MORE LIGHT ON CLOSING OF VIEW STREET.
I had intended to let "View Street" and its closing up in 1858 alone,
being content that I had proved that it was understood in 1858 that
it reached to Wharf Street, but I have since come upon some
interesting evidence bearing upon it and so give it to those old
timers whom I am sure will be interested. Firstly, there is to be
seen plainly painted on a verandah on a building facing on what was
then known as View Street, opposite the Hudson Bay Company's store
"View Street," and I also produce an editorial in the _Colonist_,
written by my old friend Amor de Cosmos, November 14, 1859, which
proves that it was a burning question at that time and here it
is verbatim.
The British _Colonist_, Printed and Published by Amor
De Cosmos, Wharf Street, East side, between
Yates and View Streets, Victoria, V. I.
Friday, September 9, 1859.
This was cut out of the file that contained the editorial, as
further proof.
E. Fawcett.
[Illustration: View St.]
"We have long been aware that the Hudson's Bay Company claim the
ownership of the streets of Victoria. In fact, in 1858 their title
was so far asserted as to sell a portion of the street where Johnson
and Wharf Streets unite at Victoria bridge.
"They also shut up one street at the south end of the Fort and opened
another a little beyond. Besides this they promised in 1838 to the
purchasers of lots on View Street that that street should be opened
from Broad to Wharf. Instead of fulfilling their promise like an
honest company, that street was actually closed, instead of opened,
by blocking up the west end by a large brick police building. It is
true that since May last--when the Government reserve between Yates
and the block house was seized by the Company, with the consent of
His Excellency--a small alley has been opened where View Street ought
to be, but even that by some unknown authority, assumed by the Police
Commissioners, has been closed to vehicles. That authority will,
however, soon be tested, if the obstacle is not speedily removed, as
purchasers of lots in the reserve are entitled to its use. Had it not
been for our timely exposure of the intentions of the Company, the
line of Wharf Street would have been deflected like an elbow, from
Reid's corner southerly. The last act, however, of the honorable
Hudson's Bay Company, is not only contemptible, but 'unjust and
oppressive,' although His Excellency Governor Douglas, in his
despatch of October 25, 1858, said that the often asserted charge in
England that the Company 'had made an unjust and oppressive use of
their power in this country,' is altogether unfounded.
"It appears that the agent of the Company sold last week all the
trees on our streets to a party for firewood. Mr. Pemberton, Police
Commissioner, at the request of some property holders, cut down the
two oaks at the corner of Government and Yates Street, but it was no
sooner done than Dr. Tuzo presented a bill to him for twenty dollars,
ten dollars each. Opposite Mr. Adams' property on Douglas and
View Streets, Mr. Adams forbid the parties, but in his absence they
were felled. He then claimed the trees, as they were intersected
every way by his property. But Dr. Tuzo threatened him with five
hundred dollars damages, assuring him that the trees belonged to the
Company. Up Fort Street a number of oaks have been felled. Aside
from the vandalism which would sell and cut down a single tree
for a few paltry dollars, where it was no obstruction to travel,
but an ornament to the street--the act of itself is a foul
wrong--unwarrantable and without a particle of right to support it,
either in law or equity. We cannot well conceive how that the
agents of the Company could do such a scurvy trick--such an act
of vandalism--except that they have been influenced to do so by a
resident San Francisco landshark. Selling the trees therefore may
be to maintain color of title to the streets. But that will prove
useless. Viewing the townsite as their private property, when they
sold they forever conveyed away their claim to the streets. But the
townsite is not private property, although it has unjustifiably been
so claimed from the first settlement of the Colony. As private
property the Company have no claim to it which will stand the test
of law or equity. It is to all intents and purposes in the same
condition as the lands of Cowichan, Nootka or Cape Scott; and the
funds derived from the sale as justly belong to the Territorial
revenues of the Colony. Taking then the townsite to be like other
lands, subject to the conditions of the grant, (which we will
hereafter prove) we find that one of the conditions says: 'That the
said Company shall (for the purposes of colonization) dispose of all
lands hereby granted to them, at a reasonable price, except as much
thereof as may be required for public purposes.' The streets are
used for public purposes--and for that reason the Company have no
more right to them, nor the trees, than anyone else. Their act of
felling trees on the public streets, and their intimation, deserves
the strongest mark of public censure--and merits the attention of
the proper authorities.
"Besides if our connection with the Hudson's Bay Company is not
speedily ended we may expect many more such trumped-up claims as
their claim to the streets, which they will want us to pay for."
I think my pioneer friends will now agree with me that enough
evidence has been furnished to prove my contention that View Street
was originally intended to reach from Wharf Street to Cook Street,
and farther if necessary.