Copyright 1999 - 2003 - Janine M. Bork
This page is part of the
Union County, OR AHGP
the Canal de Haro (and I have never hesitated, when asked, to say that such is the ground I have taken as commissioner, and that in this I believe I will be supported by the government), still the question has not been authoritatively decided; and, unless you have some intimation from the War Department which has governed your actions, I fear that the decided action you have taken in declaring the island American territory may somewhat embarrass the question.”
On the 16th of September, the acting Secretary of War addressed Lieutenant-General Winfield Scott, Commander-in-Chief of the United States Army, who had with alacrity responded to the President’s wish that he should assume the immediate command of the United States forces on the Pacific coast.
Among other things, the Secretary
wrote: “It is impossible, at this distance from the scene, and in ignorance
of what may have already transpired on the spot, to give you positive instructions
as to your course of action. Much, very much, must be left to your own
discretion; and the President is happy to believe that discretion could
not be intrusted to more competent hands. His main object is to preserve
the peace and prevent collision between the British and American authorities
on the island until the question of title can be adjusted by the two governments.
Following out the spirit of Mr. Marcy’s instructions to Governor Stevens,
it would be desirable to provide, during the intervening period, for a
joint occupation of the island, under such guards as
will secure its tranquillity without interfering with our rights. The President
perceives no objection to the plan proposed by Captain Hornby, of Her Majesty’s
ship Tribune, to Captain Pickett, it being understood that Captain
Pickett’s company shall remain on the island to resist, if need be, the
incursions of Northern Indians on our frontier settlements, and to afford
protection to American citizens resident thereon. In any arrangement which
may be made for joint occupation, American citizens must be placed on a
footing equally favorable with that of British subjects.
“But what shall be your course
should the forces of the two governments have come into collision before
your arrival? This would vastly complicate the case, especially if blood
shall have been shed. In that event, it would still be your duty, if this
can, in your opinion, be honorably done, under the surrounding circumstances,
to establish a temporary joint occupation of the island, giving to neither
party any advantage over the other. It would be a shocking event if the
two nations should be precipitated into a war respecting the possession
of a small island, and that only for the brief period during which the
two governments may be peacefully employed in settling the question as
to which of them the
island belongs. It is a possible, but not a probable,
case that the British authorities, having a greatly superior force at their
immediate command, may have attempted to seize the island and to exercise
exclusive jurisdiction over it, and that our countrymen in those regions
may have taken up arms to assert and maintain their rights. In that event,
the President feels a just confidence, from the whole tenor of your past
life, that you will not suffer the national honor to be tarnished. If we
must be forced into war by the violence of the British authorities, which
is not anticipated, we shall abide the issue as best we may, without apprehension
as to the result.”
On the 25th of October, Lieutenant-General
Winfield Scott addressed a communication to Governor Douglas containing
the following proposition, to serve as a basis for the temporary adjustment
of the difficulty, until the two governments should have time to settle
the question of title diplomatically: “Without prejudice to the claim of
either nation to the sovereignty of the entire Island of San Juan, now
in dispute, it is proposed
that each shall occupy a separate portion of the same by a detachment of infantry, riflemen or marines, not exceeding one hundred men, with their appropriate arms, only for the equal protection of their respective countrymen in their persons and property, and to repel any descent on the part of hostile Indians.”
Several letters were interchanged between General Scott and Governor Douglas. On the 3d of November, Governor Douglas wrote to General Scott: “If you will proceed to divest the large military force now on San Juan of its menacing attitude by removing it from the island, we will instantly withdraw the British naval force now maintained there; and, as soon as I receive the instructions of my government, I shall be glad to co-operate with you in arranging a plan for the temporary maintenance of order and protection of life and property on the island.”
Governor Douglas declined to
assent to, or carry into effect, the project of a joint military occupation,
without the sanction and express instructions of his government. On the
fifth, General Scott reduced the forces on the island to the single company
of Captain Pickett. General Harney, whose presence was offensive to the
British authorities, was direct to report in person to the Secretary of
War. Captain Hut had been substituted for Captain Pickett as the commanding
officer of the detachment of joint occupation. On the 20th of March, 1860,
Admiral Baynes, Commander-in-Chief of Her British Majesty’s naval forces
in the Pacific, gave official notice to Captain Hunt, commanding the United
States troops on San Juan Island, “that a detachment
of royal marines, with their appropriate arms, equivalent in number to
the troops of the United States under his command, will be disembarked
on the north point of the Island of San Juan, for the purpose of establishing
a joint military occupation agreeably to the proposition of Lieutenant-General
Scott.”
Negotiations without any material
result were renewed between the two governments, both at London and Washington
City. The question continued for years a matter of discussion between the
two nations. Finally, on the 8th of May, 1871, the Treaty of Washington
was concluded, providing for a settlement of all matters of difference
between Great Britain and the United States. By the thirty-fourth article
of that treaty, the
respective claims of the two were submitted “to the arbitration
and award of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, who, having regard to
Article I of the treaty of June 15, 1846, defining the boundary of the
possessions of both on the northwest coast of America, shall decide thereupon,
finally and without appeal.” The claim of the United States was ably represented
by George Bancroft. The British government was represented by Messrs. Petre
and Odo Russell. The award was made by William I., Emperor, October 21,
1872, and simply recites: “Most in accordance with the true interpretations
of the treaty concluded on the 15th of June, 1846, between the governments
of Her Britannic Majesty and of the United States of America, is the claim
of the government of the United States that the boundary line between the
territories of Her Britannic Majesty and the United States should be drawn
through the Haro channel.”
“That award,” said President
Grant in his message of December 2, 1872, “confirms the United States in
their claim to the important archipelago of islands lying between the continent
and Vancouver Island, which for more than twenty-six years (ever since
the ratification of the treaty) Great Britain had contested, and leaves
us, for the first time in the history of the United States as a nation,
without a question of disputed boundary between our territory and the possessions
of Great Britain on this continent.”
About the 25th of January, 1859,
Ernest Schroter, a merchant of Steilacoom, left that city for Port Townsend
in his schooner the Blue Wing. In his company, or not far distant,
was the schooner Ellen Maria, Captain McHenrie. Of those two schooners
and all on board, since they started upon that little cruise, nothing
definitely has ever been heard. Indian rumor early afterward was to the
effect that the Blue Wing was attacked near the north end of Vashon
Island by a party of Northern Indians; that all on board were murdered;
and that the schooner was robbed, and then scuttled and sunk. This rumor
found to a great extent corroboration some eighteen months later. A notorious
Hydah Indian sojourning at Victoria, called Jim, openly boasted of his
complicity in that affair, telling his fellow savages the circumstances;
and but little doubt existed as to the truth of his claim. From him and
his associates was also obtained a circumstantial account of the fate of
the Ellen Maria. The canoe that attacked the schooners contained
ten men and five squaws. When the Ellen Maria was boarded by the
Hydahs, Captain
McHenrie ordered them off; they persisting in remaining,
he fired and instantly killed the brother of Jim, the leader of the pirates.
Captain McHenrie again fired and severely wounded an aged chief, sitting
in the canoe. On that the Indians retired until night, when they returned,
murdered all hands, robbed the schooner and then burned her.
There were at about that time, and shortly subsequent, several murders of lone white men, and other depredations committed, between that vicinity and Point Maristone. When the Northern savages had become satiated with their predatory work, they recrossed the strait, and were out of reach of chastisement. The boasts of Hydah Jim, and the statements of Indian associates, led to his arrest in the latter part of July, 1860, and his examination before August F. Pemberton, stipendiary magistrate. The court discharged him, “because it had no jurisdiction.” Butler P. Anderson, United States District Attorney for Washington Territory, made a sworn complaint charging Jim and his associates with piracy and murder, and asked that he might be detained for a reasonable time to enable formal extradition papers to be procured; but Justice Pemberton held that it was necessary for Mr. Anderson to produce a warrant under the hand and seal of His Excellency Governor Douglas, signifying that requisition had been made by the authority of the United States, and requiring him (Justice Pemberton) to aid in the apprehension of the persons accused. Acting Governor Henry M. McGill then endeavored to secure the extradition of the Indians on his requisition upon Governor Douglas, which, of course, not complying with the express provisions of the extradition treaty of 1842, was entirely ignored; and Victoria became the sanctuary for the murderous pirates who, in that foray of 1859, murdered Ernest Schroter and at least ten other citizens of Puget Sound.
At the very birth of the territory
as a separate political division, its future development and greatness
were thought to depend upon the building of the Northern Pacific Railroad,
and the location of its terminal port upon the great inland sea of Puget
Sound. It was the route and road earliest proposed for transit of the continent.
Its friends and propagandists crystallized that public sentiment, before
even California had
become United States territory, which rendered probable
the building of a transcontinental railway. Over half a century ago, the
agitation of a Northern Pacific railroad was inaugurated.
Rev. Samuel Parker, missionary
explorer of Oregon in 1835, upon his return to New York, expressed the
opinion that no real obstacle prevented the construction of a railroad
across the continent upon the overland route he had traveled. He prophesied
the building of such a road in the near future, and that over it tourists
would journey as they at that
time did to Niagara. In 1837, Dr. Samuel Barlow, a prominent physician of Massachusetts, advocated the construction of such a road by the national government. Said he: “My feeble pen would fail me to expatiate on the substantial, enduring glory which would redound to our nation should it engage in this stupendous undertaking.” In 1838, Willis Gaylord Clark, the distinguished poet and editor, ventured the prediction, “The reader is now living who will make a railroad trip across this vast continent.”
But Asa Whitney was its St. John,
the voice crying in the wilderness, “Make straight the way” for the North
American route to the wealth of the Pacific and India. During “all the
forties,” he systematically agitated the building of the northern road,
addressed public meetings throughout the Northern states, and urged upon
Congress and the country its entire practicability and importance. His
road was to connect Lake Michigan with the navigable water of the Columbia,
the estimated length of line being 2,400 miles. He agreed to construct
the road in twenty years for a government land grant along the line of
road, sixty miles in width. His scheme included a vast system of immigration
from the Atlantic cities and Europe. Laborers were to
be compensated partly in land. Farms were to be prepared for a succeeding
immigration by a detail of workmen. The laborers the second year would
go forward to the work upon the road, leaving behind them those of the
first year as farmers and guards. Eloquently he urged: “Millions of poor
and oppressed would be lifted to the dignity of freeholding American citizens;
and the great route for the commerce of the world would be established
amid the development of the resources of the region it traversed and made.”
As late as 1847, Asa Whitney, having addressed an immense assemblage at
the Tabernacle in New York, over which the mayor presided, at the close,
a mob took possession of the hall, and denounced the enterprise as a swindle,
an attempt of a band of conspirators to defraud the people by securing
an immense grant of land for an impracticable and visionary project.
In 1848 Mr. Whitney’s labors were rewarded by the presentation of a favorable report by a select committee of Congress, recommending that steps be taken to secure adequate exploration and surveys from the Mississippi river to the Pacific Ocean.
In 1853, Congress appropriated
$150,000 for surveys to ascertain the most practicable railroad route from
the Mississippi river to the Pacific Ocean. The Secretary of War determined
upon the lines to be examined and selected those who were to conduct the
explorations. On the 8th of April, 1853, Isaac I. Stevens, who had just
received his commission as governor of the territory of Washington, was
assigned to the charge of the Northern route, with instructions to explore
and survey a route from the sources of the Mississippi river to Puget Sound.
George B. McClellan, then brevet captain of engineers, United States army,
proceeded direct to Puget Sound, and, with a party, explored the Cascade
Range of mountains, thence eastward until he met the main party under Governor
Stevens, who were marching westward from St. Paul, Minnesota. The decisive
points determined were the practicability and availability of the passes
of the Rocky Mountains and the Cascade Range, and the eligibility of the
approaches. Governor Stevens asserted Stevens who were marching westward
from St. Paul, Minnesota. The decisive points determined were the practicability
of a railroad across the Cascade Range. He recommended that, from the vicinity
of the mouth of Snake river, there should be two branches, one to Puget
Sound across the Cascade Mountains, and the other down the Columbia river
on
the northern side. Governor Stevens in his messages,
addresses and personal efforts; the legislature by memorials and legislation;
the press and the prominent citizens of the Territory, - kept alive the
agitation of the “Northern Route” from the time that the successful results
of the Stevens’ survey had been published.
On the 28th of January, 1857, the legislature of the territory passed “An act to incorporate the Northern Pacific Railroad Company.” That earliest charter names as corporators Governor Stevens and numerous citizens of Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, California, Maine and New York. Thoroughly appreciating the railroad problem, that act prescribed lines of road almost identical with the present Northern Pacific Railroad system. On July 2, 1864, Congress granted the charter of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company. Josiah Perham, of Boston, instrumental in securing the passage of the act, was its first president. The title defines the franchise as intended by Congress: “An act granting lands to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from Lake Superior to Puget Sound on the Pacific Coast, by the northern route.” The company were to accept in writing the conditions imposed, and notify the President of the United States. On the 15th of December, 1864, the acceptance was made. As the charter prohibited the issue of bonds the company were handicapped in raising funds. Perham and his associates, disheartened, transferred the charter to Governor J. Gregory Smith and associates.
In 1866, Congress was petitioned
to extend aid. The company asked no money, but simply a guarantee of interest
on a portion of its stock for a term of years, but were denied. In 1867,
two parties were engaged in examining the passes of the Cascade Range north
of the Columbia river for a direct line to Puget Sound, and in locating
a line eastward from Portland, Oregon, up the valley of the Columbia. The
surveys during
that year by General James Tilton, chief engineer of
the Cascade division (this is the first reference to the Cascade division)
developed three practicable passes. In 1868, President Smith, in
his annual report to the Secretary of the Interior, says: “The surveys
upon this (the Washington) division have thus far been confined to an examination
of the Cascade Range of highlands, with a view to a knowledge of the practicable
passes, and their actual elevation as derived from spirit-level measurements.
The entire range has been examined from the Columbia river to the valley
of the Skagit. Within this distance are six passes.”
The company continued its application for congressional aid. At the same time, the surveys were continued. Despairing of further subsidies, the company were content to secure (May 31, 1870) the passage of a resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds for the construction of its road, and to secure the same by mortgage on its property of all kinds and descriptions, real, personal and mixed, including its franchise.”
With these amendments to the
charter, the raising of funds was undertaken by Jay Cooke. The company
executed its mortgage to secure bonds on the 1st of July, 1870, to Jay
Cooke and J. Edgar Thompson, trustees. Those amendments to the charter
could not have been secured but by the influence of the Oregon United States
senators. Naturally from thenceforth the policy of the Northern Pacific
was to forward the interest, growth and development of Portland. The line
across the Cascade Mountains, transposed from the ”main line to branch,”
was to be indefinitely postponed not to say entirely ignored. With five
millions of dollars advanced by Jay Cooke & Co., the building of the
road
commenced in February, 1870, at Duluth; and within that
year the work progressed westward one hundred and fourteen miles to Brainard.
On the Pacific slope, work also was initiated in 1870. The amendatory act
required the construction of twenty-five miles between Portland and Puget
Sound prior to July 2, 1871; and so the company built, from the town they
named Kalama on the Columbia river, northward that distance. During 1872,
forty ;miles had been built northward and were in running operation. On
the
1st of January, 1873, General John W. Sprague and Governor John N. Goodwin, Agents for the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, formally announced the selection of the city of Olympia as the terminus on Puget Sound of that road. A few months later (July, 1873) the company at New York declared its western terminus at Tacoma. The failure of Jay Cooke & Co., in September, 1873, greatly embarrassed operations; but the road reached its terminus on Puget Sound the day preceding the date prescribed in the charter and its amendments. As herein indicated, the failure of Jay Cooke & Co., in 1873, alone occasioned the temporary suspension of work upon the Northern Pacific. A reorganization of the company, on a different financial basis, followed, with Charles B. Wright as president.
Rich coal fields had been discovered
east of Tacoma. General George Stark, Vice-President, made an examination
of the coal fields with reference to building a sufficient portion of the
“branch” to connect them with Tacoma. Says he; “The building of this (Cascade)
branch for the development of our coal resources seems not to be the one
wheel which, if started, will put the whole train in motion; and I trust
that
ways and means to accomplish it will be devised at an
early day.” During 1877, the first portion of the Cascade branch road was
built connecting Tacoma with Wilkeson.
In the spring of 1878, the Oregon senators secured the passage by the Senate of an act ostensibly for an extension of time to the company to complete its road; but conditions were imposed, to have complied with which would forever have defeated the building of the road across the Cascade Mountains. The House of Representatives refused to pass the bill. So Congress refused to extend the time; but the company continued its enterprise under doubts and discouragements which seemed to forebode ultimate defeat, and to destroy all hopes that a road would be constructed across the Cascade Mountains.
In 1878 and 1879, William Milner Roberts, Chief Engineer, with two parties in charge respectively of Charles A. White and D.D. Clarke, continued the examination of the passes of the Cascade Range.
Frederick Billings had succeeded
Charles B. Wright as president of the company, on the resignation of the
latter in consequence of ill health. Mr. Billings favoring the (1880) completion
of the entire work, the surveys of the Cascade Mountain passes were resumed
with increased vigor. Colonel Isaac W. Smith was appointed chief engineer
in charge of the mountain surveys. Charles A. White, C.G. Bogue, D.D. Clark
and J. Tilton
Sheets, in charge of parties, examined the Cowlitz and
Nahchess Passes. After a careful instrumental survey, a line was located
by Engineer Sheets by way of the Nahchess Pass.
In the fall of 1880, with the avowed purpose of completing the whole road, a loan of forty millions was successfully negotiated; but the method of taking the bonds and furnishing funds contingent upon securities upon accepted sections of road and the land grant rendered it impossible to grade the uncompleted line, or to advance track laying and build the Rocky Mountain tunnels.
Such was the condition of the
Northern Pacific when Henry Villard assumed the presidency. The Oregon
Railway and Navigation Company had succeeded the Oregon Steam Navigation
Company; and he was also its president. A railroad along the south side
of the Columbia to throw out branches to secure the great wheat-growing
wealth of Eastern Washington and Oregon was at once projected. It was a
magnificent scheme. It surely should have commended itself to the support
of the wealth and political influence of Oregon.
As the Northern Pacific advanced westward under the management of President Billings, in 1880 and the spring of 1881, the hope had been engendered that the building of the Cascade division was near at hand. Indeed the Northern Pacific was about providing to push its main line down the north side of the Columbia, or to build the Cascade branch, or both. The road could not stop in the interior of the continent. It had to advance when it reached the mouth of Snake river.
President Villard visited Puget
Sound in the fall of 1881. In his able speeches, he did not disguise his
motive that Portland should continue “the focus, the center, the very heart,
so to speak, of a local system of transportation lines aggregating fully
two thousand miles of standard-guage road.” Of the policy of the Northern
Pacific inaugurated by his predecessor, he said: “There was a determined
effort resolved upon by the former management of the Northern Pacific to
disregard the Columbia river, to disregard the commerce of this great city,
and to make direct for Puget Sound, in pursuit of the old unsuccessful
policy of building up a city there. I do not believe that nay effort to
build
up a rival city on Puget Sound can ever succeed. I mean
that Portland will always remain the commercial emporium of the Northwest.”
President Villard, however, during his brilliant and dashing administration,
which ended in 1883, continued the surveys of the Cascade Mountains, and
the Stampede Pass was selected.
Overland railroad communication was fully consummated via Portland and the road connecting it with Tacoma. The last spike was driven where the Eastern and Western construction parties met, on September 7, 1883, sixty miles west of Helena. A few days later all Oregon and Washington celebrated the great consummated so long, so devoutly wished for. On the 5th of July, 1887, the people of Washington Territory commemorated the arrival the day before of a train across the Cascade Mountains direct from Duluth to Tacoma. A little over a year later again they commemorated the completion of the tunnel through the Cascade Mountains. The great work of the century had been finished.
The kindred enterprises, the connecting links of territorial development, the other railroads, all of which were essential to have accounted for the unexampled growth of the territory in the past five years, are referred to in another part of this volume. It is with the greatest reluctance that space is not afforded here for proper historic notice.
At the session of the legislature in 1869, an act was passed providing for the submission to the voters of Washington Territory, at the next general election, of the question of calling a convention for the purpose of framing a state constitution, and applying for admission into the Union as the State of Washington. The governor approved the bill November 29, 1869. The manner of submission was defined: If a majority voted in favor, the duty was imposed on the next legislature to provide for the election of the delegates to such convention. At the election in 1870, the project met with little favor. In 1871, a precisely similar act passed and met with like result. In 1875 (I) (approved November 9, 1875), the Legislative Assembly passed an act to provide for the formation of a constitution and state government for the territory of Washington. It was more mandatory than previous laws. It directed the submission of the proposition and the manner of voting, the canvas and return. It was made the duty of the legislature elected at the same time the submission was made, if a majority were in favor, “to provide for the calling of a convention to frame a state constitution, and to do all other acts proper and necessary to give effect to the popular will.”
(1) See general laws, Washington
Territory, session 1875, page 102.
At the biennial election in 1876,
a large majority favored the proposition. At the following session, 1877,
the Legislative Assembly passed an act, approved November 9, 1877, “to
provide for calling a convention to frame a constitution for the State
of Washington, and submitting such constitution of fifteen delegates, three
of whom were to be (1). The act provided for a convention of fifteen delegates,
three of whom were to be
elected by the territory at large. The remainder were
apportioned as follows: One delegate from each of the three judicial districts;
one from Walla Walla county; one from King county; one from Thurston and
Lewis counties; one from Clark, Skamania, Klikitat and Yakima; one from
Cowlitz, Pacific and Waukiakum; one from Pierce, Chehalis and Mason; one
from Jefferson, Clallam, Island and San Juan; one from Kitsap, Snohomish
and Whatcom; one from Columbia, Stevens and Whitman. The election was held
April 9, 1878; and the delegates elected assembled in convention at Walla
Walla on the second Tuesday of June, 1878, at noon. A majority of the whole
number was necessary to constitute a quorum. An appropriation was made
to pay the expenses of the convention. The counties of Idaho, Shoshone
and Nez Perce, in the territory of Idaho, were allowed to elect a delegate
to said convention who had all the privileges of membership except the
right to vote. The sum of $200 was appropriated as the compensation of
the delegate from the “pan handle,” as it is called, of Idaho Territory
(the strip or neck of land lying
between the eastern boundary of the territory of Washington
and the western boundary of Montana). If annexed to Washington, it would
have the effect of continuing the south boundary of that territory eastward
to the crest of the Bitter Root Mountains, or the western boundary of Montana.
That constitutional convention
met in accordance with the act providing for its creation. Alexander S.
Abernethy, of Cowlitz county, was its president. The counties of North
Idaho participated in its deliberations; and a large majority of the citizens
of that portion of the territory favored annexation to Washingotn, and
to come into the union as part of the State of Washington. A proposed state
constitution was duly framed. A large majority of the people ratified it
(2). Year after year, from that time, - in the territorial legislature
as also in Congress, - the admission of the State of Washington received
growing consideration. Although state admission under that instrument did
not follow nor result from the convention of 1878, yet it doubtless contributed
to promote the designed purpose. It was no longer denied that the territory
possessed the requisite population. It was no longer doubted that it possessed
all the elements to entitle it to admission by Congress. It could not be
gainsaid that the time had fully arrived for such an act of justice to
the territory. It had become equally apparent that Congress could not
much longer keep Washington out of the union. And so
it proved. That long denial so full of injustice turned the eye of the
whole nation upon Washington Territory. Its claim became a matter of study.
The vast resources became appreciated; and in the last few years of territorial
tutelage the territory was acknowledged to possess more elements of national
importance than many of those older states who through partisan reasons
refused to remove its political disabilities.
Early in the “eighties” the anti-Chinese agitation became noticeable in the territory, especially upon Puget Sound. It had for its origin race-prejudice, which had in certain localities developed into hate of the Mongolian, his ways, his methods, his means of subsistence, his mode of life. The Chinaman had introduced himself at every point
(1) See general laws, Washington
Territory, session 1877, page 237 et seq.
(2) The vote was “For Constitution,”
6,462; “Against Constitution,” 3,231, - just two to one.
where labor was needed or wages to be earned. Upon the whole Pacific slope the people had grown to be almost unanimous in the pinion that Chinese laborers should be excluded from the country. Congress had attempted to pass a restriction act, and by amendatory legislation to make that restriction more effectual. Still the government made no real attempt to enforce its provisions in this territory. Along the northern border, the water boundary, the entrance of Chinamen was hardly checked. A regular and systematic trade was conducted to smuggle in Chinese. With the meager appropriations by Congress, and the grossly insufficient force of custom-house officials, the law was a dead letter, its attempted enforcement a mere farce. During the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad, large numbers of Chinese laborers had been at work in British Columbia on that road. On the completion of that work they were discharged, and crossed into Washington Territory. They congregated at Tacoma, Seattle, Olympia and other places, swelling the number of China laborers, and furnished to anti-Chinese orators additional arguments to excite the laboring element of the population.
In 1885, the territorial census exhibited
the presence of 3, 276 Chinese, the large majority of whom resided in the
principal towns on the Sound. They had found employment as servants, laborers
in mines, in the construction of railroads, and upon public works. The
clanishness of the race, the refusal to abandon the peculiarities of nationality,
the utter inability to assimilate with the American, or contribute anything
to
support the institutions of their temporarily adopted
home, were all at direct variance with the American idea of respect for
the institutions of the country, and the establishment of homes and the
raising of families. Those obnoxious features of Chinese immigration largely
contributed to the extenuating causes which clamored that the country should
be settled by free American laborers, which protested against the laboring
class being brought into competition with Chinese cheap labor. In the fall
of 1885, public meetings were held in the communities bordering on Puget
Sound, which were led by members of the Knights of Labor, and the organizations
claiming to be for the benefit of the workingman. Violent and incendiary
speeches were made; denunciatory resolutions were passed expressing the
determination to rid the country of the presence of Chinamen, by forcible
means if necessary. Those meeting were public; the actors engaged were
in many instances prominent citizens, holding offices and public trusts.
They made no disguise of their sentiments nor their purposes. Congress
had passed an act prohibiting the coming of chinamen to the country; these
creators of Congressmen went further. They said, “the Chinamen must
go.” Congress “preached” exclusion; the anti-Chinese agitators practiced
it.
The first attack on Chinese laborers
was at Squak valley, King county, on the night of September 5, 1885. Thirty-seven
Chinese hop-pickers, who had been employed by Wold Brothers, came to their
ranch that day. At ten o’clock that night a number of white men and Indians,
some armed, went there and threatened the Chinamen if they attempted to
labor. They were persuaded by a white laborer of Wold Brothers to
interview the employers before proceeding to extremities.
They saw Wold Brothers and demanded that the Chinese be sent away. Wold
Brothers protested against the interference. The parties went away saying
that they would return in a day or two, when they would put off the Chinese,
if they were found remaining there. Two day later a party of thirty other
Chinese on their way to Wold Brothers were intercepted by
a party of white men and Indians, hop-pickers for another
ranch, and so intimidated
that they turned back and left the valley. On that night,
about nine o’clock, five white men started towards Wold Brothers. On the
way they persuaded two Indians “to go and help drive the Chinese out of
the valley.” When they arrived at the fence inclosing the Chinese tents,
all was quiet; most of the Chinese were asleep; one Chinaman was moving
around as a watchman. While climbing the fence a shot was fired (alleged
to
have been from the Chinese camp at the attacking party),
though no one was hurt. The seven men then commenced firing into the tents
of the Chinese, which stood close together. After twenty or thirty shots
had been fired, the Whites and Indians left. Next morning the Chinese left
the valley, carrying with them three wounded companions, and leaving two
to watch the dead bodies of the three who had been murdered. Those
who participated in that riot and murder were subsequently
indicted, tried and acquitted.
On the night of the 11th of September, at a bout midnight, ten or fifteen masked men at the Coal Creek mines seized a Chinaman, and took him to a house, which was soon after destroyed. Thirteen Chinese were at work at that time; the remaining thirty-seven were in the Chinese quarters. Shortly after midnight the Chinese building was set on fire. It belonged to the Oregon Improvement Company. The Chinese lost all their clothing, and left the country next day.
During the months of August,
September and October, 1885, a continuous series of largely attended public
meetings had been held at the Opera House in Tacoma, participated in by
the people of Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Puyallup and Sumner. Torchlight
processions, with banners inscribed with anti-Chinese sentiments, ministered
to the excitement. Denunciation of coolie labor was the staple theme. On
the 25th day of
September, the anti-Chinese congress had been held at
Seattle. It had resolved on the expulsion of the Chinese. On the 3d of
October, a mass meeting at Tacoma indorsed the action of the Seattle
anti-Chinese congress. At the meeting a “Committee of Fifteen” were appointed
to effect the expulsion of the Chinese from Tacoma. Notices were served
on the Chinese, warning them to leave Tacoma within thirty days. Towards
the close of October, the sheriff of Pierce county swore in some two hundred
and fifty deputies; and he advised the governor: “I can safely say that
I can procure all the assistance necessary in the next twenty-four hours.
I can also assure you at this time that peace will and can be preserved
by the civil authorities of our country.” The very best of Tacoma’s solid
business men on the 23d of October addressed the governor: “The sheriff
will be able to preserve the peace and enforce the laws. he will
be supported in this by the citizens generally. We hold ourselves responsible
for these assurances.”
It must be admitted that the
large majority of the people of Tacoma were indifferent to, if not in active
sympathy with, the movement against the Chinese. The mayor of the city,
acting also as its chief of police, had been foremost in propagating sentiment
against the continue presence of the Chinese. Yet few believed, who were
not enlisted in the movement, that any such act was about to be consummated
as occurred on November 3d. That morning the steam whistles at the carshops
and the foundry were the signal for several hundred men to assemble, form
into line and march through the city. Old town and new detailed from their
ranks men to assist in the packing of goods, and in the removal of the
Chinese. The Chinamen made no resistance; neither did the sheriff or his
deputies. It was a bloodless riot. The Chinamen “stood not upon the order
of their going, but went at once.” Their goods and provisions were packed
in wagons, and they escorted out to Lake View, a railroad station of the
Northern Pacific, eight miles distant, where they remained over night,
and the next morning were put on the freight and
passenger trains for Portland. The Exclusion Act in Tacoma had been complete. No Chinamen have lived in Tacoma since that day (1). On the fourth, the Chinese quarters in the old town (the shanties occupied by the laborers at the Tacoma Mill) were entirely destroyed by fire. On the sixth, a number of Chinese stores and residences built on piles on ground leased by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company were totally consumed.
On the night of November 7th,
an anti-Chinese meeting was called to be held at Seattle. The sheriff (John
H. McGraw), fearing trouble, caused his deputies to assemble under arms
at the courthouse; and the companies of Captains Green and Haines were
subject to his call. In the meantime President Cleveland had issued
a proclamation, that “an emergency has arisen and a case is now presented
which justifies and requires, under the constitution and laws of the United
States, the employment of military force to suppress domestic violence
and enforce the faithful execution of the laws of the United States.” Ten
companies of United States troops under Lieutenant-Colonel DeRussy, U.S.
Army,
were dispatched from Vancouver barracks to Seattle. They
arrived at Seattle on the morning of the eighth. General John Gibbon,
commander of the department, arrived in the evening. By his direction several
of the companies were ordered to Tacoma. They escorted to Vancouver a number
of citizens of Tacoma who had been arrested by the United States marshall
for participancy in the proceedings of November 3d, at Tacoma, and who
were held to appear before the United States grand jury, then in session
at Vancouver (2).
At that date there were about
five hundred Chinese in the city of Seattle. At the suggestion of General
Gibbon, sheriff McGraw organized the volunteer deputies into three military
companies. During November fifteen persons were indicted at Seattle for
conspiracy to deprive the Chinese of the equal protection of the laws,
under the so-called Kuklux Act. The trial lasted till January 16th, 1886,
when they were all acquitted. All testified in their own defense, and averred
that no act of violence, breach of the peace or unlawful act would be committed
or countenanced. That acquittal, based on those protestations, went far
to allay excitement. On the 6th of February, however, a mass meeting was
held. On Sunday morning, the seventh, the Chinese of Seattle were ordered
out of their houses by a large crowd of men. Their goods and effects were
being packed; and they were marched down in little squads to the wharf
of the steamship Queen of the Pacific, to be transported to San Francisco.
A number had been furnished with tickets by the anti-Chinese leaders; and
eight or ninety Chinese had gone aboard. Two hundred
more were on the dock; and parties were going through
town to collect money to pay their fares. During the afternoon a writ of
habeas corpus was issued requiring Captain Alexander of the Queen of
the Pacific to produce the Chinamen before the judge. He answered that
he was unable in consequence of the mob in the streets. The hearing was
postponed until the next morning. The Chinese houses were guarded, and
a strong guard placed in charge of the dock during the night.
The next morning, on the hearing, most of the Chinamen who were on the steamship preferred to leave on her for San Francisco. The vessel carried away one hundred and ninety-three Chinamen. About one hundred Chinamen were left upon the wharf with their baggage and effects. As the ship could not take them away, it had been agreed that they might peaceably return to their late houses. They started to do so; but the crowd
(1)
In the early part of February, 1886, the Chinamen remained in Puyallup,
Sumner and Carbonado were removed, leaving since that date no Chinamen
in Pierce county.
(2) Quite a number of citizens
were indicted for conspiracy to intimidate, etc., under what is known as
the Kuklux Act. They were re-indicted, and the matter paraded in the courts
for several terms. It is needless to add that the cases were never tried.
headed them off, and attempted to drive them towards the railroad. Captain George Kinnear’s company of deputies or guards, to defeat that scheme, advanced to the head of the Chinese. An assault was made upon his company, the crowd trying to wrench the guns from his command. In the struggle which ensued, several shots were exchanged between the guards and the mob, resulting in the killing of one and the wounding of two of the assailants, and the wounding of one of the city police there on duty. The other military companies promptly came to the assistance of Captain Kinnear. The crowd ceased to resist, but refused to disperse. The Chinese now retired to their homes. The sheriff marched his forces to the courthouse, and placed guards at points through the city where needed. On the 8th day of February, Governor Squire proclaimed martial law. On the ninth, President Cleveland issued a proclamation, that the city was in a state of insurrection. On the eleventh, Lieutenant-Colonel DeRussy arrived with eight companies of the Fourteenth U.S. Infantry. General Gibbon caused to be arrested a number of the leaders of the crowd who participated in the acts of February eighth. They were turned over to the civil authorities on the seventeenth. The governor’s proclamation of martial law was revoked on the twenty-second.
On the morning of the 8th of February, some thirty persons assembled in Olympia, for the purpose of driving the Chinese out of that city. One hundred and fifty deputies were sworn in, organized as a military company, and performed guard duty for several weeks. No Chinese were driven out, but for several weeks they were greatly alarmed. Five arrests were made at Olympia. The parties were indicted at the June term, 1886, and on the seventeenth all were convicted, and each sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of $500, and the costs of proceedings. The Congress of the United States was called upon to make a large appropriation payable to the Chinese minister, to be applied to indemnifying the Chinese who lost property during the anti-Chinese agitation of 1885-86.
During the continuance of Washington
as a territorial government, from the passage of the Organic Act, March
2, 1853, when the territory had been set off from Oregon, the governors
appointed by the several Presidents of the United States and the times
of service are as follows: Isaac I. Stevens, appointed 1853, Democrat;
J. Patton Anderson, appointed 1857, Democrat (did not qualify); Fayette
McMullin, appointed 1857, Democrat; Richard D.Gholson, appointed 1859,
Democrat; William H. Wallace, appointed 1861, Republican (elected delegate);
William Pickering, appointed 1861, Republican; George E. Cole, appointed
1866 to March 4, 1867, Republican (appointed by Andrew Johnson);
Marshal
F. Moore, appointed 1867, Republican (appointed by Andrew
Johnson); Alvan Flanders, appointed 1869, Republican; Edward S. Salomon,
appointed 1870, Republican; James F. Legate, appointed 1872, Republican
(did not qualify); Elisha P. Ferry, appointed 1872, Republican; William
A. Newell, appointed 1880, Republican; Watson C. Squire, appointed 1884,
Republican; Eugene Semple, appointed 1887, Democrat; Miles C. Moore, appointed
1889, Republican.
Governor Miles C. Moore was the last of the territorial governors. On the 1st day of October, 1889, Elisha P. Ferry, Republican, was elected first governor of the State of Washington, receiving 33,711 votes, his Democratic competitor Eugene Semple receiving 24,731 votes.
The territory was represented in Congress by the following delegates:
Thirty-third Congress, Columbia
Lancaster, Democrat, March 4, 1853 to March 3, 1855; Thirty-fourth Congress,
J. Patton Anderson, Democrat, March 4, 1885 to March
3, 1857; Thirty-fifth Congress, Isaac I. Stevens, Democrat,
March 4, 1857 to March 3, 1859; Thirty-sixth Congress, Isaac I. Stevens,
Democrat, March 4, 1859 to March 3, 1861; Thirty-seventh Congress, William
H. Wallace, Republican, March 4, 1861 to March 3, 1863; Thirty-eighth Congress,
George E. Cole, Union Democrat, March 4, 1863 to March 3, 1865; Thirty-ninth
Congress, Arthur A. Denny, Republican, March 4,
1865 to March 3, 1867; Fortieth Congress, Alvan Flanders,
Republican, March 4, 1867 to March 3, 1869; Forty-first Congress, Selucius
Garfielde, Republican, March 4, 1871 to March 3, 1873; Forty-third Congress,
O.B. McFadden, Union Democrat, March 4, 1873 to March 3, 1875; Forty-fourth
Congress, Orange Jacobs, Republican, March 4, 1875 to March 3, 1877; Forty-fifth
Congress, Orange Jacobs, Republican, March
4, 1877 to March 3, 1879; Forty-sixth Congress, Thomas
H. Brents, Republican, March 4, 1879 to March 3, 1881; Forty-seventh Congress,
Thomas H. Brents, Republican, March 4, March 4, 1881 to March 3, 1883;
Forty-eighth Congress, Thomas H. Brents, Republican, March 4, 1883 to March
3, 1885; Forty-ninth Congress, Charles S. Voorhees, Democrat, March
4, 1885 to March 3, 1887; Fiftieth Congress, Charles S. Voorhees, Democrat,
March 4, 1887 to March 3, 1889.
John B. Allen was elected, at the biennial election of 1888, as delegate to Congress; but the passage of the Admission Bill abruptly terminated his office before attending either session of the Congress to which he was elected. John L. Wilson, Republican, was elected at the first state election, October 1, 1889. He received 34,039 votes. Thomas C. Griffitts, Democrat, received 24,492 votes.
The proposition to admit Washington
as a state had been discussed in the United States House of Representatives,
even before the meeting of the constitutional convention of 1878, - a creation
of the territorial Legislative Assembly, - to which was denied the vitalizing
power possessed by an enabling act passed by Congress. The first bill introduced
by Thomas H. Brents, as Washington’s delegate in the Forty-fifth Congress,
was an act to provide for the admission of the “State of Washington” under
the constitution of the convention of 1878. Objections were made to certain
features of that constitution; and in the Forty-seventh Congress (1881-83)
Delegate Brents introduced a second bill for
the admission of Washington as a state, drawn in accordance
with the legislative memorial. It was an enabling act. It authorized the
people of Washington Territory and the northern part of Idaho Territory
to hold a convention to frame a state constitution and to form a state
government. In advocating its passage, Mr. Brents cited from the United
States census of 1880 to prove that the territory of Washington, exclusive
of the northern counties of Idaho, had the requisite population to entitle
it to admission. By the census of 1880, that population was 75,116; and,
taking the ratio of increase, at that time (June, 1882) it was not less
than 125,000. On account of this small population, objection was urged
against Washington’s admission; but none will deny that the delay was really
occasioned by the doubt or fear as to how the new state would cast its
vote at the next presidential election, - what would be the politics of
its two United States senators.
Session after session, Washington,
by its Legislative Assembly, continued to memorialize Congress for recognition
of its claims for the citizenship of its people, for statehood. Space is
denied to trace the congressional history of its birth as a state. In the
spring of 1886, the subject was again fully before Congress. The bill was
for the formation of a state constitution and the admission of Washington
as a state into the
union. It had been introduced by that staunch friend of
the territory, Senator Dolph of Oregon. Its boundaries included the pan
handle or northern counties of Idaho. Another bill traveled hand in hand,
an adjunct measure provided for the annexation of those three Northern
Idaho counties to Washington. Memorials had passed both of the legislatures
of Idaho and Washington favoring such annexation. The question of
annexation had been submitted to the people of North
Idaho at a general election; and 1,216 votes were polled for annexation
and seven against it. Suffice it to add that the Annexation Bill passed
both Houses, but was vetoed by President Cleveland. Later on separate bills
had passed the Senate for the division of Dakota, and to enable the people
of North and South Dakota, Washington and Montana to form constitutions
and state governments. The presidential election of 1888 had passed. The
next Congress and administration would be Republican. There was no just
reason to keep out those territories teeming with population and wealth,
vastly superior to many of the states.
Mr. Springer’s substitute, an
omnibus bill, was obnoxious to the friends of the applying territories;
and hope of admission by the Fiftieth Congress seemed vanished. Already
was there talk of an extra session to do this act of simple justice. Samuel
S. Cox of New York rose superior to party on that occasion; - he who so
recently has joined the great silent majority. On the 15th of January,
1889, he addressed the House, it then having under consideration the bill
for the admission of Dakota. Mr. Cox said: “I favor I favor it, provided
there are adopted certain amendments. In the last resort, if these territories
cannot be brought in within a reasonable time, I propose to help any conference
between the two bodies looking to the statehood of Dakota
and the other territories. Congress has been derelict with respect to the
admission of these territories. For reasons which cannot be given within
the hour, but reasons which appeal to the discretion of gentlemen, I ask
that these territories be admitted. * *
* What concerns us immediately, Mr. Speaker, is the admission
as states, with proper boundaries
and suitable numbers, of five territories; these are
combined in the substitute, - the two Dakotas, Montana, Washington and
New Mexico. I omit purposely any consideration of Utah.”
Having discussed the formalities
of admission at some length, he continued: “Our custom, sir, as to population,
has not been uniform. If population is to be the test of admission, the
territories in the substitute have each a sufficient number for one member
of Congress. This is the moral, though not the legal, touchstone by which
the admission of states should be determined. Many of our states have been
admitted with
less than a representative ratio: Illinois was 380 less;
Florida 6,000 less; Oregon 43,000 less; Kansas about 20,000 less; and Nevada
87,381 less than the ratio. The ratio in 1864, when Nevada was admitted,
was 127,381. Nebraska was less than the ratio by 27,000 and Colorado by
31,425. Above all things, this question of admission is not a party question;
in the nature of things it cannot be. If these territories be not admitted
they will surely be admitted under Republican auspices
in the next Congress; and their politics will take the reflection of the
friends who gave them their early nurture. Refuse to admit this state and
its territorial sisters? Why, sir, you may enact that frost shall cease
in the North and bloom n the South, or try to fix the figure of Proteus
by statute. But you cannot prevent the people of this territory from their
demand, and
you must accede to it; and, if this Congress does not,
we know that the next Congress will. The spirit of this people of the Northwest
is that of unbounded push and energy.
These are the men who have tunneled our mountains, who
have delved our mines, who have bridged our rivers, who have brought every
part of our empire within the reach of foreign and home markets, who have
made possible our grand growth and splendid development. They are the men
who have made our nation life. There is no parallel in history to their
achievements. You cannot hold them as captive to the federal
system. You must give them self-reliant statehood.”
That parliamentary struggle which followed is most intelligently told by Mr. Cox in his grand oration at Huron, Dakota, July 4, 1889, entitled, “The four new Stars.” How Washington and the three other Stars won position on our national emblem is thus told:
“After many weary delays, on the 16th of January last the Senate bill for the admission of South Dakota was called up. It was very unlike the measure which was reported by the majority of the House Committee on Territories. That committee disfavored the division of Dakota. Finally it reported a substitute which was known as the ‘Omnibus Bill.’ This included New Mexico. It was the result of much caucusing, and was greatly changed from the original propositions made by both Senate and House representing the dominant party in each House. Neither of these propositions proposed the absolute division of Dakota or its prompt admission. It was, however, debated on that day. In that debate I had the honor, along with the delegates interested from the territories, to take a somewhat prominent part. When the bill came up on the 17th of January, it was debated at length; but it went over until the eighteenth. Again, on the 18th of January, an amendment offered by Mr. McDonald of Minnesota was voted down. Then an amendment by Mr. Springer of Illinois was proposed, re-submitting the Sioux constitution of 1885 to the people, with some incidental provisions as to boundary, etc. Then an amendment was offered by your delegate for the admission of South Dakota under the Sioux Falls constitution, and also for the continuance of North Dakota as a territory, but providing for an election as to naming South Dakota, the boundary, etc. It also provided an enabling act for North Dakota. Other amendments were offered. The amendment of the majority of the committee of the House was debated on that day. Thereupon Mr. Baker of New York proposed to re-commit the bill, with instructions to admit South Dakota into the union, and to provide enabling acts for North Dakota, Montana and Washington Territories. This was voted down; and the “Omnibus Bill” passed the House.
“The bill went to the Senate. It was disagreed to by that body. Then there was a long hiatus; and the friends of the territories were becoming restive. However, it was called upon the 14th of February, with the report of the failure to agree between the two Houses. Amendments were tendered to the motion, among them one by Mr. Baker of New York, which was an instruction for the House conferees to recede so as to allow, first, the exclusion of New Mexico from the bill, and, second, the admission of South Dakota under the Sioux Falls constitution, and, third, the re-submission of that constitution to the people, with provisions for the election of state officers only, and without a new vote on the question of ‘division.’ It also provided for the admission of North Dakota, Montana and Washington either by the proclamation of the President, or by further action by Congress in the way of formal acts of admission. This was an advance; but it left for the conference to say whether the old question should come up again in a new Congress, either at an extra session or at the regular session of the Fifty-first Congress.
“Thereupon, I had the honor to
propose a sweeping substitute, which I had outlined and urged in the New
York World, in the caucus and in the House. Inasmuch as time
was precious and was fast gliding away, and as I knew
the intention of many friends who honestly thought that Congress out to
do nothing, and as the Senate would not admit New Mexico, I proposed, first,
its absolute exclusion from the bill; second, an unqualified instruction
to the Committee of Conference to provide for the division of Dakota and
the admission of South Dakota under the Sioux Falls constitution by proclamation;
and a new election for federal officers as well as state; and third, the
admission of North Dakota, Montana and Washington on the same basis, and
all of them under proclamation by the President. The last instructions
referred all other matters of detail to the Committee of
Conference for their discretion. This proposition was
intended to be a finality. It was instruction, not advice nor request,
- absolute instruction. There was in it no “if” nor “and,” no ambiguity
nor alternative. It was attacked bitterly; but at last the House was brought
to a vote upon it directly. A Kentucky statesman insisted on a separate
vote on every separate proposition. This, under the rules, he had the right
to do. The vote on the exclusion of New Mexico was 135 against 105. Mr.
Breckenridge voted in the affirmative in order to move a reconsideration;
and the fight was kept up. He failed on a vote of 136 to 109.
“The second proposition, for
the admission of South Dakota by proclamation, under the Sioux Falls constitution,
and for a new election of state and federal officers, and without a new
vote on the question of division, then came up. It was carried by 137 to
103. The territories were gaining, and the opposition was losing. Then
filibustering began by a motion to adjourn. That failed by 82 yeas against
143 nays, the territories
still gaining and the opposition still losing. Another
motion to adjourn failed. The subject then went over until the next day,
on the condition that no more dilatory motions should be made. Upon the
next day the second proposition was again voted on a motion to reconsider.
The House stood by the territories and the instructions.
“I confess that I did not spend a very quiet or sleepful night; but I was gratified when, in the morning, the vote showed that the territories had 146 yeas and the nays only 109, the instructions still gaining. The resolution as to North Dakota, Montana and Washington to be admitted on the same basis, and all of them by proclamation, went through without an aye and no vote, together with the last proposition as to indifferent matters. Thereupon, the indefatigable gentleman from Kentucky insisted upon a vote upon the initial clause of instruction. He desired to submit a preliminary inquiry to the Speaker. The Chair heard it. He desired to know whether, if the enacting clause of instructions was voted down, the conferees would not be free and uninstructed? The Speaker replied, ‘except in so far as they may accept these votes as expressing the sense of the House.’ The gentleman undertook to argue it after the previous question. To this I objected. The vote was taken. The yeas were 148 and the nays 102. So that, from the beginning to the end of the struggle, the sentiment of the House was expressed in favor of the instructions. This was on the 15th of February. Congress was drawing to a close. Day after day passed.
“The friends of the territories
again became restive and anxious. Should there by an extra session? Should
the whole matter be taken up in the Fifty-first Congress, or should the
matter be ended promptly? After much conference outside, of which gentlemen
who are here are well advised, there were a few accommodations made, and
the instructions were complied with; and very slowly the conference reported,
and the bill became a law. It was signed by the President with a quill
taken from an American eagle, which it was said was given to some champion
to entwine around his scalp-lock.
“Thus it appears from this record, the pages of which are accessible to everybody, that the straight line to settle the question of admission and division, not only of the two Dakotas, but of the other territories of Montana and Washington, was carried in such an emphatic manner that the people have universally accepted the four states and placed their starry emblems upon our flag, in advance of the formalities which are to-day proceeding in the territories.”
The bill was entitled, “An act to provide
for the division of Dakota, and to enable the people of North Dakota, South
Dakota, Montana and Washington to form constitutions and state governments,
and to be admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original
states, and to make donations of public lands to such states.” It was approved
by President Grover Cleveland, on the anniversary of Washington’s birthday,
February 22, 1889. It provided among other things for an election of delegates,
seventy-five in number, who were to meet at Olympia on the 4th day of July,
1889. That convention met; it remained in session until August 22, 1889.
It submitted the constitution it framed to the people, who at an election
held October 1, 1889, ratified it by the vote of 40,152 votes for
the constitution and 11,789 votes against. Under its provisions, the first
state legislature of the State of Washington, assembled at Olympia, the
seat of government, for the purpose of electing two United States Senators
and to perform other necessary acts incident to perfecting a state government.
But an omission had occurred in the certification of the adoption of the
state constitution, required by the enabling act to be sent to the President
of the United States, - which omission delayed the President’s proclamation
of admission until November 11, 1889. As provided by the constitution,
the state officers were inaugurated on Monday, November 18, 1889; and,
as directed by the enabling act, the state legislature, on Tuesday, November
19th, elected John B. Allen
and Watson C. Squire the first United States Senators
of the State of Washington.