Astoria in 1811

A HISTORY
OF
O R E G O N,

1792 - 1849,
DRAWN FROM PERSONAL OBSERVATION AND AUTHENTIC INFORMATION.
BY
W. H. GRAY,
OF
ASTORIA.

PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR FOR SUBSCRIBERS.

PORTLAND, OREGON: HARRIS & HOLMAN.
SAN FRANCISCO: H. H. BANCROFT & CO.
NEW YORK: THE AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY.
1870.

[CORRECTIONS:]

FIRST LETTER.

4th page, 2nd line from bottom, after the word horror, read at.

6th page, 2nd line from bottom, “ quote.

7th page, end of paragraph, ”.

23rd page, in place of 283, page 273.

24th page, after zealous priest of, read the.

26th page, 5th line, for missionaries, read missions.

SECOND LETTER.

5th page, first word, for abrogate, read arrogate.

8th page, in this letter, read in his letter.

23rd page, for unmbers, read numbers.

29th page, 1st paragraph, for dispersing, read dispensing.

30th page, 2nd paragraph, for barely, read basely betrayed.

32nd page, for mith, read with many thanks.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1870, by
W. H. GRAY,
In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon.

INTRODUCTORY.

The reader will observe that when we commenced furnishing the historical articles for the Marine Gazette, we did not know that they would be of sufficient interest to justify arranging them in book form; but few articles had been given, however, before there was a call for back numbers of the paper, which were not on hand. It was then decided to continue the articles, giving an opportunity to correct errors in statement of historical facts, and collect such as were printed, with all just criticisms, review the whole, and complete the manuscript for publication.

As will be seen, we have endeavored to narrate events in plain language, and as nearly in the order of occurrence as possible.

We make no claim to literary merit or attractive style; the facts we have collected, the proofs we are able to give of the policy and practices of one of the most gigantic frauds ever continued for a series of years by one professedly civilized and Christian nation upon another, in chartering and continuing to license a monster monopoly; and the manner in which they have sought for a series of years to prevent American trade and settlement of the western portion of our country, is contained in the following pages. We can only give the principal events, which in the future may be better arranged in an interesting and authentic history, which we must leave for others to write. The reader will find in the following pages:—

I. The American history of the Hudson’s Bay and Puget Sound Agricultural companies.

II. The causes of failure of the Protestant missions, the causes of Indian wars, and the causes that must tend to the utter destruction of the Indian race on the American continent.

III. The adverse influences that the early settlers had to contend with in coming to and settling in the country, fully explained.

IV. A concise history of the early settlement of the country, a short sketch of many of the public men in it, their public character and proceedings, and the organization of the provisional government.

V. The mining and agricultural interests of the country.

There are two grounds upon which every fact is based:—

1. Personal knowledge, observation, and participation in what is stated for one-third of a century.

2. The written and printed statements of others, so compared that conclusions are intended to be without a possibility of truthful contradiction; thus making this a standard history of the country for the time included within the period from its discovery by Captain Robert Gray to 1849.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.Page
First discovery of the river.—Natives friendly.—British ship.—Brig Jennet.—Snow Sea Otter.—The Globe.—Alert.—Guatimozin.—Atahualpa.—Lewis and Clarke.—Vancouver.—Hamilton.—Derby.—Pearl.—Albatross.—First house built in 1810.—Astor’s settlement.—The Tonquin.—Astor’s Company betrayed to the Northwest Company.[13]
CHAPTER II.
The country restored.—The order.—Description of Astoria.—Different parties.—Northwest Fur Company.—Astor’s plan.—Conflict of the two British fur companies.—The treaties.—The Selkirk settlement.—Its object.—The company asserts chartered rights as soon as united.[20]
CHAPTER III.
English Hudson’s Bay effort to secure Oregon.—British claim to Oregon.—Dr. McLaughlin’s relation to the company.—Treatment of Red River settlers.—A mistake.—Sir Edward Belcher.—Duplicity of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—A noble man.—An Englishman’s opinion of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—Sir James Douglas’s testimony.—J. Ross Browne.—Duty of an historian.—Cause and effect. [27]
CHAPTER IV.
Care of Great Britain for her fur companies.—Columbia Fur Company.—Astor’s second fur company.—Major Pilcher’s fur company.—Loss of the ship Isabel.—Captain Bonneville’s expedition.—Cause of his failure.—Captain Wyeth’s, 1832.—Indians ask for missionaries in 1833.—Methodist Mission.—Fort Hall established.—Fort Boise.[36]
CHAPTER V.
Extent and power of Hudson’s Bay Company.—Number of forts.—Location.—Policy.—Murder of Mr. Black.—McKay.—Manner of dealing with Indians.—Commander of fort kills an Indian.—Necessity of such a course.—Hudson’s Bay Company not responsible for what their servants do.[42]
CHAPTER VI.
Murder of John McLaughlin, Jr.—Investigation by Sir George Simpson and Sir James Douglas.[46]
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.[55]
CHAPTER VIII.
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.[61]
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.[ 67]
CHAPTER X.
Case of The Hudson’s Bay Company v. The United States.—Examination of Mr. McTavish.—Number of witnesses.—Their ignorance.—Amount claimed.—Original stock.—Value of land in Oregon.—Estimate of Hudson’s Bay Company’s property.—Remarks of author.[81]
CHAPTER XI.
Quotation from Mr. Swan.—His mistake.—General Gibbs’ mistake.—Kamaiyahkan.—Indian agent killed.—J. J. Stevens misjudged.[92]
CHAPTER XII.
Review of Mr. Greenhow’s work in connection with the conduct and policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—Schools and missionaries.—Reasons for giving extracts from Mr. Greenhow’s work.—Present necessity for more knowledge about the company.[96]
CHAPTER XIII.
Occupants of the country.—Danger to outsiders.—Description of missionaries.[106]
CHAPTER XIV.
Missionary outfit.—On the way.—No roads.—An English nobleman.—A wagon taken along.—Health of Mrs. Spalding.—Meeting mountain men and Indians.—A feast to the Indians.[113]
CHAPTER XV.
Arrival at American rendezvous.—An Indian procession.—Indian curiosity to see white women.—Captain N. Wyeth.—McCleod and T. McKay.—Description of mountain men.—Their opinion of the missionaries.[121]
CHAPTER XVI.
Missionaries travel in company with Hudson’s Bay Company party.—The Lawyer’s kindness.—Arrival at Fort Hall.—Description of the country.—The Salmon Indians.—The Hudson’s Bay Company’s tariff.[130]
CHAPTER XVII.
An explanation.—Instructions of company.—Their tyranny.—Continuation of journey.—Fording rivers.—Arrival at Boise.—Dr. Whitman compelled to leave his wagon.[136]
CHAPTER XVIII.
Arrival at Fort Wallawalla.—Reception.—The fort in 1836.—Voyage down the Columbia River.—Portage at Celilo.—At Dalles.—A storm.—The Flatheads.—Portage at the Cascades.[142]
CHAPTER XIX.
Fort Vancouver in 1836.—An extra table.—Conditions on which cattle were supplied to settlers.—Official papers.—Three organizations.[150]
CHAPTER XX.
Settlers in 1836.—Wallamet Cattle Company.—What good have the missionaries done?—Rev. J. Lee and party.—The Hudson’s Bay Company recommend the Wallamet—Rev. S. Parker arrives at Vancouver.[154]
CHAPTER XXI.
Arrival of Rev. Mr. Beaver and wife.—His opinion of the company.—A double-wedding.—Mrs. Spalding and Mrs. Whitman at Vancouver.—Men explore the country and locate stations.—Their opinion of the country.—Indian labor.—A winter trip down Snake River. [162]
CHAPTER XXII.
The French and American settlers.—Hudson’s Bay Company’s traveling traders.—The Flatheads.—Their manner of traveling.—Marriage.—Their honesty.—Indian fight and scalp dance.—Fight with the Sioux.—At Council Bluffs.[169]
CHAPTER XXIII.
Re-enforcement to the Methodist Mission.—Re-enforcement to the mission of the American Board.[ 175]
CHAPTER XXIV.
Arrival of Jesuit missionaries.—Toupin’s statement about Rev. A. B. Smith.—Death of Mrs. Jason Lee.—First express.—Jesuits at work.—The first printing-press.—The Catholic tree.[180]
CHAPTER XXV.
Independent missionaries arrive.—Their troubles.—Conversion of Indians at the Dalles.—Their motives.—Emigrants of 1839.—Blubber-Mouth Smith.—Re-enforcement of the Methodist Mission in 1840.—Father De Smet.—Rev. Harvey Clark and associates.—Ewing Young.—Names of missionaries and settlers.[185]
CHAPTER XXVI.
1840.—Petition to Congress of United States.—British subjects amenable to the laws of Canada.—Mr. Douglas as justice of the peace.—Mr. Leslie as judge.[193]
CHAPTER XXVII.
Death of Ewing Young.—First public attempt to organize a provisional government.—Origin of the provisional government.—First Oregon schooner.[199]
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Lee and Hines explore the Umpqua River.—Mr. Hines tells a story.—Massacre and plunder of Smith’s party by the Indians.—Sympathy of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—Extract from the San Francisco Bulletin.[205]
CHAPTER XXIX.
Missionaries leaving.—Hudson’s Bay Company’s Gold Exchange.—Population in 1842.—Whitman and Lovejoy start for the States.—The Red River emigration.—American merchants.—Settlers not dependent on the Hudson’s Bay Company.—Milling Company.—The Oregon Institute.—Dr. Elijah White.—Proceedings at a public meeting.—Correspondence with the War Department.[211]
CHAPTER XXX.
Dispatch of Dr. White to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.—He praises the Hudson’s Bay Company.—His account of the Indians.—Indian outrages.—Dr. White’s expedition to the Nez Percés.—Indian council.—Speeches.—Electing a chief.—Laws of the Nez Percés.—Visit to the Cayuses.—Doings of the missionaries.—Drowning of Mr. Rogers and family.—George Geere.—Volcanoes.—Petition against Governor McLaughlin.[218]
CHAPTER XXXI.
Letter of H. H. Spalding to Dr. White.—Account of his mission among the Nez Percés.—Schools.—Cultivation.—Industrial arts.—Moral character.—Arable land.—Letter of Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of War.[234]
CHAPTER XXXII.
Dr. E. White’s letter to the Secretary of War.—Excitement among the Indians.—Visit to Nez Percés, Cayuses, and Wallawallas.—Destitution and degradation of the Coast Indians.—Dr. White eulogizes Governor McLaughlin and the Hudson’s Bay Company.—Schools and missions.—Mr. Jess Applegate.—Dr. White’s second letter.—Letters of Peter H. Hatch and W. H. Wilson.—Seizure of a distillery.—Search for liquor.—Letter of James D. Saules.—Fight with Indians.—Death of Cockstock.—Description and character of him.—The Molallos and Klamaths.—Agreement with the Dalles Indians.—Presents to Cockstock’s widow.—Dr. White’s third letter.—Letter of Rev. G. Hines to Dr. White.—Letter of W. Medill.[241]
CHAPTER XXXIII.
First council to organize a provisional government.—Library founded.—Origin of the Wolf Association.—The Methodist Mission influence.—Dr. White exhibits his credentials.—First “wolf meeting.”—Proceedings of the second “wolf meeting.”—Officers.—Resolutions.—Bounties to be paid.—Resolution to appoint a committee of twelve for the civil and military protection of the settlement.—Names of the members of the committee.[260]
CHAPTER XXXIV.
First meeting of the committee of twelve.—All invited to participate.—The Rev. J. Lee and Mr. Abernethy ridicule the organization.—Mr. Lee tells a story.—Letter from Governor Abernethy.—The main question at issue.—Drowning of Cornelius Rogers and party.—Conduct of Dr. White.—Methodist Mission.—Catholic boasts of conversions.[268]
CHAPTER XXXV.
Meetings to oppose organization.—Address of the French-Canadians.—Criticisms on it by the author.—The Jesuits.—Jesuit oath.—Article from Cincinnati Beacon.[273]
CHAPTER XXXVI.
The meeting at Champoeg.—Tactics of the Jesuit party.—Counter-tactics of the Americans.—A division and its result.—Public record.—Opposition to clergymen as legislators.—Mr. Hines as an historian.—His errors.—Importance of Mr. Hines’ history.—Difficulty among the Indians.—Cause of the difficulty.[279]
CHAPTER XXXVII.
Whitman’s visit to Washington.—A priest’s boast.—A taunt, and Whitman’s reply.—Arrival in Washington.—Interview with Secretary Webster.—With President Tyler.—His return.—Successful passage of the Rocky Mountains with two hundred wagons.—His mill burned during his absence.[288]
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
Petition of the citizens of Oregon in 1843.—Complaints against the Hudson’s Bay Company.—The Milling Company.—Kicking the half-bushel.—Land claims of Dr. McLaughlin.—Names of the signers.—Reasons for not signing.—Notice, deed, and bond of John McLaughlin.—Claim of Alvin F. Waller.[292]
CHAPTER XXXIX.
Extracts from Mr. Hines’ history.—Attempt to capture an Indian horse-thief.—Dr. McLaughlin refuses to sell supplies to the signers of the petition.—Excitement in the settlement.—Interview with Dr. McLaughlin at Vancouver.[304]
CHAPTER XL.
A combination of facts.—Settlers alive to their danger.—Mr. Hines’ disparagement of the Methodist Mission.—Indians want pay for being whipped.—Indian honesty.—Mr. Hines’ opinion of the Indians’ religion.—Mr. Geiger’s advice.—Dr. McLaughlin’s answer to yellow Serpent.—Baptiste Doreo.—Four conflicting influences.[309]
CHAPTER XLI.
Governor Simpson and Dr. Whitman in Washington.—Interviews with Daniel Webster and President Tyler.—His cold reception in Boston by the American Board.—Conducts a large emigration safely across the Rocky Mountains into Oregon.—The “Memorial Half-Century Volume.”—The Oregon mission ignored by the American Board.—Dr. McLaughlin.—His connection with the Hudson’s Bay Company.—Catholic Cayuses’ manner of praying.—Rev. C. Eells.—Letter from A. L. Lovejoy.—Description of Whitman’s and Lovejoy’s winter journey from Oregon to Bent’s Fort on the Arkansas River.[315]
CHAPTER XLII.
Assembly of the Nez Percés, Cayuses, and Wallawallas.—Mock fight.—Council with the Indians.—Speeches by Yellow Serpent, Tilokaikt, the Prince, and Illutin.—The secret of the whole difficulty.—John, the Kanaka.—A cow for a horse.—Killing of a medicine woman.[328]
CHAPTER XLIII.
The Legislative Committee of nine.—Hon. Robert Moore, chairman.—Description of the members.—Minutes of their proceedings.—Dr. R. Newell, his character.—Two specimens of his speeches.—The dark clouds.[336]
CHAPTER XLIV.
Fourth of July, 1843.—Oration by Mr. Hines.—Meeting of July 5.—Debate on the land law.—How the Jesuits and the Hudson’s Bay Company secured their land claims.—Speech of the Rev. G. Hines against the proposed Executive Committee.—The committee supported by O’Neil, Shortess, and Lee.—W. H. Gray closes the debate.—The report of the committee adopted.—Committee appointed to report to Congress, another to make a Digest of Territorial laws, and a third to prepare and administer an oath of office.[346]
CHAPTER XLV.
Organic laws.—Resolutions.—Districts.—Militia law.—Land claims.—Certificate.[353]
CHAPTER XLVI.
Description of the State House.—Conduct of the French settlers.—Arrival of Dr. Whitman’s party of immigrants.—Prosperity of the settlers.—Change in the policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—Their exorbitant claims.[360]
CHAPTER XLVII.
Actions speak louder than words.—Efforts of the Hudson’s Bay Company to discourage immigration.—Account of the two Jesuits, F. N. Blanchet and P. J. De Smet.—Protestant missionaries discouraged.—Important position of the Rev. G. Hines.—Recall of the Rev. Jason Lee.—Efforts of the Hudson’s Bay Company to prevent emigration to the Territory.—Statement of General Palmer.—Indian combinations.—The Donner party.—Extent of Oregon at this time.[363]
CHAPTER XLVIII.
1844.—The settlements alarmed.—Indian attack.—Death of G. W. La Breton.—Meeting at Mr. La Chapelle’s.—Volunteer company formed.—The Modeste in the Columbia River.—The Legislative Assembly.—Names of the members.—Peter H. Burnett.—Mr. David Hill.—Oregon social standard.—M. M. McCarver.—“Old Brass Gun.”—A. L. Lovejoy.—Daniel Waldo.—Thomas D. Keizer.—Black act.—Prohibitory liquor law.[371]
CHAPTER XLIX.
Message of the Executive Committee.—Observations on the message.—Generosity of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—The Methodist Mission.—The Oregon Printing-press Association.—George Abernethy, Esq.[380]
CHAPTER L.
Dr. White’s report.—Seizure and destruction of a distillery.—Homicide of Joel Turnham.—State of the Territory.—Trials of Dr. White.—The liquor law.—Revenue act.—Case of the negro Saul.—The Indians kill an ox.—Other Indian difficulties.—Indian expedition to California.—Death of the Indian Elijah.—State of the Territory.—Claim of the Hudson’s Bay Company on the north bank of the Columbia.—Letter of Peter H. Burnett.—The Nez Percés and Cayuses.—Extract from the report of the United States Senate.[387]
CHAPTER LI.
1845.—Public meetings to elect delegates to convention.—Candidates for governor.—Members elected to the Legislative Committee.—Oath of office.—Mr. Applegate’s announcement.—Dr. McLaughlin’s amphibiousness.—Description of the members of the Legislative Committee.—Business of the session.—Ermatinger’s election contested.—Mr. Garrison’s resolutions.—Anti-slavery resolution.—Organic law revised.—Improvements and condition of the country.[421]
CHAPTER LII.
1845.—Second session of the Legislative Committee.—Mr. McCarver removed from the office of Speaker.—Mr. Applegate’s resolutions.—Protest of Gray, Foisy, and Straight.—A legislative incident.—Law against dueling.—Dr. White addresses the Legislature.—Resolutions.—Dr. White denies the right of the settlers to organize a provisional government.—McCarver signs documents without authority.—Resolutions by the house on the subject.—Impertinent letter from Dr. White to the house.—White cornered by President Polk.—Incidents in White’s temperance movements.—Proposition to repeal all laws for the collection of debts.—The Currency act.—Adjournment of the Legislature in August.—Meets again in December.—Proposal to locate the capital.[428]
CHAPTER LIII.
The liquor law.—Amended act of 1845.—Message of the governor on the same.—Repeal of the prohibitory and passage of the license law.—Letter of James Douglas.—Reply of Mr. Samuel Parker.—Dr. Tolmie’s resolution on the judiciary.—The governor’s veto of the license law.—Immigration for Oregon and California in 1846.—Arrival of the brig Henry.—The Oregon Printing Association.—The Spectator, the first newspaper in Oregon.—W. G. T. Vault, first editor.—H. A. G. Lee, second editor.—G. L. Curry, third editor.—Judge Wait, fourth editor.[ 440]
CHAPTER LIV.
The Whitman massacre.—Narratives of, by J. B. A. Brouillet and J. Ross Browne.—Extract from the New York Evangelist.—Statements of Father Brouillet criticised.—Testimony of John Kimzey.—Dr. Whitman at Umatilla.—Returns home.[457]
CHAPTER LV.
Occupations of the victims immediately before the massacre.—Description of the mission buildings.—The Doctor called into the kitchen to be murdered.—Joe Lewis, the leader in the massacre.—The scene outside.—The Doctor’s house plundered.—Mrs. Whitman shot.—Brutalities to the dead and dying.—Escape of some and murder of others.—Safety of the French Papists and the servants of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—Fate of Joe Lewis.[466]
CHAPTER LVI.
Comments on Vicar-General Brouillet’s arguments against the Whitman massacre being the act of Catholics.—Joe Stanfield: Brouillet’s story in his favor.—Murders on the second day.—Deposition of Daniel Young.—More murders.[472]
CHAPTER LVII.
How the country was saved to the United States.—Article from the New York Evening Post.—Ingratitude of the American Board.—Deposition of Elam Young.—Young girls taken for Indian wives.—Statement of Miss Lorinda Bewley.—Sager, Bewley, and Sales killed.[480]
CHAPTER LVIII.
Vicar-General Brouillet’s statement.—Statement of Istacus.—The priest finds the poison.—Statement of William Geiger, Jr.—Conduct of Mr. McBean.—Influence of the Jesuit missions.[490]
CHAPTER LIX.
Continuation of Miss Bewley’s evidence.—The priests refuse her protection.—Forcibly taken from the bishop’s house by Five Crows.—Brouillet advises her to remain with her Indian violator.—Indecent question by a priest.—Mr. Brouillet attempts to get a statement from her.—Two questions.—Note from Mrs. Bewley.—Bishop Blanchet’s letter to Governor Abernethy.—Comments on the Jesuits’ proceedings.—Grand council at the bishop’s.—Policy in forcing Miss Bewley to Five Crows’ lodge.—Speeches by Camaspelo and Tilokaikt.—Killing of Elijah and the Nez Percé chief commented on.—The true story told.—Dr. White’s report.—The grand council again.—Review of Brouillet’s narrative.—Who were the real authors of the massacre.[497]
CHAPTER LX.
The Hudson’s Bay Company’s and the priests’ part in the massacre.—McBean’s messenger.—Plot divulged to Hinman, Ogden, and Douglas.—Douglas’s remark to Hinman.—McBean’s letter.—His perversion of facts.—Comments.—Sir James Douglas’s letter to Governor Abernethy.—His Sandwich Islands letter.—Its falsehood and absurdity.—Mr. Hinman’s letter to Governor Abernethy.—The dates.—Assertion of Robert Newell.—Hudson’s Bay Company v. United States.[517]
CHAPTER LXI.
Preliminary events of the Cayuse war.—Message of Governor Abernethy.—Journal of the house.—Resolutions.—Assembling of the people at the call of the governor.—Enlisting of men.—Names of the volunteers.—Names of the officers.—Their flag.—Their departure.—Letter to Sir James Douglas.—His reply.—Commissioners return.—Address to the citizens.—Public meeting.—Report of commissioners to the Legislature.—Messenger sent to Washington.—Memorial to Congress.—Champoeg County tax.—Strength of the settlement called for.—Bishop Blanchet’s letter to Governor Abernethy.[535]
CHAPTER LXII.
The Cayuse war.—Letter of Captain Lee.—Indians friendly with the Hudson’s Bay Company.—Conduct of Mr. Ogden.—His letters to Mr. Walker and Mr. Spalding.—Note of Rev. G. H. Atkinson.—Sir James Douglas’s letter to Governor Abernethy.—A rumor.—The governor’s reply.—Another letter from Sir James.—Mr. Ogden.—Extraordinary presents to the Indians of arms and ammunition.—Colonel Gilliam’s campaign.—Indian fight.—Property captured.—The Des Chutes Indians make peace.—Captain McKay’s company of British subjects join the army.—A nuisance.—“Veritas.”—Nicholas Finlay gives the signal for battle.—Running fight.—Captain McKay’s company.—Council held by the peace commissioners with the Indians.—Governor Abernethy’s address.—Speeches of the Indians Camaspelo, Joseph, Jacob, Old James, Red Wolf, Timothy, Richard, and Kentuck.—Letters of Joel Palmer, R. Newell, James Douglas, and William McBean.—Who is responsible for the Cayuse war?[549]
CHAPTER LXIII.
Letter to General Lovejoy.—Call for men and ammunition.—Yankama chief.—His speech.—Small supply of ammunition.—Letter of Joseph Cadwallader.—Claim and a girl.—Combined Indian tribes.—Ladies of Oregon.—Public meeting.—A noble address.—Vote of thanks.—Address of the young ladies.—Death of Colonel Gilliam.—His campaign.—Colonel Waters’ letter.—Doubtful position of Indians.—Number at Fort Wallawalla.—Results of the war.—Jesuit letters.—Fathers Hoikin and De Smet.—The Choctaws.—Indian confederacy.—Last hope of the Indian.—Jesuit policy.—The Irish in the war of the Rebellion.—Father Hecker.—Boasts of the Jesuits.—Letter of Lieutenant Rogers.—Priests supply the Indians with arms and ammunition.—Ammunition seized.—Oregon Argus.—Discovery of gold.—No help for the Indian.—Withdrawal of the Hudson’s Bay Company to Vancouver.—The smooth-tongued Jesuits yet remain.[568]
CHAPTER LXIV.
Missions among the Western Indians.—The Cœur d’Alêne Mission.—Protestant and Catholic missions compared.—What the American Protestant missionaries have done for the country and the Indians.—Extent of their influence, progress, and improvements.—Patriotism of Dr. Whitman.[593]
CHAPTER LXV.
Description of the face of the country.—Agricultural and mining productions.—Timber.—The Wallamet.—Columbia.—Dalles.—Upper Columbia.—Mountains.—Rivers.—Mineral wealth.—Climate.—The Northern Pacific Railroad.—Conclusion.[610]

HISTORY OF OREGON.

CHAPTER I.

First discovery of the river.—Natives friendly.—British ship.—Brig Jennet.—Snow Sea Otter.—The Globe.—Alert.—Guatimozin.—Atahualpa.—Lewis and Clarke.—Vancouver.—Hamilton.—Derby.—Pearl.—Albatross.—First house built in 1810.—Astor’s settlement.—The Tonquin.—Astor’s Company betrayed to the Northwest Company.

In all countries it is difficult to trace the history of their early discovery and settlement. That of Oregon is no exception. The Spanish claim, and it is generally conceded, that they were the discoverers of the coast, and gave names to the principal capes and to Fuca’s Straits. No evidence can be found in national archives, or among the native tribes of the country, that gives the discovery of the Columbia River to any civilized people but to the Bostons (Americans); so that, so far as civil history or national testimony is concerned, we are without any, except the conjectures of men as ignorant as ourselves. Hence we are left to the alternative of searching the old logs of vessels and such old books as have been written, and, in connection with the legends and statements of the aborigines of the country, form an opinion as to its discovery, and from such dates and conclusions commence its civil history. That of Oregon begins eight years previous to the commencement of the present century.

A ship, owned by Messrs. Barrell, Bulfinch & Co., of Boston, and commanded by Captain Robert Gray, discovered and entered the mouth of the third great river upon the American continent. It then had no name known to the civilized world. This unselfish American, instead of following the example of many contemporary British navigators by giving his own name to the majestic river he had discovered, gave it that of his noble ship, Columbia.

On the 7th of May, 1792, he discovered and ran in abreast of Cape Hancock, and anchored, and on the 11th ran ten miles up this river on the north side, which is now known as a little above Chinook Point, and at 1 P. M. they came to anchor. On the 14th they weighed anchor and ran, according to the ship’s log, fifteen miles, which would bring them up abreast of Tongue Point, where their ship grounded upon a sand bar for a short time, but they backed her off into three fathoms of water and anchored. By sounding they discovered that there was not sufficient water to pass up the river in their present channel. Having filled all their water-casks, repaired, painted, and calked the ship, and allowed the vast numbers of Indians that thronged around them in the most peaceable and friendly manner, to visit and traffic with them, on the 20th of May, 1792, they went to sea again.

On the 20th of October of this year, the Chatham, commanded by Captain Broughton, of the British navy, entered the river. He grounded his ship on what is now called the Sulphur Spit, and found in the bay the brig Jennet, Captain Baker, from Bristol, Rhode Island. Captain Broughton explored the river in his small boat as high up as the present site of Vancouver, and left the river with his ship on the 10th of November.

In 1797, five years later, the snow Sea Otter, Captain Hill, from Boston, visited the river.

In 1798, the ship Hazard, Swift, master, owned by Perkins, Lamb & Co., Boston, visited the river. This same ship visited the river again in 1801.

In 1802, this same Boston company sent the ship Globe, Magee, master, to the river.

During the year 1802, a brisk, and something like a permanent American trade appears to have been in contemplation by this Boston company. They sent the ship Caroline, Derby, master, from Boston, and the ship Manchester, Brice, master, from Philadelphia.

In 1803, Lamb & Company sent the ship Alert, Ebbets, master; also the ship Vancouver, Brown, master. This year, the ship Juno, Kendricks, master, from Bristol, Rhode Island, owned by De Wolf, entered the Columbia River for trade.

In the year 1804, Theodore Lyman sent the ship Guatimozin, Bumsted, master, from Boston. The Perkins Company sent the ship Hazard, Swift, master, to the river the same year.

In 1805, Lyman & Company sent the ship Atahualpa, O. Potter, master, from Boston. Lamb & Company sent the ship Caroline, Sturges, master, from the same place.

On the 15th of November, 1805, Lewis and Clarke, with their party, having crossed the Rocky Mountains under the direction of President Jefferson, of the United States, arrived at Cape Hancock; remaining but a few days, they crossed the Columbia River and encamped near the mouth of a small river still bearing the name of these two explorers. They left their encampment in March, 1806, and returned across the continent and reported the result of their expedition to the government.

This expedition consisted of one hundred and eighty soldiers or enlisted men. On arriving at the Mandan Village, on the Missouri River, in 1804, they encountered the influence of the Northwest British Fur Company, who, on learning their object, at once made arrangements to follow and get possession of the country at the mouth of the Columbia River.

In 1806, soon after Lewis and Clarke left their encampment on their return to the United States, the ship Vancouver, Brown, master, entered the river, having been sent out by Thomas Lyman, of Boston, in expectation of meeting Lewis and Clarke’s party at the mouth of the river. The Lamb Company sent the ship Pearl the same year, under the command of Captain Ebbets. Lyman, in addition to the Vancouver, sent the brig Lydia, Hill, master, to the river, making three American ships from Boston in the year 1806.

In 1807, the ship Hamilton arrived in the river, sent by Thomas Lyman, of Boston, L. Peters, master. The Perkins Company sent the Hazard, Smith, master.

In 1808, the ship Derby, Swift, master, sent by the Perkins Company. Lyman sent the ship Guatimozin, Glanville, master; both made successful trips in and out of the river.

In 1809, the Perkins Company sent the ships Pearl and Vancouver into the river, the former commanded by Smith, the latter by Whittimore.

In 1810, the ship Albatross, from Boston, T. Winship, master, entered the river and sailed as high up as Oak Point, where the captain erected a house, cleared a piece of land for cultivation, and planted a garden. This year, John Jacob Astor, of New York, organized the Pacific Fur Company, in connection with Wilson Price Hunt, of New Jersey. These two gentlemen admitted as partners in the fur trade, Messrs. McKay, McDougal, and David and Robert Stewart. These four last-mentioned partners, with eleven clerks and thirteen Canadian voyageurs, and a complete outfit for a fort, with cannon and small-arms, stores, shops, and houses, with five mechanics, were all embarked on the ship Tonquin, Captain Jonathan Thorn, master, in September, 1810, and sailed for the Columbia River, where they arrived, March 24, 1811.

The present site of the town of Astoria was selected as the principal depot for this American Fur Company, and called by them, in honor of the originator of the company, Astoria. This establishment was soon in full operation. The timber and thick undergrowth within musket range of the establishment were cleared away, and a kitchen-garden planted outside the stockade.

In the highly-interesting narrative of Gabriel Franchere, we read that, “in the month of May, 1811, on a rich piece of land in front of our establishment [at Astoria], we put into the ground twelve potatoes, so shriveled up during the passage from New York that we despaired of raising any from the few sprouts that still showed signs of life. Nevertheless, we raised one hundred and nineteen potatoes the first season. And, after sparing a few plants to our inland traders, we planted fifty or sixty hills, which produced five bushels the second year; about two of these were planted, and gave us a welcome crop of fifty bushels in the year 1813.”

They were cultivated at Astoria, by the old Northwest and Hudson’s Bay companies, in their little fort gardens. A few Indian chiefs were presented with the seed, but no general distribution was made among them, as they were considered as the Bostons’ root, and no better than those of the Indians, abounding in the country, which required less labor to cultivate. Up to the time of the arrival of the American missionaries, there never was an extra supply of potatoes in the country. In other words, the potato was a luxury enjoyed by none except the highest grades of the Fur Company’s servants and distinguished visitors; its cultivation was not generally encouraged by the company.

In October, 1810, after dispatching the Tonquin, Mr. Astor fitted out the ship Beaver, twenty guns, Captain Sowles, master, with Mr. Clark, six clerks, and a number of other persons, to join the establishment at Astoria. The ship touched at the Sandwich Islands; Mr. Clark engaged twenty-six Kanakas as laborers for the establishments on the Columbia River, where the ship arrived, May 5, 1812.

On the 15th of July, 1813, Mr. David Thompson, under the direction of the Northwest Canadian British Company, arrived at Astoria. I use the word Canadian, as applied to the Northwest Fur Company, that was established by the charter of Louis XIII. of France, 1630, in what was then called Acadia, or New France, forty years before Charles of England gave his charter to the Hudson’s Bay Company. This Northwest Fur Company, in the transfer of the sovereignty of Acadia, or New France, to England, in 1714, at the treaty of Utrecht, was acknowledged as having a legal existence, by both nations, and was allowed to transfer its allegiance and continue its trade under the protection of the British sovereign, as it had done under that of France.

As soon as the government and people of the United States entered upon active measures to explore and occupy the country west of the Rocky Mountains, this Canadian Northwest Fur Company dispatched Mr. Thompson to explore the Columbia River, and make an establishment at its mouth; but, on account of delays and mistaking the course of the various rivers through which the party traveled, Mr. Thompson did not arrive at Mr. Astor’s American establishment till in July, 1813; his object was to forestall Mr. Astor in the settlement of the country. He was received, kindly treated, and furnished with such goods and supplies as he and his party required, by Mr. McDougal, who was then in charge of Fort Astor, and, in company with David Stewart, returned as high up the Columbia as the Spokan,—Mr. Greenhow says Okanagon,—and established a trading-post, while Mr. Thompson went among the Kootenai and Flathead tribes, and established a trading-hut. It is due to those parties to state that as late as 1836, a square, solid, hewed log bastion, erected by Stewart’s party, was still standing at Spokan, while no vestige of the Thompson huts could be found in the Flathead country. At Spokan, garden vegetables were produced about the fort, which the Indians in that vicinity learned to appreciate, and continued to cultivate after the fort was abandoned in 1825, having been occupied by the Northwest and Hudson’s Bay companies till that time.

In the spring of 1811, the chief agent of the Pacific Fur Company, Mr. Hunt, with other partners, Crooks, McKenzie, and McClellen, with a party of sixty men, started across the continent. They were extremely annoyed by the opposition fur traders on their route, and also by hostile Indians. Such of the party as did not perish by famine and hostile Indians, and British fur traders, arrived at Astoria on the 28th of January, 1812.

On the 5th of May following the arrival of Mr. Hunt’s party, the ship Beaver arrived with the third installment of traders, clerks, and Kanaka laborers. In consequence of the loss of the ship Tonquin, and all on board except the Indian interpreter, in the Cliquot Bay, near the entrance of the Straits of Fuca, by the treachery of the Indians in the vicinity, Mr. Hunt embarked in the Beaver for the Russian establishment in August, 1812, effected an arrangement of trade with them, and dispatched the ship to China. He continued in her till she reached the Sandwich Islands, where he remained until June, 1813, when the ship Albatross arrived from Canton, and brought the news of the war between the United States and Great Britain, and also that the ship Beaver was blockaded at Canton by a British ship of war. Mr. Hunt at once chartered the Albatross and sailed for the Columbia River, where he arrived on the 4th of August, 1813.

On his arrival at Astoria he learned that it was the intention of his partners, all of whom claimed to be British subjects (McDougal and McKenzie having formerly been in the employ of the Northwest Company), to sell to McTavish, of that company. Hunt embarked in the Albatross for the Sandwich Islands, and from thence to the Washington Islands, where he learned from Commodore Porter, then at those Islands, in the frigate Essex, of the design of the British to seize all American property on the Pacific coast. From thence he returned to the Sandwich Islands, and chartered the brig Pedler, and arrived at Astoria in February, 1814, and learned that soon after his departure in the Albatross, in August, 1813, McTavish, with a party of the servants of the Northwest Company, had arrived at Astoria, and, in connection with McDougal, McKenzie, and Clarke, on the part of the American Pacific Fur Company, and McTavish and Alexander Stewart, on the part of the Canadian Northwest Company, had completed the sale of Astoria to that company, and secured for themselves important positions in the service of the latter company.

As a matter of fact and general historical interest, the amount and value of property thus transferred is here given: Eighteen thousand one hundred and seventy and one-fourth pounds of beaver, at two dollars per pound, selling in Canton at that time at from five to six dollars per pound; nine hundred and seventy otter skins, at fifty cents each, selling at that time in Canton for five and six dollars per skin.

The expense of building Mr. Astor’s establishment at Astoria, including those at Okanagon and Spokan, with boats, bateaux, tools, cannon, munitions, goods, transportation and salaries of clerks and men, etc., etc., was near two hundred thousand dollars, for which he received in bills on Montreal about forty thousand, including the appraised value of the furs at the fort, which was thirty-six thousand eight hundred and thirty-five dollars and fifty cents; this would leave less than three thousand one hundred and sixty-four dollars and fifty cents for the improvements, boats, munitions, cannon, etc., for which the Hudson’s Bay Company, in 1865, claims of our government, for the old, rotten, and abandoned post at Okanagon, nineteen thousand four hundred and sixty-six dollars and sixty-seven cents; the post at Colville, still held in place of the one built by Astor’s company at Spokan, eighty thousand three hundred dollars; the post at Fort George (Astoria), abandoned in 1849, four thousand one hundred and thirty-six dollars and sixty-seven cents; in all, for the three establishments, one hundred and three thousand nine hundred and three dollars and thirty-four cents—quite a contrast between the valuation of American property when in possession of British fur traders, having been used for forty years by British subjects, and abandoned as of little or no use to their trade, and that of American property but lately brought into the country. It will be remembered that Mr. Astor’s Pacific Fur Company was commenced in 1810; that at the time it was betrayed into the possession of this Canadian Northwest Fur Company it had been in operation but two years, hence was new, and but just ready to commence a profitable trade in the country.

The contract transferring this valuable property from American to British owners, was signed on the 16th day of October, 1813, by Duncan McDougal, J. G. McTavish, and J. Stewart, and witnessed by the principal clerks of the establishment. On the 1st of December following, the British sloop of war Raccoon, Captain Black, arrived in the river, and proceeded to take formal possession of Astoria, by lowering the American flag and hoisting that of Great Britain in its place, and changing the name of the fort to that of Fort George.

Previous to the landing of the British soldiers, or King George’s warriors, an interview took place (as related by Ross Cox) between the Indian warriors, with Concomly, their chief, at their head, and McDougal and McTavish. On the arrival of the British war vessel in Baker’s Bay, the Indians, having learned that there was war between the King George people and Bostons (Americans), they said, as they had always found the Bostons friendly and liberal toward them, they were their friends, and were ready to fight for them, to prevent the King George men from making them slaves. They proposed to conceal themselves behind the rocks and trees outside of the fort and to kill the King George soldiers with their arrows and spears, while the men of the fort fought the ship and small boats which they came in, with their big guns and rifles. McDougal assured them that the King George warriors would not hurt them, and advised them to be friendly with them, as they would do the people of the fort no harm. Concomly and his warriors were only convinced that the Bostons would not be made slaves by the King George warriors when they saw the sloop leave the river without taking any of them away as prisoners or slaves.

The treachery of the Canadian part of Astor’s company, which was not known to Mr. Astor, but provided for by the Northwest Canadian Company before the party left Montreal, and consummated by McDougal and his associates, in the absence of the American partners from the post, is proved by journals, letters, and facts still extant.

CHAPTER II.

The country restored.—The order.—Description of Astoria.—Different parties.—Northwest Fur Company.—Astor’s plan.—Conflict of the two British fur companies.—The treaties.—The Selkirk settlement.—Its object.—The company asserts chartered rights as soon as united.

As stated in our first chapter, the English government, by its Canadian Northwest Fur Company, and the arrival of the British sloop of war, Raccoon, during the war of 1812-13, took possession of Oregon, and held it as British territory till it was formally restored to the United States on the 6th of October, 1818, in these words:—

We, the undersigned, do, in conformity to the first article of the treaty of Ghent, restore to the government of the United States, through its agent, J. P. Provost, Esq., the settlement of Fort George, on the Columbia River.

Given under our hands in triplicate, at Fort George (Columbia River), this 6th day of October, 1818.

F. Hickey, Captain H. M. Ship Blossom.
J. Keith, of the N. W. Co.

The order from the Prince Regent of England to the Northwest Company to deliver up the country to the American government, was issued on January 27, 1818, and complied with as above.

On the 17th of April, 1814, the Canadian Northwest Fur Company’s ship, Isaac Todd, reached Astoria, called Fort George.

According to the description sent to Washington by Mr. Provost, it consisted of a stockade made of fir-logs, twenty feet high above the ground, inclosing a parallelogram of one hundred and fifty by two hundred and fifty feet, extending in its greatest length from northwest to southeast, and defended by bastions, or towers, at two opposite angles. Within this inclosure were all the buildings of the establishment, such as dwelling-houses, magazines, storehouses, mechanics’ shops, etc.

The artillery were two heavy 18-pounders, six 6-pounders, four 4-pounders, two 6-pound coehorns, and seven swivels, all mounted.

The number of persons attached to the place besides the few native women and children, was sixty-five; of whom twenty-three were white, twenty-six Kanakas, and the remainder of mixed blood from Canada.

Of the party that crossed the Rocky Mountains with Mr. Hunt in 1811-12, six remained in the country, and but five returned to the United States; the remaining forty-five that started with him in his first expedition were mostly destroyed by the influence of the two British fur companies acting upon the Indians for that object.

These men, as independent trappers and petty traders among the Indians, were considered by those companies as intruders and trespassers upon their French and British chartered rights; hence none were allowed to remain in the country but such as were under their control, or subject to their rule.

From the time the Northwest Fur Company took possession of the country, with few exceptions, we have no authentic account of the number of vessels of any nation that visited the river, but we have reason to believe that they would average two each year; and, from known facts, we conclude that as soon as the post at Astoria was betrayed into the possession of the Canadian Northwest Fur Company by McDougal and associates, and the British government had taken formal possession of the country, this Northwest Company, with McDougal and others equally prominent, commenced to instill into the minds of the Indians a strong hatred of American traders by sea or land, and to change as much, and as fast as possible, the friendly feeling of the former toward the latter, so as to continue to hold the permanent and absolute sovereignty of the country, and make the Indians subservient to their commercial interests.

Mr. Astor says: “The plan by me adopted was such as must materially have affected the interests of the Northwest and Hudson’s Bay companies, and it was easy to be foreseen that they would employ every means to counteract my operations, and which, as my impression, I stated to the executive of your department as early as February, 1813.” This hatred of Americans had been so assiduously impressed upon the minds of the Indians, that one of their own vessels arriving in the river, being cast away on Sand Island, all on board were murdered by the Indians, who mistook them for Americans. The company sent a vessel from Vancouver (to which place they had removed their stores and principal depot) to punish the Indians, who had secured most of the wrecked property. The vessel came down and sent shell and grapeshot into the Indian village, destroying men, women, and children, landed their men and took such of their goods as they could find, having gained satisfactory evidence of the murder of the crew of the ship.

This view of the policy and practice of this Northwest and Hudson’s Bay Company, is further sustained by the inquiries which Mr. Keith felt it incumbent on him to make of Mr. Provost, on the restoration of Astoria to the Americans by the British authorities.

Mr. Keith was anxious to learn the extent of the rights of his company to remain and trade in the country. It would seem, from the whole history of these companies, that they felt their rights in the country to be but temporary, that they were trespassers upon American interests, and shaped all their arrangements accordingly.

It is an admitted historical fact that, while the Northwest Fur Company of Montreal was extending its trade across the Rocky Mountains and supplanting the American Pacific Fur Company of Mr. Astor, the Hudson’s Bay Company, with the assistance of Lord Selkirk’s Red River settlement, was cutting off their communication with these western establishments, and that, in consequence of this Red River interference with their trade, a deadly feud sprang up between the rival companies, in which both parties enlisted all the men and Indians over whom they had any influence, and frequently met in drunken and deadly strife, till they had quite destroyed all profits in their trade, and rendered the Indians hostile alike to friend and foe of the white race. So that, in 1821, the British Parliament was compelled to notice their proceedings, and, on the 2d of July, 1821, in an act bearing date as above, says of them:—

“Whereas, the competition in the fur trade between the governor and company of adventurers of England trading into Hudson’s Bay, and certain associations of persons trading under the name of the Northwest Company of Montreal, has been found, for some years past, to be productive of great inconvenience and loss, not only to the said company and association, but to the said trade in general, and also of great injury to the native Indians, and of other persons subjects of his Majesty; and whereas, the animosities and feuds arising from such competition have also, for some years past, kept the interior of America, to the northward and westward of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, and of the Territories of the United States of America, in a state of continual disturbance; and whereas, many breaches of the peace and violence extending to the loss of lives and considerable destruction of property have continually occurred therein,” etc. (See Greenhow’s History of Oregon, p. 467.)

The broad policy of British fur traders is here stated in plain language by their own government in a manner not to be mistaken. Their influence upon the Indians was injurious. Their policy toward each other was war and destruction to all opponents. The life and property of an opposing trader must not come in competition with the profits of their trade with Indians in any country.

How absurd it is for our government to spend millions of dollars to form treaties with Indians who are constantly visited by these foreign Indian traders and teachers, emissaries of a foreign power, who never breathed an honest breath or spoke a truthful word! Feeble and insignificant as they were, from 1813 to 1821 the whole Indian country of North America fell under their blighting and withering influence. Divided as they were, they were able to crush all honest competition, and combine in deadly combat against their own countrymen for the supremacy of the Indian trade. Have they lost their power and influence by uniting the elements of opposition in one vast fur monopoly? Nay, verily, as we shall see.

To gain a correct understanding of the foreign policy relative to the western portion of our country, it will be necessary to refer to the early history of the two fur companies, and trace their connection with France and England, which, notwithstanding the English government had given up the country to France in 1696 in the treaty of Ryswick, and no reservation was made on account of the Hudson’s Bay Company—as they did Oregon to the United States in the treaty of Ghent, in 1815, and made no reservation on account of the Northwest Fur Company—still the Hudson’s Bay Company held on to a single post, called Albany, on the southwest part of James Bay, for twenty-six years, as the Northwest and Hudson’s Bay fur companies did to Astoria and Oregon for forty-nine years.

In the wording of the treaty of Utrecht, in 1714, in which the country was given back to England by France, there is one proviso that is not to be overlooked, viz.: “It is, however, provided, that it may be entirely free for the company of Quebec, and all others the subjects of the most Christian king whatsoever, to go, by land or by sea, whithersoever they please, out of the lands of the said bay, together with all their goods, merchandise, arms, and effects, of what nature or condition soever, except such things as are above reserved in this article,” etc., the exceptions referring to forts, cannon, and permanent war materials.

This French stipulation in the treaty of Utrecht, in 1714, is repeated by the English diplomatist upon the Americans, in the third article of the treaty of June 15, 1846, forming the basis of the claim urged against our government in the treaty of 1864.

In the treaty stipulations between France and England in 1714, the commercial rights of the French company of Quebec were secured to them. From that time forward, the aggressive and oppressive policy of the British Hudson’s Bay Company was brought into collision, not only with the French Northwest Fur Company, but with the United States and all American fur companies and missionary and commercial enterprises coming within their fur-trade influence.

It will be remembered that the Hudson’s Bay Company, who claim their existence and privileges from the charter of Charles II., as early as 1670, had, in forty-four years’ time, only established (as Mr. Fitzgerald says) “four or five insignificant forts on the shores of Hudson’s Bay to carry on a trade in furs with those Indians who resorted thither;” while the French, for many years previous, had carried on an active trade with the Indians, and had explored the country and extended their posts up to the shores of the Saskatchewan, and over the Rocky Mountains, on to the waters of the Columbia. The French carried on the traffic by way of the St. Lawrence and the lakes to Fort William, on Lake Superior, and through the Lake of the Woods into Lake Winnipeg, or further south along the plains, crossing the course of the Red River; this being the direct and only line of posts kept up by the French Northwest Company, by which their food, goods, and furs were transported. The Hudson’s Bay Company carried theirs by way of Hudson’s Straits, around the coast of Labrador. In order to destroy and cut off as much as possible the trade of this Northwest Company, Lord Selkirk, in 1811-12, became a shareholder, and was allowed to claim, through the directors of the company, sixteen thousand square miles of territory in the Red River country, for the professed purpose of colonization.

This colony was planted directly in the line of the fur traffic of the Northwest Company, against which the Hudson’s Bay Company had encouraged and carried on the most bitter hostility, enlisting both men and Indians in a deadly feud between the two rival companies.

Our English writer remarks on page 57: “To those who had read the mutual recriminations that had been bandied between these two bodies, it was a strange sight to see the names of Messrs. McGillivray and Edward Ellice associated with that of the Hudson’s Bay Company,—to see men going hand-in-hand who had openly accused one another of the foulest crimes, of wholesale robbery, of allowing their servants to instigate the Indian tribes to MURDER the servants of their rivals,—this was a strange sight. And to see gentlemen who had publicly denied the validity of the company’s charter, who had taken the opinion of the leading counsel of the day against it, who had tried every means, lawful and unlawful, to overthrow it, to see these same men range themselves under its protection, and, asserting all that they had before denied, proclaim its validity as soon as they were admitted to share its advantages; who, without its pale, asserted the rights of British subjects against its monopoly, and, within its pale, asserted its monopoly against the rights of British subjects,—this, too, was a strange sight. Yet to all this did the Hudson’s Bay Company submit, rather than subject their charter and their claims to the investigation of a court of law.”

The Hudson’s Bay Company, one hundred and fifty years from the date of its charter, asserted its right to the country, and, by virtue of the privileges conferred in that charter, seized the supplies and goods of the Northwest French Canadian Company, and confiscated them to its own use. This resulted in a deadly war between the two companies, and was carried on, neither party applying to the courts of the mother country for a settlement of their difficulties; in fact, as has been shown by reference to the charter of the Hudson’s Bay Company, they had no legal rights, because none were in existence at the date of their charter; but, from the maneuvering of the company and the plausible efforts of Lord Selkirk to colonize, civilize, and settle the Red River country, they entered into his schemes, in order to crush the rival company and secure the whole country to themselves. It is unnecessary to detail any accounts of the horrid murders and infamous transactions that were put on foot and perpetrated by these two companies. After a furious contention, carried on for several years, “they bribed rivals whom they could not defeat, and the two companies united and agreed to carry on the fur trade together, to the exclusion of all others.”

The Selkirk settlement was soon made to feel the withering influence of the company that had located it in the country for a specific purpose, Neither, however, was there any compromise till its inhabitants had been driven from their homes, its Governor (Semple) and seventeen of his followers killed. Then a compromise was effected between the rival companies, and they were united by an act of Parliament, under the title of Honorable Hudson’s Bay Company, in 1821,—a license given to Messrs. William and Simon McGillivray, of the Northwest Company, and Edward Ellice, of the Hudson’s Bay Company. These corporate members and their associates “were to share the profits arising from the fur trade, not only from the Indian territories, but also from the Hudson’s Bay Company’s proper territories of Rupert’s Land.” The privileges of this company were limited to seven years. This carried them forward to 1828, in which year their license (called a charter) was renewed for ten years.

Our Indian missionary and American history commences in 1832, six years before this combined Northwest and Hudson’s Bay Company’s license of exclusive privileges to trade in British Indian Territory, and, jointly, in the Oregon Territory, would expire. Our English historian and Sir Edward Belcher are both mistaken when they attribute to the company the asking for, or in any way encouraging, the American missionaries to come to the country. This was an event wholly unknown to them, and brought about by the Indians themselves, by sending a delegation of four of their number to St. Louis, in 1832, to ask of the American people a religious teacher. Lee, Parker, and Whitman heard the request, and volunteered to make the effort to establish missions among them.

These missionaries all came across the Rocky Mountains unasked and uninvited by any one in the service of that company.

CHAPTER III.

English Hudson’s Bay effort to secure Oregon.—British claim to Oregon.—Dr. McLaughlin’s relation to the company.—Treatment of Red River settlers.—A mistake.—Sir Edward Belcher.—Duplicity of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—A noble man.—An Englishman’s opinion of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—Sir James Douglas’s testimony.—J. Ross Browne.—Duty of an historian.—Cause and effect.

Since commencing this work we have, by the kindness of friends who have taken a deep interest in all that relates to this country, been furnished with many valuable and important statements, documents, pamphlets, papers, and books, all relating to its early history.

Of the whole catalogue, the most valuable information is contained in a work entitled “An Examination of the Charter and Proceedings of the Hudson’s Bay Company, with Reference to the Grant of Vancouver’s Island. By James Edward Fitzgerald. London.” Published in 1849.

The author of this book, though not having the personal knowledge of the company, the Indians, and the country about which he writes requisite to a complete history, has shown a correctness of statistical facts, a comprehensive knowledge of his subject, an enlarged view of the British colonial system, and a correct idea of the debasing practices and utterly false positions of the Hudson’s Bay Company not found in any other writer.

Up to the time that this book of 293 pages fell into my hands, I did not know that any writer entertained similar views with myself in relation to this monstrous imposition upon the British and American people.

Mr. Fitzgerald has fortified his statements by his knowledge of the English people, their laws and usages, and the casual outcroppings of a system of unparalleled selfishness and despotism, carried on under the guise of a Christian commercial company, whose professed object was to extend commerce, and civilize and christianize the savage tribes of North America, yet who have invariably held up their Christian chartered privileges for the sole purpose of carrying on the most degrading and inhuman practices with not only the savages, but with all civilized and Christian men who have attempted to expose or even investigate their conduct.

As we proceed with our history, we feel confident that we shall be able to enlighten our readers on many dark subjects and transactions, and to fully prove every statement we have made, or may yet make. Mr. Fitzgerald has given us clearly and truthfully the English side of our history as connected with this Hudson’s Bay Company. The American part of it the writer is gathering up, and, in giving it to the public, will discard every statement that does not bear the impress of truth.

The reader will notice that our subject is extensive, that England and America, commerce and Christianity, civilization and savagism, are all involved and interested in it, and that Oregon, California, and British and Russian America have all participated in it during the past and present century; that we are tracing cause and effect and bringing to light influences that, while producing their legitimate results, were strange and unaccountable, because always kept under the selfish and unscrupulous policy of this English corporation of fur traders.

By referring to the charter of the Hudson’s Bay Company, we find that it was given by Charles II., in 1670, granting to the “governor and company and their successors the exclusive right to trade, fish, and hunt in the waters, bays, rivers, lakes, and creeks entering into Hudson’s Straits, together with all the lands and territories not already occupied or granted to any of the king’s subjects, or possessed by the subjects of any other Christian prince or State.”

Forty years previous to the giving of this charter by Charles II., of England, Louis XIII., of France, gave a charter to a French company, who occupied the country called Acadia, or New France.

In 1632, Charles I., of England, resigned to Louis XIII., of France, the sovereignty of the country then called Acadia, or New France.

Forty years after Louis XIII., of France, had given his charter, and thirty-eight years after Charles I., of England, had given up his right to the country, Charles II., of England, imitating the example of him who wished to give the world and all its glory to obtain the worship of the Saviour of mankind, gave to the Hudson’s Bay Company what he had not the shadow of a title to, as in the treaty of Ryswick, in 1697, twenty-seven years after this charter of the Hudson’s Bay Company had been given, the whole country was confirmed to France, and no reservation made on account of the Hudson’s Bay Company.

Mr. Fitzgerald, on his 12th page, says: “It has often been asserted, and is to a great extent believed, because there is very little general information on this subject, that the claim which Great Britain made to the Oregon Territory was dependent upon, or, at any rate, strengthened by, the settlement of the Hudson’s Bay Company on the Columbia River.

“Those who hold such an opinion will be surprised to learn that there are many, and they well acquainted with the country itself, who assert that the conduct and policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company in the Oregon Territory formed the chief part of the title which the United States had to the country, which was gratuitously given to her by the settlement of the boundary. What the United States owe to the company for its policy on the west side of the Rocky Mountains is a question to which the English public will some day demand a satisfactory answer.

“Dr. McLaughlin was formerly an agent in the Northwest Fur Company of Montreal; he was one of the most enterprising and active in conducting the war between that association and the Hudson’s Bay Company. In the year 1821, when the rival companies united, Dr. McLaughlin became a factor of the Hudson’s Bay Company. But his allegiance does not appear to have been disposed of along with his interests, and his sympathy with any thing other than British, seems to have done justice to his birth and education, which were those of a French Canadian. This gentleman was appointed governor of all the country west of the Rocky Mountains, and is accused, by those who have been in that country, of having uniformly encouraged the emigration of settlers from the United States, and of having discouraged that of British subjects. While the company in this country (England) were asserting that their settlements on the Columbia River were giving validity to the claim of Great Britain to the Oregon Territory, it appears that their chief officer on the spot was doing all in his power to facilitate the operations of those whose whole object it was to annihilate that claim altogether.”

Mr. Fitzgerald has given us in the above statement an important fact, and one that reveals to an American the deep-laid schemes of the English government, which, by the influence of the Hudson’s Bay Company, sought to secure the Oregon Territory to itself. He also explains the conduct of Dr. McLaughlin in his treatment of emigrants, as well as the relation he sustained to that company. While, as Americans, we can admire and applaud the conduct of a noble and generous “Canadian-born” citizen, we at the same time can see the low, debasing, and mean spirit of the Englishman, as manifested in the attempt to deprive the American Republic of its rightful domain.

We shall have occasion to refer to the bringing into Oregon of the Red River settlers, and as the result of that move, the unparalleled effort of Dr. Whitman to defeat the British designs upon the country.

Mr. Fitzgerald explains that matter so well, that we could not do justice to the truth of history not to quote him. He says, on the 14th page of his work: “There is one story told, about which it is right that the truth should be ascertained. It is said that a number of half-breeds from the Red River settlement were, in the year of 1841-2, induced by the company’s officers to undertake a journey entirely across the continent, with the object of becoming settlers on the Columbia River. It appears that a number went, but on arriving in the country, so far from finding any of the promised encouragement, the treatment they received from Dr. McLaughlin was such, that, after having been nearly starved under the paternal care of that gentleman, they all went over to the American settlement in the Wallamet Valley.”

This statement, while it affirms an important fact, gives a false impression as regards Dr. McLaughlin. He, to our certain knowledge, extended to the Red River settlers every facility within his power, and all of those emigrants to this day speak of his kindness in the highest terms. But not so of other leading or controlling members, who really represented the English part and policy of that company. Those settlers complained of the domineering and tyrannical treatment of their English overseers, which was the cause of their leaving what they supposed would eventually be the English part of Oregon Territory. They also became sensible that the Hudson’s Bay Company in Oregon was a different concern from the Hudson’s Bay Company in Rupert’s Land; that, however small their privileges were there, they were less on Puget Sound; and being near an American settlement, they naturally sought its advantages and protection.

Mr. Fitzgerald informs us that “these emigrants became citizens of the United States, and it is further said were the first to memorialize Congress to extend the power of the United States over the Oregon Territory. For the truth of these statements we do not, of course vouch, but we do say they demand inquiry.”

This statement of Mr. Fitzgerald entitles him to be considered a candid and fair writer, and one who is seeking for truth in reference to the subject he is investigating. He has naturally imbibed the feelings of an Englishman against Dr. McLaughlin, under the strong effort made by the English Hudson’s Bay Company to suppress and supersede the French Canadian influence in it.

He says, on page 15: “Dr. McLaughlin’s policy was so manifestly American that it is openly canvassed in a book written by Mr. Dunn, one of the servants of the company, and written for the purpose of praising their system and policy.”

Sir Edward Belcher also alludes to this policy. He says: “Some few years since, the company determined on forming settlements on the rich lands situated on the Wallamet and other rivers, and for providing for their retired servants, by allotting them farms, and further aiding them by supplies of cattle, etc. That on the Wallamet was a field too inviting for missionary enthusiasm to overlook, but instead of selecting a British subject to afford them spiritual assistance, recourse was had to Americans, a course pregnant with evil consequences, and particularly in the political squabble pending, as will be seen by the result. No sooner had the American and his allies fairly squatted (which they deem taking possession of the country), than they invited their brethren to join them, and called on the American government for laws and protection.”

The American reader will smile at Sir Edward’s little fling at the squatters in Oregon. He asserts a great truth in the same sentence that he utters a positive falsehood. No member of the Hudson’s Bay Company, nor the whole company together, ever encouraged a single American missionary to come to the country. Revs. Lee and Parker and Dr. Whitman came without their invitation or aid. They were entirely independent of the company, and were only suffered to remain, the company not daring to drive them from the country on their first arrival, as they all held the protection of the American government, as Indian teachers, under the great seal of the Secretary of War. This English fling at their own company is evidence of a jealousy existing which could not be satisfied short of the utter extermination of all American influence on this coast, and is further illustrated by this same Sir Edward Belcher, in contrasting the treatment of Captain Wilkes and his party with that of his own. He says (vol. 1, p. 297): “The attention of the chief to myself and those immediately about me, particularly in sending down fresh supplies, previous to my arrival, I feel fully grateful for; but I can not conceal my disappointment at the want of accommodation exhibited toward the crews of the vessels under my command in a British possession.” We old Oregonians are amused at Sir Edward’s ignorance of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s treatment of the crews of vessels, and servants of the company. We all know his crew were allowed to associate freely with the native women in the country and to distribute their rations of rum, and any other supplies they might have, without any remonstrance from the company. Sir Edward continues: “We certainly were not distressed, nor was it imperatively necessary that fresh beef and vegetables should be supplied, or I should have made a formal demand. But as regarded those who might come after, and not improbably myself among the number, I inquired in direct terms what facilities her Majesty’s ship of war might expect, in the event of touching at this port for bullocks, flour, vegetables, etc. I certainly was extremely surprised at the reply that they were not in a condition to supply. As any observation here would be useless, and I well knew this point could be readily settled where authority could be referred to, I let the matter rest. But having been invited to inspect the farm and dairy, and been informed of the quantity of grain, and the means of furnishing flour, and notwithstanding the profusion of cattle and potatoes, no offer having been made for our crew, I regretted that I had been led into the acceptance of private supplies; although, at that time, the other officers of the establishment had told my officers that supplies would of course be sent down.”

Mr. Fitzgerald says “the American policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company would seem, from the above facts, to be more than a matter of suspicion,” while we Americans are only disposed to regard them as a part of the duplicity of that company in their effort to deceive their own countrymen as to the value of the country over which they had ruled so long.

They had been too successful in deceiving all American writers to allow their own countrymen to understand their secret policy. Sir Edward Belcher and our English historian were equally misled in relation to the American policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company. It is true that Dr. McLaughlin, though he was a French Canadian subject, had not lost his American soul. The British iron had not driven the last noble sentiment of humanity from his heart, nor his connection with that polluted corporation of iniquity which pervades half the continent of North America; for when he found that this Hudson’s Bay Company was utterly lost to humanity, he tells them to their teeth: “Gentlemen, I will serve you no longer.”

No true American historian will allow, without contradiction, that corrupt company to hand down to future infamy the name of a noble and generous servant, because their infamous policy was defeated by the establishment of the American missions in the country. Dr. McLaughlin did all that he could, honorably, to comply with their “system of iniquity.”

Our English author says, on page 19, in reference to the conduct of the company: “They are convictions which have strengthened and deepened at every step of the inquiry; convictions that the Hudson’s Bay Company has entailed misery and destruction upon thousands throughout the country which is withering under its curse; that it has cramped and crippled the energies and enterprise of England, which might have found occupation in the directions from which they are now excluded; that it has stopped the extension of civilization, and has excluded the light of religious truth; that it has alienated the hearts of all under its oppression, and made them hostile to their country; above all, that the whole and entire fabric is built upon utterly false and fictitious grounds; that it has not one shadow of reality in law or in justice; that there is not the smallest legal authority for any one of the rights which this corporation claims. It is this conviction which has urged me to submit the statements and arguments contained in the following pages to the consideration of the public; and to arraign before that tribunal, from which in these days there is no escape,—the judgment of public opinion,—a corporation who, under the authority of a charter which is invalid in law, hold a monopoly in commerce, and exercise a despotism in government, and have so used that monopoly and wielded that power as to shut up the earth from the knowledge of man, and man from the knowledge of God.”

With the statements and convictions of this English author before us, we will add a statement of Sir James Douglas, given in answer to interrogatory 11 in the case of Hudson’s Bay Company’s Claim v. United States, to give the reader a better idea of the power and influence of that company in Oregon, in 1846.

Sir James says: “The Honorable Hudson’s Bay Company had fifty-five officers and five hundred and thirteen articled men. The company having a large, active, and experienced force of servants in their employ, and holding establishments judiciously situated in the most favorable portions for trade, forming, as it were, a net-work of posts aiding and supporting each other, possessed an extraordinary influence with the natives, and in 1846 practically enjoyed a monopoly of the fur trade in the country west of the Rocky Mountains, north and south of the forty-ninth parallel of latitude. The profits of their trade,” says this witness, “from 1841 to 1846 were at least seven thousand pounds sterling annually.”

The fifty-five officers and five hundred and thirteen articled men of the company, with their eight hundred half-breeds, and the Indians they could command by the judicious position of their respective posts, were deemed by them sufficient security for their trade, and a substantial reason why they should not give up the country without making another direct effort to drive the missionary and American settlements from it, notwithstanding all their pretension to join in the provisional government organized by the pioneer Americans in 1843.

The reader is referred to the discussion on the liquor question between Judge Sir James Douglas and Mr. Samuel Parker, as found in the tenth and eleventh numbers, first volume, of the Spectator, published June 11 and 25, 1845, and in another chapter of this work, and requested to keep all these facts before the mind, so as not to lose sight of the commanding influence, or, in other words, the commander, when we enter upon the preliminary and immediate causes of the Whitman massacre, and the Indian war that followed.

We have before us the original depositions in reference to the facts stated, and also the attempt to excuse the principal actors in that horrible transaction, as given by Brouillet in justification of the course pursued by the Jesuit missionaries.

We have also the superficial and bombastic report of J. Ross Browne, special agent of the Treasury Department, dated December 4, 1857, containing a copy of this Jesuit history of the murder of Dr. Whitman. In his remarks previous to giving Brouillet’s history, he says: “In view of the fact, however, that objections might be made to any testimony coming from the citizens of the Territories, and believing also that it is the duty of a public agent to present, as far as practicable, unprejudiced statements, I did not permit myself to be governed by any representations unsupported by reliable historical data.” —— “The fact also is shown that, as far back as 1835, the Indians west of the Rocky Mountains protested against the taking away of their lands by the white race. That this was one of the alleged causes of the murder of Dr. Whitman and family.”

There are sixty-six pages in this report. Twelve of them are Mr. Browne’s, one page of official acknowledgment, and fifty-three from the parties implicated.

The statements of Mr. Browne, of Mr. Fitzgerald, and the oath of Mr. Douglas, are sufficient to show the ignorance, stupidity, and falsehood incorporated in his report, were there no other historical facts to convict him of ignorance in allowing such representations to be made in an official document. In the proper place we will bring this report into our history, with both sides of the question.

Were we to express an opinion of Mr. J. Ross Browne’s report, with our personal knowledge of what he pretends to relate, we would say he ignored the people, the country, and the government whose agent he claimed to be, and was reporting for the special benefit of the Roman religion and British government, as these are extensively quoted as historical data from which his report and conclusions are drawn.

The reader will understand our main object to be to give a full history of all influences and prominent transactions and events that have occurred in Oregon from 1792 to 1849.

To understand cause and effect, and the true history of the country, we have to examine the facts as connected with actions, and also to trace back the history of the actors, in order to see how far they may be made responsible for the result of their actions.

Oregon, from the time of its discovery, has been a field where all the influences of which we are writing have been living, active influences; and they are by no means inactive or dead at the present time. Some of them are more active now than they were in 1836.

A full knowledge of the past will enable us to guard the present and the future. Our English writer has gathered his facts and drawn his conclusions in London. We, upon this, our western coast, are witnesses of the cause and results of his conclusions, and any statement he makes we feel ourselves abundantly able to corroborate or correct.

As we proceed with our history we shall have frequent occasion to quote Mr. Fitzgerald, as the best English evidence, in favor of our American statements or positions. Since writing the above we have noticed a lengthy article in the Edinburgh Westminster Review for July, 1867, giving a concise history of the Hudson’s Bay Company, under the heading, “The Last Great Monopoly.” In that article the author has shown extensive historical knowledge of the operations and influences of that monopoly in that portion of our continent over which they have held exclusive control.

He regards them as a blight upon the country, and an “incubus” to be removed by national legislation. If our work had been published, we should conclude that he must have drawn many of his facts from our own observations. But this is not the case; hence the value to us of his corroboration of the facts we affirm from personal knowledge.

CHAPTER IV.

Care of Great Britain for her fur companies.—Columbia Fur Company.—Astor’s second fur company.—Major Pilcher’s fur company.—Loss of the ship Isabel.—Captain Bonneville’s expedition.—Cause of his failure.—Captain Wyeth’s, 1832.—Indians ask for missionaries in 1833.—Methodist Mission.—Fort Hall established.—Fort Boise.

By reference to the act of the British Parliament of June 2, 1821, it will be seen that the affairs of the North American British Fur companies were in a fair way to defeat all British interests in America. To suppress these feuds among their own people became a matter of national importance and policy.

To accomplish so desirable an object, Parliament, in the act above referred to, extended the civil and criminal jurisdiction of Canada over all the territories of the Hudson’s Bay Company; in the thirteenth article of the act, and in the fourteenth, repealed all that was before taken away from that company, and confirmed absolutely all the rights supposed to have been given by the original charter, as follows:—

Section 14. “And be it further enacted, that nothing in this act contained shall be taken or construed to affect any right or privilege, authority or jurisdiction, which the governor and company of adventurers trading to Hudson’s Bay are by law entitled to claim and exercise under their charter; but that all such rights, privileges, authorities, and jurisdictions, shall remain in as full force, virtue, and effect, as if this act had never been made; any thing in this act to the contrary notwithstanding.”

This act, however just it may have been considered, certainly embodied a large amount of national prejudice against the people of French or Canadian birth, in exempting the territory of the Hudson’s Bay Company from its influence. It had a twofold effect: the one, to check feuds among British subjects; the other, to unite them in one vast Indian monopoly,—to license this united company to go forward with their Indian political arrangements unmolested,—to punish and dispose of all intruders upon their supposed, or asserted rights, as they might deem for the interest of their trade, which, according to the charter of Charles II., bearing date May 2, 1670, they were “at all times hereafter to be personable and capable in law, to have, purchase, receive, possess, enjoy, and retain lands, rents, privileges, liberties, jurisdiction, franchises, and hereditaments of what kind, nature, or quality soever they be, to them and their successors.”

The whole trade, fisheries, navigation, minerals, etc., of the countries, are granted to the company exclusively; all other of the king’s subjects being forbidden to visit, hunt, frequent, trade, traffic, or adventure therein, under heavy penalties; and the company is moreover empowered to send ships, and to build fortifications for the defense of its possessions, as well as to make war or peace with all nations or peoples not Christian, inhabiting those territories, which are declared to be hence-forth reckoned and reputed as one of his Majesty’s plantations or colonies in America, called Rupert’s Land.

It will be remembered that as early as 1818, a question arose between the United States and Great Britain, as to which was the rightful owner of the Oregon country. The Northwest Fur Company were the only subjects of Great Britain that had competed with the American fur companies in the discovery or trade of the country. To ignore that company altogether would weaken the British claim to Oregon by right of prior discovery and occupancy. Hence, by uniting the two companies under an ancient English charter, combining their united capital and numerical strength, discarding all doubtful subjects, and confirming the absolute power of their own British company, they could easily secure Oregon as British territory. The wisdom and effect of this policy will be developed as we proceed.

By the third article of the convention between the United States and Great Britain, signed October 20, 1818, “it is agreed that any country that may be claimed by either party on the northwest coast of America, westward of the Stony Mountains, shall, together with its harbors, bays, and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within the same, be free and open for the term of ten years from the date of the signature of the present convention, to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two powers; it being well understood that this agreement is not to be construed to the prejudice of any claim which either of the two high contracting parties may have to any part of said country, nor shall it be taken to affect the claims of any other power or state to any part of the said country; the only object of the high contracting parties, in that respect, being to prevent disputes and differences among themselves.”

This convention secured at that time the Northwest Fur Company’s existence in the country, by the act uniting the two British fur companies three years later. In 1821, the privileges here secured were transferred and confirmed to the Hudson’s Bay Company, who at once took the most active and efficient measures to guard against any future competition, by assessing and setting apart ten per cent. on their capital stock, which was counted at £200,000, as a sinking fund for the special purpose of opposing all competition in the fur trade by land or water.

The convention above referred to shows that Great Britain held a watchful eye over her fur traders in this distant country; and the act of her Parliament in 1821, that she was disposed, in a direct manner, to secure to her own people, as traders, the absolute sovereignty of the country. While Great Britain was protecting and strengthening her fur traders in North America, the American government was simply asserting its prior rights to the Oregon country, founded upon its discovery and subsequent purchase in what is termed the Louisiana purchase, from France; the treaties and conventions only serving to encourage and strengthen the British claim, while they used their influence, capital, and power against all American competition and settlement in the country.

In 1821, as was to be expected by the union of the two great British fur companies, under the license of the British Parliament, and absolute charter of Charles II., many of the servants, and especially such as were found favorable to the American fur traders, or violently opposed to the Hudson’s Bay Company, were thrown out of employment. They naturally sought to continue their wild Indian trade and habits, and formed a company under the name of the Columbia Fur Company, extending their operations up the Mississippi, Missouri, and Yellowstone rivers. In 1826, they transferred their interests to Astor’s second North American Fur Company, of which John Jacob Astor was the head. This company appears to have been commenced or organized in connection with Mr. W. H. Ashley, in 1823, and under his direction extended its trade to the south and west, along the Platte River, and passed into the Rocky Mountains as far as Green River, being the first to discover its sources, making a successful trading expedition that year.

In 1824, another expedition under Mr. Ashley explored the Rocky Mountains as far south as Salt Lake, and built a fort on the borders of a small lake, to which he gave his own name. In 1826, Mr. Ashley transported a 6-pound cannon to his establishment near Salt Lake, through what has since been termed Fremont’s, or the south pass of the Rocky Mountains, in a wagon. This establishment had in its employ over one hundred men, and was remarkably successful and profitable to the partners.

In 1826, Mr. Ashley sold all his interest to the Rocky Mountain Fur Company, composed of Smith, Jackson, and Subleth, who extended their trade into California, and as far north as the Umpqua River, in Oregon; where Smith and his party were met by a professedly friendly party of Indians, who murdered his men, seized his furs, and delivered them to a party of men sent by the Hudson’s Bay Company, under Mr. John McLeod and Thomas McKay, to receive the furs and pay the Indians for their services—as learned by the writer from eye-witnesses.

During this same year, 1827, Major Pilcher, with forty-five men, crossed the Rocky Mountains, and, in 1828-9, traversed the western portion of them as far north as Fort Colville. This fort had been established, and farming operations commenced, in 1825. This party of Major Pilcher were all cut off but two men, besides himself; his furs, as stated by himself to the writer, found their way into the forts of the Hudson’s Bay Company.

In 1828, the brig Owyhee, Captain Demenses, and the schooner Cowrey, Captain Thompson, entered and remained nearly a year in the Columbia River, trading with the Indians. They were owned in Boston.

In 1830, the British ship Isabel was lost on Sand Island—the second known to have been wrecked on the bar, or in attempting to enter the river. The crew were all saved, and it was the opinion of the company at Vancouver that, had the crew remained with the ship, no great loss would have been sustained.

In 1832, Captain Bonneville, of the United States army, on furlough, started, with over one hundred men, on an expedition into the Rocky Mountains. He crossed the mountains, and reached the Wallawalla Valley, on the Columbia River; but, through the influence of the Hudson’s Bay Company, his men were nearly all induced to leave him, so that he was obliged to abandon his property, and his expedition was a total failure, except the little scientific knowledge of the country gained by it.

To charge the failure of Captain Bonneville directly to the Hudson’s Bay Company would not be strictly true; but their great influence over the Indians was sufficient to prevent them from furnishing his party with food or horses, while he was within reach of their forts. Hence, many of his men became dissatisfied, and left him, till his party became too weak to effect their return to the States with their valuable furs and property. These eventually were lost, or fell into the hands of the Indians, and through them, his furs reached the Hudson’s Bay traders’ establishments.

This same year, 1832, Captain Nathaniel Wyeth, of Massachusetts, started on an exploring expedition to the mouth of the Columbia River, with a view of establishing a permanent trade in the Oregon country. He traveled across the continent and gathered all the information requisite for the undertaking, and returned to Boston in 1833; and in 1834, having completed his arrangements, chartered the brig May Dacre, and dispatched her with his own, and the goods of the Methodist Mission, for the Columbia River.

The same year, some Flathead Indians, from a tribe in the midst of the Rocky Mountains, went to St. Louis, and, through Mr. Catlin, an American artist, made known their object, which was to know something more of the white man’s God and religion. Through the representations of these Indians, the Methodist Episcopal Society in the United States established their missions in Oregon, and the American Board sent their missionaries among the Nez Percés, which, as will be seen, was the commencement of the permanent settlement of the country. It appears from the facts, briefly stated, that there had been eleven different trading expeditions and companies, besides the Northwest and Hudson’s Bay companies, that had sought for wealth by making fur-trading establishments in Oregon. All of them, including the Northwest and Hudson’s Bay companies, have retired from it, but the American missionaries are residents of the country, and their influence and labors are felt, notwithstanding other influences have partially supplanted and destroyed the good impressions first made upon the natives of the country by them. Still civilization, education, and religion, with all the improvements of the age, are progressing, and the old pioneer missionaries and settlers that were contemporary with them, with a few exceptions, are foremost in every laudable effort to benefit the present and rising generation.

In the month of March, 1833, a Japanese junk was wrecked near Cape Flattery, in the then Territory of Oregon, and all on board, except three men, were lost. Those three were received by Captain McNeal on board the British ship Lama; taken to Vancouver, and thence sent to England. Rev. Mr. Parker gives this, and another similar wreck on the Sandwich Islands, as evidence of the origin of the natives of those countries. But we give it for another object. The three Japanese were taken to England, and, during their stay, learned the English language, were sent back to Macao, and became the assistant teachers of Mr. Gutzlaff, the English missionary at that place, and were the means of opening their own country to missionary and commercial relations with other nations.

Captain Wyeth, with Revs. Jason and Daniel Lee, Cyrus Shepard, and P. L. Edwards, the first missionary party, together with Doctor Nutall, a naturalist, and J. K. Townsend, an ornithologist, sent out by a literary society in Philadelphia, all under the escort furnished by Captain Wyeth, crossed the mountains and reached the plain formed by the Portneuf and Snake rivers. At their junction Captain Wyeth stopped, and established Fort Hall, while the missionaries and scientific men of his party, in company with an Englishman by the name of Captain Stewart, and a party of Hudson’s Bay traders, under the direction of Mr. McLeod and McKay, proceeded to Fort Nez Percés (present name, Wallula). Thence they traveled in Hudson’s Bay bateaux to Vancouver.

Captain Wyeth established his post on the Snake River, by erecting a stockade of logs, and quarters for his men, and then proceeded to the lower Columbia to receive his goods, which arrived in the May Dacre, Captain Lambert, from Boston, about the time he reached Fort William, on what is now known as Sauvies Island, a few miles below the mouth of the Multnomah River, now called the Wallamet.

Rev. Mr. Lee and party made their first location about sixty miles from the mouth of the Wallamet, near what is now called Wheatland, ten miles below Salem.

Captain Wyeth received his goods, and commenced his trading establishment, but found that, notwithstanding he was personally treated by the principal officers of the Hudson’s Bay Company with great courtesy, yet it was evident that every possible underhanded and degrading device was practiced, both with the Indians and with his men, to destroy, as much as was possible, the value and profits of his trade. In the spring and summer of 1835 he supplied his Fort Hall establishment with goods.

During the year 1835, the Hudson’s Bay Company erected a temporary post about twelve miles up the Boise River, designed to counteract and destroy as much as possible the American fur trade established by Captain Wyeth, who continued his efforts less than three years; and, having lost of the two hundred men who had been in his employ one hundred and sixty (as stated to Rev. Samuel Parker), and finding himself unable to compete with this powerful English company, he accepted Dr. McLaughlin’s offer for his establishments, and left the country in 1836.

In 1835, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions sent Rev. Samuel Parker and Dr. Marcus Whitman to explore the Oregon country, with a view of establishing missions among the Indians west of the Rocky Mountains.

These two missionaries reached the American rendezvous on Green River, in company with the Rocky Mountain Fur Company’s traders, under the direction of Captains Drips and Fitzpatrick. From the American rendezvous Mr. Parker continued his explorations in company with, and under the protection of the Nez Percé Indians, till he reached old Fort Wallawalla, now called Wallula; thence he continued in canoes to Vancouver, while Dr. Whitman returned to the United States to procure associates to establish the Nez Percé mission.

CHAPTER V.

Extent and power of Hudson’s Bay Company.—Number of forts.—Location.—Policy.—Murder of Mr. Black.—McKay.—Manner of dealing with Indians.—Commander of fort kills an Indian.—Necessity of such a course.—Hudson’s Bay Company not responsible for what their servants do.

Having briefly traced the operations of the two foreign fur companies in Oregon, a knowledge of the location of their several trading establishments will enable the reader to comprehend their power and influence in the country.

Fort Umpqua was located in the extreme southwestern part of Oregon, near the mouth of the river bearing that name. It was a temporary stockade built of logs, overlooking a small farm in its immediate vicinity, was generally occupied by a clerk and from four to eight Frenchmen.

Fort George (Astoria) already described.

They had a farm and small establishment at the mouth of the Cowlitz, and a more extensive farm some twenty-five miles up that river.

Fort Vancouver,—a stockade, six miles above the mouth of the Multnomah, or Wallamet River. This fort was the general depot for the southwestern department, at which their goods for Indian trade were landed, and their furs and peltries collected and shipped to foreign markets. There was also a trading-house at Champoeg, some thirty-five miles up the Wallamet River.

On the left bank of the Columbia River, near the 46° of north latitude, stood Fort Nez Percés, called Wallawalla, now Wallula,—a stockade, accidentally burned in 1841, and rebuilt with adobes in 1841-2.

On the left bank of the south branch of the Columbia, or Snake River, at the junction of the Boise, was located Fort Boise, built formerly, in 1834, with poles; later, with adobes.

Continuing up Snake River to the junction of the Portneuf, on its left bank we find Fort Hall, built by Captain Wyeth; a stockade in 1834; rebuilt by the Hudson’s Bay Company, with adobes, in 1838.

Thence up the Columbia, Fort Okanagon, at the mouth of Okanagon River, formerly a stockade, latterly a house or hut; and up the Spokan some twenty miles, was the old Spokan Fort, built by Astor’s Company, a stockade with solid bastions.

Continuing up the Columbia to Kettle Falls, and two miles above, on the left bank is Fort Colville, formerly a stockade, still occupied by the Hudson’s Bay Company.

Thence up the Columbia to the mouth of the Kootanie River, near the forty-ninth parallel of latitude, is the trading establishment called Kootanie House. Thence returning south, and ascending the Flathead (Clark’s) and Kootanie rivers, into what is now Montana Territory, is, or was, the hut called Flathead House. Still higher up on the Columbia was a small establishment, called the boat encampment, or Mountain House.

Entering the country by the Straits of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, we find Fort Nasqualla, formerly a stockade. Proceeding up Frazer River to near the forty-ninth parallel, upon the left or south bank of the river is Fort Langley, an extensive stockade. Thence up that river about ninety miles, half a mile below the mouth of the Coquehalla, is Fort Hope, a stockade. On the right bank of the Frazer, sixteen miles above, is Fort Yale, a trading-house.

Thence proceeding up the Frazer, and on to the waters of Thompson River, is Fort Kamloops; still further north and east, extending into New Caledonia, are Forts Alexander, William, Garey, and Abercrombie.

On the southeastern part of Vancouver Island is Fort Victoria, formerly a stockade. On the north side of the island is Fort Rupert, a stockade, still in good repair.

On the mainland, near Portland Channel, is Fort Simpson. At the mouth of the Stiken River, on Dundas Island, was formerly Fort Wrangle, a stockade. Recently the establishment has been removed some sixty miles up the Stiken River, and called Fort Stiken.

This, as will be seen, gives the company twenty-three forts and five trading-stations. In addition to these they had trading-parties extending south to California, southeast to Fort Hall and into Utah and Arizona, east into the Blackfoot country (Montana) and the Rocky Mountains, and north into New Caledonia and along the northwestern watershed of the Rocky Mountains.

They also had two steamers, the Beaver and Otter, to enter all the bays, harbors, rivers, and inlets along the western coast of our country, from Mexico on the south, to Russian America on the north, employing fifty-five officers and five hundred and thirteen articled men, all bound, under the strictest articles of agreement, to subserve the interests of that company under all circumstances; being strictly forbidden to acquire any personal or real estate outside of their stipulated pay as servants of the company, and were subject to such punishment for deficiency of labor or neglect of duty as the officer in charge might see fit to impose, having no appeal to any source for redress, as the original charter of Charles II., confirmed by act of Parliament in 1821, clearly conferred on the company absolute control over the country they occupied, and all in it.

As a matter of romance and adventure, many statements are made of conflicts with Indians and with wild animals, all terminating favorably to the interests of the company, confirming and strengthening their absolute power over all their opponents; but as they do not properly belong to a work of this character, they will be omitted, except where they may be brought to illustrate a fact, or to prove the principles and policy of the company.

As in the case of Mr. Black, a chief trader at Fort Kamloops, who had offended an Indian, the Indian disguised his resentment, entered the fort as a friend, and while Mr. Black was passing from the room in which the Indian had been received, he was deliberately shot by him, and fell dead. The Indian fled, and the fort was closed against the tribe. Not a single article of trade or supplies was allowed to the tribe till the murderer was given up, and hung by the company’s men, when the fort was opened and trade resumed.

In another case, near the mouth of the Columbia, a trader by the name of McKay was killed in a drunken row with the Indians at a salmon fishery. A friendly Indian gave information at head-quarters, when an expedition was fitted out and sent to the Indian camp. The murderer, with a few other Indians, was found in a canoe, but escaped to shore. They were fired at, and one woman was killed and others wounded. Dr. McLaughlin, being in command of the party, informed the Indians that if the murderer was not soon given up, he would punish the tribe. They soon placed the murderer in the hands of the party, who were satisfied of the guilt of the Indian, and at once hung him, as an example of the punishment that would be inflicted upon murderers of white men belonging to the company.

One other instance of daring and summary punishment is related as having been inflicted by Mr. Douglas, while in charge of a fort in the midst of a powerful tribe of Indians. A principal chief had killed one of the company’s men. Mr. Douglas, learning that he was in a lodge not far from the fort, boasting of his murderous exploit, armed himself, went to the lodge, identified the murdering chief, and shot him dead; then walked deliberately back to the fort.

A compliance with licensed parliamentary stipulations would have required the arrest of the murderers in all these cases, and the testimony and criminals to be sent to Canada for conviction and execution.

These cases illustrate, whether just or otherwise, the absolute manner of dealing with Indians by the company. The following chapter gives us the particulars of an aggravated case of brutal murder of the person in charge of one of their extreme northwestern forts by the men under his charge.

CHAPTER VI

Murder of John McLaughlin, Jr.—Investigation by Sir George Simpson and Sir James Douglas.

Very different was the course pursued by Sir George Simpson and Mr. (now Sir James) Douglas in the case of conspiracy and murder of John McLaughlin, Jr., at Fort Wrangle, near the southern boundary of Russian America.

In this case, Sir George Simpson went into a partial examination of the parties implicated, and reported that Dr. John McLaughlin, Jr., was killed by the men in self-defense. This report, from the known hostility of Sir George to the father and son, was not satisfactory, and Esquire Douglas was dispatched to Fort Wrangle, and procured the following testimony, which, in justice to the murdered man and the now deceased father, we will quote as copied from the original documents by Rev. G. Hines.

Pierre Kanaquassee, one of the men employed in the establishment at the time of the murder, and in whose testimony the gentlemen of the company place the utmost reliance, gives the following narrative, in answer to questions proposed by James Douglas, Esq., the magistrate that examined him:—

Q. Where were you on the night of the murder of the late Mr. John McLaughlin?

A. I was in my room, in the lower part of the main house, where I lived with George Heron, in an apartment in the lower story, immediately under the kitchen. My door opened into the passage which led to the apartment of Mr. John McLaughlin in the second story.

Q. What occurred on the night of the murder?

A. I will tell you the whole story, to the best of my recollection.

A few days preceding the murder, five Indians from Tako, with letters from Dr. Kennedy, arrived at the fort about midnight. The watchmen, hearing the knocking, called Mr. John. When he got up, he mustered a few hands to defend the gates, in case of any treacherous attack from the Indians, whom they did not, as yet, know. They were then admitted into the fort, delivered up their arms, according to custom, and were lodged in a small room in the lower story of the main house. A day or two after this, he beat, and put one of these Indians, a native of Nop, in irons, as Peter was told, for having committed some theft in Tako. About eight o’clock of the evening of the 20th of April, Mr. John gave liquor to the Indians, and made them drunk; after which he called the white men, viz., Laperti, Pripe, Lulaire, Heroux, Bellinger, Simon, Fleury, McPherson, Smith, and Antoine Kawanope. During this time, Peter was in his own, which was the adjoining room, lying awake in bed, and overheard all that passed. He heard Mr. John say to McPherson, “Peter is not among us. Where is he?” McPherson replied, that he was in bed, and he was sent for him by Mr. John. Peter, in consequence, went into the room, and saw all the men seated in a ring, on the floor, around a number of bottles standing within the ring, and the Indians lying dead drunk on another part of the floor, Mr. John himself was standing outside of the ring, and McPherson placed himself on the opposite side of the ring; neither of them appeared to be partaking of the festivities of the evening but were looking on, and forcing the people to drink. Antoine Kawanope was seated on his bed, apart from the other men, perfectly sober, as he told Peter afterward. Mr. John had ordered him not to drink, observing, “You are not to drink at this time, as I am going to die to-night, and you will help me in what I am going to do.” On entering the room, Mr. John told Peter to sit down with the other people, and ordered his servant, Fleury, to give him a good dram, which he did, in a tin pan. Peter could not drink the whole, and was threatened by Mr. John with violence if he did not finish it. He succeeded in emptying the pan, by allowing the liquor to run into the bosom of his shirt. Mr. John, in doing this, did not appear to be angry, but in a half-playful mood. Peter remained there about a quarter of an hour, during which time he was careful not to drink too much, as a few hours previously Antoine had called at his room and said, “My uncle, take care of yourself to-night; the master is going to die.” Peter said, “Who is going to kill him?” and Antoine said, “The Bluemen,” meaning the Kanakas, “are going to kill him.” This, Peter thought, was likely to be the case, as the men, some time before Christmas preceding, had agreed among themselves to murder him, and had signed a paper, which McPherson drew up, to that effect. Every one of the men of the place agreed to the commission of this deed, Smith and Heron as well as the others. Peter’s name was signed by McPherson, and he attested it by his cross. This paper was signed in Urbaine’s house, where the men severally repaired by stealth for the purpose, as Mr. John kept so vigilant a watch upon them, that they were afraid he might suspect their intentions if they were there in a body. The same impression made him also remark, in a low tone of voice, to Laperti, on his first entering the room, when he observed Mr. John forcing the people to drink, “I really believe our master feels his end near, as he never used to act in this manner.” As above mentioned, after Peter had been about fifteen minutes in the room where the men were drinking, Mr. John retired, followed by Antoine. Mr. John had not on that occasion drank any thing with the men, neither did he (Peter) ever see him, at any time preceding, drink in their company. He, however, supposed that he must have taken something in his own room, as he appeared flushed and excited, but not sufficiently so as to render his gait in the least unsteady. McPherson also did not taste any thing in the room. As soon as Mr. John was gone, Peter also left the room, and went to bed in his own room.

Peter was informed by Antoine that Mr. John, on leaving the room where the men were drinking, went up-stairs to his own apartment, and he heard him say to his wife, “I am going to die to-night.” And he and his wife both began to cry. Mr. John soon rallied, and observed, “Very well; if I die, I must fall like a man.” He then told Antoine to load his rifles and pistols, and ordered him also to arm himself with his own gun. He and Antoine then went out, and Peter thinks he heard the report of more than fifteen shots. Antoine afterward told Peter that Mr. John fired at Laperti, but missed him, and afterward ordered Antoine to fire at Laperti. Antoine refused to do so, until his own life was threatened by Mr. John, when he fired in the direction, without aiming at Laperti. He also told the Kanakas to kill the Canadians, and it was in part they who fired the shots that he (Peter) had heard. Peter then got up and placed himself behind his door, and saw Mr. John come in and go up-stairs with Antoine, when he took the opportunity of going out, armed with his gun and a stout bludgeon, and found the men standing here and there on the gallery watching an opportunity to shoot Mr. John. Laperti’s position on the gallery was fronting the door of the main house, toward which he had his gun pointed; when Peter saw him, he was on his knees, the small end of the gun resting on the top rail of the gallery, in readiness to fire. Laperti exclaimed, on seeing Peter, “I must kill him now, as he has fired two shots at me.” Peter objected to this, and proposed to take and tie him. Nobody answered him. At that moment, Smith came up to Laperti and told him to hide himself or he would certainly be killed. Laperti said, “Where can I hide myself?” and Smith said, “Come with me and I will show you a place in the bastion where you can hide yourself,” and they went off together in the direction of the bastion at the corner of Urbaine’s house. Peter, after a few minutes’ stay on the gallery, returned to his house, as he had previously agreed upon with George Hebram, who was lying sick in bed, and who had entreated him not to leave him alone. At the door of the main house, he met Mr. John coming out, followed by Antoine, who was carrying a lamp. Mr. John said to Peter, “Have you seen Laperti?” Peter answered, “No, I have not seen him;” and then Mr. John said, “Have you seen Urbaine?” And Peter again answered that he had not. The minute before this, as he (Peter) was returning from the gallery, he had seen Urbaine standing at the corner of the main house, next to Urbaine’s own dwelling, in company with Simon. Urbaine said, “I don’t know what to do; I have no gun, and do not know where to hide myself.” Simon said, “I have a gun, if he comes I will shoot him, and will be safe.” Mr. John, after Peter passed him, said to Antoine, “Make haste, and come with the lamp,” and proceeded with a firm step to Urbaine’s house, as Peter, who continued watching at the door, saw.

After he saw them go to Urbaine’s house, he proceeded toward his own room, and he and Antoine called out, “Fire! fire!” The report of several shots, probably five, immediately followed, and he heard Antoine exclaiming, “Stop! stop! stop! He is dead now.” Antoine afterward related to Peter, that on reaching Urbaine’s house, Mr. John ordered him to go round by one corner, while he went round by the other, directing Antoine to shoot any of the Canadians he might meet. Mr. John then proceeded in a stooping position, looking very intently before him, when a shot was fired from the corner of the house toward which he was going, which caused his death, the ball having entered at the upper part of the breast-bone, a little below the gullet, and come out a little below the shoulder, having broken the spine in its passage. Peter was also told by one of the Kanakas, that as soon as Mr. John fell, Urbaine sprung forward from the corner of the house within a few paces of the body, and put his foot savagely on his neck, as if to complete the act, should the ball have failed in causing death. The Kanakas immediately asked Urbaine who had killed the master. Urbaine replied, “It is none of your business who has killed him!” Peter, who during this time had removed to his house, seeing Heron go out without his gun, went out round the body, and said, “My friend, we have now done what we long intended to do; let us now carry the body back to the house.” Urbaine, Laperti, Bellinger, and other white men who were present replied, “When we kill a dog, we let him lie where we kill him.” And Antoine told him they had previously given him the same reply to a similar proposition from him. Peter then approached the body, and, with one hand under the neck, raised the head and trunk, when a deep expiration followed, which was the last sign of animation. He had previously perceived no signs of life, nor did he hear any one say that any appeared after the deceased fell. The white men being unwilling to assist him, he carried the body, with the aid of the Kanakas, into the main house, where he had it stripped, washed clean, decently dressed, and laid out. In doing so he received no help from any but the Kanakas. The wounds made by the balls were very large, both openings being circular, and severally three inches in diameter. The body bled profusely, there being a deep pool of blood found around it, which was washed away afterward by the Kanakas. Peter never heard that he spoke or moved after he fell. There was a perpendicular cut on the forehead, skin-deep, in a line with the nose, which Peter thinks was caused by his falling on the barrel of his rifle, though Urbaine said that he had received it from an Indian with his dog. It was, as Peter supposes, about eleven o’clock, P. M., when he had done washing and laying out the body; the watches had not then been changed, therefore he thinks it could not be midnight. The people continued coming and going during the night, to see the body, and Peter proposed praying over the body, as is customary in Canada; but they objected, saying they did not wish to pray for him. He did sit up with the body all night, having soon after gone, first to Urbaine’s and then to Lulaire’s house, who each gave him a dram, which he took, saying, “There is no need of drinking now; they might drink their fill now.” He soon afterward went to bed.

He inquired of Martineau, who also lived in the same room, if he had fired at the deceased. He replied, that he had fired twice. He then asked him if it was he that had killed him, and he said, “I do not know if it was me or not.” He (Peter) put the same question to several of the other men whom he saw afterward; they all said that they had not shot him, and Martineau afterward said that he had not directed his gun at him, but had fired in the air.

The following morning he asked Antoine Kawanope if he knew who had killed the deceased. He replied, “I know who killed him, but I am not going to tell you, or any one else. When the governor comes, I will tell him.” He asked Antoine why he would not tell; he said he was afraid it might cause more quarrels, and lead to other murders. He then advised Antoine not to conceal it from him, as he would tell no one. Antoine then said, he thought it was Urbaine who had done the deed. Peter observed that Urbaine had no gun. Antoine replied, “I think it was Urbaine, because as soon as the deceased fell, Urbaine rushed out from his lurking-place at the corner of the house, where, I was informed by the people, he always kept his gun secreted, with the intention of shooting the deceased.” Peter says Laperti, Urbaine, and Simon were all concealed in the corner whence the shot came, and he thinks it to be one of the three who fired it. Urbaine always denied having committed the murder, and said, “I am going to the Russian fort for trial, and will be either banished or hung. I will let the thing go to the end, and will then inform upon the murderers.”

Simon always said that he was never in the corner from whence the shot was fired, and knew nothing about the matter; but Peter thinks that he must have been there, as he saw him, as before related, at the corner of the main house, when he promised to protect Urbaine; and from the situation of the fort, he must have passed that spot with Urbaine, as there was no other passage from the place where they had been standing. Laperti also said he never fired at all. When Peter, as before related, went upon the gallery after the first firing had ceased, while Mr. John and Antoine had gone into the house, he saw all the men on the gallery, except Pripe, Lulaire, and McPherson, and he asked each of them, respectively, if they were going to shoot the master that night, and they all answered (as well as himself), they would do so at the first chance, except Pehou, a Kanaka, who would not consent to the murder. Smith was then without a gun.

Before the Christmas preceding, Peter put the question to Smith, how he should like to see him kill Mr. John? He replied, “I should like it very well; I would have no objection, because his conduct is so very bad that he can never expect to be protected by the company.” Peter Manifree says that Mr. John appeared to be aware of the plot formed by the men against his life; as he supposes, through the information of Fleury, his servant, who was aware of every thing that passed among them. Mr. John had often said to the men, “Kill me, if you can. If you kill me, you will not kill a woman—you will kill a man.” And he kept Antoine as a sentinel to watch his room. One evening George Heron proposed taking his life, and said if he could find a man to go with him, he would be the first to shoot him. Peter refused to go, and Heron watched a great part of the night in the passage leading to Mr. John’s room, holding his gun pointed toward its door, with the object of shooting Mr. John if he appeared, as he usually did at night when going to visit the watchmen; but he did not go out that night, or Peter thinks that he would have been shot by Heron. The following morning Peter asked Antoine if he would defend Mr. John were he attacked by the people. Antoine said he would not, and would be the first man to seize or shoot him, should any attempt be made against his life or liberty. He put the same question to McPherson; but McPherson said, “No, do not kill him till the governor comes, by and by, and then we shall have redress.”

Peter also says that all the unmarried men were in the habit of secretly going out of the fort at night, contrary to order, to visit the Indian camp, and that one evening, when he wished to go out, he met George Heron on the gallery, who showed him where a rope was slung to the picket, by which he might let himself down to the ground outside of the fort, saying, “This is the way I and others get out, and you may do the same without fear of detection.” On the morning after the murder he went into Urbaine’s and Lulaire’s house and got a dram in each of them, out of two bottles of rum which he saw there. He said, “Now Mr. John is dead, I shall go out of the fort and spend the day with my wife.” Urbaine replied, “No: no one shall go out of the fort. We keep the keys, and we shall keep the gates shut.” Peter was angry at this, and said to Antoine, “When Mr. John was alive, he kept us prisoners, and would not allow us to run after women; and now that we have killed him, the Canadians wish to keep us as close as he did. I see we must raise the devil again with these Canadians, before we can get our liberty.”

Peter also says that one principal cause of their dislike to John, and their plots against his life, was the strictness with which he prevented their sallying from the fort in quest of women; that he flogged Martineau for having given his blanket to a woman with whom he maintained illicit commerce, and he also flogged Lamb and Kakepe for giving away their clothes in the same manner. This, Peter says, exasperated the men.

The day after the murder many of the men went up to Mr. John’s room to see the body, and McPherson remarked to them, that when the master was living they were not in the habit of coming up there; but they did so now that he was dead. On hearing this, Peter and Urbaine went away and never returned. On their way to their own house, they met Pripe and Bellinger.

Urbaine told them what McPherson had said, and in a threatening manner said, “McPherson is getting as proud as the other, and will be telling tales about us. We will not murder him, but we will give him a sound thrashing.” And Peter says that he soon after went to Smith and told him to put McPherson on his guard, as the Canadians intended to attack him. Smith asked Peter what he would do, now the master was dead, and Peter said he would obey McPherson’s orders. Smith replied, “That is good, Peter. If we do not do so, we shall lose all our wages.” All the Canadians, and, he thinks, Simon, continued drinking the whole of the day following the murder; the other men of the fort did not drink. He thinks it was the remains of the liquor they had been drinking the preceding night. Peter also says that, for a month previous to the murder, Urbaine, Laperti, and Simon, were in the habit of getting drunk every night on rum purchased from the Indians. Peter told them to take care of themselves, because Mr. John would be angry if he knew it. Mr. John took no notice of their conduct, because, as Peter thinks, he knew of the plot against his life, and felt intimidated. He also says that Laperti was excited against Mr. John on account of a suspected intrigue which he carried on with his wife. The night following the murder, they all went to bed quietly. The next day all was also quiet, and all work suspended, except watching the Indians, which they did very closely, as they were afraid they might be induced to attack the fort, on learning that the master was no more. They continued watching, turn about. The second day a coffin was made, and the corpse removed from the main house to the bath, when McPherson gave the men a dram. The third day the corpse was buried and the men had another dram. He does not know whether the men asked for the dram, or whether McPherson gave it of his own accord. The corpse was carried to the grave by Laperti, Pripe, Lulaire, and some Kanakas, but Urbaine did not touch it; does not think it was through fear. Peter often heard Laperti say, “I wish the governor was here, to see what he would do.” He also says there was no quarrel in the room where they were drinking on the night of the murder; but he thinks there might have been a quarrel after they left, as Pripe was put in irons after that time. He also says that the Canadians must have fixed on that night to murder him, and that Fleury told him so, which accounts for his apparent dejection of mind, and of his having shed tears in presence of his wife and Antoine, when he said, “I know that I am going to die this night.” He also thinks this might have led to the outbreak, but of this he is not sure. It is a mere matter of opinion. Mr. John was a little in liquor, but knew perfectly well what he was about. He never saw him so far gone with liquor as not to be able to walk actively about, except on one occasion, the preceding Christmas Eve, when he appeared to walk unsteady, but nevertheless could mount the gallery. They only knew he had tasted liquor from the excitement and changed appearance of his countenance. He does not know who first suggested the idea of murdering Mr. John.

Since the above disclosures were made, a few other facts have come to light, which, however, do not materially affect the character of these atrocities. Mr. John McLaughlin, Jr., was doubtless intemperate, reckless, and tyrannical, and often unnecessarily cruel in the punishments inflicted upon his men; but he was surrounded by a set of desperadoes, who, for months before the arrival of the night, during the darkness of which the fatal shot ushered him into the presence of his Judge, had been seeking an opportunity to rob him of life. Some time before this event, he flogged Peter for the crime of stealing fish. Peter was exceedingly angry, and resolved upon the destruction of his master. At a time to suit his purpose, he went to the bastion, where were fire-arms, loaded to his hands, and rung the bell of alarm, with the intention of shooting Mr. McLaughlin when he should make his appearance. A man by the name of Perse came out to see what was the matter, instead of the intended victim, when Peter fired, but missed him, the ball hitting a post near his head. For this offense, Peter was again seized, put in irons, and subsequently severely flogged, and liberated. Nearly all the men had been flogged from time to time, for various offenses, and all conspired against the life of their master. As might have been expected, when the case was examined by Sir George Simpson, the murderers attempted to cast all the odium upon Mr. McLaughlin, doubtless for the purpose of exculpating themselves, in which attempt they but too well succeeded, in the estimation of Sir George. Whether the persons who procured his death would be pronounced, by an intelligent jury, guilty of willful murder, or whether, from the mitigating circumstances connected with these transactions, the verdict should assume a more modified form, is not for me to determine. But it can not be denied by any one, that the circumstances must be indeed extraordinary that will justify any man, or set of men, to cut short the probation of an immortal being, and usher him, with all his unrepented sins, into the presence of his God.

This account illustrates English and Hudson’s Bay Company’s dealings with Indians, and their treatment of men and murderers, both among the Indians and their own people.

We are forced to acknowledge that we can not see the correctness of moral principle in Mr. Hine’s conclusions. There was unquestionably a premeditated and willful murder committed by the men at that fort. We can understand the motives of Sir George Simpson and Mr. Douglas, in allowing those men to escape the penalty of their crime, from the amount of pecuniary interests involved, and the personal jealousy existing against Dr. McLaughlin and his sons, in the company’s service. We know of jealousies existing between Mr. Simpson and John McLaughlin, Jr., on account of statements made in our presence at the breakfast-table, that were only settled temporarily, while at Vancouver. These statements, and the placing of this young son of the doctor’s at that post, we are satisfied had their influence in acquitting his murderers, if they did not in bringing about the murder, which to us appears plain in the testimony; and we so expressed our opinion, when the father requested us (while in his office) to examine a copy of those depositions. We have no hesitancy in saying, that we believe it to have been a malicious murder, and should have sent the perpetrators to the gallows. We have never been able to learn of the trial of any one implicated.

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 that the 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 death for 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 years I 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, the supply of rum to 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 perceptible change, 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 of transporting and delivering to 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 he had 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 with agriculture native children was 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 Factory was 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 the iron 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 Company board 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.

CHAPTER VIII.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We remain your humble servants,

"James Sinclair, Alexis Gaulat,

Baptist La Roque, Louis Letende De Batoche,

Thomas Logan, William McMillan,

John Dease, Antoine Morran,

Bat. Wilkie, John Anderson,

John Vincent, Thomas McDermot,

William Bird, Adall Trottier,

Peter Garioch, Charles Hole,

Henry Cook, Joseph Monkman,

John Spence, Baptist Farman.

“Alexander Christie, Esq.,
“Governor of Red River Settlement.”

"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.

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.”

There have been twenty-seven witnesses examined to prove the claims above set forth, and not a single one of them testified or gave the least intimation that there ever was any such company as here set forth in existence, only as connected with and subject to the control and management of the Hudson’s Bay Company, the same as their farming operations at Vancouver or Colville, or any other of their posts. The claim is so manifestly fictitious and without foundation, that the learned attorney for the company bases his whole reliance upon the wording of the treaty, and in consequence of the wording of that treaty, “and according to the terms of the fourth article thereof, he says the United States became and were bound to confirm.” So we suppose any other monstrous claim set up by a band of foreign fur traders having influence enough to start any speculation on a nominal capital in our country and failing to realize the profits anticipated, must apply for an acknowledgment of their speculation, be mentioned in a treaty, and be paid in proportion to the enormity of their demands. We are inclined to the opinion that so plain a case of fraud will be soon disposed of, and the overgrown monster that produced it sent howling after the Indians they have so long and so successfully robbed, as per their own admission, of £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.

A History of Oregon, 1792-1849 / Drawn From Personal Observation and Authentic Information

A HISTORYOFO R E G O N,