and carrying out the wishes of the people were concerned, did the same as the reverend Legislative Committee did in 1841; they neglected the thing altogether, and paid no attention to the object of the resolution. Still, at the present day, when the same reverend gentlemen are charged with having done all they could against the early settlers’ government, they attempt to repel the charge, and take great credit to themselves for the perseverance of others in securing permanent laws and protection for themselves and the settlements.

Messrs. Beers, Hill, and Gale, were chosen by ballot as the first Executive Committee.

Hugh Burns, who had been chosen at the May meeting as justice of the peace, had resigned, and Robert Moore was chosen to fill his place.

The committee had prepared a full list of the laws of Iowa, to recommend for the adoption of the people, which was presented and read, some slight amendments made, and the list adopted.

The report of the Legislative Committee was adopted as a whole; and on motion it was “Resolved, That the president of the convention assisted by the Rev. Messrs. Lee, Clark, and Leslie, be a committee to draft and administer an oath of office to the civil officers elected on the 2d of May, 1843, and that said officers be required to subscribe to the same; and administer the oath to the supreme judge, who shall hereafter qualify all civil and military officers to be elected by the people.” At this point, a question arose in the mind of the last-named committee, whether they would proceed that night to administer the proposed oath, or defer it till some other time. There were some earnest and determined men in that convention, who were not to be defeated at the last moment by the disposition of these reverend gentlemen to delay the concluding ceremony of drafting and administering the oath of office to the persons the people had chosen. To relieve them of all doubt as to the wish of the convention (although it was then nearly dark), it was moved and carried, “that the committee to qualify officers proceed to the performance of their duty, as far as practicable, this evening.” Judge Wilson was not present.

Rev. Jason Lee noticed that Mr. Beers received the smallest number of votes given for any member of the Executive Committee. This to him, and probably to Messrs. Leslie and Hines, was unaccountable; but not so to us, who understood the general feeling of opposition against the rule of the missionaries and their large claims to land; as also the secret prejudices excited against them by the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Jesuits, who attributed the entire government movement to them, while the organization was that of the settlers unaided by any mission, except individual members of the Protestant missions. This was probably the reason for the proposition to delay qualifying the officers elected, and carrying out the decided wish of the convention. This fact simply shows a reluctant assent to the organization by the principal members of the missions. The French address showed the feelings of the French and Catholics, while the Hudson’s Bay Company stood entirely aloof from it, and expected to defeat the whole movement by the influence of such men as the Rev. G. Hines, Dr. White, Robert Newell, and the Indians.

We have two copies of the organic laws adopted by the people at Champoeg; one published by Charles Saxton in 1846, and the other by the compiler of the Oregon archives in 1853. That published by Mr. Saxton corresponds nearer with our own recollections of the facts of the case; hence we will copy them as given by him.