There always have been and there always will be men who make use of religion for sinister purposes. These unworthy missionaries who were parties to the unjust treatment of Dr. McLoughlin are not entitled to escape criticism, nor to have their wrongful acts passed over because of their religious pretentions. They are subject all the more to severe condemnation. All good Methodists condemn those wrongful acts of the missionaries as all true, honest Oregon pioneers condemn the acts of the pioneers who abused or cheated Dr. McLoughlin. But these base actions were not sustained by, nor concurred in by all the Methodist missionaries. Some condemned these actions. Others of these missionaries, appreciating what Dr. McLoughlin had done for them, and his humanitarianism, spoke in his praise, but did not break with their fellows who were persecuting Dr. McLoughlin. Some of the signers of the Shortess petition afterwards regretted, or were ashamed of their actions in so doing. Some timid persons may say that it would be better, in this address, merely to speak of the kind acts and high character of Dr. McLoughlin and not of the wrongful and unjust ways in which he was treated by some of the early immigrants, by some of the Methodist missionaries, by Thurston, by Bryant, and others. But that would not show what he suffered for the upbuilding of Oregon, nor his martyrdom on account of his humanity, of his principles, and of his integrity. It would not be a true, nor an accurate account of his life and time. Some persons in writing a life of Jesus would speak of his gentleness, his kindness, and his humanity, and say no more. They would not say anything against the Pharisees, nor of their condemnation by Jesus, because the Pharisees were people of some standing in their community, and did some kindly acts, and for fear of offending the descendants of the Pharisees. Such historians would not say anything against Caiaphas, the high priest, nor his actions against Jesus, because they might offend those religiously inclined. They would not say anything against those who cried "Crucify him," in their religious zeal. They would not say anything against Pontius Pilate, for fear of being thought to have attacked the Judiciary. They would either omit the crucifixion or merely say the last days of Jesus were passed somewhat in sorrow and in pain. But such a history would be trivial, and of no value. It would fail to show what Jesus did and suffered in his endeavors to help mankind. It would be a history in name only. _Dr. McLoughlin's Memorial to Congress._