English Hudson’s Bay effort to secure Oregon.—British claim to Oregon.—Dr. McLaughlin’s relation to the company.—Treatment of Red River settlers.—A mistake.—Sir Edward Belcher.—Duplicity of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—A noble man.—An Englishman’s opinion of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—Sir James Douglas’s testimony.—J. Ross Browne.—Duty of an historian.—Cause and effect.
English Hudson’s Bay effort to secure Oregon.—British claim to Oregon.—Dr. McLaughlin’s relation to the company.—Treatment of Red River settlers.—A mistake.—Sir Edward Belcher.—Duplicity of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—A noble man.—An Englishman’s opinion of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—Sir James Douglas’s testimony.—J. Ross Browne.—Duty of an historian.—Cause and effect.
Since commencing this work we have, by the kindness of friends who have taken a deep interest in all that relates to this country, been furnished with many valuable and important statements, documents, pamphlets, papers, and books, all relating to its early history.
Of the whole catalogue, the most valuable information is contained in a work entitled “An Examination of the Charter and Proceedings of the Hudson’s Bay Company, with Reference to the Grant of Vancouver’s Island. By James Edward Fitzgerald. London.” Published in 1849.
The author of this book, though not having the personal knowledge of the company, the Indians, and the country about which he writes requisite to a complete history, has shown a correctness of statistical facts, a comprehensive knowledge of his subject, an enlarged view of the British colonial system, and a correct idea of the debasing practices and utterly false positions of the Hudson’s Bay Company not found in any other writer.
Up to the time that this book of 293 pages fell into my hands, I did not know that any writer entertained similar views with myself in relation to this monstrous imposition upon the British and American people.
Mr. Fitzgerald has fortified his statements by his knowledge of the English people, their laws and usages, and the casual outcroppings of a system of unparalleled selfishness and despotism, carried on under the guise of a Christian commercial company, whose professed object was to extend commerce, and civilize and christianize the savage tribes of North America, yet who have invariably held up their Christian chartered privileges for the sole purpose of carrying on the most degrading and inhuman practices with not only the savages, but with all civilized and Christian men who have attempted to expose or even investigate their conduct.
As we proceed with our history, we feel confident that we shall beable to enlighten our readers on many dark subjects and transactions, and to fully prove every statement we have made, or may yet make. Mr. Fitzgerald has given us clearly and truthfully the English side of our history as connected with this Hudson’s Bay Company. The American part of it the writer is gathering up, and, in giving it to the public, will discard every statement that does not bear the impress of truth.
The reader will notice that our subject is extensive, that England and America, commerce and Christianity, civilization and savagism, are all involved and interested in it, and that Oregon, California, and British and Russian America have all participated in it during the past and present century; that we are tracing cause and effect and bringing to light influences that, while producing their legitimate results, were strange and unaccountable, because always kept under the selfish and unscrupulous policy of this English corporation of fur traders.
By referring to the charter of the Hudson’s Bay Company, we find that it was given by Charles II., in 1670, granting to the “governor and company and their successors the exclusive right to trade, fish, and hunt in the waters, bays, rivers, lakes, and creeks entering into Hudson’s Straits, together with all the lands and territories not already occupied or granted to any of the king’s subjects, or possessed by the subjects of any other Christian prince or State.”
Forty years previous to the giving of this charter by Charles II., of England, Louis XIII., of France, gave a charter to a French company, who occupied the country called Acadia, or New France.
In 1632, Charles I., of England, resigned to Louis XIII., of France, the sovereignty of the country then called Acadia, or New France.
Forty years after Louis XIII., of France, had given his charter, and thirty-eight years after Charles I., of England, had given up his right to the country, Charles II., of England, imitating the example of him who wished to give the world and all its glory to obtain the worship of the Saviour of mankind, gave to the Hudson’s Bay Company what he had not the shadow of a title to, as in the treaty of Ryswick, in 1697, twenty-seven years after this charter of the Hudson’s Bay Company had been given, the whole country was confirmed to France, and no reservation made on account of the Hudson’s Bay Company.
Mr. Fitzgerald, on his 12th page, says: “It has often been asserted, and is to a great extent believed, because there is very little general information on this subject, that theclaim which Great Britain made to the Oregon Territory was dependent upon, or, at any rate, strengthened by, the settlement of the Hudson’s Bay Company on the Columbia River.
“Those who hold such an opinion will be surprised to learn that there are many, and they well acquainted with the country itself, who assert that the conduct and policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company in the Oregon Territory formed the chief part of the title which the United States had to the country, which was gratuitously given to her by the settlement of the boundary. What the United States owe to the company for its policy on the west side of the Rocky Mountains is a question to which the English public will some day demand a satisfactory answer.
“Dr. McLaughlin was formerly an agent in the Northwest Fur Company of Montreal; he was one of the most enterprising and active in conducting the war between that association and the Hudson’s Bay Company. In the year 1821, when the rival companies united, Dr. McLaughlin became a factor of the Hudson’s Bay Company. But his allegiance does not appear to have been disposed of along with his interests, and his sympathy with any thing other than British, seems to have done justice to his birth and education, which were those of a French Canadian. This gentleman was appointed governor of all the country west of the Rocky Mountains, and is accused, by those who have been in that country, of having uniformly encouraged the emigration of settlers from the United States, and of having discouraged that of British subjects.While the company in this country (England) were asserting that their settlements on the Columbia River were giving validity to the claim of Great Britain to the Oregon Territory, it appears that their chief officer on the spot was doing all in his power to facilitate the operations of those whose whole object it was to annihilate that claim altogether.”
Mr. Fitzgerald has given us in the above statement an important fact, and one that reveals to an American the deep-laid schemes of the English government, which, by the influence of the Hudson’s Bay Company, sought to secure the Oregon Territory to itself. He also explains the conduct of Dr. McLaughlin in his treatment of emigrants, as well as the relation he sustained to that company. While, as Americans, we can admire and applaud the conduct of a noble and generous “Canadian-born”citizen, we at the same time can see the low, debasing, and mean spirit of the Englishman, as manifested in the attempt to deprive the American Republic of its rightful domain.
We shall have occasion to refer to the bringing into Oregon of the Red River settlers, and as the result of that move, the unparalleled effort of Dr. Whitman to defeat the British designs upon the country.
Mr. Fitzgerald explains that matter so well, that we could not do justice to the truth of history not to quote him. He says, on the 14th page of his work: “There is one story told, about which it is right that the truth should be ascertained. It is said that a number of half-breeds from the Red River settlement were, in the year of 1841-2, induced by the company’s officers to undertake a journey entirely across the continent, with the object of becoming settlers on the Columbia River. It appears that a number went, but on arriving in the country, so far from finding any of the promised encouragement, the treatment they received from Dr. McLaughlin was such, that, after having been nearly starved under the paternal care of that gentleman, they all went over to the American settlement in the Wallamet Valley.”
This statement, while it affirms an important fact, gives a false impression as regards Dr. McLaughlin. He, to our certain knowledge, extended to the Red River settlers every facility within his power, and all of those emigrants to this day speak of his kindness in the highest terms. But not so of other leading or controlling members, who really represented the English part and policy of that company. Those settlers complained of the domineering and tyrannical treatment of their English overseers, which was the cause of their leaving what they supposed would eventually be the English part of Oregon Territory. They also became sensible that the Hudson’s Bay Company in Oregon was a different concern from the Hudson’s Bay Company in Rupert’s Land; that, however small their privileges were there, they were less on Puget Sound; and being near an American settlement, they naturally sought its advantages and protection.
Mr. Fitzgerald informs us that “these emigrants became citizens of the United States, and it is further said were the first to memorialize Congress to extend the power of the United States over the Oregon Territory. For the truth of these statements we do not, of course vouch, but we do say they demand inquiry.”
This statement of Mr. Fitzgerald entitles him to be considered a candid and fair writer, and one who is seeking for truth in reference to the subject he is investigating. He has naturally imbibed the feelings of an Englishman against Dr. McLaughlin, under the strong effort made by the English Hudson’s Bay Company to suppress and supersede the French Canadian influence in it.
He says, on page 15: “Dr. McLaughlin’s policy was so manifestly American that it is openly canvassed in a book written by Mr. Dunn, one of the servants of the company, and written for the purpose of praising their system and policy.”
Sir Edward Belcher also alludes to this policy. He says: “Some fewyears since, the company determined on forming settlements on the rich lands situated on the Wallamet and other rivers, and for providing for their retired servants, by allotting them farms, and further aiding them by supplies of cattle, etc. That on the Wallamet was a field too inviting for missionary enthusiasm to overlook, but instead of selecting a British subject to afford them spiritual assistance, recourse was had to Americans, a course pregnant with evil consequences, and particularly in the political squabble pending, as will be seen by the result. No sooner had the American and his allies fairly squatted (which they deem taking possession of the country), than they invited their brethren to join them, and called on the American government for laws and protection.”
The American reader will smile at Sir Edward’s little fling at thesquattersin Oregon. He asserts a great truth in the same sentence that he utters a positive falsehood. No member of the Hudson’s Bay Company, nor the whole company together, ever encouraged a single American missionary to come to the country. Revs. Lee and Parker and Dr. Whitman came without their invitation or aid. They were entirely independent of the company, and were only suffered to remain, the company not daring to drive them from the country on their first arrival, as they all held the protection of the American government, as Indian teachers, under the great seal of the Secretary of War. This English fling at their own company is evidence of a jealousy existing which could not be satisfied short of the utter extermination of all American influence on this coast, and is further illustrated by this same Sir Edward Belcher, in contrasting the treatment of Captain Wilkes and his party with that of his own. He says (vol. 1, p. 297): “The attention of the chief to myself and those immediately about me, particularly in sending down fresh supplies, previous to my arrival, I feel fully grateful for; but I can not conceal my disappointment at the want of accommodation exhibited toward the crews of the vessels under my command in aBritish possession.” We old Oregonians are amused at Sir Edward’s ignorance of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s treatment of thecrewsof vessels, and servants of the company. We all know his crew were allowed to associate freely with the native women in the country and to distribute their rations of rum, and any other supplies they might have, without any remonstrance from the company. Sir Edward continues: “We certainly were not distressed, nor was it imperatively necessary that fresh beef and vegetables should be supplied, or I should have made a formal demand. But as regarded those who might come after, and not improbably myself among the number, I inquired in direct terms what facilities her Majesty’s shipof war might expect, in the event of touching at this port for bullocks, flour, vegetables, etc. I certainly was extremely surprised at the reply that they were not in a condition to supply. As any observation here would be useless, and I well knew this point could be readily settled where authority could be referred to, I let the matter rest. But having been invited to inspect the farm and dairy, and been informed of the quantity of grain, and the means of furnishing flour, and notwithstanding the profusion of cattle and potatoes, no offer having been made for our crew, I regretted that I had been led into the acceptance of private supplies; although, at that time, the other officers of the establishment had told my officers that supplies would of course be sent down.”
Mr. Fitzgerald says “the American policy of the Hudson’s Bay Companywould seem, from the above facts, to be more than a matter of suspicion,” while we Americans are only disposed to regard them as a part of theduplicityof that company in their effortto deceive their own countrymenas to the value of the country over which they had ruled so long.
They had been too successful in deceiving all American writers to allow their own countrymen to understand their secret policy. Sir Edward Belcher and our English historian were equally misled in relation to theAmerican policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company. It is true that Dr. McLaughlin, though he was a French Canadian subject, had not lost his American soul. The British iron had not driven the last noble sentiment of humanity from his heart, nor his connection with that polluted corporation of iniquity which pervades half the continent of North America; for when he found that this Hudson’s Bay Company was utterly lost to humanity, he tells them to their teeth: “Gentlemen, I will serve you no longer.”
No true American historian will allow, without contradiction, that corrupt company to hand down to future infamy the name of a noble and generous servant, because their infamous policy was defeated by the establishment of the American missions in the country. Dr. McLaughlin did all that he could, honorably, to comply with their “system of iniquity.”
Our English author says, on page 19, in reference to the conduct of the company: “They are convictions which have strengthened and deepened at every step of the inquiry; convictions that the Hudson’s Bay Company has entailed misery and destruction upon thousands throughout the country which is withering under its curse; that it has cramped and crippled the energies and enterprise of England, which might have found occupation in the directions from which theyare now excluded; that it has stopped the extension of civilization, and hasexcluded the light of religious truth; that it has alienated the hearts of all under its oppression, and made them hostile to their country; above all, that the whole and entire fabric is built upon utterly false and fictitious grounds; that it has not one shadow of reality in law or in justice; that there is not the smallest legal authority for any one of the rights which this corporation claims. It is this conviction which has urged me to submit the statements and arguments contained in the following pages to the consideration of the public; and to arraign before that tribunal, from which in these days there is no escape,—the judgment of public opinion,—a corporation who, under the authority of a charter which is invalid in law, hold a monopoly in commerce, and exercisea despotism in government, and have so used that monopoly and wielded that power as to shut up the earth from the knowledge of man, and man from the knowledge of God.”
With the statements and convictions of this English author before us, we will add a statement of Sir James Douglas, given in answer to interrogatory 11 in the case of Hudson’s Bay Company’s Claim v. United States, to give the reader a better idea of the power and influence of that company in Oregon, in 1846.
Sir James says: “The Honorable Hudson’s Bay Company had fifty-five officers and five hundred and thirteen articled men. The company having a large, active, and experienced force of servants in their employ, and holding establishments judiciously situated in the most favorable portions for trade, forming, as it were, a net-work of posts aiding and supporting each other,possessed an extraordinary influence with the natives, and in 1846 practically enjoyed a monopoly of the fur trade in the country west of the Rocky Mountains, north and south of the forty-ninth parallel of latitude. The profits of their trade,” says this witness, “from 1841 to 1846 were at least seven thousand pounds sterling annually.”
The fifty-five officers and five hundred and thirteen articled men of the company, with their eight hundred half-breeds, and the Indians they could command by the judicious position of their respective posts, were deemed by them sufficient security for their trade, and a substantial reason why they should not give up the country without making another direct effort to drive the missionary and American settlements from it, notwithstanding all their pretension to join in the provisional government organized by the pioneer Americans in 1843.
The reader is referred to the discussion on the liquor question between Judge Sir James Douglas and Mr. Samuel Parker, as found in the tenth and eleventh numbers, first volume, of theSpectator, published June 11 and 25, 1845, and in another chapter of this work, and requested to keep all these facts before the mind, so as not to lose sight of the commanding influence, or, in other words, the commander, when we enter upon the preliminary and immediate causes of the Whitman massacre, and the Indian war that followed.
We have before us the original depositions in reference to the facts stated, and also the attempt to excuse the principal actors in that horrible transaction, as given by Brouillet in justification of the course pursued by the Jesuit missionaries.
We have also the superficial and bombastic report of J. Ross Browne, special agent of the Treasury Department, dated December 4, 1857, containing a copy of this Jesuit history of the murder of Dr. Whitman. In his remarks previous to giving Brouillet’s history, he says: “In view of the fact, however, that objections might be made to any testimony coming from the citizens of the Territories, and believing also that it is the duty of a public agent to present, as far as practicable,unprejudiced statements, I did not permit myself to be governed by any representations unsupported by reliable historical data.” —— “The fact also is shown that, as far back as 1835, the Indians west of the Rocky Mountains protested against the taking away of their lands by the white race. That this was one of the alleged causes of the murder of Dr. Whitman and family.”
There are sixty-six pages in this report. Twelve of them are Mr. Browne’s, one page of official acknowledgment, and fifty-three from the parties implicated.
The statements of Mr. Browne, of Mr. Fitzgerald, and the oath of Mr. Douglas, are sufficient to show the ignorance, stupidity, and falsehood incorporated in his report, were there no other historical facts to convict him of ignorance in allowing such representations to be made in an official document. In the proper place we will bring this report into our history, with both sides of the question.
Were we to express an opinion of Mr. J. Ross Browne’s report, with our personal knowledge of what he pretends to relate, we would say he ignored the people, the country, and the government whose agent he claimed to be, and was reporting for the special benefit of the Roman religion and British government, as these are extensively quoted as historical data from which his report and conclusions are drawn.
The reader will understand our main object to be to give a full history of all influences and prominent transactions and events that have occurred in Oregon from 1792 to 1849.
To understand cause and effect, and the true history of the country,we have to examine the facts as connected with actions, and also to trace back the history of the actors, in order to see how far they may be made responsible for the result of their actions.
Oregon, from the time of its discovery, has been a field where all the influences of which we are writing have been living, active influences; and they are by no means inactive or dead at the present time. Some of them are more active now than they were in 1836.
A full knowledge of the past will enable us to guard the present and the future. Our English writer has gathered his facts and drawn his conclusions in London. We, upon this, our western coast, are witnesses of the cause and results of his conclusions, and any statement he makes we feel ourselves abundantly able to corroborate or correct.
As we proceed with our history we shall have frequent occasion to quote Mr. Fitzgerald, as the best English evidence, in favor of our American statements or positions. Since writing the above we have noticed a lengthy article in the EdinburghWestminster Reviewfor July, 1867, giving a concise history of the Hudson’s Bay Company, under the heading, “The Last Great Monopoly.” In that article the author has shown extensive historical knowledge of the operations and influences of that monopoly in that portion of our continent over which they have held exclusive control.
He regards them as a blight upon the country, and an “incubus” to be removed by national legislation. If our work had been published, we should conclude that he must have drawn many of his facts from our own observations. But this is not the case; hence the value to us of his corroboration of the facts we affirm from personal knowledge.
Care of Great Britain for her fur companies.—Columbia Fur Company.—Astor’s second fur company.—Major Pilcher’s fur company.—Loss of the shipIsabel.—Captain Bonneville’s expedition.—Cause of his failure.—Captain Wyeth’s, 1832.—Indians ask for missionaries in 1833.—Methodist Mission.—Fort Hall established.—Fort Boise.
Care of Great Britain for her fur companies.—Columbia Fur Company.—Astor’s second fur company.—Major Pilcher’s fur company.—Loss of the shipIsabel.—Captain Bonneville’s expedition.—Cause of his failure.—Captain Wyeth’s, 1832.—Indians ask for missionaries in 1833.—Methodist Mission.—Fort Hall established.—Fort Boise.
By reference to the act of the British Parliament of June 2, 1821, it will be seen that the affairs of the North American British Fur companies were in a fair way to defeat all British interests in America. To suppress these feuds among their own people became a matter of national importance and policy.
To accomplish so desirable an object, Parliament, in the act above referred to, extended the civil and criminal jurisdiction of Canada over all the territories of the Hudson’s Bay Company; in the thirteenth article of the act, and in the fourteenth, repealed all that was before taken away from that company, and confirmed absolutely all the rights supposed to have been given by the original charter, as follows:—
Section 14.“And be it further enacted, that nothing in this act contained shall be taken or construed to affect any right or privilege, authority or jurisdiction, which the governor and company of adventurers trading to Hudson’s Bay are by law entitled to claim and exercise under their charter; but that all such rights, privileges, authorities, and jurisdictions, shall remain in as full force, virtue, and effect, as if this act had never been made; any thing in this act to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Section 14.“And be it further enacted, that nothing in this act contained shall be taken or construed to affect any right or privilege, authority or jurisdiction, which the governor and company of adventurers trading to Hudson’s Bay are by law entitled to claim and exercise under their charter; but that all such rights, privileges, authorities, and jurisdictions, shall remain in as full force, virtue, and effect, as if this act had never been made; any thing in this act to the contrary notwithstanding.”
This act, however just it may have been considered, certainly embodied a large amount of national prejudice against the people of French or Canadian birth, in exempting the territory of the Hudson’s Bay Company from its influence. It had a twofold effect: the one, to check feuds among British subjects; the other, to unite them in one vast Indian monopoly,—to license this united company to go forward with their Indian political arrangements unmolested,—to punish and dispose of all intruders upon their supposed, or asserted rights, as they might deem for the interest of their trade, which, according to the charter of Charles II., bearing date May 2, 1670, they were “at all times hereafter to be personable and capable in law, to have, purchase, receive, possess, enjoy, and retain lands, rents, privileges, liberties, jurisdiction,franchises, and hereditaments of what kind, nature, or quality soever they be, to them and their successors.”
The whole trade, fisheries, navigation, minerals, etc., of the countries, are granted to the company exclusively; all other of the king’s subjects being forbidden tovisit,hunt,frequent,trade,traffic, oradventuretherein, under heavy penalties; and the company is moreover empowered to sendships, and to buildfortificationsfor the defense of its possessions, as well as tomake war or peace with all nations or peoplesnot Christian, inhabiting those territories,which are declared to be hence-forth reckonedandreputedas one ofhis Majesty’splantations or colonies in America, called Rupert’s Land.
It will be remembered that as early as 1818, a question arose between the United States and Great Britain, as to which was the rightful owner of the Oregon country. The Northwest Fur Company were the only subjects of Great Britain that had competed with the American fur companies in the discovery or trade of the country. To ignore that company altogether would weaken the British claim to Oregon by right of prior discovery and occupancy. Hence, by uniting the two companies under an ancient English charter, combining their united capital and numerical strength, discarding all doubtful subjects, and confirming the absolute power of their own British company, they could easily secure Oregon as British territory. The wisdom and effect of this policy will be developed as we proceed.
By the third article of the convention between the United States and Great Britain, signed October 20, 1818, “it is agreed that any country that may be claimed by either party on the northwest coast of America, westward of the Stony Mountains, shall, together with its harbors, bays, and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within the same, be free and open for the term of ten years from the date of the signature of the present convention, to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two powers; it being well understood that this agreement is not to be construed to the prejudice of any claim which either of the two high contracting parties may have to any part of said country, nor shall it be taken to affect the claims of any other power or state to any part of the said country; the only object of the high contracting parties, in that respect, being to prevent disputes and differences among themselves.”
This convention secured at that time the Northwest Fur Company’s existence in the country, by the act uniting the two British fur companies three years later. In 1821, the privileges here secured were transferred and confirmed to the Hudson’s Bay Company, who at once took the most active and efficient measures to guard against any future competition, by assessing and setting apart ten per cent. on their capital stock,which was counted at £200,000, as a sinking fund for the special purpose of opposing all competition in the fur trade by land or water.
The convention above referred to shows that Great Britain held a watchful eye over her fur traders in this distant country; and the act of her Parliament in 1821, that she was disposed, in a direct manner, to secure to her own people, as traders, the absolute sovereignty of the country. While Great Britain was protecting and strengthening her fur traders in North America, the American government was simply asserting its prior rights to the Oregon country, founded upon its discovery and subsequent purchase in what is termed the Louisiana purchase, from France; the treaties and conventions only serving to encourage and strengthen the British claim, while they used their influence, capital, and power against all American competition and settlement in the country.
In 1821, as was to be expected by the union of the two great British fur companies, under the license of the British Parliament, and absolute charter of Charles II., many of the servants, and especially such as were found favorable to the American fur traders, or violently opposed to the Hudson’s Bay Company, were thrown out of employment. They naturally sought to continue their wild Indian trade and habits, and formed a company under the name of the Columbia Fur Company, extending their operations up the Mississippi, Missouri, and Yellowstone rivers. In 1826, they transferred their interests to Astor’s second North American Fur Company, of which John Jacob Astor was the head. This company appears to have been commenced or organized in connection with Mr. W. H. Ashley, in 1823, and under his direction extended its trade to the south and west, along the Platte River, and passed into the Rocky Mountains as far as Green River, being the first to discover its sources, making a successful trading expedition that year.
In 1824, another expedition under Mr. Ashley explored the Rocky Mountains as far south as Salt Lake, and built a fort on the borders of a small lake, to which he gave his own name. In 1826, Mr. Ashley transported a 6-pound cannon to his establishment near Salt Lake, through what has since been termed Fremont’s, or the south pass of the Rocky Mountains, in a wagon. This establishment had in its employ over one hundred men, and was remarkably successful and profitable to the partners.
In 1826, Mr. Ashley sold all his interest to the Rocky Mountain Fur Company, composed of Smith, Jackson, and Subleth, who extended their trade into California, and as far north as the Umpqua River, in Oregon; where Smith and his party were met by a professedly friendly party of Indians, who murdered his men, seized his furs, and deliveredthem to a party of men sent by the Hudson’s Bay Company, under Mr. John McLeod and Thomas McKay, to receive the furs and pay the Indians for their services—as learned by the writer from eye-witnesses.
During this same year, 1827, Major Pilcher, with forty-five men, crossed the Rocky Mountains, and, in 1828-9, traversed the western portion of them as far north as Fort Colville. This fort had been established, and farming operations commenced, in 1825. This party of Major Pilcher were all cut off but two men, besides himself; his furs, as stated by himself to the writer, found their way into the forts of the Hudson’s Bay Company.
In 1828, the brigOwyhee, Captain Demenses, and the schoonerCowrey, Captain Thompson, entered and remained nearly a year in the Columbia River, trading with the Indians. They were owned in Boston.
In 1830, the British shipIsabelwas lost on Sand Island—the second known to have been wrecked on the bar, or in attempting to enter the river. The crew were all saved, and it was the opinion of the company at Vancouver that, had the crew remained with the ship, no great loss would have been sustained.
In 1832, Captain Bonneville, of the United States army, on furlough, started, with over one hundred men, on an expedition into the Rocky Mountains. He crossed the mountains, and reached the Wallawalla Valley, on the Columbia River; but, through the influence of the Hudson’s Bay Company, his men were nearly all induced to leave him, so that he was obliged to abandon his property, and his expedition was a total failure, except the little scientific knowledge of the country gained by it.
To charge the failure of Captain Bonneville directly to the Hudson’s Bay Company would not be strictly true; but their great influence over the Indians was sufficient to prevent them from furnishing his party with food or horses, while he was within reach of their forts. Hence, many of his men became dissatisfied, and left him, till his party became too weak to effect their return to the States with their valuable furs and property. These eventually were lost, or fell into the hands of the Indians, and through them, his furs reached the Hudson’s Bay traders’ establishments.
This same year, 1832, Captain Nathaniel Wyeth, of Massachusetts, started on an exploring expedition to the mouth of the Columbia River, with a view of establishing a permanent trade in the Oregon country. He traveled across the continent and gathered all the information requisite for the undertaking, and returned to Boston in 1833; and in 1834, having completed his arrangements, chartered the brigMay Dacre, and dispatched her with his own, and the goods of the Methodist Mission, for the Columbia River.
The same year, some Flathead Indians, from a tribe in the midst of the Rocky Mountains, went to St. Louis, and, through Mr. Catlin, an American artist, made known their object, which was to know something more of the white man’s God and religion. Through the representations of these Indians, the Methodist Episcopal Society in the United States established their missions in Oregon, and the American Board sent their missionaries among the Nez Percés, which, as will be seen, was the commencement of the permanent settlement of the country. It appears from the facts, briefly stated, that there had been eleven different trading expeditions and companies, besides the Northwest and Hudson’s Bay companies, that had sought for wealth by making fur-trading establishments in Oregon. All of them, including the Northwest and Hudson’s Bay companies, have retired from it, but the American missionaries are residents of the country, and their influence and labors are felt, notwithstanding other influences have partially supplanted and destroyed the good impressions first made upon the natives of the country by them. Still civilization, education, and religion, with all the improvements of the age, are progressing, and the old pioneer missionaries and settlers that were contemporary with them, with a few exceptions, are foremost in every laudable effort to benefit the present and rising generation.
In the month of March, 1833, a Japanese junk was wrecked near Cape Flattery, in the then Territory of Oregon, and all on board, except three men, were lost. Those three were received by Captain McNeal on board the British shipLama; taken to Vancouver, and thence sent to England. Rev. Mr. Parker gives this, and another similar wreck on the Sandwich Islands, as evidence of the origin of the natives of those countries. But we give it for another object. The three Japanese were taken to England, and, during their stay, learned the English language, were sent back to Macao, and became the assistant teachers of Mr. Gutzlaff, the English missionary at that place, and were the means of opening theirowncountry to missionary and commercial relations with other nations.
Captain Wyeth, with Revs. Jason and Daniel Lee, Cyrus Shepard, and P. L. Edwards, the first missionary party, together with Doctor Nutall, a naturalist, and J. K. Townsend, an ornithologist, sent out by a literary society in Philadelphia, all under the escort furnished by Captain Wyeth, crossed the mountains and reached the plain formed by the Portneuf and Snake rivers. At their junction Captain Wyeth stopped, and established Fort Hall, while the missionaries and scientific men of his party, in company with an Englishman by the name of Captain Stewart, and a party of Hudson’s Bay traders, under thedirection of Mr. McLeod and McKay, proceeded to Fort Nez Percés (present name, Wallula). Thence they traveled in Hudson’s Baybateauxto Vancouver.
Captain Wyeth established his post on the Snake River, by erecting a stockade of logs, and quarters for his men, and then proceeded to the lower Columbia to receive his goods, which arrived in theMay Dacre, Captain Lambert, from Boston, about the time he reached Fort William, on what is now known as Sauvies Island, a few miles below the mouth of the Multnomah River, now called the Wallamet.
Rev. Mr. Lee and party made their first location about sixty miles from the mouth of the Wallamet, near what is now called Wheatland, ten miles below Salem.
Captain Wyeth received his goods, and commenced his trading establishment, but found that, notwithstanding he was personally treated by the principal officers of the Hudson’s Bay Company with great courtesy, yet it was evident that every possible underhanded and degrading device was practiced, both with the Indians and with his men, to destroy, as much as was possible, the value and profits of his trade. In the spring and summer of 1835 he supplied his Fort Hall establishment with goods.
During the year 1835, the Hudson’s Bay Company erected a temporary post about twelve miles up the Boise River, designed to counteract and destroy as much as possible the American fur trade established by Captain Wyeth, who continued his efforts less than three years; and, having lost of the two hundred men who had been in his employone hundred and sixty(as stated to Rev. Samuel Parker), and finding himself unable to compete with this powerful English company, he accepted Dr. McLaughlin’s offer for his establishments, and left the country in 1836.
In 1835, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions sent Rev. Samuel Parker and Dr. Marcus Whitman to explore the Oregon country, with a view of establishing missions among the Indians west of the Rocky Mountains.
These two missionaries reached the American rendezvous on Green River, in company with the Rocky Mountain Fur Company’s traders, under the direction of Captains Drips and Fitzpatrick. From the American rendezvous Mr. Parker continued his explorations in company with, and under the protection of the Nez Percé Indians, till he reached old Fort Wallawalla, now called Wallula; thence he continued in canoes to Vancouver, while Dr. Whitman returned to the United States to procure associates to establish the Nez Percé mission.
Extent and power of Hudson’s Bay Company.—Number of forts.—Location.—Policy.—Murder of Mr. Black.—McKay.—Manner of dealing with Indians.—Commander of fort kills an Indian.—Necessity of such a course.—Hudson’s Bay Company not responsible for what their servants do.
Extent and power of Hudson’s Bay Company.—Number of forts.—Location.—Policy.—Murder of Mr. Black.—McKay.—Manner of dealing with Indians.—Commander of fort kills an Indian.—Necessity of such a course.—Hudson’s Bay Company not responsible for what their servants do.
Having briefly traced the operations of the two foreign fur companies in Oregon, a knowledge of the location of their several trading establishments will enable the reader to comprehend their power and influence in the country.
Fort Umpqua was located in the extreme southwestern part of Oregon, near the mouth of the river bearing that name. It was a temporary stockade built of logs, overlooking a small farm in its immediate vicinity, was generally occupied by a clerk and from four to eight Frenchmen.
Fort George (Astoria) already described.
They had a farm and small establishment at the mouth of the Cowlitz, and a more extensive farm some twenty-five miles up that river.
Fort Vancouver,—a stockade, six miles above the mouth of the Multnomah, or Wallamet River. This fort was the general depot for the southwestern department, at which their goods for Indian trade were landed, and their furs and peltries collected and shipped to foreign markets. There was also a trading-house at Champoeg, some thirty-five miles up the Wallamet River.
On the left bank of the Columbia River, near the 46° of north latitude, stood Fort Nez Percés, called Wallawalla, now Wallula,—a stockade, accidentally burned in 1841, and rebuilt with adobes in 1841-2.
On the left bank of the south branch of the Columbia, or Snake River, at the junction of the Boise, was located Fort Boise, built formerly, in 1834, with poles; later, with adobes.
Continuing up Snake River to the junction of the Portneuf, on its left bank we find Fort Hall, built by Captain Wyeth; a stockade in 1834; rebuilt by the Hudson’s Bay Company, with adobes, in 1838.
Thence up the Columbia, Fort Okanagon, at the mouth of Okanagon River, formerly a stockade, latterly a house or hut; and up the Spokan some twenty miles, was the old Spokan Fort, built by Astor’s Company, a stockade with solid bastions.
Continuing up the Columbia to Kettle Falls, and two miles above, on the left bank is Fort Colville, formerly a stockade, still occupied by the Hudson’s Bay Company.
Thence up the Columbia to the mouth of the Kootanie River, near the forty-ninth parallel of latitude, is the trading establishment called Kootanie House. Thence returning south, and ascending the Flathead (Clark’s) and Kootanie rivers, into what is now Montana Territory, is, or was, the hut called Flathead House. Still higher up on the Columbia was a small establishment, called the boat encampment, or Mountain House.
Entering the country by the Straits of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, we find Fort Nasqualla, formerly a stockade. Proceeding up Frazer River to near the forty-ninth parallel, upon the left or south bank of the river is Fort Langley, an extensive stockade. Thence up that river about ninety miles, half a mile below the mouth of the Coquehalla, is Fort Hope, a stockade. On the right bank of the Frazer, sixteen miles above, is Fort Yale, a trading-house.
Thence proceeding up the Frazer, and on to the waters of Thompson River, is Fort Kamloops; still further north and east, extending into New Caledonia, are Forts Alexander, William, Garey, and Abercrombie.
On the southeastern part of Vancouver Island is Fort Victoria, formerly a stockade. On the north side of the island is Fort Rupert, a stockade, still in good repair.
On the mainland, near Portland Channel, is Fort Simpson. At the mouth of the Stiken River, on Dundas Island, was formerly Fort Wrangle, a stockade. Recently the establishment has been removed some sixty miles up the Stiken River, and called Fort Stiken.
This, as will be seen, gives the company twenty-three forts and five trading-stations. In addition to these they had trading-parties extending south to California, southeast to Fort Hall and into Utah and Arizona, east into the Blackfoot country (Montana) and the Rocky Mountains, and north into New Caledonia and along the northwestern watershed of the Rocky Mountains.
They also had two steamers, theBeaverandOtter, to enter all the bays, harbors, rivers, and inlets along the western coast of our country, from Mexico on the south, to Russian America on the north, employing fifty-five officers and five hundred and thirteen articled men, all bound, under the strictest articles of agreement, to subserve the interests of that company under all circumstances; being strictly forbidden to acquire any personal or real estate outside of their stipulated pay as servants of the company, and were subject to such punishment for deficiency of labor or neglect of duty as the officer in charge might see fit to impose, having no appeal to any source for redress, as the original charter of Charles II., confirmed by act of Parliament in 1821, clearly conferred on the company absolute control over the country they occupied, and all in it.
As a matter of romance and adventure, many statements are made of conflicts with Indians and with wild animals, all terminating favorably to the interests of the company, confirming and strengthening their absolute power over all their opponents; but as they do not properly belong to a work of this character, they will be omitted, except where they may be brought to illustrate a fact, or to prove the principles and policy of the company.
As in the case of Mr. Black, a chief trader at Fort Kamloops, who had offended an Indian, the Indian disguised his resentment, entered the fort as a friend, and while Mr. Black was passing from the room in which the Indian had been received, he was deliberately shot by him, and fell dead. The Indian fled, and the fort was closed against the tribe. Not a single article of trade or supplies was allowed to the tribe till the murderer was given up, and hung by the company’s men, when the fort was opened and trade resumed.
In another case, near the mouth of the Columbia, a trader by the name of McKay was killed in a drunken row with the Indians at a salmon fishery. A friendly Indian gave information at head-quarters, when an expedition was fitted out and sent to the Indian camp. The murderer, with a few other Indians, was found in a canoe, but escaped to shore. They were fired at, and one woman was killed and others wounded. Dr. McLaughlin, being in command of the party, informed the Indians that if the murderer was not soon given up, he would punish the tribe. They soon placed the murderer in the hands of the party, who were satisfied of the guilt of the Indian, and at once hung him, as an example of the punishment that would be inflicted upon murderers of white men belonging to the company.
One other instance of daring and summary punishment is related as having been inflicted by Mr. Douglas, while in charge of a fort in the midst of a powerful tribe of Indians. A principal chief had killed one of the company’s men. Mr. Douglas, learning that he was in a lodge not far from the fort, boasting of his murderous exploit, armed himself, went to the lodge, identified the murdering chief, and shot him dead; then walked deliberately back to the fort.
A compliance with licensed parliamentary stipulations would haverequired the arrest of the murderers in all these cases, and the testimony and criminals to be sent to Canada for conviction and execution.
These cases illustrate, whether just or otherwise, the absolute manner of dealing with Indians by the company. The following chapter gives us the particulars of an aggravated case of brutal murder of the person in charge of one of their extreme northwestern forts by the men under his charge.
Murder of John McLaughlin, Jr.—Investigation by Sir George Simpson and Sir James Douglas.
Murder of John McLaughlin, Jr.—Investigation by Sir George Simpson and Sir James Douglas.
Very different was the course pursued by Sir George Simpson and Mr. (now Sir James) Douglas in the case of conspiracy and murder of John McLaughlin, Jr., at Fort Wrangle, near the southern boundary of Russian America.
In this case, Sir George Simpson went into a partial examination of the parties implicated, and reported that Dr. John McLaughlin, Jr., was killed by the men in self-defense. This report, from the known hostility of Sir George to the father and son, was not satisfactory, and Esquire Douglas was dispatched to Fort Wrangle, and procured the following testimony, which, in justice to the murdered man and the now deceased father, we will quote as copied from the original documents by Rev. G. Hines.
Pierre Kanaquassee, one of the men employed in the establishment at the time of the murder, and in whose testimony the gentlemen of the company place the utmost reliance, gives the following narrative, in answer to questions proposed by James Douglas, Esq., the magistrate that examined him:—
Q. Where were you on the night of the murder of the late Mr. John McLaughlin?
A. I was in my room, in the lower part of the main house, where I lived with George Heron, in an apartment in the lower story, immediately under the kitchen. My door opened into the passage which led to the apartment of Mr. John McLaughlin in the second story.
Q. What occurred on the night of the murder?
A. I will tell you the whole story, to the best of my recollection.
A few days preceding the murder, five Indians from Tako, with letters from Dr. Kennedy, arrived at the fort about midnight. The watchmen, hearing the knocking, called Mr. John. When he got up, he mustered a few hands to defend the gates, in case of any treacherous attack from the Indians, whom they did not, as yet, know. They were then admitted into the fort, delivered up their arms, according to custom, and were lodged in a small room in the lower story of the main house. A day or two after this, he beat, and put one of these Indians, a native of Nop, in irons, as Peter was told, for having committed sometheft in Tako. About eight o’clock of the evening of the 20th of April, Mr. John gave liquor to the Indians, and made them drunk; after which he called the white men, viz., Laperti, Pripe, Lulaire, Heroux, Bellinger, Simon, Fleury, McPherson, Smith, and Antoine Kawanope. During this time, Peter was in his own, which was the adjoining room, lying awake in bed, and overheard all that passed. He heard Mr. John say to McPherson, “Peter is not among us. Where is he?” McPherson replied, that he was in bed, and he was sent for him by Mr. John. Peter, in consequence, went into the room, and saw all the men seated in a ring, on the floor, around a number of bottles standing within the ring, and the Indians lying dead drunk on another part of the floor, Mr. John himself was standing outside of the ring, and McPherson placed himself on the opposite side of the ring; neither of them appeared to be partaking of the festivities of the evening but were looking on, and forcing the people to drink. Antoine Kawanope was seated on his bed, apart from the other men, perfectly sober, as he told Peter afterward. Mr. John had ordered him not to drink, observing, “You are not to drink at this time, as I am going to die to-night, and you will help me in what I am going to do.” On entering the room, Mr. John told Peter to sit down with the other people, and ordered his servant, Fleury, to give him a good dram, which he did, in a tin pan. Peter could not drink the whole, and was threatened by Mr. John with violence if he did not finish it. He succeeded in emptying the pan, by allowing the liquor to run into the bosom of his shirt. Mr. John, in doing this, did not appear to be angry, but in a half-playful mood. Peter remained there about a quarter of an hour, during which time he was careful not to drink too much, as a few hours previously Antoine had called at his room and said, “My uncle, take care of yourself to-night; the master is going to die.” Peter said, “Who is going to kill him?” and Antoine said, “The Bluemen,” meaning the Kanakas, “are going to kill him.” This, Peter thought, was likely to be the case, as the men, some time before Christmas preceding, had agreed among themselves to murder him, and had signed a paper, which McPherson drew up, to that effect. Every one of the men of the place agreed to the commission of this deed, Smith and Heron as well as the others. Peter’s name was signed by McPherson, and he attested it by his cross. This paper was signed in Urbaine’s house, where the men severally repaired by stealth for the purpose, as Mr. John kept so vigilant a watch upon them, that they were afraid he might suspect their intentions if they were there in a body. The same impression made him also remark, in a low tone of voice, to Laperti, on his first entering the room, when he observed Mr. John forcing the people to drink, “I really believe ourmaster feels his end near, as he never used to act in this manner.” As above mentioned, after Peter had been about fifteen minutes in the room where the men were drinking, Mr. John retired, followed by Antoine. Mr. John had not on that occasion drank any thing with the men, neither did he (Peter) ever see him, at any time preceding, drink in their company. He, however, supposed that he must have taken something in his own room, as he appeared flushed and excited, but not sufficiently so as to render his gait in the least unsteady. McPherson also did not taste any thing in the room. As soon as Mr. John was gone, Peter also left the room, and went to bed in his own room.
Peter was informed by Antoine that Mr. John, on leaving the room where the men were drinking, went up-stairs to his own apartment, and he heard him say to his wife, “I am going to die to-night.” And he and his wife both began to cry. Mr. John soon rallied, and observed, “Very well; if I die, I must fall like a man.” He then told Antoine to load his rifles and pistols, and ordered him also to arm himself with his own gun. He and Antoine then went out, and Peter thinks he heard the report of more than fifteen shots. Antoine afterward told Peter that Mr. John fired at Laperti, but missed him, and afterward ordered Antoine to fire at Laperti. Antoine refused to do so, until his own life was threatened by Mr. John, when he fired in the direction, without aiming at Laperti. He also told the Kanakas to kill the Canadians, and it was in part they who fired the shots that he (Peter) had heard. Peter then got up and placed himself behind his door, and saw Mr. John come in and go up-stairs with Antoine, when he took the opportunity of going out, armed with his gun and a stout bludgeon, and found the men standing here and there on the gallery watching an opportunity to shoot Mr. John. Laperti’s position on the gallery was fronting the door of the main house, toward which he had his gun pointed; when Peter saw him, he was on his knees, the small end of the gun resting on the top rail of the gallery, in readiness to fire. Laperti exclaimed, on seeing Peter, “I must kill him now, as he has fired two shots at me.” Peter objected to this, and proposed to take and tie him. Nobody answered him. At that moment, Smith came up to Laperti and told him to hide himself or he would certainly be killed. Laperti said, “Where can I hide myself?” and Smith said, “Come with me and I will show you a place in the bastion where you can hide yourself,” and they went off together in the direction of the bastion at the corner of Urbaine’s house. Peter, after a few minutes’ stay on the gallery, returned to his house, as he had previously agreed upon with George Hebram, who was lying sick in bed, and who had entreated him not to leave him alone. At the door of the main house,he met Mr. John coming out, followed by Antoine, who was carrying a lamp. Mr. John said to Peter, “Have you seen Laperti?” Peter answered, “No, I have not seen him;” and then Mr. John said, “Have you seen Urbaine?” And Peter again answered that he had not. The minute before this, as he (Peter) was returning from the gallery, he had seen Urbaine standing at the corner of the main house, next to Urbaine’s own dwelling, in company with Simon. Urbaine said, “I don’t know what to do; I have no gun, and do not know where to hide myself.” Simon said, “I have a gun, if he comes I will shoot him, and will be safe.” Mr. John, after Peter passed him, said to Antoine, “Make haste, and come with the lamp,” and proceeded with a firm step to Urbaine’s house, as Peter, who continued watching at the door, saw.
After he saw them go to Urbaine’s house, he proceeded toward his own room, and he and Antoine called out, “Fire! fire!” The report of several shots, probably five, immediately followed, and he heard Antoine exclaiming, “Stop! stop! stop! He is dead now.” Antoine afterward related to Peter, that on reaching Urbaine’s house, Mr. John ordered him to go round by one corner, while he went round by the other, directing Antoine to shoot any of the Canadians he might meet. Mr. John then proceeded in a stooping position, looking very intently before him, when a shot was fired from the corner of the house toward which he was going, which caused his death, the ball having entered at the upper part of the breast-bone, a little below the gullet, and come out a little below the shoulder, having broken the spine in its passage. Peter was also told by one of the Kanakas, that as soon as Mr. John fell, Urbaine sprung forward from the corner of the house within a few paces of the body, and put his foot savagely on his neck, as if to complete the act, should the ball have failed in causing death. The Kanakas immediately asked Urbaine who had killed the master. Urbaine replied, “It is none of your business who has killed him!” Peter, who during this time had removed to his house, seeing Heron go out without his gun, went out round the body, and said, “My friend, we have now done what we long intended to do; let us now carry the body back to the house.” Urbaine, Laperti, Bellinger, and other white men who were present replied, “When we kill a dog, we let him lie where we kill him.” And Antoine told him they had previously given him the same reply to a similar proposition from him. Peter then approached the body, and, with one hand under the neck, raised the head and trunk, when a deep expiration followed, which was the last sign of animation. He had previously perceived no signs of life, nor did he hear any one say that any appeared after the deceased fell. The white men being unwilling to assist him, he carried the body,with the aid of the Kanakas, into the main house, where he had it stripped, washed clean, decently dressed, and laid out. In doing so he received no help from any but the Kanakas. The wounds made by the balls were very large, both openings being circular, and severally three inches in diameter. The body bled profusely, there being a deep pool of blood found around it, which was washed away afterward by the Kanakas. Peter never heard that he spoke or moved after he fell. There was a perpendicular cut on the forehead, skin-deep, in a line with the nose, which Peter thinks was caused by his falling on the barrel of his rifle, though Urbaine said that he had received it from an Indian with his dog. It was, as Peter supposes, about eleven o’clock,P. M., when he had done washing and laying out the body; the watches had not then been changed, therefore he thinks it could not be midnight. The people continued coming and going during the night, to see the body, and Peter proposed praying over the body, as is customary in Canada; but they objected, saying they did not wish to pray for him. He did sit up with the body all night, having soon after gone, first to Urbaine’s and then to Lulaire’s house, who each gave him a dram, which he took, saying, “There is no need of drinking now; they might drink their fill now.” He soon afterward went to bed.
He inquired of Martineau, who also lived in the same room, if he had fired at the deceased. He replied, that he had fired twice. He then asked him if it was he that had killed him, and he said, “I do not know if it was me or not.” He (Peter) put the same question to several of the other men whom he saw afterward; they all said that they had not shot him, and Martineau afterward said that he had not directed his gun at him, but had fired in the air.
The following morning he asked Antoine Kawanope if he knew who had killed the deceased. He replied, “I know who killed him, but I am not going to tell you, or any one else. When the governor comes, I will tell him.” He asked Antoine why he would not tell; he said he was afraid it might cause more quarrels, and lead to other murders. He then advised Antoine not to conceal it from him, as he would tell no one. Antoine then said, he thought it was Urbaine who had done the deed. Peter observed that Urbaine had no gun. Antoine replied, “I think it was Urbaine, because as soon as the deceased fell, Urbaine rushed out from his lurking-place at the corner of the house, where, I was informed by the people, he always kept his gun secreted, with the intention of shooting the deceased.” Peter says Laperti, Urbaine, and Simon were all concealed in the corner whence the shot came, and he thinks it to be one of the three who fired it. Urbaine always denied having committed the murder, and said, “I am going to the Russian fort fortrial, and will be either banished or hung. I will let the thing go to the end, and will then inform upon the murderers.”
Simon always said that he was never in the corner from whence the shot was fired, and knew nothing about the matter; but Peter thinks that he must have been there, as he saw him, as before related, at the corner of the main house, when he promised to protect Urbaine; and from the situation of the fort, he must have passed that spot with Urbaine, as there was no other passage from the place where they had been standing. Laperti also said he never fired at all. When Peter, as before related, went upon the gallery after the first firing had ceased, while Mr. John and Antoine had gone into the house, he saw all the men on the gallery, except Pripe, Lulaire, and McPherson, and he asked each of them, respectively, if they were going to shoot the master that night, and they all answered (as well as himself), they would do so at the first chance, except Pehou, a Kanaka, who would not consent to the murder. Smith was then without a gun.
Before the Christmas preceding, Peter put the question to Smith, how he should like to see him kill Mr. John? He replied, “I should like it very well; I would have no objection, because his conduct is so very bad that he can never expect to be protected by the company.” Peter Manifree says that Mr. John appeared to be aware of the plot formed by the men against his life; as he supposes, through the information of Fleury, his servant, who was aware of every thing that passed among them. Mr. John had often said to the men, “Kill me, if you can. If you kill me, you will not kill a woman—you will kill a man.” And he kept Antoine as a sentinel to watch his room. One evening George Heron proposed taking his life, and said if he could find a man to go with him, he would be the first to shoot him. Peter refused to go, and Heron watched a great part of the night in the passage leading to Mr. John’s room, holding his gun pointed toward its door, with the object of shooting Mr. John if he appeared, as he usually did at night when going to visit the watchmen; but he did not go out that night, or Peter thinks that he would have been shot by Heron. The following morning Peter asked Antoine if he would defend Mr. John were he attacked by the people. Antoine said he would not, and would be the first man to seize or shoot him, should any attempt be made against his life or liberty. He put the same question to McPherson; but McPherson said, “No, do not kill him till the governor comes, by and by, and then we shall have redress.”
Peter also says that all the unmarried men were in the habit of secretly going out of the fort at night, contrary to order, to visit the Indian camp, and that one evening, when he wished to go out, he met GeorgeHeron on the gallery, who showed him where a rope was slung to the picket, by which he might let himself down to the ground outside of the fort, saying, “This is the way I and others get out, and you may do the same without fear of detection.” On the morning after the murder he went into Urbaine’s and Lulaire’s house and got a dram in each of them, out of two bottles of rum which he saw there. He said, “Now Mr. John is dead, I shall go out of the fort and spend the day with my wife.” Urbaine replied, “No: no one shall go out of the fort. We keep the keys, and we shall keep the gates shut.” Peter was angry at this, and said to Antoine, “When Mr. John was alive, he kept us prisoners, and would not allow us to run after women; and now that we have killed him, the Canadians wish to keep us as close as he did. I see we must raise the devil again with these Canadians, before we can get our liberty.”
Peter also says that one principal cause of their dislike to John, and their plots against his life, was the strictness with which he prevented their sallying from the fort in quest of women; that he flogged Martineau for having given his blanket to a woman with whom he maintained illicit commerce, and he also flogged Lamb and Kakepe for giving away their clothes in the same manner. This, Peter says, exasperated the men.
The day after the murder many of the men went up to Mr. John’s room to see the body, and McPherson remarked to them, that when the master was living they were not in the habit of coming up there; but they did so now that he was dead. On hearing this, Peter and Urbaine went away and never returned. On their way to their own house, they met Pripe and Bellinger.
Urbaine told them what McPherson had said, and in a threatening manner said, “McPherson is getting as proud as the other, and will be telling tales about us. We will not murder him, but we will give him a sound thrashing.” And Peter says that he soon after went to Smith and told him to put McPherson on his guard, as the Canadians intended to attack him. Smith asked Peter what he would do, now the master was dead, and Peter said he would obey McPherson’s orders. Smith replied, “That is good, Peter. If we do not do so, we shall lose all our wages.” All the Canadians, and, he thinks, Simon, continued drinking the whole of the day following the murder; the other men of the fort did not drink. He thinks it was the remains of the liquor they had been drinking the preceding night. Peter also says that, for a month previous to the murder, Urbaine, Laperti, and Simon, were in the habit of getting drunk every night on rum purchased from the Indians. Peter told them to take care of themselves, because Mr. Johnwould be angry if he knew it. Mr. John took no notice of their conduct, because, as Peter thinks, he knew of the plot against his life, and felt intimidated. He also says that Laperti was excited against Mr. John on account of a suspected intrigue which he carried on with his wife. The night following the murder, they all went to bed quietly. The next day all was also quiet, and all work suspended, except watching the Indians, which they did very closely, as they were afraid they might be induced to attack the fort, on learning that the master was no more. They continued watching, turn about. The second day a coffin was made, and the corpse removed from the main house to the bath, when McPherson gave the men a dram. The third day the corpse was buried and the men had another dram. He does not know whether the men asked for the dram, or whether McPherson gave it of his own accord. The corpse was carried to the grave by Laperti, Pripe, Lulaire, and some Kanakas, but Urbaine did not touch it; does not think it was through fear. Peter often heard Laperti say, “I wish the governor was here, to see what he would do.” He also says there was no quarrel in the room where they were drinking on the night of the murder; but he thinks there might have been a quarrel after they left, as Pripe was put in irons after that time. He also says that the Canadians must have fixed on that night to murder him, and that Fleury told him so, which accounts for his apparent dejection of mind, and of his having shed tears in presence of his wife and Antoine, when he said, “I know that I am going to die this night.” He also thinks this might have led to the outbreak, but of this he is not sure. It is a mere matter of opinion. Mr. John was a little in liquor, but knew perfectly well what he was about. He never saw him so far gone with liquor as not to be able to walk actively about, except on one occasion, the preceding Christmas Eve, when he appeared to walk unsteady, but nevertheless could mount the gallery. They only knew he had tasted liquor from the excitement and changed appearance of his countenance. He does not know who first suggested the idea of murdering Mr. John.
Since the above disclosures were made, a few other facts have come to light, which, however, do not materially affect the character of these atrocities. Mr. John McLaughlin, Jr., was doubtless intemperate, reckless, and tyrannical, and often unnecessarily cruel in the punishments inflicted upon his men; but he was surrounded by a set of desperadoes, who, for months before the arrival of the night, during the darkness of which the fatal shot ushered him into the presence of his Judge, had been seeking an opportunity to rob him of life. Some time before this event, he flogged Peter for the crime of stealing fish. Peter was exceedingly angry, and resolved upon the destruction of his master.At a time to suit his purpose, he went to the bastion, where were fire-arms, loaded to his hands, and rung the bell of alarm, with the intention of shooting Mr. McLaughlin when he should make his appearance. A man by the name of Perse came out to see what was the matter, instead of the intended victim, when Peter fired, but missed him, the ball hitting a post near his head. For this offense, Peter was again seized, put in irons, and subsequently severely flogged, and liberated. Nearly all the men had been flogged from time to time, for various offenses, and all conspired against the life of their master. As might have been expected, when the case was examined by Sir George Simpson, the murderers attempted to cast all the odium upon Mr. McLaughlin, doubtless for the purpose of exculpating themselves, in which attempt they but too well succeeded, in the estimation of Sir George. Whether the persons who procured his death would be pronounced, by an intelligent jury, guilty of willful murder, or whether, from the mitigating circumstances connected with these transactions, the verdict should assume a more modified form, is not for me to determine. But it can not be denied by any one, that the circumstances must be indeed extraordinary that will justify any man, or set of men, to cut short the probation of an immortal being, and usher him, with all his unrepented sins, into the presence of his God.
This account illustrates English and Hudson’s Bay Company’s dealings with Indians, and their treatment of men and murderers, both among the Indians and their own people.
We are forced to acknowledge that we can not see the correctness of moral principle in Mr. Hine’s conclusions. There was unquestionably a premeditated and willful murder committed by the men at that fort. We can understand the motives of Sir George Simpson and Mr. Douglas, in allowing those men to escape the penalty of their crime, from the amount of pecuniary interests involved, and the personal jealousy existing against Dr. McLaughlin and his sons, in the company’s service. We know of jealousies existing between Mr. Simpson and John McLaughlin, Jr., on account of statements made in our presence at the breakfast-table, that were only settled temporarily, while at Vancouver. These statements, and the placing of this young son of the doctor’s at that post, we are satisfied had their influence in acquitting his murderers, if they did not in bringing about the murder, which to us appears plain in the testimony; and we so expressed our opinion, when the father requested us (while in his office) to examine a copy of those depositions. We have no hesitancy in saying, that we believe it to have been a malicious murder, and should have sent the perpetrators to the gallows. We have never been able to learn of the trial of any one implicated.