FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[88]John McLeod, Senior, stationed at Thompson river or Kamloops. Consult "Peace River," by Archibald McDonald, for his career.[89]Probably Charles McKay, son of Alex McKay who was blown up with the Tonquin, and step-son of Dr. John McLoughlin.[90]Celilo, or the Falls of the Columbia, above The Dalles.[91]The Sandy river, Multnomah County, Oregon; camp being near Washougal on opposite shore.[92]Portage around the Cascades on north bank, where railroad portage was built in later years.[93]The Upper Cape Horn, below Klickitat river; see Wilkes' Map of Oregon.[94]This was the long portage of about 4½ miles from Big Eddy to the upper end of Ten Mile rapids. From here they used their boats to the Falls, or Chutes, where again carried boats and goods a short distance. Here was the "Wishram" village of Washington Irving. See "Astoria."[95]John Day river, Oregon side.[96]David Douglas, the English botanist, who was then on the Columbia. Consult Oregon Historical Quarterly, Vol. 5, pp. 218 and 245-6-7.[97]Now known as Blalock Island but more often referred to by the fur traders as the Long Island; opposite Cayote station of O. W. R. & N. Ry.[98]The Umatilla rapids, above mouth of Umatilla river, Oregon side.[99]Also called Fort Walla Walla, built in July-Aug., 1818, by Donald McKenzie & Alex. Ross: consult "Fur Hunters of the Far West," chaptres 6 & 7 and frontispiece for picture of the Fort. Location 1½ miles west of Wallula, of present day.[100]South branch of the Columbia, that is the Snake river.[101]Mr. Thos. Dears, a clerk of the H. B. Co., but not attached to any special Post. Mr. J. W. Dease, a Chief Trader, was then in charge of Fort Nez Perces.[102]The Palouse river of today; the Drewyer's river of Lewis and Clark, and known to the fur traders also as Payton and Pavillon river.[103]Spokane House, about 100 miles northward; see Ross Cox' "Adventures" etc for an account of this trail to the Spokane river.[104]Meaning the Pend d'Oreille Indians.[105]Almota Whitman county, Wash., always a favorite Indian camping place, and meaning the hilly or mountainous stream or place. Lewis and Clark camped here Oct. 11th, 1805 and mention the Indian houses described by John Work a little further on in this text.[106]That is, the junction of the Snake and Clearwater rivers.[107]Red Wolf crossing of the Snake river, at mouth of Alpown creek Garfield country, Washington. Col. E. J. Steptoe's expedition crossed here in the year 1858 on its disastrous expedition.[108]John Work's corruption of the Indian family name Shahaptin.[109]The Palouse and the Cayuse tribes. Not unlike Lewis and Clark Mr. Work was "something of a speller."[110]Where Lewiston, Idaho, now stands. See page 128 of Vol. 2 of "Trail of Lewis & Clark" (Wheeler) for photo and description of this site.[111]That is, the Snake river proper but designated by Lewis and Clark as the Kimooenim, while the Clearwater from the S. E. was the Kooskooske.[112]A very correct description of "Lewiston Hill" and of the famous Palouse country beyond. Travelers by stage over that road all remember it. Mr. Dease evidently returned direct to Fort Walla Walla by the river.[113]The regular Indian trail northward followed the line between Washington and Idaho, generally speaking; consult Mauring's "Conquest of Coeur d'Alene, Spokane & Palouse Indians" for this.[114]Probably near Phileo Lake between Spangle and Cheney, Spokane county, Washington.[115]Spokane House, at junction of main with the Little Spokane river, nine miles N. W. of City of Spokane, first established by Finan McDonald in 1810; Mr. James Birnie in charge. Mr. Birnie afterward settled at Astoria and Cathlamet near the mouth of the Columbia.[116]This, and previous entries, give us the actual plans for removal of this trading post to Kettle Falls on the Columbia, as had evidently been agreed upon during the winter at Fort George. Consult "Fur Hunters of Far West" (Ross) Vol. 2, p 162 as to this. Also Gov. Stevens large map in Vol. 12 of Pac. Ry. Reports.[117]The Pend d'Oreille river, from its mouth to the Calispel river and flats near Cusick, Washington.[118]The Kootenay river.[119]Evidently Gov. Simpson was not without some gift of humor; he was preparing Mr. Work for David Douglas' expected visit to the Interior to collect botanical specimens.[120]After at least 150 miles across the best farming lands of Spokane, Lincoln and part of Douglas counties, Washington. Fort Okanagan was then on the Columbia river side of the plateau at mouth of Okanogan river.[121]The San Poll river, from the north.[122]These horses were for use in transporting goods to the Thompson river and New Caledonia Districts, which from now on were to deliver furs and get goods at Fort Vancouver on the Columbia. Up to this time they had shipped everything to and from York Factory to Hudson Bay, using the Tete Jaune Pass across the Rocky Mts.[123]Peter Skene Ogden, who was in charge of the Snake Country trappers that season. Consult Oregon Historical Quarterly Vol. 10, pp. 229-273.[124]A half breed named La Prate, who afterward was for many years resident at Fort Okanogan.[125]The mouth of the Spokane river.[126]This name should be Robideaux, another half breed.[127]Alexander Ross, who had proceeded to Red River with Gov. Simpson this same Spring and whose family now follows: and Mr. McLeod sends his family preparatory to himself leaving the Columbia river district the following spring.[128]Meaning Fort Vancouver.[129]That is Whirlpool Rapids at the foot of Nespalem Canyon. Consult Lieut. Thos. W. Symon's Report of Examination of Upper Columbia River for this journey from Okanogan to mouth of Spokane river.[130]The trading post to be known as Fort Colville just above Kettle Falls.[131]Probably Spirit Lake Northeast of Spokane, and the little river mentioned a little further on was probably Rathdrum creek.[132]Mr. Finan McDonald, who built Spokane House in 1810 and had but recently left there.[133]Pend d'Oreille river at Sineacateen crossing, the north end of David Thompson's "Skeetshoo Road"; later known as Markham's Ferry, Kootenay County, Idaho.[134]William Kittson; see "Fur Hunters of Far West" Vol. 1, p. 207.[135]Thompson Falls, Montana.[136]Lake Pend d'Oreille.[137]Probably the Cabinet Rapids in Clarks Fork river. Barrier river next mentioned is probably Trout Creek of today and maps.[138]Thompson Falls, Montana, where the Indians would be gathered for the summer trade and to fish. Mr. Ogden's party was either on head waters of Jefferson's Fork of the Missouri in Montana, or on the Snake or Salmon rivers in Idaho.[139]This wide traverse or crossing of Lake Pend d'Oreille was from near Hope, Idaho westward across the Lake.[140]That is at Sinecateen again. During mining days this was the principal crossing of the Pend d'Oreille river and is well known to all early settlers of Idaho and Montana and the Kootenay country.[141]Spokane House.[142]Probably they had camped for the night at the Hoodoo lake and this Bindash Campment at Spirit Lake, but impossible to locate certainly.[143]Mr. Kittson goes as far as Bonners Ferry, Idaho, near which David Thompson's "Lake Indian House" had been, for a summer trade with Kootenays there.[144]The Colville river and valley, and we now get a glimpse of the beginnings of actual settlement and trade in that valley. The "little nick" mentioned further on is Marcus Flat, just above Kettle Falls, where Fort Colvile (so named after one of the H. B. Co. officials) was maintained until about 1872.[145]This refers to the desertions of the H. B. Co. Free-hunters under inducement from the American traders, concerning which there has been some reflection cast upon Gen. W. H. Ashley, but without real evidence to support it.[146]Probably meaning the rebuilding of the Post or Fort near Bonners Ferry; a regular Post had been maintained further up the Kootenay river about opposite Jennings, Montana. See Ross Cox' "Adventures." p. 233.

[88]John McLeod, Senior, stationed at Thompson river or Kamloops. Consult "Peace River," by Archibald McDonald, for his career.

[89]Probably Charles McKay, son of Alex McKay who was blown up with the Tonquin, and step-son of Dr. John McLoughlin.

[90]Celilo, or the Falls of the Columbia, above The Dalles.

[91]The Sandy river, Multnomah County, Oregon; camp being near Washougal on opposite shore.

[92]Portage around the Cascades on north bank, where railroad portage was built in later years.

[93]The Upper Cape Horn, below Klickitat river; see Wilkes' Map of Oregon.

[94]This was the long portage of about 4½ miles from Big Eddy to the upper end of Ten Mile rapids. From here they used their boats to the Falls, or Chutes, where again carried boats and goods a short distance. Here was the "Wishram" village of Washington Irving. See "Astoria."

[95]John Day river, Oregon side.

[96]David Douglas, the English botanist, who was then on the Columbia. Consult Oregon Historical Quarterly, Vol. 5, pp. 218 and 245-6-7.

[97]Now known as Blalock Island but more often referred to by the fur traders as the Long Island; opposite Cayote station of O. W. R. & N. Ry.

[98]The Umatilla rapids, above mouth of Umatilla river, Oregon side.

[99]Also called Fort Walla Walla, built in July-Aug., 1818, by Donald McKenzie & Alex. Ross: consult "Fur Hunters of the Far West," chaptres 6 & 7 and frontispiece for picture of the Fort. Location 1½ miles west of Wallula, of present day.

[100]South branch of the Columbia, that is the Snake river.

[101]Mr. Thos. Dears, a clerk of the H. B. Co., but not attached to any special Post. Mr. J. W. Dease, a Chief Trader, was then in charge of Fort Nez Perces.

[102]The Palouse river of today; the Drewyer's river of Lewis and Clark, and known to the fur traders also as Payton and Pavillon river.

[103]Spokane House, about 100 miles northward; see Ross Cox' "Adventures" etc for an account of this trail to the Spokane river.

[104]Meaning the Pend d'Oreille Indians.

[105]Almota Whitman county, Wash., always a favorite Indian camping place, and meaning the hilly or mountainous stream or place. Lewis and Clark camped here Oct. 11th, 1805 and mention the Indian houses described by John Work a little further on in this text.

[106]That is, the junction of the Snake and Clearwater rivers.

[107]Red Wolf crossing of the Snake river, at mouth of Alpown creek Garfield country, Washington. Col. E. J. Steptoe's expedition crossed here in the year 1858 on its disastrous expedition.

[108]John Work's corruption of the Indian family name Shahaptin.

[109]The Palouse and the Cayuse tribes. Not unlike Lewis and Clark Mr. Work was "something of a speller."

[110]Where Lewiston, Idaho, now stands. See page 128 of Vol. 2 of "Trail of Lewis & Clark" (Wheeler) for photo and description of this site.

[111]That is, the Snake river proper but designated by Lewis and Clark as the Kimooenim, while the Clearwater from the S. E. was the Kooskooske.

[112]A very correct description of "Lewiston Hill" and of the famous Palouse country beyond. Travelers by stage over that road all remember it. Mr. Dease evidently returned direct to Fort Walla Walla by the river.

[113]The regular Indian trail northward followed the line between Washington and Idaho, generally speaking; consult Mauring's "Conquest of Coeur d'Alene, Spokane & Palouse Indians" for this.

[114]Probably near Phileo Lake between Spangle and Cheney, Spokane county, Washington.

[115]Spokane House, at junction of main with the Little Spokane river, nine miles N. W. of City of Spokane, first established by Finan McDonald in 1810; Mr. James Birnie in charge. Mr. Birnie afterward settled at Astoria and Cathlamet near the mouth of the Columbia.

[116]This, and previous entries, give us the actual plans for removal of this trading post to Kettle Falls on the Columbia, as had evidently been agreed upon during the winter at Fort George. Consult "Fur Hunters of Far West" (Ross) Vol. 2, p 162 as to this. Also Gov. Stevens large map in Vol. 12 of Pac. Ry. Reports.

[117]The Pend d'Oreille river, from its mouth to the Calispel river and flats near Cusick, Washington.

[118]The Kootenay river.

[119]Evidently Gov. Simpson was not without some gift of humor; he was preparing Mr. Work for David Douglas' expected visit to the Interior to collect botanical specimens.

[120]After at least 150 miles across the best farming lands of Spokane, Lincoln and part of Douglas counties, Washington. Fort Okanagan was then on the Columbia river side of the plateau at mouth of Okanogan river.

[121]The San Poll river, from the north.

[122]These horses were for use in transporting goods to the Thompson river and New Caledonia Districts, which from now on were to deliver furs and get goods at Fort Vancouver on the Columbia. Up to this time they had shipped everything to and from York Factory to Hudson Bay, using the Tete Jaune Pass across the Rocky Mts.

[123]Peter Skene Ogden, who was in charge of the Snake Country trappers that season. Consult Oregon Historical Quarterly Vol. 10, pp. 229-273.

[124]A half breed named La Prate, who afterward was for many years resident at Fort Okanogan.

[125]The mouth of the Spokane river.

[126]This name should be Robideaux, another half breed.

[127]Alexander Ross, who had proceeded to Red River with Gov. Simpson this same Spring and whose family now follows: and Mr. McLeod sends his family preparatory to himself leaving the Columbia river district the following spring.

[128]Meaning Fort Vancouver.

[129]That is Whirlpool Rapids at the foot of Nespalem Canyon. Consult Lieut. Thos. W. Symon's Report of Examination of Upper Columbia River for this journey from Okanogan to mouth of Spokane river.

[130]The trading post to be known as Fort Colville just above Kettle Falls.

[131]Probably Spirit Lake Northeast of Spokane, and the little river mentioned a little further on was probably Rathdrum creek.

[132]Mr. Finan McDonald, who built Spokane House in 1810 and had but recently left there.

[133]Pend d'Oreille river at Sineacateen crossing, the north end of David Thompson's "Skeetshoo Road"; later known as Markham's Ferry, Kootenay County, Idaho.

[134]William Kittson; see "Fur Hunters of Far West" Vol. 1, p. 207.

[135]Thompson Falls, Montana.

[136]Lake Pend d'Oreille.

[137]Probably the Cabinet Rapids in Clarks Fork river. Barrier river next mentioned is probably Trout Creek of today and maps.

[138]Thompson Falls, Montana, where the Indians would be gathered for the summer trade and to fish. Mr. Ogden's party was either on head waters of Jefferson's Fork of the Missouri in Montana, or on the Snake or Salmon rivers in Idaho.

[139]This wide traverse or crossing of Lake Pend d'Oreille was from near Hope, Idaho westward across the Lake.

[140]That is at Sinecateen again. During mining days this was the principal crossing of the Pend d'Oreille river and is well known to all early settlers of Idaho and Montana and the Kootenay country.

[141]Spokane House.

[142]Probably they had camped for the night at the Hoodoo lake and this Bindash Campment at Spirit Lake, but impossible to locate certainly.

[143]Mr. Kittson goes as far as Bonners Ferry, Idaho, near which David Thompson's "Lake Indian House" had been, for a summer trade with Kootenays there.

[144]The Colville river and valley, and we now get a glimpse of the beginnings of actual settlement and trade in that valley. The "little nick" mentioned further on is Marcus Flat, just above Kettle Falls, where Fort Colvile (so named after one of the H. B. Co. officials) was maintained until about 1872.

[145]This refers to the desertions of the H. B. Co. Free-hunters under inducement from the American traders, concerning which there has been some reflection cast upon Gen. W. H. Ashley, but without real evidence to support it.

[146]Probably meaning the rebuilding of the Post or Fort near Bonners Ferry; a regular Post had been maintained further up the Kootenay river about opposite Jennings, Montana. See Ross Cox' "Adventures." p. 233.

The State of Washington passed through three forms of government before attaining statehood. The present state was first a part of the "Old Oregon" under the provisional government. In 1840 the American population sent a petition to Congress enumerating reasons for a territorial government. This petition closed with these words:

"We pray for the high privilege of American citizenship. The peaceful enjoyment of life, the right of acquiring, possessing and using property and the unrestrained pursuit of rational happiness and for this your petitioners will ever pray."

In 1848 Congress approved the "Oregon Bill" and for four years longer Washington continued a part of the territory of Oregon. The region was then, in 1853, organized as a separate territory and for thirty-six years the "Organic Law." with added amendments, served as the territorial constitution. Washington then became a state in 1889. It is under these different forms of government and through the different stages of growth and development, therefore, that the question of legalizing or prohibiting the sale of alcoholic liquors becomes interesting: Provisional government, 1843-1849: Oregon territory, 1849-1853; Washington territory, 1853-1889; Washington state, 1889.

The first territorial legislature of the present state of Washington convened in 1854. During this session of the legislature there was an effort made to pass a state-wide prohibition law. There had been widespread agitation upon temperance and prohibition throughout the country, by such reformers as John B. Gough and Neal Dow. In the state of Maine Dow's work had resulted in the Maine prohibition law. The effort for prohibition in the territory in 1854 failed but in 1855 a general liquor law was passed entitled "An act to prohibit the manufacture or sale or Ardent Spirits in the Territory of Washington." It is interesting to note the language of this law in the light of the present.

Sec. 1 says "The manufacture, sale or gift of intoxicating liquors is prohibited."

Sec. 2 says "A public agent may be appointed to sell spirituous liquors for certain purposes, such agent to conform to the rules and regulations of the appointing power and receive a compensation."

There is further provision in this law for bond, for punishment, for violation and for fines under the law to go to the public school fund. Inaddition to this there were two general liquor laws and much minor legislation which we wish to notice.

This law passed June 30, 1855. Five days previous to this date, January 25, there was an enactment prohibiting the sale of liquor to Indians. The penalty for violation was a fine of from $25 to $500. These fines also went into the school fund.

In 1858 another law was passed making it a crime to sell to the Kanakas (Hawaiian Islanders). This law was re-enacted in 1860.

In 1863, as there came to be more respect for law and community life was more firmly established, we find the first provision of a jail sentence for the violation of a liquor law. This was under an act to prevent the sale of adulterated liquor, which made provision for inspectors and defined the duties thereof. The penalty for violation of this law was $500 and six months in jail.

The first law to prohibit the sale to minors was passed on November 9, 1877. For violation of this law there was a jail sentence and fine not to exceed $500, one or both. At the same session on the same day there was a law passed to protect those who sold to a minor who misrepresented his age. Any minor misrepresenting his age was liable to fine of $25 to $100, and jail sentence of not to exceed three months.

Two years later we find the first law for the recovery of damages for injury by use of intoxicating liquors. The law holds the owner of the building liable jointly with the seller. This law was enacted November 14, 1879.

An interesting bit of legislation is a law passed in 1879 restraining the sale of intoxicating liquor in certain counties, Spokane, Stevens and Whitman, within one mile of the Northern Pacific Railroad, during construction. For violation of this law there was provided a fine of $300 or three months in jail or both.

In 1881 a second damage law providing for damages for one who suffered injury in person, property or means of support. This law says no license shall be granted without the consent in writing of the owner of the building for his property to be used for saloon purposes. The property then becomes liable and the owner may be held for damages. The money for damages may be recovered by civil action.

No further legislation of notice follows till the year 1885, just thirty years after the first general liquor law was passed—thirty years of attempted control which had not been very successful. The agitation for teaching the effects of alcohol and narcotics in the public schools resulted in the passage of such a law in this state December 23, 1885. This law applies to all schools supported wholly or in part by money from the territorial treasury. "The County Treasurer shall withhold the county funds from any school not complying with the provisions of this act." A fine of $100 is assessable against any county or state superintendent who fails to enforce the provisions of the law. This law, passed December 23, 1885, went into effect in July, 1886, and provided that teachers must take an examination in this subject after 1887.

In the year 1886 a second general liquor law was passed. This law is known as, "An act to prohibit the sale of Intoxicating Liquors in Election Precincts of Washington Territory, Whenever a Majority of Legal Voters of Any Such Precinct, at any election to be held for that purpose, shall vote in favor of the prohibition of such liquors." This is quite a lengthy law beginning with Section 1 which defines the terms used, stating the singular shall include the plural and the plural the singular. Nouns and pronouns of the masculine gender shall include the feminine. The term intoxicating liquor shall include all liquor of any nature. We may infer from this clause that there had been some dispute over the interpretation of previous laws. Through court cases under this law an incorporated town or city shall be a voting precinct. This law contained eighteen different sections.

In 1887 there was a license law passed. This law permits the county board to license outside of cities and towns. The license fee was from $300 to $1000 divided as follows: 10 per cent goes to the state; 35 per cent goes to the school; 55 per cent goes to the county. In cities the council may grant the license. Then 10 per cent goes to the state, 90 per cent goes to the city. Bonds are fixed at $1000. It was approved February 2, 1888, to be in force sixty days after approval.

In 1893 there was a law passed amending municipal incorporation liquor tax regulation.

In 1895 a law was passed making it a nuisance to sell liquor contrary to law.

Another law was passed in the same year, 1895, which is of interest. This was an act prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor on or within two miles of the University Grounds, making an exception of a small corner of ground in Madison Park on Lake Washington. This law was drawn by Professor Edmond S. Meany, Department of History, Washington State University. Illinois has a law similar to this one, but the limit in that state is one mile while in Washington it is two. In 1903 a law passed prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor within the proscribed limit (of 2000 feet) of state institutions. This applied to state institutions, not educational as well, and contained a clause stating that this law would not affect the law concerning the State University. The fine for violationof this law was a fine of $200 to $1000. Another law in 1903 was for the search and seizure of liquor. In 1905 a law passed providing for the license to be endorsed by the treasurer of the state when he received his share of the license fee. This law would lead one to believe that there might sometimes be some irregularity in handling license monies.

Another act in 1905 was an amendment to the act providing for the right of action for damages.

In 1907 there was passed "An act relating to sale of intoxicating liquors," fixing a state license fee of $25 and providing punishment for violation thereof.

A number of measures were passed in 1909; An act to prohibit a wholesaler from holding an interest in a saloon or acting as bondsman. The fine for the violation is from $100 to $500 or a jail sentence for thirty days to six months. Monies loaned for such purposes in violation of this law are forfeited to the city or state. An act prohibiting the sale of liquor to Indians or mixed bloods and fixing a penalty for the violation thereof. The state board of tax commissioners are empowered to regulate the enforcement of the law of 1907.

The Military Code gives the commanding officer of the National Guard authority, saying, "He shall prohibit or prevent the sale or use of all intoxicating liquors. The sale of intoxicating liquor is prohibited within 2000 feet of State institutions, Normal, Agricultural Colleges, etc., and provides a fine of $200 to $1000 for the violation of this act."

In this same year, 1909, the third general liquor law of this state was passed. This is known as the "Local Option Law." The unit of territory under this law shall be each city of the first, second, third or fourth class each unclassified city having a population of 1000 inhabitants and each county having no first, second, third or fourth class city. Under this law the question shall be submitted at the general election or at special elections by the petition of 30 per cent of the electors at the last general election. This is quite a lengthy law and would appear to cover almost every point of regulation of the traffic. One clause of the law says, "No provision is intended or shall be construed to violate or contradict the laws of the United States." The text of this act contains twenty-three sections. This local option law passed the Senate February 18, 1909; passed the House March 4, 1909, and was approved March 12, 1909.

We are now close to the present time and it may be well to notice that in 1911 an effort was made to amend the law of 1909. The amendment was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Falconer and known as Senate Bill No. 121. The bill was read the first and second time and was referred to the Committee an Morals—evidently an effort was madeto kill the bill in committee. There was two reports, a majority and a minority report. The former was accepted. The bill was advanced to third reading. Eight amendments were offered but all were lost. It passed the senate by a vote of 24 to 16. The measure did not fare as well in the house. Here also it was House Bill 121. It was read the first time, referred to the committee on rules of order, reported back without recommendation, then indefinitely postponed.

The legislature in 1911 did at least pass one measure. This law made it a gross misdemeanor to permit minors in saloons.

The general law of 1909, which is known as the Local Option Law, was secured through the temperance forces of the state. The strongest and most active organizations are the Independent Order of Good Templars and the Anti-Saloon League. The Good Templars of this state have in addition to the American order a branch society among the Scandinavians, which numbers several thousand voters. Much credit for the advance in temperance and anti-saloon sentiment in Washington must be given to George F. Cotterill, the former mayor of the city of Seattle. Mr. Cotterill has not only been active among the American and Scandinavian Good Templars of which he is the national head in America, but he has been fully as diligent in the circles of organized labor.

Labor organizations have been active in temperance agitation. They realize that sober men command a higher wage than drinking men and are quite as zealous as the church in training their members to stay sober.

The question of "State Wide Prohibition" will be submitted to a referendum vote of the people of the state in 1914.

We have the same question confronting us today that we had 59 years ago.

Anna Sloan Walker.

In the matter of divorce, the commonwealth of Washington has passed through a social evolution. In the early part of the territorial period it was a common practice for the legislature to enact private laws, granting divorces. The first of these divorces on record was granted by the Oregon territorial legislature as far back as 1845. The ease with which divorces could be obtained resulted in a wholesale abuse of this legislative privilege. According to Arthur A. Denny, Fayette McMullin accepted the office of governor of the territory and came to Olympia for the expressed purpose of obtaining such a legislative divorce. Mr. Denny was plied to vote for the measure but refused. He never would vote for a divorce bill, and always told the applicants to go to the courts for their divorces. Mr. Denny's attitude on the question was shared by many others, as the constant opposition to the practice shows. As for Governor McMullin, he was successful in getting his divorce. It was granted on the 25th day of January, 1858. Two other such divorces were granted at the same session. One was granted at the following session and fifteen at the next. The average at the next few sessions was between ten and fifteen. McMullin afterwards married Miss Mary Wood of Olympia. The fact that he was removed from office for incompetency in July, 1858, will serve to give one an index to his personality. His term of office was from 1857-59 and Charles H. Mason, secretary of the territory, filled out the unexpired term.

A more sturdy type of man, who served as war governor, was William Pickering. His views on the granting of legislative divorces is but a voicing of the general sentiment. Prior to his arrival in the territory, unhappy married people had usually applied to the legislature for the granting of divorces. At nearly every session one or more acts had been passed and the divorce business had been particularly active during the two preceding sessions, at one of which fifteen and the other seventeen such acts had been passed. Secretary Turney, as acting governor, had declared against this practice in the message he sent to legislature in December, 1861, but no attention was paid to his recommendation that it be discontinued. Turney's attitude on the question was expressed as follows: "All good citizens acknowledge and respect the marriage relation. Yet, the interests of society are often stabbed and stricken down, and public sentiment outraged and insulted by disregarding that sanctity, in severing those whohave been united in wedlock's holy bands. Those ties should be sundered only by courts of competent jurisdiction, and only for one cause—the scriptural ground for a writing of divorcement."

Pickering's message was but a renewal of this recommendation and his principal points were that the law declared marriage to be a civil contract, all breaches or violations of which were proper subjects for the judiciary alone. The courts alone could hear the testimony of the parties and they alone could render final judgment and decree for alimony and determine which of the parties should have the care and custody of the minor children. Although sixteen divorces were granted at this session, an act was passed at the succeeding session which practically committed the granting of divorces to the courts, and the practice of applying to the legislature was soon discontinued.

Pickering's position on the question, as brought out in his first gubernatorial message to the legislature on December 17, 1862, was as follows: "I should be recreant to the duty I owe to society, if I failed to call your serious attention to the sad and immoral effects growing out of the readiness with which our legislative assemblies have heretofore annulled that most solemn contract of marriage. Let me earnestly invoke you to stay the evils, which result from the legislature granting divorces, thereby destroying the sacred responsibilities and duties of husband and wife merely upon the request, or petition, of one of the parties.

"Without intending to trespass upon your law making province, permit me to suggest for your consideration the fact, that the present laws declare marriage to be a civil contract; therefore all breaches or violations of its conditions are proper subjects for the judiciary alone, and not for legislative enactment on one side, or ex parte statements.

"The law as it stands upon the statute books of the territory has conferred full jurisdiction upon the courts, in all cases belonging to divorces, which is the only tribunal that can deliberately hear and examine all the witnesses on both sides of those unfortunate domestic difficulties of the parties applying for a dissolution of the marriage contract.

"The legislature seldom has the opportunity of hearing any witnesses, even on the side of the complaining party, and never can have before them all the witnesses connected with both parties, especially necessary to the proper adjudication of these cases. It will also be well to remember, that in the divorce cases the legislature cannot decree or enter judgment for alimony, division of property belonging to the married parties, nor legally decide whether the separate husband or wife, shall lawfully continue the possession, care and control of their children.

"The court alone can have full power to render final judgment and decree of alimony, division of property and direct who shall have the care and control of the minor children.

"Many of the legislatures of the states, for several years past, have positively refused to grant divorces. Eminent lawyers are agreed in the opinion that all divorces granted by the legislature are entirely unconstitutional, and therefore null and void, for the reason that no act of the legislature can destroy, annul, violate, or set aside the said civil contract nor the sacred and religious bonds and mutual obligations entered into by man and wife at the solemnization of marriage. It is at all times a very serious and delicate matter for any person or persons to interfere in any manner in the unhappy quarrels and family difficulties of man and wife. There are few subjects brought before the courts of our country requiring to be treated with more deliberate care and caution than divorces.

"Whenever a legislative body takes an action in cases of divorces, it is not improperly regarded as an infringement upon the legislative provinces of the courts. For these reasons I trust your honorable body will firmly refuse to interfere with the rights of husband and wife. Applicants, seeking separation, should be directed to the courts of our territory where they can receive all the relief and remedy for their grievances which the laws of our country afford."

In spite of this protest that same session enacted sixteen such private bills, and at the following session the governor renewed his objections. In January, 1866, the legislature enacted a law declaring marriage to be a civil contract which would throw the consideration of divorce into the courts. In 1871 another divorce bill was passed but this was the last and subsequent efforts to revive the practice failed.

The attempted constitution of 1878, which was drawn up at Walla Walla, declared against such legislative divorces, as did the approved constitution of 1889.

The causes of this dissatisfaction in the method of granting divorces are apparent. The people realized that marriage is the institution at the basis of our social existence. An undoubted reaction against the laxity of the divorce laws was springing up, not only in Washington, but throughout the United States. This action ultimately resulted in two reforms. It diminished the grounds on which a divorce may be granted and it extended the period necessary to establish a legal residence. Today there is no state in which an action for divorce may be brought without a preliminary residence of at least six months. The drift of legislation in the last twentyyears has been almost wholly in the direction of greater restriction. In spite of this the national ratio of divorce is 1:12.

Although most states have but a single provision in their constitution regarding divorce, Washington has two. They are: Article II, Section 24. The legislature shall never authorize any lottery or grant any divorce. Article IV, Section 6. The superior court shall have jurisdiction of all matters of divorce and for the annulment of marriage. These provisions have removed, beyond all doubt, the granting of legislative divorces.

A brief survey of the laws at the present time reveal the following information:

Jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction shall lie in the district court in the county where the petitioner resides.

The act of February 21, 1891 provides that divorces shall be granted by the superior court.

Residence.

The petitioner must have been a resident of the state for one year next before the filing of the petitions. This is an amendment of the act of January, 1864, which required only three months.

Service of Process or Notice.

Legal notice shall be personal or by publication.

Like process shall be had as in all other civil suits.

By the laws of 1893 it is provided that when the defendant cannot be found in the state, a copy of the summons and complaint shall be mailed to him at his place of residence, but if the residence is not known, service may be by publication. Publication must be once each week for six consecutive weeks in a newspaper published in the county where the action is brought or, if there be none there, in an adjoining county, or if there be none there, in the capital of the state.

Causes for Absolute Divorce.

1. When the consent to the marriage of the party applying for the divorce was obtained by force or fraud and there has been no subsequent voluntary cohabitation.

2. For adultery on the part of the wife or husband, when unforgiven, and application is made within one year after it shall come to his or her knowledge.

3. Impotency.

4. Abandonment for one year.

5. Cruel treatment of either party by the other.

6. Personal iniquities rendering life burdensome.

7. Habitual drunkenness of either party.

8. Neglect or refusal of the husband to make suitable provisions for his family.

9. The imprisonment of either party in the penitentiary, if complaint is filed during the term of such imprisonment.

10. Any other cause deemed by the court sufficient, when the court shall be satisfied that the parties can no longer live together.

11. In the discretion of the court, in case of incurable, chronic mania or dementia of either party, the same having existed for ten years or more.

The above causes were in effect in 1887.

By an act approved Feb. 24, 1891, cause 6, as given above, was amended so as to read as follows: "Personal indignities rendering life burdensome."

Limited Divorce.

There is no limited divorce in Washington.

Special Provisions for Defence.

Whenever a petition for divorce remains undefended, it shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney to resist such petition, except where the attorney for the petitioner is a partner of or keeps his office with, such prosecuting attorney, in which case the court shall appoint an attorney to resist the petition.

Temporary Alimony.

During the pendency of an action for divorce, the court may make such orders relative to the expenses of the suit as will insure to the wife an efficient preparation of her case, and a fair and impartial trial thereof.

Permanent Alimony.

In granting a divorce the court shall make such disposition of the property of the parties as shall appear just and equitable, having regard to the respective merits of the parties, and to the condition in which they will be left by such division and to the party through whom the property was acquired, and to the burdens imposed upon it for the benefit of the children.

Refusal of Divorce.

No divorce shall be granted in case of adultery, if the offense has been forgiven by the petitioner, or on the ground of force or fraud, if there has been subsequent voluntary cohabitation of the parties.

In case of adultery the action must be commenced within one year after petitioner shall have knowledge of the act.

Answer or Cross-complaint.

The defendant may, in addition to the answer, file a cross complaint for divorce, and the court may grant a divorce in favor of either party.

Change of Name After Divorce.

In granting a divorce, the court may, for just and reasonable cause, change the name of the wife, who shall thereafter be known and called by such name as the court shall in its order or decree appoint.

Trial by Jury.

Practice in civil actions govern all proceedings in the trial of actions for divorce, except that trial by jury is dispensed with.

No Divorce on Confession.

When the defendant does not answer or, answering, admits the allegations in the petition, the court shall require proof before granting the divorce.

Custody of Children.

On granting a decree, the court shall make provision for the guardianship, custody, support and education of the minor children of the marriage.

Pending an action for divorce the court may make such orders for the disposition of the children of the parties as may be deemed right and proper.

Remarriage.

When a divorce is granted, a full and complete dissolution of the marriage as to both parties follows: Provided, That neither party shall be capable of contracting marriage with a third person until the period has expired within which an appeal may be taken, or until the determination of such appeal, if taken. The act approved March 9, 1893 in addition, makes such a marriage unlawful under any circumstances within six months, and requires that the judgment or decree must expressly prohibit such a marriage within six months.

Thus we have a summary of past and present conditions. In conclusion, a few statistics will clearly show whether or not the laws have accomplished their purpose.

Divorces granted in Washington.

Back to Index Next