On page 287, he further states: "The Oregon Territory was peopled, under the influence of the company, with subjects of the United States.

(Since Writing the former chapter, I have heard this account given of the conduct of the Hudson's Bay Company, in regard to the Oregon boundary, which offers still stronger ground for inquiry. The country south of the 49th parallel, it seems, was hunted up--therefore the posts of the Hudson's Bay Company were become of no value at all. By annexing all that country to the United States, and inserting in the treaty a clause that the United States should pay the company for all its posts if it turned them out, the company were able to obtain from the Americans a large sum of money for what would have been worth nothing had the territory remained British.) That lost us the boundary of the Columbia River. That is one specimen of the colonization of the Hudson's Bay Company. The boundary westward from the Lake of the Woods, we have seen, gave to the United States land from which the company was engaged, at the very time, in driving out British subjects, on the plea that it belonged to the company; and now that the boundary has been settled only a few years, we learn that the settlers on our side are asking the United States to extend her government over that country."

If this does not show a clear case of abortion on the part of that _honorable_ Hudson's Bay Company east of the Rocky Mountains, tell us what does. But it is interesting to trace a little further the British ideas and pretensions to this Pacific coast. Our British author says, page 288:--

"Make what lines you please in a map and call them boundaries, but it is mockery to do so as long as the inhabitants are alienated from your rule, as long as you have a company in power whose policy erases the lines which treaties have drawn.

"Forasmuch, then, as these things are so, it becomes this country [Great Britain] to record an emphatic protest against the recent policy of the Colonial Office in abandoning the magnificent country on the sh.o.r.es of the Pacific Ocean to the Hudson's Bay Company.

"The blindest can not long avoid seeing the immense importance of Vancouver Island to Great Britain. Those who, two years ago [1846], first began to attract public attention to this question, are not the less amazed at the unexpected manner and rapidity with which their antic.i.p.ations have been realized.

"Six months ago it was a question merely of colonizing Vancouver Island; now it is a question involving the interests of the whole of British North America, and of the empire of Great Britain in the Pacific Ocean."

It is always more or less difficult to trace the course of a false or fict.i.tious object. It becomes peculiarly so when two objects of the same character come up; the one, by long practice and experience, a.s.suming a fair and honorable exterior, having talent, experience, and wealth; the other, an illegitimate production, being called into existence to cripple the energies of two powerful nations, and living under the supreme control of the body, having acquired its position through the ignorance of the nations it seeks to deceive. It is out of the question to separate two such objects or a.s.sociations. The one is the child of the other, and is permitted to exist while the object to be accomplished remains an opponent to the parent a.s.sociation.

The opposition to the fur monopoly having ceased west of the Rocky Mountains, a new element of national aggrandizement and empire comes within the range of this deceitful and grasping a.s.sociation. Its child is immediately christened and set to work under its paternal eye. We have the full history of the progress made by this _Mr. Puget Sound Agricultural Company_ in the testimony of the twenty-seven witnesses summoned to prove his separate existence from that of the _Hudson's Bay Company_.

We find, in tracing the existence of these two children of the British empire in North America, that they have established themselves in an island on the Pacific coast called Vancouver. In this island they are more thrifty and better protected than they were in the dominions of Uncle Samuel. Notwithstanding they are comfortably located, and have secured the larger part of that island and the better portion of British Columbia, there is occasionally a British subject that grumbles a little about them in the following undignified style:--

"If the company were to be destroyed to-morrow, would England be poorer? Would there not rather be demanded from the hands of our own manufacturers ten times the quant.i.ty of goods which is sent abroad, under the present system, to purchase the skins?" My dear sir, this would make the Indians comfortable and happy. "We boast [says this Englishman] that we make no slaves, none at least that can taint our soil, or fret our sight; but we take the child of the forest, whom G.o.d gave us to civilize, and commit him, bound hand and foot, to the most iron of all despotisms--_a commercial monopoly_.

"Nor, turning from the results of our policy upon the native population, to its effect upon settlers and colonists, is there greater cause for congratulation.

"The system which has made the native a slave is making the settler a rebel.

"Restrictions upon trade, jealousy of its own privileges, interference with the rights of property, exactions, and all the other freaks in which monopoly and despotism delight to indulge, have, it appears, driven the best settlers into American territory, and left the rest, as it were, packing up their trunks for the journey."

This, so far as relates to the proceedings, policy, and influence of that company upon the settlement of Vancouver Island and British Columbia, is verified by the facts now existing in those British colonies. Their whole system is a perfect mildew and blight upon any country in which they are permitted to trade or to do business.

We have little or no expectation that any thing we may write will affect in the least the decision of the commissioners, whose business it is to decide this Puget Sound Company's case; but, as a faithful historian, we place on record the most prominent facts relating to it, for the purpose of showing the plans and schemes of an English company, who are a nuisance in the country, and a disgrace to the nation under whose charters they profess to act. Up to the time we were permitted to examine the testimony they have produced in support of their monstrous claims, we were charitable enough to believe there were some men in its employ who could be relied upon for an honest and truthful statement of facts in relation to the property and improvements for which these claims are made; but we are not only disappointed, but forced to believe the truth is not in them,--at least in any whose testimony is before us in either case. Our English author says:--

"It does not appear that the interposition of '_an irresponsible company_' can be attended with benefit to the colony.----A company whose direction is in London, and which is wholly _irresponsible_, either to the colonists or to the British Parliament.----There is ample evidence in the foregoing pages that it would be absurd to give this company credit for _unproductive patriotism_.----Considering the ident.i.ty existing between this a.s.sociation [the Puget Sound a.s.sociation] and the Hudson's Bay Company, in whose hands the whole management of the colonization of Vancouver Island is placed, there is a very strong reason to fear that the arrangements which have been made will, for some years at any rate, utterly ruin that country as a field for colonial enterprise. There is a strong inducement for the company to grant all the best part of the island to themselves, under the name of the Puget Sound a.s.sociation; and to trust to the settlements which may be formed by that a.s.sociation as being sufficient to satisfy the obligation to colonize which is imposed by the charter.

"There is a strong inducement to discourage the immigration of independent settlers; first, because when all the colonists are in the position of their own servants, they will be able much more readily to prevent interference with the fur trade; and secondly, _because the presence of private capital in the island could only tend to diminish their own gains, derived from the export of agricultural produce._

"And, on the other hand, there will be every possible discouragement to emigrants of the better cla.s.s to settle in a colony where a large part of the country will be peopled only by the lowest order of workmen, where they may have to compete with the capital of a wealthy company, and that company not only their rival in trade, but at the same time possessed of the supreme power, and of paramount political influence in the colony.

"There is a reason, more important than all, why the Hudson's Bay Company will never be able to form _a colony_. An agricultural settlement they may establish; a few forts, where Scotchmen will grumble for a few years before they go over to the Americans, but never a community that will deserve the name of a British colony.

THEY DO NOT POSSESS PUBLIC CONFIDENCE.

"But the Hudson's Bay Company--the colonial office of this unfortunate new colony--_has positive interests_ antagonistic to those of an important settlement.

"It is a body whose history, tendency, traditions, and prospects are _equally and utterly opposed_ to the existence, within its hunting-grounds, of an active, wealthy, independent, and flourishing colony," (we Americans say settlements) "with all the destructive consequences of ruined monopoly and wide-spread civilization."

Need we stop to say the above is the best of British testimony in favor of the position we have a.s.sumed in relation to a company who will cramp and dwarf the energies of their own nation to increase the profits on the paltry capital they have invested.

Have the Americans any right to believe they will pursue any more liberal course toward them than they have, and do pursue toward their countrymen? As this writer remarks, "civilization ruins their _monopoly_." The day those two n.o.ble and sainted women, Mrs. Spalding and Mrs. Whitman, came upon the plains of the Columbia, they could do no less than allow England's banner to do them reverence, for G.o.d had sent and preserved them, as emblems of American civilization, religious light, and liberty upon this coast. One of them fell by the ruthless hand of the sectarian savages, pierced by Hudson's Bay b.a.l.l.s from Hudson's Bay guns. The other was carried, in a Hudson's Bay boat, to the protecting care of the American settlement; and for what purpose? That the savage might remain in barbarism; that the monster monopoly might receive its profits from the starving body and soul of the Indian; that civilization and Christianity, and the star of empire might be stayed in their westward course.

Not yet satisfied with the blood of sixteen n.o.ble martyrs to civilization and Christianity, quick as thought their missives are upon the ocean wave. Wafted upon the wings of the wind, a foul slander is sent by the representatives of that monopoly all over the earth, to blast her (Mrs. Whitman's) Christian and missionary character with that of her martyred husband. And why?

Because that husband had braved the perils of a winter journey to the capital of his country, to defeat their malicious designs, to shut up the country and forever close it to American civilization and religion.

And now, with an audacity only equaled by the arch-enemy of G.o.d and man, they come to our government and demand five millions of gold for facilitating the settlement of a country they had not the courage or power to prevent.

This, to a person ignorant of the peculiar arrangements of so monstrous a monopoly, will appear strange--that they should have an exclusive monopoly in trade in a country, and have not the courage or power to prevent its settlement, especially when such settlement interferes with its trade. So far as American territory was concerned, they were only permitted to have a joint occupancy in trade. The sovereignty or right of soil was not settled; hence, any open effort against any settler from any country was a trespa.s.s against the rights of such settler. They could only enforce their chartered privileges in British territory. The country, under these circ.u.mstances, afforded them a vast field in which to combine and arrange schemes calculated to perpetuate their own power and influence in it. The natives of the country were their trading capital and instruments, ready to execute their will upon all opponents.

The Protestant missionaries brought an influence and a power that at once overturned their licensed privileges in trade, because with the privilege of trade, they had agreed, in accepting their original charter, to civilize and Christianize the natives of the country. This part of their compact the individual members of the company were fulfilling by each taking a native woman, and rearing as many half-civilised subjects as was convenient. This had the effect to destroy their courage in any investigation of their conduct. As to their power, as we have intimated above, it was derived from the capacity, courage, prejudices, and ignorance of the Indians, which the American missionary, if let alone, would soon overcome by his more liberal dealings with them, and his constant effort to improve their condition, which, just in proportion as the Indians learned the value of their own productions and labor, would diminish the profits in the fur trade.

This increase of civilization and settlement, says chief-trader Anderson, "had been foreseen on the part of the company, and to a certain extent provided for. The cession of Oregon, under the treaty of 1846, and the consequent negotiations for the transfer to the American government of all our rights and possessions in their territory, r.e.t.a.r.ded all further proceedings."

In this statement of Mr. Anderson, and the statement of Mr. Roberts, an old clerk of the company, and from our own observations, this "foreseeing" on the part of the company was an arrangement with the Indians, and such as had been half civilized by the various individual efforts of the members and servants of the company, to so arrange matters that an exterminating war against the missionary settlements in the country should commence before the Mexican difficulty with the United States was settled.

This view of the question is sustained by the reply of Sir James Douglas to Mr. Ogden, by Mr. Ogden's course and treatment of the Indians on his way up the Columbia River, his letters to Revs. E. Walker and Spalding, his special instructions to the Indians, and payment of presents in war materials for their captives, and the course pursued by Sir James Douglas in refusing supplies to the provisional troops and settlers, and the enormous supplies of ammunition furnished to the priests for the Indians during the war of 1847-8.

We are decidedly of the same opinion respecting that company as their own British writer, who, in conclusion, after giving us a history of 281 pages, detailing one unbroken course of oppression and cruelty to all under their iron despotism, says:--

"The question at issue is a serious one,--whether a valuable territory shall be given up to an _irresponsible corporation_, to be colonized or not, as it may suit their convenience; or whether that colonization shall be conducted in accordance with any principles which are recognized as sound and right?"

We can easily see the connection in the principle of right in paying any portion of either of the monstrous claims of that company, which never has been responsible to any civilized national authority.

"The foregoing exposure of the character and conduct of the company has been provoked. When doubts were expressed whether the company were qualified for fulfilling the tasks a.s.signed to them by the Colonial Minister, and when they appealed to their character and history, it became right that their history should be examined, and their character exposed.

"The investigation thus provoked has resulted in the discovery that their _authority is fict.i.tious, and their claims invalid_. As their power is illegal, so the exercise of it has been mischievous; it has been mischievous to Great Britain, leaving her to accomplish, at a vast national expense, discoveries which the company undertook, and were paid to perform; and because our trade has been _contracted_ and crippled, without any advantage, political or otherwise, having been obtained in return; it has been mischievous to the native Indians, cutting them off from all communication with the rest of the civilized world, depriving them of the fair value of their labor, keeping them in a condition of slavery, and leaving them in the same state of poverty, misery, and paganism in which it originally found them; it has been mischievous to the settlers and colonists under its influence, depriving them of their liberties as British subjects, frustrating, by exactions and arbitrary regulations, their efforts to advance, and, above all, undermining their loyalty and attachment to their mother country, and fostering, by bad government, a spirit of discontent with their own, and sympathy with foreign inst.i.tutions."

This writer says: "This is the company whose power is now [in 1849] to be strengthened and consolidated!--to whose dominion is to be added the most important post which Great Britain possesses in the Pacific, and to whom the formation of a new colony is to be intrusted."

And, we add, this is the power that has succeeded in forcing their infamous claims upon our government to the amount above stated, and by the oaths of men trained for a long series of years to rob the Indian of the just value of his labor, to deceive and defraud their own nation as to the fulfillment of chartered stipulations and privileges.

The facts developed by our history may not affect the decision of the commissioners in their case, but the future student of the history of the settlement of our Pacific coast will be able to understand the influences its early settlers had to contend with, and the English colonist may learn the secret of their failure to build up a wealthy and prosperous colony in any part of their vast dominion on the North American continent.

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.

I have carefully reviewed all the testimony in the above case, on both sides, up to May 1, 1867. On April 12, the counsel on the part of the United States having already spent twenty-five days in cross-examining Chief-Factor McTavish, so as to get at the real expenditures of the Hudson's Bay Company, and arrive at a just conclusion as to the amount due them,--Mr. McTavish having frequently referred to accounts and statements which he averred could be found on the various books of the company,--gave notice to the counsel of the company in the following language:--

"The counsel for the United States require of Mr. McTavish, who, as appears from his evidence, is a chief factor of the Hudson's Bay Company, and its agent in the prosecution of this claim, to produce here for examination by the United States or their counsel, all accounts, account-books, and letter-books of said company, together with the regulations under which their books were kept, and the various forms of contracts with servants of the company, all of which books, rules, and forms contain evidence pertinent to the issue in this case, as appears from the cross-examination of Mr.

McTavish, and suspends the further cross-examination of this witness until he shall produce such books, accounts, rules, and forms."

On the 1st of May Mr. McTavish's examination was resumed.

_Int. 952._--"Will you please produce here for examination by the United States or their counsel, all accounts, account-books, and letter-books of the Hudson's Bay Company which were kept at the various posts of that company south of the 49th parallel of north lat.i.tude during their occupation by the company, together with the regulations under which their books were kept, and the regular forms of contracts with the company's servants?"

_Ans._--"I can not say whether I will produce them or not."

(The above question was objected to as incompetent, and as asking the witness, not as to what he knows of the subject, but as to what his future course of action will be, over which, as witness, he can have no control.)