Rarely do we find a college graduate among the earliest pioneers of Washington Territory. They were frontiersmen, coming to the farthest west from homes in the Mississippi Valley or its vicinity. The exceptions included clergymen and officers trained for army service.
Those pioneers who lifted first axes against the forest were keenly aware of their own educational limitations. Paradoxical as it may seem, after the log cabin shelter and the first essential field their attention centered on the establishment of schools. Their children must have better advantages than they had had [sic] themselves enjoyed. This commendable aspiration accounts for the immediate rise of the public school and it also helps to explain the surprisingly early ambition for a university.
Clara McCarty Wilt, probably between 1910 and 1919
Superlatives are always dangerous in history. However, there is perfect safety in pointing out the first official voice raised in behalf of the Territorial University of Washington. It was the voice of Governor Isaac Ingalls Stevens as he delivered in person his first message to the first Legislature of the Territory of Washington on the second day of the session, Tuesday, February 28, 1854. His declaration was so fundamental to the work of education in the new commonwealth that the paragraph is reproduced here in full:
"The subject of education already occupies the minds and hearts of the citizens of this Territory, and I feel confident that they will aim at nothing less than to provide a system, which shall place within the means of all the full development of the capacities with which he has been endowed. Let every youth, however limited his opportunities, find his place in the school, the college, the university, if God has given him the necessary gifts. A great champion of liberty said, more than two hundred years ago, that the true object of a complete and generous education was to fit man to perform justly, skillfully, and magnanimously, all the offices, both private and public, of peace and war. Congress has made liberal appropriations of land for the support of schools, and I would recommend that a special commission be instituted to report on the whole school
system. - I will also recommend that congress be memorialized to appropriate land for an university.”
That his advice was promptly followed is evidenced by the Memorial to Congress
passed by the Legislature on March 22, 1854. There it is shown that Congress by
its Act of February 27, 1850, establishing the office of Surveyor General for
Oregon Territory, had donated two townships of public lands to aid in establishing
a Territorial University of Oregon. These lands should be selected west of the
cascade Mountains, one township north of the Columbia River and the other township
south of that River. The Washington Territorial memorialists set forth their opinion
that, since Congress by its act of March 2, 1853, had divided Oregon by establishing
the new Territory of Washington, the grant of one township north of the Columbia
River should be annulled and they requested that Washington Territory should be
granted two townships for its own university.
The fact that congress granted with relative promptness the pleadings in that
Memorial excites surprise in the retrospect of history. In the first place the pony
express would exact its toll of time in transmitting the document across the continent.
But a far greater obstacle for swift action was the national disturbance over the
status of slavery. It was hoped that the Compromise of 1850 had settled that question.
Major Isaac I. Stevens was commissioned as Governor of the new Territory of Washington
on March 17, 1853, and four days later resigned his position in the Army and the
United States Coast Survey, saying in a private letter that he had done so because the
Compromise of 1850 had settled the slavery question and the days for a career in the United States Army were passed. He was accepting a civil position. At the very time
that he delivered his Message and the Legislature was adopting and forwarding the
Memorial he had recommended for a university, both Houses of Congress were in a bitter
contention over the Kansas-Nebraska legislation, including debates as to whether or
not the Compromise of 1850 had supplanted the Missouri Compromise of 1820 as to
slavery in the Territories. The Kansas-Nebraska Bill became a law on May 30, 1854,
and on July 17 of the same year Congress enacted the law granting the requested two townships, or 46,080 acres, of public lands to the Territory of Washington to aid in the establishment of its own university. Under all the circumstances that was a
superlative. It provided the first foundation of the institution.
Governor Stevens was correct when he declared in his Message - "The subject of education already occupies the minds and hearts of the citizens." The first newspaper to be published north of the Columbia River appeared in Olympia on September 11, 1852. Its main purpose was to advocate the division of Oregon Territory by the establishment of the Territory of Columbia from the land north of the River. To emphasize its advocacy the paper was named Columbian. It battled valiantly but when success was attained Congress had changed the Territory’s name from "Columbia” to Washington. Within a year the paper also changed its name to Pioneer and Democrat. During that early agitation it was pointed out that Oregon should not select one of its granted townships north of the River for their university. "We want a university
here, and trust the Willamette valley will be ashamed ever to urge an unjust claim for
our ’pound of flesh.’” Not only were the early pioneers interested in schools for their children but they were also ambitious enough to aim at a university during the very inception of Territorial Government.
That first session of Washington’s Territorial Legislature began its work on Monday, February 27th, and adjourned on Monday, May 1st, 1854. As the members returned to their log cabin homes, it is not likely that many of them could have hoped that Congress, known to be in the midst of the bitter Kansas-Nebraska debates, could find time or inclination to comply with the plea for a university so early as July 27th, 1854.
Of course the good news would have reached the Territory before the November elections and those chosen for the Legislature would be keyed up to establish an institution for reaping an intellectual harvest. The second Legislature met on Monday, December 4, 1854, and adjourned on Thursday, February 1, 1855. It is worth while to note that Henry R. Crosbie and Arthur A. Denny were re-elected to the House of Representatives and also that Seth Catlin, Henry Miles, Benjamin F. Yantis and Daniel R. Bigelow served in both sessions of the Council (Senate). Of these men of experience, Mr. Denny was destined in this and subsequent sessions to play by far the greatest part in the establishment of the Territorial University of Washington.
So far as the University was concerned, the net harvest comprised two laws,
one for location and another for the selection of the granted lands. But in the
process of that harvest there was a dramatic struggle, the story of which has never
been correctly or fully told. The reason is obvious. The Journals of that session
are not indexed, requiring a page by page search.
On December 13, 1854, W. A. Strickler, who, with C. C. Terry, represented Pierce
and King Counties in the Council, sought to locate the University by introducing a
bill that became known as Council Bill No. 7. Two days later Representative Charles
H. Spinning of Lewis County introduced in the House a similar bill, known as House
Bill No. 7. The dates and identical early numbers indicate promptness in each
branch of the Legislature. The next day after its introduction, or on December 16,
Mr. Spinning’s House Bill No. 7 was disposed of with apparent ridicule. William
Cock, of Thurston County, who was chairman of the Committee on Education, moved that
the bill, then on its second reading, be postponed "till the 4th of July, 1855."
That motion was carried by 13 to 8. Mr. Spinning voted "no", of course, but Mr.
Denny showed his distrust of the measure by his affirmative vote to send it on to
the vacation time of firecrackers and skyrockets.
Council Bill No. 7 was subjected to a fierce bombardment. On December 18 it was considered in the committee of the whole and reported back without amendment, whereupon Mr. Miles offered an amendment to change the location from Seattle to "Cowlitz, on the land known as the Puget Sound Agricultural Co. Claim, in the county of Lewis." He alone voted for the amendment, the other eight opposed. The bill was then postponed until December 20 to be a special order of the day. Mr. Poe failed in his effort to change "Seattle" and "King" to "Coveland" and "Island". Mr. Yantis offered a substitute for the original bill which was adopted, with the assistance of Mr. Strickler, author of the original bill. Mr. Poe failed in an effort to change "Boisfort" to "Cape Flattery". Other futile attempts at amendment were by Mr. Miles to change "Boisfort" to "Vancouver, Clarke County"; Mr. Poe to change "Boisfort" to "Alki"; Mr. Poe to change "Boisfort" to "Cape Disappointment"; Mr. Miles to change "Seattle" to "Vancouver". After a battle over enforcing the previous question the
bill was ordered engrossed and read a third time. On December 21, Mr. Bigelow,
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, reported the bill back recommending its
passage. On the same day consideration of the bill was postponed "till 3rd January next." On that day the bill was passed without further attempts at amendment,
the only negative votes were by Mr. Miles and Seth Catlin, President of the Council.
On Saturday January 6, the House received the bill as having been passed by the
Council. On January 10 and 11, it was read a first and second time and ordered to be
printed. During a long, stubborn battle over the bill on elections, Council Bill
No. 7 remained on the table until the afternoon of Wednesday, January 17 when, on
motion of Mr. Spinning it was taken from the table and referred to the Committee on
Education. That Committee reported it back with an amendment on January 23 and
recommended its passage. Just before adjournment that afternoon the bill was given
another second reading and was made "the order of the day for to-morrow." It was then that the House had its fling at the bill. Mr. Denny moved to take up the bill and he successfully resisted an effort at further postponement. Chairman Cock moved the adoption of the favorable report by his Committee on Education. Pending that motion, the Speaker, from the floor as Mr. Crosbie, moved an amendment to strike out Seattle and King County. The debate continued into the afternoon session. Mr.
Crosbie’s amendment was killed by a vote of 13 to 8, but he immediately offered another to strike out the named locations and insert "that the appropriation made for the purpose of the University be distributed among the different counties for common school purposes." When that was voted down, Mr. Irby received a like negative result
for his amendment to strike out "Seattle, King County" and insert "Vancouver, Clarke
County", as did also Mr. McCaw to locate the University at "Yelm Prairie" without any branch at Boisfort or elsewhere. The question then reverted to the adoption of the committee report which was approved by a
vote of 12 to 9. Mr. Crosbie resumed his seat as Speaker and Mr. Spinning then moved
a suspension of the rules and that the bill be read a third time. This also received
the vote of 12 to 9 but was declared lost because it required a two-thirds vote to
suspend the rules.
Other business crowded Council Bill No. 7 to one side until the afternoon of
January 26 when it was hurried through to final passage without debate the vote being
14 to 7. Mr. Wallace of Pierce County, who had opposed the bill from the beginning,
moved to amend the title, "so as to read in the plural". The motion was lost and the
record says: "Ordered, On a division of the House, that the Clerk report C.B. No. 7
to the Council, now." That "now" was deferred until the following day, Saturday,
January 27, when the Council Journal records its return "with amendments." On the
afternoon of January 29, the bill came up for final action accompanied by one more
flurry. Mr. Miles offered an amendment to strike out the word "branch" so as to
provide for two Universities, one at Seattle and the other on Boisfort Plains. It was
rejected by a vote of 7 to 2 and by the same vote the Council concurred in the House
amendments and council Bill No. 7 had become a law.
The idea of a plural University is traceable in part to that act of Congress granting two townships of public lands. The prolonged struggle over location is an early manifestation of what has since been called "geographical distribution" or "grasping for institutional patronage". However, there is a fairer slant to that struggle. Seattle and King County were outlying districts in 1854-55. There were but nine members in the Council, the representation of the counties being as follows: Clallam, Island, Jefferson and Whatcom, one; Pierce and King, two; Chehalis, Thurston and Sammamish (later called Mason), two; Clarke and Skamania, two; Cowlitz, Lewis, Pacific and Wahkiakum, two. Thus the more populous region along the Columbia River had four of the nine members. A similar apportionment of the twenty members of the House gave King County but one and a share of one other with Pierce County. There were three other members allotted to Pierce County, while Clarke County had four, and four others divided among her neighboring counties. The men who sought so earnestly to prevent Seattle from having any part in the location were really representing a majority of the population at that time.
The location law, passed January 29, 1855, is a short measure of three sections. Section 1 locates the institution in Seattle, King County, and a branch on equal
footing on Boisfort Plains, Lewis County. Section 2 divides the land grant and
Section 3 more specifically says one township of the granted lands is for the
University and the other township is for the Branch.
The other law, for the selection of the granted lands provides that the County
Superintendents of Common Schools be constituted a Board of Commissioners to select and
locate the granted lands, except as to the Counties of Cowlitz, Lewis and Whatcom,
where Nathaniel Ostrander, Thompson Newlin and R. V. Peabody should serve instead of
the County Superintendents. No Commissioner should select more than two sections
before the next annual meeting of the Legislature, a schedule of selections must be
kept and each commissioner was allowed three dollars a day for time actually employed
in these duties.
It is, of course, well known that these laws were futile as to the actual establishment of the University of Washington; but they constitute the initial steps in the legal history of the institution. That they are not wholly forgotten had an interesting manifestation as late as 1919, when, on April 14, the Union High School at Boisfort was dedicated. The invitation for a member of the Faculty to participate contained the persuasive clause: "Because, you know, this was once the legal location of the University of Washington."
While Arthur a. Demy was Speaker of the House of Representatives and Seth Catlin
was President of the Council in the third session of the Legislature, 1855-56, both
veterans from the other two sessions, no action was taken relative to the University.
The outbreak of the Indian wars absorbed most attention. In the fourth session, 1856-57,
Mr. Arthur A. Denny was promoted to membership in the Council. There was no University
legislation but a law was passed on December 17, 1856, to incorporate the Puget Sound
Wesleyan Institute, with headquarters in Olympia. The trustees named in the act are
recognized as prominent pioneer citizens from all parts of the Territory. Several of them had been participants in the debates over the location of the University.
Another chapter in the location jugglery appeared in the fifth session of the Legislature when a law was passed on January 30, 1858, relocating the University on "Cowlitz Farm Prairie, in the County of Lewis." The law required that there first be
Executed to the territory of Washington a deed for one hundred and sixty acres on "an eligible part of said prairie." The two townships of granted lands were to be
used for this institution and the act of January 29, 1855, was specifically repealed.
This new location measure was House Bill No. 32 and when it came up for final action in
the Council, Mr. Denny combatted it with several calls for ayes and noes. He lost in
each case and, by the close vote of 5 to 4, the bill became a law. Nothing came to pass from that law.
While the sixth session of the legislature (1858-59) had much to do about locating
new roads and the incorporation of Divisions of the Sons of Temperance, no time was
given to the University.
The seventh session (1859-60) was remarkable for its scope of work. The record
of its laws, resolutions, memorials and indexes required a total of 525 pages, the
largest volume up to that date. The first 292 pages are devoted to a sort of code of
legal practice, after which the first law published seeks to provide a commission of
three men to select and locate the lands granted for university purposes. The three
men to constitute the commission are named in the law as A. B. Dillinbaugh, John
Clinger, and [sic] Newland. The provision requiring the first meeting to be held
"at the office of John Cliner, in Lewis County" is the only indication that the
Legislature was thinking of the institution as having been located on Cowlitz Farm
Prairie. This act bears the date of January 20, 1860. The former land selection act
(January 31, 1855) was repealed. It was at least a more definite effort toward the use
of those two townships of land for a Territorial University.
That very diligent session teemed with the manifestations of hope and aspiration
along both material and intellectual lines. Just one month before providing for the
selection of the University lands, or on December 20, 1859, there was passed an act to
incorporate Whitman Seminary at Walla Walla. Those named to comprise the "President and Trustees of Whitman Seminary" were Elkanah Walker, George H. Atkinson, Elisha S. Tanner, Erastus S. Joslyn, W. A. Tenney, H. H. Spalding, John C. Smith, James Craigie, and Cushing Eells. The last named, an associate of the missionary Marcus Whitman,
built up a wonderful reputation for devotion to that Seminary.
On January 10, 1860, the Seattle Library Association was incorporated.
The pioneers named to constitute this corporation were E. A. Clark, L. V. Wychoff,
David Graham, L. J. Holgate, Dexter Horton, John Pike, D. Parmelee, Thomas Mercer,
W. H. Gilliam, H. L. Yesler, Ira Woodin, J. W. Johnson, H. L. Pike, George Holt,
Walter Graham, John F. Carr, J. C. Holgate, H. Van Asselt, E. Richardson, Musgrave
D. H. Hill, J. C. Card, J. Foster, H. A. Atkins, J. A. Gardner, S. C. Harmon,
R. M. Bacon, H. A. Smith and J. H. Nagel. A number of these subsequently served
the cause of the University.
On the next day a joint resolution was adopted favoring a geological survey
of Washington Territory. Copies of the resolution were ordered to be sent to the
Delegate in Congress and to the President and members of his Cabinet.
Another university was incorporated on January 25, 1860, to be known as Puget
Sound University. The incorporators named were D. R. Bigelow, B. C. Lippincott,
G. A. Barnes, James Biles, A. Hall, W. Rutledge, W. N. Ayers, S. McCaw, J. B. Webber, Charles Prosch, J. R. Meeker, W. W. Miller, G. K. Willard, B. L. Henness, A. R. Burbank, A. A. Denny, A. S. Abernethy, D. Phillips, N. Doane, W. Wright, C. H. Hale, F. W. Pettygrove, J. L. Scammon, J. F. Devore, R. H. Lansdale, L. Shaffer, T. F. Berry, A. H. Simmons, C. M. Carter, and John D. Biles. Those men are known to have been leaders in different parts of the Puget Sound region. Their first meeting was to have been held on "the first Friday in April, 1860", but no place was mentioned for that meeting or for the location of the institution. It was evidently a forceful form of protest against inaction at the Territorial University then legally located somewhere on Cowlitz Farm Prairie.
One more evidence of the forward look in this session is the act of January 31, 1860, supplementing the act incorporating the Northern Pacific Railroad Company (January 28, 1857). While not practically of use it helps to show that pioneers
were willing to join in this and other efforts toward advancement.
With such abundant activities along significant lines, it would have been
natural to have expected a renewal of interest in the Territorial University. Such
was the case in the next session, the eighth session of the Legislature, 1860-1861.
Two University laws were passed, one to locate the institution in Seattle and one to
provide for the selection of the granted lands. These laws are so fundamental that
the history of their enactment should be carefully studied.
Arthur A. Denny had been reelected to the Council jointly from King and Kitsap
Counties. King County had but one member of the House of Representatives, while
Kitsap County had two - B. R. Stone and Albert Pingree. Evidently King and Kitsap
Counties were pulling together in regard to University legislation and had a perfect
understanding of the dissatisfaction over the fiascoes of the past. On December 12,
1860, Representative Stone of Kitsap County introduced House Bill 17 to locate and
establish the University at Seattle. The result was a complete surprise. The only
opposition was offered by Representative J. W. Anderson of Lewis County, where the
institution had been located by the law of 1858. He had influence as Chairman of
the powerful Committee on Judiciary, but on this particular bill his motives to
table, postpone or amend were all voted down. Rules were suspended and the bill was
rushed to final passage in a few moments. The bill, as passed, was sent promptly to
the Council where another surprise was experienced. It was taken up instantly and,
while motions were made to refer and delay, the rules were suspended and the bill
enacted on the same day, December 12. Few bills in the history of Territorial or
State legislation have enjoyed such speed of action. The law, as published carries
the word "Passed" but the dates are represented by two blank lines. It is possible
that December 12, 1860, would be correct. However, there was some delay for the
enrollment and signature of the bill. This was achieved in both houses on December
24, just before the adjournment over the holiday, and so December 24, 1860, may be more definitely the actual date when the Territorial University of Washington was located in Seattle.
The law is a very brief one. The location feature carries a proviso retiring a deed for ten acres "eligibly situated in the vicinity of Seattle". It devotes the two townships of granted lands to the "support and endowment of said University” and repeals the act of 1858 and "all acts or parts of acts in conflict with the provisions hereof."
It has been shown that the law of January 20, 1860, provided a commission of three
men to select and locate the lands granted for the University. Henry M. McGill, who
served as Acting Governor throughout the session of 1860-1861, in his rather lengthy
message to the Legislature on December 5, 1860, said that one of those Commissioners
had declined to act and that he had appointed another to take his place. He had been
informed by the President of the Board that further legislation on the subject was
necessary. This, in addition to the desire for a different personnel on the Board,
explains the much discussed companion measure of 1861. Victor J. Farrar has discussed
the difficulty of apportioning the credit due for the new law. He stresses discussions between Arthur A. Denny and Rev. Daniel Bagley. He is probably correct there but he omitted mention of the part taken by Joseph Foster, the sole Representative of King County.
Mr. Denny had become discouraged over the former legislation about the University
and had bent his efforts toward securing the Capital for Seattle. He had set aside a
portion of his donation land claim and called it Capital Hill, which included the
present site of the New Washington Hotel. He must have been elated when the University
relocation bill was pushed through both houses in one day.
Joseph Foster was a man of vigorous character and spectacular vocabulary. He was
quite clearly a free lance in the House. When the eighteen standing committees were
announced, he did not get a chairmanship and only one of the subordinate positions, on
the Committee on Claims. They tried to put him on the undesirable Special Committee
on Legislative Divorces but he dodged it. He did not introduce bills but actively
espoused those he favored. Everyone called him "Joe" and in his vocabulary the name of Rev. Daniel Bagley was "Sky Pilot.”
It will be recalled that the bill relocating the University in Seattle was enrolled
and finally signed by Lyman Shaffer, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Paul K. Hubbs, President of the Council, on the same day, December 24, 1860, the very day that the two houses recessed over the holidays. Mr. Foster came to his home near Seattle. Years afterwards, the present writer had the privilege of interviewing the two old pioneers as to what happened during that holiday recess.
Mr. Foster said that Mr. Bagley was accustomed to come down town in the morning with a basket on his arm. In the bottom of the basket was his Bible covered with a napkin. On top was the previous day's harvest of eggs. After selling the eggs, he would leave the basket and napkin in the store and take out the Bible to use in some ministerial duty. As the two men met on a wooden sidewalk this conversation took place:
"Hello, Sky Pilot.”
"Good morning, Joe."
"I want to tell you something.”
"All right, go ahead.”
”1 have got a law down there at Olympia to bring the University to Seattle. I am going to hold to it tight until next session when I'll trade it for the Capital.”
"Now, let me tell you something, Joe. You go back and get me appointed a Commissioner to locate the lands and build the University and I will show you something a good deal better than the Capital.”
"Do you mean that, Sky Pilot?”
"I certainly do.”
"All right, Sky Pilot. I'll just go you one.”
Mr. Bagley, when eighty years of age, smiled and said: "Yes, yes," as he recalled that old meeting with his friend Joe.
The Legislature resumed its work on Thursday, January 3, 1861, and in just one week Mr. Denny introduced Council Bill No. 27, which became the companion of the location law. The bill was pushed through the Council under a suspension of rules. An amendment that was brushed aside by a vote of 6 to 3 sought to substitute Hunphrey O'Brien for John Webster as a member of the proposed Board of Commissioners.
The bill was sent to the House on the same day of its passage by the Council. On the next day it was given the first and second readings and referred to a special committee, appointed by the Speaker, consisting of Mr. Chapman of Pierce County, Mr. Foster of King and Mr. Harris of Cowlitz. The special committee made its report on January 15 with amendments adding four sections and recommending its passage in that fom. On motion of Mr. Foster the amendments were adopted and in spite of efforts toward delay the amended bill, by a vote of 19 to 10, was passed and sent back to the Council.
Would the Council concur in those House Amendments? was the question that arose on
January 16. A motion was carried to re-commit the bill to the Committee on Education.
It was offered by Mr. James Biles, of Thurston and Samamish. He had opposed the bill
originally but in this case it was friendly action as Mr. Denny, author of the bill was
Chairman of the Committee on Education. His report for that Committee was offered on
Monday, January 21, recommending that the Council concur in the House amendments. This
was done without debate and promptly reported to the House. On January 29, the bill
was reported as correctly enrolled and on the following day, January 30, within one day
of final adjournment, the printing officers’ signatures were attached.
The law as published carries the erroneous date of January 11, 1861. The above history of the bill shows that the enactment was not finished until January 30, 1861.
It names Daniel Bagley, John Webster and Edmund Carr as a Board of Commissioners to secure the ten acres specified "within the vicinity of Seattle" as a site for the University and to select and locate the lands granted by Congress for University purposes. It specifies their duties, including authority to sell the selected lands "for any sum not less than one dollar and fifty cents per acre, according to the quality of the land." Acts or parts of acts in conflict were repealed. The legal foundation of the Territorial University of Washington was thus completed.
Hubert Howe Bancroft in his History of Washington, Idaho and Montana, page 213, declares that these favorable University laws were parts of a general scheme of legislative trades, which included the moving of the capital from Olympia to Vancouver and the location of the penitentiary at Port Townsend. He says: "Such was the haste of the
legislative traders, that the all-important enacting clause was omitted in the wording
of the bill locating the capital, which thereby became inoperative.” The Laws of Washington, eighth session, 1860-1861, page 3, shows the law without the essential enacting clause. There seems to be no evidence that the enrollers of the bill purposely omitted the clause in order to save the capital for Olympia. The results of the legislative trading were that Vancouver did not get the Capital, Port Townsend did not get the Penitentiary, but Seattle did get the University.
 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1854, p. 21.
 Journal of the Council, 1854, p. 182.
 For a brief but effective survey of that contention, see William Macdonald’s Documentary Source Book of American History, 1906-1898 (Macmillan, 1908), pp. 397-405.
 U. S. Statutes at Large, 10, Chapter 84, Section 4 (p. 305). The Congressional Globe, Vol. xxxlll., gives the record of the bill except the votes by which it was passed.
 Columbian, October 2, 1852.
 Council Journal, 1854-1855, p. 21.
 House Journal, 1854-1855, p, 28.
 Ibid., p. 32.
 Council Journal, 1854-1855, pp. 30-33.
 Ibid., p. 35.
 Ibid., p. 41.
 House Journal, 1854-1855, p. 48.
 Ibid., pp, 62-63.
 Ibid., p. 89.
 Ibid., p. 98.
 Ibid., p. 101.
 Ibid., pp. 102-104.
 Ibid., pp. 114-116.
 Council Journal, 1854-1855, pp. 128-129.
 Both laws are found in Laws of Washington, 1854-55, pp. 8-9.
 Laws of Washington, 1856-57, pp. 73-74.
 Ibid., 1857-58, p. 40.
 Council Journal, 1857-58, pp. 151-152.
 Laws of Washington, 1859-60, pp. 293-294.
 Ibid., pp. 422-423.
 Ibid., p. 427.
 Ibid., p. 514.
 Ibid., pp. 446-447.
 Laws of Washington, 1859-60, pp. 468-469.
 House Journal, 1860-61, p. 64.
 Laws of Washington, 1360-61, p. 4.
 House Journal, 1860-61, pp. 176-177, and Council Journal, pp. 126-127.
 House Journal, 1860-61, p. 25.
 "History of the University" in The Washington Alumnus, October and November, 1920.
 House Journal, 1860-61, p. 38.
 Ibid., p. 88.
 Council Journal, 1860-61, pp. 150-151.
 House Journal, 1360-61, pp. 210 and 220-221.
 Ibid., pp. 280-231.
 Council Journal, 1860-61, p. 226.
 Ibid., p. 247; and House Journal, p. 322.
 Ibid., pp. 302, 306, 308.
 Laws of Washington, 1860-61, pp. 16-18.