sponsors, since no good thing could come from such a source, referring specifically to Delazon Smith, Asahel Bush "and their infamous cohorts."[1]
This attack was but the preliminary for a series of editorials by Editor Dryer in his best style, which began with a full statement of the points urged by proponents in favor of statehood, and then disposed of them in succession, answering one by one the arguments set out in the preamble to the bill as prepared by Judge Boise. It was urged that Oregon would command attention and respect in proportion to its agricultural, manufacturing and commercial resources. Foreign capital for the establishment of manufactories, and for the building of works of internal improvement would not be introduced until there was proper basis for investment and employment. There must be population and reproductive wealth, the only foundation of prosperity. Immigration had been and would be retarded by the Indian war. There was nothing in the claim that Oregon would gain by increased representation in congress, since with the one delegate representing the Territory there was no divided counsel, and there was an advantage in unity in action. Acquisition of public lands by a state would but beget fraud and would prove a temptation for for public plunder. Until congress had provided public buildings and other improvements usually made in territories, statehood would be a burden upon a people few in number and already in debt. There was no reason to suppose that congress would not pay Indian 'war claims, as it had done in the case of other Indian wars. It was preposterous to talk of voting for state government in the midst of the Indian wars. Appropriations would be no more readily granted to a state than to a territory, and to say that state government would not largely increase taxation was futile and false. There
- ↑ Oregonian, January 26, 1856. Compare Statesman, February 5, 1856.
