CHAPTER VII.

Treatment of Indians.—Influence of Hudson’s Bay Company.—Rev. Mr. Barnley’s statement.—First three years.—After that.—Treatment of Jesuits.—Of Protestants.—Of Indians.—Not a spade to commence their new mode of life.—Mr. Barnley’s statement.—Disappointed.—His mistake.—Hudson’s Bay Company disposed to crush their own missionaries.

Rev. Mr. Beaver says of them: “About the middle of the summer of 1836, and shortly before my arrival at Fort Vancouver, six Indians were wantonly and gratuitously murdered by a party of trappers and sailors, who landed for the purpose from one of the company’s vessels, on the coast somewhere between the mouth of the river Columbia and the confines of California. Having on a former occasion read the particulars of this horrid massacre, as I received them from an eye-witness, before a meeting of the Aborigines Society, I will not repeat them. To my certain knowledge, the circumstance was brought officially before the authorities of Vancouver, by whom no notice was taken of it; and the same party of trappers, with the same leader, one of the most infamous murderers of a murderous fraternity, are annually sent to the same vicinity, to perform, if they please, other equally tragic scenes. God alone knows how many red men’s lives have been sacrificed by them since the time of which I have been speaking.He also knows that I speak the conviction of my mind, and may he forgive me if I speak unadvisedly when I state my firm belief thatthe life of an Indian was never yet, by a trapper, put in competition with a beaver’s skin.”

One other case we will give to illustrate the conduct and treatment of this company toward the Indians under their “mild and paternal care,” as given, not by a chaplain, or missionary, but by Lieut. Chappel, in his “Voyage to Hudson’s Bay in H. M. S.Rosamond.” He relates that on one occasion, an English boy having been missed from one of the establishments in Hudson’s Bay, the company’s servants, in order to recover the absent youth, made use of the following stratagem:—

“Two Esquimaux Indians were seized and confined in separate apartments. A musket was discharged in a remote apartment, and the settlers, entering the room in which one of the Esquimaux was confined, informed him by signs that his companion had been put to deathfor decoying away the boy; and they gave him to understand at the same time that he must prepare to undergo the same fate, unless he would faithfully pledge himself to restore the absentee. The Esquimaux naturally promised every thing, and, on being set at liberty, made the best of his way into the woods, and, of course, was never afterward heard of. They kept the other a prisoner for some time. At length he tried to make his escape by boldly seizing the sentinel’s fire-lock at night; but the piece going off accidentally, he was so terrified at the report, that they easily replaced him in confinement; yet either the loss of liberty, a supposition that his countryman had been murdered, or that he was himself reserved for some cruel death, deprived the poor wretch of reason. As he became exceedingly troublesome, the settlers held a conference as to the most eligible mode of getting rid of him;and it being deemed good policy to deter the natives from similar offenses by making an example, they accordingly shot the poor maniac in cold blood, without having given themselves the trouble to ascertain whether he was really guilty or innocent” (p. 156). We have quoted these two examples, from two British subjects, to show the Hudson’s Bay Company’s manner of treating the Indians, who were under their absolute control from the mouth of the Umpqua River, in the extreme southwestern part of Oregon, to the extreme northern point on the coast of Labrador, including a country larger in extent than the whole United States.

This country had for two hundred and thirty years been in possession of these two powerful and equally unprincipled companies, who had kept it, as Mr. Fitzgerald says, “so us to shut up the earth from the knowledge of man, and man from the knowledge of God.”

But, we are asked, what has this to do with the history of Oregon, and its early settlement? We answer, it was this influence, and this overgrown combination of iniquity and despotism—this monster monopoly, which England and America combined had failed to overcome,—that was at last, after a conflict of thirty years, forced to retire from the country, by the measures first inaugurated by Lee, Whitman, and the provisional government of Oregon; and now this same monopoly seeks to rob the treasury of our nation, as it has for ages robbed the Indians, and the country of its furs.

They may succeed (as they have heretofore, in obtaining an extension of their licensed privileges with the English government), and obtain from the American government what they now, by falsehood, fraud, and perjury, claim to be their just rights. If they do, we shall be satisfied that we have faithfully and truly stated facts that have come to our knowledge while moving and living in the midst of their operations, and that we are not alone in our belief and knowledge of the events and influences of which we write.

Before closing this chapter we will quote one other witness (a British subject), the Rev. Mr. Barnley, a missionary at Moose Factory, on the southwestern part of James Bay, to show the full policy of that company toward British missionaries, and also to prove the assertion we make that the Hudson’s Bay Company, as such, is, in a measure, guilty of and responsible for the Whitman and Frazer River massacres, and for the Indian wars and the murder of American citizens contiguous to their territory.

The missionary above referred to says: “My residence in the Hudson’s Bay territory commenced in June, 1840, and continued, with the interruption of about eight months, until September, 1847.” The Whitman massacre was in November, 1847. Mr. Barnley continues: “My letter of introduction, signed by the governor of the territory, and addressed ‘To the Gentlemen in charge of the Honorable Hudson’s Bay Company’s Districts and Posts in North America,’ in one of its paragraphs ran thus: ‘The governor and committee feel the most lively interest in the success of Mr. Barnley’s mission, and I have to request you will show to that gentleman every personal kindness and attention in your power, and facilitate by every means the promotion of the very important and interesting service on which he is about to enter;’ and, consequently, whatsoever else I might have to endure, I had no reason to anticipate any thing but cordial co-operation from the officers of the company.

“For the first three yearsI had no cause of complaint. The interpretation was, in many cases, necessarily inefficient, and would have been sometimes a total failure, but for the kindness of the wives of the gentlemen in charge, who officiated for me; but I had the best interpreters the various posts afforded, thesupply of rumto Indians was restricted, and the company, I believe, fulfilled both the spirit and the letter of their agreement with us, as far as that fulfillment was then required of them, and their circumstances allowed.

“In giving, however, this favorable testimony, so far as the first three years are concerned, I must say, that in my opinion we should have been informed, before commencing our labors, that the interpreters at some of the posts would be found so inefficient as to leave us dependent on the kindness of private individuals, and reduce us to the very unpleasant necessity of taking mothers from their family duties, that they might become the only available medium for the communication of Divine truth.

“But after the period to which I have referred, a very perceptiblechange,i. e., in 1845, took place. [The company had decided to introduce the Roman Jesuits to aid them in expelling all Protestant missionaries and civilization from the Indian tribes.] There was no longer that hearty concurrence with my views, and co-operation, which had at first appeared so generally. The effect was as if the gentleman in charge of the southern department had discovered that he was expected to afford rather an external and professed assistance than a real and cordial one; and, under his influence, others, both of the gentlemen and servants, became cool and reluctant in those services of which I stood in need, until at length the letter as well us the spirit of the company’s engagement with me failed.” The reader will remember that while Mr. Barnley was receiving this treatment at the Hudson’s Bay Company’s establishment at Moose Factory, James Douglas and his associates were combining and training the Indians in Oregon for the purpose of relieving, or, to use the language of the Jesuit De Smet, “to rescue Oregon from Protestant and American influence.”

Mr. Barnley continues: “I was prohibited from entertaining to tea two persons, members of my congregation, who were about to sail for England, because I happened to occupy apartments in the officer’s residence, and was told that it could not be made a rendezvous for the company’s servants and their families.” P. J. De Smet, S. J., on the 113th page of his book, says: “The Canadian-French and half-breeds who inhabit the Indian territory treat all the priests who visit them with great kindness and respect.” On page 313, he says of the Hudson’s Bay Company, just about this time: “In what manner can we testify our gratitude in regard to the two benefactors [Douglas and Ogden] who so generously charged themselves with the care oftransporting and deliveringto us our cases, without consenting to accept the slightest recompense?—How noble the sentiments which prompted them gratuitously to burden themselves and their boats with the charitable gifts destined by the faithful to the destitute missionaries of the Indians!” These last quotations are from letters of Jesuit missionaries, who were brought to the Indian country by this same Hudson’s Bay Company, and furnished transportation and every possible facility to carry on their missions among the Indians all over the American Indian country.

These missionaries have made no attempt to improve the condition of the Indians, but have impressed upon their ignorant minds a reverence for themselves and their superstitions. See Bishop Blanchet’s reply to Cayuse Indians, November 4, 1847, page 44 of Brouillet’s “Protestantism in Oregon;” also pages 34-5, Executive Doc. No. 38, J. Ross Browne, as given below:—

“The bishop replied that it was the pope who had sent him; that hehad not sent him to take their land, but only for the purpose of saving their souls; that, however, having to live, and possessing no wealth, he had asked of them a piece of land that he could cultivate for his support; that in his country it was the faithful who maintained the priests, but that here he did not ask so much,but only a piece of land, and that the priests themselves would do the rest. He told them that he would not make presents to Indians, that he would give them nothing for the land he asked; that, in case they worked for him, he would pay them for their work, and no more; that he would assist them neither in plowing their lands nor in building houses, nor would he feed or clothe their children,” etc.

At Moose Factory, Mr. Barnley says: “A plan which I had devised for educating and training to some acquaintance withagriculturenative childrenwas disallowed, but permission was given me by the governor in council to collect seven or eight boys from various parts of the surrounding country, to be clothed, and at the company’s expense. A proposal made for forming a small Indian village near Moose Factorywas not acceded to; and, instead, permission only given to attempt the location of one or two old men who were no longer fit for engaging in the chase,it being very carefully and distinctly stated by Sir George Simpson that the company would not give them even a spade toward commencing their new mode of life. When at length a young man was found likely to prove serviceable as an interpreter, every impediment was interposed to prevent his engaging in my service, although a distinct understanding existed that neither for food nor wages would he be chargeable to the company. And the pledge that I should be at liberty to train up several boys for future usefulness, though not withdrawn, was treated as if it had never existed at all; efforts being made to produce the impression on the mind of my general superintendent that I was, most unwarrantably, expecting the company to depart from their original compact, when I attempted to add but two of the stipulated number to my household. ⚹ ⚹ ⚹ ⚹ ⚹ ⚹

“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.“The Indians were compelled, in opposition to their convictions and desires, to labor on the Lord’s day. They were not permitted to purchase the food required on the Sabbath, that they might rest on that day while voyaging, although there was no necessity for their proceeding, and their wages would have remained the same. ⚹ ⚹ ⚹“At length,disappointed, persecuted, myself and wife broken in spirit, and almost ruined in constitution by months of anxiety and suffering, a return to England became the only means of escaping a premature grave; and we are happy in fleeing from theiron hand of oppression, and bidding farewell to that which had proved to us a land of darkness and of sorrow.“From the above statements you will perceive that if true in some cases, it is not all, that the company have furnished the ‘means of conveyance from place to place.’ They have not done so, at all events, in the particular case mentioned, nor would they let me have the canoe, lying idle as it was, when they knew that I was prepared to meet ‘the expense.’“And equally far from the truth is it, that the missionaries have been ‘boarded, lodged, provided with interpreters and servants free of charge.’”

“The Indians were compelled, in opposition to their convictions and desires, to labor on the Lord’s day. They were not permitted to purchase the food required on the Sabbath, that they might rest on that day while voyaging, although there was no necessity for their proceeding, and their wages would have remained the same. ⚹ ⚹ ⚹

“At length,disappointed, persecuted, myself and wife broken in spirit, and almost ruined in constitution by months of anxiety and suffering, a return to England became the only means of escaping a premature grave; and we are happy in fleeing from theiron hand of oppression, and bidding farewell to that which had proved to us a land of darkness and of sorrow.

“From the above statements you will perceive that if true in some cases, it is not all, that the company have furnished the ‘means of conveyance from place to place.’ They have not done so, at all events, in the particular case mentioned, nor would they let me have the canoe, lying idle as it was, when they knew that I was prepared to meet ‘the expense.’

“And equally far from the truth is it, that the missionaries have been ‘boarded, lodged, provided with interpreters and servants free of charge.’”

In this last statement, Mr. Barnley is mistaken, for, to our certain knowledge, and according to the voluntary statement of the Roman Jesuits, Revs. Bishop Blanchet, Demer, P. J. De Smet, Brouillet, and many other Jesuit missionaries, they received from the Hudson’s Bay Companyboard and lodging, and were provided with interpreters, catechist, transportation, and even houses and church buildings.

The only mistake of Mr. Barnley was, that he was either an Episcopal or Wesleyan missionary or chaplain, like Mr. Beaver, at Fort Vancouver, and he, like Mr. Beaver, was a little too conscientious as to his duties, and efforts to benefit the Indians, to suit the policy of that company. The Roman Jesuitical religion was better adapted to their ideas of Indian traffic and morals; hence, the honorable company chose to get rid of all others, as they had done with all opposing fur traders. What was a civilized Indian worth to that company? Not half as much as a common otter or beaver skin. As to the soul of an Indian, he certainly could have no more than the gentlemen who managed the affairs of the honorable company.

Petition of Red River settlers.—Their requests, from 1 to 14.—Names.—Governor Christie’s reply.—Company’s reply.—Extract from minutes.—Resolutions, from 1 to 9.—Enforcing rules.—Land deed.—Its condition.—Remarks.

Before closing this subject we must explain our allusion to the Red River settlement, and in so doing illustrate and prove beyond a doubt the settled and determined policy of that organization to crush out their own, as well as American settlements,—a most unnatural, though true position of that company. It will be seen, by the date of the document quoted below, that, four years previous, that company, in order to deceive the English government and people in relation to the settlement on the Columbia River, and also to diminish the number of this Red River colony, had, by direction of Sir George Simpson, sent a part of it to the Columbia department. The remaining settlers of Rupert’s Land (the Selkirk settlement) began to assert their right to cultivate the soil (as per Selkirk grant), as also the right to trade with the natives, and to participate in the profits of the wild animals in the country. The document they prepared is a curious, as well as important one, and too interesting to be omitted. It reads as follows:—

}“Red River Settlement,“August 29, 1845.“Sir,—Having at this moment a very strong belief that we, as natives of this country, and as half-breeds, have the right to hunt furs in the Hudson’s Bay Company’s territories whenever we think proper, and again sell those furs to the highest bidder, likewise having a doubt that natives of this country can be prevented from trading and trafficking with one another, we would wish to have your opinion on the subject, lest we should commit ourselves by doing any thing in opposition either to the laws of England or the honorable company’s privileges, and therefore lay before you, as governor of Red River settlement, a few queries, which we beg you will answer in course.“Query1. 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.”

}

“Red River Settlement,“August 29, 1845.

“Sir,—Having at this moment a very strong belief that we, as natives of this country, and as half-breeds, have the right to hunt furs in the Hudson’s Bay Company’s territories whenever we think proper, and again sell those furs to the highest bidder, likewise having a doubt that natives of this country can be prevented from trading and trafficking with one another, we would wish to have your opinion on the subject, lest we should commit ourselves by doing any thing in opposition either to the laws of England or the honorable company’s privileges, and therefore lay before you, as governor of Red River settlement, a few queries, which we beg you will answer in course.

“Query1. 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 themonstrosity, 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 modifythe 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 weresuspected of an intention to traffic in furswere 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 thesoil, 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 newland deed, which all were compelled to sign who wished to hold any land in the settlement.”

“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 weresuspected of an intention to traffic in furswere 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 thesoil, 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 newland 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,violateorevadeany 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 enableany person or persons toviolate or evade, or to persevere in violating or evading the same; and, in short,shall obey all such laws and regulationsas 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, inany partof North America, any trade or traffic in, or relating to, any kind of skins, furs, peltry, ordressed 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 supplyor 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.

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 £200,000. The paid-up capital upon this amount was supposed to be ten per cent., which would give £20,000, 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 thePuget Sound Company should be under bondsnot to permit any of its employésto 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 directionof 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 £10,500, 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 £31,500, or $152,460. In 1720 the capital was again declared trebled, and to be £94,500, or $457,380, while the only amount paid was £10,500, or $50,820. It wasthen proposed to add three times as much to its capital stock by subscription; each subscriber paying £100 was to receive £300 of stock, so that the nominal stock should amount to £378,000, or $1,820,520—the real additional sum subscribed being £94,500, and the amount of real stock added or paid but £3,150. In 1821, the Hudson’s Bay Company and Northwest Company, of Montreal, were united. The Hudson’s Bay Company called £100 on each share of its stock, thus raising it nominally to £200,000, or $958,000. The Northwest Company called theirs the same. The two companies combined held a nominal joint stock of £400,000, 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 £37,300, 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 £400,000, 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 thesupreme 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 assumesupreme directionof 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 ofclonas(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.”

“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 ofclonas(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 somanifestly 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 Statesbecameandwere boundto 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 £20,000,000 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 Companyacquired, 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 £200,000. From this sum ten per cent., or £20,000, 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 £11,000 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 £240,000—only £40,000 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 “itselfandits 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 andits 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 UnitedStates. (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 thathonorableHudson’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.”

“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 thesame 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 thisMr. Puget Sound Agricultural Companyin the testimony of the twenty-seven witnesses summoned to prove his separate existence from that of theHudson’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.”

“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 whollyirresponsible, 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 forunproductive 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 thepresence 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 forma 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 interestsantagonistic to those of an important settlement.“It is a body whose history, tendency, traditions, and prospects areequally and utterly opposedto 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.”

“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 thepresence 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 forma 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 interestsantagonistic to those of an important settlement.

“It is a body whose history, tendency, traditions, and prospects areequally and utterly opposedto 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 theirmonopoly.” 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 certainextent 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 anirresponsible 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 theirauthority 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 beencontractedand 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.”

“The investigation thus provoked has resulted in the discovery that theirauthority 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 beencontractedand 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.

Back to Index Next