There were on the north side of James Street two large-sized maple shade trees standing eight or ten feet apart. It was in these trees that a strong scantling had been placed, to which the prisoners were hung. As soon as the two men had been swung up, someone in the crowd cried out: "Our work is not yet completed; let us hang the murderer of old man Sires to the same scantling." The idea was immediately seconded, and about one-half of the crowd went up to the County jail, broke down its doors, took the murderer who was awaiting his trial, put a rope about his neck and quickly returned with him to the fatal scantling. The rope was thrown over it, and he was swung into eternity.
I left the Pavilion soon after the crowd had retired, and walked slowly down to James Street. I arrived there just as the crowd was running down the hill with the murderer of Sires. A gentleman rushed up to me as I was slowly walking across James Street and said: "Judge, how do you feel about this proceeding?" I answered: "As a member of Judge Greene's Court, I feel terribly indignant; but as a private citizen, I think that I will recover."
Sires, who had been killed about a month before bya ruffian of the name of Payne, was an aged pioneer. His life for many years had been a rough one, and slightly bordering on toughness; but he had reformed and joined the church; and as he was a man of good ability, he occasionally preached. Confidence in his sincerity and genuine reform was general. He was poor, and, to aid in his support, he was given the office of policeman. While in the discharge of his duties as such, he was shot down by Payne. There was no doubt of Payne's guilt.
A coronor's jury on the hanging was summoned. Of this body I was a member and its foreman. We examined, I think, twelve witnesses. They all testified that John Doe and Richard Roe and Payne came to their death by hanging. Who were present, aiding, or abetting, or counselling, or advising, or actually doing the said hanging, or in any manner participating in the same, they all swore that they did not know. Finding that other and further investigation would be futile, we ceased taking testimony and joined in a verdict embodying what has been stated, with the addition that while we regretted the mode of their taking-off, yet we were certain in the death of the prisoners that the Territory had lost no desirable citizens, and Heaven had gained no subjects.
Court convened in a few days and Judge Greene gave the grand jury a well-prepared, able and elaborate charge, stating that everyone who participated in, or counselled, or advised, or actually performed the acts resulting in the death of these three men was at least guilty of manslaughter. He earnestly urged the grand jury to fearlessly investigate the matter, and if they were convinced that any person participated in the hanging of the three persons in any way spokenof by him, they ought to find indictments accordingly. Everybody honored the Judge for the faithful, fearless and full discharge of his duty in the matter; but his brave charge resulted in nothing. Thus ended the second, most tragic event in the history of the City of Seattle.
Whatever we may think of the mode of the taking-off of these three men, everyone admits that the result was beneficial. Security in person, property and habitation was again enjoyed. The criminal classes silently left the town, and peace and order reigned.
Chinese Riots
The next tragic chapter in the history of Seattle occured in the winter of 1886, and is known as the Chinese Riots. It is not my purpose to give a detailed statement of either the cause or the facts attending them. They had no substantial cause. They sprang from race prejudice and political madness. There had been no actual or threatened invasion by the Chinamen, of the rights of persons, or of property, or of personal security. In fact, the Chinamen were a quiet and peaceable folk, engaged in the more humble occupations of life. They did not interfere in politics, or in the social or civic concerns of society. In numbers they were a small body as compared with the dominant race. In these circumstances it was resolved by quite a large but irresponsible faction that the Chinese must go; and a notice was served upon them fixing the time of their required departure. They paid no attention to it, but continued in their peaceful avocations. At the appointed time, a large committee—headed, I am sorry to say, by two lawyers who were backed up by promise of support of their fellow conspirators—went to the Chinese quarters, and, with threat of the use of force if they did not obey, compelled them to pack up their portable effects and to go to a designated wharf where they could go aboard of a steamer bound for San Francisco. There was a strong line of assistants to speed their progress to the wharf, and to guard them after their arrival there. Many thus, were deported.The Courts soon interfered. Writs of Habeas Corpus were granted to the Chinamen, and, no cause for their restraint appearing, they were discharged. His Excellency, Governor Watson C. Squire, being in town, ordered out the Militia, which under the command of the bold and fearless Col. J. C. Haines, who was ably assisted by General E. M. Carr and others, did effective work. Theposse comitatuswas also summoned, and it quickly responded. In the afternoon of that fatal day a conflict occurred between the opposing forces near the Old New England Hotel; shots were fired by both parties, and two of the rioters were seriously wounded. The flow of blood seemed to have a cooling effect on the rioters, and they slowly departed for their homes, disappointed, defeated in their purpose, and with smothered feelings of vengeance.
The Governor, wisely considering the actual and threatened danger existing, proclaimed martial law, suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus until further orders, and by telegraph requested the President of the United States to send a Federal military force adequate to preserve order, to vindicate the supremacy of the treaties of the United States and the honor of the Government. That military force soon appeared under the command of General Gibbons, and for two weeks or more the town was under martial law. Peace and order having been restored, and the sober second thought having asserted its dominion, the troops were withdrawn and all was well. Thus ended the third chapter of tragedy in the history of the town (now City) of Seattle.
Battle at Seattle
After my arrival in Seattle in the summer of 1869, I became much interested in Seattle's local history. I had known and read of the Indian war of 1855-6, and of the attack on the town of Seattle by the Indians on January 16th, 1856, in which two white men were killed; but of the details of that attack, and of the ensuing battle, I knew nothing. I wrote to Lieutenant Phelps, who was an officer on the warship "Decatur" at the time, and who had written and published an account of the battle, to send me his pamphlet containing such descriptive account, and he promptly and courteously complied with my request. In addition to that official statement, I obtained from many of the leading residents at the time further details, facts and information hereinafter stated.
I ought possibly to state that at the request of Hillory Butler, a dear friend and pioneer, who was present and participated in the fight, I wrote his biography, from which the following is taken. Further to understand the situation, it ought to be remembered that the side-hill fronting the bay from the east line of Second Street (now Avenue) eastward was a dense copse of fern and brush, logs and tree tops, as well as standing timber to the top of the ridge and beyond, affording an excellent cover, or ambuscade for the Indians.
"In the fall of 1855 the Indian tribes east of the mountains became hostile. A small force under MajorHaller was sent into the Yakima country to reduce the hostiles to subjection. This force was defeated and driven back to The Dalles. This but aggravated the discontent of the Indians and well-nigh precipitated a general uprising. A feeling of dread and insecurity among the settlers was everywhere present. As precautionary measures, block-houses were built and stockades constructed, in many cases none too soon. A block-house was built in Seattle near where the Boyd building now stands. Hostile emisseries were known to be at work among the Puget Sound tribes. Some of the tribes were known to be wavering in their allegiance to the whites and many individuals of all these tribes had joined the ranks of the hostiles. The people of Seattle, however, felt quite secure for the 'Decatur,' a thirty-gun United States war-ship, under the command of Capt. Gansworth, lay at anchor in the harbor. Her crew consisted of 150 men. There was aboard of her also a company of marines, under the immediate command of Lieut. Morris. Notwithstanding all this, the evidence of an impending attack, became from day to day more convincing to those who calmly studied the situation, and had an accurate knowledge of the Indian character. They were, however, the few; the large majority were unbelievers, and the block-house was tenantless. On the morning of the 7th day of February, 1856, friendly Indians brought the dire intelligence that the town was entirely surrounded with a force of from five to eight hundred hostile Indians, under the command of Leschi, and other hostile chiefs. Even then, no other attention was paid to this startling information than the sending word to the commander of the 'Decatur.' He, however, immediately acted on the information and sent Lieut. Morris, with thecompany of marines and one of the ship's guns, to the shore. They landed on the point a short distance south of where the New England Hotel now stands. It was about seven o'clock in the morning. Not an Indian was to be seen. All work had ceased. Silence reigned supreme. Men, women and children quietly went to the block-house, or stood in the door-way, or beside their cabins, watching the movement of the soldiers. Lieut. Morris loaded his cannon with a shell and directed aim to be taken at an abandoned cabin, situate on the point a short distance beyond where the gas works now are. The aim was accurate. The shell struck the cabin, exploded, and demolished it. That shot of defiance was immediately answered by the Indians, by a volley from, three to five hundred rifles. Then followed a general stampede of men, women and children for the block-house or the friendly protection of the shore bank—and had it not been for the fact, that the rifles in the hands of the Indians had been generally emptied by the first volley, many of the inhabitants would have fallen on their way to the sheltering bank or block-house. The Indians were here, and skepticism was at an end. The smoke from the rifles indicated clearly that the front line held by the Indians extended along where Third Street or Avenue now is until Marion Street was past, where it curved towards the bay. It was a complete semi-circle, and every part of the then town was within easy rifle range, from said line.
"The 'Decatur' opened with solid shot and shells—alternating with canister and grape. All day long the roar of the Decatur's cannon continued. The ground beyond Third Street was torn up by exploding shells—huge logs and trees were splintered by solidshot—and seemingly every space covered by showers of grape and canister, but still Leschi's warriors held their lines. They kept up a desultory firing all day and continued the same until about midnight, when they withdrew as noiselessly as they came. Three whites were killed during the day—Young Holgate was struck by a bullet between the eyes, while he was standing in the block-house door, and was instantly killed. The others were killed in the attempt to go, or return from their cabins. Every house was struck by Indian bullets. Strange to say, no one was hit by the first general volley fired by the Indians. How many Indians, if any were killed or wounded, during the fight, has never been known.
"When the first gun was fired Mr. Butler and his wife were just sitting down to breakfast. They both jumped from the table and went to the door. The bullets from the answering volley struck all around them. Mrs. Butler hastened to the block-house and safely reached it. Butler gathered up a few valuables and followed in a short time. He, however, sought the friendly protection of logs and stumps, for the Indian rifles were now reloaded and the closeness of the whizzing bullets indicated that the Indians were watching his stealthy flight. He returned to his house in the same manner during the day for some portable valuables. While there, he went up stairs, but the bullets were rattling around in a manner a little too spiteful and plentiful, and he did not stay long. Those of the men who had rifles, took positions behind some protecting log or friendly stump, and fired at the spot where the puff of a rifle indicated an Indian warrior concealed. Whether these shots were effective or not, is unknown—they often caused a cessation of firingfrom that ambuscade. As full of terror as were the events of that February day, the duration of its effect on the minds of the pioneer settlers of the embryo city was but brief. It was but a thrilling passage in the unwritten history of pioneer life. After the roar of the Decatur's cannon and the sharp crack of the rifle had ceased, all returned to cabins and homes, and soundly slept and sweetly dreamed of the good time coming. Such is pioneer life, and such the mental conditions, and characters it begets. Still we cannot disguise the fact that had it not been for the presence of the war-ship Decatur, with her complement of guns and fighting men, the town would have been plundered and burned, and its inhabitants would have perished in a terrible massacre.
"During that fated morning Chief Seattle with many of his tribe lay under the cover of the friendly shore-banks, silent and stolid spectators of the raging battle. During a lull in the firing, he, to the astonishment of all, leaped upon the bank and with arms flying, and voice roaring defiance, commenced a bending, bounding and contortion war-dance of the most intensified order. The hostiles quickly got the range, but as soon as the bullets commenced to sing around him in dangerous proximity, Seattle's feet flashed in air as he made a headlong plunge down the bank. Seattle's war-dance was over, and he attempted no repetition of the performance on that gloomy day. Many who witnessed this strange performance supposed that the old chieftain had received a mortal shot, but he had escaped without a scratch.
"The Indians, in giving an account afterwards, of the firing from the ship, said that they were not afraidof the solid shot and grape and canister, but the guns that 'poohed' (or shot) twice were a mystery and terror to them. This was their description of the firing and explosion of shells.
"This was in harmony with the idea of the Indians on the plains in their first intercourse with the immigrants. The first immigrants' trains had with them mountain howitzers mounted on strong gun carriages. The Indians spoke of the Bostons as a tribe of men who could shoot their wagons at them.
"A kindred idea was entertained by the Mexicans, of the Spaniards when Cortez first invaded Mexico. The Mexican had no written, but a pictorial language. The Spaniard on his horse was pictured as one animal with two heads, four legs and two arms. This was the description which the correspondents of those days first sent to the Halls of Montezuma for the inspection of an affrighted monarch.
"We have already stated that during the battle a large number of shells fell upon the benches between Third Street and the bluff beyond. Most of them exploded when they struck the ground, or a log, or a tree. Some of them, however, did not, but buried themselves in the earth or under the roots of huge trees, retaining all their latent forces. It is said that our friend Dextor Horton on one of his tours of inspection of the improvements going on in his loved city one chilly day, passed by the lots on which Mr. Colman's fine residence now stands. Noticing a crater of fire burning in the center of a mammoth cedar stump, he drew near to it to enjoy the genial heat. As is always characteristic of man, he turned his back to the fire, parted his coat tails, and was comfortable. As theday, although cold, was clear and the bright waters of the Sound were before him—the dark forests beyond and still beyond, the Olympic Range with its ragged ridges then snow-crowned—as he was drinking in this scene of beauty and grandeur, lo! a terrific explosion occurred. Impelled by the impetus of the explosion he made a quick start and very fast time, for a short distance. Convinced, however, that the shooting was over, he stopped and turned to see what had happened. The stump was gone, the fire extinguished, and he left with the mournful remark, that he had no idea the durn stump was loaded."
My Religious Belief
I believe in that system of religion which produces, in its practical operation, the best man and the best woman, the best husbands and the best wives, the best fathers and the best mothers, the most affectionate and obedient children, and the more honest and patriotic citizens and public functionaries. I care not what you may call it; by its fruit or practical results it should be judged. This is the Bible rule, and it is eminently practical and just.
I further believe in the existence of an allwise Creator of all things—the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. I do not believe in him as a Supreme Ruler located at some distant point in an immense Universe, but as an omnipresent God.
I believe in the immortality of man—not of his physical nature, but of that divine emanation breathed into the nostrils of man by his Creater that made him a living soul. It was an emanation from God and cannot die.
I do not intend to state more than one reason among many for my belief in the existence of God; but the immortality of man, founded on reason, outside of the Scriptural declarations, I shall present more elaborately.
When I take a survey of the Universe and find all things running in the rhythm of order and harmony, I ask myself the question: What is it that produces this universal order and harmony? No answer can be givenother than that it is the result of law. Now, we can have no more conception of law outside of a lawmaker, than we can have of an agent without a principal or an agency. Law and lawmaker, as well as agent and principal, are inseparably interlocked. The one cannot exist without the other. Therefore since we must admit the existence of law, the existence of a lawmaker is a necessary logical sequence: that lawmaker, is God. As to the immortality of the soul, I offer the following reason, founded principally on grounds outside of the Bible's declaration of the fact.
Ever since the poetic Job uttered the profound question, "If a man die shall he live again?" the inquiry has been ringing down the pathway of time with increasing interest. Man's immortality is usually proven by the declarations of the Bible, which are supposed to reveal it as an ultimate truth. The immortality of the soul is susceptable not of demonstration, but of reasonable proof by reason itself. If we concede the existence of God with the attributes usually ascribable to such a being, and which He must necessarily possess in order to be God, such as infinite wisdom, goodness and Almighty power, and if we concede further that He is the Creator of man, man's immortality results as a logical sequence from such concessions. The desire of immortality, if not universal among all conditions of men, at least approaches universality. This universal desire may be called an innate property, or attribute of man's moral constitution implanted in him by his Creator. It can not be true that a being with the attributes which we ascribe to God, could create man with such a desire, to tantalize him through life, and to disappoint him in death. Consider the fact that nowhere in nature, fromthe highest to the lowest, was an instinct, an impulse, a desire implanted, but that ultimately were found the conditions and opportunities for its fullest realization. Consider the wild fowl that, moved by some mysterious impulse, start on their prodigious migrations from the frozen fens of the Pole and reach at last the shining South and summer seas; the fish that from tropic gulfs seek their spawning-grounds in the cool, bright rivers of the North; the bees that find in the garniture of fields and forests the treasure with which they store their cells; and even the wolf, the lion, and the tiger that are provided with their prey. Look in this connection to the brevity of life; its incompleteness; its aimless, random, and fragmentary carreers; tragedies; its injustices; its sorrows and separations. Then consider the insatiable hunger for knowledge; the efforts of the unconquerable mind to penetrate the mysteries of the future; its capacity to comprehend infinity and eternity; its desire for the companionship of the departed; its unquenchable aspirations for immortality—and let me ask: "Why should God keep faith with the beast, the bee, the fish, and the fowl, and cheat only man?" But the logical sequence from the concessions mentioned above is not the argument in proof of man's immortality which I desire to present.
The account of the creation of man as given in the Bible is remarkable for its statement of the distinguishing difference between man and the rest of creation. When man was created, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. He created the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, the fishes in the sea and the creeping things on the earth, but none of these became living souls. This language, whether inspired or not, states the difference whichnow exists and which has ever existed between man and the other created things. What do we understand by soul? By soul is meant the power to think, to reflect, and to judge of the moral quality of actions and thoughts. Let me take the sceptic's standard of what we should believe, and what we should not believe; that is, we ought not to believe that of which we have no evidence, and for which we can give no satisfactory reason. I proceed by a process of elimination, as will be readily seen. My first proposition, interrogatively stated, is this. Is the power to think and reflect and to judge of the moral quality of thoughts and actions, a property of matter or not? If it is a property of matter, then the sands and rocks and the earth think and reflect and judge of the moral quality of actions and thoughts; but we have no reason to believe that sand, or rock, or earth thinks, or that either possesses the ability to judge of the moral quality of actions or thoughts; hence we ought not to believe it. Thus we see that the general proposition is not true, and ought not to be believed.
Secondly—Is thought and the power to judge of the moral qualities of thoughts and actions a property of organized matter? The grass and shrubs and trees are organized matter; but we have no reason to believe, and no evidence upon which such a belief can be founded, that the grass, or trees, or shrubs think, or possess any power to judge of the moral quality of things; therefore, according to the standard which we have adopted, we ought not to believe it; hence the more limited proposition is not true.
Thirdly—Is the power to think, to reflect and to judge of the moral quality of actions and thoughts a property of animal organization? If it be, clams andoysters as animal organizations think; possess the power to reflect and to judge of the moral quality of thoughts and actions, but we have no evidence that they possess any of these powers, and consequently we ought not to believe it.
Fourthly—Are the powers we have been considering essential to the existence of soul-life, possessed by the higher animal organizations, such as lions and tigers and domestic animals?
Here an important distinction must be noted. There is a thing, universally recognized as existing, called instinct. All of the actions of animals and many of the actions of human beings spring from instinct. Instinct was given for self-preservation and defense. It is a sort of semi-intellect, and sometimes in the perfection of its action is equal to the highest development of soul-power; for instance, the action of a bee, purely the result of instinct, in the economy of space in the fitness of all its contrivances in making the comb, is wonderful; no improvement can be made upon it by the highest development of inventive genius. How does instinct act as contra distinguished from actions based upon the exercise of soul-power? Instinct acts in a straight or direct line with its object. As an illustration,—a tiger is hungry, a man is hungry; the tiger sees a lamb—the man sees a loaf of bread in the baker's window; both, left to the impulse of instinct, would go directly to the object desired by each; the man, although cruelly hungry, as he approaches the object of his desires, says to himself, "This bread does not belong to me; it is the property of another, and I have no right to take it without his consent." Here we see, in the case of the man, a soul-power acting at right angles with the impulse of instinct and controllingand governing the action of the man. It is only when men are controlled by soul-power, as against instinct, that they really are men in the higher sense of the term.
With this principle thus briefly stated, and carefully separating the actions of men as well as animals springing from instinct from the actions of men springing from the soul-power, we are prepared to make the declaration that the tiger is incapable of acting on the considerations that influenced the action of the man; the rightfulness or wrongfulness of his act in seizing the lamb did not, nor could it enter at all into his action; he was affected by no consideration of right or wrong, and indeed could not be; hence we are prepared for the conclusion that the power to think, to reflect and to judge of the moral quality of acts and thoughts, is not possessed by the higher animal organization, or, in other words, that they have no soul such as we have defined it. Having thus briefly shown by a process of elimination that man alone possesses the power that we have described as soul-power, we have established the first part of our argument.
Man alone being possessed of soul qualities, the question arises, what are the duration of these qualities? We argue that, being an emanation from God, they must of necessity partake of the nature of God, and are therefore indestructible, and eternal. But it is objected that when the body dies we see no more manifestation of soul-life. Concede it, for the sake of argument. Does it follow that the soul is extinct? The body was the instrument through which the soul manifested itself, just as the piano is the instrument through, or by which, a certain class or kind of music is manifested. Is the impairment or destruction of the particularpiano, a destruction or extinction of that music? Who would thus reason? The music manifested through that piano had an existence in the mind, or soul of some person anterior to the existence of the signs made on paper by the use of which the music on the piano was produced, or manifested; and it is evident that the impairment or destruction of the piano did not destroy the music. What force, then, is there in the claim that, simply because the instrument through which the soul manifested itself is dead, the soul itself is dead, or extinct? There are many illustrations of this thought in actual life. The wonderful, almost inspired, conception of beauty, passion and anguish transferred by the artist's brush to canvas, as enduring monuments of the immortality of genius, existed in the mind of the artist before a single line of the grand conception was transferred to canvas. If there be any defect in the picture it is usually a defect of execution, not of conception. The canvas is but the means by which these conceptions of beauty, passion or anguish are manifested to the souls of others. Who will argue that the destruction of the frail canvas is the destruction of these conceptions? They existed before they were transferred to canvas; its destruction does not extinguish them.
It is said again, that soul-attributes are the results of that mysterious power called life, operating in connection with animal organization. But a tiger has life and animal organization, yet it is clear that he possesses no soul-qualities. Besides, if soul-qualities are the result of such life and organization, the manifestation of soul-power would be in exact proportion to the strength of the forces operating to produce this resultant; hence the elephant, in which these forces existin the larger degree, would give us the grander manifestation of intellectual and moral qualities. I have stated the objection and given a brief answer, but full enough to show the logical absurdity of the objection.
But it is said that soul-qualities are the active manifestations of gray matter in the human brain. We have already seen that the power to think, to reflect, and to judge of the moral quality of thoughts and acts, is not a property of matter. None of it, by itself or in combination, possesses this power. Wonderful have been the combinations and resultants of the operations of chemists, but life even in its simplest form is beyond their power. How much further beyond their power must be the production of the soul-power mentioned above! Besides, this gray matter has been analyzed and its constituent elements ascertained; none of these elements in its simplest form show any trace of this power. How is it possible, then, by combination to produce that of which no trace even existed in the elements? Then too, if this power is resultant, it is a law of chemistry that all resultants may be reduced back to its constituent elements. It would indeed be a wonderful achievement to reduce the power to think as a resultant, back to its constituent gases. Again, take the case of a strong and healthy man suddenly killed by a bullet penetrating both ventricles of the heart; this gray matter exists intact in the brain immediately after the extinction of life. Decay does not immediately affect its power. Does the man think, reflect and judge of the moral qualities of thoughts and acts after the extinction of life? If so, then this soul-power exists after death, and the argument answers itself.
This argument has proceeded far enough to showits line of thought. Much might be added by way of illustration, details and further supporting propositions, but it is not deemed necessary.
I conclude, then, that the soul is not only a unit with the power ascribed to it, but that it is also an invisible, immaterial and eternal entity or being. This is but the enumeration of the attributes of a spirit or spirit-existence. I will not attempt to repeat the reasons found in every text-book of mental philosophy and moral science to show its unity. We have seen that it is not matter; yea, more, that it is not a property of matter; therefore that it is immaterial. If immaterial and possessing the power to think and reflect, and endowed with moral sensations and perceptions—the highest and best evidences of life—it is a spirit-existence. As such, what evidence have we that a spirit-existence was ever destroyed? That it exists in manifest. Existing with no evidence of its destruction or of its destructibility, we ought to believe in its immortality; hence, I conclude, if a man die, he will live again.
I have had a controversy on religious subjects but once in my life. I have always desired to avoid such controversies. Fixed religious opinions in the minds of others, especially of the old, I regard as sacred. To create a doubt, is to loosen them from their moral and religious moorings and to set them hopelessly adrift.
After I had left school and was recuperating at my father's house, a gentleman of the name of Wellover, who had known me all my life, and who was a plain man of the common people, came to my father's house to see me. His residence was in what was called the Burr Oak Settlement, distant about six miles from the town of Sturgis. He was a member of the MethodistChurch and a very exemplary Christian. He seemed to be much troubled. He said to me: "Orange, you know I have been a believer in the Bible and its doctrines for many years. A man has been delivering a course of lectures in the school-house in our settlement. He claims to be a Greek and Latin scholar, and he is attempting to show that the priests have so translated the Bible that it is a deception and a fraud. Now, Orange," he said, "I want you to go down with me to listen to one of his lectures, and afterwards to tell me whether his translations are true or not." I said to him, "You go up to town and see William Allman, who is a graduate of Greenbury College, Indiana, and is reputed to be a good Greek scholar, and ask him to go with me. Tell him to bring with him his large Cooper's Greek Dictionary, and if he will go, I will also." He departed, and soon returned with Allman. I took my large Cooper's Latin Dictionary; we got into Wellover's carriage and we went to his fine residence, took supper with him, and then went to hear the lecture of that evening. We found a good-sized audience in attendance at the school-house. The lecturer, who had passed the middle age in life, stated in his introductory remarks that he would pursue the same course as theretofore, and show, by reference to the Greek and Latin languages, how the priests had translated the Scriptures; sometimes correctly, but in most cases, where their interests were involved, so as to create a dismal terror in the present, and perpetuate by fear, their power in the future. He said that if there were any present acquainted with these languages, he would be glad, if he made an incorrect statement, to be interrupted, and if the statement was incorrect he would correct it. He denied the existence of a God and theimmortality of man. He further declared that religion, on account of its doctrine of hate and vengeance, made men crazy. I interrupted, and asked him what was the proof of the last statement; he said the proof was manifest, for that men babbled of religion, of God, immortality and hell, after they became crazy. I answered by saying that I had heard men babble of snakes in their boots, snakes in the bed and snakes everywhere in the room, but I never knew that snakes had anything to do with their madness; in fact, I said, such madness had a well-recognized and efficient cause. He said: "Don't attempt to be smart, young man," and I took my seat. He further declared that if man were immortal, beasts were also, for the Romans had used the word "animus" indiscriminately as to both, and that the priests had translated "animus" to mean intellect and what was called by them, the soul of man. I told him I thought he was mistaken. He rather uncourteously asked me what I knew about Latin. I told him that I had some knowledge of it and that the Romans used the word "mens" from which we derived our word mind, mental, and many other words of the same character, to signify the soul of man; and did not use the word "animus" for that purpose, or with that meaning. I read to him and to the audience from the Dictionary the definitions of "animus" and of "mens." This drove him out of the Latin language, and he and Allman had a spirited and sharp and somewhat personal dispute, about some Greek or pretended Greek word. The controversy showed that he had no knowledge, or only a very limited knowledge, of what he was talking about. He said, after the wrangle with Allman was ended, that he had been interrupted so much by the two young men from town, that he would not proceedwith his lecture on that evening, but would close by telling his experience. He said that he had been a minister for eighteen years—nine years in the Methodist Church, and nine years in the Christian or Campbellite Church. He divided all ministers into two classes—knaves and fools. I interrupted him again and asked him, inasmuch as he had been a minister for eighteen years and classed all ministers as knaves and fools, what class he belonged to. He hesitated a moment and said: "I am willing to confess that I belong to the class of fools." "Then," I said, "that confession proves the Bible to be true, for it says, 'the fool hath said in his heart, "there is no God."'" The meeting dissolved, and he lectured no more in that settlement. His pretended knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages was a deception and fraud.
Indians and Their Customs
The Indians are fast passing away, and their customs and mode of thought are passing with them and will only linger in dim tradition. For over fifty-five years I have been in close contact with many individuals of the different tribes of Oregon, Washington, British Columbia and California and I have taken considerable interest in the study of their characteristics. I have already stated that the Indian is an impassive stoic. If he has any human emotions, they are with the exception of anger, never displayed in his countenance. When angry, his countenance becomes fixed, sullen, morose and determined. He does not voice his anger, but silently nurses his wrath to keep it warm. He has no wit, but has a keen sense of the ludicrous, sometimes degenerating into short pungent sarcasm. This is the exception, not the general rule. He reasons from surface indications and has a keen perception of the absurd, or what he considers such. I have given one illustration in the narration of R.'s civilizing efforts. It is stated that an Indian chief said to General Isaac I. Stevens, in one of his treaty conventions, "We and our fathers have always possessed this country. We have no objections to the whites coming and enjoying it with us. The country is ours. Why do the whites always urge the Indian to go upon reservations? The Indian never tells the whites that they must go on reservations." On my return from Colville in 1855 I met an Indian with a fine mare. I asked him if he would sell her to me. "Yes," hesaid, "you may have her for fifteen dollars." I had with me a surplus of blankets and coarse but warm clothing, and I offered to trade him three pair of blankets and a suit of coarse clothing for his mare. It was a cold morning, and the grass was stiff with hoar frost. He had nothing on him in the shape of clothing or wraps, with the exception of a thin calico shirt. I told him that he needed these blankets and clothes to keep him warm. I asked him if he was not cold. He answered in the Yankee style by asking me if my face was cold. I told him "No." "Well," says he, "I am face all over."
The most thorough and extended system of Esperanto which ever existed, so far as my knowledge goes, was spoken on this Coast. It was an invention of the Hudson Bay Company, and extended and was spoken by the Indians generally from the northern portion of California through all of Oregon and Washington and British Columbia, and north of that along the Coast for a great distance. It was also spoken and understood by the pioneers, settlers and trappers through all this vast region. It was Spartan in some of its laconisms. As an illustration: I was appointed by the Court, in the trial of a criminal case in Southern Oregon, for the defense of three Indians on the charge of grand larceny. They were indicted for horse-stealing. The proof against them was clear and satisfactory. I labored to reduce the offense from grand to petit larceny, and I succeeded, for the jury brought in a verdict of "guilty of petit larceny." The Court sentenced them to three months' imprisonment each, in the county jail. When their time expired, the sheriff opened the doors and told them they might go; but, instead of going, they went to the further endof a long, narrow hall, and two of them squatted in the corners and the other between them against the wall. The sheriff came to my office and said to me, "Jacobs, I want you to go with me over to the jail. I can't make those clients of yours understand that they may go." I went over with him and found them thus situated. I told them in the jargon, or Esperanto, that they had paid the debt they owed to the whites and that they were free to go to their homes to see their fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters and friends. The center man—the oldest of the three—slowly arose and very emphatically spoke the following: "Halo mammook, hiyu muck-a-muck, hyas close, wake klatawa." This being interpreted means: "We have nothing to do, we have plenty to eat, we think it very good, we will not go." We had to drive them out of the jail and into the road on their way home. I walked slowly back to my office meditating on the philosophy of such punishment for an Indian.
Before I came to Puget Sound I had heard of a cultus potlatch. A potlatch is the giving-away of all of our earthly possessions without any hope or expectation of any return, either in kind or value. There was an Indian on the Sound known by the whites as Indian Jim. Jim had a wonderful ability to accumulate property; he was an Indian Morgan, or Rockefeller. He was an expert gambler and trader, and very industrious withal. He usually worked at the mills, where many other Indians were employed, and he not only saved the money earned by himself, but obtained, by his expertness in gambling, much of the money earned by the other Indians, and much of that earned by the white laborers. This money he invested in blankets—usually at Victoria. Some of his accumulation of goldhe had changed into fifty and twenty-five cent pieces. He also purchased quite a quantity of calico and Indian trinkets. When he had secured a large accumulation of such things, he gave a potlatch. The one I attended was held on the tide-flats south of Seattle. As the time approached, many canoes were on the Bay, headed by a joyous crowd going to the potlatch. Jim was very anxious that I should attend the closing-day of the potlatch. I told him that I would go. He sent a large canoe with eight paddle-men to take me to the potlatch. So I went in style, I witnessed the closing ceremonies and Jim had enough to give every one in attendance, a blanket, or piece of money, or some gaudy calico, beads or other trinkets.
He even took off a pretty good suit of clothes that he was accustomed to wear and gave them away, substituting an old suit for them. He accompanied me to the city on my return. I said to him, "Jim, you now are a vagabond; you have no clothes to wear, no provisions to eat, and no money." He said that that was all right; he would soon get some more. He said it was all the same as that of the whites, but it was much better than the white man's potlatch. He said that whenever he met his friends he could see in their countenance a pleasant light. He also gave me to understand that it made a sort of nobleman of him. But he said when the white man died his children make a potlatch of what he left behind him; and, being dead he could not see in their countenances that light arising from what they had received from him. I thought possibly that Jim's philosophy had a touch of sarcasm, and a good deal of truth in it.
In Memoriam
James A. Garfield was elected President of the United States of America in November, 1880, and was inaugurated on the 4th of March, 1881; was shot and mortally wounded on the 2nd day of July, 1881; and was removed to Elberton, New Jersey, where he lingered until September 19th, and on that day he died—to the great sorrow of a waiting, hopeful and sympathetic Nation. No death in our history, save possibly that of Lincoln, so generally and profoundly filled the hearts of the American people with sorrow as did the death of Garfield. After its announcement a Nation, inspired by a common impulse, at once hung out the dark emblems of sorrow.
September 27th was appointed Memorial Day. On the 25th a public meeting was called in Seattle at the old Pavilion. Honorable Roger S. Greene was elected chairman of that meeting, and he was to act as such on Memorial Day. Myself, Rev. George H. Watson and Honorable William H. White were invited to deliver at that time addresses on the character and public career of the fallen statesman.
On the appointed day an audience of over four thousand people assembled in front of and on each side of the west end of the old Occidental Hotel. The officers of the day and the speakers occupied the first balcony of the hotel. The exercises were appropriately opened with prayer by Rev. Ellis. Honorable Roger S. Greene made a brief but earnest and impressive address, and introduced me in the following complimentary language:
"We shall hear from one to-day who can occupy an appreciative standpoint and speak of the departed President with more than common sympathy for his public purposes and deeds.
"Yet more. You yourselves have something to say. You seek one of yourselves to speak for you; one who not only, like the lamented dead, thinks as the people think and feels as the people feel, but one who belongs to this local community and who shares our own peculiar shade of sorrow.
"Such an one is here. He is a man skilled in the use of words, a man identified with yourselves, a man experienced and accomplished in public and national affairs, a man personally acquainted with James A. Garfield.
"Fellow citizens, I introduce to you Orange Jacobs, your orator of to-day."
Thus eloquently introduced to the audience, I delivered the following address:
"FELLOW CITIZENS:—In arising to address you on this occasion I feel my own inability to do the subject justice; and the hollow impotence of human language to express the sentiment of national woe. We have assembled to honor the memory, to revere the character, and recount the living virtues of a fallen patriot and statesman. James A. Garfield, the popular idol of the nation, is no more. His spirit has passed the bourne from whence there is no return. We have, in time of our greatest need, lost one of our greatest statesmen and purest patriots. In the mid-day of his manhood, in the midst of his usefulness, just as hope became steady, and faith reliant and sure, Mr. Garfield descendedto the grave. His sun of life has set forever. It fell from its meridian splendor, as falls a star from the blazing galaxy of heaven. No twilight obscured its setting.
"As the sun of the physical world—the brightest and grandest of all of the luminaries of the firmament sinks to rest, tingeing the clouds that stretch along the horizon with the golden glories of its declining rays, so Garfield, the sun-intellect of this nation, has gone to his repose, reflecting the light of his noble deeds and unfaltering patriotism, tingeing the breaking clouds of dissention with the beauty and effulgence of hope and peace.
"When the telegraph flashed over a hopeful nation the mournful news of James A. Garfield's death, with the previous knowledge of the cowardly means by which it was effected, the great popular and patriotic heart momentarily ceased its pulsations, and the life-current of a nation, stood still for a moment, until the energies of patriotic vitality gathered new force to repel the effect of the stunning shock. Unbelief and astonishment were succeeded by wordless sorrow, and this was mingled with emotions of patriotic vengeance. Patriots in this mournful hour can brook no sympathy for the damning deed—can bear no manifestation of joy for the bloody work of the assassin.
"James A. Garfield was the popular representative of American patriotism. As President he possessed no powers but those freely delegated to him by his fellow-citizens. His highest duty under the Constitution, and by the delegation of the people, was to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government established by the Revolutionary Fathers. In the faithful discharge of these duties, he was suddenlystruck down by an assassin. The blow struck not the President alone; it reached in its rebound the popular heart of America. The shot meant the annihilation of delegated power, and as such reached the fountains of popular vitality.
"The people, in the exercise of their inherent sovereignty, may elect, but if it does not suit he shall not live says the shot of the assassin. Such assassinations are extremely dangerous to liberty and constitutional government. If the will of the majority is defeated in this manner, popular government will not long survive. Anarchy, bloodshed and general civil war will succeed the rebound of the popular heart. The popular frenzy which developed itself in mobs in many sections of our country, on the reception of the tidings of Lincoln's death, is but the logical sequence of the assassin's stroke at civil liberty and popular rights. Then it behooves every well-wisher of his country, on such mournful occasions, to give emphasis and intensity to the nation's woe. For, mark you, fellow-citizens, there is a smothered volcano of wrath and vengeance in the great popular heart upon such occasions. A word may vent it, and fill all this fair land with the lava of blood and ashes.
"One more preliminary consideration before I call your attention to the life, character and public services of our dead President. What will be the effect and consequence of this horrid murder, considered with reference to national affairs? No one present can fully tell. Most of the ultimate consequences are too remote and recondite to be comprehended now. We must wait for the full development of the logic of events. This we know, that the time elapsing between the assassin's shot and the lamented death of his victim has beensufficient for the supremacy of reason and the subjugation of passion so far as to prevent any immediate dire results to free government. The American people, yea the Anglo-Saxon race, are believers in law and order. They put their trust in and found their hopes upon a liberty regulated by law. Passion may triumph for an hour, but the sober-second-thought of the masses is sure to assert itself. Passion has never but once in our history crystalized into revolution. It is this subordination to law, this reverence for its majesty, this reliant faith in its methods and results, that constitute the bulwark of our liberties, and make the American people capable of self-government.
"James A. Garfield was born on the 19th day of November, 1831, in Orange, Cuyahoga County, State of Ohio, and hence was in his fiftieth year when he died. He was a graduate of Williams College, Massachusetts. After his graduation he followed the profession of teacher, and was president of a literary institution in Ohio for several years. He afterwards studied law, and so great was his proficiency, that in legal knowledge and forensic power he was a foeman worthy of the steel of such men as Stanton, Ewing, Stanberry and others of national reputation at the Ohio bar. He entered the Union army as Colonel of the 42nd Ohio, in 1861; was promoted to the rank of Brigadier-General January 10th, 1862; was appointed chief of the staff of the Army of the Cumberland, and was promoted to the rank of Major-General, Sept. 20th, 1863; was elected to the 38th Congress while in the field, and was successively elected up to and including the 46th Congress; and while holding this last position he was elected Senator from the great State of Ohio, to succeed Judge Thurman. He never took his seat, however,in the American Senate, for he was nominated and elected President, before Judge Thurman's time expired. I ought to have mentioned that in 1859-'60 he was a member of the State Senate of Ohio. Such is a brief history of this remarkable man.
"James A. Garfield, in common with Abraham Lincoln, the patriotic and lamented Douglas, and the eloquent Clay, sprang from the loins of the American people. These all forced their way from poverty up to commanding positions and national renown. Their genius for public affairs was triumphant over all opposition and victorious in their rising greatness. The success of such men is possible only in a government by the people. Be it said to the everlasting honor of the people, and their fitness for government, that they not only recognized the ability of these men, but they gave them their affections without stint, and their hearty support in opposition to party. And to-day, from his sublime heights, he whom we commemorate beholds a manifestation of this affection, by a nation in mourning.
"His knowledge, tact, and judgment made him equal to every position bestowed upon him by the partiality of his countrymen; yea, more, he was a leader in all. As a student, scholar, and teacher he stood high. As a soldier his coolness in the shock of battle, as well as his admirable foresight and judgment, won for him rapid promotion. As a legislator, debater, orator and statesman he had but few equals and no superiors. And it was in these capacities that I knew him well, as it is in the character of Congressman that he is best known to the great mass of the American people, I pause for a brief time to consider some of his qualities as a legislator.
"He was for many years, while the Republicans had control of the House, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. This was a position of the highest importance and of the most commanding influence. It gave him control of all the appropriations of the Government and made his the actual leader of the House. A defeat of this committee by the House would be as disastrous to the party in power as the defeat of the ministry in England: a defeat by his own party would show such lack of unity of purpose, and of objects, and ideas on the part of the majority, as to render them incapable of carrying on the Government.
"Firm, decided, full of expedients, and wonderful in debate, he not only carried his measures triumphantly through, but at each session strengthened his hold upon his party and the country. In the fierce contests that raged upon such occasions, he showed that his knowledge and intellect were stupendous. His quick perception grasped, his strong memory retained, and his ready logic commanded, immense sources of useful knowledge, gathered from science, reflection, the history of the past, and the stirring events of the present. In debate he rejected all rhetorical ornament, all ostentation and show. Stating his premises concisely, his reasoning led to the conclusion aimed at, as irresistibly as the current of a deep and strong river leads to the sea. There was a logical force and point to his clear sentences that tended to his conclusions with the directness and certainty with which the successive steps in a mathematical demonstration point to the grand result. In making an attack or repelling an assault upon his position, he always had a mark, and his intellectual shots fell in and around that mark with effective proximity.
"But while he was truly great in devising and successfully carrying through the great appropriation bills, made necessary by the enormous expenditures of the war, he was greater by far as the philosophic leader of his party.
"After the power vanished from his party in the House, although his knowledge, of the principles and rules of parliamentary law was full and accurate, he rarely spoke on questions of order; but when the principles, policy, methods, or measures of the Republican party were attacked, he was always put forward as their champion; and, although men will and do honestly differ about such matters, yet by the concessions of friend and foe alike, the proudest monuments of his intellectual greatness have for their base these masterly vindications.
"He had a power of generalization and classification possessed by but few men. He was not a logician in the popular sense of the term. He addressed the intuitions, and consciences, of men quite as often as their reason. John C. Calhoun, Senators Morton and Bayard and Garfield, stand unrivalled among American statesmen for their wonderful powers of generalization, classification, and analysis. This power made Calhoun a dangerous antagonist to Webster, with all his sledge-hammer strokes of logic and incisive reasoning. Morton's fame and reputation rests upon this foundation alone. Garfield possessed this power in a remarkable degree. It was this power that enabled him to hold popular audiences even in a two-hours' speech on the dreary topics of finance.
"He gathered up the fundamental principles underlying the complicated topics of political economy,stated them with such clearness and simplicity, as not only to bring them within the comprehension of, but to make them attractive to the ordinary understanding. The most voluminous and complicated mass of facts, fused in the furnace of such an intellect, is quickly reduced to order; the good separated from the bad, the valuable from the worthless; and the principles underlying the good and valuable made manifest, like as the fire of the furnace releases the precious metal from the rock, dirt and sand by which it is surrounded, and utilizes it for purposes of commerce and civilization.
"As a speaker he was always dignified and impressive. He had strong convictions, and he uttered them with courage and earnestness. He was one of the few members who could always command the attention of the House. I have seen him arise in a tumult of excitement, and as soon as the tones of his clear, ringing voice echoed through the vast hall, all was hushed, and every ear was open, and every eye was turned toward him. I was present when he delivered his great speech on the importance and necessity of standing by the Resumption law and the currency of the Constitution. Many members were wavering, hard times were abroad in the land; bankruptcies were frequent, and enormous in amount. There was an appalling shrinkage of values, and a wild cry came up from the North, the South and the great Inland West for more money. The advocates, of the policy of largely increasing the volume of the greenback currency, were jubilant; but that speech decided their fate.
"The doubting were convinced, and the wavering fixed, in their determination to stand by the Resumption law. Resumption succeeded. The national honorwas preserved. Business rests upon a solid foundation and an era of prosperity prevails. To no man is the nation more indebted for this auspicious condition of affairs than to him whose untimely death we mourn to-day.
"Notwithstanding the earnestness and boldness of Mr. Garfield's utterances, everybody was his friend. They gave him credit for honesty, and sincerity. So sure it is that these qualities always command our respect, if they do not excite our admiration.
"The sterling qualities which I have briefly mentioned, together with his known and accepted position on the great public questions of the day, secured Mr. Garfield's nomination to the Presidency at the National Convention, which met at Chicago on the 2nd day of June, A. D. 1880. His competitor, as all know, was a patriotic and illustrious Union General. The contest was remarkable for its thoroughness and intensity in the doubtful States, but Mr. Garfield was clearly and fairly elected, and on the 4th of March last, was duly inaugurated. He entered on the discharge of his duties as President under the most auspicious circumstances. We were at peace with all the world. The wounds of the war had been healed, and the work of reconciliation had fairly been accomplished. Prosperity reigned supreme; the good time had come and the people rejoiced. Menaced by no external power and free from domestic dissensions, he could turn his entire attention to the internal machinery of government. He determined to distinguish his term of office by its purity of administration, and its economy of expenditures. Only four months was he at the helm, but his achievements in that time will be remembered long, and bless the land for years. In that brief time he routed the armyof contracting thieves from their entrenched position in the postoffice department, and established a standard of official integrity and honor that carried dismay to the spoils-hunter and dishonest official. But just as he had fully gathered the reins of government in his hands, and sent forth the uncompromising demand for honesty and integrity from all officials, and while preparing to enforce that demand, the assassin's bullet paralyzed his power and arrested the much-needed work of reform. That he made mistakes may be conceded, for all human judgments are imperfect; but the cold and passionless voice of history, though it may find fault or flaw, will more than satisfy those who loved him most, and will place his name among the highest and purest in the list of human rulers.
"In contemplation of the solid and brilliant abilities of a great man, we often lose sight of those qualities that endear him to friends, and to the loved ones around the home circle. Man may possess transcendant genius, and be the idol of the populace, and yet be selfish, unsocial and cruel at home. Towering ambition may, and sometimes does, subordinate the love of wife, of children, and of parents, to its gratification. Such was not the case with Garfield. His home was his retreat from the storms and battles of life, where love reigned supreme. The telegram dictated by himself to his wife on the 2nd of July last, just after the fatal shot, was full of the holy felicities of domestic life. Mrs. Garfield was in Elberton, where the President finally died. The telegram read: 'The President wishes me to say to you for him, that he has been seriously hurt, how seriously he cannot say. He is himself in hopes you will come to him soon. He sends love to you.'
"The voice of ambition was hushed. The counsel and association of a statesman was subordinated to the presence and society of the loving and faithful wife; and how touching has been her devotion; how grand and noble her fortitude in that trying hour! Some one has truthfully said that there are but three words of beauty in the English language, and they are: 'Mother, Home, Heaven.' All know that the love and affection of our dead President for his aged mother, who by the cruel shot of the assassin, will be the chief mourner at the grave of her dear boy. These are the qualities, more than the brilliant display on the rostrum, in the forum or before enraptured thousands, that give the full measure of a noble manhood. This display may co-exist with selfishness and meanness; love and affection sanctify the noblest gifts and the loftiest aspirations.
"No account of Mr. Garfield's character would be full and complete without a statement of his deep and fervent religious convictions.
"No man with his breadth of knowledge, with his complete mastery of the processes of induction and analysis, and with his metephysical character of mind, could ever be a disbeliever in the existence of God and the immortality of man. Hence we find him a member of a Christian Church and a regular attendant upon its services. The problem of human origin and human destiny early engaged his thoughts, and secured his profound consideration. Hebelieved, and endeavored to regulate his conduct, habits, and life by Divine laws.
"In conclusion let me say, the hero statesman of this age, and the loved idol of this nation, has gone down to an honored grave. He died in the zenith ofhis reputation and glory, after a struggle which has held the admiration of the world for his heroism and manhood. He lived long enough after the fatal shot to feel the sympathy of the nation, and the deep indignation of the people, at the manner of his taking-off. He has gone to the still heights where crime and pain come not. A nation mourns his loss, and millions of freeman now and hereafter will revere his virtues and guard his fame.
"Though dead in the flesh he lives in the spirit, and in the affections and memory of his countrymen.
"The principles and lessons he taught are his best legacy to his country.
"His memory will never die until time shall be no more. The tears of a sorrowing people will water the sod that covers the remains of their loved magistrate; and from every blade of grass that grows, and from the leaf of every flower that blooms upon his grave, an avenging spirit shall arise to demand requital for the damnation of his taking-off. Then at the grave of the great departed, let us tender anew our vows of fidelity to our country and to freedom, and consecrate every wish and aspiration of our hearts to an undivided and free Republic, remembering that though Presidents may die our country must and shall live forever. 'God reigns, and the Government, at Washington still lives.'"
When I had finished speaking the chairman introduced Rev. George Herbert Watson, whose address was very sympathetic and scholarly as well as impressive. The chairman next introduced the Honorable William H. White, whose address was brief, earnest, patriotic and eloquent.
Political and Not Party Convictions
I have always been of the opinion, and have so declared in public speeches and newspaper articles, that the true policy of the Pacific Coast was the division of its area into small States. I will give but a few of the many reasons for such opinion, for I do not intend to go elaborately into a statement of them. The time for effective action has passed. I desire to state only enough to show the trend of my views on the subject.
First, then, as to the lower house of Congress. The area of the three states bordering on the Pacific Ocean—California, Oregon and Washington—is fully one-half covered by mountains. The sides of these mountains are to a certain extent covered with a heavy growth of timber and with practically impassable canyons; their ridges sharp, gravelly and sterile, with fertile coves and small valleys as yet unoccupied by either the hunter or the hardy woodsman. Many cycles of years will roll away before these fertile spots will be occupied with the romantic homes of these last-named classes.
The Atlantic Coast in the same number of degrees of latitude, commencing at the forty-fifth degree on the coast of Maine and proceeding south for sixteen degrees, is covered to some extent with mountains; but as a general rule they are low as compared with our ranges. Much of the land on their slopes is rich and accessible, and all of their fertile slopes, coves and small valleys have been long since occupied.
I state these facts to show that in addition to natural causes the States bordering on the Atlantic in the same number of degrees of north latitude, as will more fully appear, must continue to have the dominating power in the lower house of Congress. The three States bordering on the Pacific Ocean extend over sixteen degrees of north latitude. Commencing at the 45th degree in Maine and going south sixteen degrees, thirteen States border on the Atlantic. These thirteen States have a representation in the lower house of Congress of 103 members; while the three States bordering on the Pacific have a representation of fourteen members. Thus it is manifest that for many years to come, and possibly forever, with a slowly-diminishing power, the Atlantic will have the control on all subjects of tariff, of finance, of currency and of immigration; subjects in which the Pacific Coast is deeply interested, and upon some of which there is not only an actual, but growing conflict of interests and convictions. Add to this the further fact that Washington and Oregon extend inland for over four hundred and fifty miles, and California on an average of two hundred and fifty miles, and, applying the same rule of inland extension to the Atlantic Coast, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, with their thirty Representatives, would be let in and added to the 103; thus giving to the Atlantic Coast permanent control of all those vital subjects of legislation, so far at least, as the lower house of Congress is concerned. It will thus be seen that a fatal mistake has been made in the political division of the Pacific Coast. I have confined myself strictly to the Ocean-bordering states. The great Inland Empire, lying between the Rocky Mountains on the west and the Alleghany Range on the east, is more intimately andstrongly connected by commercial and financial ties with the Atlantic than with the Pacific Coast. As a partial compensation for this inevitable want of political power in the lower house of Congress, it was the true policy, as I have declared, for the Pacific Coast to divide its immense territorial area into small States, so as to secure in the United States Senate, an approach to equality of political power. We have seen that within sixteen degrees of north latitude on the Atlantic Coast there are thirteen States, bordering on the ocean, with twenty-six Senators; while on the Pacific Coast in the same number of degrees of latitude there are but three States, with only six Senators. California should have been divided into three States; Oregon, into three States; and Washington into three States. This would give only nine States in a far greater territorial area than that contained in the thirteen States bordering on the Atlantic Ocean. Even then, this would give us only eighteen Senators; but it would be a nearer approach to equality in political power than now.
The question may be asked: Are there no means by which this fatal mistake may now be remedied? As a lawyer, and being somewhat acquainted with the history of my country, I am compelled to answer, No.
On the admission of a State into the Union, there is an implied compact on the part of the Federal Government to defend such admitted State against all unlawful invasion of its territory. If there be a dispute about boundaries, it must be settled in the proper Court, and the final decree of that Court will be enforced by all the power of the Federal Government.
Again, the possession of power is always connected with the desire to perpetuate it, and also with a sensitivejealousy of all measures having a tendency to diminish its controlling effectiveness, or to lessen the value of the units constituting that power. The admission of every State has, to some extent, this effect; hence the demands are more exacting, and the admission more difficult, now, than heretofore.
There has been but one instance in our history where a State has been divided, and the segregated portion been admitted into the Union as a State; and that is the case of West Virginia; but that admission was based on facts and conditions which every patriot hopes may never occur again. Virginia not only claimed the right peaceably to secede from the Union but to be the sole and exclusive judge not only of the existence, but also, of the sufficiency of the causes, to warrant such secession. She did all she could to make that secession effective. Old Virginia had by her act, and by her theory of the nature of the Government under the Constitution, estopped herself to deny that the forty-eight counties west of the Alleghany Range possessed the same right of secession—if any such right existed—that she possessed herself; she could therefore make no rightful objection. The people of the forty-eight counties were loyal to the Federal Government, and flag. They called a Convention, adopted a Constitution republican in form which was approved by nearly unanimous vote of its legal electors—28,321 for and only 572 against—and under that Constitution, with the name of West Virginia they were admitted into the Union on December 31st, 1862. This was done partly as a war measure, and partly to show the disintegrating effect of the logic of secession.