A History of Oregon, 1792-1849

“Query 1. Has a half-breed, a settler, the right to hunt furs in this country?

“2. Has a native of this country, not an Indian, a right to hunt furs?

“3. If a half-breed has the right to hunt furs, can he hire other half-breeds for the purpose of hunting furs? Can a half-breed sell his furs to any person he pleases?

“5. Is a half-breed obliged to sell his furs to the Hudson’s Bay Company at whatever price the company may think proper to give him?

“6. Can a half-breed receive any furs, as a present, from an Indian, a relative of his?

“7. Can a half-breed hire any of his Indian relatives to hunt furs for him?

“8. Can a half-breed trade furs from another half-breed, in or out of the settlement?

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

“10. With regard to trading or hunting furs, have the half-breeds, or natives of European origin, any rights or privileges over Europeans?

“11. A settler, having purchased lands from Lord Selkirk, or even from the Hudson’s Bay Company, without any conditions attached to them, or without having signed any bond, deed, or instrument whatever, whereby he might have willed away his right to trade furs, can he be prevented from trading furs in the settlement with settlers, or even out of the settlement?

“12. Are the limits of the settlement defined by the municipal law, Selkirk grant, or Indian sale?

“13. If a person can not trade furs, either in or out of the settlement, can he purchase them for his own and family use, and in what quantity?

“14. Having never seen any official statements, nor known, but by report, that the Hudson’s Bay Company has peculiar privileges over British subjects, natives, and half-breeds, resident in the settlement, we would wish to know what those privileges are, and the penalties attached to the infringement of the same.

“We remain your humble servants,

“Alexander Christie, Esq.,

“Governor of Red River Settlement.”

Governor Christie’s reply to these inquiries was so mild and conciliatory that it will not add materially to our knowledge of the company to give it. But the eight rules adopted by the company in council let us into the secret soul of the monstrosity, and are here given, that Americans may be informed as to its secret workings, and also to show what little regard an Englishman has for any but an aristocratic or moneyed concern.

“Extracts from minutes of a meeting of the Governor and Council of Rupert’s Land, held at the Red River settlement, June 10, 1845

“Resolved, 1st, That, once in every year, any British subject, if an actual resident, and not a fur trafficker, may import, whether from London or from St. Peter’s, stores free of any duty now about to be imposed, on declaring truly that he has imported them at his own risk.

“2d. That, once in every year, any British subject, if qualified as before, may exempt from duty, as before, imports of the local value of ten pounds, on declaring truly that they are intended exclusively to be used by himself within Red River settlement, and have been purchased with certain specified productions or manufactures of the aforesaid settlement, exported in the same season, or by the latest vessel, at his own risk.

“3d. That once in every year, any British subject, if qualified as before, who may have personally accompanied both his exports and imports, as defined in the preceding resolution, may exempt from duty, as before, imports of the local value of fifty pounds, on declaring truly that they are either to be consumed by himself, or to be sold by himself to actual consumers within the aforesaid settlement, and have been purchased with certain specified productions or manufactures of the settlement, carried away by himself in the same season, or by the latest vessel, at his own risk.

“4th. That all other imports from the United Kingdom for the aforesaid settlement, shall, before delivery, pay at York Factory a duty of twenty per cent. on their prime cost; provided, however, that the governor of the settlement be hereby authorized to exempt from the same all such importers as may from year to year be reasonably believed by him to have neither trafficked in furs themselves, since the 8th day of December, 1844, nor enabled others to do so by illegally or improperly supplying them with trading articles of any description.

“5th. That all other imports from any part of the United States shall pay all duties payable under the provisions of 5 and 6 Vict., cap. 49, the Imperial Statute for regulating the foreign trade of the British possessions in North America; provided, however, that the governor-in-chief, or, in his absence, the president of the council, may so modify the machinery of the said act of Parliament, as to adapt the same to the circumstances of the country.

“7th. That, henceforward, no goods shall be delivered at York Factory to any but persons duly licensed to freight the same; such licenses being given only in cases in which no fur trafficker may have any interest, direct or indirect.

“8th. That any intoxicating drink, if found in a fur trafficker’s possession, beyond the limits of the aforesaid settlement, may be seized and destroyed by any person on the spot.

“Whereas the intervention of middle men is alike injurious to the honorable company and to the people; it is resolved,

“9th. That, henceforward, furs shall be purchased from none but the actual hunters of the same.

“Fort Garry, July 10, 1845.”

Copy of License referred to in Resolution 7

“On behalf of the Hudson’s Bay Company, I hereby license A. B. to trade, and also ratify his having traded in English goods within the limits of Red River settlement. This ratification and this license to be null and void, from the beginning, in the event of his hereafter trafficking in furs, or generally of his usurping any whatever of all the privileges of the Hudson’s Bay Company.”

It was to save Oregon from becoming a den of such oppressors and robbers of their own countrymen, that Whitman risked his life in 1842-3, that the provisional government of the American settlers was formed in 1843, that five hundred of them flew to arms in 1847, and fought back the savage hordes that this same Hudson’s Bay Company had trained, under the teaching of their half-breeds and Jesuit priests, to sweep them from the land. Is this so? Let us see what they did just across the Rocky Mountains with their own children, as stated by their own witnesses and countrymen.

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

“But the company do not appear to have trusted to paper deeds to enforce their authority.

“They were not even content with inflicting fines under the form of a hostile tariff; but, as the half-breeds say, some of the fur traders were imprisoned, and all the goods and articles of those who were suspected of an intention to traffic in furs were seized and confiscated.

“But another, and even more serious attack, was made on the privileges of the settlers.

“The company being, under their charter, nominal owners of the soil, dispose of it to the colonists in any manner they think best. A portion of the land in the colony is held from Lord Selkirk, who first founded the settlement.

“Now, however, the company drew up a new land deed, which all were compelled to sign who wished to hold any land in the settlement.”

This new land deed, above referred to, is too lengthy and verbose to be given entire; therefore we will only copy such parts as bind the settlers not to infringe upon the supposed chartered rights of the Hudson’s Bay Company.

The first obligation of the person receiving this deed was to settle upon the land within forty days, and, within five years, cause one-tenth part of the land to be brought under cultivation.

The second: “He, his executors, administrators, and assigns, shall not, directly or indirectly, mediately or immediately, violate or evade any of the chartered or licensed privileges of the said governor and company, or any restrictions on trading or dealing with Indians or others, which have been or may be imposed by the said governor and company, or by any other competent authority, or in any way enable any person or persons to violate or evade, or to persevere in violating or evading the same; and, in short, shall obey all such laws and regulations as within the said settlement now are, or hereafter may be in force” – Here are enumerated a long list of political duties pertaining to the citizen.

The deed in its third condition says: “And also that he [the said receiver of the deed], his executors, administrators, and assigns, shall not nor will, without the license or consent of the said governor and company for that purpose first obtained, carry on or establish, in any part of North America, any trade or traffic in, or relating to, any kind of skins, furs, peltry, or dressed leather, nor in any manner, directly or indirectly, aid or abet any person or persons in carrying on such trade or traffic.” – Here follows a long lingo, forbidding the settler to buy, make, or sell liquors in any shape on his lands, and requiring him, under pain of forfeiture of his title, to prevent others from doing so, and binding the settler, under all the supposed and unsupposed conditions of obligation, not to supply or allow to be supplied any articles of trade to any unauthorized (by the company) person supposed to violate their trade, including companies “corporate or incorporate, prince, power, potentate, or state whatsoever, who shall infringe or violate, or who shall set about to infringe or violate the exclusive rights, powers, privileges and immunities of commerce, trade, or traffic, or all or any other of the exclusive rights, powers, privileges, and immunities of, or belonging, or in any wise appertaining to, or held, used or enjoyed by the said governor and company, and their successors, under their charter or charters, without the license or consent of the said governor and company and their successors, for the time being, first had and obtained.

“And, lastly,” – here follows a particular statement asserting that for the violation of any one of the thousand and one conditions of that deed, the settler forfeits to the company his right to the land, which reverts back to the company.

Our country delights to honor the sailor and soldier who performs a good, great, or noble act to save its territory from becoming the abode of despotism, or its honor from the taunt of surrounding nations. In what light shall we regard the early American missionaries and pioneers of Oregon?

It is true they heard the call of the oppressed savage for Christian light and civilization. They came in good faith, and labored faithfully, though, perhaps, mistaking many of the strict duties of the Christian missionary; and some, being led astray by the wiles and cunning of an unscrupulous fur monopoly, failed to benefit the Indians to the extent anticipated; yet they formed the nucleus around which the American pioneer with his family gathered, and from which he drew his encouragement and protection; and a part of these missionaries were the leaders and sustainers of those influences which ultimately secured this country to freedom and the great Republic.

The extracts from the deed above quoted show what Oregon would have been, had the early American missionaries failed to answer the call of the Indians, or had been driven from the country; or even had not Whitman and his associates separated, the one to go to Washington to ask for delay in the settlement of the boundary question, the others to the Wallamet Valley to aid and urge on the organization of the provisional government.

CHAPTER IX

Puget Sound Agricultural Company. – Its original stock. – A correspondence. – No law to punish fraud. – A supposed trial of the case. – Article four of the treaty. – The witnesses. – Who is to receive the Puget Sound money. – Dr. Tolmie, agent of the company. – The country hunted up. – Difficult to trace a fictitious object. – Statement of their claim. – Result of the investigation.

The Puget Sound Agricultural Company, now claiming of our government the sum of $1,168,000, was first talked of and brought into existence at Vancouver in the winter of 1837, in consequence of, and in opposition to, the Wallamet Cattle Company, which was got up and successfully carried through by the influence and perseverance of Rev. Jason Lee, superintendent of the Methodist Mission. This Nasqualla and Puget Sound Company was an opposing influence to Mr. Lee and his mission settlement, and was also to form the nucleus for two other British settlements in Oregon, to be under the exclusive control of the Hudson’s Bay Company.

The original stock of the company was nominally £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 the Puget Sound Company should be under bonds not to permit any of its employés to be in any way concerned in the fur trade, in opposition to the Hudson’s Bay Company.”

It is easy to be seen by the above-stated condition, that the Hudson’s Bay Company were not willing to allow the least interference with their fur trade by any one over whom they had any control or influence; that their design and object was to control the trade of the whole country, and that they had no intention in any way to encourage any American settlement in it, as shown by the arrangements made as early as 1837.

There had been a correspondence with the managing directors of the company in London previous to Dr. Tolmie’s visit. The directors had discouraged the proposed enlargement of their business, but it seems from the statement of Dr. Tolmie, and the arrangements he made, that they acceded to his plans, and constituted him their special agent. There was at the time a question as to a separate charter for that branch of their business. It was finally conceded that a separate charter would enable this agricultural and cattle company to become independent of the fur branch, and thus be the means of establishing an opposition by the use of the funds appropriated to prevent any thing of this kind, and decided that as the company had stipulated that they were to have the “supreme direction of the Puget Sound Agricultural Company,” no charter was necessary, and hence any arrangements to that effect were withdrawn. It was from a knowledge of the fact that that company had not even the Parliamentary acknowledgment of its separate existence from the Hudson’s Bay Company, that all their land claims were at once taken; and upon that ground they have not dared to prosecute their claims, only under the wording of the treaty with the United States, which is the only shadow of a legal existence they have, and which, there is no question, would have been stricken from the treaty, except through the fur influence of the company to increase the plausibility of their claims against our government.

If there was any law to punish a fraud attempted to be committed by a foreign company upon a friendly nation, this would be a plain case; as the Hudson’s Bay Company, they claim $3,822,036.37; as the Puget Sound Company, $1,168,000. The original stock of the Hudson’s Bay Company was £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 was then 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 the supreme direction, as per testimony of Dr. Tolmie, superseded and usurped the prerogatives of the State; that the claim of this company, as set up in the wording of the treaty, is for the benefit of a company having no natural or legal right to assume supreme direction of the soil or its productions. Hence any improvement made, or stock destroyed, was at the risk of the individual owning, or making, or bringing such stock or improvements into the country, and subject exclusively to the laws of the country in which the trespass occurred. The claiming a name belonging to no legal body cannot be made legal by a deception practiced upon the persons making the treaty, as this would be equivalent to pledging the nation to the payment of money when no cause could be shown that money was justly due, as neither nation (except by a deception brought to bear upon commissioners forming the treaty by the mere assertion of an interested party) acknowledged the reported existence of such a corporation, thereby creating a corporate body by the wording of a treaty.” This, to a common juror, we confess, would look like removing the necessity of a common national law, in relation to all claims of foreigners who might feel disposed to come over and trespass upon our national domain. A word in this treaty does not settle the matter, and the claim should not be paid. The article above referred to is commented upon by Mr. Day as follows: —

“That by article four of the treaty concluded between the United States of America and Great Britain, under date of the 15th day of June, 1864, it was provided that the farms, lands, and other property, of every description, belonging to the Puget Sound Agricultural Company, on the north side of the Columbia River [they should have included those in the French possession, and added another million to their claim; but we suppose they became liberal, and consented to take half of the country their servants had settled upon], should be confirmed to the said company; but that in case the situation of those farms and lands should be considered by the United States to be of public and political importance, and the United States government should signify a desire to obtain possession of the whole, or of any part thereof, the property so required should be transferred to the said government at a proper valuation, to be agreed upon between the parties.

“That the government of the United States has not, at any time, signified to the company a desire that any of the said property should be transferred to the said government at a valuation as provided by the treaty, nor has any transfer thereof been made [this was a great misfortune. Uncle Sam had so much land of his own he did not want to buy out this bastard company right away after the treaty was made]; but the company have ever since continued to be the rightful owners of the said lands, farms, and other property, and entitled to the free and undisturbed possession and enjoyment thereof. [True; so with all bastards. They live and die, and never find a father to own them, except they come up with a big pile of money, which in your claim is a case of clonas (don’t know.)]

“That, by a convention concluded between the two governments on the 1st day of July, 1863, it was agreed that all questions between the United States authorities on the one hand, and the Puget Sound Agricultural Company on the other, with respect to the rights and claims of the latter, should be settled by the transfer of such rights and claims to the government of the United States for an adequate money consideration.

“And the claimants aver that the rights and claims of the Puget Sound Agricultural Company, referred to and intended in and by the said convention, are their rights and claims in and upon the said lands, farms, and other property of every description which they so held and possessed within the said territory, and which, by reason of the said treaty of the 15th of June, 1846, and according to the terms of the fourth article thereof, the United States became and were bound to confirm. And of the said farms and other property, they now submit to the honorable the commissioners a detailed statement and valuation, as follows.”