_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 a.s.signs, 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 a.s.signs, 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 t.i.tle, _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 a.s.serting 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 n.o.ble 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 antic.i.p.ated; 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 a.s.sociates 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 fict.i.tious 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 employes_ 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 const.i.tuted 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 a.s.sumed the name of Puget Sound Agricultural Company, and under that name, through the paternal influence of a b.a.s.t.a.r.d 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 ent.i.tled 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 a.s.sumed 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 a.s.suming 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 a.s.sume _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 trespa.s.s 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 a.s.sertion 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 trespa.s.s 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 b.a.s.t.a.r.d 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 ent.i.tled to the free and undisturbed possession and enjoyment thereof. [True; so with all b.a.s.t.a.r.ds. 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 fict.i.tious 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 antic.i.p.ated, must apply for an acknowledgment of their speculation, be mentioned in a treaty, and be paid in proportion to the enormity of their demands. We are inclined to the opinion that so plain a case of fraud will be soon disposed of, and the overgrown monster that produced it sent howling after the Indians they have so long and so successfully robbed, as per their own admission, of 20,000,000 sterling. (See Mr. M. Martin's Hudson's Bay Company's Territory, etc., p. 131.)

There is another question arising in this supposed Puget Sound concern.

Suppose, for a moment, the commissioners decide to pay the whole or any part of this demand, who will be the recipients of this money? We doubt whether the learned commissioners or the counsel of the supposed company could tell, unless it is to be his fee for prosecuting the case.

Doctor William Fraser Tolmie and Mr. George B. Roberts are the only two witnesses that appear to know much about the matter, and Mr. Roberts'

information seems to be derived from the same source as our own, so that the writer, though not a member of the company, has about as good a knowledge of its object and organization as Mr. Roberts, who was connected with the Hudson's Bay Company, and also an agent of this Puget Sound Company.

Dr. Tolmie says: "The Puget Sound Company _acquired_, or purchased from the Hudson's Bay Company, all its improvements at Cowlitz and Nasqualla, with its lands, live stock, and agricultural implements, all of which were transferred, in 1840 or 1841, by the Hudson's Bay Company to the Puget Sound Company."

As we understand this matter, it amounts to just this, and no more: The Hudson's Bay Company had consented to enlarge their business by employing an outside capital or sinking fund they had at their disposal; they instructed Dr. Tolmie, their special agent for that purpose, to receive all the property at the two stations or farms named, to take possession of them, and instead of opening an account with their opposition sinking fund, they called it the Puget Sound Agricultural Company. This explains the ten per cent. paid stock into that company.

Now, if this venture is profitable, nothing is lost; if it is not, it does not interfere with the legitimate business of the fur company--hence the distinct claim under this name.

"The Puget Sound Company charged the Hudson's Bay Company for all supplies furnished, and paid the Hudson's Bay Company for all goods received from them."

This was exactly in the line of the whole business done throughout the entire Hudson's Bay Company, with all their forts, and other establishments.

"Were not the accounts of the Puget Sound Company always forwarded to the Hudson's Bay Company's depot?" "_They were_," says Dr. Tolmie; and so were all the accounts of all the posts on this coast sent to the depot at Vancouver, and thence to head-quarters on the other side of the Rocky Mountains.

We have shown, by reference to the capital stock of the Hudson's Bay Company, that, in 1821, it was counted at 200,000. From this sum ten per cent., or 20,000, was set apart as a sinking fund to oppose any fur company or traders on the west side of the mountains, and an equal sum for the same purpose on the east.

This western amount, being placed under the direction of Dr. Tolmie and his successors, produced in seven years 11,000 sterling, equal to $53,240. This transaction does not appear, from the testimony adduced in the case, to have interfered in the least with the fur trade carried on at these stations, and by the same officers or clerks of the Hudson's Bay Company; hence, we are unable, from the whole catalogue of twenty-seven witnesses in the case, to find out who is to receive this nice little sum of $1,168,000 or 240,000--only 40,000 more than the mother had to trade upon when she produced this beautiful full-grown child, the Puget Sound Agricultural Company,--having had an abortion on the other side of the continent in the loss, without pay, of a large portion of the Red River or Selkirk country. Uncle Sam was ungenerous there.

This is truly an acre of wonders, and this Hudson's Bay Company and its productions are ent.i.tled to some consideration for their ingenuity, if not for their honesty. It will be interesting to look at our British cousins and see what is said about this "_itself_ and _its other self_."

Mr. Fitzgerald says, page 260: "It is a matter of importance to know whether the Hudson's Bay Company is about to submit itself and _its other self_--the Puget Sound a.s.sociation--to the same regulations which are to be imposed on other settlers of Vancouver Island and British Columbia."