During the examination of Mr. McTavish it was evident that he was the main prosecuting witness, and considerably interested in the results of the claim, or suit.

It would doubtless be interesting to most of our readers to see a review of the testimony, or at least a summary of the evidence presented on both sides in this case. There are now printed about one thousand pages of doc.u.ments and depositions. That relating particularly to the Hudson's Bay Company comprises about two-thirds of the whole amount. The balance relates more particularly to the Puget Sound Agricultural Company's claim. This claim, the company have not been able, by any testimony yet presented, to separate from that of the Hudson's Bay Company; so that there is no prospect of their receiving one dollar on that account.

There have been examined on the part of the Puget Sound Company, to prove its separate existence from the Hudson's Bay Company, thirty witnesses; on the part of the United States, twenty-one. On the part of the Hudson's Bay Company's claim as separate from the Puget Sound Company, nineteen witnesses; on the part of the United States, thirty.

On both sides not far from forty-five witnesses have been called upon the stand to testify in this important case. The company in London have been requested to furnish evidence of the separate organization or independent existence of the two companies; and with all this evidence produced, nothing definite or certain is shown, except that the concern was gotten up to deceive the English people and rob the American government, and to counteract and oppose the American settlement of this country.

As a looker-on and an observer of events in this country, I must confess my astonishment at the ignorance, perverseness, and stupidity of men whom I have ever heretofore regarded as honorable and truthful.

From the testimony before me of the twenty odd English witnesses, it really appears as though they felt that all they had to do was to ask their pay, and our government would give it to them; or, in other words, they, as Englishmen and British subjects, are prepared to compel the payment of any sum they demand.

There are many interesting developments brought out in this case relative to the early history of this country, which renders the depositions in the case, though voluminous and tedious in the main, yet interesting to the close and careful student of our history.

If time and opportunity is given, I will review this whole testimony as a part of the history of this country, and, in so doing, will endeavor to correct an erroneous impression that will result from the testimony as now before us.

The amount claimed in this case is four million nine hundred and ninety thousand thirty-six dollars and sixty-seven cents, or, nine hundred and eighty-five thousand three hundred and fifty pounds sterling, in gold coin.

I now have before me, including the Hudson's Bay Company's memorial, eleven hundred and twenty-six pages of printed doc.u.ments and depositions relating to this case. I also have what may properly be termed British testimony, bearing directly upon this case, which is ent.i.tled to its full weight in a proper and just decision as to the amount of compensation this Hudson's Bay Company is ent.i.tled to receive from our government.

I do not propose to review all the one thousand four hundred and nineteen pages of statements and depositions in detail; that would be too tedious, though I might be able to make it interesting to the general reader, as it develops the whole history of that portion of our continent that has for one hundred and ninety-seven years been under the exclusive jurisdiction of a monopoly that effectually closed it to all outside influences up to the year A.D. 1834.

According to our British testimony, it was originally 10,500. In 1690, in consequence of the enormous profits upon this small capital, it was increased threefold, making it 31,500. In 1720 it was declared to be 94,500. In this year the stock was (as is termed) _watered_. The then proprietors each subscribed 100, and received 300 of stock, calling the whole nominal stock 378,000, while the actual subscription was but 94,500, and only 3,150 was paid. The stock was ordered to reckon at 103,500, while the actual total amount paid was but 13,650.

In 1821, there was another "watering" of the stock, and a call of 100 per share on the proprietors, which raised their capital to 200,000.

The Northwest Fur Company joined the Hudson's Bay Company in this year, and the joint stock was declared to be 400,000.

We are ready to admit, in fact, the testimony in the case goes to prove, that the French Northwest Company brought into the concern an equal amount of capital with that of the Hudson's Bay Company. This would give the present Hudson's Bay Company a real capital of 27,300, a nominal capital of 400,000.

By reference to the memorial of the company, we find they claim, on the 8th of April, 1867, of our government:--

For the right to trade, of which the settlement of the country and removal of Indians to reservations has deprived them, 200,000.

For the right of the free navigation of the Columbia River, 300,000.

For their forts, farms, posts, and establishments, with the buildings and improvements, 285,350, making, in all, 785,350, or $3,822,036.67, or 385,350 more than the whole amount of nominal stock which they claim to have invested in their entire trade.

We will not stop to speak of the morality of this claim; it is made in due form, and this with the claim as set forth in the same doc.u.ment, to wit: For lands, farms, forts, and improvements, 190,000; loss of live stock and other losses, 50,000; total, 240,000--equal to $1,188,000, to be paid in gold. In British money these two sums amount to 1,025,350 sterling, in American dollars to $4,990,036.67; or 625,350 sterling money more than their nominal stock, and 998,050 sterling more than all their real stock invested.

It will be remembered that this demand is simply on account of the settlement of Oregon by the Americans. A part of the posts for which this demand is made are still in their undisputed possession, and a large portion of the claim is set up in consequence of the loss of the profits of the fur trade, of that portion of their business as conducted in territory that originally belonged to the United States, and was actually given up to them by the treaty of December 24, 1814.

The reader will bear in mind, that in the review or discussion of this Hudson's Bay Company's claim on our government, we only refer to that part of their trade, and the rights or privileges they were permitted to enjoy, jointly with Americans, in what is now absolutely American territory. Over two-thirds of their capital has always been employed in territory that the American has not been permitted to enter, much less to trade and form a settlement of any kind.

The witnesses on the part of the Hudson's Bay Company have been forty-one in number. Of this number fifteen are directly interested in the results of the award. Fourteen were brought to the country by, and remained in the service of the company till they left the country; and were all British, though some of them have become naturalized American citizens. Twelve are American citizens, and are supposed to have no particular interest in the results of the case; in fact, their statements are all of a general and very indefinite character. Having come to the country since 1850, they know but little or nothing about the Hudson's Bay Company, its rights, policy, or interests there. Not one of them appears, from the testimony given, to understand the justness of the company's claim, or the injustice there would be in allowing any part of it. Their testimony appears to be given under the impression that because the treaty stipulated that the possessory rights of the company were acknowledged and to be respected, that therefore full payment must be paid the company for the right of trade, and the prospective profits in trade, and the increased value of a.s.sessable property for an indefinite period in the future. As, for example, a witness is asked:--

"What is the present value per acre of the company's claims at Cowlitz and Nasqualla, for farming and grazing purposes?"

_Ans._--"Supposing both claims to belong to the same person or company, having a clear and undisputed t.i.tle, and perfectly exempt from molestation in the transaction of business, I think the Cowlitz claim worth to-day thirty dollars an acre, and the Nasqualla claim five dollars an acre, for farming and grazing purposes."

The fifteen interested witnesses all testify to about the same thing, a.s.serting positively as to the real value of the company's supposed rights. One of the chief factors, in answer to the interrogatory, "State the value of the post at Vancouver, as well in 1846 as since, until the year 1863; give the value of the lands and of the buildings separately; and state also what was the value of the post in relation to the other posts, and as a center of trade," said:--

"It being the general depot for the trade of the company west of the Rocky Mountains, in 1846 the establishment at Vancouver, with its out-buildings, was in thorough order, having been lately rebuilt; taking into account this post" (a notorious fact that but two new buildings were about the establishment and in decent repair), "together with the various improvements at the mill, on the mill plain, on the lower plain, and at Sauvies Island, I should estimate its value then to the company at from five to six hundred thousand dollars."

The value of the land used by the company, at Fort Vancouver, in 1846, say containing a frontage of twenty-five miles on the Columbia, by ten miles in depth, in all two hundred and fifty square miles, or about 160,000 acres, I should calculate as being worth then, on an average, from $2.50 to $3 an acre (at $2.50 would give us $400,000); this, with the improvements, say $500,000, gives us, at this witness's lowest estimate, $900,000 for the company's possessory rights.

This witness goes into an argument stating surrounding and probable events, and concludes in these words: "I am clearly of opinion that had the company entire control to deal with it as their own, without any question as to their t.i.tle, from the year 1846 and up to 1858, when I left there, taking the fort as a center point, the land above and below it, to the extent of three square miles, or 1,920 acres, with frontage on the Columbia River, could have been easily disposed of for $250 per acre ($480,000). The remainder of the land claim of the company at Vancouver is more or less valuable, according to its locality; thus, I consider the land on the lower plain, having frontage on the river for a distance of five miles, or 3,200 acres, as worth $100 per acre ($320,000). Below that, again, to the Cathlapootl, a distance of probably ten miles, with a depth of two miles, or 12,800 acres, is worth $25 an acre ($320,000). Going above the fort plain, and so on to the commencement of the claim, two miles above the saw-mill on the Columbia River, say a distance of six or seven miles and back three miles, or about 13,500 acres, should be worth from $10 to $15 per acre" ($135,000, at $10, his lowest estimate). "The remainder of the claim is worth from $1.50 to $3 per acre." It being 128,580 acres, at $1.50 per acre, $192,580. This would make for the Vancouver property, as claimed, and several witnesses have sworn the value to amount, as per summary of a chief factor's testimony--

For the fort, buildings, farm and mill improvements $500,000 " 1,920 acres of land about the fort at $250 per acre 480,000 " 3,200 " below the fort, at $100 " " 320,000 " 12,800 " on lower plain, at $25 " " 320,000 " 13,500 " above the saw-mill, at $10 " " 135,000 " 128,580 " balance of claim, at $1.50 " " 192,580

This gives us the sum of $1,947,580 in gold coin, as the value of the possessory rights of the honorable the Hudson's Bay Company to Fort Vancouver and its immediate surroundings.

This chief factor's oath and estimate of the property is sustained by the estimates and oaths of three other chief factors, amounting to about the same sum. This one, after answering in writing, as appears in his cross-examination, twenty sworn questions affirming to the facts and truth of his knowledge of the claims and business of the company, etc., is cross-questioned (Interrogatory 477), by the counsel for the United States, as follows: "Can you not answer the last interrogatory more definitely?" The 476th interrogatory was: "Have you not as much knowledge of what the company claimed in this direction as any other?"

The answer to the 477th interrogatory is: "Referring to my answer to the last interrogatory, it will be at once seen that _I have no personal knowledge_ as to what land the company actually claimed on that line _or any other_, as regards the land in the neighborhood of Fort Vancouver.

This answer embraces even the present time."

There are several American witnesses introduced to prove this monstrous claim, and to show the reasonableness and justness of their demand. I will give a specimen of an answer given by one of them. After estimating the amount of land in a similar manner to the witness above referred to, calculating the land in four divisions, at $50, $10, and $1.25 per acre, and 161,000 acres amounting to $789,625, without any estimate upon the buildings or improvements, the following question was put to him: "Have you any knowledge of the market value of land in the vicinity of Vancouver, at any time since 1860?"

_Ans._--"I only heard of one sale, which was near the military reserve; I think this was of 100 acres, and I understand brought $100 an acre. I heard of this within the last few months, but nothing was said, that I remember, about the time when the sale was made."

From the intelligence and official position of this American witness, we are forced to the conclusion that the enriching effects of old Hudson's Bay rum must have made him feel both wealthy and peculiarly liberal in estimating the possessory rights of his Hudson's Bay Company friends.

There is one noticeable fact in relation to quite a number of the witnesses called, and that have testified in behalf of the company's claim. It is their ignorance--we may add, total ignorance--of the general business, profits, and policy of the company. This remark will apply to every witness whose deposition has been taken, including their bookkeepers and clerks in London, and their chief factors in Oregon. Dr.

McLaughlin seems to have been the only man upon this coast that knew, or that could give an intelligent account of its policy or its proceedings.

The whole Hudson's Bay Company concern appears like a great barrel, bale, or box of goods, put up in London, and marked for a certain district, servants and clerks sent along with the bales, and boxes, and barrels of rum, to gather up all the furs and valuable skins they can find all over the vast country they occupy, then bale up these furs and skins and send them to London, where another set of clerks sell them and distribute the profits on the sale of the furs.

As to the value of the soil, timber, minerals, or any improvements they have ever seen or made in the country, they are as ignorant as the savages of the country they have been trading with. _This ignorance is real or willful._ The oaths of the two witnesses to which I have referred show this fact beyond a doubt, they having been the longest in the service, and attained a high position, and should know the most of its business and policy.

There is one other American witness that has given his testimony in the case of Puget Sound Agricultural Company _v._ United States. He came to this country in 1853. In cross-interrogatory 55, he is asked: "In your opinion, did not the agents of this company afford great protection to the first settlers of this section of country by the exercise of their influence over the different Indian tribes?"

_Ans._--"In my opinion, the officers of the company, being _educated gentlemen_, have always exerted whatever influence they might have had with the Indians to protect the whites of all nations in the early settlement of the country."

This opinion is expressed by a gentleman having no knowledge of the policy and proceedings of the company in relation to all American settlers previous to his arrival in the country. He concludes that because he, in his official transactions, having no occasion to ask or receive the company's protection, was treated kindly, all others must have been, as the company's officers were, in his opinion, "educated gentlemen."

In answer to this last official American gentleman and his officious opinion, as expressed on oath in this case, I will quote a statement, under oath, of one of our old _bed-rock_ settlers, who came on to the west side of the Rocky Mountains in 1829, twenty-four years previous to the last witness, who pretends to know so much.

_Int. 7._--"What influence did the Hudson's Bay Company exercise over the Indians in the section where you operated, with reference to the American trappers and traders? State such facts as occur to you in this connection."

_Ans._--"The Hudson's Bay Company exercised a great influence over the western Indians; that is, the Cayuses, Nez Perces, Flatheads, and Spokans, and others through these; they had no influence over the Indians east of the Rocky Mountains at all, and away south they could do almost any thing with the Indians. I know of one party that was robbed by order of one of the Hudson's Bay Company men, the commander of Fort Wallawalla (Wallula); the party was robbed, and the fur brought back to the fort and sold. I was not with the party; that was my understanding about the matter; and that was what the Indians said, and what the whites said that were robbed." (A fact known to the writer.)

_Int. 13._--"Was it not generally understood among the American trappers that the Hudson's Bay Company got a very large quant.i.ty of Jedediah Smith's furs, for which he and they failed to account to the company to which they belonged?" (Objected to, because it is leading, immaterial, and hearsay.)

_Ans._--"It used to be said so among the trappers in the mountains,"

(and admitted by the company, as no correct account was ever rendered.)

_Int. 14._--"If you remember, state the quant.i.ty which was thus reported." (Objected to as before.)

_Ans._--"It was always reported as about forty packs."

_Int. 15._--"Give an estimate of the value of forty packs of beaver at that time."

_Ans._--"Forty packs of beaver at that time, in the mountains, was worth about $20,000. I do not know what they would be worth at Vancouver."