Speech of Jefferson Davis in House on April 17, 1846 on the Oregon question.

Mr. JEFFERSON DAVIS said, the closing remarks of the gentleman who had preceded him certainly invited a reply; but in consideration of the little time which remained of that allowed for this discussion and the number of gentlemen anxious to address the committee, he would only say, in answer to these remarks, that he repelled the assumption, that all who differed from the gentleman in his opinions upon Oregon, were so wanting in wisdom or patriotism as ignorantly or timidly to sacrifice American rights. Not always was it found that those who most readily entered into quarrel, bore themselves best after they were in. Sometimes the first to get into a row are the first who wish themselves out.

He declined to enter into the question of title. The ancient voyages of Spain—the ancient conventions in relation to the Northwest coast of America—seemed to him so little connected. with the subject before the committee, that he had listened to such speeches with the feelings of the Vicar of Wakefield, when he met the sharper of the fair in prison, and he commenced his recital on cosmogony. Stop! said the Vicar, sorry to interrupt so much learning, but I think I have heard all that before.

He would point out his most prominent objections to the bill, and before closing, would offer a substitute for its provisions. He said, the title of the bill met his entire approval. Our citizens in Oregon had a right to expect our protection. It was gratifying to him to witness the fact, that though they had gone beyond the exercise of our jurisdiction, they looked back and asked that the laws of their father-land might follow them; they invited the restraints of our legislation; thus giving the highest proof of their attachment, and paying the richest tribute to our institutions.

There is sufficient unanimity as to the propriety of extending our laws over American citizens in Oregon, to justify me in omitting that branch of the subject, and proceeding at once to inquire by what mode this may be effected. By the bill under discussion, it is proposed to extend the jurisdiction of the supreme court of Iowa, and the laws of said Territory, as far as applicable to that portion of the territory of the United States which lies west of the Rocky Mountains, and also over a belt of country east of those mountains and west of the Missouri river, and lying between the fortieth and forty-third parallel of north latitude.

Who here knows what the laws of Iowa are, still less what they may be; but this much we all may know, that from the difference in the condition and wants of the two countries, the one must be very poorly calculated to legislate for the other, and great confusion must ensue in the attempt to apply the wants of one to the other. He referred to the mining character of Iowa, which gave to her people and local legislation a character peculiar and inapplicable to Oregon. He denied the propriety of extending the laws of Iowa over the Indian country, considered such extension a violation of the principles which had heretofore controlled our intercourse with the Indian tribes, the principle which had been characteristic of our Government, contradistinguishing it from those of Europe, who had had intercourse with the aborigines of America. Our Government had always recognised the usufruct of the Indians of the territory possessed by them. Our jurisdiction over Indian country has heretofore been confined to regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and serving process upon our own citizens within the Indian territory. This is to give force to the laws of Iowa over all the Indian country therein described; to wrest, without the just and liberal compensation we have heretofore paid for the extinguishment of Indian title, a belt of country on this side of the mountains, from the tribes who possess it, and, by the strong hand, to seize all which lies beyond.

He said, gentleman had frequently addressed us upon the rights of Great Britain and the conflicting claims of that Government and ours in the Oregon territory. By the conventions of 1818 and 1827, the title as between these two Governments was in abeyance. Let us strictly regard all our treaty stipulations with that rival claimant; but most especially let us respect the rights of the more helpless occupant, and more rightful possessor—the savage who originally held the country.

To this end, he said, he had drawn up, and would submit a substitute for the bill, violative of the rights of no one, in strict accordance with the usage of this Government, and, as he believed, most effective to preserve peace and order, and extend to our citizens in Oregon the benefits of our republican laws and institutions. It was the application, so far as suited to the circumstances, of the ordinance of 1787, for the government of the territory of the United States northwest of the Ohio river, and of the law of 1789, to render it more effectual. Under these, our citizens in the various territories of the northwest had passed from the condition of Indian country to the second grade of government. No question could arise in their application which had not been already adjudicated; and, therefore, in adopting this plan, we could distinctly see, and accurately judge, of the results it would produce. In view of the peculiar condition of the Oregon territory, he expected, by a proviso, that portion of the ordinance which refers to a general assembly; also substituted for the freehold qualification of officers required by that instrument the qualifications prescribed in the territory of Iowa, where no freehold is necessary, and had added a section securing to the British subjects in Oregon all the rights and privileges they derive from existing treaties, so long as those treaties shall continue. By this substitute it is proposed to provide for the appointment of a Governor, who should be ex officio superintendent of Indian affairs, and three judges. These officers appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate, are to receive the same compensation as officers of a like grade in the Territory of Iowa. They are to be authorized to adopt such laws from the statutes of the different States of our Union as may be applicable to the condition of that country, the whole to be subject to the revision and approval of Congress.

Thus, sir, we shall be guarded against the dangers of extending the laws of a territory existing, and hereafter to be enacted without our knowledge, and above our control, likewise from any improper legislation which might result from a representative assembly in a mixed and unsettled colony. The officers of the Government thus constituted are authorized by proclamation to define the limits of the settlements of our citizens in Oregon, to which the Indian title has been, or may be extinguished, and within such settlement to locate the seat of government for the territory. Until the Indian title has been legally extinguished in some portion of the territory, it is a violation of the policy we have heretofore observed, and which stands upon our history a proud monument of humanity and justice, to locate our courts, and assume territorial jurisdiction in that country.

Having a point upon which to rest our territorial government, its process can thence extend into the Indian country around it to persons found therein, and subject to our jurisdiction. Now, by the act of 1834, a criminal might be arrested in the territory of Oregon, brought over to our courts in Missouri or Iowa for trial, as they are frequently arrested, and brought to trial from the Indian country east of the mountains.

From the various instances of erecting a territorial government in the manner proposed, he would detain the committee by a reference to but one—that of Wisconsin.

The United States held free from Indian title the small tract of land at Green Bay. Upon this they located their territorial officers; here the laws were administered: and hence a process issued into the remainder of the territory occupied by Indians.

The only difference between Wisconsin and Oregon, if any difference exists to vary our practice on this point, must arise from the joint-occupancy convention between England and the United States. To my mind this offers no obstacle.

Our settlements in Oregon are entirely within the limits within which we have actual, legal possession—our possession recognised by the Government of Great Britain before the joint convention was formed which is now said to impose upon us limitations.

Pending the negotiation of 1827, Mr. Gallatin informs us the American Plenipotentiary declined to agree to any convention containing an express provision against the exercise of any exclusive sovereignty over the territory. He says, in his letter dated January 22, 1846, referring to the negotiations of 1827, in relation to the territory west of the Stony Mountains, "The probability that it might become necessary for the United States to establish a territorial, or some sort of a government, over their own citizens, was explicitly avowed." Great Britain, through her mercantile corporation, the Hudson Bay Company, extends her laws over Oregon. We have none other than political corporations, through which to effect the same object on the part of the United States. The proposition he submitted was through a governor and judges, as the head of a territorial incorporation, to transmit the laws of the United States to her citizens residing beyond the practical extension of her organized jurisdiction.

This, he contended, we had a right to do under the existing convention with Great Britain; this was our duty to our own citizens, to the Indian inhabitants of that territory, and, as he believed, essential to the preservation of order, and the maintenance of our treaty obligations. This policy was unconnected with the termination of the convention of the joint occupancy with Great Britain, and should have been adopted long ago. It was necessary to limit the British act of 1821, which has found an excuse, in the absence of all other law, or "civil government," for an extension invasive of our rights, and injurious to our people.

With this brief explanation, and relying on the familiarity of the committee with the subject-matter it contained, he submitted his substitute to their consideration.

SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 40-4

The Governor’s Veto

The Iowa City Republican takes us to task because we chose to allude to a measure wherein we thought Gov. Kirkwood had erred.  It takes the ground that the bill passed at the late session of the Legislature reducing the salaries of some of the State officers is unconstitutional, and that had Gov. Kirkwood signed the bill in the face of his oath to support the Constitution he would have been “a perjured villain.”  The Republican, in its sophistry, makes a majority of our State Legislature “perjured villains,” for they as well as the Governor are bound by an oath to support the Constitution, and in voting for the bill, according to this logic, have clearly violated their oaths.

The scarcity of money, the general depression of business and the enormous taxes to which we are to be subjected, we should think would be an incentive enough to any officer, who has the good of his constituents at heart, to aid any, and all measures looking towards economy.

The Republican classes us with the Dubuque Herald and other secession sheets.  Be this as it may, we are proud to say that we are no man’s tool, but shall ever speak out our honest sentiments when we think the good of the people is at stake.

The above article we clip from the Muscatine Journal of Thursday.  The Journal evades an answer to the position of the Republican, by suggesting that the members of the Legislature who voted for the bill had violated their oaths.  We desire to remind the Journal that it censured the Governor for vetoing the act in question, and the simple question at issue is, whether the Governor was right or wrong in vetoing the bill.

That the bill was manifestly unconstitutional, seems to us too clear to admit of a doubt.  Section 9 of the Constitution provides, that the salary of each Judge of the Supreme Court shall be $2,000 per annum until 1860, after which time they shall severally receive such compensation as the General Assembly may, by law prescribe; which compensation shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which they shall have been elected.

On the 22d of January, 1857, the Legislature passed an act fixing the annual salaries of the Supreme Judges at $2,000.  No act has ever been passed repealing that act.  The Constitution went into effect, we believe, on the 1st of Sept., 1857, and did not repeal this act, for it exactly accords with its provisions.  In March, 1858, the Legislature passed an act providing “that all acts which were in force at the time of the taking effect of the New Constitution, and which have not been repealed thereby, or by the acts of the General Assembly now (then 1858) in session, be and they are hereby re-enacted and revised.”  There was no act passed at that session repealing the act fixing the salaries at $2,000, and none has ever been passed since.  On the contrary, at every subsequent session of the Legislature, acts have been passed to appropriate money to pay the salaries of the Supreme Judges at $2,000 per annum.

Thus it will be seen that the act of 1857 has never been repealed, but on the contrary, was re-enacted in March, ’58, and is now the law.  That the Legislature had no power to reduce the salaries of the Supreme Judges during their present term of office, as was attempted by the bill vetoed by the Governor, is so clear “that a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.”  The simple question, with these facts before him, which the Governor had to decide was shall I obey the mandatory and solemn duty imposed on me by the Constitution, and veto this bill, or shall I sign it and willfully violate the Constitution and my own oath in a case so clear and unequivocal?  It is a shabby morality which would advocate the violation of the Constitution in so plan a case, for the paltry sum which would have been saved to the State if the bill had become law.

The House income tax bill, which would have taxed the State officers on their salaries about $150 each, and which would have brought into the State treasury a revenue of forty or fifty thousand dollars, was defeated in the Senate.  This was a just measure, and would have materially aided the finances of the Sate in this emergency, by compelling not only the State officers but also United States officers within this State, members of Congress and all others having incomes over $500, to contribute to the support of our financial burdens – a class, too, who now do not pay a single dollar on their incomes, and who can best afford to pay taxes.  No, friend Mahin, the responsibility, if any, for not aiding our tax payers, devolves upon those members of the Legislature who voted against the income tax bill of the House, and substituted for it this unconstitutional law.  We believe the Governor was right in vetoing the bill reducing the salaries of the Judges and that every right thinking man will approve the veto message.

– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Monday Morning, May 5, 1862, p. 2

Office Of The Sec’y Of Board Of Education

DES MOINES, IOWA, March 24, 1862

To County Superintendents and Boards of Directors:

Many inquiries have recently been addressed to this office, relative to the power of the Board of Directors to levy a tax for the support of schools under the fourteenth clause of section 16 of Part VIII, of the pamphlet edition of the School laws.  We answer that the provision referred to gives them full power to levy such tax, independent of any vote of the district meeting. – Not only so, but it is their imperative duty to levy such tax, when in their judgment it is necessary in order to keep the schools in progress for twenty-four weeks in each year.  The district meeting may even vote against a tax for any purpose whatever, and still it would not interfere with the authority vested in the Board of Directors by the clause in question.

The difference between the authority given the district meeting and that conferred upon the Board of Directors is this: The district meeting may vote a tax to keep up the schools for six, eight or twelve months, and in such case it would become the duty of the Secretary to certify the same to the Board of Supervisors, as provided in section 23, of Part VIII; but the Board of Directors must (“shall” is the language of the law) levy such tax as may be necessary, to keep up the schools for  twenty four weeks each year.  This power is essential – otherwise, they could not comply with the provisions of the law, which require them to have a school taught in each sub-district for the period above named.  If, the district meeting should vote the amount required, it would of course be unnecessary for the Board to levy a tax.

To set the matter finally at rest, I would add, that the construction here given was settled by the decision of the Supreme Court, at the December term for 1861, held in this city, in the case of Joseph K. Snyder vs. Samuel Wampler, et al.  County Superintendents will please communicate this intelligence with as little delay as possible to the respective boards of directors, in order that it may reach them in time for their regular meeting on the first Saturday after the first Monday in April.

THOMAS H. BENTON, Jr.,

Secretary of the Board

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, April 5, 1862, p. 1

Clerk’s Office, Supreme Court, Iowa

DES MOINES, February 26, 1862.

Pursuant to law and order of Court, I have arranged the causes for the Argument Term of the Supreme Court of Iowa, to be held at Davenport, on the First Monday (7th day) of April, 1862, as follows:

9TH DISTRICT. – The causes from the counties of Dubuque, Delaware, Buchanan, Black Hawk and Bremer, will be docketed for four days commencing on Monday the 7th day of April.

10TH DISTRICT. -  The causes from the counties of Clayton, Chickasaw, Howard, Alamakee, Fayette, Floyd, Winnesheik, Hancock, Mitchell, Butler, Worth and Cerro Gordo, will be docketed for two days, commencing on Friday the 11th day of April.

8TH DISTRICT. – The causes from the counties of Johnson, Linn, Benton, Washington, Tama, Cedar, Jones, and Iowa will be docketed for three days commencing Monday the 14th day of April.

1ST DISTRICT. – The causes from the counties of Lee, Des Moines, Louisa, Henry, Van Buren and Jefferson will be docketed for three days, commencing on Thursday the 17th day of April.

7TH DISTRICT. – The causes from the counties of Scott, Muscatine, Clinton and Jackson, will be docketed for three days, commencing on Monday the 21st day of April.

In testimony whereof, I have hitherto affixed my name and seal of said court, done at the city of Des Moines this 16th day of February, 1862.

LEWIS KINSEY, Clerk.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 8, 1862, p. 2

Local Matters

GENTLEMEN get your clothing made at Erskine’s.

A NEW lot of Ready Made Clothing for sale very cheap at Erskine’s.

GONE HOME. – Chief Justice Baldwin and Judge Wright, with a number of the lawyers who have been attending the Supreme Court, left yesterday morning on the steamboat Jennie Whipple for their respective homes.

IT IS a true saying, and worthy of all acceptance, that Farrand, Cor. Of 2d and Main sts., Davenport, has the best stock of hats and caps in the western country. His hats are all neat and serviceable. He keeps constantly on hand all the latest and most desirable styles, which he is selling cheap for cash. For the proof of this give him a trial.

IOWA STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY. – The annual meeting of this Society will take place at Iowa City on Wednesday, May 28th. The county societies are requested to make the proper effort to secure a full attendance, and all members of the profession in the state having the requirements, are invited to meet and become members of the Association

MERRY’S MUSEUM. This excellent magazine for the young has enjoyed a deserved popularity for the past twenty-one years. It is filled with choice stories, essays, instructive articles on natural history and other sciences of peculiar interest to the young, games, puzzles, &c., and embellished with beautiful pictures illustrative of its topics. Terms $1 a year in advance. Address J. N. Stearns, publisher, 111 Fulton street, New York city. We advised every parent and teacher send for it.

GRAPES. – There appears to be a perfect furore [sic] for the new sort of grape vines. Let us urge cultivators not to neglect the older and well tried varieties. Almost every kind has its peculiar desirable qualities. Study all these advantages, and don’t confine your view to only one or two qualities. While early maturity and delicious flavor will and ought to insure favor for vines with these characteristics, the keeping qualities are almost equally valuable. Now, the old Isabella can be kept without difficulty until February and March. As much cannot be said of either the Clinton or Catawba, and perhaps of hardly any other variety. Let our readers bear this in mind, and act accordingly.

ADVERTISING. – Our contemporary of the Dubuque Times thus discourses upon advertising:– Fanny Fern has said some good things in her way, but she never made a better bit or spoke truer than when she perpetrated the following: “It is just as sensible to get married without courting as to attempt to succeed in business without advertising.” How are the public to know what you have to dispose of unless you make it known through the medium of the press? A gentleman whose mind had been brought to bear upon this subject by reading an article on the subject of advertising, concluded to make an examination of the matter, and taking up a paper examined the advertisements, made a list of those merchants who had advertised, and them made a tour of the streets where they were located, and his experience was, that those houses which advertised frequently and liberally were crowded with customers, while equally as attractive looking stores next door to them were doing but little, and some of them no business.

– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Friday Morning, April 25, 1862, p. 1

Supreme Court

{April Term}

CALEB S. BALDWIN, Chief Justice.
G. G. WRIGHT, Associate Justice.
H. P. LOWE, Associate Justice.
LEW KINSEY, Clerk.

TUESDAY, April 15.

1290. Jane Parrott vs Lewis Ireland; Dubuque county. Motion to dismiss overruled. Motion to strike out bill of exceptions sustained.

1312. Rowe & Williams vs J. L. Benham et al.; Linn county, Affirmed.

1313. J. E. West vs T. S. Bardwell et al.; Linn county. Affirmed.

1145: Branch of State Bank at Iowa City vs Morris et al.; Johnson county; Reversed.

1161. [Leo] Louis et al. vs Sage; Lee county. Affirmed

1077. State of Iowa ex rel. John Van Houter appt. vs County Judge of Hardin county; Hardin county. Affirmed.

1121. Hurley appt. vs Gliebriat; Chickasaw co. Affirmed.

[999]. James Perrin appt. vs James Griffith et al.; Butler county. Affirmed.

950. Case vs Sample et al.; Chickasaw county. Reversed.

– Published in the Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Wednesday Morning, April 16, 1862

Mr. Cole’s Appointment

The new Supreme Judgeship, made by the present Legislature, has been filled not to the entire satisfaction of all localities, – for that, where there are other aspirants for the same office, would be impossible – but, we think, to the very general satisfaction of the Unionists of the state, and particularly so to those who are acquainted with the ability and moral rectitude of the person appointed. To the people of this portion of the state, Mr. Cole is known as one of the most able debaters, both upon the stump and at the Bar. The thousands who listened to him during the fall campaign, in this state, will not hesitated [sic] to pronounce him a man who looks to the bottom of the subject he undertakes to handle. He sees the weak and strong points of his question, and handles them accordingly.

Politically, he took a decided stand in the favor of the union at an early day in the rebellion, and labored with zeal to bring the Democratic party to which he belonged, to a patriotic support of the Government in its struggle for life. – Finding the Copperhead element in that party sufficiently strong to run the machinery their own way, he left it, and joined hands with the party whose deeds as well as professions showed them to be for the Union.

As a jurist he stands among the first in the state, and his character is above suspicion. Such men deserve honor.

– Published in The Union Sentinel, Osceola, Iowa, Saturday, March 12, 1864