"_Query_ 1. Has a half-breed, a settler, the right to hunt furs in

this country?

"2. Has a native of this country, not an Indian, a right to hunt

furs?

"3. If a half-breed has the right to hunt furs, can he hire other

half-breeds for the purpose of hunting furs? Can a half-breed sell

his furs to any person he pleases?

"5. Is a half-breed obliged to sell his furs to the Hudson's Bay

Company at whatever price the company may think proper to give him?

"6. Can a half-breed receive any furs, as a present, from an

Indian, a relative of his?

"7. Can a half-breed hire any of his Indian relatives to hunt furs

for him?

"8. Can a half-breed trade furs from another half-breed, in or out

of the settlement?

"9. Can a half-breed trade furs from an Indian, in or out of the

settlement?

"10. With regard to trading or hunting furs, have the half-breeds,

or natives of European origin, any rights or privileges over

Europeans?

"11. A settler, having purchased lands from Lord Selkirk, or even

from the Hudson's Bay Company, without any conditions attached to

them, or without having signed any bond, deed, or instrument

whatever, whereby he might have willed away his right to trade

furs, can he be prevented from trading furs in the settlement with

settlers, or even out of the settlement?

"12. Are the limits of the settlement defined by the municipal law,

Selkirk grant, or Indian sale?

"13. If a person can not trade furs, either in or out of the

settlement, can he purchase them for his own and family use, and in

what quantity?

"14. Having never seen any official statements, nor known, but by

report, that the Hudson's Bay Company has peculiar privileges over

British subjects, natives, and half-breeds, resident in the

settlement, we would wish to know what those privileges are, and

the penalties attached to the infringement of the same.

"We remain your humble servants,

"JAMES SINCLAIR, ALEXIS GAULAT,

BAPTIST LA ROQUE, LOUIS LETENDE DE BATOCHE,

THOMAS LOGAN, WILLIAM MCMILLAN,

JOHN DEASE, ANTOINE MORRAN,

BAT. WILKIE, JOHN ANDERSON,

JOHN VINCENT, THOMAS MCDERMOT,

WILLIAM BIRD, ADALL TROTTIER,

PETER GARIOCH, CHARLES HOLE,

HENRY COOK, JOSEPH MONKMAN,

JOHN SPENCE, BAPTIST FARMAN.

"ALEXANDER CHRISTIE, Esq.,

"Governor of Red River Settlement."

Governor Christie's reply to these inquiries was so mild and

conciliatory that it will not add materially to our knowledge of the

company to give it. But the eight rules adopted by the company in

council let us into the secret soul of the _monstrosity_, and are here

given, that Americans may be informed as to its secret workings, and

also to show what little regard an Englishman has for any but an

aristocratic or moneyed concern.

* * * * *

"_Extracts from minutes of a meeting of the Governor and Council of

Rupert's Land, held at the Red River settlement, June 10, 1845._

"_Resolved_, 1st, That, once in every year, any British subject, if an

actual resident, and not a fur trafficker, may import, whether from

London or from St. Peter's, stores free of any duty now about to be

imposed, on declaring truly that he has imported them at his own risk.

"2d. That, once in every year, any British subject, if qualified as

before, may exempt from duty, as before, imports of the local value of

ten pounds, on declaring truly that they are intended exclusively to be

used by himself within Red River settlement, and have been purchased

with certain specified productions or manufactures of the aforesaid

settlement, exported in the same season, or by the latest vessel, at his

own risk.

"3d. That once in every year, any British subject, if qualified as

before, who may have personally accompanied both his exports and

imports, as defined in the preceding resolution, may exempt from duty,

as before, imports of the local value of fifty pounds, on declaring

truly that they are either to be consumed by himself, or to be sold by

himself to actual consumers within the aforesaid settlement, and have

been purchased with certain specified productions or manufactures of the

settlement, carried away by himself in the same season, or by the latest

vessel, at his own risk.

"4th. That all other imports from the United Kingdom for the aforesaid

settlement, shall, before delivery, pay at York Factory a duty of twenty

per cent. on their prime cost; provided, however, that the governor of

the settlement be hereby authorized to exempt from the same all such

importers as may from year to year be reasonably believed by him to have

neither trafficked in furs themselves, since the 8th day of December,

1844, nor enabled others to do so by illegally or improperly supplying

them with trading articles of any description.

"5th. That all other imports from any part of the United States shall

pay all duties payable under the provisions of 5 and 6 Vict., cap. 49,

the Imperial Statute for regulating the foreign trade of the British

possessions in North America; provided, however, that the

governor-in-chief, or, in his absence, the president of the council, may

so modify the machinery of the said act of Parliament, as to adapt the

same to the circumstances of the country.

"7th. That, henceforward, no goods shall be delivered at York Factory to

any but persons duly licensed to freight the same; such licenses being

given only in cases in which no fur trafficker may have any interest,

direct or indirect.

"8th. That any intoxicating drink, if found in a fur trafficker's

possession, beyond the limits of the aforesaid settlement, may be seized

and destroyed by any person on the spot.

"Whereas the intervention of middle men is alike injurious to the

honorable company and to the people; it is resolved,

"9th. That, henceforward, furs shall be purchased from none but the

actual hunters of the same.

"FORT GARRY, July 10, 1845."

_Copy of License referred to in Resolution 7._

"On behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company, I hereby license A. B. to

trade, and also ratify his having traded in English goods within the

limits of Red River settlement. This ratification and this license

to be null and void, from the beginning, in the event of his

hereafter trafficking in furs, or generally of his usurping any

whatever of all the privileges of the Hudson's Bay Company."

It was to save Oregon from becoming a den of such oppressors and robbers

of their own countrymen, that Whitman risked his life in 1842-3, that

the provisional government of the American settlers was formed in 1843,

that five hundred of them flew to arms in 1847, and fought back the

savage hordes that this same Hudson's Bay Company had trained, under the

teaching of their half-breeds and Jesuit priests, to sweep them from the

land. Is this so? Let us see what they did just across the Rocky

Mountains with their own children, as stated by their own witnesses and

countrymen.

Sir Edward Fitzgerald says of them, on page 213:--

"But the company do not appear to have trusted to paper deeds to

enforce their authority.

"They were not even content with inflicting fines under the form of

a hostile tariff; but, as the half-breeds say, some of the fur

traders were imprisoned, and all the goods and articles of those who

were _suspected of an intention to traffic in furs_ were seized and

confiscated.

"But another, and even more serious attack, was made on the

privileges of the settlers.

"The company being, under their charter, nominal owners of the

soil, dispose of it to the colonists in any manner they think best.

A portion of the land in the colony is held from Lord Selkirk, who

first founded the settlement.

"Now, however, the company drew up a new _land deed_, which all were

compelled to sign who wished to hold any land in the settlement."

This new land deed, above referred to, is too lengthy and verbose to be

given entire; therefore we will only copy such parts as bind the

settlers not to infringe upon the supposed chartered rights of the

Hudson's Bay Company.

The first obligation of the person receiving this deed was to settle

upon the land within forty days, and, within five years, cause one-tenth

part of the land to be brought under cultivation.

The second: "He, his executors, administrators, and assigns, shall not,

directly or indirectly, mediately or immediately, _violate_ or _evade_

any of the chartered or licensed privileges of the said governor and

company, or any restrictions on trading or dealing with Indians or

others, which have been or may be imposed by the said governor and

company, or by any other competent authority, _or in any way enable_ any

person or persons to _violate or evade_, or to persevere in violating or

evading the same; and, in short, _shall obey all such laws and

regulations_ as within the said settlement now are, or hereafter may be

in force"----Here are enumerated a long list of political duties

pertaining to the citizen.

The deed in its third condition says: "And also that he [the said

receiver of the deed], his executors, administrators, and assigns, shall

not nor will, without the license or consent of the said governor and

company for that purpose first obtained, carry on or establish, in _any

part_ of North America, any trade or traffic in, or relating to, any

kind of skins, furs, peltry, or _dressed leather_, nor in any manner,

directly or indirectly, aid or abet any person or persons in carrying on

such trade or traffic."----Here follows a long lingo, forbidding the

settler to buy, make, or sell liquors in any shape on his lands, and

requiring him, under pain of forfeiture of his title, _to prevent others

from doing so_, and binding the settler, under all the supposed and

unsupposed conditions of obligation, _not to supply_ or allow to be

supplied any articles of trade to any unauthorized (by the company)

person supposed to violate their trade, including companies "corporate

or incorporate, prince, power, potentate, or state whatsoever, who shall

infringe or violate, or who shall set about to infringe or violate the

exclusive rights, powers, privileges and immunities of commerce, trade,

or traffic, or all or any other of the exclusive rights, powers,

privileges, and immunities of, or belonging, or in any wise

appertaining to, or held, used or enjoyed by the said governor and

company, and their successors, under their charter or charters, without

the license or consent of the said governor and company and their

successors, for the time being, first had and obtained.

"And, lastly,"--here follows a particular statement asserting that for

the violation of any one of the thousand and one conditions of that

deed, the settler forfeits to the company his right to the land, which

reverts back to the company.

Our country delights to honor the sailor and soldier who performs a

good, great, or noble act to save its territory from becoming the abode

of despotism, or its honor from the taunt of surrounding nations. In

what light shall we regard the early American missionaries and pioneers

of Oregon?

It is true they heard the call of the oppressed savage for Christian

light and civilization. They came in good faith, and labored faithfully,

though, perhaps, mistaking many of the strict duties of the Christian

missionary; and some, being led astray by the wiles and cunning of an

unscrupulous fur monopoly, failed to benefit the Indians to the extent

anticipated; yet they formed the nucleus around which the American

pioneer with his family gathered, and from which he drew his

encouragement and protection; and a part of these missionaries were the

leaders and sustainers of those influences which ultimately secured this

country to freedom and the great Republic.

The extracts from the deed above quoted show what Oregon would have

been, had the early American missionaries failed to answer the call of

the Indians, or had been driven from the country; or even had not

Whitman and his associates separated, the one to go to Washington to ask

for delay in the settlement of the boundary question, the others to the

Wallamet Valley to aid and urge on the organization of the provisional

government.

CHAPTER IX.

Puget Sound Agricultural Company.--Its original stock.--A

correspondence.--No law to punish fraud.--A supposed trial of the

case.--Article four of the treaty.--The witnesses.--Who is to

receive the Puget Sound money.--Dr. Tolmie, agent of the

company.--The country hunted up.--Difficult to trace a fictitious

object.--Statement of their claim.--Result of the investigation.

The Puget Sound Agricultural Company, now claiming of our government the

sum of $1,168,000, was first talked of and brought into existence at

Vancouver in the winter of 1837, in consequence of, and in opposition

to, the Wallamet Cattle Company, which was got up and successfully

carried through by the influence and perseverance of Rev. Jason Lee,

superintendent of the Methodist Mission. This Nasqualla and Puget Sound

Company was an opposing influence to Mr. Lee and his mission settlement,

and was also to form the nucleus for two other British settlements in

Oregon, to be under the exclusive control of the Hudson's Bay Company.

The original stock of the company was nominally L200,000. The paid-up

capital upon this amount was supposed to be ten per cent., which would

give L20,000, or $96,800, at $4.84 per pound. From the most reliable

information we can get, this amount was taken from a sinking fund, or a

fund set apart for the purpose of opposing any opposition in the fur

trade. About the time this Puget Sound Company came into existence, the

American fur companies had been driven from the country, and the fund

was considered as idle or useless stock; and as the question of

settlement of the country would in all probability soon come up, Rev.

Mr. Lee having taken the first step to the independence of his

missionary settlement in the Wallamet, this Puget Sound Company was

gotten up to control the agricultural and cattle or stock interests of

the country. It was in existence in name some two years before its

definite arrangements were fixed by the Hudson's Bay Company, through

the agency of Dr. W. F. Tolmie, who went to London for that purpose, and

by whom they were concluded, "with the consent of the Hudson's Bay

Company, who stipulated that an officer connected with the fur-trade

branch of the Hudson's Bay Company should have supreme direction of the

affairs of the Puget Sound Company in this country. It was also

stipulated that the Puget Sound Company should be under bonds _not to

permit any of its employes_ to be in any way concerned in the fur trade,

in opposition to the Hudson's Bay Company."

It is easy to be seen by the above-stated condition, that the Hudson's

Bay Company were not willing to allow the least interference with their

fur trade by any one over whom they had any control or influence; that

their design and object was to control the trade of the whole country,

and that they had no intention in any way to encourage any American

settlement in it, as shown by the arrangements made as early as 1837.

There had been a correspondence with the managing directors of the

company in London previous to Dr. Tolmie's visit. The directors had

discouraged the proposed enlargement of their business, but it seems

from the statement of Dr. Tolmie, and the arrangements he made, that

they acceded to his plans, and constituted him their special agent.

There was at the time a question as to a separate charter for that

branch of their business. It was finally conceded that a separate

charter would enable this agricultural and cattle company to become

independent of the fur branch, and thus be the means of establishing an

opposition by the use of the funds appropriated to prevent any thing of

this kind, and decided that as the company had stipulated that they were

to have the "_supreme direction_ of the Puget Sound Agricultural

Company," no charter was necessary, and hence any arrangements to that

effect were withdrawn. It was from a knowledge of the fact that that

company had not even the Parliamentary acknowledgment of its separate

existence from the Hudson's Bay Company, that all their land claims were

at once taken; and upon that ground they have not dared to prosecute

their claims, only under the wording of the treaty with the United

States, which is the only shadow of a legal existence they have, and

which, there is no question, would have been stricken from the treaty,

except through the fur influence of the company to increase the

plausibility of their claims against our government.

If there was any law to punish a fraud attempted to be committed by a

foreign company upon a friendly nation, this would be a plain case; as

the Hudson's Bay Company, they claim $3,822,036.37; as the Puget Sound

Company, $1,168,000. The original stock of the Hudson's Bay Company was

L10,500, or $50,820. In 1690 the dividends upon this capital invested

were so enormous that the company voted to treble their stock, which was

declared to be L31,500, or $152,460. In 1720 the capital was again

declared trebled, and to be L94,500, or $457,380, while the only amount

paid was L10,500, or $50,820. It was then proposed to add three times

as much to its capital stock by subscription; each subscriber paying

L100 was to receive L300 of stock, so that the nominal stock should

amount to L378,000, or $1,820,520--the real additional sum subscribed

being L94,500, and the amount of real stock added or paid but L3,150. In

1821, the Hudson's Bay Company and Northwest Company, of Montreal, were

united. The Hudson's Bay Company called L100 on each share of its stock,

thus raising it nominally to L200,000, or $958,000. The Northwest

Company called theirs the same. The two companies combined held a

nominal joint stock of L400,000, or $1,916,000, while we have reason to

suppose that the original stock of the two companies, admitting that the

Northwest French Company had an equal amount of original capital

invested, would give L37,300, or $135,134, as the capital upon which

they have drawn from our country never less than ten per cent. per

annum, even when counted at L400,000, or $1,916,000; and what, we would

ask, has America received in return for this enormous drain of her

wealth and substance?

Have the Indians in any part of the vast country occupied by that

company been civilized or bettered in their condition? Have the

settlements under their fostering care been successful and prosperous?

Have they done any thing to improve any portion of the country they have

occupied, any further than such improvements were necessary to increase

the profits of their fur trade?

To every one of these questions we say, emphatically, No, not in a

single instance. On the contrary, they have used their privileges solely

to draw all the wealth they could from the country, and leave as little

as was possible in return.

The British author, from whose book we have drawn our figures of that

company's stock, says of them: "To say, then, that the trade of this

country (England) has been fostered and extended by the monopoly enjoyed

by the company, is exactly contrary to the truth."

We come now to learn all we can of a something that has assumed the name

of Puget Sound Agricultural Company, and under that name, through the

paternal influence of a bastard corporation, presumes to ask an immense

sum of the American government, whose country they have used all their

power and influence to secure to themselves, by acting falsely to their

own. We do not claim to be learned in the law of nations, therefore we

can only express such an opinion in this case as we would were the case

argued before a learned court and we one of the jurors, giving our

opinion as to the amount the parties were entitled to receive. We will

suppose that the lawyers have made their pleas, which would, when

printed, with the testimony on both sides, make a volume of the usual

size of law books of one thousand pages. Of course the fourth article of

the treaty would be read to us by both the lawyers, and explained by the

judge, who would doubtless say to the jury the first question to decide

is, whether there is sufficient evidence to convince you that the

company claiming this name have any legal existence outside the wording

of the fourth article of this treaty. Our answer would be: "Your honor,

there is not the least word in a single testimony presented before us to

show that they ever had any existence, only as they assumed a name to

designate the place a certain branch of the Hudson's Bay Company's

business, outside of its legitimate trade; that this being a branch

legitimately belonging to a settlement of loyal citizens of the country,

we find that this Hudson's Bay Company, in assuming the _supreme

direction_, as per testimony of Dr. Tolmie, superseded and usurped the

prerogatives of the State; that the claim of this company, as set up in

the wording of the treaty, is for the benefit of a company having no

natural or legal right to assume _supreme direction_ of the soil or its

productions. Hence any improvement made, or stock destroyed, was at the

risk of the individual owning, or making, or bringing such stock or

improvements into the country, and subject exclusively to the laws of

the country in which the trespass occurred. The claiming a name

belonging to no legal body cannot be made legal by a deception practiced

upon the persons making the treaty, as this would be equivalent to

pledging the nation to the payment of money when no cause could be shown

that money was justly due, as neither nation (except by a deception

brought to bear upon commissioners forming the treaty by the mere

assertion of an interested party) acknowledged the reported existence of

such a corporation, thereby creating a corporate body by the wording of

a treaty." This, to a common juror, we confess, would look like removing

the necessity of a common national law, in relation to all claims of

foreigners who might feel disposed to come over and trespass upon our

national domain. A word in this treaty does not settle the matter, and

the claim should not be paid. The article above referred to is commented

upon by Mr. Day as follows:--

"That by article four of the treaty concluded between the United

States of America and Great Britain, under date of the 15th day of

June, 1864, it was provided that the farms, lands, and other

property, of every description, belonging to the Puget Sound

Agricultural Company, on the north side of the Columbia River [they

should have included those in the French possession, and added

another million to their claim; but we suppose they became liberal,

and consented to take half of the country their servants had settled

upon], should be confirmed to the said company; but that in case

the situation of those farms and lands should be considered by the

United States to be of public and political importance, and the

United States government should signify a desire to obtain

possession of the whole, or of any part thereof, the property so

required should be transferred to the said government at a proper

valuation, to be agreed upon between the parties.

"That the government of the United States has not, at any time,

signified to the company a desire that any of the said property

should be transferred to the said government at a valuation as

provided by the treaty, nor has any transfer thereof been made [this

was a great misfortune. Uncle Sam had so much land of his own he did

not want to buy out this bastard company right away after the treaty

was made]; but the company have ever since continued to be the

rightful owners of the said lands, farms, and other property, and

entitled to the free and undisturbed possession and enjoyment

thereof. [True; so with all bastards. They live and die, and never

find a father to own them, except they come up with a big pile of

money, which in your claim is a case of _clonas_ (don't know.)]

"That, by a convention concluded between the two governments on the

1st day of July, 1863, it was agreed that all questions between the

United States authorities on the one hand, and the Puget Sound

Agricultural Company on the other, with respect to the rights and

claims of the latter, should be settled by the transfer of such

rights and claims to the government of the United States for an

adequate money consideration.

"And the claimants aver that the rights and claims of the Puget

Sound Agricultural Company, referred to and intended in and by the

said convention, are their rights and claims in and upon the said

lands, farms, and other property of every description which they so

held and possessed within the said territory, and which, by reason

of the said treaty of the 15th of June, 1846, and according to the

terms of the fourth article thereof, the United States became and

were bound to confirm. And of the said farms and other property,

they now submit to the honorable the commissioners a detailed

statement and valuation, as follows."

There have been twenty-seven witnesses examined to prove the claims

above set forth, and not a single one of them testified or gave the

least intimation that there ever was any such company as here set forth

in existence, only as connected with and subject to the control and

management of the Hudson's Bay Company, the same as their farming

operations at Vancouver or Colville, or any other of their posts. The

claim is so manifestly fictitious and without foundation, that the

learned attorney for the company bases his whole reliance upon the

wording of the treaty, and in consequence of the wording of that treaty,

"and according to the terms of the fourth article thereof, he says the

United States _became_ and _were bound_ to confirm." So we suppose any

other monstrous claim set up by a band of foreign fur traders having

influence enough to start any speculation on a nominal capital in our

country and failing to realize the profits anticipated, must apply for

an acknowledgment of their speculation, be mentioned in a treaty, and be

paid in proportion to the enormity of their demands. We are inclined to

the opinion that so plain a case of fraud will be soon disposed of, and

the overgrown monster that produced it sent howling after the Indians

they have so long and so successfully robbed, as per their own

admission, of L20,000,000 sterling. (See Mr. M. Martin's Hudson's Bay

Company's Territory, etc., p. 131.)

There is another question arising in this supposed Puget Sound concern.

Suppose, for a moment, the commissioners decide to pay the whole or any

part of this demand, who will be the recipients of this money? We doubt

whether the learned commissioners or the counsel of the supposed company

could tell, unless it is to be his fee for prosecuting the case.

Doctor William Fraser Tolmie and Mr. George B. Roberts are the only two

witnesses that appear to know much about the matter, and Mr. Roberts'

information seems to be derived from the same source as our own, so that

the writer, though not a member of the company, has about as good a

knowledge of its object and organization as Mr. Roberts, who was

connected with the Hudson's Bay Company, and also an agent of this Puget

Sound Company.

Dr. Tolmie says: "The Puget Sound Company _acquired_, or purchased from

the Hudson's Bay Company, all its improvements at Cowlitz and Nasqualla,

with its lands, live stock, and agricultural implements, all of which

were transferred, in 1840 or 1841, by the Hudson's Bay Company to the

Puget Sound Company."

As we understand this matter, it amounts to just this, and no more: The

Hudson's Bay Company had consented to enlarge their business by

employing an outside capital or sinking fund they had at their disposal;

they instructed Dr. Tolmie, their special agent for that purpose, to

receive all the property at the two stations or farms named, to take

possession of them, and instead of opening an account with their

opposition sinking fund, they called it the Puget Sound Agricultural

Company. This explains the ten per cent. paid stock into that company.

Now, if this venture is profitable, nothing is lost; if it is not, it

does not interfere with the legitimate business of the fur

company--hence the distinct claim under this name.

"The Puget Sound Company charged the Hudson's Bay Company for all

supplies furnished, and paid the Hudson's Bay Company for all goods

received from them."

This was exactly in the line of the whole business done throughout the

entire Hudson's Bay Company, with all their forts, and other

establishments.

"Were not the accounts of the Puget Sound Company always forwarded to

the Hudson's Bay Company's depot?" "_They were_," says Dr. Tolmie; and

so were all the accounts of all the posts on this coast sent to the

depot at Vancouver, and thence to head-quarters on the other side of the

Rocky Mountains.

We have shown, by reference to the capital stock of the Hudson's Bay

Company, that, in 1821, it was counted at L200,000. From this sum ten

per cent., or L20,000, was set apart as a sinking fund to oppose any fur

company or traders on the west side of the mountains, and an equal sum

for the same purpose on the east.

This western amount, being placed under the direction of Dr. Tolmie and

his successors, produced in seven years L11,000 sterling, equal to

$53,240. This transaction does not appear, from the testimony adduced in

the case, to have interfered in the least with the fur trade carried on

at these stations, and by the same officers or clerks of the Hudson's

Bay Company; hence, we are unable, from the whole catalogue of

twenty-seven witnesses in the case, to find out who is to receive this

nice little sum of $1,168,000 or L240,000--only L40,000 more than the

mother had to trade upon when she produced this beautiful full-grown

child, the Puget Sound Agricultural Company,--having had an abortion on

the other side of the continent in the loss, without pay, of a large

portion of the Red River or Selkirk country. Uncle Sam was ungenerous

there.

This is truly an acre of wonders, and this Hudson's Bay Company and its

productions are entitled to some consideration for their ingenuity, if

not for their honesty. It will be interesting to look at our British

cousins and see what is said about this "_itself_ and _its other self_."

Mr. Fitzgerald says, page 260: "It is a matter of importance to know

whether the Hudson's Bay Company is about to submit itself and _its

other self_--the Puget Sound Association--to the same regulations which

are to be imposed on other settlers of Vancouver Island and British

Columbia."

On page 287, he further states: "The Oregon Territory was peopled, under

the influence of the company, with subjects of the United States.

(Since Writing the former chapter, I have heard this account given of

the conduct of the Hudson's Bay Company, in regard to the Oregon

boundary, which offers still stronger ground for inquiry. The country

south of the 49th parallel, it seems, was hunted up--therefore the posts

of the Hudson's Bay Company were become of no value at all. By annexing

all that country to the United States, and inserting in the treaty a

clause that the United States should pay the company for all its posts

if it turned them out, the company were able to obtain from the

Americans a large sum of money for what would have been worth nothing

had the territory remained British.) That lost us the boundary of the

Columbia River. That is one specimen of the colonization of the Hudson's

Bay Company. The boundary westward from the Lake of the Woods, we have

seen, gave to the United States land from which the company was engaged,

at the very time, in driving out British subjects, on the plea that it

belonged to the company; and now that the boundary has been settled only

a few years, we learn that the settlers on our side are asking the

United States to extend her government over that country."

If this does not show a clear case of abortion on the part of that

_honorable_ Hudson's Bay Company east of the Rocky Mountains, tell us

what does. But it is interesting to trace a little further the British

ideas and pretensions to this Pacific coast. Our British author says,

page 288:--

"Make what lines you please in a map and call them boundaries, but

it is mockery to do so as long as the inhabitants are alienated from

your rule, as long as you have a company in power whose policy

erases the lines which treaties have drawn.

"Forasmuch, then, as these things are so, it becomes this country

[Great Britain] to record an emphatic protest against the recent

policy of the Colonial Office in abandoning the magnificent country

on the shores of the Pacific Ocean to the Hudson's Bay Company.

"The blindest can not long avoid seeing the immense importance of

Vancouver Island to Great Britain. Those who, two years ago [1846],

first began to attract public attention to this question, are not

the less amazed at the unexpected manner and rapidity with which

their anticipations have been realized.

"Six months ago it was a question merely of colonizing Vancouver

Island; now it is a question involving the interests of the whole of

British North America, and of the empire of Great Britain in the

Pacific Ocean."

It is always more or less difficult to trace the course of a false or

fictitious object. It becomes peculiarly so when two objects of the

same character come up; the one, by long practice and experience,

assuming a fair and honorable exterior, having talent, experience, and

wealth; the other, an illegitimate production, being called into

existence to cripple the energies of two powerful nations, and living

under the supreme control of the body, having acquired its position

through the ignorance of the nations it seeks to deceive. It is out of

the question to separate two such objects or associations. The one is

the child of the other, and is permitted to exist while the object to be

accomplished remains an opponent to the parent association.

The opposition to the fur monopoly having ceased west of the Rocky

Mountains, a new element of national aggrandizement and empire comes

within the range of this deceitful and grasping association. Its child

is immediately christened and set to work under its paternal eye. We

have the full history of the progress made by this _Mr. Puget Sound

Agricultural Company_ in the testimony of the twenty-seven witnesses

summoned to prove his separate existence from that of the _Hudson's Bay

Company_.

We find, in tracing the existence of these two children of the British

empire in North America, that they have established themselves in an

island on the Pacific coast called Vancouver. In this island they are

more thrifty and better protected than they were in the dominions of

Uncle Samuel. Notwithstanding they are comfortably located, and have

secured the larger part of that island and the better portion of British

Columbia, there is occasionally a British subject that grumbles a little

about them in the following undignified style:--

"If the company were to be destroyed to-morrow, would England be

poorer? Would there not rather be demanded from the hands of our own

manufacturers ten times the quantity of goods which is sent abroad,

under the present system, to purchase the skins?" My dear sir, this

would make the Indians comfortable and happy. "We boast [says this

Englishman] that we make no slaves, none at least that can taint our

soil, or fret our sight; but we take the child of the forest, whom

God gave us to civilize, and commit him, bound hand and foot, to the

most iron of all despotisms--_a commercial monopoly_.

"Nor, turning from the results of our policy upon the native

population, to its effect upon settlers and colonists, is there

greater cause for congratulation.

"The system which has made the native a slave is making the settler

a rebel.

"Restrictions upon trade, jealousy of its own privileges,

interference with the rights of property, exactions, and all the

other freaks in which monopoly and despotism delight to indulge,

have, it appears, driven the best settlers into American territory,

and left the rest, as it were, packing up their trunks for the

journey."

This, so far as relates to the proceedings, policy, and influence of

that company upon the settlement of Vancouver Island and British

Columbia, is verified by the facts now existing in those British

colonies. Their whole system is a perfect mildew and blight upon any

country in which they are permitted to trade or to do business.

We have little or no expectation that any thing we may write will affect

in the least the decision of the commissioners, whose business it is to

decide this Puget Sound Company's case; but, as a faithful historian, we

place on record the most prominent facts relating to it, for the purpose

of showing the plans and schemes of an English company, who are a

nuisance in the country, and a disgrace to the nation under whose

charters they profess to act. Up to the time we were permitted to

examine the testimony they have produced in support of their monstrous

claims, we were charitable enough to believe there were some men in its

employ who could be relied upon for an honest and truthful statement of

facts in relation to the property and improvements for which these

claims are made; but we are not only disappointed, but forced to believe

the truth is not in them,--at least in any whose testimony is before us

in either case. Our English author says:--

"It does not appear that the interposition of '_an irresponsible

company_' can be attended with benefit to the colony.----A company

whose direction is in London, and which is wholly _irresponsible_,

either to the colonists or to the British Parliament.----There is

ample evidence in the foregoing pages that it would be absurd to

give this company credit for _unproductive

patriotism_.----Considering the identity existing between this

association [the Puget Sound Association] and the Hudson's Bay

Company, in whose hands the whole management of the colonization of

Vancouver Island is placed, there is a very strong reason to fear

that the arrangements which have been made will, for some years at

any rate, utterly ruin that country as a field for colonial

enterprise. There is a strong inducement for the company to grant

all the best part of the island to themselves, under the name of the

Puget Sound Association; and to trust to the settlements which may

be formed by that association as being sufficient to satisfy the

obligation to colonize which is imposed by the charter.

"There is a strong inducement to discourage the immigration of

independent settlers; first, because when all the colonists are in

the position of their own servants, they will be able much more

readily to prevent interference with the fur trade; and secondly,

_because the presence of private capital in the island could only

tend to diminish their own gains, derived from the export of

agricultural produce._

"And, on the other hand, there will be every possible discouragement

to emigrants of the better class to settle in a colony where a large

part of the country will be peopled only by the lowest order of

workmen, where they may have to compete with the capital of a

wealthy company, and that company not only their rival in trade, but

at the same time possessed of the supreme power, and of paramount

political influence in the colony.

"There is a reason, more important than all, why the Hudson's Bay

Company will never be able to form _a colony_. An agricultural

settlement they may establish; a few forts, where Scotchmen will

grumble for a few years before they go over to the Americans, but

never a community that will deserve the name of a British colony.

THEY DO NOT POSSESS PUBLIC CONFIDENCE.

"But the Hudson's Bay Company--the colonial office of this

unfortunate new colony--_has positive interests_ antagonistic to

those of an important settlement.

"It is a body whose history, tendency, traditions, and prospects are

_equally and utterly opposed_ to the existence, within its

hunting-grounds, of an active, wealthy, independent, and flourishing

colony," (we Americans say settlements) "with all the destructive

consequences of ruined monopoly and wide-spread civilization."

Need we stop to say the above is the best of British testimony in favor

of the position we have assumed in relation to a company who will cramp

and dwarf the energies of their own nation to increase the profits on

the paltry capital they have invested.

Have the Americans any right to believe they will pursue any more

liberal course toward them than they have, and do pursue toward their

countrymen? As this writer remarks, "civilization ruins their

_monopoly_." The day those two noble and sainted women, Mrs. Spalding

and Mrs. Whitman, came upon the plains of the Columbia, they could do no

less than allow England's banner to do them reverence, for God had sent

and preserved them, as emblems of American civilization, religious

light, and liberty upon this coast. One of them fell by the ruthless

hand of the sectarian savages, pierced by Hudson's Bay balls from

Hudson's Bay guns. The other was carried, in a Hudson's Bay boat, to the

protecting care of the American settlement; and for what purpose? That

the savage might remain in barbarism; that the monster monopoly might

receive its profits from the starving body and soul of the Indian; that

civilization and Christianity, and the star of empire might be stayed in

their westward course.

Not yet satisfied with the blood of sixteen noble martyrs to

civilization and Christianity, quick as thought their missives are upon

the ocean wave. Wafted upon the wings of the wind, a foul slander is

sent by the representatives of that monopoly all over the earth, to

blast her (Mrs. Whitman's) Christian and missionary character with that

of her martyred husband. And why?

Because that husband had braved the perils of a winter journey to the

capital of his country, to defeat their malicious designs, to shut up

the country and forever close it to American civilization and religion.

And now, with an audacity only equaled by the arch-enemy of God and man,

they come to our government and demand five millions of gold for

facilitating the settlement of a country they had not the courage or

power to prevent.

This, to a person ignorant of the peculiar arrangements of so monstrous

a monopoly, will appear strange--that they should have an exclusive

monopoly in trade in a country, and have not the courage or power to

prevent its settlement, especially when such settlement interferes with

its trade. So far as American territory was concerned, they were only

permitted to have a joint occupancy in trade. The sovereignty or right

of soil was not settled; hence, any open effort against any settler from

any country was a trespass against the rights of such settler. They

could only enforce their chartered privileges in British territory. The

country, under these circumstances, afforded them a vast field in which

to combine and arrange schemes calculated to perpetuate their own power

and influence in it. The natives of the country were their trading

capital and instruments, ready to execute their will upon all opponents.

The Protestant missionaries brought an influence and a power that at

once overturned their licensed privileges in trade, because with the

privilege of trade, they had agreed, in accepting their original

charter, to civilize and Christianize the natives of the country. This

part of their compact the individual members of the company were

fulfilling by each taking a native woman, and rearing as many

half-civilised subjects as was convenient. This had the effect to

destroy their courage in any investigation of their conduct. As to their

power, as we have intimated above, it was derived from the capacity,

courage, prejudices, and ignorance of the Indians, which the American

missionary, if let alone, would soon overcome by his more liberal

dealings with them, and his constant effort to improve their condition,

which, just in proportion as the Indians learned the value of their own

productions and labor, would diminish the profits in the fur trade.

This increase of civilization and settlement, says chief-trader

Anderson, "had been foreseen on the part of the company, and to a

certain extent provided for. The cession of Oregon, under the treaty of

1846, and the consequent negotiations for the transfer to the American

government of all our rights and possessions in their territory,

retarded all further proceedings."

In this statement of Mr. Anderson, and the statement of Mr. Roberts, an

old clerk of the company, and from our own observations, this

"foreseeing" on the part of the company was an arrangement with the

Indians, and such as had been half civilized by the various individual

efforts of the members and servants of the company, to so arrange

matters that an exterminating war against the missionary settlements in

the country should commence before the Mexican difficulty with the

United States was settled.

This view of the question is sustained by the reply of Sir James Douglas

to Mr. Ogden, by Mr. Ogden's course and treatment of the Indians on his

way up the Columbia River, his letters to Revs. E. Walker and Spalding,

his special instructions to the Indians, and payment of presents in war

materials for their captives, and the course pursued by Sir James

Douglas in refusing supplies to the provisional troops and settlers, and

the enormous supplies of ammunition furnished to the priests for the

Indians during the war of 1847-8.

We are decidedly of the same opinion respecting that company as their

own British writer, who, in conclusion, after giving us a history of 281

pages, detailing one unbroken course of oppression and cruelty to all

under their iron despotism, says:--

"The question at issue is a serious one,--whether a valuable

territory shall be given up to an _irresponsible corporation_, to be

colonized or not, as it may suit their convenience; or whether that

colonization shall be conducted in accordance with any principles

which are recognized as sound and right?"

We can easily see the connection in the principle of right in paying any

portion of either of the monstrous claims of that company, which never

has been responsible to any civilized national authority.

"The foregoing exposure of the character and conduct of the

company has been provoked. When doubts were expressed whether the

company were qualified for fulfilling the tasks assigned to them

by the Colonial Minister, and when they appealed to their

character and history, it became right that their history should

be examined, and their character exposed.

"The investigation thus provoked has resulted in the discovery that

their _authority is fictitious, and their claims invalid_. As their

power is illegal, so the exercise of it has been mischievous; it has

been mischievous to Great Britain, leaving her to accomplish, at a

vast national expense, discoveries which the company undertook, and

were paid to perform; and because our trade has been _contracted_

and crippled, without any advantage, political or otherwise, having

been obtained in return; it has been mischievous to the native

Indians, cutting them off from all communication with the rest of

the civilized world, depriving them of the fair value of their

labor, keeping them in a condition of slavery, and leaving them in

the same state of poverty, misery, and paganism in which it

originally found them; it has been mischievous to the settlers and

colonists under its influence, depriving them of their liberties as

British subjects, frustrating, by exactions and arbitrary

regulations, their efforts to advance, and, above all, undermining

their loyalty and attachment to their mother country, and fostering,

by bad government, a spirit of discontent with their own, and

sympathy with foreign institutions."

This writer says: "This is the company whose power is now [in 1849] to

be strengthened and consolidated!--to whose dominion is to be added the

most important post which Great Britain possesses in the Pacific, and to

whom the formation of a new colony is to be intrusted."

And, we add, this is the power that has succeeded in forcing their

infamous claims upon our government to the amount above stated, and by

the oaths of men trained for a long series of years to rob the Indian of

the just value of his labor, to deceive and defraud their own nation as

to the fulfillment of chartered stipulations and privileges.

The facts developed by our history may not affect the decision of the

commissioners in their case, but the future student of the history of

the settlement of our Pacific coast will be able to understand the

influences its early settlers had to contend with, and the English

colonist may learn the secret of their failure to build up a wealthy and

prosperous colony in any part of their vast dominion on the North

American continent.

CHAPTER X.

Case of The Hudson's Bay Company _v._ The United

States.--Examination of Mr. McTavish.--Number of witnesses.--Their

ignorance.--Amount claimed.--Original stock.--Value of land in

Oregon.--Estimate of Hudson's Bay Company's property.--Remarks of

author.

I have carefully reviewed all the testimony in the above case, on both

sides, up to May 1, 1867. On April 12, the counsel on the part of the

United States having already spent twenty-five days in cross-examining

Chief-Factor McTavish, so as to get at the real expenditures of the

Hudson's Bay Company, and arrive at a just conclusion as to the amount

due them,--Mr. McTavish having frequently referred to accounts and

statements which he averred could be found on the various books of the

company,--gave notice to the counsel of the company in the following

language:--

"The counsel for the United States require of Mr. McTavish, who, as

appears from his evidence, is a chief factor of the Hudson's Bay

Company, and its agent in the prosecution of this claim, to produce

here for examination by the United States or their counsel, all

accounts, account-books, and letter-books of said company, together

with the regulations under which their books were kept, and the

various forms of contracts with servants of the company, all of

which books, rules, and forms contain evidence pertinent to the

issue in this case, as appears from the cross-examination of Mr.

McTavish, and suspends the further cross-examination of this witness

until he shall produce such books, accounts, rules, and forms."

On the 1st of May Mr. McTavish's examination was resumed.

_Int. 952._--"Will you please produce here for examination by the

United States or their counsel, all accounts, account-books, and

letter-books of the Hudson's Bay Company which were kept at the

various posts of that company south of the 49th parallel of north

latitude during their occupation by the company, together with the

regulations under which their books were kept, and the regular

forms of contracts with the company's servants?"

_Ans._--"I can not say whether I will produce them or not."

(The above question was objected to as incompetent, and as asking the

witness, not as to what he knows of the subject, but as to what his

future course of action will be, over which, as witness, he can have no

control.)

During the examination of Mr. McTavish it was evident that he was the

main prosecuting witness, and considerably interested in the results of

the claim, or suit.

It would doubtless be interesting to most of our readers to see a review

of the testimony, or at least a summary of the evidence presented on

both sides in this case. There are now printed about one thousand pages

of documents and depositions. That relating particularly to the Hudson's

Bay Company comprises about two-thirds of the whole amount. The balance

relates more particularly to the Puget Sound Agricultural Company's

claim. This claim, the company have not been able, by any testimony yet

presented, to separate from that of the Hudson's Bay Company; so that

there is no prospect of their receiving one dollar on that account.

There have been examined on the part of the Puget Sound Company, to

prove its separate existence from the Hudson's Bay Company, thirty

witnesses; on the part of the United States, twenty-one. On the part of

the Hudson's Bay Company's claim as separate from the Puget Sound

Company, nineteen witnesses; on the part of the United States, thirty.

On both sides not far from forty-five witnesses have been called upon

the stand to testify in this important case. The company in London have

been requested to furnish evidence of the separate organization or

independent existence of the two companies; and with all this evidence

produced, nothing definite or certain is shown, except that the concern

was gotten up to deceive the English people and rob the American

government, and to counteract and oppose the American settlement of this

country.

As a looker-on and an observer of events in this country, I must confess

my astonishment at the ignorance, perverseness, and stupidity of men

whom I have ever heretofore regarded as honorable and truthful.

From the testimony before me of the twenty odd English witnesses, it

really appears as though they felt that all they had to do was to ask

their pay, and our government would give it to them; or, in other words,

they, as Englishmen and British subjects, are prepared to compel the

payment of any sum they demand.

There are many interesting developments brought out in this case

relative to the early history of this country, which renders the

depositions in the case, though voluminous and tedious in the main, yet

interesting to the close and careful student of our history.

If time and opportunity is given, I will review this whole testimony as

a part of the history of this country, and, in so doing, will endeavor

to correct an erroneous impression that will result from the testimony

as now before us.

The amount claimed in this case is four million nine hundred and ninety

thousand thirty-six dollars and sixty-seven cents, or, nine hundred and

eighty-five thousand three hundred and fifty pounds sterling, in gold

coin.

I now have before me, including the Hudson's Bay Company's memorial,

eleven hundred and twenty-six pages of printed documents and depositions

relating to this case. I also have what may properly be termed British

testimony, bearing directly upon this case, which is entitled to its

full weight in a proper and just decision as to the amount of

compensation this Hudson's Bay Company is entitled to receive from our

government.

I do not propose to review all the one thousand four hundred and

nineteen pages of statements and depositions in detail; that would be

too tedious, though I might be able to make it interesting to the

general reader, as it develops the whole history of that portion of our

continent that has for one hundred and ninety-seven years been under the

exclusive jurisdiction of a monopoly that effectually closed it to all

outside influences up to the year A.D. 1834.

According to our British testimony, it was originally L10,500. In 1690,

in consequence of the enormous profits upon this small capital, it was

increased threefold, making it L31,500. In 1720 it was declared to be

L94,500. In this year the stock was (as is termed) _watered_. The then

proprietors each subscribed L100, and received L300 of stock, calling

the whole nominal stock L378,000, while the actual subscription was but

L94,500, and only L3,150 was paid. The stock was ordered to reckon at

L103,500, while the actual total amount paid was but L13,650.

In 1821, there was another "watering" of the stock, and a call of L100

per share on the proprietors, which raised their capital to L200,000.

The Northwest Fur Company joined the Hudson's Bay Company in this year,

and the joint stock was declared to be L400,000.

We are ready to admit, in fact, the testimony in the case goes to prove,

that the French Northwest Company brought into the concern an equal

amount of capital with that of the Hudson's Bay Company. This would give

the present Hudson's Bay Company a real capital of L27,300, a nominal

capital of L400,000.

By reference to the memorial of the company, we find they claim, on the

8th of April, 1867, of our government:--

For the right to trade, of which the settlement of the country and

removal of Indians to reservations has deprived them, L200,000.

For the right of the free navigation of the Columbia River, L300,000.

For their forts, farms, posts, and establishments, with the buildings

and improvements, L285,350, making, in all, L785,350, or $3,822,036.67,

or L385,350 more than the whole amount of nominal stock which they claim

to have invested in their entire trade.

We will not stop to speak of the morality of this claim; it is made in

due form, and this with the claim as set forth in the same document, to

wit: For lands, farms, forts, and improvements, L190,000; loss of live

stock and other losses, L50,000; total, L240,000--equal to $1,188,000,

to be paid in gold. In British money these two sums amount to L1,025,350

sterling, in American dollars to $4,990,036.67; or L625,350 sterling

money more than their nominal stock, and L998,050 sterling more than all

their real stock invested.

It will be remembered that this demand is simply on account of the

settlement of Oregon by the Americans. A part of the posts for which

this demand is made are still in their undisputed possession, and a

large portion of the claim is set up in consequence of the loss of the

profits of the fur trade, of that portion of their business as conducted

in territory that originally belonged to the United States, and was

actually given up to them by the treaty of December 24, 1814.

The reader will bear in mind, that in the review or discussion of this

Hudson's Bay Company's claim on our government, we only refer to that

part of their trade, and the rights or privileges they were permitted to

enjoy, jointly with Americans, in what is now absolutely American

territory. Over two-thirds of their capital has always been employed in

territory that the American has not been permitted to enter, much less

to trade and form a settlement of any kind.

The witnesses on the part of the Hudson's Bay Company have been

forty-one in number. Of this number fifteen are directly interested in

the results of the award. Fourteen were brought to the country by, and

remained in the service of the company till they left the country; and

were all British, though some of them have become naturalized American

citizens. Twelve are American citizens, and are supposed to have no

particular interest in the results of the case; in fact, their

statements are all of a general and very indefinite character. Having

come to the country since 1850, they know but little or nothing about

the Hudson's Bay Company, its rights, policy, or interests there. Not

one of them appears, from the testimony given, to understand the

justness of the company's claim, or the injustice there would be in

allowing any part of it. Their testimony appears to be given under the

impression that because the treaty stipulated that the possessory

rights of the company were acknowledged and to be respected, that

therefore full payment must be paid the company for the right of trade,

and the prospective profits in trade, and the increased value of

assessable property for an indefinite period in the future. As, for

example, a witness is asked:--

"What is the present value per acre of the company's claims at

Cowlitz and Nasqualla, for farming and grazing purposes?"

_Ans._--"Supposing both claims to belong to the same person or

company, having a clear and undisputed title, and perfectly exempt

from molestation in the transaction of business, I think the Cowlitz

claim worth to-day thirty dollars an acre, and the Nasqualla claim

five dollars an acre, for farming and grazing purposes."

The fifteen interested witnesses all testify to about the same thing,

asserting positively as to the real value of the company's supposed

rights. One of the chief factors, in answer to the interrogatory, "State

the value of the post at Vancouver, as well in 1846 as since, until the

year 1863; give the value of the lands and of the buildings separately;

and state also what was the value of the post in relation to the other

posts, and as a center of trade," said:--

"It being the general depot for the trade of the company west of the

Rocky Mountains, in 1846 the establishment at Vancouver, with its

out-buildings, was in thorough order, having been lately rebuilt;

taking into account this post" (a notorious fact that but two new

buildings were about the establishment and in decent repair),

"together with the various improvements at the mill, on the mill

plain, on the lower plain, and at Sauvies Island, I should estimate

its value then to the company at from five to six hundred thousand

dollars."

The value of the land used by the company, at Fort Vancouver, in 1846,

say containing a frontage of twenty-five miles on the Columbia, by ten

miles in depth, in all two hundred and fifty square miles, or about

160,000 acres, I should calculate as being worth then, on an average,

from $2.50 to $3 an acre (at $2.50 would give us $400,000); this, with

the improvements, say $500,000, gives us, at this witness's lowest

estimate, $900,000 for the company's possessory rights.

This witness goes into an argument stating surrounding and probable

events, and concludes in these words: "I am clearly of opinion that had

the company entire control to deal with it as their own, without any

question as to their title, from the year 1846 and up to 1858, when I

left there, taking the fort as a center point, the land above and below

it, to the extent of three square miles, or 1,920 acres, with frontage

on the Columbia River, could have been easily disposed of for $250 per

acre ($480,000). The remainder of the land claim of the company at

Vancouver is more or less valuable, according to its locality; thus, I

consider the land on the lower plain, having frontage on the river for a

distance of five miles, or 3,200 acres, as worth $100 per acre

($320,000). Below that, again, to the Cathlapootl, a distance of

probably ten miles, with a depth of two miles, or 12,800 acres, is worth

$25 an acre ($320,000). Going above the fort plain, and so on to the

commencement of the claim, two miles above the saw-mill on the Columbia

River, say a distance of six or seven miles and back three miles, or

about 13,500 acres, should be worth from $10 to $15 per acre" ($135,000,

at $10, his lowest estimate). "The remainder of the claim is worth from

$1.50 to $3 per acre." It being 128,580 acres, at $1.50 per acre,

$192,580. This would make for the Vancouver property, as claimed, and

several witnesses have sworn the value to amount, as per summary of a

chief factor's testimony--

For the fort, buildings, farm and mill improvements $500,000

" 1,920 acres of land about the fort at $250 per acre 480,000

" 3,200 " below the fort, at $100 " " 320,000

" 12,800 " on lower plain, at $25 " " 320,000

" 13,500 " above the saw-mill, at $10 " " 135,000

" 128,580 " balance of claim, at $1.50 " " 192,580

This gives us the sum of $1,947,580 in gold coin, as the value of the

possessory rights of the honorable the Hudson's Bay Company to Fort

Vancouver and its immediate surroundings.

This chief factor's oath and estimate of the property is sustained by

the estimates and oaths of three other chief factors, amounting to about

the same sum. This one, after answering in writing, as appears in his

cross-examination, twenty sworn questions affirming to the facts and

truth of his knowledge of the claims and business of the company, etc.,

is cross-questioned (Interrogatory 477), by the counsel for the United

States, as follows: "Can you not answer the last interrogatory more

definitely?" The 476th interrogatory was: "Have you not as much

knowledge of what the company claimed in this direction as any other?"

The answer to the 477th interrogatory is: "Referring to my answer to the

last interrogatory, it will be at once seen that _I have no personal

knowledge_ as to what land the company actually claimed on that line _or

any other_, as regards the land in the neighborhood of Fort Vancouver.

This answer embraces even the present time."

There are several American witnesses introduced to prove this monstrous

claim, and to show the reasonableness and justness of their demand. I

will give a specimen of an answer given by one of them. After estimating

the amount of land in a similar manner to the witness above referred to,

calculating the land in four divisions, at $50, $10, and $1.25 per

acre, and 161,000 acres amounting to $789,625, without any estimate upon

the buildings or improvements, the following question was put to him:

"Have you any knowledge of the market value of land in the vicinity of

Vancouver, at any time since 1860?"

_Ans._--"I only heard of one sale, which was near the military reserve;

I think this was of 100 acres, and I understand brought $100 an acre. I

heard of this within the last few months, but nothing was said, that I

remember, about the time when the sale was made."

From the intelligence and official position of this American witness, we

are forced to the conclusion that the enriching effects of old Hudson's

Bay rum must have made him feel both wealthy and peculiarly liberal in

estimating the possessory rights of his Hudson's Bay Company friends.

There is one noticeable fact in relation to quite a number of the

witnesses called, and that have testified in behalf of the company's

claim. It is their ignorance--we may add, total ignorance--of the

general business, profits, and policy of the company. This remark will

apply to every witness whose deposition has been taken, including their

bookkeepers and clerks in London, and their chief factors in Oregon. Dr.

McLaughlin seems to have been the only man upon this coast that knew, or

that could give an intelligent account of its policy or its proceedings.

The whole Hudson's Bay Company concern appears like a great barrel,

bale, or box of goods, put up in London, and marked for a certain

district, servants and clerks sent along with the bales, and boxes, and

barrels of rum, to gather up all the furs and valuable skins they can

find all over the vast country they occupy, then bale up these furs and

skins and send them to London, where another set of clerks sell them and

distribute the profits on the sale of the furs.

As to the value of the soil, timber, minerals, or any improvements they

have ever seen or made in the country, they are as ignorant as the

savages of the country they have been trading with. _This ignorance is

real or willful._ The oaths of the two witnesses to which I have

referred show this fact beyond a doubt, they having been the longest in

the service, and attained a high position, and should know the most of

its business and policy.

There is one other American witness that has given his testimony in the

case of Puget Sound Agricultural Company _v._ United States. He came to

this country in 1853. In cross-interrogatory 55, he is asked: "In your

opinion, did not the agents of this company afford great protection to

the first settlers of this section of country by the exercise of their

influence over the different Indian tribes?"

_Ans._--"In my opinion, the officers of the company, being _educated

gentlemen_, have always exerted whatever influence they might have had

with the Indians to protect the whites of all nations in the early

settlement of the country."

This opinion is expressed by a gentleman having no knowledge of the

policy and proceedings of the company in relation to all American

settlers previous to his arrival in the country. He concludes that

because he, in his official transactions, having no occasion to ask or

receive the company's protection, was treated kindly, all others must

have been, as the company's officers were, in his opinion, "educated

gentlemen."

In answer to this last official American gentleman and his officious

opinion, as expressed on oath in this case, I will quote a statement,

under oath, of one of our old _bed-rock_ settlers, who came on to the

west side of the Rocky Mountains in 1829, twenty-four years previous to

the last witness, who pretends to know so much.

_Int. 7._--"What influence did the Hudson's Bay Company exercise over

the Indians in the section where you operated, with reference to the

American trappers and traders? State such facts as occur to you in this

connection."

_Ans._--"The Hudson's Bay Company exercised a great influence over the

western Indians; that is, the Cayuses, Nez Perces, Flatheads, and

Spokans, and others through these; they had no influence over the

Indians east of the Rocky Mountains at all, and away south they could do

almost any thing with the Indians. I know of one party that was robbed

by order of one of the Hudson's Bay Company men, the commander of Fort

Wallawalla (Wallula); the party was robbed, and the fur brought back to

the fort and sold. I was not with the party; that was my understanding

about the matter; and that was what the Indians said, and what the

whites said that were robbed." (A fact known to the writer.)

_Int. 13._--"Was it not generally understood among the American trappers

that the Hudson's Bay Company got a very large quantity of Jedediah

Smith's furs, for which he and they failed to account to the company to

which they belonged?" (Objected to, because it is leading, immaterial,

and hearsay.)

_Ans._--"It used to be said so among the trappers in the mountains,"

(and admitted by the company, as no correct account was ever rendered.)

_Int. 14._--"If you remember, state the quantity which was thus

reported." (Objected to as before.)

_Ans._--"It was always reported as about forty packs."

_Int. 15._--"Give an estimate of the value of forty packs of beaver at

that time."

_Ans._--"Forty packs of beaver at that time, in the mountains, was worth

about $20,000. I do not know what they would be worth at Vancouver."

_Int. 16._--"State whether the dispute about this matter was the cause

of the dissolution of the firm of Smith, Jackson & Sublet, to which you

refer in your cross-examination." (Objected to as above.)

_Ans._--"I do not know; that was the report among mountain men."

With these specimens of testimony on both sides, I will venture a

general statement drawn from the whole facts developed.

About the time, or perhaps one year before, the notice that the joint

occupancy of the country west of the Rocky Mountains was given by the

American government to that of the British, the Hudson's Bay Company, as

such, had made extensive preparations and arrangements to hold the

country west of the Rocky Mountains. This arrangement embraced a full

and complete organization of the Indian tribes under the various traders

and factors at the various forts in the country.

The probability of a Mexican war with the United States, and such

influences as could be brought to bear upon commissioners, or the

treaty-making power of the American government, would enable them to

secure this object. In this they failed. The Mexican war was

successfully and honorably closed. The Hudson's Bay Company's claims are

respected, or at least mentioned as in existence, in the treaty of 1846,

that the 49th parallel should be the boundary _of the two national

dominions_.

On the strength of their supposed possessory right, they remain quietly

in their old forts and French pig-pens, take a full inventory of their

old Indian salmon-houses, and watch the progress of American improvement

upon this coast, till 1863, when the American people are in the midst of

a death struggle for its civil existence. They then for the third time

"water" this monstrosity under the name of "'The International Financial

Society, limited,' are prepared to receive subscriptions for the issue

at par of capital stock in the Hudson's Bay Company, incorporated by

royal charter, 1670," fixing the nominal stock of the Hudson's Bay

Company at L2,000,000; and taking from this amount L1,930,000, they

offer it for sale under this new title in shares of L20 each, claiming

as belonging to them [_i.e._, the Hudson's Bay Company] 1,400,000

square miles, or upward of 896,000,000 acres of land, and, after paying

all expenses, an income of L81,000 in ten years, up to the 31st of

May--over four per cent. on the L2,000,000. This vast humbug is held up

for the English public to invest in,--a colonization scheme to enrich

the favored shareholders of that old English aristocratic humbug

chartered by Charles II. in 1670.

In the whole history of that company there has never been any

investigation of its internal policy so thorough as in the present

proceedings. In fact, this is the first time they have ventured to allow

a legal investigation into their system of trade and their rights of

property. They have grown to such enormous proportions, and controlled

so vast a country, that the government and treasury of the United States

has become, in their estimation, a mere appendage to facilitate their

Indian trade and financial speculations. From our recent purchases of

Russian territory, it becomes an important question to every American

citizen, and especially our statesmen, to make himself familiar with so

vast an influence under the British flag, and extending along so great

an extent of our northern frontier. Should they establish, by their own

interested and ignorant testimony, their present claims, there will be

no end to their unreasonable demands, for they have dotted the whole

continent with their trading-posts. They claim all that is supposed to

be of any value to savage and civilized man. The English nation without

its Hudson's Bay Company's old traps and hunting-parties would have no

claim west of the Rocky Mountains, yet, for the sake of these, it has

almost ventured a third war with our American people in sending from its

shores, instead of land pirates, under the bars and stars, the red flag

of the Hudson's Bay Company. The two flags should be folded together and

laid up in the British Museum, as a lasting monument of British

injustice.

I apprehend, from a careful review of all this testimony of the

forty-one witnesses who were on the part of the Hudson's Bay Company,

and the forty-two on the part of the United States, that the whole

policy of the company has been thoroughly developed; yet, at the same

time, without a long personal acquaintance with their manner of doing

business, it would be difficult to comprehend the full import of the

testimony given, though I apprehend the commissioners will have no very

difficult task to understand the humbuggery of the whole claim, as

developed by the testimony of the clerks in London and the investigation

at head-quarters. As to the amount of award, I would not risk one dollar

to obtain a share in all they get from our government. On the contrary,

a claim should be made against them for damages and trespass upon the

American citizens, as also the lives of such as they have caused to be

murdered by their influence over the Indians.

The telegraph has informed us that the commissioners have awarded to the

Hudson's Bay Company, $450,000, and to the Puget Sound concern,

$200,000. We have no change to make in our opinion of the commissioners

previously expressed, as they must have known, from the testimony

developed in the Puget Sound concern, that that part of the claim was a

fictitious one, and instituted to distract the public and divide the

pretensions to so large an amount in two parts. That the commissioners

should allow it can only be understood upon the principle that the

Hudson's Bay Company were entitled to that amount as an item of costs in

prosecuting their case.

No man at all familiar with the history of this coast, and of the

Hudson's Bay Company, can conscientiously approve of that award. Our

forefathers, in 1776, said "millions for defense, but not one cent for

tribute," which we consider this award to be,--for the benefit of

English duplicity and double-dealing, in the false representations they

made at the making of the treaty, and the perjury of their witnesses.

CHAPTER XI.

Quotation from Mr. Swan.--His mistake.--General Gibbs'

mistake.--Kamaiyahkan.--Indian agent killed.--I. I. Stevens

misjudged.

The gigantic fraud of slavery fell, in our own land, in the short space

of four years; but that of this company--holding and destroying as many

lives as the African slave trade--holds its own, and still lifts its

head, under the patronage of a professed Christian nation; and claims to

be an honorable company, while it robs and starves its unnumbered

benighted Indians, and shuts up half of North America from civilization.

At the same time it has obtained $650,000 for partially withdrawing its

continued robberies of the American Indians within the United States,

after implanting in the savage mind an implacable hatred against the

American people.

While we have our own personal knowledge on this point, we will give a

quotation from Mr. Swan's work, written in 1852, page 381, showing his

views of the subject, which are mostly correct; but, in speaking of the

trade of the Americans and of the Hudson's Bay Company, he says: "The

Indians preferred to trade with the Americans, for they kept one article

in great demand, which the Hudson's Bay people did not sell, and that

was whisky."

In this Mr. Swan is entirely mistaken. The Hudson's Bay people always

had liquor, and let the Indians have all they could pay for, as proved

by their own writer, Mr. Dunn. (See 12th chapter.) Mr. S. continues:

"Reckless, worthless men, who are always to be found in new settlements,

would give or sell whisky to the Indians, and then, when drunk, abuse

them. If the injury was of a serious nature, the Indian was sure to have

revenge; and should he kill a white man, would be certainly hanged, if

caught; but, although the same law operated on the whites, I have never

known an instance where a white man has been hanged for killing an

Indian." This has been my experience, Mr. Swan, for more than thirty

years, with the Hudson's Bay Company, or English. When a white man kills

an Indian, the tribe, or his friends, are satisfied with a present,

instead of the life of the murderer. It has been invariably the practice

with the Hudson's Bay Company to pay, when any of their people kill an

Indian, and to kill the Indian murderer; not so when an American is

killed. Says Mr. Swan: "The ill-feelings thus engendered against the

Americans, by this, and other causes, was continually _fanned and kept

alive by these half-breeds and old servants of the company_, whose

feelings were irritated by what they considered an unwarrantable

assumption on the part of these settlers, in coming across the mountains

to squat upon lands they considered theirs by right of prior occupancy.

_The officers of the company_ also sympathized with their old servants

in this respect, and a _deadly feeling of hatred had existed_ between

these officers and the American emigrant, for their course in taking

possession of the lands claimed by the Puget Sound Agricultural Company,

and other places on the Sound and the Columbia River; and there is not a

man among them who would not be glad to have had every American emigrant

driven out of the country." It is unnecessary to add examples of this

kind to prove to any reasonable mind the continued hostility of that

company, and all under its influence, to the American government and

people.

Can their friendship be bought by paying them the entire sum they claim?

We think not.

Whatever sum is given will go to enrich the shareholders, who will

rejoice over their success, as an Indian would over the scalp of his

enemy. The _implacable hatred will remain_, and nothing but

extermination, or a complete absorption of the whole continent into the

American republic, will close up the difficulty, and save a remnant of

the Indian tribes. This, to some, may not be desirable; but humanity and

right should, and will, eventually, prevail over crime, or any foreign

policy.

The American people are taunted by the Roman Jesuits and English with

having driven the Indian from his lands, and having occupied it

themselves; but how is it with the English? While the American has

attempted to gather the Indians into convenient communities, and spent

millions of dollars to civilize and better their condition, the English

nation, as such, has never given one dollar, but has chartered company

after company of merchants, traders, and explorers, who have entered the

Indian country under their exclusive charters, or license to trade, and

shut it up from all others. They have, in the profitable prosecution of

their trade, so managed as to exterminate all surplus and useless

Indians, and reduce them to easy and profitable control. Should one of

their half-breed servants, or a white man, attempt to expose their

system, or speak of their iniquitous policy, a great hue and cry is

raised against him, both in England and America, and he must fall,

either by a misinformed public or by savage hands, while they

triumphantly refer to the ease with which they exercise absolute

control over the Indians in their jurisdiction, as a reason why they

should be permitted to continue their exclusive occupation and

government of the country. Thus, for being forced partially to leave

that portion of Oregon south of the 49th parallel, they presumed to make

a claim against our government three times larger than the whole capital

stock of the two companies combined.

This hue and cry, and the public sentiment they have continued to raise

and control, has its double object. The one is to continue their

exclusive possession of, and trade in the country, the other is to

obtain all the money they can from the American government for the

little part of it they have professedly given up.

It will be remembered that in the investigation of their claims, and the

depositions given, it was stated that Forts Okanagon, Colville,

Kootanie, and Flathead, were still in their possession in 1866; that

Wallawalla, Fort Hall, and Boise were given up because they were

prohibited by the government from trading ammunition and guns to the

Indians. This means simply that the last-named posts were too far from

their own territory to enable them to trade in these prohibited

articles, and escape detection by the American authorities. The northern

posts, or those contiguous to the 49th parallel, are still occupied by

them. From these posts they supply the Indians, and send their

emissaries into the American territory, and keep up the "_deadly

hatred_," of which Mr. Swan speaks, and about which General Gibbs, in

his letter explaining the causes of the Indian war, is so much mistaken.

There is one fact stated by General Gibbs, showing the continued

combination of the Roman priests with the Hudson's Bay Company, which we

will give in this connection. He says: "The Yankamas have always been

opposed to the intrusion of the Americans." This is also a mistake of

Mr. Gibbs, as we visited that tribe in the fall of 1839, and found them

friendly, and anxious to have an American missionary among them. At that

time there had been no priest among them, and no combined effort of the

company to get rid of the American missionary settlements. Kamaiyahkan,

the very chief mentioned by General Gibbs as being at the head of the

combination against the Americans, accompanied us to Dr. Whitman's

station, to urge the establishment of an American mission among his

people.

General Gibbs says, that, "as early as 1853, Kamaiyahkan had projected a

war of extermination. Father Pandosa, the priest at Atahnam (Yankama)

mission, in the spring of that year, wrote to Father Mesplie, the one at

the Dalls, desiring him to inform Major Alvord, in command at that post,

of the fact. Major Alvord reported it to General Hitchcock, then in

command on this coast, Hitchcock _censured_ him as an _alarmist_, and

Pandosa was _censured_ by his superiors, who forthwith placed a priest

of higher rank over him."

The next year, Indian agent Bolon was killed, and the war commenced. How

did General Hitchcock learn that Pandosa, a simple-hearted priest, and

Major Alvord were alarmists? The fact of the censure, and placing a

priest of higher rank over Pandosa at the Yankama station (the very

place we selected in 1839 for an American station), is conclusive

evidence on this point.

"The war of extermination," that General Gibbs, in his mistaken ideas of

Hudson's Bay policy and Indian character, attributes to the policy of

Governor I. I. Stevens, was commenced in 1845. At that time, it was

supposed by James Douglas, Mr. Ogden, and the ruling spirits of that

company, that all they had to do was to withhold munitions of war from

the Americans, and the Indians would do the balance for them.

The Indian wars that followed, and that are kept up and encouraged along

our borders, and all over this coast, are the legitimate fruits of the

"DEADLY HATRED" implanted in the mind and soul of the Indian BY THE

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY AND THEIR ALLIES, THE PRIESTS. There is an object

in this: while they teach the Indians to believe that the Americans are

robbing them of their lands and country, they at the same time pretend

that they do not want it.

Like Bishop Blanchet with the Cayuses, they "only want a small piece of

land to raise a little provisions from," and they are continually

bringing such goods as the Indians want; and whenever they are ready to

join their forces and send their war-parties into American territory,

this company of _honorable English fur traders_ are always ready to

supply them with arms and ammunition, and to purchase from them the

goods or cattle (including scalps, in case of war between the two

nations) they may capture on such expeditions.

The more our government pays to that company, or their fictitious agent,

the more means they will have to carry on their opposition to American

commerce and enterprise on this coast. Should they obtain but one-third

of their outrageous claim, it is contemplated to invest it, with their

original stock, in a new company, under the same name, Honorable

Hudson's Bay Company, and to extend their operations so as to embrace

not only the fur, but gold and grain trade, over this whole western

coast.

Will it be for the interests of this country to encourage them? Let

their conduct and proceeding while they had the absolute control of it

answer, and prove a timely warning to the country before such vampires

are allowed to fasten themselves upon it.

CHAPTER XII.

Review of Mr. Greenhow's work in connection with the conduct and

policy of the Hudson's Bay Company.--Schools and

missionaries.--Reasons for giving extracts from Mr. Greenhow's

work.--Present necessity for more knowledge about the company.

As stated by General Gibbs, Mr. Greenhow has given us a complete history

of the discovery of Oregon. At the point where he leaves us the reader

will observe our present history commences. We did not read Mr.

Greenhow's very elaborate and interesting history till ours had been

completed in manuscript. On reading it, we found abundant proof of

statements we have made respecting the policy of the British government

to hold, by the influence of her Hudson's Bay Company, the entire

country west of the Rocky Mountains that was not fully occupied by the

Russian and Spanish governments.

This fact alone makes our history the more important and interesting to

the American reader. Mr. Greenhow, upon pages 360 and 361 of his work,

closes the labors of the eleven different American fur companies with

the name of Captain Nathaniel Wyeth, and upon these two pages introduces

the American missionaries, with the Roman Jesuits, though the latter did

not arrive in the country till four years after the former.

On his 388th page, after speaking of various transactions relative to

California, the Sandwich Islands, and the proceedings in Congress

relative to the Oregon country, he says: "In the mean time, the Hudson's

Bay Company had been doing all in its power to extend and confirm its

position in the countries west of the Rocky Mountains, from which its

governors felicitated themselves with the idea that they had expelled

the Americans entirely."

Page 389. "The object of the company was, therefore, to place a large

number of British subjects in Oregon within the shortest time, and, of

course, to exclude from it as much as possible all people of the United

States; so that when the period for terminating the convention with the

latter power should arrive, Great Britain might be able to present the

strongest title to the possession of the whole, on the ground of actual

occupation by the Hudson's Bay Company. To these ends the efforts of

that company had been for some time directed. The immigration of British

subjects was encouraged; the Americans were by all means excluded; _and

the Indians were brought as much as possible into friendship with, and

subject to, the company, while they were taught to regard the people of

the United States as enemies!_"

In a work entitled "Four Years in British Columbia," by Commander R. C.

Mayne, R. N., F. R. G. S., page 279, this British writer says: "I have

also spoken of the intense hatred of them all for the Boston men

(Americans). This hatred, although nursed chiefly by the cruelty with

which they are treated by them, is also owing in a great measure to the

system adopted by the Americans of removing them away from their

villages when their sites become settled by whites. The Indians often

express dread lest we should adopt the same course, and have lately

petitioned Governor Douglas on the subject."

Commander Mayne informs us, on his 193d page, that in the performance of

his official duties among the Indians, "recourse to very strong

expressions was found necessary; and they were threatened with the

undying wrath of Mr. Douglas, whose name always acts as a talisman with

them."

We shall have occasion to quote statements from members of the Hudson's

Bay Company, and from Jesuit priests, further confirming the truth of

Mr. Greenhow's statement as above quoted. It would be gratifying to us

to be able, from our long personal experience and observations relative

to the policy and conduct of the Hudson's Bay Company, to fully confirm

the very plausible, and, if true, honorable treatment of the aborigines

of these countries; but truth, candor, observation, our own and other

personal knowledge, compel us to believe and know that Mr. Greenhow is

entirely mistaken when he says, on his 389th page, speaking of the

Hudson's Bay Company:--

"In the treatment of the aborigines of these countries, the Hudson's

Bay Company _admirably combined and reconciled humanity with

policy_. In the first place, its agents were strictly prohibited

from furnishing them with ardent spirits; and there is reason to

believe that the prohibition has been carefully enforced.

"Sunday, March 11, 1852," says Mr. Dunn, one of their own servants,

"Indians remained in their huts, perhaps praying, or more likely

singing over the _rum_ they had traded with us on

Saturday.----Tuesday, April 26.--Great many Indians on

board.----Traded a number of skins. They seem to like _rum_ very

much.----May 4.--They were all _drunk_; went on shore, made a fire

about 11 o'clock; being then all drunk began firing on one

another.----June 30.--The Indians are bringing their blankets--their

skins are all gone; they seem very fond of _rum_.----July 11.--They

traded a quantity of _rum_ from us."

The Kingston _Chronicle_, a newspaper, on the 27th of September, 1848,

says: "The Hudson's Bay Company have, in some instances _with their

rum_, traded the goods given in presents to the Indians by the Canadian

Government, and afterward so traded the same with them at an advance of

little short of a thousand per cent."

Question asked by the Parliamentary Committee: "Are intoxicating liquors

supplied in any part of the country--and where?" The five witnesses

answered:--

1st. "At every place where he was."

2d. "All but the Mandan Indians were desirous to obtain intoxicating

liquor; _and the company supply them with it freely_."

3d. "At Jack River I saw liquor given for furs."

4th. "At York Factory and Oxford House."

5th. The fifth witness had seen liquor given "at Norway House only."

The writer has seen liquor given and sold to the Indians at every post

of the company, from the mouth of the Columbia to Fort Hall, including

Fort Colville, and by the traveling traders of the company; so that

whatever pretensions the company make to the contrary, the proof is

conclusive, that they traffic in liquors, without any restraint or

hinderance, all over the Indian countries they occupy. That they charge

this liquor traffic to renegade Americans I am fully aware; at the same

time I know they have supplied it to Indians, when there were no

Americans in the country that had any to sell or give.

In the narrative of the Rev. Mr. King, it is stated that "the agents of

the Hudson's Bay Company are not satisfied with putting so insignificant

value upon the furs, that the more active hunters only can gain a

support, which necessarily leads to the death of the more aged and

infirm by starvation and cannibalism, but they encourage the intemperate

use of ardent spirits."

Says Mr. Alexander Simpson, one of the company's own chief traders:

"That body has assumed much credit for the discontinuance of the sale of

spirituous liquors at its trading establishments, but I apprehend that

in this matter it has both claimed and received more praise than is its

due. The issue of spirits has not been discontinued by it on principle,

indeed it has not been discontinued at all when there is a possibility

of diminution of trade through the Indians having the power to resent

this deprivation of their accustomed and much-loved annual

jollification, by carrying their furs to another market."

This means simply that Mr. Greenhow and all other admirers of the

Hudson's Bay Company's manner of treating Indians have been humbugged by

their professions of "_humanity and policy_."

We are inclined to return Mr. Greenhow's compliment to the Rev. Samuel

Parker in his own language, as found on the 361st page of his work. He

says: "Mr. Samuel Parker, whose journal of his tour beyond the Rocky

Mountains, though highly interesting and instructive, would have been

much more so had he confined himself to the results of his own

experience, and not wandered into the region of history, diplomacy, and

cosmogony, in all of which he is evidently a stranger." So with Mr.

Greenhow, when he attempts to reconcile the conduct of the Hudson's Bay

Company with "_humanity_," and admires their policy, and gives them

credit for honorable treatment of "Indians, missionaries, and settlers,"

he leaves his legitimate subject of history and diplomacy, and goes into

the subject of the Hudson's Bay Company's moral _policy_, to which he

appears quite as much a "stranger" as Mr. Samuel Parker does to those

subjects in which Mr. Greenhow found him deficient.

But, notwithstanding we are inclined to return Mr. Greenhow's compliment

in his own language, his historical researches and facts are invaluable,

as developing a deep scheme of a foreign national grasping disposition,

to hold, by a low, mean, underhanded, and, as Mr. Greenhow says, "false

and malicious course of misrepresentation, the country west of the Rocky

Mountains." There are a few pages in Mr. Greenhow's history that,--as

ours is now fully written, and we see no reason to change a statement we

have made,--for the information of our readers, and to correct what we

conceive to be an erroneous impression of his relative to our early

settlements upon this coast, we will quote, and request our readers to

observe our corrections in the history or narration of events we have

given them.

"Schools for the instruction of their children, and hospitals for

their sick, were established at all their principal trading-posts;

each of which, moreover, afforded the means of employment and

support to Indians disposed to work in the intervals between the

hunting seasons."

Says the Rev. Mr. Barnley, a Wesleyan missionary at Moose Factory, whose

labors commenced in June, 1840, and continued till September, 1847: "A

plan which I had devised for educating and turning to some acquaintance

with agriculture, native children, was disallowed,----it being very

distinctly stated by Sir George Simpson, that the company would not give

them even a spade toward commencing their new mode of life."

Says Mr. Greenhow: "_Missionaries of various sects were encouraged to

undertake to convert these people to Christianity, and to induce them to

adopt the usages of civilized life_, so far as might be consistent with

the nature of the labors in which they are engaged; care being at the

same time taken to instill into their minds due respect for the

company, and for the sovereign of Great Britain; and attempts were

made, at great expense, though with little success, to collect them into

villages, or tracts where the soil and climate are favorable to

agriculture."

Mr. Barnley says: "At Moose Factory, where the resources were most

ample, and where was the seat of authority in the southern department of

Rupert's Land, the _hostility_ of the company (and not merely their

inability to aid me, whether with convenience or inconvenience to

themselves) was most manifest."

Another of the English missionaries writes in this manner: "When at York

Factory last fall (1848), a young gentleman boasted that he had

succeeded in starting the Christian Indians of Rossville off with the

boats on a Sunday. Thus every effort we make for their moral and

spiritual improvement is frustrated, and those who were, and still are,

desirous of becoming Christians, are kept away; the pagan Indians

desiring to become Christians, but being made drunk on their arrival at

the fort, 'their good desires vanish.' The Indians professing

Christianity had actually exchanged one keg of rum for tea and sugar, at

one post, but the successive offers of liquor betrayed them into

intoxication at another."

The Rev. Mr. Beaver, chaplain of the company at Fort Vancouver, in 1836,

writes thus to the Aborigines Protection Society, London, tract 8, page

19:--

"For a time I reported to the governor and committee of the company

in England, and to the governor and the council of the company

abroad, the result of my observations, with a view to a gradual

amelioration of the wretched degradation with which I was

surrounded, by an immediate attempt at the introduction of

civilization and Christianity, among one or more of the aboriginal

tribes; but my earnest representations were neither attended to nor

acted upon; no means were placed at my disposal for carrying out the

plan which I suggested."

Mr. Greenhow says, page 389: "Particular care was also extended to the

education of the half-breed children, the offspring of the marriage or

the concubinage of the traders with the Indian women, who were retained

and bred as much as possible among the white people, and were taken into

the service of the company, whenever they were found capable. There

being few white women in those countries, it is evident that these

half-breeds must, in time, form a large, if not an important portion of

the inhabitants; and there is nothing to prevent their being adopted and

recognized as British subjects.

"The conduct of the Hudson's Bay Company, in these respects, is

worthy of _commendation_; and may be contrasted most favorably with

that pursued at the present day by civilized people toward the

aborigines of all other new countries."

It is a most singular fact, that while Mr. Greenhow was writing the

above high commendation of the conduct and policy of the Hudson's Bay

Company, in relation to their treatment of Indians and missionaries

under their absolute control, that that company were driving from their

posts at Moose Factory and Vancouver, their own Wesleyan and Episcopal

missionaries, and doing all they could to prevent the settlement or

civilization of the Indians, or allowing any missionary intercourse with

them, except by foreign Roman Jesuits, and were actually combining the

Indians in Oregon to destroy and defeat civil and Christian efforts

among the Indians and American settlements then being established in the

country. Page 390, Mr. Greenhow further says: "The course pursued by the

Hudson's Bay Company, with regard to American citizens in the territory

west of the Rocky Mountains, was equally _unexceptionable_ and

_politic_. The missionaries and immigrants from the United States, or

from whatever country they might come, were received at the

establishments of the company with the utmost kindness, and were aided

in the prosecution of their respective objects, _so far and so long as

those objects were not commercial_; but no sooner did any person,

unconnected with the company, attempt to hunt, or trap, or trade with

the Indians, than all the force of the body was turned against him."

The statement in the last part of the foregoing paragraph can be

attested by more than one hundred American hunters and traders, who have

felt the full force of that company's influence against them; as also by

missionaries and settlers on first arriving in the country. But Mr.

Greenhow says: "There is no evidence or reason to believe that violent

measures were ever employed, either directly or indirectly, for this

purpose; nor would such means have been needed while the company enjoyed

advantages over all competitors, such as are afforded by its wealth, its

organization, and the skill and knowledge of the country, and of the

natives, possessed by its agents." This is simply an assertion of Mr.

Greenhow, which our future pages will correct in the mind of any who

have received it as truth. It is unnecessary to pursue Mr. Greenhow's

history of the Hudson's Bay Company respecting their treatment of

American or English missionaries or American settlers; the statements we

have quoted show fully his want of a correct knowledge of the practices

of that company in dealing with savage and civilized men. We only claim

for ourselves close observation and deeply interested participation in

all that relates to Oregon since 1832, having been permitted to be

present at the forming of its early civil settlement and political

history. This work of Mr. Greenhow's appears to be peculiarly political

as well as strongly national, and in the passages we have quoted, with

many other similar ones, he seems to us to have written to catch the

patronage of this foreign English corporation, which, according to his

own showing, has been an incubus upon the English, and, so far as

possible, the Americans also. While he shows his utter ignorance of

their internal policy and history, his researches in the history of the

early discoveries on this western coast are ample And most useful as

vindicating our American claim to the country. But as to its settlement

and civilization, or its early moral or political history, as he says of

Mr. Samuel Parker, "in all of which he is evidently a stranger."

Our reasons for giving the extracts from Mr. Greenhow's work are--

1st. That the reader may the better understand what follows as our own.

2d. To avoid a future collision or controversy respecting statements

that may be quoted from him to contradict or controvert our own,

respecting the policy and practices of the Hudson's Bay Company, which,

Mr. Greenhow says, page 391, "did no more than they were entitled to do.

If the Americans neglected or were unable to avail themselves of the

benefits secured to both nations by the convention, the fault or the

misfortune was their own, and they had no right to complain." If this is

true, as against the American, what right has the Hudson's Bay Company

to complain and ask pay for what had been rendered worthless to them by

the American settlement of the country?

"The hospitable treatment extended to them [American citizens] by the

agents of the Hudson's Bay Company was doubtless approved by the

directors of that body; and all who know Messrs. McLaughlin and Douglas,

the principal managers of the affairs of that body on the Columbia,

unite in testifying that the humanity and generosity of those gentlemen

have been always carried as far as their duties would permit. That their

conduct does not, however, meet with universal approbation among the

servants of the company in that quarter, sufficient evidence may be

cited to prove." He quotes John Dunn's book, chap. 12.

Mr. Greenhow wrote his history with the light then existing, _i.e._, in

1844. About that time Dr. McLaughlin was called to an account by the

directors of the Hudson's Bay Company, in London. He explained to them

his position, and the condition of the Americans, who came to this

country both naked and hungry, and that, as a man of common humanity, he

could do no less than he did. The directors insisted upon the

enforcement of their stringent rule, which was, to starve and drive

every American from the country. He then told them: "_If such is your

order, gentlemen, I will serve you no longer._" As to Mr. Douglas, we

have no such noble sentiment to record in his behalf; he belonged to

that English party called by Mr. Greenhow "_Patriots_." He says: "There

were two parties among the British in Oregon, the _Patriots_ and the

_Liberals_, who, while they agreed in holding all Americans in utter

detestation, as _knaves_ and _ruffians_, yet differed as to the

propriety of the course pursued with regard to them by the company. The

_Patriots_ maintained, that kindness showed to the people of the United

States was thrown away, and would be badly requited; that it was merely

nurturing a race of men, who would soon rise from their weak and humble

position, as grateful acknowledgers of favors, to the bold attitude of

questioners of the authority of Great Britain, and her right, even to

Vancouver itself; that if any attempts were made for the conversion of

the natives to Christianity, and to the adoption of more humanized

institutions (which they limited to British institutions), a solid and

permanent foundation should be laid; and for that purpose, if

missionaries were to be introduced, they should come within the direct

control of the dominant power, that is, the British power, and should be

the countrymen of those who actually occupied Oregon, etc. The

_Liberals_, while admitting all that was said on the other side, of the

character of the Americans, nevertheless charitably opined that those

people should not be excluded, as they possessed some claim, 'feeble,

but yet existing,' to the country, and until 'these were quashed or

confirmed, it would be unjust and impolite' to prevent them from all

possession; _that these missionaries, though bad_, were better than

none; and that good would grow out of evil in the end, for the

Americans, by their intercourse with the British, _would become more

humanized, tolerant, and honest_."

As most of the above sentiment relative to the two English parties in

the country appears to be quoted by Mr. Greenhow from some author, it

would be interesting to know who he is; still, the fact is all that is

essential to know, and we have reason to believe and know that the

sentiments expressed were entertained by the controlling authority of

the company in London and in Oregon; and that Messrs. Douglas and Ogden,

and the Roman priests under their patronage, acted fully up to them as

Roman and British Jesuits, there is no question; and under such

circumstances, it is not surprising that the immigration from the United

States in 1843, '44, and '45, should increase that feeling of hostility

and hatred of the American settlement and civilization in the country.

We do not propose at present to speak of the action of the American

Congress relative to Oregon, but, as will be seen, to connect and bring

into our own history such allusions of Mr. Greenhow as serve to

illustrate and prove the several propositions we have stated respecting

the early history of its settlement, and also to prepare the reader to

understand in a manner the combined influences that were ready to

contest any claim or effort any American company or citizen might make

for the future occupation of the country.

It will be seen that no company of settlers or traders could have

succeeded, having arrived in advance of the American missionaries. They

were unquestionably the only nucleus around which a permanent settlement

could have been formed, eleven different American fur companies having

commenced and failed, as will be shown; and although Mr. Greenhow seems

to regard and treat the American missionary effort with contempt, yet

impartial history will place them in the foreground, and award to them

an honorable place in counteracting foreign influences and saving the

country to its rightful owners.

It will be seen by the preliminary and following remarks and narrative

of events, and by a careful study of all the histories and journals to

which we have had occasion to refer, or from which we have quoted a

statement, that the forming, civilizing, and political period in our

Oregon history is all a blank, except that the Hudson's Bay Company were

the patron saints, the noble and generous preservers of the "_knaves_"

and "_ruffians_" that came to this country to rob them of their pious

and humane labors to civilize their accomplished native "concubines."

That, according to their ideas, the missionaries, such as came from the

United States, "_though bad_," could become "_humanized_, _tolerant_,"

and even "_honest_," by associating with such noble, generous, tolerant,

virtuous, and pure-minded traders as controlled the affairs of that

company, under the faithfully-executed and stringent rules of the

honorable directors in London.

At the present time there is an additional important reason for a better

understanding and a more thorough knowledge of the influences and

operations of this British monopoly than formerly. Notwithstanding they

have been driven from Oregon by its American settlement, they have

retired to British Columbia, and, like barnacles upon a ship's bottom,

have fastened themselves all along the Russian and American territories,

to repeat just what they did in Oregon; and, with the savage hordes with

whom they have always freely mingled, they will repeat their

depredations upon our American settlements, and defeat every effort to

civilize or Christianize the natives over whom they have any influence.

Six generations of natives have passed away under their system of trade

and civilization. The French, English, and Indians before our American

revolution and independence could not harmonize. The French were driven

from their American possessions and control over the Indians, and peace

followed. The Indians, English, and Americans can not harmonize; they

never have, and they never will; hence, it becomes a question of vast

moment, not only to the Indian race, but to the American people, as to

the propriety and expediency of allowing the English nation or British

or foreign subjects to further exercise any influence among our American

Indians.

Mr. A. H. Jackson estimates the expense of our Indian wars, since 1831

to the present time, at one thousand millions of dollars and

thirty-seven thousand lives of our citizens, not counting the lives of

Indians destroyed by our American wars with them. If the reader will

carefully read and candidly judge of the historical facts presented in

the following pages, we have no fears but they will join us in our

conclusions, that the Monroe doctrine is irrevocably and of necessity

fixed in our American existence as a nation at peace with all, which we

can not have so long as any foreign sectarian or political organizations

are permitted to have a controlling influence over savage minds. A

Frenchman, an Englishman, a Mormon, a Roman priest, any one, or all of

them, fraternizing as they do with the Indian, can work upon his

prejudices and superstitions and involve our country in an Indian

war--which secures the Indian trade to the British fur company. This is

the great object sought to be accomplished in nearly all the wars our

government has had with them.

One other remarkable fact is noted in all our Indian wars, the American

or Protestant missionaries have been invariably driven from among those

tribes, while the Roman Jesuit missionaries have been protected and

continued among the Indians, aiding and counseling them in the

continuance of those wars. It is no new thing that ignorance,

superstition, and sectarian hate has produced such results upon the

savage mind, and our Oregon history shows that a shrewd British fur

company can duly appreciate and make use of just such influences to

promote and perpetuate their trade on the American continent.

CHAPTER XIII.

Occupants of the country.--Danger to outsiders.--Description of

missionaries.

In 1832, this entire country, from the Russian settlement on the north

to the gulf of California on the south, the Rocky Mountains on the east

to the Pacific Ocean on the west, was under the absolute and undisputed

control of the Honorable Hudson's Bay Company; and the said company

claimed and exercised exclusive civil, religious, political, and

commercial jurisdiction over all this vast country, leaving a narrow

strip of neutral territory between the United States and their assumed

possessions, lying between the Rocky Mountains and the western borders

of Missouri. Its inhabitants were gentlemen of the Hudson's Bay

Company,--their clerks, traders, and servants,--consisting mostly of

Canadian-French, half-breeds, and natives.

Occasionally, when a venturesome Yankee ship or fur trader entered any

of the ports of the aforesaid country for trade, exploration, or

settlement, this honorable company asserted its licensed and exclusive

right to drive said vessel, trader, explorer, or settler from it. Should

he be so bold as to venture to pass the trained bands of the wild

savages of the mountains, or, even by accident, reach the sacred

trading-ground of this company, he was helped to a passage out of it, or

allowed to perish by the hand of any savage who saw fit to punish him

for his temerity.

While this exclusive jurisdiction was claimed and exercised by the

company, four wild, untutored Indians of the Flathead tribe learned from

an American trapper, who had strayed into their country, that there was

a Supreme Being, worthy of worship, and that, by going to his country,

they could learn all about him. Four of these sons of the wilderness

found their way to St. Louis, Missouri, in 1832. Mr. Catlin, a

celebrated naturalist and artist, I believe not a member of any

religious sect, learned the object that had brought these red men from

the mountains of Oregon, and gave the fact to the religious public.

This little incident, though small in itself, resulted in the

organization, in 1833, of the Missionary Board of the Methodist

Episcopal Church, the appointment of Rev. Jason Lee and associates, to

the establishment of the Methodist Mission in the Wallamet Valley in

1834, the appointment of Rev. Samuel Parker and Dr. Marcus Whitman, by

the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, to explore

the country in 1835, and the establishment of a mission by said Board in

1836.

Rev. Jason Lee, of Stansted, Canada East, a man of light hair, blue

eyes, fair complexion, spare habit, above ordinary height, a little

stoop-shouldered, with strong nerve and indomitable will, yet a meek,

warm-hearted, and humble Christian, gaining by his affable and easy

manners the esteem of all who became acquainted with him, was the first

to volunteer.

Rev. Daniel Lee, a nephew of Jason, was the second;--the opposite of the

former in every particular--of medium height. The general impression of

outsiders was, that his moral qualities were not of the highest order,

yet it is not known that any specific charges were ever brought against

him.

Cyrus Shepard, a lay member, was a devoted Christian, and a faithful

laborer for the advancement of the objects of the mission and the

general welfare of all in the country. We have never learned that he had

an enemy or a slanderer while he lived in it. On his first arrival he

taught the Hudson's Bay Company's school at Vancouver, consisting of

children belonging to persons in the employ of the company, till the

mission buildings were ready, when he gathered a large school of Indian

and French half-breed children, and was quite successful in teaching the

rudiments of an English education. Rev. D. Lee and Mr. Shepard were from

New England.

Mr. P. L. Edwards, of Missouri, also a lay member, was of the company.

But little is known of him; the inducements to become a permanent

settler in the country do not appear in his case.

Rev. Samuel Parker, of Ithaca, New York, a man of good education and

refinement, and exceedingly set in his opinions and conclusions of men

and things, came to explore the country, and report to the American

Board as to the feasibility of establishing missions among the Indians,

one of the missionaries of the American Board, from the Sandwich

Islands, having visited the coast in an American ship, several years

previous, and made an unfavorable report on account of the fur-trade

influence against American traders, giving the impression that American

missionaries would not be tolerated in the country.

Mr. Parker was inclined to self-applause, requiring his full share of

ministerial approbation or respect, though not fully qualified to draw

it cheerfully from an audience or his listeners; was rather fastidious.

Dr. Marcus Whitman, of Rushville, New York, sent in company with Mr.

Parker to explore the country. A man of easy, _don't-care_ habits, that

could become all things to all men, and yet a sincere and earnest man,

speaking his mind before he thought the second time, giving his views on

all subjects without much consideration, correcting and changing them

when good reasons were presented, yet, when fixed in the pursuit of an

object, adhering to it with unflinching tenacity. A stranger would

consider him fickle and stubborn, yet he was sincere and kind, and

generous to a fault, devoting every energy of his mind and body to the

welfare of the Indians and objects of the mission; seldom manifesting

fears of any danger that might surround him, at times he would become

animated and earnest in his argument or conversation. In his profession

he was a bold practitioner, and generally successful. He was above

medium height; of spare habit; peculiar hair, a portion of each being

white and a dark brown, so that it might be called iron-gray; deep blue

eyes, and large mouth.

The peculiarities of Messrs. Parker and Whitman were such, that, when

they had reached the rendezvous on Green River, in the Rocky Mountains,

they agreed to separate; not because Dr. Whitman was not willing and

anxious to continue the exploring expedition, in company with Mr.

Parker, but because Mr. P. could not "put up" with the off-hand,

careless, and, as he thought, slovenly manner in which Dr. Whitman was

inclined to travel. Dr. W. was a man that could accommodate himself to

circumstances; such as dipping the water from the running stream with

his hand, to drink; having but a hunter's knife (without a fork) to cut

and eat his food; in short, could _rough it_ without qualms of stomach.