Panel picks Chief Joseph, Abigail Scott Duniway to represent Oregon as statues at U.S. Capitol

on March 04, 2015 at 8:26 PM, updated March 04, 2015 at 9:03 PM

Abigail Scott Duniway votes in 1914 in Portland. Oregon Historical Society photo

Abigail Scott Duniway votes in 1914 in Portland. Oregon Historical Society photo

SALEM — Nez Perce leader Chief Joseph and pioneering woman rights activist Abigail Scott Duniway should replace two other symbols of Oregon among the statues on display at the U.S. Capitol, a panel recommended on Wednesday.

The Statuary Hall Study Commission decided it was time to update Oregon’s contributions to the National Statuary Hall Collection in Washington, D.C., where each state has two figures to serve as symbols. The final decision on which statues will be representing Oregon still rests with state lawmakers.

Since 1953, Oregon’s two figures have been pioneer Jason Lee, a 19th century missionary who founded what became Willamette University, and John McLoughlin, a fur trader known as the father of Oregon.

“Much more Oregon history has been written, and it was time to send statues of two equally worthy individuals who represent different chapters in Oregon’s history,” said Jerry Hudson, chair of the commission.

The commission decided to recommend that the McLoughlin and Lee statues come back to Oregon, and that they be replaced by Chief Joseph and Duniway.

Chief Joseph lived from 1840-1904 and was leader a band of the Nez Perce that was forcibly removed from the Wallowa Valley by the U.S. government. Joseph’s band was among those that resisted removal during the 1877 Nez Perce War.

Chief Joseph is “Oregon’s only truly mythical heroic figure,” said Amy Platt, a project manager at the Oregon Historical Society.

“I would say that most schoolchildren in the country know his name, which is extraordinary,” Platt said.

Duniway, who lived from 1834-1915, was known as “the pioneer woman suffragist of the great Northwest.” She and her family moved to Oregon in a wagon train, and she wrote about that experience in novels.

For 16 years, she was editor and publisher of “The New Northwest,” a newspaper devoted to women’s rights. She also wrote the Oregon Woman Suffrage Proclamation in 1912, said Eliza Canty-Jones, a public outreach manager at Oregon Historical Society.

There are 90 men and 10 women in the National Statuary Hall Collection. It wasn’t until 2000 that Congress decided states could switch out their statues. Seven states have already done so, including Ohio, which is in the process of replacing Governor William Allen, a 19th century congressman who supported the rights of southern slave owners, with the inventor Thomas Edison. California replaced Civil War abolitionist Thomas Starr King with a bronze statue of Ronald Reagan in 2006.

Oregon’s nine-member commission, created by former Gov. John Kitzhaber last August, was initially tasked with deciding whether Lee’s statue should be replaced with that of the late Mark Hatfield, World War II veteran and the longest-serving senator in Oregon’s history.

It instead recommended both Lee and McLoughlin should be returned to “places of honor” in Oregon.

Though the commission had already endorsed removal of the two statues, several people spoke in favor of keeping them in their current homes during a public hearing preceding the commission’s vote, including one man who testified as though he were McLoughlin himself.

The commission has been gathering input from scholars and the public about who best represents Oregon, and it narrowed a list of 10 candidates down to four in December. Along with Hatfield, Chief Joseph and Duniway, former governor Tom McCall was a contender.

It’s unclear where the McLoughlin and Lee statues will go if the Legislature decides to bring them home to Oregon. Local communities and museums can apply to house them, said Kerry Tymchuk, executive director of the Oregon Historical Society and a nonvoting member of the panel.

— Sheila V Kumar, The Associated Press

How Does the United States Ratify Treaties?

The Senate Does NOT Ratify Treaties  – This is a good primer on the ratification process

The President…shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur… Constitution of the United States, Art. II, Sec. 2

The Founders of our Nation understood that we might need to join international agreements – but they didn’t make it easy. The Constitution gives the President the power to commit the United States to treaties – but only with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the US Senate, and only if the agreement does not contravene the Constitution.

The process to ratify a treaty may be lengthy, but it is relatively straight forward:


Representatives of US Government work with those from other countries to reach agreement on the substance, wording, and form of an international agreement. With more than 190 countries involved today, gathering wide support for a document can take years! The Government, under presidents from both parties, led the way in the negotiations for the CRC, resulting in a treaty inspired by US laws.


If the President decides that a treaty is in the nation’s best interests (and does not violate the US Constitution!), the President (or designated representative) will sign the treaty. Signing a treaty does not make it become law! It means that the US Government believes the treaty is a good idea, and commits the President to seeking ratification. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright signed the CRC on behalf of the US in 1995.

Sending the Treaty to the U.S. Senate:

Once signed, the next step in the ratification process is to send the treaty to the US Senate, more specifically, to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. To do so, the State Department is responsible for putting together a package of documents to go along with the treaty, including:

  • Policy benefits and potential risks to the US;
  • Any significant regulatory or environmental impact; or,
  • Analysis of the issues surrounding the treaty’s implementation, for example, whether the agreement is self-executing, or whether it needs domestic implementing legislation or regulations to abide by the treaty.

In addition, the State Department may propose a set of Reservations, Understandings, and/or Declarations (RUDS). These provisions include any specific additions, changes or deletions in the language and substance of the treaty that the US will require in order for it to ratify.

Senate Consideration and “Advice and Consent”

With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.

When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its “advice and consent” or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.

Back to the President

Even if the Senate votes in favor of a treaty, there is still another step in the ratification process. Only the President, acting as the chief diplomat of the United States, has the authority to ratify a treaty. With the Senate’s approval, the President can then move forward with the formal process of ratification. That means submitting documents giving the US Government’s agreement to abide by the treaty, as well as any RUDS, to an institution (called a “depositary”). The deposit of the instruments of ratification establishes the consent of a state to be bound by the treaty.

Emma Watson Says She Was Threatened After Speaking Out About Gender Equality

By LUCHINA FISHER 22 hours ago Good Morning America                              Done

Emma Watson Says She Was Threatened After Speaking Out About Gender Equality

View photo

Emma Watson Says She Was Threatened After Speaking Out About Gender Equality (ABC News)

Within hours of speaking at the United Nations about feminism, actress Emma Watson was targeted with online threats, she said.

The 24-year-old “Harry Potter” alum and U.N. women global goodwill ambassador made headlines last September when she launched the “HeForShe” campaign, which aims to enlist 1 billion men and boys in the movement for gender equality. After Watson delivered her speech, she said a new website popped up threatening to release naked pictures of her.

Watson said she knew the threat was empty, because she’d never taken any nude photos, but that didn’t make it any less cruel.

“I knew it was a hoax. I knew the pictures didn’t exist,” she told an interviewer Sunday during a HeForShe webcast. “But I think a lot of people that were close to me knew gender equality was an issue but they didn’t really think it was that urgent or particularly, you know, ‘We live in Great Britain. This is a thing of that past.’ … And then when they saw that the minute I stepped up and talked about women’s rights, I was immediately threatened — I mean, in less than 12 hours I was receiving threats — and I think they were really shocked and, particularly, one of my brothers was very upset.”

Emma Watson and Other Celebrities Sound Off on ‘F Word,’ Feminism

How Female Stars Honored International Women’s Day

Watson talked about the cruel prank while answering fans’ questions for International Women’s Day. The interview was later posted on her Facebook page, which has 30 million fans.

“So I think it was just a wake-up call of, ‘Oh, this is like a real thing, it’s really happening now. Like now,'” she said. “Women are receiving threats in all sorts of different forms. That was just one specific one.”

She added, “If anything, it made me so much more determined. I was just raging. It made me so angry that I was just like … ‘This is why I have to be doing this!’ … So if anything, it actually, if they were trying to put me off it, they did the opposite.”

Check out the video below. Watson launches into the story around 5:30 into the video:–abc-news-entertainment.html