Please note that Samuel Colver was not Indian Agent Samuel H. Culver.


    …Mr. Samuel Colver…is now living with us here at the Bend; his society is of much interest to me and tends to amuse and relieve me of those gloomy thoughts.… Mr. Colver is a young man whose society is worth counting in any situation.… He posses[ses] a considerable share of information for one of his age, and is desirous of accumulating, he is entirely without affectation and pedantry; and…has a feeling heart and the impression of honesty and upright principles…and he looks with horror and detestation upon the vices of villainy so conspicuously displayed in this Southern world.…
Moses Lapham, Fort Bend, Texas, writing to Amos Lapham, Mechanicsburg, Ohio, March 4, 1837, in "Moses Lapham, His Life and Some Selected Correspondence," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 54, page 470


    …Colver was here a few days ago.… He has gone back to Matagorda for a large stock of goods and I expect him here every day.…
Moses Lapham, Richmond, Texas, writing to Levi Lapham, Mechanicsburg, Ohio, December 1, 1837, in "Moses Lapham, His Life and Some Selected Correspondence," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 54, page 472


Muster of Edward Burleson's Volunteers Against Cordova's Rebels, Mill Creek Fight, March 29, 1839
. . . Colver, Samuel . . .
Stephen L. Moore, Savage Frontier: Rangers, Riflemen and Indian Wars in Texas, vol. II, page 189


Texian participants in the Córdova Fight [in April 1839] under Gen. Burleson near Seguin according to Donaly E. Brice in The Great Comanche Raid: Boldest Indian Attack of the Texas Republic:
. . . Colver, Samuel . . .


LIST OF LETTERS remaining in the post office at Austin, on the 1st April, 1841.
. . . . Colver, Samuel . . .
Austin City Gazette, Austin, Texas, April 14, 1841, page 3


REMAINING in the post office at the city of Austin, October 1st, 1841.
. . . . Colver, Samuel . . .
Austin City Gazette, Austin, Texas, October 6, 1841, page 2






    At a meeting called this evening, and attended by all the citizens of the place, and a number from the vicinity, to hear a representation of certain public grievances complained of by the overland emigrants now entering this valley, and after hearing Mr. Samuel Colver, the delegate appointed by the advance emigrants to represent their case--the following resolutions were unanimously adopted:
    1. That the sum of five dollars per wagon and stock, and other things in proportion, exacted off the emigrants by N. Cluny and whoever may be associated with him, under cover of a charter obtained from the last legislature of this territory, is oppressive, inhospitable and cruel, in proportion to the amount of labor expended and the facilities afforded, according to the representations heard, of the correctness of which we have no reason to doubt.
    2. We regret that owing to the advanced state of the emigration this season, we can do little more at present than express our sympathy with them in the case.
    3. That we will use all lawful means to obtain a repeal of the charter and all other existing similar ones, as speedily as possible.
    4. That we will aid and encourage such young men in their philanthropic enterprise as have volunteered to meet the emigration for the purpose of assisting them to arrive in this territory.
    5. That Rev. James P. Miller, Dr. S. A. Smith and J. W. Schutt be a committee to prepare, circulate and attend to the presentation of a memorial to the next legislature in favor of a repeal of said charter.
    6. That a copy of the proceedings of this meeting be forwarded to the Oregonian and Statesman with a request for their publication.
Oregonian, Portland, August 14, 1852, page 2


Oregonian, Portland, February 5, 1853, page 2


    TERRITORIAL CONVENTION.--In pursuance of a call heretofore noticed, delegates from Siskiyou County, Cal., and Umpqua, Jackson and Coos counties, Oregon Territory, met in convention in Jacksonville, on the 28th January and organized by the election of H. G. Ferris of Siskiyou, as president; E. Steel of Yreka, and Samuel Colver of Jacksonville, vice presidents, and T. McF. Patton, and C. S. Drew, secretaries. There were 21 delegates present, several counties not being represented at all.
    The convention resolved to use "every exertion to prevent the formation of a state government in Oregon with its present boundaries." Three committees were appointed to draft memorials--1st, to Congress; 2nd, to the California Legislature; 3rd to the Oregon Legislature. A committee was also appointed "to draft a petition to circulate among the citizens of the proposed new territory--said committee to consist of the sheriffs of the said counties."
    The convention then adjourned to meet at Jacksonville on the third Monday of April (the 17th). We are of the opinion that this movement is premature. However, the people of the counties directly interested ought to he the best judges of their wants.--Shasta Courier.
Grass Valley Telegraph, Grass Valley, California, March 2, 1854, page 4


Territory of Oregon, Jackson County
Breach of the peace
    "Personally appeared before me one of the justices of the peace in and for said county Horace Ish and confessed that he was guilty of breaking the peace by kicking one Thompson, given name not known, but did not kick him with any other intention but to kick his (ass) seat of Hanlon but did not kick one Samuel Colver who was in the house at the time and he did not kick said Thompson with any intentions of killing or shooting at or stabbing or injuring him in any other manner but to kick him once and prays that the court will acquit him with a reasonable fine for thus breaking the peace.
    "In witness whereof he has set his hand and seal this May 11th 1855.
    "Subscribed and sworn to before me this May 11th 1855.    Hiram Abbott, J.P.
    "The decision of the court was that the said Horace Ish pay the sum of $5.00 five dollars and costs taxed at $3.75.


Territory of Oregon, Jackson County
Breach of the peace
    "Personally appeared before me one of the justices of the peace in and for said county William Ish and acknowledged that on or about the 27 day of Feb. 1855 did break the peace by fighting with one Samuel Colver of the same county aforesaid and one Thompson, given name not known, at the house of W. W. Fowler & Brown known as the Eldorado at Jacksonville in said county and was willing to pay his fine and after being put under oath testified as follows I did not fight with the said Samuel Colver and Thompson with any intention of killing, stabbing or shooting at or injuring them in any [way] but to give them a little drubbing but when Colver told me that he was sick I threw down the little stick I had but did not intend to use it. In witness whereof he has hereunto set his hand and seal this May 11th 1855.
    "Subscribed and sworn to before me this May 11th 1855.    Hiram Abbott, J.P.
    "The court considering the case decided that the said William Ish pay the sum of $5.00 dollars fine and costs taxed at $3.75.


    Pursuant to call, gentlemen from different portions of Oregon Territory assembled in the court house in Albany, Linn County, on Wednesday, June 27th, 1855, and organized by calling B. F. WHITSON, Esq., to the Chair, and appointing W. C. JOHNSON Secretary.
    The Chairman explained the object of the meeting to be to take under consideration the proper course to be pursued by those in Oregon who are opposed to the extension of slavery.
    As this was the first anti-slavery meeting ever held in the Territory of Oregon, it was proposed, and carried by acclamation, that a list of the names of those desiring to be known as members of this convention be taken and preserved for future reference. Whereupon the following named gentlemen came forward and recorded their names, to wit:
    Origen Thomson, H. H. Hicklin, T. S. Kendall, Jno. R. McClure, Wm. T. Baxter, Wilson Blain, Jno. McCoy, Samuel Hyde, W. L. Coon, Wm. Marks, W. C. Hicklin, H. F. McCully, David Irwin, John Smith, Isaac Pest, J. W. Stewart, G. W. Lambert, J. B. Forsyth, J. M. McCall, John Conner, Thos. Cannon, B. F. Whitson, W. C. Johnson, Hezekiah Johnson, J. T. Craig, D. C. Hackley, S. R. McLelland, Robt. A. Buck, Samuel Bell, J. P. Tate, U. H. Dunning, Alfred Wheeler, Samuel Colver, D. H. Bodinn, W. C. Garwood, D. Beach, Charles Ferry, J. F. Thompson, Milton B. Starr.
    On motion, a committee of three, consisting of Hezekiah Johnson, Origen Thomson, and Wilson Blain was appointed to arrange business, and report this afternoon.
    Adjourned till 2 o'clock P.M.
    Called for report of committee on arrangement of business.
    Whereupon, through their chairman, Hezekiah Johnson, they presented a preamble and resolutions, which, after being considered section by section, amended, and unanimously adopted, read as follows:
    WHEREAS the institution of American slavery has, for some few years past, been exhibiting unwonted energy and resolution in the maintenance of its wide-spreading control over the destiny of our country--its advocates working with audacity and boldness for its nationalization, and to clothe it with the sovereign power;
    AND WHEREAS this pro-slavery effort has already resulted in the enactment of laws unjust and anti-Republican, oppressive and cruel; and
    WHEREAS the people of Oregon, blessed with a free and fruitful land, are deeply interested in the preservation of their Territory from the blighting influence of this despotic institution; therefore
    1. Resolved, That we regard the whole system of legislation on the subject of slavery by the U.S. Congress since 1850, including the Fugitive Slave Act and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, as a flagrant outrage on the civilization of the age, and disgraceful to the patriotism and religion of the whole country.
    2. Resolved, That the artfulness and treachery displayed in the aggressions of the slave power in our country should awaken in the heart of every lover of free institutions in Oregon a most jealous watchfulness in regard to its movements in thus direction, as we know not at what moment, by some artful ruse, it may be precipitated upon oar Territory.
    3. Resolved, That we regard the question of slavery as the great agitating element in the politics of our country, which can never be compromised or settled but by the overthrow of an institution so utterly opposed to every principle of political, as well as of all moral and religious right.
    4. Resolved, That we would deprecate the introduction of slavery into any of the territory on the Pacific Coast as a real calamity, and laying the foundation for strife and disaffection among the future Pacific states.
    5. Resolved, That we recommend the friends of Free Soil, in the several counties of this Territory, to hold county meetings, and later to direct public attention to the growing evil of slavery, and to secure the election to office of those who can be relied on to act in opposition to the aggressive movements of slavery at the present time.
    6. Resolved, That we recommend to the Free Soil men of this Territory to extend all their influence and support to those newspapers which will have the moral courage to favor the promotion of anti-slavery sentiments.
    7. Resolved, That a general meeting of the anti-slavery men of Oregon be called to meet at Corvallis, Benton Co., on the last Wednesday in Oct., 1855; and that a committee of five be appointed to prepare a declaration of sentiment, as a
PLATFORM for the ANTI-SLAVERY party in Oregon, and report at that meeting.
    S. Resolved, That the secretary be instructed to forward a copy of the proceedings of this meeting to the several papers of the Territory, and request its publication.
    The following resolution was presented by D. C. Hackley Esq., and carried by acclamation:
    Resolved, That the ladies who have favored us with their presence be requested to receive the thanks of this meeting for the manifestation they have thus made in favor of HUMAN LIBERTY.
    Messrs. John Conner, B. F. Whitson, Thos. S. Kendall, Origen Thomson, and J. P. Tate were constituted the committee contemplated in resolution 7th.
    On motion the thanks of the meeting were voted to the citizens of Albany and vicinity, for their kindness in entertaining us during our stay in their midst.
    Adjourned to meet in Corvallis, Benton County, on Wednesday, October 31, A.D., 1855, at 10½ o'clock, A.M.
W. C. JOHNSON, Sec'y.
Oregon Argus, Oregon City, July 7, 1855, page 1


Col. John E. Ross
    Sir  The citizens of this vicinity are desirous of forming a company for military protection subject to your orders whenever you may deem their services necessary in the present campaign. The isolated and defenseless condition of a large portion of the families in this part of the valley would make them an easy prey to any considerable body of Indians, especially if attacked in the night. Whatever recommendation or order you may think proper for their security, we think would be promptly obeyed. We would also inform you that there is a great lack of arms. If you could furnish us with 6 or 8 guns they would be very acceptable. If you see proper to grant this our most sincere request, please furnish us a blank muster roll together with all necessary authority to raise a company.
B. F. Dowell Papers, Bancroft Library Mss. P-A 137


    MR. EDITOR:--Not long ago an argument, written by Dr. Hammett [physician George A. Hammett of Providence, Rhode Island], in reply to Mr. Salyards, appeared in the Investigator, to which I call the especial attention of your readers. It is as follows: "Adaptation, uncaused by intelligence, must have always existed, upon the Deist's own showing; since God must in his nature be adapted to act upon matter." Having thus proved that adaptation has always existed, uncaused by intelligence, he concludes--"Therefore, there is no God."
    The fallacy of the above reasoning consists in the non-distribution of the middle term (adaptation). The meaning is that some adaptations are uncaused and eternal; not that all are, for the adaptation of the eye to the nature of light is not eternal. Geology shows a period when no SUCH adaptations existed, and the atmosphere existed prior to the lungs of man, or the wings of birds, and children are born every day with eyes adapted to the light and feet adapted to go upon the earth's surface, who had no existence six years ago. These are but recent examples of adaptation as well as the race itself.
    Let us then reduce the above argument to the regular form, and see if it will fall asunder, or cohere together.
    Major premise--Some adaptations are eternal and uncaused by intelligence;
    Minor premise--The human eye, or hand, or leg, or foot, is an example of adaptation;
    Conclusion--Therefore the adaptation of the eye, hand, foot, &c., was uncaused by intelligence.
    The conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises; the term (adaptation) being applied only to a part of the predicate.
    Here is a similar example of "non-distribution" (and as an argument equally conclusive as the above), viz.:
    Now, there are uncaused adaptations in the universe. Example--Space is adapted to contain matter; this is an example of eternal uncaused adaptation. Again--God's intelligence is ADAPTED to organize matter; this also is another example of uncaused adaptation. But does it follow that any other example which caprice may select is also equally eternal and UNCAUSED? Does it follow that the eye is also an eternal uncaused adaptation?
    But perhaps the writer only intended to insist that all natural adaptations are uncaused by intelligence, since many of them are not eternal, and many of them have a cause. This is narrowing down the issue wonderfully! and putting only the naked question of intelligence under debate. The proposition would stand thus: "All natural adaptations are uncaused by intelligence." Now what proof has ever yet been offered to establish this affirmative? One, two, or three examples of uncaused adaptation shed no light upon it, since a cause is admitted. No example of eternal adaptation will establish it, since it is admitted that these adaptations are not eternal (at least many of them). The only proof admissible would be to adduce examples of adaptations, HAVING A CAUSE, BUT NOT AN INTELLIGENT CAUSE. Give us the examples and we yield. To assert that the eye or hand is such an example is a plain petitio principii, or assumption of the point in debate. The point made by Mr. Salyards is about this, namely: The steel trap and the lion's jaws are both mechanical adaptations, and the end or use of each is to CATCH AND HOLD; this end or use was designed in case of the trap. Were not the lion's jaws also designed to catch and hold? But the trap is a mental conception, suggested to man by the lion's jaws. Are not the lion's jaws also the result of mental conception, or of God?
    Some adaptations impress the causality of man with the idea of cause, while other adaptations do not thus impress our minds. The adaptation of space to matter raises no idea, conception, feeling, or sentiment of a cause; while all mechanical arrangements, as well as some other arrangements, do thus impress the mind. All such adaptations as produce the notion of an intelligent cause HAVE also an intelligent cause, so far as experience has discovered their causes.
    Yours, truly,    HIRAM COLVER.
    Rogue River Valley, Oregon Territory, April, 1856.
Boston Investigator, June 18, 1856, pages 1-2   The motto of the Investigator was "Devoted to the Development and Promotion of Universal Mental Liberty."



   
Hon. Joel Palmer
    Sir, having examined the correspondence of Anson Dart, Com. of Indian Affairs, with the Hon. Luke Lea dated Nov. 1852--also the letter of George W. Manypenny to Joel Palmer of Oct. 29th 1855 and Joel Palmer's letter to A. A. Skinner dated Feb. 18th 1856 relative to the reasonableness of the accounts of A. A. Skinner as charged by him against government for incidental expenses while acting as Indian agent in Southern Oregon during the years fifty-one, two and three, together with the accounts of A. A. Skinner during the above-mentioned years, and after duly considering the same and referring to my business transactions during the same years in this county (which was packing, trading in provisions and groceries and farming in company with T. Thompson) I feel satisfied that the charges in the accounts of A. A. Skinner as above referred to are not only reasonable but in many items below the current prices of those years.
    I find the following to be the price current for '52--flour from 15 to 25 cts. per lb. Beef from 20 to 25 cents per lb. (sugar 35 to 50, coffee 50 to 60 cts) from fifty-one to fifty-three price variable, from the above quotations still higher. Flour sold in January & February at Jacksonville for from 75 cts. to $1.25 per lb. At the same time salt was from one to four dollars per lb. Meals have always been one dollar at public houses except when higher as in fifty 2 & 3 when they were one dollar without bread and dollar and fifty cents with it. The above is the price current for Jackson County in those years; no doubt but they appear high to persons living at the head of steam navigation on the great rivers in the States, but to those who live in the mines of Southern Oregon at the head of mule navigation they appear reasonable enough.
    And as to gov. policy of conciliating Indians, in our first intercourse with them, in the absence of a military force sufficient for defense sensible men can entertain but one opinion, and even the expensive policy of feeding compares quite favorably with the fighting policy as now adopted, as will be seen by reference to the expenditures of the present war.
NARA Series M234, Letters Received by the Office of Indian Affairs, Reel 610 Oregon Superintendency 1857, frames 1262-1265.


    MR. EDITOR:--There are as vague ideas in the world concerning the word "reason," as the word "adaptation." As an example, take the following from Dr. Hammett:
    "Some men cannot leap the ocean";
    A is a man;
    Therefore, A cannot leap the ocean.
    This, says Dr. Hammett, is "correct reasoning," although not in "FORM" a regular syllogism. Doubtless the conclusion (that A cannot leap the ocean) is true; but does that truth follow necessarily from the premise? If not, though the conclusion be true, the reasoning is false.
    Here is a similar example:
    Some men are Atheists (major),
    Dr. Hammett is a man (minor),
    Therefore, Dr. Hammett is an Atheist (conclusion).
    Here the conclusion (that Dr. H. is an Atheist), although true, does in no way follow from the premise, and as an example of reasoning, is unsound. Again:
    Some adaptations are uncaused by intelligence;
    The eye is an example of adaptation;
    Therefore, the eye is uncaused by intelligence.
    This last is what Dr. Hammett calls "correct reasoning," although it lacks the "regular form." If this last is "correct reasoning," then also is the syllogism preceding it, concerning Dr. Hammett's Atheism. Dr. Hammett, I make no objection to your syllogism on account of "form"; the objection is, it cannot be made to wear the "regular form." All correct reasoning, however elliptically expressed, may and will reduce to the "regular form"--that is, to a syllogism in which the conclusion flows necessarily from the premise.
    Now the Doctor's major premise will always be, "Some adaptations are uncaused by intelligence"--a proposition in which the predicate is affirmed of only a part of the subject. He will not say all adaptations are uncaused by intelligence, since water and carding mills rise up to confront such a proposition. Nothing is proved, therefore, by combining his major and minor premise. And, though the world and its multiplied adaptations possibly may have no intelligent author, still such a conclusion does in no way follow from Dr. Hammett's premise.
    But, since the Dr. denies the reality of time, space, and "extended substance," he is perhaps beyond the arm of help, and with all my sympathy for him, I can do nothing. Permit me, however, to call his attention to the following consideration: Space is exquisitely adapted to contain the globe; now why confound this adaptation, which exists of eternal necessity, with other adaptations, which do not strike the mind as of necessary existence? The cow's udder, to me, seems intended as a reservoir for holding milk, the milk seems intended as food for the young animal, the teat intended for the calf to suck, and the hole in the teat for the milk to pass out of. I have an intuitive and abiding impression that design has been employed in this arrangement of matter, and how does Dr. Hammett relieve this impression? Why, thus: "Intelligence (that is God's intelligence) is exquisitely adapted to organize matter according to your own admission," "and this adaptation had no intelligent cause," and if one adaptation exist without an intelligent cause, why not the cow's udder exist without an intelligent cause?
    The reasoning would then stand thus (and the Dr. says it is correct reasoning):
    Some adaptations are uncaused by intelligence;
    A spinning-jack is an example of adaptation;
    Therefore, why is not a spinning-jack uncaused by intelligence?
    This, as an example of reasoning, is the same MENTAL PROCESS as that concerning the cow. We happen to know, that when applied to the spinning-jack, it does not conduct us to the truth. Why, then, rely upon it to conduct us to truth in the far more complicated and surpassing mechanism in Nature?
    Article 1st. Space and matter are eternal.
    2nd. Matter is of different kinds and qualities.
    3rd. Matter from all eternity had different qualities.
    4th. Intelligence is a quality of one of the kinds of matter.
    5th. Intelligent matter now exists.
    6th. Intelligent matter has always existed.
    7th. If there ever was a time when no intelligence existed in the universe, then no intelligence had existed.
    Still, believing in the reality of time, space, matter, extended substance, and Deity as intelligent matter, I remain a Deist, and think as the force of reason constrains me.
    Rogue River Valley, Sept. 1, 1856.
Boston Investigator, November 19, 1856, page 1


    The resignation of H. H. Church, Esq. as Justice of the peace of Eden Precinct was presented, and accepted. Whereupon it is Ordered by the Board that Samuel Colver be and he is hereby appointed Justice of the peace in and for Eden Precinct, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of H. H. Church, Esq.
Jackson County Commissioners' Journals, March 2, 1857  This might have been Colver Sr.


    "For if the most admirable adaptation which is attributed to a supposed Deity, does not indicate that he was produced by a designing cause, how utterly, how grossly absurd it is to infer that such a cause is indicated by the adaptation of a bird, a quadruped, or a man!"--[Dr. Hammett, Boston Investigator, Volume XXVI., No. 12. |
    The above intended argument is fraught with its own refutation, concealed, wrapped up, and implied. Let us see--"For if the most exquisite adaptation which is attributed to a supposed Deity [which adaptation by reason of its eternity can have no cause] does not indicate that he was produced by a designing cause, how utterly, how grossly absurd it is to infer that such a cause is indicated by the adaptation of a bird, a quadruped, or a man [all of which last mentioned adaptations are not eternal (like the other), and therefore have some cause or other]."
    The words in brackets are, of course, our own, and are used merely to bring to view that which is necessarily implied, though which might, if not expressed, be overlooked. Yet when thus filled up, the quotation, as an argument, loses its whole force. But Dr. Hammett admits that adaptations exist without an intelligent cause. I will therefore assume that a God, "exquisitely adapted," &c., does, or may exist, upon HIS own principle. His gun shoots one way as well as the other.
    Now, to argue that "Because eternal adaptations have no intelligent cause, therefore some of those adaptations that are not eternal have, likewise, no intelligent cause," is as though one should argue that, "because a horse wears hair, so does a gander"; or, as though Dr. Hammett should contend that Russell's threshing machine had no intelligent author, "because some eternal adaptations exist which have no intelligent authors, and which, from the nature of the case, could not have an author." Now the adaptation of space to matter is eternal, and could, therefore, have no cause; while the adaptation of man and beast is but recent (at least is conceded to have a beginning), and therefore a cause exists.
    I have shown, in a previous article, that Dr. Hammett's argument cannot be reduced to a regular syllogism, to which form all valid arguments may.
    The trouble with Atheism is, it cannot account for the origin of organized beings, plants, and animals. If the series of human beings does not extend back ad infinitum, then man originated "somehow." Indeed, geology shows a time prior to which man did not exist. Man, then, appeared by a miracle--that is, he came without the intervention of a pair of progenitors, as he now "comes."
    Granting the eternity of matter, and the eternity of all its known laws and properties, still the Atheist cannot get along; he must have organized beings to start with--to breed from. Give him these, and he then can account for their INCREASE; but their origin is incomprehensible.
    We know of the existence of only a little more than fifty elementary substances. Chemistry acquaints us with their properties, and also the nature of the known "imponderable agents." But these, none of them, have ever been observed to combine spontaneously and of their own inherent affinity into the form of a man, a cat, or a rhinoceros of one or two horns. A man must have more credulity than I have, to believe that the KNOWN forms of matter have inherent tendencies to combine into the form of an elephant or the seed of a "cocklebur."
    HIRAM COLVER.
    Rogue River Valley (Oregon), March, 1857.
Boston Investigator, May 20, 1857, page 1


    "It is generally admitted," says Dr. H., "that in most cases syllogisms are useless." Answer--True; no one insists that an argument should always be stated in the syllogistic form; but everyone acquainted with the laws of mind knows that in all cases, when we reason in the strict sense of that term, the mental process which takes place, when expressed in words, is a syllogism. (See Whately's Logic.)
    Again--"That and the other stone fell, when unsupported. Therefore so will all stones fall when unsupported." This, says Dr. H., is the "Baconian method of reasoning by induction." Answer--There is no "Baconian method of reasoning" as distinguished from other "methods," as is supposed. The process of the mind is the same in every case of pure reasoning. Example--In every case where Dr. H. has reasoned, in the strict sense of the term, his mind (though he may not have noticed) passed through the following process, viz.
    "Nothing which exhibits adaptation alone can indicate a designing cause (major premise),
    The works of Nature exhibit adaptation alone (minor premise),
    Therefore, they cannot indicate an intelligent cause," (conclusion).
    Now, leave out either one of the premises, and you prove nothing. In the above syllogism, Dr. H. reasons correctly; that is, if you grant his major and minor, you cannot avoid the conclusion. But it so happens (as in most of Dr. H.'s arguments) that in the syllogism before us, both premises are false. Take the minor for example--"The works of Nature exhibit adaptation alone"--do they not also resemble the works of man? I do not insist that the resemblance is perfect out and out, neither does a beaver's dam nor a bird's nest resemble the works of man completely in every point throughout, but so nearly that none can doubt (though he never heard of a beaver) that the dam under examination is the work of intelligence: though he may doubt as to what GRADE of intellect to refer it.
    Do not the jaws of the carnivora resemble in structure and arrangement, in a high degree, the steel trap? Does not the hook upon the bat's wing resemble a fireman's hook? If man's works resemble those of Nature, surely those of Nature resemble those of man.
    Again, Dr. H. says of a machine--"We infer design not on account of adaptation alone, but because it differs from the works of Nature and thus resembles those of man." It seems then that adaptation alone, nor its resemblance to man's works alone, do the business for the Dr., but both combined! You do then give some weight to adaptation alone? Who does Dr. H. mean by the pronoun "we" in the above sentence? Not H. Colver? I protest; the remark does not apply to me. I infer intelligence, in such a case, from the order and arrangement of the parts of the machine, because experience has taught me that intelligence alone is capable of producing complicated order,* and this conclusion I have derived by that "BACONIAN METHOD" the Dr. spoke of.
    Secondly, I refer the machine to the class of human contrivances, from those characteristics peculiar to the works of man. Thus, the beaver's dam, I refer, 1st, to intelligence, from its order and arrangement; the tops of the trees being all downstream, and the limbs bracing in the mud, the roots make the dam, leaves stop the crevices, and mud seals the whole.
    2ndly, it must be referred to a grade of intellect inferior to man; because it lacks the peculiar characteristics which distinguish the works of that creature. So also, in regard to Nature's works, order and mechanism. Experience refers to intelligence. (Please remember that "Baconian method"--experience of "part of the facts.")
    3rdly, it must be referred to an order of intellect superior to man, because it is manufactured in a manner above man's comprehension, just as a mill is made in a manner above the comprehension of a beaver.
    Thus we see, 1st, order and arrangement is the peculiar offspring of intelligence; 2nd, each grade of intelligence leaves its own peculiar marks upon its work, by which we can distinguish its grade. Thus, the beaver leaves the marks of his teeth; man leaves the "score marks" and "juggles," while Deity works in a way as incomprehensible to us as the distiller's art of making whiskey is to a baboon or a wildcat.
    Mr. Editor, I would gladly point out the egregious blunders into which Dr. Hammett has fallen, in supposing that Bacon had discovered a DIFFERENT way of reasoning from Plato or Socrates! There is nothing of it.
    Bacon taught the folly of supposing or expecting to advance in the knowledge of Nature by pure reasoning unaided by experiment and observation. Bacon's "method" led him to believe in God.
    Rogue River Valley (Oregon), May 1, 1857.
----
    *I am not bound to maintain that everything in Nature evinces design; far from it.
Boston Investigator, June 10, 1857, page 1


    MR. EDITOR:--Any given conclusion may be traced back through the successive premises, and no conclusion can depend upon an infinite number of preceding premises. In mathematics we can trace any conclusion back to ultimate axioms, which are the foundations of our conclusions. These axioms, then, are not conclusions, as they do not follow from anything preceding. That "the whole is greater than its part" is not a conclusion, as Dr. Hammett would seem to intimate. In philosophy, these ultimate premises are not always self-evident, as in mathematics; and we should not call them conclusions, because they are not proved, but granted. For example, the maxim that "Nature will remain uniform in her operations" is the ultimate major premise upon which all philosophy rests. Yet it cannot be PROVED in any sense of that term; it is merely a postulate, or judgment, founded upon experience, yet not known by experience; we know absolutely nothing but the past by experience.
    Dr. H. seems to use the term "reason" to signify indiscriminately any act of intelligence. Experience informs us that Nature has been uniform in her operations for an indefinite period, and we expect she will so continue. We do not know she will; nor can we prove it. Indeed, if Atheism be true, Nature does NOT work in a uniform manner. She once produced man without a union of the sexes! She does so, however, no more! Philosophy then, at best, is as uncertain in her deductions as Nature is uncertain in her operations. I repeat, then, that the uniformity of Nature's actions in the FUTURE is not provable, Atheism being judge. A hog has observed, or experienced, that his owner feeds him in the morning "uniformly," and he expects it again. But can he prove it? Just as easily as man can prove the future by the past. This judgment of the hog may have been based upon an induction of facts, extending perhaps through a hog's long lifetime--he always was fed at that time. This hog "reasoned" (Dr. H. would say) "according to the inductive method"--"the Baconian method." That "the stone will fall" (although we do not doubt it) is not provable; and therefore not (as the Dr. asserts) a "conclusion " of reasoning, or from reasoning, but a mere postulatum or ultimate premise. If, however, the Dr. will call it a "conclusion," he of course can use that term in as many senses as he pleases. Thus he may say, if he likes, that "that hog 'reasoned by induction,' and drew his 'conclusion' logically." We prefer, however, to use terms in a fixed sense where that can be done.
    I have shown, in a previous communication, that if "induction" be an infallible method, or any method at all, of reasoning (as Dr. H. mistakenly supposes), that it would prove our major premise, and thus lay a sure foundation for Deism. All mechanism, where we have come to know its cause, is found to be the work of mind. Combining this with the fact that Nature's works do exhibit order and arrangement, Deism follows. But the fact that past experience has found mechanism universally the effect of mind does not prove that all mechanisms will, when their cause is revealed, be found the result of intelligence. The premise that "all mechanism, wherever found, is the work of mind," is not a "conclusion" from reasoning: but is itself the very postulate from which our conclusions flow; it cannot be proved to a mind in which causality predominates. There will be no doubt of its truth. To a mind, in which that power is wanting, mechanism does not, nor cannot raise the idea of a cause.
    True, indeed, is it, that experience always has found order to be the work of mind, in all cases where the cause has come to our knowledge. But it is not this experience alone that makes us feel that such must necessarily be the case. The feeling is intuitive, where there is causality, and not so when that organ is defective. But what higher proof can there be (if there can be any) that Nature's mechanisms are the work of mind, than the simple fact that an organ exists which by virtue of its nature causes this feeling of causation spontaneously to arise?
    Mr. Editor, should the coppers always turn up "heads" for every throw that you can make in a year, I apprehend you would be intuitively impressed that an invisible intelligent cause guided the "luck"; or should you want a stronger case, if the letters of the alphabet should spell out your name, when "ruffled" and thrown out, a hundred times going, you would feel what is called an "intuition" that the cause was intelligent and unseen. Call it, however, if you choose, a conclusion of, or from reasoning; pray, what premises was it derived from? All you can say is, "chance cannot do all this." But PROVE that chance or accident did not do it. You can give me no proof, only the simple fact that you are constituted so to feel. This example will serve to explain what is meant by intuitive impressions. But why should the conviction seize us that there was an unseen mind guiding the coppers? You might say, "experience taught you" that intellect alone was adequate to such a result, and that you "reasoned from experience." Have it so, then. So then do I reason (if you will) that intelligence alone is adequate to the arrangements which I see in Nature.
    The spelling out of your name by accident--letters all right side up--in line, &c., &c.--presents a more difficult problem than the arrangement of the parts of your body. An unthinking cause produces an Atheist--"right side up"--in line--teeth mash together, eyes adjusted upon the known (though long unknown) principles of optics--eyes at the top--feet at bottom--a hinge at the knee, a ball and socket where rotatorial motion is wanted, &c. Why, Sir, it seems, when all is enumerated, that the spelling of a name by a chance throw is not a "patching!"
    Atheism, says George Combe, is the result of a peculiar defect, or minus development of causality. The truth of this I do not vouch; but true it is, that Cook found the New Hollanders without any ideas of an intelligent Providence, and phrenology shows that they rank lowest in this part of the brain.
    Rogue River Valley (Oregon), May 22, 1857.
Boston Investigator, July 15, 1857, page 1


    MR. EDITOR:--Belief, I find, is not under the control of the will. I had resolved, like yourself, not to believe that a table was ever moved, except by mechanical force. But I see so many statements of such facts having occurred, and see so many persons who say they have seen the like, that I find myself believing notwithstanding my natural skepticism. But what if tables do dance and cut up shines--what then? It only shows that we have made one more discovery in natural science, viz., that the will-influence can be made to operate beyond the circumference of the magnet; and when the phenomena of table-moving becomes as common as the phenomena of the common magnet, it will then be no more miraculous. And a certain amount of testimony, from a credible source, will convince a person who is ignorant of the fact of table-moving, just as easily as one who is ignorant of the common magnet. Had both been discovered at the same time, the public would have been as incredulous of the one as the other; and, as there are no known principles by which to account for table-moving, so also there are no known principles which will explain the phenomena of the common magnet.
    If anybody has discovered WHY the common magnet attracts steel, let him show how the thing is done! Table-tipping is "incredible" simply because of its newness. When we say--"Such and such a thing is contrary to Nature's laws," all we can reasonably mean is, that it is not in conformity with our past experience. When we get to know each and all the laws of Nature, we will then be able to decide whether a particular story is false or true. There can nothing happen contrary to Nature's laws; yet many things may occur which are not in conformity to our limited KNOWLEDGE of Nature's laws. A more extensive acquaintance with Nature would have led the Islander to understand and believe that water becomes so hard that elephants could walk upon its surface. As it was, however, this fact, when stated, was contrary to his experience of Nature's law. A miracle is only something out of the line of general experience. Thus the miraculous conception of Christ was out of the line of common experience. Man first came into being in a way not in conformity to our present general experience.
    Mr. Editor, has man already reached the ultimatum of knowledge? Who believes so? If not now at the end of his rope, tell when, if you can, he will arrive at the end of discovery? Why not then just say at once that we have lately made one of those new discoveries, viz., that the will-influence may act beyond the limits of the body? Now, if the thoughts of one person may become known to another by some other means than light or sound, this too should be classed, not as a falsehood, but as a new step in Nature's secrets. And if Nature keeps on and continues to yield her secrets, why despair of at length proving the humbug of the soul's existence? Hume's old argument was that "it is much more common for man to lie than for tables to 'tip'"--that is quite true; but its force as an argument is at an end. It was much more common for men to lie than new continents to be discovered, but the continent is discovered notwithstanding; and so, also, do the tables tip. When spirit communication is fully proven, we will then just simply class it along with its fellows, and call it a new discovery; but we say it is not proven yet to our satisfaction. There is not one fact in Spiritualism but may be accounted for without supposing that man has any conscious existence beyond this life. What if a table does move? Does that prove that immortal spirits of the dead exist? What if the answers are intelligent? Does that prove that the intelligence manifested is due to none but the departed? What if the fiddles do play without a visible performer? Does that show that living men do not do it in some unknown way?
    I acknowledge that the playing of a harp without mechanical force is strange indeed; but it is just as easy to conceive that the spirit which plays it is in the flesh, as that it is out of the flesh; and why not refer it to an intelligent cause, known to exist, than to a like cause, not known to exist? Man, we know, exists: Spirits we do not know to exist. Nevertheless, if the phenomena could not be accounted for upon any other hypothesis, then we, of course, would receive the spirit theory.
    Rogue River Valley (Oregon), July 1st, 1857.
Boston Investigator, August 26, 1857, page 1


    MR. EDITOR:--Philosophers are well agreed that a certain configuration of brain is constantly attended with certain peculiar mental characteristics; that the absence of certain portions of brain is always attended by absence of certain mental qualities, and the presence of certain portions always attended with certain mental qualities--hence we call this constant coincidence a law of Nature. Up to this point, all observers are agreed. But now the questions arise, 1st, do these constantly attendant phenomena stand in the relation of cause and effect? and if so, 2ndly, which is the efficient cause? 1st, is the organ of cautiousness in the living brain and the corresponding function related as cause and effect? 2nd, if so, is the presence of this organ the efficient cause of terror, fear, and circumspection? Upon this most vital point hinges great and important issues. Let us first place upon the record, following each other, the opinions of O. S. Fowler and Geo. Combe--the latter acknowledged to be the greatest of living philosophers:
    "The organs of acquisitiveness, destructiveness, &c., are only instruments of the corresponding propensities, and not the propensities themselves, nor the CAUSES of them; and their development is in a great degree the EFFECT and not the cause of the exercise of the corresponding passions; hence very large acquisitiveness, destructiveness, instead of urging their possessors to theft and violence, are merely instruments by means of which these vicious passions are exercised."--[Practical Phrenology by O. S. Fowler, page 385.
    "The leading fact, then, which arrests our attention in this inquiry is that every crime proceeds from some abuse of some faculty or other; and the question immediately arises, whence originates the tendency to abuse? Phrenology enables us to answer, from three sources. 1st, from particular organs being too large, and spontaneously active; 2nd, from great excitement produced by external causes, or 3rd, from ignorance of what are uses and what are abuses of the faculties."--[Combe's Constitution of Man, page 295.
    Here we see, while Mr. Fowler is stoutly maintaining that "very large" animal organs have no tendency to even "URGE" their possessor to abuse them, Mr. Combe is maintaining that the tendency to abuse them originates in their being unduly developed; but let us contrast their views a little farther:
    "And size of these organs shows only how much their guilty possessor has chosen to exercise the corresponding propensities. The size of an organ, then, does not cause the strength of the corresponding propensity, but is itself caused by the strength of the passion. It is true, indeed, that when an organ is very large, the corresponding faculty is spontaneously the more powerful and well nigh uncontrollable; but the guilty individual had no right thus to indulge the passion and thereby enlarge the organ. The same principle, reversed, applies to the small organs. When a given organ, say conscientiousness or veneration, is small, this deficiency shows, not that the individual cannot be just or worship his Maker, but simply that he has not been and done so."--[Pract. Phrenology by O. S. Fowler, p. 389.
    "The moral and intellectual powers next demand, what is the cause of particular organs being too large and active in individuals? Phrenology, for answer, points to the law of hereditary descent, by which the organs most energetic in parents determine those which shall predominate in the child. Intellect then infers that, according to this view, certain individuals are unfortunate at birth, in having received organs from their parents so ill proportioned that abuse of them is almost an inevitable consequence if they are left to the sole guidance of their own suggestions. Phrenology replies that the fact appears to be exactly so. Moreover, intellect perceives, and the moral sentiments acknowledge, that these causes exist independently of the will of the offender. The criminal is not the cause of the unfortunate preponderance of the animal organs in his own brain."--[Combe's Constitution of Man, p. 296.
    Here we see while Mr. Fowler maintains that the "guilty" individual is the "guilty" cause of the spontaneous activity and great size of his animal organs, Mr. Combe maintains the exact opposite. Mr. Editor, it is a sad commentary upon the fallibility of human reason to witness such conflicting opinions by those who pretend to be the true expounders of the book of Nature to mankind! Mr. Fowler tells us, in his chapter on "Causality," that the only cause of failure in not arriving at true conclusions is the want of sufficient data or from feebleness of the organ of causality. Now, either himself or Mr. Combe has "feeble" causality, or else there is not sufficient data to enable one to arrive only at conjectural opinions in relation to the points in dispute between them, himself being judge. When Mr. Fowler says that "a deficient organ of conscientiousness shows not that the individual cannot be honest, but simply that he has not been and done so," and by parity of reasoning that "defective reasoning organs show not that the individual cannot be a good reasoner, but simply that he HAS not been and done so," he leaves me no room only to suspect that his causality is not as strong as it might be!
    The fallacy of petitio principii lurks through all that Mr. Fowler has ever written upon moral philosophy. For example, take the following: "If an individual wish to reduce the size of an organ, let him cease to exercise the corresponding faculties, and it will be done; let the blacksmith swing up in a sling his hand which he has made strong by exercise, and it will soon dwindle away." (Ph. p. 339.) Here are two points covertly assumed: 1st, that an individual in whom the animal organs entirely predominate can "cease" and choose to cease to exercise them from an act of free will. Now this is the very point in dispute, and which he all the while pretends to be establishing! Combe says, "Predominant animal organs will not guide themselves to virtue, and the directing power then must be supplied by other minds," 2nd, it is covertly assumed that an abstract entity called mind exists; that this mind has a free will power; that the organs are the mere "instruments" of this mind; that this free-will mind can exercise any organ of the brain at pleasure, or let it alone, just as a carpenter uses his adz, or a blacksmith his right arm; that the same relation exists between this mind's free will as exists between our will and the voluntary muscles. What a tissue of assumptions! If the chances of his being wrong in his conclusions be in proportion to the joint product of his doubtful premises, there are some 700 chances of his being: wrong to 1 of being right!
    Let us see. Mr. Fowler says, "Sir, if you wish to "reduce the inordinate size of your organ of 'love of life,' just cease to exercise its functions; cease to care anything about your life, and the organ will soon dwindle away!" Mr. Editor, is not such philosophy what you sometimes call "twaddle"? "If you wish to lessen your inordinate 'bump' of caution, cease being terrified at approaching danger, and the organ will soon grow smaller!" If you wish to diminish your combativeness and destructiveness, cease to get angry when a fellow spits in your face! In maintaining this doctrine, that the will bears to the animal organs the same relation that it does to the voluntary muscles, Mr. Fowler has evidently got the cart before the horse.
    If this hypothesis of Mr. Fowler is true, that the organs are, in a true and proper sense, only INSTRUMENTS, then the mind or will acts first, and the brain is acted upon by the will power. When I lift a hoe, I move before the hoe; and if this figure or relation is the same as that subsisting between the supposed mind and brain, then mind first moves, and then communicates this motion to the organs. Thus mind is supposed to act independent of brain, and on the brain; but it is said, "Mind cannot act without brain in this life." Again, if the mind possesses this free will power of suspending the action of the organs, what evidence have we that the best developed brains will not yet turn out in the end the worst of characters? How do we know but the free will powers of the individuals will not "cease" to exercise their highly developed moral organs, and let them all "dwindle away" like a blacksmith's arm in a "sling"? and what assurance does Mr. Fowler's hypothesis give us that he himself will not, by his free will power, obtain lodgings in Sing Sing or Auburn? None whatever. His will, being free, is governed by no law of Nature in its determinations, and is, therefore, no longer within the sphere or range of causality.
    How, I ask, can causality predict the course which a being will choose, if that being's choice is governed by no law? (Deity himself is governed by the eternal laws of his own essence and nature.) Again, what assurance does Mr. Fowler's hypothesis give us that those old and inveterate criminals, which Mr. Combe pronounced to be incorrigible, will not, by an act of volition or free will, so "dwindle" down their great animal organs and increase their moral organs, that they will become patterns of piety in--"a very short time"? I ask, who knows, since Mr. F. declares, on page 390, that "they are as free to cultivate one organ as another, and perfectly free to cultivate any organ to any desirable extent?"
    Mr. Editor, as I write from a great distance, please insert the whole of this much too long communication. My intention is simply to call the attention of philosophers to an important question, and to prevent science from becoming corrupted by false dogmas.
    Rogue River Valley (Oregon), Aug. 1st, 1857.
Boston Investigator, September 16, 1857, page 1


    MR. EDITOR:--All I intended at the outset was to show that the conclusion of Dr. Hammett, that "no Deity exists," did not follow from his premises. Dr. Hammett commits the fallacy of assuming as demonstrated, "that no Deity exists," merely because he is able to show that a certain argument, used to prove God's existence, is fallacious! Because "adaptation alone" does not prove a Deity, "therefore no Deity exists"! Would he deny the truth of a proposition merely because he sees that someone's argument in support of that proposition is fallacious?
    Deists do not maintain that "adaptation alone" proves a Deity. On the contrary, they say that the eternal adaptations of space and matter, as well as the eternal adaptations of God and matter, do not and cannot indicate a designing cause. The Dr.'s syllogism is at last before your readers:
    Major--"If one admitted instance of regular adaptation had no designing cause, it cannot be inferred that the world and its inhabitants were formed by design from the fact alone that their structure exhibits regular adaptation;
    Minor--But (whether a Deity exists or not) some admitted instance of regular adaptation had no designing cause--
    Conclusion--Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the world and its inhabitants were formed by design from the fact alone that their structure exhibits regular adaptation."
    Now, instead of the conclusion here expressed, the Dr. dexterously substitutes another, viz., "Therefore no Deity exists." Let us take a similar syllogism, viz.--
    Major--"If one admitted instance of an animal exists without a liver, it cannot be inferred that the lion has a liver from the 'fact alone' that he is an animal;
    Minor--But one animal is admitted as existing without a liver--
    Conclusion--Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the lion has a liver from the 'fact alone' that he is an animal."
    Now, suppose that, instead of the conclusion here expressed, another and different one had been artfully submitted, viz., "Therefore, the lion has no liver"? This would be doing just what Dr. Hammett has done in the syllogism he has placed before your readers.
    Now, is it not plain that the admission, that the bear has no liver, does not necessarily involve the admission that the lion may have no liver, only from him who should infer or contend so "from the fact alone" that the lion was an animal?
    He who contends that "adaptation alone" proves a Deity stands confuted whenever he admits that some, or one, adaptation exists without design; yet he, who so refutes his opponent, does not thereby prove that "no Deity exists."
    Now mark! We do not infer that goats ruminate from the "fact alone" that they are animals.
    So, neither do we infer that the knee joint was designed to bend, from the "fact alone" that it exhibits adaptation.
    We infer that the goat ruminates from the fact that it belongs to the class of horned animals.
    We infer that the knee was designed to bend, from the fact that we are able to refer it to the class of mechanical arrangements.
    Oh! but says the Dr., "This is virtually to infer design from its adaptation alone." Not so; no more than the inference that an animal ruminates from the fact that it wears horns "is virtually to infer" the same from the fact that it is an animal only.
    Dr. Hammett grants not one "fact alone," but two, viz., 1st, Man had a cause; 2nd, His structure exhibits adaptation.
    Now is this not sufficient to establish Deism? I know, indeed, that some Deists have used the word "adaptation" in a careless and indefinite manner; and if I should say that man must have had a cause, from the fact that his structure exhibited adaptation, the Dr. would reply--"You admit that some adaptations are eternal," "therefore man is eternal"; and this conclusion would be just as fairly proven, and in the same manner, as the one that "no Deity exists." Thus, the Dr. can prove, out of a man's own admissions, that man is eternal, and yet he don't feel like receiving the conclusion as a truth.
    But Deists do infer that man had a beginning, and an intelligent cause, from the mechanical arrangement of his structure. The Dr. replies that this is "virtually" to infer from adaptation "alone." This constitutes his constant blunder. True is it, that all mechanical arrangements are adaptations, but all adaptations are not mechanical arrangements. All goats are animals, but all animals are not goats. He who infers a quality from the fact that A is a goat, does not do so from the fact that A is an animal. So, he who infers from mechanism does not do so from the fact that mechanism is adaptation.
    The Dr. has it this way: "He who infers a quality of a goat, infers from an animal, because a goat is an animal." "He who infers from mechanism, infers from adaptation, because mechanism is adaptation." It is not the fact that goats are animals only, or that mechanisms are adaptations only, that the respective inferences are drawn from.
    Thus, Mr. Editor, have I trailed this wary skeptic through all his winding labyrinths. His logic bears not the test of scientific analysis. But why, after all, have I not a right to use his admissions against himself, as well as he my admissions against myself? He admits that man had a beginning and a cause, viz., old "regular adaptation," and he likewise admits that our structure exhibits adaptation.
    Well, are not here two important premises conceded? and does he who argues from both of them, infer from adaptation "alone"? Now, if Deists had admitted that some adaptations had non-intelligent causes, the Dr. would have had them fast; but, as it happens, the eternal adaptations, admitted by Deists, have no cause by hypothesis.
    But the Dr. said, "The works of Nature exhibit adaptation alone." True, the works of Nature all exhibit adaptation, and also the things adapted; so does a certain enclosure contain only animals; but remember, that the word "animal" includes both frogs and lizards.
    But Dr. Hammett is author of another syllogism, besides the famous one above considered. It is as follows:
    Major--"No one can infer an intelligent cause from the fact that the works of Nature exhibit adaptation only;
    Minor--The works of Nature exhibit adaptation only--
    Conclusion--Therefore, no one can infer that the works of Nature have an intelligent cause."
    Here follows a similar syllogism:
    Major--No one can infer that a hole can be bored, from the fact that his "kit" exhibits implements only;
    Minor--The "kit" of a mechanic exhibits implements only--
    Conclusion--Therefore, no mechanic can infer that a hole can be bored.
    Both these syllogisms look specious at first sight. The answer is, to the first, that the term "adaptation" includes mechanism, order, and a host of other species, from which intelligence is inferred. The answer to the second is, that the word "implement" embraces bits, gouges, and augers, by either of which a mechanic can easily make a hole.
    We now give Dr. Hammett over to hardness of heart and reprobacy of mind.
    Rogue River Valley (Oregon), Sept. 1st, 1857.
Boston Investigator, December 2, 1857, page 1


    MR. EDITOR:--In maintaining that the human mind is so constituted as to believe that "like causes will produce like effects under like circumstances," and that "peculiar arrangements of matter are the effects of mind," we do not wish to be understood as maintaining that these maxims are true simply from the fact that they are universally believed. Neither do we insist that there is a material "extended" universe simply because such is the universal belief of mankind. The earth was once believed to be a flat plane, around which the sun and stars revolved, but this universal belief did not prove that it was flat. Does the fact that "man is constantly liable to err in his conclusions," in the least shake Dr. Hammett's confidence in that particular maxim, which asserts "that like causes will produce like effects"? if so, why does he quote this maxim so often? According to Dr. H., this maxim is as much a "conclusion" of or from reasoning as any other conclusion; and if so, then, according to Dr. H., it may be erroneous.
    Now, while he maintains it to be a "conclusion" of reason, I, on the contrary, maintain that it lies at the foundation of all reasoning; and that we cannot begin to reason until we first assume the truth of this maxim as a premise; that, therefore, the maxim itself is not a conclusion derived from reasoning, but an ultimate judgment, derived from "simple perception" or comparison of facts. This distinction is of vital importance, and should be borne in mind. By the phrase "ultimate judgment," is not meant a self-evident judgment, as Dr. H. mistakenly supposes. There are no self-evident judgments outside of mathematics, except those which relate to facts immediately perceived by the senses. Even the proposition that "a stone, under given circumstances, will fall," is, according to Dr. H., "a conclusion": and if so, not self-evident, unless there be such a thing as a "self-evident conclusion"! Dr. Hammett alleges that I "cannot sustain the position" that the proposition, which alleges that mechanism must have an intelligent author, "is a self-evident proposition." I did not call it "self-evident," but "ultimate." But why call upon a man to prove that a certain proposition is self-evident? Whoever was able to prove that which is self-evident? Dr. Hammett has strange ideas indeed!
    We maintain, then, that the maxims that "like causes under like circumstances will produce like effects," and "mechanism has an intelligent author," are elementary judgments, derived immediately from an induction of facts. By which phrase (induction of facts) is meant the act of bringing in, one by one, of examples to warrant our laying down the premises (not "conclusion") of our argument. Even Atheists boast that Deists "cannot prove by argument that the mechanical arrangement of the human frame is the effect of design," and this is quite true. We cannot prove by argument our major and ultimate premise, that "all mechanism is of design," because it is an ultimate premise, derived from (if not innate) immediate comparison of facts. There are no other more elementary premises back of it, and standing between it and simple facts. Now, if this maxim is not an ultimate judgment, derived immediately from facts, then it is a "conclusion," true or false, derived from premises, true or false, which lie between it and facts; and if so, where are those premises, and what are they? I fail to discover any.
    All writers upon natural theology take the premises for granted, and content themselves with merely establishing the "minor" premise, that "Nature does exhibit examples of mechanism." Paley's reason, why that watch had not "lain there forever," was that it was a mechanized substance; taking it entirely for granted (as he had to) that mechanism, if established, was sufficient. Indeed, I have shown, by the example of the "coppers" and letters, that the mind is so constituted as to grant that certain peculiar arrangements of matter are due only to intelligence, and that this peculiar arrangement is the highest and only evidence of the fact.
    Now we have before explained that the term "mechanism" is not of as extensive signification as the term "adaptation," and, therefore, that one can maintain that "all mechanism is of intelligence," and deny that "all adaptations are of intelligence"; just as one can admit that "all animals are not web-footed," and still maintain that "all ducks are web-footed"; and it would be futile to reply that "a duck is merely an animal." Yet Dr. H. attempts what is equally absurd: he replies that mechanism is "merely adaptation," and that we are "VIRTUALLY" predicating intelligence of adaptation! Dr. Hammett's argument, then, launched against adaptation, hits no one, unless he is weak enough to maintain that "ALL adaptation is due to design"--a proposition we have expressly denied.
    Rogue River Valley (Oregon), Oct, 15, 1857.
Boston Investigator, January 6, 1858, page 1


    Dr. Hammett makes frequent reference to the maxim that "like effects must have like causes," yet entirely rejects its application when he is bound, as a disputant, to admit its full force, for he expressly says, "Nature SEEMS to act as though she were intelligent"--that is, in other words, "These effects are SIMILAR to the effects of intelligence." Why not then admit that their cause is intelligent, as the maxim requires? He has admitted all that the most strenuous Deist ever attempted to prove, namely, that there "SEEMS" to be an intelligent cause in Nature.
    But Dr. H. insists that the true interpretation of this maxim requires that the Deity be an organized being, possessing eyes, mouth, nose, hands, and stomach, for, says he, if the Deity had not these, "how could he invent their organs?" Let us see. When Dr. H. hears a familiar tune, and no visible performer (as LaRoy Sunderland alleges), does this maxim require that the cause be flesh and blood? If not, then in what sense does the maxim require similarity of cause? Simply, I apprehend, that the cause be real and sufficiently intelligent.
    Dr. Hammett, in assuming that consciousness in man is the effect of organization, and that therefore, from analogy, the same must be true of the Deity, is treading upon doubtful ground. If consciousness be the direct sequence of organization, why are we not conscious in sound sleep? Organization is not destroyed by sleep. Yet, according to Dr. H., the cause (organization) remains, but the effect (consciousness) ceases! If mind be a substance, then its elements are eternal, and Deity, being eternal by hypothesis, never "BECAME" conscious of his own existence.
    Dr. Hammett is like one who, being driven from the open ground, plunges into a thicket so dense that neither pursuer nor pursued can tell where he is drifting--he plunges into the profound mysteries of mind and its phenomena, where the wise and foolish are alike bewildered. I have all along admitted that adaptation is eternal in the universe, that iron, from its greater density, is adapted to cut wood, when properly wrought into shape--that space is "adapted" to contain matter, not that mind is "adapted" to produce organization. But these admissions do not entitle Dr. Hammett to assume that the inherent properties of unconscious matter are such as at least to "become conscious of its own existence."
    Dr. Hammett has been forced to lay down his proposition with a material qualification; he now says, "Nature is constant within certain moderate limits"--this is all we ask. But Dr. Hammett has settled it that man came originally from an egg, and he quotes the maxim ("every living being came from an egg"). The plain version of this is that matter had an eternal inherent tendency to combine spontaneously into two eggs about the same time, one in close proximity to the other; the one containing the rudiments of a man, and the other the rudiments (precious rudiments) of a woman. Then unthinking old adaptation took care that these eggs were not allowed to become "addled." No doubt adaptation labeled them, "Right side up with care"--and finally they were "hatched" (bless that day!).
    Now, Mr. Editor, if this tendency was "inherent" in matter, it is still inherent. Why not look with hope and confidence for more eggs, then, in due season? An account was given not long since in the Investigator, of the finding of the fossil remains of two enormous egg shells upon the island of Madagascar, not referable to any known species. May not these shells have once contained the rudiments of the human race? If Dr. Hammett is right--they may.
    But Dr. H. insists that, since the proximate cause of man and animals (pro-creation) is the action of non-intelligent matter, so also, "by analogy," their prime cause must be non-intelligent. This is about as philosophical as to urge that, since the proximate cause of motion in a boat is non-intelligent elastic steam, therefore boat, machinery, and all, are the result of non-intelligent forces! But the position (that if the proximate cause be non-intelligent, so also must the prime cause), proves too much, for the immediate cause of a watch is an intelligent being, so also must its prime cause be intelligent, by the Doctor's own rule.
    According to Dr. Hammett, the prime cause of a watch or will is the "non-intelligent, non-ordial, eternal adaptation inherent in matter." This formed man, and man made the watch! Thus when the proximate cause (man) is intelligent, the prime cause is "non-intelligent adaptation." But when the proximate cause (procreation) is non-intelligent, the prime cause is non-intelligent also! Thus he virtually denies all analogy between proximate and primeval causes, and can claim nothing from his supposed analogy.
    Rogue River Valley (Oregon), Oct. 15, 1857.
Boston Investigator, January 13, 1858, page 1


    ANOTHER FLOOD.--The week has furnished to us another flood. It lasted through Wednesday and Thursday. Jackson Creek boomed up into a very fair-sized river, spanning one hundred feet breadth just below its mouth, in town, and rose to a greater height than at either of the previous floods. Three families were obliged to leave their homes, a part of a lot on Oregon Street was washed away, and some injury done to gardens. In the county, the loss was severe. Bear Creek rose higher than ever. At Gasburg a portion of the race to the flour mill and the tannery was destroyed, about thirty acres of Colver's farm was washed away, and Oatman's orchard was swept of every tree. Farms in that neighborhood and above have sustained much loss. Throughout the county, but particularly on Butte and Antelope creeks, cattle have greatly suffered. Several hundred have already perished. Judge Tolman, who came from home by stage on Sunday, says the roads are too bad to talk about.
Semi-Weekly Gazette, Jacksonville, January 21, 1862, page 3


    COLD WEATHER.--We are informed by private letter from our old friend, Samuel Colver, who left Phoenix for the northern mines about two months ago, but who has been water-bound and ice-bound in the Willamette Valley since his arrival there, that the thermometer on the 17th day of January stood 22 degrees below zero, ten degrees lower than ever known before.
    That beats Southern Oregon about 24 degrees. We were inclined to grumble at the cold weather here, but we take it all back. Gentlemen, you have us again.
Oregon Sentinel, Jacksonville, February 8, 1862, page 2


    One of the pronounced supporters of the Union, however, was Samuel Colver, who lived at Phoenix and who, with his wife, Hulda Colver, had built the big house in the other end of Phoenix in 1855, which still stands and which is now known as the "Old Stage House." I got this picture from Mr. C. C. Beekman, who was a witness to what took place. This Samuel Colver was in Jacksonville one morning in John Miller's hardware store and, as was his custom, he gave vent to his strong Union sympathy and to a considerable degree condemned the attitude of those Southern sympathizers for not supporting the Union in this struggle. While he was giving vent to his feelings, Horace Ish, a man weighing 180 lbs. or more, struck Mr. Colver over the back of the head with a pick handle and rendered him unconscious. Shortly thereafter he recovered consciousness, gathered himself together and he took this man Ish by the nape of the neck and the seat of the breeches and threw him out into the street and then jumped onto him and gave him a severe beating. This incident expresses the strong feeling that then existed in this county.
Address by Gus Newbury, Aug. 7, 1949 at Jacksonville's Gold Rush Jubilee, Southern Oregon Historical Society Research Library, Gus Newbury vertical file. According to the court dockets--May 11, 1855, above--the altercation took place six years before the Civil War began. The Ishes were the only ones arrested. My assumption is that Colver got the worst of the battle.


    ARRIVED.--Samuel Colver, known to everybody in this valley, has returned home from the northern gold fields. He visited our sanctum today. His description of the ruffianism prevalent in the northern mines is anything but complimentary to the state of society there. He was beaten with a pistol and left for dead by "English," who was subsequently hung by order of Judge Lynch. Colver is satisfied with the north.
    The day on which he returned, his fine horse "Prince Albert" died. On the next day one of his finest Morgan horses "kicked the bucket." All of this by way of welcome.
Oregon Sentinel, Jacksonville, December 20, 1862, page 2


LION HEART, will stand for mares the ensuing season at Samuel Colver's Gasburg, the season to commence on the first day of April and ending on the first day of July, 1863.
    Terms.--Ten dollars for single leap; $20 for season; $30 to ensure.
    Description.--Lion Heart is a beautiful dark brown, 15½ hands high, and weighs 1200 pounds. He combines in a remarkable degree those great essentials of a good horse, size, power, speed and bottom, with a docility of temper peculiar to this noble race of horses.
    Pedigree.--Lion Heart was sired by imported Lion Heart; his dam by Bashaw, owned and bred by R. Bruso, of Montreal.
    Lion Heart took the first premium at the principal fair of Lower Canada, in 1857, as light draft. We confidently recommend him as the best roadster in the state; his superiority as a stock horse has been thoroughly established in this state, one of his colts taking the first premium at the Oregon State Fair last year, as award to Daniel Goff, of Polk County; but we have other proofs of his superiority as s stock horse in this county, in the superiority of his colts, bred by J. Pinkham, F. H. Gray, J. Wrisley, J. C. Tolman, J. Hill, A. Rockfellow, H. Amerman, W. Beeson, and in fact all who have bred.
    Stock raisers are invited to call and see for themselves.
    Pasture will be furnished on reasonable terms to mares from a distance.
Phoenix, March 18, 1863.
Oregon Sentinel, Jacksonville, April 15, 1863, page 4


    Sometime in January 1865, Uncle Sam Colver came to me and said that Loui was crazy to enlist, and if I would promise to act as "big brother" to him he would consent to his joining the company. Of course I felt very highly flattered by his request, as it showed me that he held me in good esteem, and I trust my promise was faithfully kept.
Orson A. Stearns, Transactions of the Forty-Seventh Annual Reunion of the Oregon Pioneers Association, Portland, June 19, 1919, page 227.


    Ordered by the Board of Commissioners of Jackson County, Oregon, that Samuel Colver, Jr. be and he is hereby appointed Supervisor of Road District No. 3, in said County, for the ensuing year.
Jackson County Commissioners' Journals, February 8, 1866


    On Saturday, the 10th day of February, 1865, pursuant to notice, a large congregation of the citizens of this county met at the court house, in Jacksonville, for the purpose of organizing a Woolen Manufacturing Company in Jackson County.
    The meeting organized by electing E. D. Foudray, president, and B. F. Dowell,
secretary.
    Messrs. Thomas Smith, E. D. Foudray, B. F. Dowell. Dr. L. S. Thompson, Michael Hanley and Samuel Colver made speeches in behalf of building a factory, and they satisfied all present that a factory was practicable, and could be made very profitable; and that there were many places in the county affording the best of water power and fine healthy locations. Messrs. Smith, Colver and Foudray differed widely as to the place. Mr. Smith made an eloquent speech in behalf of Ashland, and Messrs. Foudray and Colver contended that there was no place equal to Phoenix.
    On motion of Mr. Hanley, the meeting determined to appoint one person in each precinct of the county to solicit subscription, and thereupon the president appointed the following named persons: R. B. Hargadine, Ashland; Isaac Constant, Manzanita; M. Hanley, Jacksonville; Sam'l. Colver, Phoenix; Thos. Chavener, Dardanelles; N. C. Dean, Willow Springs; Tod. Cameron, Uniontown; C. Schieffelin, Perkinsville; John Sisemore, Table Rock; J. M. Nichols, Butte Creek; M. H. Drake, Forest Creek; Mr. Laylock, Evans Creek; Nicholas Wright, Steamboat City; Capt. Saltmarsh, Sterlingville.
    On motion, the committee was requested to meet in Jacksonville, on Saturday, February 24th, 1866. The meeting then adjourned until the first Saturday in April, 1866, at which time the report of the committee will be submitted.
B. F. DOWELL, Secretary.
Oregon Sentinel, Jacksonville, February 17, 1866, page 2


    The Abolition organs tell us that their party brethren in Jackson County had a very harmonious county convention, and that everything looks promising for their cause there. To show upon what foundation they say this we think it is unnecessary to present more than the following happy condition of things among the Abolition, Radicals and Conservatives of Jackson County:
    WHEREAS, A few selfish and designing men of both parties have, by joint conference, nominated themselves for state and county offices without the consent of the people, thereby ignoring the sovereign voice of the people in the choice of their servants--a right sacred to the cause of liberty and the government, and
    WHEREAS, Said nominees are secretly and corruptly corporating their ticket in the several precincts of the county, thereby securing the nomination of men obnoxious to the people, they thus defraud by disgracing the official places they aspire to desecrate; and, whereas, self-constituted nominees and political tricksters have been guilty of consorting with traitors, and the open and avowed enemies of our country, during the late rebellion, aiding and abetting them to procure government contracts by the fraudulent use of their names as principals in said contracts, thereby giving aid and comfort to its enemies by lending their names on commission to do business on rebel account; and whereas, some self-constituted nominees are utterly unfit for, and unworthy of, the trust and confidence of honest men of any party, and are secretly plotting the destruction of the Union Party, and are diligently at work under the wily political sorehead, C. S. Drew, who is the political brainpan of this conspiracy against the treasury of the United States, while L. S. Thompson is merely his business tool to do his dirty work, subject to the control of his more sagacious master; and, whereas, the said C. S. Drew is seeking to merge the Union Party in the treason-branded Democratic Party through the support of Nesmith, whose well-known preference for peace and Pendleton mark him as the true representative of this corrupt combination of treasury speculators, known as the Drew faction, who are now the self-constituted nominees for state and county offices. Therefore,
    Resolved, 1st. That by such an assumption of power to dictate to the citizens of this county who their servants shall be months before the convention for the selection of such servants, they have shown a degree of impudence unwarranted and an amount of insolence intolerable to free men.
    Resolved, 2nd. That to resist usurpation of a treason-branded junto, such as the Drew faction, is a right sacred to free men, and that we do declare ourselves independent of the dictations of this combination of treasury speculators, and pledge ourselves, as the people, to resist their encroachments upon our rights and t» use all endeavors, consistent with justice, to oppose their treasonable designs.
    Resolved, 3rd. That we will not support these men in convention or at the ballot box, and that it is the duty of all loyal men to be on their guard and not unwittingly pledge themselves to their support.
    Resolved, 4th. That realizing as we do that there is a corrupt tendency arising from an accumulation of funds more than sufficient to meet the expenses of government, we are decidedly in favor of a reduction of our taxes, so as to meet the current expenses of the county only, as they accrue.

	A. Gillette,	S. Colver,	I. D. Applegate,
	B. F. Myer,	J. G. Van Dyke,	A. G. Rockfellow,
	E. E. Gore,	O. C. Applegate,	J. C. Tolman,
	W. Beeson,	Jacob Wagner,	I. Wagner.

    We are informed by credible and responsible citizens of this county that one S. Colver and others are, and have been, circulating through this county reports which are totally without foundation, and derogatory to our character as Union men, and it is due to us that we have a copy of these charges made against us, and due to the Union men of Jackson County that they should know, after a fair hearing, whether these charges are true or not, and we challenge investigation.

	L. S. Thompson,	J. M. Sutton,
	John S. Love,	N. Langell,
	C. C. Beekman,	C. F. Wilson,
	R. S. Dunlap,	R. Benedict,

State Rights Democrat, Albany, Oregon, March 24, 1866, page 3


    BEAR CREEK.--This stream was up very high during they late rains, and done much damage in places. The road this side of Eagle Mills, though passable, is very materially injured. The greatest havoc committed was at Phoenix. Opposite S. Colver's residence, the current set in to the west bank, washing it away to the old race, and seriously endangering E. D Foudray's mill. Lower down, the vats of M. Lindley's tannery were washed out. The water then bore to the other side, and cut a channel through S. Colver's field, leaving Lindley's sawmill and dam high and dry. The damages below do not seem to be as great, though the fences in the bottom are injured.
Oregon Sentinel, Jacksonville, January 26, 1867, page 2


    The Press, of Jacksonville, says: "The late storm played sad havoc with the farms along Bear Creek, some of them being almost totally ruined. Sam. Colver is about the heaviest sufferer. He says he has scarcely land enough left to hold a mortgage."
"Northern Coast Items," Daily Alta California, San Francisco, February 25, 1867, page 1


Sir,
    On the 31st day of January last Orson A. Stearns was relieved from duty as Farmer on Klamath Reservation, and on the 1st inst. L. Colver was appointed in his stead.
Hon. J. W. Perit Huntington
    Supt. of Indian Affairs
        in Oregon.
NARA Series M2, Microcopy of Records of the Oregon Superintendency of Indian Affairs 1848-1873, Reel 25; Letters Received, 1868-1870, No. 204.


    Mr. Colver, who is known throughout the state, and knows it by intelligent observation, selected this valley for a home after having traveled all the states of the Union, except two. He raises upon his splendid farm a great variety of fruits of delicious flavor, and regards the valley as able to compete with any agricultural region on the coast.
"Excursion to Southern Oregon," Oregon Sentinel, Jacksonville, July 1, 1871, page 1


    There was quite an excitement in [Oakland] last evening (Oct. 4th) from the fact that Hon. Sam. Colver, of Jackson County (a very able speaker), delivered a lecture on the "Swamp Land Bill." He took the position that "all the sections of the bill are disregarded by the applicants for swamp land," and he proved by reference to the different sections of the act that it was a swindle and a corrupt fraud upon the people; that the poor class were robbed of their homes "by a class of land sharks who had robbed many a homestead settler, that had spent years of hard toil and made their land valuable, of their just rights." Mr. Colver has a reputation in Southern Oregon of being an able speaker, a friend of justice and a war horse against all monopoly, and being a man of capital and mental ability gives him a greater influence against the land swindle of the last Oregon Legislature.
    Mr. Colver is traveling north and will visit Salem, Portland and all the principal towns of Oregon.
"Douglas County Correspondence," Morning Oregonian, Portland, October 10, 1871, page 1


    A petition headed Repeal, Repeal! of which the following is a copy, is being circulated by Hon. Samuel Colver, who intends making a canvass of the state:
    To the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled:We, the undersigned citizens of the State of Oregon, would respectfully represent that, under color of declarative pretense, in pursuance of the Act of Congress approved March 12th, 1860, the Legislature of the State of Oregon, at its last session, passed an Act providing for the selection and sale of the Swamp and Overflowed Lands belonging to the State of Oregon; and that under the provisions of the said Act of the Legislature, land speculators, members of the Legislature and their confreres made out, prior to the passage of said Act, filings to cover nearly all the lands claimed to be of the character denominated Swamp and Overflowed Lands; thereby creating a monopoly to the great injury of landless and laboring citizens; and further by acts of the Commissioner appointed to make the selections of Swamp and Overflowed Lands, Pre-emptors and Homestead settlers are being deprived of their just rights, in direct violation of the spirit of said Act of Congress, and in opposition to the genius of Republican institutions.
    The greater part of the lands thus claimed are made valuable only on account of the Overflow, thereby producing the finest of hay lands, without which large districts of country would be rendered wholly unfit for settlement.
    Therefore, believing that the grant of Congress has lapsed. and the subject matter fallen under the direct power and control of Congress, we respectfully ask for such legislation as will secure to actual settlers, in limited quantities, under the provisions of the Homestead and Pre-emption Rights, all lands that are of sufficient value to justify such settlements.
Oregon State Journal, Eugene, October 14, 1871, page 2


    Mr. Samuel Colver, of Klamath, comes before our citizens, representing the people of that district of our state and bearing an earnest appeal from many whose rights and property are threatened, for protection against the acts of speculators and land grabbers, who would not only take away the lands they claim by occupation, but would appropriate valuable improvements that have been constructed upon them and beggar honest families, who have selected homes upon our public lands in full faith in the government both of this state and the United States.
    The swamp lands of our state needed to be ascertained, selected and secured for the state, according to the act donating them to us. It was the proper work of the last Legislature to have this attended to, but it had occurred to certain speculators that a good thing could be made out of it if a law could be passed not only accomplishing this much, but authorizing parties to lay claim to them at a fixed price per acre, such claimants to have easy terms of purchase and priority over all others.
    It was the duty of that same Legislature to provide for the protection of actual settlers by positive provisions, but this was not a part of the speculation, so the settlers were left to take care of themselves, which they  might still have done had the act been allowed to run the ninety days, as usual before coming into force, but neither was this any part of the speculation, so an emergency clause was introduced causing the act to take immediate effect, and as soon as the Governor's signature was secured, messages were sent to accomplices by telegraph and agents dispatched in haste, and settlers whose lands could by possible stretch of imagination be construed as liable to overflow were astonished to find their farms claimed by land grabbers on pretense of legislation for which the public had no sufficient notice.
    We hear continually of men who are thus threatened with ruin and can name three cases in Coos County as samples of the wrongs done, where settlers have lived eight, ten and eleven years on their lands, and spent from two to four thousand dollars for improvements, to find them at this late day claimed by speculators under pretense of legislation by the state of which the settlers never beard.
    Mr. Colver has a memorial to the Governor and the Legislature asking for repeal of the law, and that immediate steps shall be taken to prevent the results of this disastrous policy. It is a matter of immediate moment, as private rights are threatened, so we hope to see whatever steps are possible taken to remedy the evil sought to be done. If the Executive has erred in approving such legislation, it is to be hoped that he will spare no effort to counteract the evil results that must arise under ft, and we do not believe that any individual in the state is as much interested in doing so as he should be--that is if he lives in expectation of any political hereafter.
Oregon Weekly Statesman, Salem, October 18, 1871, page 1


    LECTURERS.--We have only been blessed (?) with two lecturers during the week. The first one was Sam. Colver, who larrups the Legislature over the back because they passed the Swamp Land Act and gave some other man a chance to buy a patch of land in the neighborhood of his patch; and the other was Prof. Cheney, who slashes around among the stars and attempts to demonstrate that the Bible is an astronomical problem (its proper title being "The Sun Book") and that Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Job and Mrs. Job, and all the little Jobses, Balaam and his ass, etc., were all planets of a greater or less magnitude. He also maintains that Homer's Iliad is merely a work of fiction and that the Trojan War and the characters who figured in that singularly prolonged struggle for the possession of the "ravished Helen" never existed save in the poetic imagination of the blind minstrel of classic fame. The Professor challenges debate upon any and all propositions which he advances, but as he will scarcely succeed in destroying the influence of the Bible by his moonstruck attacks and as we are not particularly interested in knowing whether Achilles was a Greek warrior or a heathen deity, the writer hereof respectfully declines the controversy. 
State Rights Democrat, Albany, Oregon, October 20, 1871, page 4


    CROWDED OUT.--An editorial notice of S. Colver's peregrinations in Northern Oregon is crowded out of this issue. Will appear in our next.
Democratic Times, Jacksonville, October 21, 1871, page 2


    LECTURE ON SWAMP LANDS.--On Monday evening at the courthouse in this city, Hon. Samuel Colver, of Jackson County, delivered a most interesting lecture on the Swamp Land Bill of Oregon, painting with master hand the outrageous fraud perpetrated upon the people of Oregon in the passage of that bill. A petition, setting forth the grievances of actual settlers on the public lands, and praying Congress to so legislate that the rightful occupants of small tracts of land shall not be dispossessed by those seeking to acquire large tracts of the public domain for merely speculative purposes, was circulated, and largely signed by those present. Copies of the petition have been left at this office, where they can be obtained by anyone wishing to circulate them for signatures.
Albany Register, October 21, 1871, page 5


    Sam Colver has found a new grievance. Having demolished whiskey, destroyed slavery, annihilated his opponents in the Radical Party, and made of himself a nuisance generally, he has gone off on a crusade in Northern Oregon against the Swamp Land Law. He did not commence his crusade nearer home than Eugene City, because we know him and his antecedents so well here that Samuel concluded it would be an uphill business. As many persons in the northern portion of the state do not know this new apostle of the Anti-Swamp Land Dispensation, we propose to enlighten them a little.
    Colver denounces what he calls the "Swamp Land Ring," and yet belongs to a land ring so despicably mean that all other rings sink into utter insignificance in comparison to it. We charge upon him, without fear of successful contradiction, that he and three or four of his confreres on Link River squatted on state lands, and held the same for years without paying one cent to the state for them or a mill to the county in taxes. We charge further that this "Colver Ring" fenced in thousands of acres of swamp land to which they had no shadow of claim, and used the same for their benefit and excluded bona fide settlers by their pretended claims. We charge further, that this "Colver Ring" fenced in and claimed every available spring and watering place in their vicinity on the west side of Little Klamath Lake, and thus gained control of thousands more acres of range for their own cattle, to the exclusion of bona fide settlers. We charge further, that when setting up their claims to these lands, springs and watering places, the "Colver Ring" well knew that they had no legal and valid claim to those lands, and could not have under the limitation laws of this state, and by their claims they knowingly perpetrated a double swindle on the state--first, by defrauding it out of the prices of these lands, which would willingly have been paid by bona fide settlers, and, secondly, by defrauding the state out of the revenue due from the taxation of these lands. That they knowingly perpetrated a fraud on persons desiring to purchase some of these lands by informing them that they were the owners, and by fencing them in as such, and that they knowingly defrauded the county out of the taxes due from these lands if held by bona fide purchasers. We charge upon Samuel Colver, the great apostle of the Anti-Swamp Land Dispensation, the chief howler of the Squatters’ Synagogue--that he, himself, individually, was engaged all last spring in a frantic search after swamp lands; that he visited Langell Valley and desired Mr. Arthur Langell to point out some swamp lands for him. He wanted 2,000 acres at first, and then begged for 200 acres; and then only wanted a little hay ranch--like the office seeker that went to Gen. Jackson for a Cabinet appointment, and, on refusal, begged successively and unsuccessfully for every minor office, finally going off contented with an old pair of boots and a pair of seatless trousers. Sam wanted a little of that swamp land "chicken pie," too. We charge upon the "Colver Ring" that they have done more to retard the settlement of the Klamath Lake country than all other things combined, by fencing and claiming the available springs and watering places, and thus gaining control of the stock range to the exclusion of honest settlers who were willing to buy the land and pay for it. Finally, we charge upon the "Colver Ring" that they never opened their pious mugs about the enormities of the Swamp Land Law until Hon. J. N. T. Miller, the Swamp Land Commissioner, commenced the survey of these lands and discovered the swindle the "Colver Ring" were perpetrating on the state and the people. We affirm that it was only when their little game was discovered that Colver armed himself for his crusade, and now we submit is he not a precious disciple to talk about "rings?" Is he not a delightful duck to shriek about land swindlers? Let some person in his audiences north ask Sam how much land he had control of by his fences on Link River to which he never had and could not have any right? The game is not worth the candle, certainly, but we cannot resist the temptation of again paying our respects to this ineffable humbug at an early day.
Democratic Times, Jacksonville, October 28, 1871, page 2  This article was reprinted by Albany's States Rights Democrat on November 10, page 1.


To the Hon. W. H. Odell, Surveyor General of Oregon:
    The undersigned, your petitioners, citizens of Jackson County and residents of Link River and the Klamath Lakes country, would respectfully represent that they are farmers and stock raisers, induced to settle in this part of the state on account of the advantages it affords for the latter employment. That rain falls so seldom and in such small quantities, that land, unless irrigated naturally or artificially, cannot be relied on for crops of grain, grass or vegetables. For this reason, the lands lying low along the margin of the lakes or streams are the only lands of value in the county, and if we are deprived of the use and ownership of them many of our farms are worthless, and we will all suffer great loss and injury.
    The Deputy who surveyed this country on the part of the government run his section lines to, and established his fractional corners, and run his meander lines along the margin of the low and valuable lands, and not along the bank of the river or lake, along which those lands extend. So that, besides the river or lake lying between these meander lines there are large tracts of valuable land, called "lake" or "marsh," which is neither--in either the legal or common-sense definition of those terms. But there is now here a party surveying the lands between the line of meanders established by the Deputy Surveyor and the lakes and rivers--claiming them as "swamp and overflowed lands," belonging to the state in virtue of an act of Congress granting the swamp and overflowed lands to the state in which they lie, and extended to Oregon and Minnesota on the 20th of March, 1860.
    By an iniquitous act of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon, approved October 26, 1870, it is provided that the swamp lands belonging this state "shall be sold to the first applicant, thereby cutting off all competition in the purchase of the lands of that description, which is to the pecuniary injury of this state, and does great injustice and injury to those settlers upon and contiguous to the land so claimed as swamp or overflowed."
    The first applications for swamp and overflowed lands on the waters of the Klamath Lakes and rivers bear even date with the approval of the act of the State Legislature, providing for their sale. The principal application is in the name of one A. J. Burnett, a member of the House of Representatives that passed this iniquitous law, and the remainder of them in the names of speculators, believed to be in collusion with said Burnett. We believe the passage of the law for the sale of those lands was procured by corrupt means--we know it is an injury to the state, and will greatly damage the settlers and settlement of this part of the country. The lands it will place in the hands of speculators and monopolies is of great extent and great value. Much of this land is neither "swamp nor overflowed," as is proven by the growth upon it--much of it is natural meadow, never being too wet for that purpose; and none of it too wet to be valuable for pasture lands, and will be purchased for that purpose so soon as it is brought into market.
    We therefore pray that you cause the public surveys to be extended over that portion of the lands now rendered as "swamp or lake," and the fractional corners and the meander lines placed upon the actual bank of the river or lake as the case may be, and the land so surveyed brought speedily into market.
    And whereas, by the proviso to the 1st section of the act of Congress of the 12th of March, 1860, granting swamp and overflowed lands to Minnesota and Oregon, "swamp and overflowed lands" may be taken up under the pre-emption and homestead laws prior to their cession to the state, we further pray that you cause the surveys asked for to be made speedily and in advance of the cession of the swamps on the Klamath waters to the state; and that you use your influence with the federal government to prevent the ceding of any swamps on the Klamath waters to the state until the surveys herein asked for are returned by you to the General Land Office.

	WENDELIN NUS,	O. A. STEARNS,
	CHAS. SCHNEIDER,	ISAAC LEWIS,
	A. HENNY,	I. FULKERSON,
	JOHN GLEIM,	GWIN BUTLER,
	J. D. CARR BY JESSE APPLEGATE,	GEO. THOMAS,
	JOS. PENNIG,	ROBT. WHITTLE,
	JOEL M. RAMBO,	T. D. SMALL,
	A. F. WOODRUFF,	J. H. MILLER,
	W. H. MILLER,	CHAS. TRAFTON,
Link River, Oct. 2, 1871.		I. R. MUNN.

 Democratic Times, Jacksonville, November 4, 1871, page 1


    A half-crazy bore, says the Plaindealer, named Sam Colver, who seems to be pleased with the sound of his own voice, which aside from its nasal twang is by no means mellifluous, has of late been engaged in peregrinating the state, lecturing on temperance, free love and the Swamp Land Act. His chief purpose seemed to be to circulate a petition to the next Legislature to amend the act, and to expatiate upon the wrongs committed on the actual settlers in the neighborhood of Link River and the Klamath Lakes, by the claimants taking possession of their homes. Sam is so well known in this portion of the state, that no reply would have to be made to his nonsense had not the Oregonian endorsed him and published his memorial. Now there is no editor in the state who does not know that by the terms of the act of March 20, 1860, extending the Swamp Land Act to Oregon and Minnesota, all claims taken under the acts of the United States, prior to the state act of Oct. 26, 1870, were specially excepted from its operation. If they did not know it from the act itself they might have been informed by the instructions issued to the Commissioners by the Board of School and University Lands, of which Gov. Grover is president, and which were published in all the papers of the state. To show who were the settlers in whose behalf Sam took such a lively interest, we copy from the Jacksonville Times:
    We charge upon him, without fear of successful contradiction, that he and three or four of his confreres on Link River squatted on state lands, and held the same for years, without paying one cent to the state for them or a mill to the county in taxes. We charge further that this "Colver Ring" fenced in thousands of acres of swamp land to which they had no shadow of claim, and used the same for their benefit and excluded bona fide settlers by their pretended claims. We charge further that this "Colver Ring" fenced in and claimed every available spring and watering place in their vicinity on the west side of Little Klamath Lake and thus gained control of thousands more acres or range for their own cattle, to the exclusion of bona fide settlers. We charge further that when setting up their claims to these lands, springs and watering places, the "Colver Ring" well knew that they had no legal and valid claim to those lands, and could not have under the limitation laws of this state, and by their claims they knowingly perpetrated a double swindle on the state--first, by defrauding it out of the price of these lands, which would willingly have been paid by bona fide settlers, and secondly by defrauding the state out of the revenue due from the taxation of these lands. That they knowingly perpetrated a fraud on persons desiring to purchase some of these lands by informing them that they were the owners, and by fencing them in as such, and that they knowingly defrauded the county out of the taxes due from these lands if held by bona fide purchasers.
    We charge upon the "Colver Ring" that they never opened their pious mugs about the enormities of the Swamp Land Law until Hon. J. N. T. Miller, the Swamp Land Commissioner, commenced the survey of these lands and discovered the swindle the "Colver Ring" were perpetrating on the state and the people.
    The above sufficiently explains the secret of Mr. Colver's objection to a law which will save to the state so many hundreds of thousands of dollars; and we can conclusively show that the larger part of the opposition to it arises from the same source.
Oregon City Enterprise, November 10, 1871, page 2


    Last week we published the petition [above] of nineteen "citizens of Jackson County," addressed to the Surveyor General of the state, which petition strikes us as intended more to give publicity to the names of those attached than for any practical benefit that can result. The effusion is evidently a hifalutin and nonsensical emanation from the brain of the irrepressible Sam Colver--"full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," and was gotten up in the interests of the "Ring," of which he is the "Bamboo Chief."
    In the first place, it claims that the petitioners are "farmers and stock-raisers" on Link River, but among the names we fail to see the names of Jacob Thompson, Dennis Crawley, O. T. Brown, E. F. Walker, Geo. Nurse and others, all well-known landholders in that vicinity who might be mentioned, whose names would have given character to such a petition. On the other hand, we find the name of Jesse D. Carr. Well, if Jesse D. Carr is a "citizen of Jackson Co.," a "farmer or stock-raiser'' here, it is as much a matter of news to citizens of this county as it will certainly be to his associates in San Francisco when they hear of it. After a recitation of grievances, these "farmers and stock-raisers'' and "citizens of Jackson County" proceed to ask the Surveyor General to extend the public surveys over a portion of land already returned on the public surveys as "lake," according to the petition. Whether the Surveyor General has the power to order a re-survey of public lands, after the first survey has been received and approved by the General Land Office, is a matter upon which we have the gravest kind of doubts. But let that be as it may; these modest "farmers" and "stock-raisers" deliberately ask the Surveyor General to initiate a conflict of jurisdiction between the state and general government about these lands--re-survey the same, and then throw them open to entry under the United States laws, whereby the state will lose the benefit of their sale as swamp and overflowed lands. We opine that if Surveyor General Odell is a man of common sense, as we believe him to be, he will not pay the slightest heed to these "farmers" and "stock-raisers."'
    Then, to cap the climax, the Surveyor General is asked to use his influence with the general government to prevent the cession of any of these lands to the state until the surveys asked for are made and returned to the General Land Office. No doubt Mr. Odell will do just what these men ask. They desire the cession to the state retarded in order that they may grab thousands of acres of valuable swamp lands which properly belong to the state, but which they fear they cannot grab under the state laws. There is the secret of the whole matter.
    If the Swamp Land Commissioner had not discovered the little game, whereby the "Colver Ring" was occupying and using thousands of acres of the public domain, to the exclusion of bona fide settlers, without paying a dime to the general government or a cent to the state in taxes, we would never have heard of the "farmers" and "stock-raisers'" petition. It makes all the difference in the world to the "Colver Ring'' whose ox is gored. No doubt they think they can make a political hobby of it, and indeed we fancy we see, in the columns of a cotemporary, the ears--lengthy ones, too--of the same anti-swamp land animal, upon which the proprietor finally hopes to ride into the capitol at Washington as Oregon's next representative. The profound dissertations on swamp lands, which appear weekly in the columns of a cotemporary, bring vividly to our remembrance those famous essays on "Water Rights and Irrigation," which were of so thrilling and interesting and profoundly learned a character that the very babies cried upon each appearance of the paper to have them read in their hearing. And the very last of this series of learned disquisitions is the more valuable as containing the views of an eminent Jackson County juris consult, who enlightens the world and astonishes mankind by illuminating the dark places of the swamp land law with copious extracts from his brief in the case of Fowler vs. Clugage, which, we believe, involved a construction of the Donation Law of Congress, instead of the swamp land law of the state. Had the modest and eminent jurist we allude to, placed the woodcut, which represents his handsome and intellectual visage, and which we are happy to notice appears in another column of the same paper, at the head of the extract, after the manner in which he illustrates his briefs in the Supreme Court, we would not more readily have discovered the learned author than we did on reading an authority, which so exactly filled the case in point. It is emphatically "wisdom in chunks," and legal lore on the half-shell. The case, the authority and its application are eminently characteristic, and exhaust the subject. There is no more to be said now, henceforth and forever. Let Colver burn his petition and return and hide his diminished head in the swamps of Link River, and let the "farmers" and "stock-raisers," and "citizens of Jackson County" preserve their souls in patience. The brief in the case of Fowler vs. Clugage, although not illustrated by the wooden head of the author, has settled the question. The thing is done. Swamp landers, "pass in your checks."
Democratic Times, Jacksonville, November 11, 1871, page 2


    THAT LECTURE.--Sam Colver, the swamp land apostle, held forth to several dozen of his "mutual admiration society" at the courthouse on Tuesday evening last. His lecture amounted to nothing as an argument, and only contained a mass of absurd incongruities strung together without method or order. Well, Sam can go on making a fool of himself as long as he likes, for, in his own words, "if he don't do it, somebody else will."
Democratic Times, Jacksonville, November 18, 1871, page 3


    SAM COLVER, the pioneer swamp land missionary, lectured several times at different points in this county, on Swamp Land, Woman's Rights and other subjects. He sold swamp land at seven cents per acre, and his hearers paid fifty cents each for the sell.--Coos County Rustic.
Democratic Times, Jacksonville, December 2, 1871, page 2


Hon. A. B. MEACHAM,
        Superintendent Indian Affairs:
General CANBY,
        Commanding Department Columbia:
    We, the undersigned, citizens of Lost and Link River, Klamath and Tule Lake country, after suffering years of annoyance from the presence of the Modoc Indians, who, through the delay of the Indian and Military Departments, have not been removed to the reservation, as required by the treaty stipulations of 1864, entered into by the authorized agents of the government and the chiefs of the Modoc Indians, by which all their lands were ceded to the United States except those embraced in the reservation, as stipulated in said treaty. But notwithstanding all the conditions of said treaty have been faithfully performed on the part of the government, it is a well-known fact that a fractious band of the Modocs, of about three hundred, who were parties to that treaty, have, through the influence of citizens of an adjoining state, who have been engaged in an illicit traffic with them, have been instigated to set the authority of the government at defiance, and to utterly refuse compliance with their treaty stipulations by going on the reservation; and since there is no longer any conflict between the Indian and .Military Departments, such as prevent Sub-agent Applegate from bringing those Indians on the reservation, we, therefore, make this earnest appeal to you for relief--knowing that you have the cavalry force we petitioned to be sent to Fort Klamath two years ago for this specific purpose at your command. We ask you to use it for the purpose it was procured for, that the departments, both civil and military, have not been kept ignorant of the fact that we have been repeatedly on the verge of a desolating Indian war with this band of outlaws, who, by your delay to enforce the treaty, have been led to despise, rather than respect, the authority of the government.
    Their long-continued success in defying its authorities has emboldened them in their defiant and hostile bearing, until further forbearance on our part would cease to be a virtue; that, in many instances, our families have become alarmed at their threats to kill and burn, until we were compelled to remove them for safety across the Cascade Mountains, thereby suffering great loss of time and property; that the agents at Klamath and commissary at Yainax, during this long delay growing out of this unfortunate conflict of departments, have done all they could to prevent a war and bring about an amicable adjustment of our troubles we have no reason to doubt; but we ask now, since no such conflict exists, shall a petty Indian chief, with twenty desperadoes, and a squalid band of three hundred miserable savages, any longer set at defiance the strong arm of the government, driving our citizens from their homes, threatening their lives, and destroying our property?
    Their removal to the reservation in the winter season may be easily accomplished by anyone acquainted with them and their country, and will not require more force than could be furnished from Fort Klamath to do it. We recommended Commissary I. D. Applegate, of Yainax, to the consideration of the department as a suitable man to take charge of any force or expedition looking to their removal. His long connection with the Indian Department, and thorough knowledge of them and their country, and all the facts connected with this whole Modoc question, and as a stock-raiser equally interested with us in their removal, point him out to us as the right man in the right place in charge of this much-needed expedition for the removal of this band of Modocs to their reservation, for which your petitioners will ever pray.

	I. N. SHOOK,	THOMAS COLLAR,	A. C. MODIE,
	SAMUEL COLVER,	J. M. RUMBO,	O. H. SWINGLE,
	JAMES H. CALAHAN,	D. DAVIS,	C. A. MILLER,
	DAVID P. SHOOK,	W. DINGMAN,	J. C. TURNIDGE,
	J. J. BRATTON,	JOHN CLEAN,	C. B. VANRESSER,
	PAUL BRATTON,	W. H. MILLER,	J. H. SPRINGER,
	H. DUNCAN,	WILLIS HALL,	J. V. RUBRU,
	C. RILGONE,	E. HALL,	H. BAILMANK,
	JOSEPH LANGELL,	A. HALL,	JOHN GOTHROOD,
	SIMPSON WILSON,	J. T. ARONT,	W. HICKS,
	THOMAS WILSON,	JOSEPH SEEDS,	O. A. STEARNS,
	FRANK HIFLING,	JOHN E. NAYLOR,	O. L. STEARNS,
	JAMES VINSON,	GEORGE NURSE,	JOHN FULKERSON,
	G. S. MILLER,	EDWARD OVERTON,	ISAAC HARRIS,
	EDWIN CROOK,	WILLIAM ROBERTS,	GEORGE THOMAS.

Petition circa January 25, 1872, Congressional Record, session of February 12, 1874, U.S. Government Printing Office, pages 1422-1423


    Pursuant to notice, a meeting of the Republicans of Eden Precinct met at Colver's Hall on Saturday, May 4th, 1872, to elect delegates to attend the County Convention to be held at Jacksonville on the 14th of May. Abraham Bish was elected Chairman, W. Beeson, Secretary. The meeting proceeded to nominate delegates, and upon the first ballot Abraham Bish, George Stevenson, B. C. Goddard and E. K. Anderson were elected.
    S. Colver offered the following Resolution:
    WHEREAS, opposition to the swamp land act is the declared policy of the Republican Party,
    Resolved, therefore, that we will not support any man as a candidate for the next Oregon Legislature unless he will pledge himself to vote for its repeal, if elected. Adopted.
    S. D. Vandyke offered the following Resolution:
    WHEREAS a proposition is on foot to put the county to great expense to build a new court house, which at present is unnecessary, therefore Resolved, that we oppose any effort for that purpose. Adopted.
    After numerous speeches and appropriate remarks, the delegates were instructed to use their influence in favor of O. A. Stearns, Enoch Walker and. R. Benedict, for Representatives.
    E. Gore made a motion that the Sentinel be requested to publish the minutes of the meeting. On motion of Mr. Fitzgerrold, the Republicans of Eden Precinct were requested to meet at Phoenix at one o'clock on Saturday, the 18th of May, to ratify the nominations of the County Convention.
    On motion the meeting adjourned sine die.
W. BEESON, Sec'y.
Oregon Sentinel, Jacksonville, May 11, 1872, page 1


    During the delivery of Joe. Wilson's harangue on the 29th ult., Psalm Colver, the anti-Swamp Land Apostle, impatiently awaited to hear an onslaught on the Swamp Land Bill, and at length, fearing that the question had inadvertently escaped Wilson's attention, he ventured to jog his memory, by calling out "Swamp land! What about the Swamp Land Bill?" Imagine his disgust! "Phancy his pheelinks!" when Wilson replied, in that flippant way of his, that everybody had heard enough on that question. The gentle Joseph did not want to talk on Swamp Land. That is a question "not for Joseph." Cause why? The Hon. Bernard Goldsmith, one of the leading Radical luminaries in Portland, besides other magnates of the same party in that locality, too numerous to mention, together with Beekman, Langell and other leaders here, who are all Swamp Landers--and heavy ones at that--made the question too delicate a one for Joseph to handle.
    The Radicals have made a tremendous howl over this Swamp Land question, but the sincerity of it cannot bear the test applied by Psalm Colver at the discussion. Their orators dare not attack on it on the stump, because too many of their leading men are Swamp Landers themselves. Think you, Joe. Wilson would dare assail a question in which Barney Goldsmith has so deep an interest? It was this influence that knocked Dowell out of time. His blatant and windy articles on swamp land quietly but effectually crucified him. No man, who persistently, honestly and openly opposed the Swamp Land law, could get the Radical nomination for Congress, and Joe. Wilson knew that if he dared to fight that question here, he might as well haul down his colors, shoulder his scrapbook, tell his last smutty joke and go home. His chances would not be as good as that of the celebrated cat in Hades, which was deprived of claws.
    The Radical candidate for Congress showed plainly by his reply to Colver on the 29th ult., that he dared not discuss this question. His disinclination was manifest to every person in the house, and cannot be disputed. Then we ask, if the Radical opposition is sincere, if it is not the merest sophistry, the most transparent humbug, the lowest demagogism, why did not the chosen champion of the Radical party discuss the Swamp Land Bill before an audience composed of the citizens of a county which has a greater area of swamp land in its limits than any other, and who are, of course, more vitally interested than almost any other people in the state in the discussion of the Swamp Land problem? Let our Radical anti-Swamp Land friends ponder. Let them ask themselves if their party leaders are not humbugging them about this Swamp Land question. They will soon see that they are both humbugged and deceived.
Democratic Times, Jacksonville, May 11, 1872, page 2


    The attempted lecture at the court house last Saturday evening by Mr. Colver was not much of a success, the address (what there was of it) being rather a confused jumble, pointless and uninteresting, and the performance being sadly interfered with by the explosion of firecrackers, ignited by some mischievous boys. The smoke from the burning firecrackers soon filled the court room and became almost suffocating, and the noise of the exploding pyrotechnics nearly deafening. Finally, the Gasburg orator, finding the applause much louder than was desirable, and besides being fairly "smoked out," made a break for fresh air, making rapid strides to get away from such an unappreciative audience. The boys, however, not to be taken aback, were close at his heels, and with cow bells, tin cans, etc., serenaded him as he went "marching on," and finally holed him in the express office. Here, of course, the young musicians were not permitted to enter; but from the sidewalk in front of the office, however, the "concord of sweet sounds'' was renewed, and kept up with energy for an hour longer.
    Mr. Colver announces his intention of lecturing at various other points in the state upon the Modoc war, the virtues of the red man, the vices of the white man; finding fault with the Indian Department, the military, the citizens, and, in fact, with everybody and everything, except Capt. Jack and his amiable followers; boasting what great things he (Colver) has done and can do, and that if the management of this little "unpleasantness'' was only placed in his hands, how much better it would be fixed up by him than if left to the regularly constituted authorities of our government; etc., etc. Whether the "send-off" the Modoc Lecturer received on Saturday night can be regarded as favorable or otherwise depends upon the "standpoint" from which it is viewed.
    One thing is very certain: That had it not been for the course of certain white men advising and encouraging the Modocs to stay off their reservation and to disobey the orders of the general government, the unhappy massacre of so many inoffensive settlers and the consequent war would not have occurred. And we are fully satisfied that the "benefit" which Mr. Colver received here last Saturday night was owing entirely to the general impression and belief in this community that he was one of the officious white men we have alluded to.
Democratic Times, Jacksonville, January 4, 1873, page 3


    The following letter is sent to us by Mr. Colver for publication with the request that we correct, which we respectfully decline to do. As he sets himself up as a public lecturer, to enlighten the public mind, it is to be presumed that he is a man of sufficient literary attainments to write correctly an ordinary communication to a newspaper. Therefore we do not deem it advisable to change, alter or amend his production in any respect whatever, but give it to our readers verbatim et liberatim. Of course we are not responsible for any of the facts stated or views expressed, and as to the truth of the letter, unsupported as it is by any reliable confirmation, we leave our readers to judge.
Editor of the Times
    Sir I wish to make a brief Statement of Facts to-be published in Connection with the Authority of Generals Green and Canby under whose orders we were Acting while attempting to remove the Hot Creek Band of Modock Indians to the Reservation
first the Hot Creek Modocs numbering a bout 45 including Children Squaws able Bodied Men and (Old Grandfather grey Beard) live about 30 Miles from Linkville at the South West End of Tuley Lake and about 50 miles from Major Jacksons head quarters on Lost River which was the Only Military force in the Field, for the protection of the Settlers Capt Fairchild, who is a large Land and Stock owner and on whose Lands this Band of Modocks were Born,) thinking discretion the better part of Valor, and knowing that this Band of Modock had refused to join Captain Jack for fear he would get them into a fight with the soldiers and they said they did not want to tight and ware willing to go to the reservation under this State of Facts we Sent for to General Canby and Green for authority to affect the Removal of this Band of Indians to the Reservation. who Ware quite as anxious to go, as we ware to have them. go. because their presance here endangered the Lives of the Whites Settlers as the Indians were liable to raids from rash Inconsiderate men whos acts for the protection of their friends though ever so well Intended would have Consigned the Families here to the same fate as the Settlers on Lost River & Tula Lake, as the Military forces in the field at Lost River fifty miles away were not Sufficiently Strong at that time to furnish a force to reeover the Bodies. of the citizens who had been murdered in their Immediate vicinity. let a lone giving us any assistance in Case of an attact any attact on the Hotcreeks by a Small force at that time (;Situated as they wer only 15 miles from Captain Jack's whole force) would have resulted in another massacre of th Settlers
: to correct the fals reports of a few men Who believe in the divene eficacy of Bold and persistent Lying, I will State that John A Fairchilds is a White man has a white Wife and White Children and from all appearance Much better Stock than the Lying Scrubs who Slander and tradice him, who are described in Holy Writ as Slanderers, "Speaking evil of Person and things they know not off and are worse than Brute Beasts'' if the death penalty was inflicted on a fiew Malicious Liars in this country whos falshood have resulted in Massace of the Settlers on Lost river and Tula Lake the whole Country would be much benefited
    The failure to notify the Settlers to sany [sic] the beast of it was a cowardly, criminal, Bloody, Blunder on the part of those who knew of their danger and failed to inform them        Sam Colver.
Democratic Times, Jacksonville, January 4, 1873, page 3


    Mr. Sam. Colver, of Gasburg, arrived here last Saturday afternoon direct from the seat of war, bringing latest advices from Capt. Jack's camp. Mr. Colver, soon after his arrival, announced his intention of delivering lectures at different points in this state on the subject of the Modoc war, commencing on that evening at this place. Elsewhere will be found a notice of the first of his proposed lectures.
"Personal," Democratic Times, Jacksonville, January 4, 1873, page 3


    Sam Colver, who believes that the whites are all wrong in trying to punish the Modoc devils, tried to lecture on the subject at Jacksonville a few days ago, but the "plaudits" of the audience prevented a quiet conclusion to his speech.
"Oregon," Oregonian, Portland, January 8, 1873, page 2


    The irrepressible Sam. Colver favored us with a call Monday. Although not belligerent, the smile so childlike and bland, that is wont to encircle his phiz, was missing.
"Personal," Democratic Times, Jacksonville, January 11, 1873, page 3

    EDITOR TIMES: I am informed that Sam. Colver in his attempt at a lecture in Jacksonville on the evening of Saturday, Dec. 28th, had considerable to say about me and my character. Now, while I never claimed that my character was the finest that could be found in the United States, yet, such as it is, I would not exchange it for that of the nefarious old Sam Colver's. * * * And now, since he has seen proper to bring my character before the public, I propose to have something to say about his, and I make the following charges against him, viz.:
    1st. That he is an infamous liar and slanderer.
    2nd. That he is an officious intermeddler in other people's business, always interfering and dipping his bill into matters that do not concern him, and stirring up trouble and making himself a nuisance generally.
    3rd. That previous to the present war, he (Colver) advised and encouraged the Modoc Indians to stay off their reservation, and not obey the order of the government, and it was this advice and encouragement on the part of Sam Colver and others that has produced the war.
    4th. That since the war he has aided and abetted the hostile Indians in every possible way, carrying or sending news to Capt. Jack's camp, officiously interfering with the operations of the military and Indian Department, and is now going around finding fault with the course of the same and the settlers.
    I was one of a party that went after the Hot Creek band of Modocs to bring them to the Klamath Reservation. We arrived at Whittle's ferry late in the evening, finding Colver with those Indians at that place. We camped at Small's, near there, that night, intending to take the Indians back with us in the morning; but about midnight, while we were all asleep, the Indians all stampeded, and Sam Colver with them. Next morning no trace was to be seen of either them or him. * * *
    Colver in his published letter talks about having authority, in writing, from certain military officers to operate among the Hot Creek Indians. He never claimed that he had received that authority until the night I met him at Whittle's ferry, but stated that he had received it that evening at the hands of Indian Agent Dyar. And now what did he do under that authority? In less than two hours after he received it, he stampeded with the Hot Creek Indians, as above stated. Every able-bodied buck joined the hostiles, and even old Sam, after he disappeared, was missing for so long a time that it was supposed that he also had united his fortunes with those of Capt. Jack. I have no means of knowing what the nature of the "authority" he brags about is, but that was the way he acted under it.
Democratic Times, Jacksonville, January 11, 1873, page 3


    ON THE WAR PATH.--Sam. Colver, the Modoc lecturer, is lecturing in the towns of the Willamette Valley, with poor success. He intended to lecture at Roseburg, but discovering that the citizens of that place proposed giving him a benefit similar to that he received in Jacksonville, he decamped for more congenial latitudes.
Democratic Times, Jacksonville, January 18, 1873, page 3


    Mr. Sam. Colver has handed us for publication a crazy-looking paper, written in pencil-mark, mutilated, begrimed and exceedingly difficult to decipher, which, owing to the press of other matter, has been omitted in the two preceding issues. This paper purports to be a letter written by Major John Green, of the 1st Cavalry, and a telegram to McConnell & McManus, of Yreka, from Major-General E. R. S. Canby, for the "authority" under which he stampeded with the Hot Creek Indians for Capt. Jack's camp, all being written and signed in the same handwriting. We doubt the the genuineness of the signatures to this paper, well knowing that no military officer would sign any paper in such a shape. It may, however, have been intended by the writer to be a copy of the original (and this is probably the case); but if so, the bad orthography, superabundance of capitals and want of punctuation shows the copyist to be as illiterate as Colver himself. We have corrected the bad spelling, etc., and guessing at such words as we are unable to decipher, we present the document to our readers in the best shape possible:
    MESSRS. J. A. FAIRCHILD, P. A. DORRIS AND SAM. COLVER: Gentlemen:--Your note of yesterday directed to Major Jackson has just been referred to me by him for action. In reply I would state that if you bring the 40 Indians referred to to Major Jackson's camp at the mouth of Lost River, they will be protected to the Yainax Agency.
    In regard to Capt. Jack and his band, I would say that if those men who committed the murders after the fight are surrendered, they will all be received and protected. What occurred during the fight I consider warfare, and they will not be held responsible. But not so do I regard the action of those who murdered peaceable citizens after the fight was over. They must be brought to justice. I am, however, glad to find there are citizens in that country willing to assist and rightly advise such Indians as are willing to surrender and obey the orders of the government.
    The request regarding the Indians you wish to keep is acceded to so far as I am
concerned.  I understand Mr. Dyer, Indian Agent, has left for Linkville, and perhaps your section of country, and, of course, whatever he does will be acquiesced in by the military; but I hope he will also insist that the murderers shall be surrendered. I wish you would inform Capt. Jack that he need not expect no mercy if he does not surrender now, as there are troops on their way to his country, and more coming.
    To McCONNELL & McMANUS:  Telegraph received. Government will be responsible for the expense attending the transportation and protection of the Indians referred to.
    We fail to perceive in the above document any "authority" from General Canby to Colver to do anything. Furthermore, several of the volunteers who found Colver with the Hot Creek Indians at Whittle's ferry state that the first thing he did after he received the "credentials" was to stampede at midnight with those Indians, every able-bodied buck among them joining the hostiles, They also state that even Mr. Colver, after he disappeared, was missing so long that fears were entertained that he had also united his fortunes with those of Capt. Jack. If these statements are true, we fail to perceive any "authority" in the "credentials" for such action.
    Query--Major Green is represented in the above as replying to a request on the part of Colver to "keep" certain Indians; what Indians were those, and what did Mr. Colver desire to do with them? Probably "thereby hangeth a tale."
Democratic Times, Jacksonville, January 18, 1873, page 3


    MODOC LECTURE.--Sam. Colver, Esq., lectured at the courthouse in this city on Tuesday night; also, at Good Templars' Hall, on same evening. Sam made one of his characteristic speeches, we learn, no doubt making the hair fly.
Albany Register, January 24, 1873, page 2


    The Bulletin says Sam Colver's proposed lecture in that city on "The Rise, Progress and Incidents of the Modoc War, in Poetry and Prose," etc., did not come off, there being but two persons present beside the Bulletin's reporter.
"Latest News," Albany Register, January 24, 1873, page 2


    Sam Colver smiled upon us Wednesday morning. He left for the south on the noon train.
"Personal," Albany Register, January 24, 1873, page 7


    Sam. Colver, the Modoc Lecturer, is lecturing in the towns of the Willamette Valley, with poor success.—Jacksonville Times.
    No, not lecturing much to speak of. When he was announced to lecture at
Salem, our reporter went to the court house, at the hour designated, and found Sam in the midst of an animated colloquial discussion with a couple of men who knew but little more than he did, on some medical or metaphysical question. Sam wouldn't lecture to two men and one local reporter, so the lights were soon put out and Sam went to bed. He then went to Portland where he advertised extensively for a lecture and managed to get some of his execrable "poetry" into the papers. But he didn't lecture at Portland. Nobody went to hear him but the "three stone heads" who do the reporting for the Portland dailies. Sam's next strategic movement was to return to Salem, where he found an irresponsible person in the Statesman office with whom he settled for two months' subscription arrearage (he owed six), and then he took the next train for the south, leaving an unsettled bill for advertising amounting to $2 50. He may be lecturing on the Modoc war but he didn't pay us his advertising bill. If he don't do it we shall feel justified in mentioning him as a bilk.--Salem Statesman.
Democratic Times, Jacksonville, January 25, 1873, page 3


    Sam. Colver is meeting with immense success in the Willamette. He had a house of three at Salem, and two at Portland!
    Sam. Colver has been dubbed with another new and elegant title: "The most unmitigated ass in America since George Francis Train went to jail" is the way they put it now.
"Itemlets," Democratic Times, Jacksonville, January 25, 1873, page 4


    WHO IS IT?--A northern poet begins his lay with, "Now tune your lyres, ye conquering heroes!" having reference to the Modoc "Lo's." Who can the poet mean? Sam Colver is the only instrument of that name we have heard of being out of tune; and he was far out of danger, also.
Oregon Sentinel, Jacksonville, February 1, 1873, page 2


    DIDN'T SUCCEED.--After his fiasco in this place Sam Colver started on a lecturing pilgrimage northward, with the avowed intention of "firing ye Webfoot heart" with the fervor of his eloquence. But judging from the comments and compliments passed upon him by the papers along his line of pilgrimage, he found that heart about as hard to ignite as the native fir of that soggy land. His efforts invoked such epithets as "bilk," "shyster," "unmitigated ass," and even down to "Hon.," as one of the papers dubbed him in the following notice of his arrival in that city;
    "PERSONAL.--Hon. Sam'l. Colver is in this city, and will probably lecture on the Modoc War, at the courthouse on Saturday evening."
    Probably was apparently well put in, as we have not heard of him since.
Oregon Sentinel, Jacksonville, February 1, 1873, page 3


    The Plaindealer calls Sam. Colver the "gentle Modoc."
"Pacific Coasters," State Rights Democrat, Albany, Oregon, February 14, 1873, page 3


    That gentle Modoc, Sam. Colver, had posters distributed about Roseburg the other day announcing that he would deliver a lecture on Saturday night, and a temperance lecture on Sunday evening, if desired. The Roseburgers didn't desire worth a cent, and consequently the lectures were a fizzle.
"Itemlets," Democratic Times, Jacksonville, February 15, 1873, page 3


    Here we have it: The Salem Statesman says that if the General in command against the Modocs wants a "dead sure thing" on the Indians, we suggest that he send Sam. Colver out to the lava beds and let him inveigle them into listening to his lectures, or one of his poems. If they would fight after that, then they are no gentlemen.
"Indian War Notes," Democratic Times, Jacksonville, February 15, 1873, page 2


    Sam Colver, the Modoc, wants to know, "If it costs the government $80,000 to teach one Indian to say G-d d--n, how much will it cost to teach a whole tribe the Lord's prayer?" Well, if they're generally as ignorant as Sam Colver, the government better give up the conundrum in hopeless disgust.
"Home and Abroad," State Rights Democrat, Albany, Oregon, March 14, 1873, page 4


    PHOENIX GRANGE.--D. S. R. Buick, D.D.W.M., on Thursday, Jan. 29th organized a Grange, with 28 charter members, at Phoenix, to be known as Phoenix Grange. The following officers were elected and installed for the ensuing year: John S. Herrin, W.M.; Samuel Furry, O.; Samuel Colver, L.; J. G. Van Dyke, C.; S. C. Taylor, t.; W. F. Herrin, Sec.; John Coleman, G.K.; Mrs. M. E. Gore, C.; Mrs. S. C. Taylor, P.; Miss A. E. Shideler, F.; Miss Mary A. Herrin, L.A.S.
Democratic Times, Jacksonville, February 7, 1874, page 3


    LODGE REORGANIZED.--G.W.C.T.* W. R. Dunbar on the evening of 23rd inst. reorganized Eden Lodge No. 197, at Phoenix, Jackson County. The following are the officers for the present term. Harry Oatman, W.C.T.; Bell Rose, R.H.S.; Mollie Barker, L.H.S.; Mary Colver, W.V.T.; Loui Colver, W.S.; Mary E. Brittan, W.A.S.; J. M. Hoxie, W.F.S.; Sarah Baker, T.; E. E. Gore, W.C.; Henry Taylor, W.M.; Green Barker, W.D.M.; Dan Brittan, W.I.G.; S. Colver, W.O.G.; L. A. Rose, P.W.C.T. Seven new members were added to the roll in this lodge. J. M. Hoxie was appointed L.D. and Samuel Colver a District Deputy for Jackson and Josephine counties.
Willamette Farmer, Salem, December 4, 1874, page 11  *Grand Worthy Chief Templar of the temperance lodge International Organization of Good Templars (IOGT).


    OATMAN-DOLLARHIDE--At the residence of M. A. Williams, in this county, Dec. 31, 1874, by Rev. M. A. Williams, Harvey Oatman and Miss Priscilla Dollarhide.
    COLVER-DOLLARHIDE--At the residence of M. A. Williams, in this county, Dec. 31, 1874, by Rev. M. A. Williams, Louis Colver and Miss Jemima Dollarhide.
Democratic Times, Jacksonville, January 8, 1875, page 3


    HORSES STOLEN.--Samuel Colver informs us that he learns that he, among others, a short time ago has lost some head of horses in Lake County by being stolen. Col. J. N. T. Miller, of this place, is also reported as one of the losers. An organized band of horse thieves seems to infest that section, as animals, on various other occasions, have been missed and never recovered. Those depredations have become so frequent that the people, who suspected little wrong at first, are becoming aroused, and the thieves will suffer detection ere long.
Democratic Times, Jacksonville, February 2, 1875, page 3