Page:Oregon Historical Quarterly vol. 26.djvu/314

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
254
Flora Belle Ludington

of subscriptions. I was soon the sole proprietor of the plant, which had cost three thousand five hundred dollars.

In May, 1856, the General Conference bought the plant and instructed the New York book agents to continue publication. I was elected editor. In 1860 I was re-elected. In 1864 I declined re-election.

The paper has filled a high and important mission. When the Constitution of the State was formed and adopted, the paper made itself felt in favor of Oregon as a free state. . . . and it opposed other objectionable features during the formation of the Constitution, so that its mission in that direction was vitally important. Then, when secession was rife, and the Breckinridge and Lane faction of the Democratic party tried to swing California and Oregon into the secession movement, the editor of the Advocate rung out loudly for the Union cause, and against secession, adding to his editorials on this behalf his personal influence in the pulpit and on the rostrum for the Union."[1]

Later editors of the Advocate have been Rev. H . C. Benson, Rev. Isaac Dillon, and J. H. Acton. It is still being published.

Portland Commercial. A semi-weekly that began publication in the spring of 1853. S. J . McCormick sponsored the organ whose motto was "Open to all, controlled by none."

Portland Daily Bulletin. Established in 1870 by Ben Holladay. He was succeeded by James O'Meara, H. W. Scott, and T. B. Odeneal. Under the management of Odeneal it suspended in October, 1875. The Bulletin proved to be one of Holladay's many and expensive ventures in Oregon.

Portland Daily Plaindealer. Started in May, 1863, by A. C. Edmunds acting as editor and proprietor.


  1. Letter of Nellie B. Pipes of the Oregon Historical Society to the compiler, March 16, 1925, quotes this extract from Pearne's address. The editor possibly overestimates his influence in the Union cause for other non-prejudiced commentators accuse him of closing his eyes to the slavery issue until the question was unmistakably upon him.