UW School of Law > News > Multimedia Gallery > Gallagher Society Dinner 2010

UW School of Law Transcript

Transcript: Gallagher Society Dinner 2010

November 16, 2010

Penny Hazelton:

OK. Well, I'm not going to shout, but I assume that you can probably hear me. I'd like to welcome you to what we hope will be the annual celebration in honor of members of the Gallagher Law Library Society. Thank you so much for coming. I know it's a late afternoon and the traffic can be a little challenging. And I just wanted to say a couple of things quickly. We live in very challenging times, all of you know that. All you have to do is read the paper or listen to the radio to know that these are interesting times for all of us. And in libraries, especially, the transformation of legal information from our old friends, the books, to the instantly accessible digital formats present a lot of challenges and some really wonderful opportunities for us, as the library aims to service students and its faculty and its public mission.

All members of the society, and perhaps many of you, know that the presence of a strong, public, academic law library promotes public access to justice for those who might otherwise go unheard, accelerates the scholarship of our expert faculty, and contributes to the high quality education of our students. And I know we're all committed to that goal, and trying to realize that goal, of course, is one of our challenges.

Tonight, we're delighted to welcome some new members into our society, and so I thank you all for being here to honor them. And I'm delighted now to introduce Dean Testy, who many of you have met. But just because you never know what people know about you...[laughter]

Dean Kellye Testy:

You never know.

Penny:

No. [laughter]

Penny:

I've got tell a couple of things, just to be sure. Most of you know that Dean Testy's been the dean here since the summer of 2009. And boy, the changes we've seen since she arrived on the scene would be pretty significant. The building was here, but otherwise, I think we all stand transformed. A new vitality and energy pervade everything that we do, our scholarship and our teaching and our service. And we're charting a new path toward excellence under her wonderful leadership.

So you may not know, she's a Hoosier, bred and born. And she graduated first in her class from Indiana University, was the editor-in-chief of the "Indiana Law Journal" and "Order of the Coif." She clerked and practiced and was finally drawn into academia, for which we're very happy. After 12 years of teaching and scholarship at Seattle University, she was selected as their dean. She earned her stripes there and then came on to our wonderful institution to help push us forward.

There's no greater testament to her influence, I think, than her selection as chair of the Presidential Search Committee. And I know she's been working hard and flying all over the world to meet wonderful candidates, because we need a great president for this great university. So, Kellye...

Kellye:

We do. Thank you, Penny. Thank you so much. It's so good to be with you all tonight. I was really looking forward to this. I have to confess, about the flying around, that I was extra nervous last night. I landed about 9:30, right at the height of the windstorm, and usually don't get scared on planes, and I thought, "But I was so looking forward to this event."[laughter]

Kellye:

It was a little shaky. It is really good to be with you all this evening.

[laughter]

And so I do want to welcome everyone. And I want to also, just say a great thanks to everyone who's here and who supports our library. I have said this several times, but I want to share it again tonight, that there was no greater honor for me than being able to say that I was dean where Penny Hazelton was a librarian. She just is an amazing leader in legal education. Everywhere I go, people know her, her staff, this library, as the real intellectual center of the law school and of Gates Hall. We have a long tradition of that. This is Gallagher, right? That's why this society, I think, is so fittingly named, that that foundation started. And it has certainly been a strong one, but it's really been built upon, too. And so our success in the library is something that we should all be very proud of. Those of you who've decided to be supporters of the Gallagher Society certainly are supporting something that's bedrock solid and is going to be a centerpiece of this law school for forever.

Now, that's not to say that libraries don't change, right? They really do. And one of the things that's making our job and the job of librarians so challenging right now is that libraries are so many different things to so many different people now, and the range is just tremendous. A lot of people still use only books, right? Some people don't touch them. And so the librarians have to also become our electronic experts and our information specialists in so many fields.

For so many students, library has become such a gathering place, such an important learning commons. Because today in law schools, we're doing a better job of having more alternative learning strategies, where students are encouraged to work more in groups and to really work on real problems of practice where they really need space to work with one another. And so the library also serves that need.

And of course, one of the things we're all aware of, and I was particularly struck how well Penny articulated this, is that the division in society between the haves and the have-nots becomes deeper every day. And the resources to support access to justice throughout Washington State become cut back so severely. And so, to have a public library, one where people can come and have access to learning about law, many of those people are going to need to represent themselves in court in very serious matters. That's something we should all be extremely proud of.

So not only does the library really enhance what we do intellectually, and support our scholarly and our teaching missions in that sense. It supports our service mission of taking very seriously our status as a public law school and wanting to serve the citizens of Washington. And so I'm really proud and want to thank Penny and all of her staff for all they do to make that possible, day in and day out.

And tonight, this is a celebration and a thanks. Again, I know you have seen the donor wall, right? And it is terrific. I also note the Gerald and Lucille Curtis Reference Area here. Very easy to see, and it's so nice to have you with us and see you again this evening.

And tonight, what we have are these bars that we put up with names of persons who have joined the society. And tonight, I'm really pleased to say that we have three additions there. And the first two, I'll mention, the persons couldn't be with us tonight, but I want to note that, and that's the MacFarlane family, and their plaque is on the wall now. And also, the firm of Levinson Friedman. And I have to say, I don't know how to say this middle name. Does anyone know? Is it "view-in"?

Stephanie Cox:

"Foo-gin."

Kellye:

Vhugen. OK. Thank you, Steph. Duggan, Bland, and Horowitz. And they, likewise, could not be here this evening, but I want to recognize the addition. And then, of course, one of the big celebrations that we have tonight is that another one of our society members was able to join us this evening, the Honorable Alfred Holte. And I want to welcome you. Thank you so much for being here this evening. And we have, in this present, one of the bars for you, to remember the society by, and also just as a small token of our great esteem for your career and our great appreciation for your support. So I want to thank you so very much.

Judge Alfred Holte:

Thank you very much. [applause]

Kellye:

I want to share just a few pieces of information about your background. The judge is retired from the Snohomish County Superior Court. And prior to that, he was president of Pioneer Savings and Loan. He practiced law in Edmonds, Washington for 37 years, served as chairman or president of numerous organizations in south Snohomish County, and currently serves on the boards of several local organizations. He also served as an infantry officer in World War II, and was decorated for actions in the South Pacific. He also worked here, in not maybe this very building, but in the law library, right--it carries through the centuries--for Mrs. Gallagher while in law school. So that's wonderful to know.

And I also want to note that Al is here today with his son, Scott. And I want to say a special thanks and greeting to you as well. Scott is also one of our alums, from the class of 1974. And I was sharing with him earlier, we met on a couple of earlier occasions, that I especially love meeting the families where there's more than one member of the family, generations, that have gone to the school of law. I just think that's terrific, and it means so much to me that not only did we have one graduate, but then that person believing in us enough that their child also attended the law school. And just to see that tradition, I think is terrific.

So I want to say to both of you, I just couldn't be any happier to have you here with us. I thank you so deeply for your support. I can promise you and everyone who is a member of the Gallagher Society that today it's vital for us to have that support as we try to meet the multiple missions for the modern library. We're doing that in a time that's of course a time of declining resources. Just at the time when we have more demand and more things to do.

So, the support means a lot in both a very tangible way, because it is an important time for us to have that support to meet our mission of excellence. But it also means so very much in that it shows us that you have the trust in this mission and believe in what we're doing here. And I can guarantee you that we will continue to pledge our very best efforts to continuing the outstanding traditions that this library is known for.

So know that we're very grateful. And I thank you, sir, for being with us. We're very honored to have you here. I hope you won't mind me sharing this, but your son did share with me that you're soon to be 91, is that what I hear? And I also need a little bit of lessons about how to do that.

[laughter]

Alfred:

You start out with a good gene pool.

Kellye:

Well let's hope Indiana, and my parents had that going for them then. So I want to invite you all to join us, I think it's in room 115, is that right?

Penny:

Yes.

Kellye:

For dinner tonight, to say thank you, and enjoy one another's company. So, again, thank you very much for being here. I appreciate it. Penny, thanks again for all you outstanding leadership. [applause]

Penny:

Thank you so much.

[break in audio]

Penny:

So, can I have everyone's attention for a minute? Thank you so much. I am so pleased to have everyone here. The acoustics in this room are just dreadful, so I'm talking up and hopefully it will come down at you at some point in time. But I do want to thank you for coming in. It sounds like we had a lot of things in common because it didn't sound like there were any pauses in the conversation, so that's great. So I want to welcome you to what I hope will be the annual celebration of the Marian Gould Gallagher Society and I want to thank all of you for your participation and your support of the library and thinking about what we're doing in this particular area these days.

It's a complex time to be in charge of libraries. Technology and information is just changing all the time. So we've been talking about texting, and the Google books search project, and books, and electronic information, and it's a really interesting area.

I do want to thank you, Judge Holte, for becoming a member tonight. So, thank you so much for coming. And delightful to have you, Scott, to join us. So, thank you so much. We appreciate your support of the library.

And I also want to thank the wonderful advancement team. Hannah, thank you so much for all of your work to make sure that this would happen and for the great advancement team. Steph, thank you all for your help.

I want to introduce our speaker tonight. And when we were thinking about this dinner, we thought it might be fun to have something that might be a little more intellectual, that might remind you of libraries and the things that people do in libraries, like learn information.

And so the first person we thought of was Nancy Pearle. So we thought she would have been kind of fun to have come. And I sent her a little, not a text, but an actual email. And she responded right away and said she had something else going on tonight.

Then my second choice was Professor Hugh Spitzer. Actually, he was my first choice, but somebody talked me into Nancy Pearle instead. [laughter] So, I want to tell you a little bit about Professor Spitzer and I want to tell you why I was so excited that he was willing to talk with us tonight.

So, just because it's good to know people's credentials, he has an undergraduate degree in Political Science from Yale. His law degree is from the UW in 1974, right? Is that right? OK. Good. My info, my reference info is great. And an LLM from the University of California at Berkeley.

He's practiced municipal and public finance law for more than 30 years with the Foster Pepper law firm, and has had an active state constitutional law practice. He's an expert in Washington state constitutional law, which is why we have him in here tonight to talk a little bit about some of his work.

He's an affiliate professor here at the UW and for years and years. I actually couldn't figure out how many years. So he'll probably have to tell me that.

Professor Hugh Spitzer:

I don't know.

Penny:

Oh, OK. You go back into the mists of time, is what I think. And he teaches Washington state constitutional law, which he's actually teaching this quarter, local government law, and my favorite class of all, which you haven't taught in a while I don't think, Hugh.

Hugh:

This spring.

Penny:

This spring, is Roman law. Now, isn't that a little esoteric, right? But his LLM at Berkeley was in the area of Roman law and the students who take this class love what they learn from him. And we have paltry collection in Roman law, but I think it suits your purposes. Or at least I hope it does. So, I know you've probably often seen Hugh on the editorial page of the local paper, which was one of, actually, my favorite things to read. So, I was going back through his file and looking at some of the things he's written. And one of my very favorite essays, when this came out, I sent him a note and said "This is such a great idea. Let's make this happen."

So, this is in 2004, after the election. And remember that was the first year we had the red and the blue states on the map. So, Hugh just redrew the map and gave us thirteen original states and just looked at the economic and the political issues that were of interest.

And so, his article, which takes 50 states and makes them into 13 super states was to restore the founders' vision of 1787, and I quote "13 self-governing sovereign states with distinct histories and cultures, joined together for self-defense and economic prosperity." And I thought "What a wonderful idea. We can just transform the world we live in by just redrawing those silly boundaries, right?"

Anyway, it was one of the things I like about Hugh's writing, and his wife just confirmed that it's often, perhaps he's thought about it for a long time, but it seems a little bit off the cuff. Is that kind of what you said Ann? [laughter] Kind of little bit. Yes, I've taken a little bit of liberty, probably, with that description.

But anyway, I advise you to read anything that he writes. It's always provocative and makes you think of things in ways that maybe you haven't thought of them before. And that's one of the things that I love about Professor Spitzer.

But I want to tell you how I first learned about him because it's related to what we're doing here tonight. I first learned about him when I joined the faculty here on 1985. So, I've been here for 25 wonderful years as the director of the Marian Gould Gallagher Law Library. And you may remember, so go back a long way, like 30 years or so, in the early '80s, things were really tough. It was one of our last recessions, not as awful as this one.

But we had double digit inflation. Interest rates, do you remember what they were? I bought a house in Seattle in 1985. Do you know what interest rate I paid on that house? Sixteen percent on the mortgage, right? I'm not sure, I should be living in, I think maybe, North Bend. Because it was just awful.

And so, one of the first articles that came to my attention, someone put it on my desk one day, was an article called "Law Libraries Losing to Double Inflation." And this was an article written by Hugh in 1980. It appeared in the Washington State Bar News, and it was while Hugh was the legal counsel to the Seattle mayor, Charles Royce.

So, first of all, it's not often that libraries of any kind get noticed by the mayor's office. That's pretty cool, right? And I thought to myself, I really need to meet this man. So, over the years I did get to meet Hugh. And he's not a man that complains and whines about things unless he has some solutions in mind.

And so he presented the facts, like he often does, and then had seven solutions that he thought would help stay the deterioration of the public law libraries that were in deep trouble because of poor resources.

So, Hugh, I'm really happy to let you know that over the 25 years I've been here we've worked on four of your seven suggestions.

Hugh:

Oh, good.

Penny:

Right? And so I want to tell you about the four things we have done. And I won't tell you about he three we haven't done, because we just didn't go there. But maybe it's time to go there, because things are not looking so good. So, one of the parts in your article was talking about the fact that about 25 percent of our collection in Old Condon Hall, which is now what was on Northeast Campus Parkway, not the old Gowan Hall, where I know some of you went to school.

About 25 percent of our collection had just disappeared over the years. We had no security in that building. I think there were 57 exits to Old Condon Hall, one of the things we were trying to fix.

And when we moved here, we tried to do a design, which is why we had trouble getting people in and out of the library when we were doing the ceremony tonight, because we have one way in and one way out. So, that's one thing that we have kind of addressed.

Secondly, we've tried to increase direct state funds. And though those are in decline again, we're working with our dean to try to direct as much as we can to the library for the support of the services and collections that we need.

We've worked cooperatively with many consortia of libraries to provide better and broader access to all the materials. We have a wonderful 650,000 volume collection. But we also have thousands and thousands of electronic databases, and access to millions of volumes in many other libraries across the United States. And that's something we didn't have, when he wrote that article in 1980.

And finally, we are working with our great advancement team here, to find the right message to help encourage private support, which was one of the other solutions that Hugh said. So, thank you, Hugh, for those great ideas.

It was actually kind of fun to go back to an article that was written thirty years ago, and see if you actually did anything that somebody suggested. I was happy to check a couple things off. We can always do more, and I want to thank all of you, for your support of the library over the years. And, especially now, where things are in so much transition.

A strong law library with collections and services targeted at a wide range of users is a sign of a strong democracy. And without this access, justice is merely a dream. And this law school cares about access to justice in many ways, and the library is one of the places that that happens.

So, Hugh, I want to thank you, both for your creative work so long ago. And, I still make my students read that article, and they look at my course materials, and there is an article from 1980, and they go, "Why should I read something from 1980?" And I say, "Because it's still true today." As many things from the past are.

So, Hugh, thank you so much for coming tonight. He is going to talk to us a little about Populism and the Washington State Constitution.

[applause]

Hugh:

Thank you. It's been nice talking with all of you folks individually tonight. I am going to talk a little bit about the Washington State Constitution, the influence of the Populist Movement on the constitution, and then tie in, while we are at it, some of the materials and resources that Penny has so nicely been developing, for me and other people doing work in this field, over the past few years. So, I'll start off just talking about the state constitution and it's origins and then, as we move along, I'll talk a little bit about some of the resources that we've developed here. So, this is about Populism, a movement of the late 1800's. And Washington was already fully imbued with the Populist ethic, when it gained statehood in 1889. Even though the formal Populist Party, or People's Party, actually wasn't created until three years after that.

But basically, the public in Washington territory, and then early Washington State, had a very strong distrust of the railroads, mining, and other corporations. They had concerns about special interest control of government. They were very concerned about the concentration of power in elites.

And, this led to a state constitution which imposed a large number of restrictions on the legislature, scattered executive power among a number of officials, hamstrung corporations, and provided very strong protections for individual liberties.

Even though things have changed, our economy is changed a great deal since the late 1800's, when agriculture was the focus of Washington's economy. We had developing mining and timber, of course, going on, agriculture.

And the majority of people in the territory up until 1920, were still living on farms and were in engaged in agriculture. That is changed. But of course, we still have a state which bears a lot of resemblance, in terms of our political culture, to those times.

In the late 1800's, most of the folks, European Americans and Europeans who moved here, were coming here to farm. This is a picture from Waitesville, in Walla Walla County. And there was a tremendous amount of settlement and growth, particularly in the 1880's.

In 1852, if you go back, there were only three thousand non-Indians living in Washington Territory. And then, in 1870, there were about 24,000. In 1880, about 67,000. And between 1880 and 1889 in a nine-year period, our population went from 67,000 to 240,000, in nine years. And that was for one reason. And that reason is this, railroads.

There had been people, I'll go back a little bit again, on farms. An interesting thing about Washington's agriculture, is that in contrast to Oregon -- at least when Oregon was founded and settled by European Americans in the 1840's and 1850's, and when my great-great-grandfather and his brother on my mother's side, settled in the Colletts Valley -- those people were self-sufficient farmers. They did a little bit of market agriculture, but basically self-sufficient.

Washington Territory was a lot different. From the get go, people were involved in international market based agriculture, at least after the very initial farming. But starting in the 1870's and '80's, people were doing wheat farming and hop farming, that was with our hops going to Bavaria during the late 19th century.

Washington was probably, the second largest source of hops in the world. Our wheat would go throughout the Pacific Basin and to South America. So, our farmers were business people, as well as agriculturalists. That was their business. Some people lived in the cities or towns, like Seattle. This is from the 1860's.

But, as I said, there is the University up on the hill, from Pioneer Square. But the majority of the people were in agriculture. It was the railroads that really caused the population and settlement to explode in the 1880's. So people moved into Washington. I had another great-grandfather, who settled near Reardon, and came up here from California as soon as the railroad was in. He knew he could get his crops to market.

So, even though, these are the gentlemen who wrote the state constitution - there are no women, that's another story. That's a long story, but I won't cover that tonight. But they were all men, and they almost all had beards. They weren't that different from us today, actually.

And, even though twenty-two of these gentlemen with beards and moustaches were lawyers, and nine were businessmen, they nevertheless reflected a very strong, populist focus of their mainly farming constituents. Of course, some of these lawyers were also farming, or were also in business. Lawyers often had a lot of things going on.

But what people in agriculture were worried about was falling prices for farm produce, an insufficient money supply, huge debt burden, and dependence on those railroads, those monopoly railroads, for getting their goods to markets.

Banks were blamed for the federal governments tight money supply policy, very tight monetary policy, and adherence to the gold standards. And then railroads were viewed as avoiding their share of taxes, while gouging farmers through high transport charges.

This all had an influence on these fellows who, even though a majority of them were Republicans, and lots of them were lawyers and business people, the majority of them clearly reflected the concerns of their constituents who were in farming.

So, even before the railroads were here, people in Eastern Washington were shipping wheat down the Columbia, down the Yakima, the lower Yakima, and the Snake, on steamboats. And these steamboats were controlled by a monopoly, and in 1878 the Oregon State Grange declared that the Columbia River had "fallen under the control of a grinding and oppressive monopoly."

A few years later in 1895 the Washington State Grange -- never a radical organization really, it was a very centrist agriculture organization -- adopted a resolution urging that the Federal government should seize the Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railroads and "own and control such roads and run them in the interests of the people."

Here you've got a combination of a train track and a grain terminal. And both the shipping and the railroads ultimately were controlled by the same two trusts. No, two not one. So, there was a little bit of competition occasionally, but people were very unhappy about this.

Between the Civil War and the time that Washington was created, there were a number of political parties in the United States that reflected these concerns. These were really national concerns. The Greenback Party in the 1870's, the Union Labor Party and the Farmers Alliance in the 1880's, and then finally the People's Party in 1892.

One of the main concerns that they had is that after the Civil War, as you know, when you finish a war... You typically, you've got high taxation during a war. There's pent-up demand, a lot of resources and money is going into the war effort. This is precisely what happened in both the North and the South during the Civil War.

People on Wall Street and economists understood that there was a huge risk of inflation after the Civil War with a huge demand for goods, an insufficient number of goods until the economy was retooled back into a civilian economy. So, folks on Wall Street got together with the Lincoln administration, and they made a strategic decision, which was to hold the money supply constant after the war and to keep the money supply from rising.

Well, between 1865 and 1900, the population of the United States doubled because of immigration. The money supply stayed absolutely constant. This caused huge problems for people in agriculture. If you were in a money center like New York, or Philadelphia, or San Francisco, you could find currency.

But if you were in Reardon, or you were in rural Iowa, or you were in the deep South, you could not get your hands on currency. This led to sharecropping in the South, more than anything else. There was no money.

Here in Washington, what farmers would do if they needed grain, they'd go to the grain company which was owned by the same company that owned the railroads and the shipping company, and you would mortgage your crop to come backed by a mortgage on your land. You would then get your grain as a non-cash transaction. Then, when you grow your crop, you sell it at the going rate back to the same company. If you came out ahead, you got some cash.

If the price of wheat had dropped, you would be in debt more than you were last time. It was very hard. Of course, the prices were fixed on the railroads and on the shipping lines for shipping grain on the Columbia so that people just did not have access to money, and they were very, very unhappy.

This is a bank in Grandview, here's the inside of the bank. I love the moose up there.

The platform of these various political parties, including in Washington the People's Party in the 1890's reflected these concerns. They wanted number one, a liberal monetary policy, mortgage relief, higher taxes on businesses, ban on union busting private detectives, because the labor movement was involved in this, too. Railroad rate controls, public employment offices, work place safety laws, free education and a ban on monopolies.

Now, this is in the 1890's. But virtually all of these were integrated directly into the Washington State Constitution.

These are a few Populist cartoons. This one says, "What God freely gives to man, monopoly appropriates." This one is throne of plutocracy, sham Democracy, sham Republicanism, land grants to aliens, other shocking things, public plunder.

This is my favorite. This is from the 1894 or '96 election. Republican Party, builders of corporate wealth, on the left. On the right, Democratic Party, builders of saloons and jails, and in the middle People's Party, builders of churches and schools.

Washington was formed in 1889, we'll get back to the Constitution in a minute. But seven years later the state government was in the hands of the Populist Party in a Fusion ticket with the Democratic Party and the Silver Republicans, which you could think of as liberal Republicans, as they were for free silver and a larger money supply.

This picture is from Ellensburg. It is from 1896, where there were three conventions, the Populist, the Silver Republicans and the Democrats. They all met across the street from each other. They went back and forth with couriers and put together a Fusion ticket. The Populists get the governor and one of the Congressmen, others to be decided.

The People's Party ticket, that will be the title on the ballot the Democrats swallowed up. Now, this happened really across the country, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, especially across the northern tier, you had these Fusion parties. And at the time the people thought the Democratic party was swallowing up the Populist Party. As it turns out, it was the other way around, but that is also another story.

This is William Jennings Bryant, who of course was the presidential candidate nationally for the Populists and the Democrats in 1896. He lost, but John Rogers was elected the governor of Washington, and he was a pharmacist from Puyallup, known as the Puyallup Philosopher. He was a pretty good governor, he was in for two terms.

OK, there's glorious victory, reform forces sweep the state of Washington. And if you look at the map, by the way, of where various parties won, it looked just like today except that it was red in the West and blue in the east. Go figure.

OK. So a few years earlier, just in 1889, when the convention met and we had these fellows writing the constitution, they started work on the fourth of July of 1889. They worked for six weeks drafting a constitution, and they started with a version of the constitution which was written by W. Lair Hill, who was a lawyer and judge who practiced in California and in Oregon.

He was asked by "The Oregonian" to draft a model constitution for the coming state. And here it is, a constitution adapted to the coming state, suggestions by the honorable W. Lair Hill, with main features considered in the light of modern experience, outline and comment together.

Well, this was dropped on the desk. It was actually printed by "The Oregonian," dropped on the desk of everybody at the convention, each delegate. I would say that 60 percent of the ultimate state constitution was this document written by W. Lair Hill.

Now, let me mention just something about our law library, and I'll say a little bit now, a little bit later. We have this typewritten W. Lair Hill commentary, or draft constitution and commentary. It's actually very, very important if you're doing research on the Washington constitution and you're trying to explain what various provisions mean, whether you're briefing it, or you're a judge working on an opinion.

Because you can go to a number of the sections of Hill's constitution --and if it's one of the sections that wound up in the ultimate, final version of the constitution and is still with us today -- you can go to his annotations in his commentary, and you can learn what the theory was behind that section.

He was a very good writer. Of course, back then people read books, and they were able to write English. And so, you'll find this very readable. And Hill is regularly cited by our courts for a number of provisions. You can find it here in hard copy downstairs, and as I'll explain in a little bit, you can also find it online.

Now, let me say something about a few of the provisions in the constitution that came out of this Populist influenced convention. A lot of the provisions can actually trace their lineage to the Jacksonian period or, of course, earlier. I have one talk that traces our right to bear arms back to the 12th century, but again that's a different talk.

There were a number of provisions that were basically aimed at preventing special interests from getting any special treatment in state government. So, we have Article 1, Section eight language that says, "No law granting irrevocably any privilege, franchise or immunity shall be passed by the legislature."

And its cousin, Article 1, Section 12, "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations."

Article 12 actually has 22 separate sections designed to oversee private business corporations and regulate business. Requiring that corporations be formed under general laws, not special acts permitting the legislature to alter statutes governing corporations at any time. Prohibiting stock fraud, enabling condemnation of corporate property, combating monopolies. All these things are in the state constitution.

I think they're often ignored because of preemption of the U. S. government under the Commerce Clause, but they're all there. This one simply says that railroad companies can't charge different rates to the same classes of people or freight, and that's in the constitution. There are shareholder provisions and some special ones on railroads.

You don't have to read this, but this is one of my favorites. It tells you that if two railroad tracks of the same gauge cross each other, there has to be an inner tie, there has to be a switch. That is in the constitution. You say, "In the constitution? Why would that be in a constitution...

Well, things important to people in 1789 are different from what are important to people in 1889, are different than what's important to people in 1989. So, in the 1970s and '80s we were concerned about, say, the Equal Rights Amendment.

In 1889, people wanted competition. And they wanted the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific, if they crossed or came near each other, they wanted to be able to switch box cars from one line to the other in order to create more competition. So, that is in the constitution.

A prohibition against consolidating of competing railroad lines, that is a dead letter. They're all consolidated. They're all BSF today, pretty much.

Another favorite one of mine is that telephone and telegraph companies have to share their poles. One of my students did a really interesting paper, suggesting that this should apply to cell towers. Competing cell companies would have to share, she argued.

This one still has a huge influence on how government works. Local governments are prohibited from giving or lending their money or credit to private corporations except for the support of the poor and infirmed. That actually has a huge influence today, it still does.

Now, here's something else we have in the library. This is just a newspaper article. When you're doing research on the Washington Constitution, you need to go back and look at newspaper articles, contemporary when the provision was written, whether it's 1889 or when the addition of the memorandum came in in 1911, or when the ERA was adopted in 1972, I think.

And this one relates to the Populism and the anti-railroad attitudes. This is either the PI or the Times. "The first knockdown, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company received a knockdown yesterday with the defeat of its scheme to squeeze $200,000 out of the pockets of Walla Walla County tax payers." And it goes on to tell you about this provision I was just talking about, no lending of credit. So that was basically an anti-Northern Pacific provision.

What people forget is that the Union Pacific supported it. They didn't want the subsidy to Northern Pacific, because then it would cause more competition for Union Pacific. Nevertheless, it was an anti-railroad provision, 49 to 25 at the state constitutional convention.

Now, if you are doing research, if you're a law student, if you're a lawyer, if you're a judge and you're doing research on the Washington Constitution and you want to get to these newspaper articles, how do you do this?

Well, one way is you go to Susan Low Library. So if you live in Spokane, you drive over and you go to, it's Allen now, you go to where you can see all of this on microfiche. Or you can have your library call the librarians here. For the last few years, you have been able to get copies of this book.

It gets better with this book which Penny had found the money to publish, which is basically all of the newspaper articles except for "The Oregonian" that were reporting on the state constitutional convention in 1889, reprinted.

These were actually the newspaper articles that were used in the 1960s by Beverly Rosenow, who was a librarian here, and Quentin Shipley Smith. Where they reconstructed the Journal of the Washington State Constitutional Convention. They reconstructed it from newspaper reports. Now, if you go to Oregon, I have a copy of the Journal of the Oregon Constitutional Convention. They took notes, they published it, it's easy to find.

With the Washington Constitutional Convention, Congress promised to pay to have the shorthand notes transcribed of the verbatim debates in the constitution, to have them transcribed and published. But Congress reneged. The clerks didn't get paid, and they were ticked. So, they burned their notes.

So in your attic if you've got a chest and you've got a bunch of old scraps of paper that look like notes from the constitutional convention, call me. Now, we think they were burned. And so, a couple of librarians here went through all of these newspaper reports. And in 1962, they basically reconstructed from the excellent verbatim reports in the newspapers, because the reporters all took shorthand, too.

So if you look up three newspaper articles of the same day covering the same debate, you can reconstruct the verbatim the debate at the constitutional convention. So that's what this library did in 1962, and then the book was out of print. So Penny was kind enough to run down the money to have it reprinted again in 1999. But this time, together with a reproduction of all the newspaper articles, it gets better yet. But you can wait.

OK. Just a couple more interesting things in the state constitution that comes from this era. A lot of the trades that people were in besides, obviously, agriculture like logging, mining. These are Chinese workers building the Northern Pacific Railroad. Mining, carbonate coal mine, Chinese workers in the mine. By the way, the whole other story, of course, is the importance of Chinese workers to the economy of Washington State. These were dangerous, that's a cannery. These are dangerous work to be in.

So, one of the provisions says that the legislature shall pass necessary laws for the protection of persons working in mines, factories, and other dangerous employment. And that is in the state constitution. It took the legislature about 20 years to actually pass the legislation because of opposition from the business community, but it finally passed.

One other interesting thing, it has to do with our right to bear arms, which is different. Let me see, let me scroll through here and then I'll go back and show you the slides. But it tells us, this is from the state constitution. "The right of the individual citizens to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state shall not be impaired. But nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."

There are two main reasons for this. One is the anti-Chinese riots in the 1880's. In Seattle, in Port Townsend, in Tacoma, where groups of vigilantes, who are concerned about Chinese workers, who worked for lower pay and produce better work. They're taking away jobs, so they are going to run about the Chinese and send them back where they came from, which was San Francisco.

And so they did this, and they rounded up the workers, the governor telegraphs, sorry. The mayor telegraphs the governor and said: "We need to protect these people. Can you please call out the national guard?" The militia and the governor wired back and said, "It will take three or four days, so that's not soon enough. Why aren't you use the ROTC?"

And so they mustered in the cadets, then a group of 17 and 18 year old kids, from the University of Washington, which of course was downtown at that time. They march these kids down to Pioneer Square, and there they are along with some city police, surrounding the Chinese workers in the middle, battling a mob.

The students lost their cool, opened fire and kind of reverse of Kent State, they killed four of the vigilantes. There they are carrying off the wounded. This is from "Harper's Weekly." It was a big deal nationally, reported nationally.

But there was a strong concern about vigilantes. There was also concerns about Pinkerton goons that were hired by mill owners, factory owners to break strikes. And those are Pinkerton's. So that led to this interesting provision which gives you a right to own guns, basically. But corporations don't have, individuals and corporations don't have a right to have a private armies. Interesting provision.

I'll just quickly scroll through these and wrap up. A lot of our provisions are Populist, but they're actually older. They go back to earlier 1830's movement, but legislation has to cover just one topic. No special legislation. Municipalities aren't chartered by the Onesies, they're incorporated according to general standing laws.

The other thing is, that the executive is blown to smithereens. Constitution has eight independently elected offices. We also have the insurance commissioner for nine. Our judges are elected. The concept on electing judges for better or worse, was then that the judges would be, couldn't be controlled by special interest. Because they're elected by the people, and therefore they're responsible directly to the people. And they wouldn't be pawns of big interest groups. Things do change.

Then the last thing of course, that is near and dear to our hearts is education. There's a country schoolhouse. What happened here, it's kind of like ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny. Where what happens in the specific area, as people moved across the West, was the same thing that had happened earlier, or is it the other way around? Which come first, phylogeny or ontogeny?

But anyway, it's the same. Basically they start out with small one room schoolhouses. You hire a teacher, and the parents do it then they form a non-profit corporation. Then things get organized, and then by the 1870's we had a superintendent of schools, and the territory with the statewide school system. That's a school in Waitsburg.

All of these of course traces back the Horace Mann and the common school movement of the 1820's and 30's, where the concept is that you take kids out of factories, this was New England and you have truancy laws. You put them in school with the theory they are going to be much better citizens. If you want to have a republic, you are to have a citizenry that can read. Some people still can't. And it's necessary for a republic, as well as for factory workers who can operate complex machines.

And so in our state, we actually have it started out with our Enabling Act, prior to the drafting of the constitution. And then moved into what is the strongest public education provision in the country, bar none. It's the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its' borders without distinction or preference on account of race, color, cast or sex. That's 1889 language. Very interesting, very progressive. So, we have a public school system of course.

Now, let me wrap up and say a few more things about resources here that relate to research that you do when you're working with all these materials. I just talked about the journal of the state constitutional convention, with a compilation and the newspaper articles that are available.

This is actually just a page from that book. It goes through one section of the Rosenow book, which this library help published in the 60's. Goes through, on a day to day basis what happened in the constitutional convention. And then does an analytical analysis, section by section. And it's just incredibly valuable. Let me see, that's another railroad thing.

Now, let me just wrap up and show you something else. These are our friends, the books. You know that, which we were talking earlier, and we've got in the library, doctoral dissertations on territorial periods, on the constitutional conventions, the journal. Oh, you have my book, that's nice.

[laughter]

And then the whole constitution, the Walla Walla constitution of 1878, this is actually a reproduction of the hand written 1878 constitution, didn't go. It wasn't accepted by congress then. We didn't become a state in 1889, in 1878 because the population was too small and too democratic.

The Democratic party for Republican control of congress to admit, but things had shifted 1899. The state had become predominantly Republican, so the [indecipherable - 00:56:29] . So anyways, we effected the Walla Walla constitution here. Oh yeah, this is the Hill constitution.

So, we have a lot of wonderful resource materials. Now here's what we're doing now. Let's see. Where's my little link? There's now a link which you can go to... Oh I see, I got to go back.

And this is a cooperative project of the law review and the library. And it's pretty much setup. I don't think, is it entirely online yet? I'm not sure. It's not online yet. Just takes a little money and time. Yeah, it's not easy to get to yet. But it will be soon.

Because what you can do is, for instance, that Hill constitution that I mentioned. You'll be able to click, and there it is, right there. And so, if you are in Washtucna, or you're a lawyer in Walla Walla, or for that matter, you're in Indonesia, and you want to take a look at the Hill constitution that was put in everybody's desk, you are going to be able to go online and bring it up.

You'll also be able to get all of the newspaper articles that are in the Rosenow book, and there it is right there. And this is the entire book. And if you're a speed reader, you can read the whole thing right here. And there it is.

[laughter]

So it's just a fabulous resource and I have talked to people in the State Supreme court about this. Several of them are very, very eager to have this online, because it makes their lives a lot easier too, when they're doing research. So there's really a symbiosis between what's happening in this area of concentration for me with state constitution and the history, and the access to these wonderful materials that the Gallagher Law Library provides.

So it's been a pleasure talking with you this evening and have a nice evening. Thank you.

[applause]

[end audio]

Last updated 12/8/2010