IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

■ii|2i US
■tt lii 12.2

1L25IU

|L25

1I&

Photografiiic

ScHioes

Garporation

4S^A

^- -<>

as wht main strut

VflUTIR,N.Y. I4SM
(716)t72-4S03

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHIVi/ICIVIH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Inatituta for Historical MIcroraproductions / instltut Canadian da microraproductions historiquaa

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notas tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa

Tf
to

Tha Inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat
original copy avaiiabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia
copy which may ba bibliographicaiiy uniqua,
which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha
raproduction, or which may significantly change
tha uaual method of filming, are chaclcflfd below.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommagte

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurte at/ou pelliculte

I I Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartes gAographiquea en couleur

Coloured inic (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

I I Coloured plataa and/or illuatrationa/

Planchaa at/ou illuatrationa an couleur

Bound with other material/
RallA avac d'autres documents

Tight binding may causa shadowa or distortion
along interior margin/

La re liure serrte peut cauaar da I'ombre ou de la
diatortion la long da la marge int^rieure

Blank leavaa added during reatoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II aa peut que certainaa pagaa blanches aJoutAaa
lore d'una reatauration apparaiaaant dans la taxte,
mala, ioraqua cela Atait poaaibia, cea pagaa n'ont
paa «t« filmtes.

Additional commenta:/
Commentairea supplAmantairaa:

Various pagiiigs.

L'Inatitut a microfilm^ la mailleur exemplaira
qu'il lui a tt6 possible de aa procurer. Lea dAtaila
da cat exemplaira qui sont paut-Atre uniquea du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la m^thoda normala de filmaga
aont indiquAa ci-daaaoua.

I I Coloured pagaa/

Pagaa da couleur

Pagaa damaged/
Pagaa endommagtea

□ Pagaa restored and/or laminated/
Pagaa restaurAea at/ou pellicuMes

Pagaa discoloured, atainad or foxed/
Pagaa dteolorAas, tachettea ou piqu6aa

□ Pagaa detached/
Pagaa d^tachtes

Showthrouglv
Tranaparance

Quality of prir

Qualit^ in^gaia da rimprassion

Includes supplementary matarii
Comprend du material auppMmantaira

Only edition available/
Saula MItion diaponibia

FTI Showthrough/

I I , Quality of print variaa/

I I Includaa supplementary material/

r~n Only edition available/

Pagaa wholly or partially obacurad by errata
slips, tissuea, etc., have been rafilmad to
ensure the best possible image/
Lea pagaa totalament ou partiallement
obscurcies par un feulllet d'errata, una pelure,
etc., ont At* filmAea A nouveau da fapon A
obtanir la maillaure image poaaibia.

Tl
po
of
fil

Or
ba
th
sit
ot
fir
si(
or

Th
sh
Til
wl

Ml
dif
em
bet
rigl
rec;
ma

Thia item la filmed at tha reduction ratio checked below/

Ca document eat film* au taux da reduction indiquA ci-daaaoua.

10X

14X

18X

22X

2BX

30X

12X

1SX

20X

a4x

2BX

32X

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

Univanity of Windier
Law Library

L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce A la
gAnirosit* de:

Univanity of Windsor
Law Library

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed papsr covers ere filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol ^»> (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

ISAaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method :

Les images suivantes ont At* reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at
de la nettet* de l'exemplaire film*, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmege.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimte sent filmte en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'iilustration, soit par le second
plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sent filmte en commenpant par la
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'iilustration et en terminant par
la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la
derniire image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols -^^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbols ▼ signifie "FIN".

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre
filmte A des taux de reduction diff«rents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre
reproduit en un seul clichA, 11 est filmA A partir
de I'angle supArieur gauche, de geuche A droite,
et de heut en bes, en prenant le nombre
d'imageb nAcesssire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mAthode.

EVIDENCE

VOR

THE UNITED STATES

IN THE MATTBR OF THE CLAIM OP THK

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY,

PRNDTNG BEFORE THR

BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION.

FOK THE

FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIMS

OF THE

HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGEfS SOUND AQBICULMAL C0IPANIK8.

WASHINGTON, D. C. :

VOILL * WITHKROW, PRINTERS AND aTBBBOTYPBM.

1867.

INDEX TO WITNESSES.

.... , Pauk.

Arlams, Tlioinas 112

AMon, J. Madison 551

Allen, Edwar.l Tay 305

Alvord, Benjamin 350

Atkinson, Robert J 181

AugurC.C. 101

Barnes, Tosepli K 09

fain, Andrew J 222

Davidson, rjeorge 305

Powell, Benjamin 357

^iardner, Alexander , 319

Gardner, diaries T 320

riardner, (leorge Clinton 191, 521

(lililis, Oeorge 3;;9

flil.son, William 371

(lilisnn, William Huff , 1()5

flilpin. William .330

fi ranger, (iordon , 37S

Grant, Ulysses H ]i]

Ifardie, Tames A 10(>

Harrison, Alexander M 312

Howard, W. A (JO

Hudson, Francis , 339

Huntington 145

Ingalls, Kufus 1, 521

MacFeely, Robert ILS

McKeever, Chaunoey 77

McMurtrie, William B 371

Moses, Simpson P. 327

Nelson, Tiiomas 8G

Nesniith, James W 23

Noble, John F 394

Teale, Titian R 344

rieasonton, Alfred 134

Reno, Marcus A 208

.Slieridan, Philip H 2H«

Shoemaker, George W 251

Simpson, George B 2t)0

IV.

INDEX TO WITNESSES.

• Paob.

Smitli. Andrew J 83

Steinberger, Justus 50

Suckley, George 540

Swan, James G 342

Terry, William J 390

Thompson, Lewis S 217

Vinton, David H .' 129

Wagner, Charles B.. 50

Wilkes, Charlea 274

BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION

HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL-
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS.

In (he matter of the Claim of the Hudson^ s Bay Company vs.
the United States of America.

Depositions of witnesses sworn and examined in the city of
Washington, District of Columbia, by virtue of an agree-
ment between Eben F. Stone, Agent and Attorney for
the United States of America, and Edward Lander, Agent
and Attorney for the Hudson's Bay Company, before me,
Nicholas Callan, a Notary Public in and for the county
of Washington, and District of Columbia, on the part of
the United States.

Testimony of Rufus Ingalls.

Brevet Major General Rufus Ingalh, United States Volunteers^
being duly sworn according to law, says:

Int. 1. — What is your name, age, place of residence, and
occupation?

Ans. — Rufus Ingalls ; forty-five yeafs of age ; occupation
that of brevet major general United States Volunteers, quar-
termaster in regular service; place of residence Washington
city. District of Columbia.

Int. 2. — Have you ever resided in Washington Territory;
if yea, when and where, for how long a period, and what was
your employment?

Ans. — I went to Fort Vancouver in May, 1849, and was
Chief Quartermaster of that military department until 1852.
I was absent until March, 1856, and was from that period the
principal quartermaster until 1860. '

Int. 3. — Are you acquainted with the post at Vancouver

and the land adjoining, Mliich is claimed by the Hudson's Bay
Company ?

A)i8. — I am.

Int. 4. — Please to examine the map, hero produced, and
state whether it is, in your judgment, a correct delineation of
the post at Vancouver and of the country adjoining.

Ans. — It appears to be.

I7it. 5. — Please to describe, as particularly as you can, by
reference to said map or otherwise, the extent of the claim of
the said Company, at said post, giving the limits thereof, ter-
ritorially, as nearly as you can, as you understand them.

(Objecte<l to in this form, so far as the witness' personal
knowledge from the time of his arrival at Fort Vancouver.)

Ans. — It has never come before me officially, and of course
I can only answer from what I learned by conversation. In
the fall of 1849, General Persifer F. Smith, who commanded
the Department of the Pacific, was at Fort Vancouver. It
was a matter of complaint by Governor Ogden, Chief Factor
of the Hudson's Bay Company, to General Smith, that his
lands were being squatted upon by the settlers, and in that
way I came to know about their claims. The object was to
get protection from the military authorities. From his rep-
resentation, the Hudson's Bay Company claimed a region of
country embracing some twenty-five miles upon the Columl ia
river, begining above what was known as the Hudson's Bay
Company's Saw Mills, and extending down to or nearly to the
Cathlapootl river, and some eight or ten miles inland.

Int. 6. — How much of this claim, as set up by Governor
Ogden, if any, was in fact enclosed or occupied by the said
Company while you were there. Please to answer this as par-
ticularly as you can, by reference to the map or otherwise.

Ans. — There was a very small portion of the whole claim
actually enclosed. There was a large enclosure on the Mill
Plain, of what extent I don't now know. There were quite
extensive enclosures in and about Fort Vancouver, and also
upon the Lower Plain about Vancouver Lake. There were
enclosures also upon what is called the Fourth Plain. With
regard to the whole claim, the amount enclosed was very

small. Tlic proportion of the whole really occupied and used
was small. A large proportion of the whole was shortly after
occupied and held by citizens of the United States.

Int. 7. — What sort of occupation, if any, did the Hudson's
Bay Company have of that post of their asserted claim which
was not enclosed ?

Ann. — The same that any other company or people might
have had or did have; not exclusive control.

Int. 8. — Does the description which you have given of the
nature of the occupation of the lands claimed by the Company
at Vancouver apply to the condition of the claim subsequent
to the settlement of the land by settlers; if not, to what does
it apply?

Ans. — No; it does not. It applies more particularly to
the time when I arrived there, in 1848, although there were
quite a number of people settled within the limits of the claim
at that time.

Int. 9. — What were the condition and character of the claim
of the Company at this post in 18GC?
J| Ans. — When I left the Hudson's Bay Company had with-

drawn from the Territory. The lands which the Company
claimed were in occupation by the citizens of the United
States and the military authorities.

Int. 10. — Did any change take place in the occupation of
the Company at this post while you were there, in respect to
the extent of the land actually occupied by them previous to
their abandonment of this post? If yea, please to describe the
same particularly.

Ans. — When I arrived there, in 1849, the Company was in
occupation of the enclosures, &c., described in a former answer.
They were gradually absorbed by increasing settlements,
until at last the occupation was reduced very nearly to the
stockade, when the Company retired.

Int. 11. — What was the condition of the buildings and im-
provements at this post belonging to the Company when you
left, in 18G0?

Ans. — Very dilapidated.

Int. 12. — Can you enumerate and describe the buildings

which belonged to the Company at this post, when you left, in
1800? If yea, please to do so as nearly as you can.

Ans, — There were three large store-houses still standing;
the office attii the Governor's house; the Indian store-hotise;
the blacksmith shop and the Bachelor's Row, the place where
the clerks resided, and some other buildings; I don't know
that I ca*. state them exactly. All of them were in a worn-
out condition, so much so that the Government did not see fit
to occupy any of them at that time. One of the large store-
houses I had already pulled down, and was proceeding to take
down most, if not all, and to clear the grounds; but the work
was suspended by order of Colonel Wright, who succeeded
General Ilarncy. I have named the important buildings, but
don't undertake to name them all.

Int. 13. — Were those buildings, which you have named,
standing when you first went there, if yea, how did their con-
dition, when you first saw them, compare with their condition
at the time you have described?

Ans. — They were standing when I first went there in 184U.
Their condition was worse every succeeding year.

Int. 14. — Were any additions, or extensive alterations, or
repairs made by the Company to their buildings and improve-
ments at this post while you were acquainted Avith them ; if
yea, what?

Ans. — The Company made frequent repairs of the buildings
and stockade and of their enclosures, but no material addi-
tions.

Int. 15. — What use, if any, did the Company make of this
post while you were there?

Ans. — It was essentially a mercantile establishment. They
did some farming and bought some furs, but it was really
engaged in general trade.

Int. 16. — Did the Company have any horses or cattle at this
post while you were there; if any, how many?

Ans. — They had quite a number of horses and cattle when
I first arrived there. The number was an estimated one, not
known to certainty. I do not know the number myself.

Int. 17. — What were the relations between the United States

left, in

I tiding;
■house;
) where
t know
a worn-
t sec fit
e store-
to take
ic work
Bceeded
igs, but

named,
eir con-
jndition

,n 184i).

ions, or
mprove-
icm ; if

uildings
il addi-

I of this

They
really

e at this

le when
)ne, not
If.
1 States

troops and the Company, friendly or otherwise, while you
were there?

Ans. — Always very friendly. The different commanders
gave all assistance to and protection necessary to the Com])any
within their power.

l)it. 18. — Did the United States have a military station at
Vancouver while you were there, if yea, when and where was
it established in reference to the claim of the Company?

Ahs. — Tliey did have all the time I was there. It was
established in May, 1849, and has been continued to this day
at Vancouver itself. The military reservation included the
stockade, which contained all the buildings, heretofore de-
scribed, within its limits. The oi'Jitary post itself was mainly
JB built on the hill, just in rear of tho itockade, but in immediate
proximity thereto, with the consent and upon the invitation
of Governor Ogden, then (' of factor and in charge of the
,, Hudson's Bay Company's interest at that place.

Int. 19. — Did the Company, in your knowledge, ever object
to the use and occupation of any part of the land included in
this military reservation by the United States troops, if yea,
when, and how and to what part ?

Ans. — Finally it did at different times in writing. I know
of none that were not made officially in writing.

Int. 20. — How did the character of tho Company's buildings
at this post compare with the buildings belonging to the United
States military post there?

Ans. — They were of an inferior character.

Int. 21. — What, in your judgment, was the value of the
buildings and improvements belonging to the Hudson's Bay
Company at this post, at the time you last saw them in 18G0?

Ans. — Speaking as a military officer, I did not consider
them of any real value, that is, they were of no value to the
United States. What improvements they had in the fall of
1860 were in the midst of a militai-y reservation, and had been
abandoned by the Company. The military authorities wished
to make no use of th^^m, would rather have been glad to have
had the ground cleared of them, and of course would not have

permitted private parties to occupy them, hence my estimate
of their value.

////. 22. —What effect, if any, did the settlements of the
country in Washington and Oregon Territories have on the
fur trade with the Indians?

A)i8. — Undoubtedly it decreased it.

Int. 23. — Were or were not the buildings and improvements
erected by the Company at Vancouver adapted to the purposes
of ordinary trade and commerce with a peaceful people, or
were designed principally for protection and defence against
tribes of Indians who were liable at times to be hostile?

(Objected to, as leading and directing the witness as to his
answer.)

A718. — In that early period the buildings within the stock-
ade were well enough adapted for trade in that country, but
the establishment was built as well for defence.

I7it. 24. — How far, in your judgment, was the whole of
these buildings and erections reduced in value by the fact
that they were no longer needed for a place of defence?

Ans. — I don't know that the value was materially reduced
on that account. The establishment of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany finally became of little or no value as a trading post on
account of the rapid settlement and prosperity of the country.

Int. 25. — How did the rapid settlement and prosperity of
the country materially reduce the value of this establishment
at Vancouver? Please to explain as fully as you can.

Ans. — The settlement of the country brought about many
competing trading establishments at various points, with whom
the Hudson's Bay Company could hardly succeed. The fur
trade of Oregon and Washington Territories was never a pro-
lific source of profit. It gradually fell to nothing. The set-
tlement of the country had reduced the establishment to very
narrow limits, and little or no trade.

Int. 26. — What was the value of land at Vancouver and
its vicinity when you were there in 1860, and how did its value
at that timo compare with its value in 1849?

Ans. — The value of lands at Vancouver in 1860 was greater
than in 1849, but its value per acre at either time depended

'v estimate

nts of the
avc on the

rovcments

purposes
people, or
;e against
tile?

as to his

the stock-
iJ'try, but

wliole of
the fact
ce?

1 reduced
'ay Com-
post on

country.
)erity of
ishment

t many
whom
The fur
' a pro-
'he set-
to very

er and
s value

;i'eater
►ended

altogether on the particular location. I don't know, and no
one can tell, the value of the land included in the military
reservation, none having been bought or sold. In the town
of Vancouver in 1860 land was worth from one hundred to
one thousand dollars per acre. In 184*J this town was unoc-
cupied altogether, and was mostly a forest. In 18G0 I pur-
chased some ten acres of land in Vancouver, at what I consid-
ered the most eligible point on the river, for one thousand
dollars, and during the present year have sold it for the same,
not being able ever to get more than that sum. It was situated
in the lower part of the town of Vancouver, about a half of a
mile below what was known as the Hudson's Bay Company's
salmon-house. The value of lands away from the river was
much less.

Int. 27. — Was there any material change in the value of
land at Vancouver and in its vicinity between 1800 and 1863
to your knowledge ; if yea, what was it ?

Ans. — No; I don't think that there was. I made verv fre-
quent inquiries and could not ascertain that there was any
increased value.

Int. 28. — What should you consider was the value of one
mile square at Fort Vancouver fronting on the river, selecting
the most favorable location, in 1860?

Ans. — It would be hard to say, because that would include
the military reservation, the mission claims, and the town of
Vancouver. The town has had its existence since 1840. In
1860 property was held in the town at various prices. I don't
know that I could fix an estimate price upon it. Its value
would have been very much greater, and the place of much
higher importance, had it not been for the opposition to settle-
ment on the part of the Hudson's Bay Company in the earlier
years.

Int. 29. — What were the relations between the Hudson's
Bay Company and the settlers in the vicinity of their post at
Vancouver when you first went there, and what was the policy
of the Company towards those persons who settled or at-
tempted to settle there ?

Ans. — The Hudson's Bay Company opposed settlement so

(■Ml

far as in their power within the limits of their claim. The rela-
tion, therefore, was generally a hostile one.

Int. 30. — What eft'ect, in your opinion, did this policy have
on the growth and prosperity of the toAvn of Vancouver?

An8. — It retarded it irameasuraijly. Had there been no
opposition, the town of Vancouver, in my opinion, would have
been the principal one on the Columbia river or its branches,
between the coast and the Cascade mountains. But when the
settlement was finally made, Portland was already a flourish-
ing city, and so near by that Vancouver has never flourished
much.

Int. 31. — In the present condition of aff"airs in the country
west of the Cascades, having regard to the present course
of trade and the existing adverse influences, is it, in your
opinion, possible to build up at present a large town at Van-
couver?

Ans — I do not think so; that is, I think it is improbable that
a large town can be built there.

Int. 32. — Are not the high prices which have been charged
for building lots at Vancouver founded on the anticipation of
a state of facts which in your opinion [will] never be realized?

An8. — Altogether so.

Int. 33. — Has not the experience of the last five years tended
to confirm you in your opinion, and are not the lands there
worth, if anything, less than they were at one time, which is
past?

(This question and the preceding one in reference to the
opinion of the witness objected to.)

Ans. — I have not been to that place during the past five
years, but from all the information within my reach I am of
opinion that the lands there would have been sold at one time
higher than now.

Int. 34. — If you know, please to state in what mode the
Company paid their employes for labor, whether in cash or
goods?

Ans. — Principally in goods.

Int. 35. — If you know, please to state the prevailing price

of wages and building materials at Vancouver in 1849 and
subsequently.

Ans. — The prices were much higher in 1849 and 1850 than
subsequently. The prices declined from that period. Labor
was from two to eight dollars per day, some classes even higher
than that. Lumber was from forty to one hundred dollars per
thousand in 1849 and 1850; all prices gradually declined there-
after. What I say in regard to the laborers does not include
the employes of the Hudson's Bay Company. The discovery
of gold and the necessity for building materials, and its scar-
city, conduced to the high price of labor and material at that
time.

Int. 36. — State, if you know, what was the character of the
labor employed by the Hudson's Bay Company.

Ads. — Those at Vancouver were mostly Canadians who had
long been in the service of the Company, half-breed Indians,
and Kanakas, and full-blood Indians temporarily employed.

Int. 37. — What was the policy pursued by the Company to-
wards the Indians, so far as you know, and what services, if
any, by way of religious instruction or otherwise, did they
render in their behalf?

Ans. — Their policy towards the Indians was a very proper
and good one. On our arrival in that country the Indians were
everywhere peaceable, and there seemed to be mutual confi-
dence between the Indians and the Company. I am not aware
of the Company's contributing much to the education of the
Indians. Their course towards the Indians was one of great
philanthropy.

Int. 38. — What services, if any, were rendered by the Com-
pany in promoting the settlement of the country by building
roads or furnishing other facilities for the useabd convenience
of settlers?

Ans. — Of my own personal knowledge I do not remember
that from 1849 the Company did much service that way. On
the contrary, the Company opposed settlements in its vicinity.

Int. 39. — You have stated that the treatment of the Indians
by the CoMipany was humane and philanthropical ; do you

I!!

know whether they exerted themselves to cause a kindly feel-
ing on the part of the Indians towards settlers?

Ans. — I don't know that they exerted anything but good
influence.

Int. 40. — Was the land at Vancouver, which was enclosed
and occupied by the Company, injured or improved by culti-
vation?

Ans. — I should suppose improved.

Int. 41. — Is the land at Vancouver overflowed in the spring
or summer; if yea, how docs this fact aff"ect the value of land
there for farming purposes ?

An.^. — The lands in Vancouver and along the bottoms of
the river generally are liable to inundation in May or June,
which makes them of precarious value for farming purposes.

Int. 42. — Have you ever visited any of the posts of the
Hudson's Bay Company in North America; if yea, where?

Ans. — I have seen their establishment at Astoria or Fort
George, at Cape Disappointment, and upon the Cowlitz and
Puget's Sound.

Int. 43. — Are you sufficiently acquainted with any of these
posts to give a description of their character and value ; if
yea, please to describe them as particularly as you can ?

Ans. — All these places were subordinate trading stations to
that at Vancouver, most of them consisting of two or three
inferior buildings. They were never of any great value as
improvements, and would have been of no practical value to
the Government. They answered simply for the passing
accommodation of the Company, and were good for nothing
else.

Int. 44, — You have stated that the relations betAveen the
Company and the United States officers were friendly. Doea
this apply to the entire time that you were there, or did a
change occur before you left in the conduct of the officers of
the Company in relation to the acts of the United States
officers ?

Ans. — I mean that the personal relations were quite friendly
always, but the official relations during the last year of the

11.

iiully foel-

but good

} enclosed
I by culti-

t'le f^pring
lie of land

ottorns of
or June,
lurposes.
Its of the
, where?
I or Fort
wlitz and

r of these

value ; if

an ?

:ations to
or three
value as
value to
passing
nothing

i^een the
Does
)r did a
fficers of
i States

friendly
of the

Company's stay at Vancouver were hostile on the part of the
Company.

Int. 4r>. — Please to state whether or not any acts of aggres-
sion on the rights of the Hudson's Bi»y Company have, to your
knowle(lii;e, ever been committed by the civil or military offi-
cers of the United States?

Ans. — It depends altogether on circumstances whether or
IJ not the Hudson's Bay Company were entitled to what they

laid claim to. It was uniformly the expressed desire of the
military authorities of the United States to protect the Hud-
son's Bay Company in their possessory rights, particularly up
to the time their charter terminated. It is undeniable that
lands which the Company claimed were taken and made use of
by citizens of the United States.

Int. 4G. — Please to state, as nearly as you can, the number
of vessels that yearly came to Vancouver from abroad, while
you were there, that were owned or controlled by the Hudson
Bay Company ?
JB Ans. — I never kept any record, but I should say never to

^ exceed four, and rarely more than two. Probably one of the

vessels referred to might have made various trips between
Vancouver's Island and Columbia river. I don't know ever
to have exceeded two from abroad in any one year.

Cross-Examination.

Int. 1. — Was there not in the vicinity of the post of the
Hudson's Bay Company at Vancouver an amount of land,
which, though not enclosed in 1849, bore marks of previous
cultivation?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 2. — Was there not raised in the vicinity of Vancouver
a considerable amount of hay from tame grasses sown previous
to your arrival in that country in 1849?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 3. — You speak of the Company not having exclusive
control of the unenclosed lands, you mean by that, I suppose,
to refer only to the period subsequent to your arrival there in

ii;, :

it!

tl;
ill

ili

1849, and to the conduct and encroachments of American
citizens claiming and exercising the right to settle in 1849 on
lands claimed by the Company?

(The word encroachment objected to.)

Ans. — I refer to that period exclusively. When I said they
had not exclusive control over unenclosed lands, I meant that
the military and the citizens who had settled in the neighbor-
hood, as well as the Indians, made use of these unenclosed
portions at will.

Int. 4. — Do you know anything of citizens settling on unen-
closed lands being warned oflF or notified to leave by the agents
of the Company?

Ans. — Yes, it was done by the military as well as the Com-
pany when the settlers came on the military reservation. At
the time I speak of, during my first tour from 1849 to 1852,
the military reservation consisted of four miles square, the
flag-staff at the post at Fort Vancouver being the centre.

Int. 5. — In your testimony you state that the Company at
the time of leaving Vancouver abandoned all their posts on
the American side. Do you feel certain that Colvile, Okana-
gan, the Kootenay, and Flatheads were left by them at that
time?

Ans. — I was told they were. With regard to Kootenay I
no not know, but I understood they were abandoned. With
regard to Fort Colvile I have always understood it was just
north of the 49th parallel.

Int. G. — Were not most of the buildings used for oflicers'
quarters at the military post at Vancouver built of logs or
square timber, and were they not comfortable and convenient
quarters ?

Ans. — They were, all of them, originally built of logs, ex-
cept the quarters occupied by myself, and were considered at
that time and place quite comfortable?

Int. 7. — Can you give the approximate cost of the largest
of these buildings and its dimensions, and the cost of an
average building?

Ans. — In my report at that period, I think I put down the
commanding oflicer's quarters at $7,500, and the smaller ones

American
n 1849 on

said they
leant that
nciglibor-
ncnclosed

;on unen-
lie agents

the Com-
;ion. At

to 1852,
uare, the
itre.
npany at

posts on
, Okana-
at that

otenay I
With
was just

officers'

logs or

tvenient

ogs, ex-
lered at

largest
of an

wn the
sr ones

on the right and left of it at $2,500 each. Subsequently
heavy expenses were incurred in fitting them up. I don't
know tliat I can give the cost, but it would bring the smaller
ones up to seven or eight thousand dollars a-piecc. It would
have been a great deal cheaper to have built houses of the
same dimensions framed and finished ofi'in the ordinary way
than to have made these repairs.

Int. 8. — Does this cost include the work done by soldiers or
only the work done by mechanics?

Ans. — It includes worl^one by soldiers when they were on
extra duty, as most of those employed were, at what the Gov-
ernment allowed at that period, not exceeding fifty cents a day
for carpenters and bricklayers. The groat majority of all the
work done was performed by citizen labor?

Int. 9. — Did not the want of the clapboards and paint give
the Company's buildings at their fort an old and dilapidated
appearance ?

Ans. — Yes ; undoubtedly it contributed to it.

Int. 10. — Did not the families of th*e military officers of the
United States seek shelter in the Indian war in 1855 and 1856
within the buildings of the Company ?

Ans. — I belive on one or two occasions a portion of them
did.

Int. 11. — What do you know of the women and families of
the settlers during the same war having come into the Com-
pany's fort nightly for protection?

Ans. — Some may have come into the Company's fort, but
the great majority of the settlers were encamped near the
bank of the river, on the edge of the present town and near
the salmon-house. I regarded them as under the protection
of the United States military authorities. The Hudson's Bay
Company on that occasion co-operated cheerfully and to the
fullest extent with the military authorities in the defence of
Vancouver.

Int. 12, — In stating what you have in reference to the fur
trade of the Company, have you learned this from the books
of the Company, or is it merely your own opinion ?

In:

i
I

i'li

V\ •'
Ji

'ill

Ans. — It is from what I have heard from various sources.
I never have had any access to the books of the Company at all,
but have heard it remarked by members of the Company and
other persons.

Int. 13. — You have spoken of the overflow of the river. Is
not the portion of the land overflowed in ordinary freshets on
the mile-square, designated on the map as the Mission claim,
which includes the front of the military reservation, the site
of the old fort of the Company and much of the present town,
very small, and does not this overflow improve rather than injure
the grass, mowing lands, and pasturage?

Ans. — The amount actually overflowed ordinarily is small.
No, I believe it does not improve the grass-mowing lands and
pasturages. This overflow happens at a season destructive to
the growth on the portions overflowed.

Int. 14. — Are the farming lands of the river banks over-
flowed every year; and is it not rather an unusual circumstance
for the water to be high enough to damage the crops on the
land commonly cultivated ?

Ans. — Yes ; unusual, happening hardly ever more than twice
in ten years, though liable to happen every year when the
snows on the main sources of the Columbia melt simul-
taneously.

Int. 15. — What is the effect of this overflow on the soil
where it occurs?

Ans. — Beneficial, rather than otherwise, as the sediment is
of alluvial character.

Int. 10. — Is not the greater part of the Company's claim
free from this overflow, and is it not confined to a portion of
the land bordering on the river above?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 17. — At what time did you first see the Company's
place at the mouth of the Cowlitz ; also, at what time those
at Fort George and Astoria and Cape Disappointment?

Ans. — I saw those at Cape Disappointment and Astoria first
in May, 18-49; those on the Cowlitz, near its mouth, in 1850;
those above and on the sound, in 1857.

■i'i.

■4

'-I

Int. 18. — How long were you at Astoria and Cape Disap-
poiiitineiit and in Baker's Bay?

Ann. — In 1849 I was in Baker's Bay one or two days, on
shore several hours, walked all over the place, and was at Asto-
ria several days on many occasions from 1840 to 1852.

Int. 10. — Can you say from your recollection that there were
not at Astaria in 1849 three dwelling-houses and a store?

Ann. — I have no doubt that there Avas that number.

Int. 20. — Is it your recollection that the buildings at the
Cowlitz farms and at Nisqually were merely for the purpose
of the passing accommodation of the Company's officers ; do
you not, on calling them again to mind, recollect that at the
Cowlitz Prairie the buildings were large and substantial, and
so also at Nisqually ?

Ans. — According to my understanding all those places were
for the passing or temporary accommodation of the Company,
though several of the buildiiif;s were large in order to afford
the necessary accommodations for the farming and other opera-
tions conducted by the Company.

Int. 21. — AVlien you last saw Cape Disappointment was there
not a light-house, fort, and other buildings there, erected by
the Government of the United States?

Ans. — Wiien I last saw it 18G0 there was a light-house, but
no fort.

Int. 22. — In reply to a question as to acts of transgression,
you have stated that up the time their charter terminated it
was the desire of the military authorities to protect the Com-
pany. What do you mean by the expiration of the charter,
and was there any care after that time as to their rights?

Ans. — I had always understood that what was known as the
charter of the Hudson's Bay Company expired on the thir-
tieth May, 1859, and that whatever rights or privileges were
accorded them afterwards was by favor of the United States
Government. This was substantially stated to the chief agent
of the Company in charge at Vancouver in 1860 by General
Harney. They were not disturbed or threatened to be inside
of their stockade by the military authorities, but every cour-

it.il I'

tesy offered up to the time when Mr. Dallas informed General
Harney that the Company would retire from the Territory.

RuFUS Ingalls,
Brevet Major General VoU. and Q. M. U. S. A.
Washington City, D. C, 3Iay 1th, 1867.

;t;l

Becalled.

; 1 ! .

1 • I

0!|i

Int. 23. — Were there not several buildings, large and small,
used occasionally for ordnance and hospital purposes, and for
dwelling-houses, &c., outside the stockades and enclosures of
the Company at Fort Vancouver by the military authorities,
and for which rent was paid to the Hudson's Bay Company
during most of the time you resided as quartermaster at Fort
Vancouver ?

Ans. — Yes, there were. Before the Government had time
to erect the necessary buildings I rented some of the Company*
In 1849 I rented two large unfinished houses outside of the
stockade, and repaired them so as to subserve a useful pur-
pose. Afterwards I rented some others, but long before I left
there these buildings were given up, and the Government had
erected good and sufficient ones of its own.

Int. 24. — Was there not also a large building inside of the
fort know^n as the quartermaster and commissary store, rented
in the same manner from the Company?

Ans. — Yes, there was. I rented and used it as a storehouse
for the quartermaster and commissary departments. But I
shortly afterwards built a fine wharf and large storehouses on
the bank of the river, and this building was restored to the
Company. When I left in 1860 it had been pulled down. It
was old and of no value to the Government.

;itli

Examination-in- Chief Resumed.

Int. 1. — Did you or not, while at Vancouver, observe the
policy of the Company in regard to the settlement of the coun-

General
ritory.

U. S. A.

nd small,
, and for
osures of
thorities,
Company
r at Fort

try by American citizens? If yea, please to describe that
policy, and state whether or not, in your opinion, it was, in
this rejiaid, favorable or otherwise.

Ann. — The policy of the Company towards American set-
tlers was highly selfish and exclusive, especially so in and
near their establishments and claims. The Company rendered
much aid, I am told, to the early settlers by selling them food,
clothes, and articles of husbandry on credit; but it was for
the interest of the Company to do so. Settlements on lands
claimed by the Company were always discouraged and opposed,
and Avhat is now Washington Territory has suffered much since
1846 on account of the presence of the Conipany. Settlements
have been retarded and titles to lands withheld and confused.

RuFUS Ingall.^,
Brevet Major General and Q. M. U. S. A.

had time
/ompany-
ie of the
jful pur-
HVG I loft
Dent had

of the
rented

^rehouse
But I
ouses on
d to the
wn. It

rve the
■be coun*

Testimony of Lieutenant General U. S. Grant.

Lieutenant General U. S. Grant, being duly sworn according
to law, says:

Int. 1. — Have you ever resided in any part of Washington
Territory? It yea, when, at what place or places, and how
long at each place.

Ans. — I was stationed al Fort Vancouver, as an officer of
the United States army, from about the last of September,
1852, to about the same time in 1853, nearly a year in all.
I never lived at any other time in Washington Territory nor
at any other place.

Int. 2. — Are you acquainted with the land and buildings at
and near Vancouver, which are claimed by the Hudson Bay
Company? If yea, please to describe and define, by reference
to this map, here produced, or otherwise, as particularly as
you can, the location and limits of this claim.

Ans. — I am well acquainted with all the lands about Van-
couver. I am not acquainted with the boundaries of the Com-
pany's claim. I know the buildings and enclosures of their
2C

•I "I;

\ ' <■

iiii

:i'!;i

■' '

claim in tliat noigliborhood. I have 1»com all around there, but
have no i<lea of the number of acres enclosed.

Int. 3. — Were all the lands at this place, which were claimed
by the Company, occupied exclusively by them? If not, please
to describe, as nearly as you can, those portions of this claim
which were enclosed, or of which they had exclusive possession
when you were there.

Ans. — Hack of the saw-mill there was a large enclosure, and
then within the reservation thev had small enclosures around
their houses; and then, just above where the buildings were,
they hatl a large field, I think about forty to fifty acres. I
cultivated potatoes in that field myself, by permission of the
Hudson's May Company.

Int. 4. — How were these portions of their claim at this post,
of which they had not exclusive possession, occupied by them,
if at all?

Ans. — I don't think they were occupied at all. There was,
below the reservation, a man by the n ime of Malick, one
named Short, one named Byles, and tw others, whose names
I have forgotten, who held claims and were cultivating them.
There may have been others, but I remember only those I
have mentioned. On the lands outside of the enclosures any
man could let his stock run. I don't know that the Hudson's
Bay Company had any loose stock on it; they may have had.
I meant by loose stock, that which they were not using.

Int. 5. — Did any other persons, other than those who be-
longed to this Company, occupy those portions of their claim
which were not enclosed; if yea, who, and in what respect did
the occupation of such persons diifer, if in any respect, from
the occupation of the Company?

Ana. — Any one that had stock could use the unenclosed
ground; the Hudson's Bay Company did not have exclusive
privileges on it.

Int. 6. — Where there any visible marks or objects to define
the extent of the claim of the Company at this place, to your
knowledge; if yea, please to describe them.

Ans. — There were none to my knowledge. Going back to
one of the former questions : There was on the Fourth Plain

)re, but

;laimcd
, please
s fluim
sscssion

lire, and

around

js wern,

LTCS. I

I of the

his post,
jy them,

lerc was,
ick, one
e names

II them,
those I
res any
uds )n's

live had.

■m

'g-
Iwlio be-

nv chiim

;pect did

let, from

inclosed
:clusive

lo define
1 to your

back to
h Plain

.-^

one Covington, wlio occupied a claim, and may own it now.
I don't know who enclosed this, Mr. f'ovin};ton or the Hud-
son's Hiiy Company. IIo may have obtained possession from
the Hudson's IJay Company.

Jnt. 7. — You have stated that there were no visible marks
of the boundaries of their claim to your knowlcd;;e; did you
while there, fre(iuently ride in one direction and another, so
that if there liad been any monuments or landmarks in the
vicinity of the fort you would have been likely to have no-
ticed them?

(Objected to as leading and argumentative, and directing
the witness as to his answer.)

Am. — I was in the habit of riding out on every roatl I could
find; I never saw anything to mark any claim, except what
was enclosed.

Inf. 8. — What was the character of the land which was in-
oludr t in this claim of the Company? What portion of it, if
any, was good tillage land ; what portion, if any, was good
grazing land; what portion, if any, was wood-land, and what
was the value of each portion respectively ? State as fully as
you can.

Alts. — The great majority of the bottom land was subject to
overflow, in the months of June and July, and for that rea-
son was not susceptible of cultivation, but was good grazing
land. That not subject to overflow was principally densely
wooded, and my impression of it at the time was it was very
poor, if cleared. These plains were comparatively small
prairies, in this densely wooded country, and were susceptible
of cultivation. The woodland was, I think, not worth any-
thing, except the value given to it by settlement. It could
not be worth anything to the Hudson Bay Company, as a
tradiiig post among the Indians. The tillable land and over-
flowed bottom laud could have been of value to them in sup-
plying provisions, and for ^razing all the stock it was neces-
sary for them to keep. How much per acre it was worth for
that purpose I don't feel competent to judge. To the Hud-
son's Bay Campany, as a trading Company, this land had value
in supplying food and grazing stock for their use, for what-

ever niimbT of men they may have found necessary to keep at
the place ; they could have raised provisions for them, bread,
meat, and vegetables. In my opinion, the land was worth to
them, as a trading Company, the difference between the cost
of the production of these articles at home and the cost of
buying them elsewhere and importing them. I give this
simply as an individual opinion, and not as a positive estimate
of the value of the land.

Int. 9. — Supposing that the claim of the Company extends
from six to eight miles above the Tort on the one side to the
Cathlapootl, or Lewes River, on the other, and back from the
Columbia lliver, for the space of eight to ten miles, does the
description which you have given of the character of their
claim apply to this extent of territory ?

Ans. — I didn't know the extent of their claim, but answered
only for a number of miles of that portion around Fort Van-
couver, where they had roads, and which I travelled over. I
have been about six miles down the river.

Int. 10. — Please to enumerate and describe as fully as you
can the different buildings at this post which were occupied
by the Hudson Bay Company, when you were there, and their
condition and value at that time.

Ans. — I can't describe them very well. They had a mill,
store-houses, &c. I should think they had buildings sufficient
to accommodate about two hundred people, besides the large
store-houses for selling goods, storing provisions, granaries,
saw and grist-mills. The buildings were chiefly of wood, some
of them, not all, were made of hewn timber, about six inches
thick, set down between upright p eces, fitting in a groove
made in the upright pieces, either by nailing on pieces of
plank, or by an actual groove set in these upright pieces.
This is my recollection of them, I won't be positive. The
buildings looked ab though they had been in use for many years,
but were still substantial, and would have answered for many
years with ordinary repairs. In regard to their value, I
could not make any estimate. They were buildings a com-
pany of troops could put up very rapidly, finding the mate-
rials near at hand, as was the case at Fort Vancouver.

to keep at
em, bread,
s worth to
n the cost
he cost of
give this
c cfstimate

y extends
idc to the
[ from the
i, does the
r of their

answered
Fort Van-
1 over. I

lly as you
occupied
and their

id a mill,
sufficient
the large
granaries,
ood, some
six inches
a groove
pieces of
it pieces,
ive. The
my years,
for many
value, I
;s a corn-
he mate-
3r.

Int. 11. — While you were there, what was the character of
the relations subsisting between the officers of the Hudson's
Bay Company and the officers of the United States — friendly
or otherwise ?

Ans. — It was very friendly while I was there.

Cross-Examination.

Int. 1. — Is not all the testimony you have given on this
matter confined to your personal knoAvledge there in the year
you spent there?

Ans. — It is.

Int. 2. — Was not the only overflow of the river you know
anything about that of the summer of 1853?

Ans. — Yes sir, cxcrspt byhercsay.

Int. 3. — Can you, say then, whether the country you saw
then overflowed was always so covered by water or not, and
are your remarks as to overflowed portions of the claim to be
based on that year's freshet?

Ans. — The amount of overflow is based on that year's
freshet, and I simply understood Avhile there that the river
overflowed its banks every season at about the same season
of the year. The diff'erence of one foot in the freshet would
have made a great difl'erence in the amount of land overflowed.

Int. 4. — How does this land, subject to overfloAv, compare
wi'.h that not overflowed in its value to the owner?

Ans. — I would say that for ordinary farming purposes it
.vould have almost equal value. It would have to be owned
in connection with land not subject to overflow.

Int. 5.— Did the enclosed land you got from the Company
for cultivation have marks over its whole extent of culti-
vation.

Ans. — It did.

Int. 6.— Was any portion of this enclosed land overflowed
during that summer?

Ans. — A portion of it was.

Int. 7. — Did you in these rides you have spoken of give any
attention to marks of boundaries of the claim, or look for
any?

55-' ; |.

.li'iit!

i. ■,<:!

. if !Si

■''!•: i
ii. iji

1^1!

1 ^

-4ws. — I gave no attention to it, and didn't know that the
Hudson Bay Company pretended to any special boundaries.

Int. 8. — Was not the country around Vancouver when you
were tlicvc to a great degree occupiud by settlers claiming
under ihe donation law?

Anf(. — I presume they all claimed under the donation law,
so I understood at least. It was partially settled. I don't
think it was settled to a great degree. I mentioned all I
recollected below Fort Vancouver. Above and back on the
prairies, before described, other claims were taken. Nye set-
tled while I was there stationed at Vancouver just above the
forty or fifty-acre field I have described.

Inf. 0. — What was your rank in the army of the United
States while you were stationed at Fort Vancouver, and with
what department of the army were j^ou connected?

Ans. — I was first lieutenant and brevet captain until July,
1853, when I was promoted to full captain. I was regimental
quartermaster whilst at Fort Vancouver.

Int. 10. — Was there not a large building outside of the
stockades and enclosures of the Hudson's Bay Company at
Vancouver occupied by the military authorities, for which
rent was paid to the Company ?

* Anii. — Rent was paid the Hudson's Bay Company for a large
store-house, but my impresion is that it was inside the stock-
ade. The Company had quite a collection of houses outside
the stockade.

Int. 11. — Was not the enclosed field of forty or fifty acres
hired by you of the Hudson's Bay Company at Vancouver fer-
tile and productive land ?

Ans. — It was.

Int. 12. — Is your 'ecollection so distinct as to enable you
to give any estimate whatever of the amount of open land on
the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company twenty-five miles on
the Columbia river by eight or ten miles back?

Ans. — I cannot give an estimate.

U. S. Grant,

Lieutenant General.

Washington City, D. C, May 8, 1866.

that the
claries,
dicn you
claiming

tion law,
I don't
icd all I
k on the
Nye set-
bove the

} United
and with

itil July,
gimental

3 of the
pany at
>r which

r a large
e stock-
outside

ty acres
vcr fer-

ble you
land on
liles on

reneral.

Testimony of James W. Nesmitii.
James W. Msmith, being duly sworn according to law, says ;

Inf. 1. — What is your name, age, place of residence, and
present occupation ?

^ns. — James W. Ncsmith, aged forty-five years, residence
Polk county, Oregon, occupation farmer, and at present United
States Senator.

Int. 2. — Are you acquainted with the post at Vancouver
which was formerly occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company ?

Ans. — I am.

Int. 2. — When did you first become acquainted with the post,
and what was its condition when you first saw it?

Ans. — The first time I was there was the 23d day of Octo-
ber, 1843. It was in very good condition when I first saw it,
considering tlie character and structure of the buildings aiul
the materials of which thev were made. The stockade around
the buildings was made of fir poles sot in the ground. Many
of them were in a state of decav, others had rotted off at the
surface of the ground and had been replaced by new ones.
The buildings were rather a coarse rude structure, and un-
painted. They Avere built in what was known to us as the
Canadian style, with posts set upright and slots cut in the posts
in which timber was placed to fill the interstices between the
posts. That is a character of building which is not durable,
being liable to be wrecked by the storm, and soon decay. The
buildings were without any permanent underpinning, and were
set upon wooden blocks, many of which were in a state of de-
cay, and the buildings were becoming wrecked and dilapidated
on account of the insufficiency of the foundations. There was
some diff"erence between the buildings. I think the house in
which Dr. McLauj'hlin resided and the buildin<x used for an
office — those two buildings were of a better character than the
store-houses. I think they were painted.

Int. 4. — Have you in early life had any experience in the
trade of a carpenter, and have you any knowledge of the cost
and labor of erecting buildings of such a character as you have

iiiiiii

described? if yea, please to state wiiat in your judgment is the
value and cost of erecting such buildings.

A71S. — I worked at the carpenter's business when I was a
young man. The value of the buildings I could not state for
this reason : In the first place, I don't know how many buildings
there were there, and the value I would give oould be only ap-
proximate. I could not testify positively as to the size of the
buildings. They were generally of a character which required
very little mechanical skill in their erection, and might have
bQcn built by the commonest kind of labor.

Int. 2. — Have you seen Vancouver since then ; if yea, when
and how often ?

Am.— I was there in 1844, 1845, 1840, 1848, 1849, and 1852.
In 1853 I was there three or four times ; I was there several
times in 1850 ; I was there in 1860 several times ; I was there
in 18G1 ; and I was there three times last year, 1865.

Int. 6. — Please to look at the map here produced and des-
cribe the lands which were enclosed and occupied by the Com-
pany in the neighborhood of this post at the time you first
visited it?

Ans. — My knoAvledge is not sufiiciently definite to designate
that. In my visits there I never went over their farms or en-
closed lands. I know there were some lands enclosed in the
neighborhood of the fort and below the fort on the river, the
exact quantity or location of which I am unable to state.

Int. 7. — Please to describe as fully as you can the ap-
pearance and condition of the buildings at this post occupied
by the Company as you found them from time to time as com-
pared with what they were in 1843, giving their condition
particularly as fully as you can in 1863 and 1846, or as near
to these respective periods as you can.

Ans. — The buildings for a few years after my first visit were
kept in repair and remained in about the same condition as
when I first saw them, with the exception of the natural decay
and injury they had undergone through the effects of the
weather. For the last ten or twelve years they have gone to
decay very rapidly, and when I was there last j^ear, the build-
ings and the stockade had nearly all rotted away and fallen

nent is the

n I was a
t state for
^ buildings
)e only ap-
iize of the
h required
ight have

yea, when

and 1852.

re several

was there

lI and des-

the Com-

you first

designate

■ms or en-

sed in the

;','•

river, the

state.

n the ap-

-■■>iv.

oecupied

'\-:ii:

10 as corn-

condition

)r as near

',■■■''

visit were

iidition as

';.-;f»

ral decay

■Ay':

ts of the

'$".

^e gone to

the build-

md fallen

^■rs

down ; what remained standing was in a very dilapidated con-
dition.

Int. S. — Have you any knowledge of the value of land at
Vancouver; if yea, what in your judgment is the value per
acre of the land at this post, including say a mile S(iuare on
the river, which is claimed by the Catholic Mission.

Anf<. — The town of A'^ancouvcr is embraced in this mile-
square to which you refer. My knowledge of the value of lots
in the town and the adjacent property is not sufficiently defi-
nite to enable me to testify with certainty on that point.

Inf. J). — What is the present condition of the town of Van-
couver, and how does it compare in regard to trade and pros-
perity witli its condition five years since?

Ans. — When I was there last year I noticed but very little
improvement in the place. It did not bear evidence of much
enterprise or business. If there has been any improvement
in the last five years it has been very slight.

Int. 10. — Has there been any considerable groAvth in this
place for the last five years, and in your judgment is it prob-
able that it will increase very rapidly for some years to come?

(All the portion referring to the judgment of the witness
objected to.)

Ans. — There has not been any considerable growth in the
last five years. Considering its commercial and geographical"
position, and the character and the resources of the surround-
ing country, I do not believe that there will be any great im-
provement for many years to come.

Jnt. 11. — Have you or not paid particular attention to the
course of trade for some years in Oregon and Washington
Territory, and are you not familiar with the general character
and condition of the principal places in this State and Terri-
tory ?

(The latter part of the question objected to as leading.)
Ans. — I have paid a good deal of attention to the course of
trade and commerce in Oregon and Washington for the last
few year=i, and think that I have a pretty good general know-
ledge on that subject, and am familiar with the general char-

;!.

acter and condition of the principal places in the State and
Territory.

Ini. 12. — What, in your opinion, is the principal cause of
the establishment and growth of the town of Vancouver here-
toforc ?

A7)s. — I think the principal cause of the growth of the town
was the establishment of the military post there . nd the depot
for the army supplies for that country. That brought com-
merce to the place; ships laden with Government supplies.
Many persons congregated there for the purpose of procuring
Government employment, which, together with the presence
of the soldiers, caused some little trade to spring up there.

Int. 1.3. — What is the present prosperity of the town of
Portland, in Oregon, and how, in your judgment, does its in-
terests and welfare affect the question of the possibility of
building up a flourishing town at Vancouver?

(Objected to as to Portland auu as to the judgmeut of the
witness.)

Ans. — Portland is, and has been, for the last six or seven
years, in a very flourishing condition, and very rapidly im-
proving. It is the emporium of commerce and crarde for nearly
all of Oregon, all eastern Washington, and a large portion of
Idaho, and portions of Montana. The lines of ships and
steamers are owned there. The great wealth and present im-
portance of the place is sufficient, in my opinion, to prevent
any town of consequence being built up in so close proximity -
as Vancouver.

Int. 14. — Have you ever visited or observed any of the other
posts of the Hudson's Bay Company? if yea, please to enu-
merate the different posts which you have seen and observed.

Ans. — I have been at Fort Hall, Fort Boise, Fort Walla-
Walla, Astoria, Nisqually, the Cowlitz, and Champoog.

Int. 15. — When did you see Fort Hall, and what was its
condition when you saw it? please to describe the same as
particularly as you can, the character and condition of the
fort and the buildings, and their value, if you feel competent
to state it.

Ans. — I never saw Fort Hall but once. I stopped there

e State and

pal cause of
couver here-

i of the town
k1 the depot
rouglit corn-
lit sup])lie3.
)f procuring
lie presence
up there,
he town of
does its in-
)ssibility of

neut of the

X or seven

■apidly im-

for nearly

portion of

ships and

)resent im-

to prevent

proximity .

f the other
50 to c'nu-
obsorved.
rt Walla-
>cg,

it was its
same aa
)n of the
ompetent

)od there

four or five days in the autumn of 1843. It was then rather
a rude structure, built of adobe, walled in with adobe, and
within were some rude buildings of the same, covered with
poles and dirt, the whole very rude and cheaply built. There
was no lumber there of any kind, sawed or hewn. They could
have been built by the rudest of labor; no skill was required
in their construction. It was a mere mixing of mud to make
adobes, and piling them up. At reasonable prices of labor,
such as existed in the country at the time, I should think Fort
Hall, as I saw it in 1843, could have been built for one thousand
dollars.

Int. IG. — Did you observe at that time any lands there which
were enclosed and cultivated by the Company ? If yea, please
to describe their character and extent.

Alls. — I did not observe "ny lands there enclosed or culti-
vated. Indeed, I do not thlniv ihere were any at that time, as
our party could not get vegetables or supplies. Mr. Grant,
who was in charge, told us they raised nothing there.

Int. 17. — Please to state when you visited Fort Boise ; and
describe the character and condition of the fort and buildings
and lands which were occupied by the Company when you saw
them.

Am. — I visited Fort Boise in the autumn of 1843, on my
way down to Oregon. Its condition was about the same as that
of Fort Hall. The buildings were of about the same character,
and of about the same value. There was a small piece of
ground enclosed there with a pole fence, of, perhaps, two or
three acres — there might have been five — in which they
attempted to raise a few vegetables ; but they did not amount
to anything. I saw them digging potatoes there. They were
not bigger than bullets.

Int. 18. — Has anything occurred since then in the develop-
ment of the mining or agricultural resources, in the settlement
of the country, which has given any expressed new value to
the site of either Fort Hall or Fort Boise ?

An%. — Nothing has occurred to enhance their value since
then.. Pretty conclusive evidence of this is that, as I am
informed, they have both been abandoned.

Int. 19. — When did you see Walla-Walla ? Please to describe
the character and condition of the fort and the buildings and
tlic lands and the value thereof as occupied by the Company
at this post when you last saw them.

Am. — I first saw Walla-Walla in October, 1843. Ii then
consisted of a stockade, built of adobe or sun-dried brick, with
a few buildinj^s inside, of the same material. It was more sub-
stantial and better constructed than either Fort Hall or Fort
Boise. I should think it might cost a couple of th'^usand
dollars to have built Walla- Walla at the time I saw it. It was
nearly new then. I encamped four or five days in the neigh-
borhood of the fort, and was there every day. I saw no lands
in its neighborhood enclosed or cultivated. It was a desert
and a sand bank, the sand hills blowing about. I liave been
in the neighborhood several times, but only once at the post.

Int. 20. — Whore is this post situated ; and lo this place of
any considerable value or importance as a commercial point ?

Ans. — It is situated on the south bank of the Columbia
river, near the line between Oregon and Washington. I have
understood that there is a little town, since grown up, either
in the neighborhood, or directly at the post called Wallula, at
which goods and supplies have been landed for the present
town of Walla- Walla, and other points in the interior.

Int. 21. — From your knowledge of the situation of this place
w^ith reference to the trade of the river and the surrounding
country, and the discovery of mines in the interior, do you
anticipate the growth of any considerable town here at present ?

Ans. — I do not think that there will ever be a large town
there. There are other points on the river more valuable.
When I was there last summer the greater part of the supplies
were being landed at Umatilla, which is some distance below
Wallula. There is a better route to the interior from Umatilla.

Int. 22. — When have you seen the post at Champoeg ? Please
to describe the character and condition and value of the same
when you saw it.

Ans. — The first time I saw Champoeg was in 1844. I have
seen it very often since, passing up and down the river. My
recollection of it is that there was a small dwelling-house, a

granary, and a small store. They were all cheap, rough
buikliii,i,'S. I should think the buildings, as I recollect them,
might have been put up for one thousand or fifteen hundred
dollars. The land is not valuable. I believe everything was
washed away from there two or three years ago.

Int. 23. — Is Champoeg a place of any trade or prospective
importance, in your judgment, in the future growth or pros-
perity of Oregon ?

Ans. — None whatever, I think.

Int. 24. — When did you visit and observe the buildings and
lands occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company at Astoria, and
please to describe their condition and character and value at
the time you saw them, as fully as you can ?

Ann. — 1 visited Astoria in August, 1844. There were then
at that place two or three old buildings, one of which was a
dwelling-house, in which the person in charge resided; the
other was a salmon or store-house. There was also a small
patch of ground enclosed. I think three or four buildings
.comprised the whole; they were very old and dilapidated. It
is pretty hard to tell what an old rotten building is worth.
They might have been worth one hundred or two hundred dol-
lars. I <lon't consider them of any value. In connection with
this, I might say, that there had been a post of considerable
extent at one time, but it had all rotted down. A man by the
name of John McClure look up a '•Iniin directly below the fort,
and may have included the fort. In 1849 there were three or
four houses on his land. Since then a village has sprung up
below there. In 1861 I think there was the remains of one
old building at the Hudson's Bay Post.

Int. 25. — From your knowledge of the course of trade, and
of the character and resources of the country, do you antici-
pate the growth of any considerable town at this place ?

Ans. — If the system of disembarking goods at the mouth of
the Columbia is adopted, Astoria will become a considerable
town.

hit. 26, — Have you ever seen and visited the place claimed
by the Hudson Bay Company at Cape Disappointment? if

■ Jv

■41

yen, please to describe its condition and character and value
when you saw it.

Ann. — I was ashore at Capo Disappointment in the spring
of 184U. Staid there a day. I passed in and out of the river
several times since, and never saw anything there except some
Indian huts. Tliero was a light-house and a building or two,
belonging [to] some Pacific City people. I speak now in ref
erencc to the Hudson's Bay Company.

Int. 27. — Is this point at Cape Disappointment now, or has
it ever been of any value, in your judgment^ as a place of trade
with the Indiatis or other persons ; and in what, in your
opinion, if anything, does its value consist?

Ans. — It never has been a place of any considerable trade,
to my knowledge. If it has any value, it is for a site for a
light-house and fortifications for the Government. I know of
no other value.

Int. 28. — How long have you been in Oregon, and how long
have you been a member of the United States Senate ?

Ans. — I went to Oregon in 1843, and that has been my ,
residence over since. I took my seat in the United States
Senate the 4th of March, 1861.

Int. 29. — Do you know anything respecting the trade of the
Hudson's Bay Company with the Indians, and has the same
increased or diminished with the Indians before they aban-
doned the country.

Ans. — They had quite an extensive trade with the Indians
when I first went there. Without having any positive knowl-
edge derived from their books, I think their fur trade had
diminished a great deal before they abandoned their posts and
left the country.

Int. 30. — State, if you know, what was the character of the
principal business of the Company at Vancouver for the most
of the time subsequent to your residence there?

Ans. — On my arrival there, and for several years subse-
quent, their principal trade was with the Indians. As the
country gradually settled up, my impression is their Indian
trade gradually subsided, and the trade with the whites very
much increased. They sold very many goods to the settlers.

your

Int. 81. — Do you know the extent of tlie foreign commerce
of the Company while you were there? If yea, please to
(lescrihe the number of foreign rhips and vessels that yearly
arrived from abroad at Vancouver on account of the Hudson's
Bay Company.

Ann. — My knowledge on the subject is substantially this: I
know there was a ship arrived there annually from England
with supplies for the Company; that ships took back their
furs, peltries, and such articles as they shipped out of the
country. In addition to that, they had small vessels, Avhich
traded with some of the Russian settlements in the northwest,
and I think with California. They shipped a great deal of
wheat and other productions to the Russian settlements to the
north. They also had some trade v/ith California and the
Sandwich Islands. I have no knowledge of the amount or
value of their trade.

Int. 32. — Have you held any public offices or positions prior
to your election as United States Senator? If yea, please to
describe them.

Ans. — Yes, I have held several. In 1845 I was a judge
under the Provisional Government. In 1846 and 1847 I was
a member of the Legislature. In 1847 I commanded a com-
pany in the Indian war. In 1853 I was appointed United
States marshal for the Territory of Oregon. In same year
I commanded a company in Rogue Rivei war. In 1854 I was
brigadier general of the Oregon militia. In 1855 I com-
manded a regiment of volunteers in the Indian war. In 1857
I was superintendent of Indian affairs for Oregon and Wash-
ington, and held that office until 1859. That was the last
office I held until I came to the United States Senate.

Int. 33. — You have stated that you were a superintendent
of the Indian aff"airs. Do you know the effect of the trade
and intercourse with the Hudson's Bay Company on their phys-
ical and social condition? If yea, please to describe it as
fully as you can.

Ans. — So far as the intercourse of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany with the Indian is concerned, I think their policy is the
best that was ever adopted, that is with reference to the wants

1 1'- '.

and interest of the Indian. They operated upon his interest
and Ills fears. So far as T know they administered very strict
justice. They had a tariff' of prices, and they paid one Indian
tlio same as they paid another for whateverhe had to dispose of.
They encouraged sobriety and good conduct among tiie Indians,
and whf'ii tlie Indians committed outrages they punished them.
Their ])unishmcnt was not that of a great military expedition,
but thev cut off their trade, and made the Indian feel h' de-
pcndeneo upon them. They were an immense monop ,, and
kept out individual enterprise and trade from tin .ndians.
While they held that power they compelled the .ndians to
submit to their own terms. In the absence o^ any competi-
tion it was within their power to do this. They punished their
own employes for infractions against the rights of the
Indians; and so far as I know their contract with the Indians
did not tend to demoralize or degrade them. The inculca-
tion of sobriety and temperance by the Company resulted in
its own benefit, that is, to the benefit of the Company, be-
cause while the Indian practised those virtues he had more to
sell, and therefore increased the trade of the Company. The
power of the Company to keep out privateer foreign competi-
tion gave them the exclusive control of the Indians. The
Indians looked to the Company as a government and a power.
During their occupancy of the country there was little or no
intrusion upon the Indian lands. The Indians retained the
sites of their villages, fisheries, and hunting grounds; conse-
quently they did not diminish in numbers as they did after
the country was thrown open to general and promiscuous
occupation.

After the power of the Company to control the intercourse
between the Indiisiis and the whites had ceased, I should say
about 1846 or 1847, the Indians began gradually to diminish
by reason of their promiscuous contact with the whites.
"While the Company enforced a rigid control over them, I do
not know of their having done the Indians any injustice. The
presence of this powerful monopoly in the country exercised
a deleterious influence against the United States in controlling
the Indians. In those remote regions the Indians were more

' The

jrcised

rolling

in the habit of recognizing the power of the Company than
tlicy were the Government of the United States. So far as
my knowledge extends in regard to their social condition, I
don't think their eft'orts extended so much in the direction of
civilizing the Indian as it did in keeping him in a position
where the greatest benefits could be derived in a trade with
him as a hunter and trapper. A great many of the employes,
and some of the officers of the Company, intermarried with
the Indian women. The children, the result of this connec-
tion, Avere, in many instances, educated in the schools under
the patronage of the Company.

Int. 34. — What was the effect of the policy of the Hudson's
Bay Company on the development and settlement of the coun-
try, favorable or otherwise?

Ans. — I think the policy of the Company was adverse to
the sett'oment of the country. I infer this from remarks
made by the officers of the Company to myself and other early
emigrants, as they invariably under-estimated the quality of
the soil and the inducements for settlement, and advised the
early settlers generally to go to California. This probably
resulted from the fact that the settling nf the country must
inevitably destroy their trade with and their control over the
Indian tribes. Upon the whole I think that the Company
were very much averse to the occupation of the country by
American citizens.

Int. 35. — From what period do you date the emigration
from the States and the settlement of the country by Ameri-
can citizens?

Ans. — The first, and a very small emigration, crossed the
mountains in 1842. In 1843 an emigration started from the
western frontier, consisting of one hundred and eleven wagons,
containing probably between four and five hundred men,
women, and children, of which party I was one. The emigra.
gration has continued from that time to the present.
3C

Cross- Examination.

«i,

Int. 1. — What length of time were you at Vancouver in
1843, 1844, 1845, and 1846?

Ans. — In 1843 I was there about a day. In 1844 I was
there three or four days, perhaps a week, I don't recollect. I
wasn't three more than two or three days in 1845. I would
go there and stay all night, not more than two or three days
in all. I don't think I was there more than once in 1846,
though I might have been there oftener.

Int. 2. — What examination did you make of the buildings
at the fort at either of those times ?

Ans. — The first time I was there I examined them more
particularly than I did afterwards. The place was new to me.
I had heard a good deal of it, and I looked at it pretty thor-
oughly. My object was to write a description of it (which I
did) to send back to some friends in the United States.

Int. 3. — Did you notice the buildings sufficiently at the
time you speak of to tell how many of them were frame, how
many of Canadian pattern, which of them were lined and
ceiled and which were not?

Ans. — I think that all the buildings were of Canadian pat-
tern except the office and house that Dr. McLaughlin lived in.
That was my impression. They, I think, were ceiled and
painted.

Int. 4. — Can you say that six of these buildings were not
lined and ceiled?

Ans. — I couldn't say that positively. I never was in six of
them that were lined and ceiled. I think the office and Dr.
McLaughlin's house were the only ones.

Int. 5. — Can the commonest kind of labor build frame
houses, line and ceil them, or does it require skilled labor for
that purpose?

Ans. — The character of the Iiouses they had there, lined
and ceiled, would require very little skill to do it. They were
very ordinarily constructed. The doctor's house and the
office were the best buildings there, and any man, with any

vcr in

I: I was
ect. I
'. would
)c tlays
n 1846,

lildings

n more
yr to me.
ty thor-
which I

).
at the
lie, how
led and

ian pat-
ived in.
ed and

rerc not

in six of
and Dr.

d frame
abor for

re, lined
ley were
and the
ith any

knowledge of the use of tools, could build them. Tiioy would
be called very rude in a civilized country.

Int. G. — What time of the year in 1843 were you there?

Alls. — I was there on the 23d day of October, I'^lo: staid
all night there. Was there part of two days, 23d ;i.,ii 24th.

Int. 7. — At the dift'erent times you Avore at the foit, hcfore
and during 1846, did you notice any building or repairing of
buildings going on, or any renewal of the stockade:

Ans. — I don't think I saw any repairing of buihliiigs going
on. I saw some evidence of repairing the stockade, and per-
haps of the buildings.

Int. S. — Can you say that between 1848 and 1 • IG there
were not two, if not three, large and important imiblings
erected within the stockade, in place of others talc in down
during that time, besides a block-house or bastion, iiiounting
seven or eight guns, on the northwest corner of the .toekade?

Ans. — I cannot. I recollect an old bastion on iin- north-
west corner of the stockade, but don't remember uny new
one.

Int. 9. — Would you say that in 1846 there wa-; a single
picket in the stockade rotten or out of place?

Ans. — They were always kept up. The Company never
permitted them to fall down. In explanation of liis I will
say, the fir timber, of which the pickets were made and the
stockade was built, would rot off at the surface of the ground
in four or five years, and there might have been soiiiu in that
condition at that time, though I am not positive.

Ir.t. 10. — When a picket is thoroughly barked ami charred
before putting it into the ground, does it not hist much
longer?

Ans. — I never saw it tried; that is, a fir picket. I have
seen )ak tried, but don't know the effect.

Int 11. — Were not all these pickets thoroughly bui ked and
chaired at one end, and were any of them of a less size than
from eight to ten inches in diameter, and was not this whole
stockade renewed before 1846 ?

Ans. — If they were barked and charred, it was the end in
the ground and out of sight. I couldn't say positively as to

jrH

I "I..

the size. My impression is they ranged from eight to ten
inches. I couldn't state positively with regard to the renewal
of the stockade. I know that new posts or poles were i)ut in.

Int. 12. — What was the size of the enclosure of the stock-
ade at Fort A^ancouver in 1846?

Aiis. — I couldn't state with any degree e^ certainty. My
impression Avas that it was about six hundred feet long, and
about four hundred feet wide.

Int. 13. — Can you say that the enclosure of the fort was
not considerably enlarged between 1843 and 1846?

Ans. — I cannot.

Int. 14. — Could not these blocks that you spoke of, under
the buildings, be removed, and others substituted in their
place, at pleasure; and were not the buildings C/n«!'"red
for the purpose of having these supports change'. 1- ..A
that the way in which houses, stores, and even large build-
ings, like churches, are built in Washington Territory?

Ans. — I have seen them built that way. The blocks on the
outside could be removed; but it was very difficult to remove
those inside, unless the building stood very high. Some of
them were very low. It would wreck the building to pry it
up to remove the blocks. I have seen buildings built that
way. That is very common.

Int. 15. — Is there any difficulty in raising these buildings
by jack-screws?

Ans. — They can be raised in that way.

Int. 16. — Would not good cedar or oak blocks last a long
time, before being renewed, and where stone is scarce, is ii
not both usual and convenient to use blocks?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 17. — Would not the fact that these buildings were
raised by these blocks from contact with the ground keep the
main building from decay?

Ans. — Yes, sir; certainly it would prevent it decaying if
the blocks w ere kept renewed.

Int. 18. — Did you ever build any of these Canadian bull !
ings, or have you ever examined so as to know how they arc
fastened together, and what their strength is ?

Ans. — I never l)uilt any in the Canadian stvlc. I have
frequently examined them, and know tlie strength of their
construction.

Int. 19. — You have stated that within the Last ten or twelve
vears those buildinfjs have gone to decay. Do you feel certain
that those buildings were not in gooil order in 18r)o, 1850,
1858, when vou were there?

Ans. — They were in a condition to be occupied in 1855 and
1856. They had gone very much to ruin, and were in much
worse condition than when I first saw them.

Int. 20. — Was the house of the chief factor out of repair
when you came there, in 1856; and were there any better
houses in Oregon at that time: if out of repair what was
wantinjT?

Ans. — I don't know that the house was really out of repair*
It was a good deal older and moie dilapidated than when I
first saw it. There were a great many better houses in Oregon
at that time.

Int. 21. — Were not all the buildings inside the fort in 1846,
when you were there, shingled buildings?

Ans. — I think they were.

Int. 22. — Willi the exception of the want of paint, what was
there wrong in the store-houses and dwellings inside the fort,
when you were there, in 1850. Were they not water-tight,
and answering all the purposes for which they were erected in
former years?

Ans. — I noticed that a good many of the buildings, from
the giving way of foundations and rotting away of blocks, had
settled, and left the buildings out of shape. Some of them
were in that condition in 1856.

Int. 23. — Is not Clarke county, of which Vancouver is the
county seat, one of the largest, if not the largest, county in
Washington Territory, in point of actual population, independ-
ent of the soldiers of the garrison?

Ans. — I couldn't state that positively. I don't know the
boundaries of the county, or the population. It is very pos-
sible that it is.

Int. 24. — Have you not known of the ocean steamers being

•1 . .„' Ill

l'-:,,,!!*-!

i. :■.:;

!'.^ '.III"-.

ill i !

iji!

dctainc'l on the bar, at the mouth of the Willamette river,
and on Swan Island bar, for several days at a time, and could
not the s;iinc vessels have gone on to Fort A'ancouvcr?

An«. — F have. I think the same vessels could have gone on
to Vanc'iuvor.

Int. 2"). — Does not all the freight that passes up the Colum-
bia rivei" from abroad have to be carried some distance out of
its course, to pass through Portland, in going to the mines?

Ajif!. — It docs.

Int. 2(i. — At what ^.me of the year were you at Fort Hall ?

A)if<. — I think it was in the early part of September, 1843.
I can r ' ■ positively the day.

Int. —How long Avere you in coming there from the

frontier oi the Western States?

Alls. — About four months, I think. We came very slowly
in the ox wagons.

Int. 28, — How many men were there in your company?

Ans. — I could not state the number of men. There were
one hundred and eleven wagons, and in the neighborhood of
four bundled men, women, and children.

Int. 21). — Did you bring your provisions with you, or did
you subsist on what you obtained on the plains?

Alls. — We brought the most of our provisions with us. We
killed a great deal of game.

Int. 30. — -.Were the men in your expedition armed; or did
you travel unarmed and defenceless?

Ans. — We were well armed.

Int. 31. — How long were you in going from Fort Hall, and
did you go there by land or by water?

Ans. — I think we were about six weeks on the road. Our
animals were very much worn down, and we travelled very
slowly. I went from the Dalles down by water. Some of
our party went from Walla- Walla by water. I left the emi-
gration at the Umatilla river, and came on with pack animals.
Some of the party came on a month behind me.

Lit. 32. — Had your party been delayed a month on the
road; could they have reached Fort Vancouver that winter?

Ans. — I think they could. It was a mild, open winter.

Int. 33. — How far was it from the western frontier to Fort
Hall, and from Fort Hall to Vancouver?

Ann. — I am unable to give the distance now. I think it wag
about fourteen hundred miles to Fort Hall from the Missouri
border; and about six or seven hundred miles from Fort Hall
to Vancouver. Those distances can be ascertained easily. I
have no data by which I can tell.

Int. 34. — Are you certain of the distances you have given
from Fort Hall ? Isn't the distance much greater from the
border to Fort Hall ; and is it not six hundred miles from
there to Walla-Walla?

Ans. — I am not. I don't pretend to give those distances
with any degree of certainty. I knew them once, but they have
escaped my memory.

Int. 35. — Do you know the charges for transporting freight
now, per ton, from the western frontier, Utah, or Fort Hall?
If so, state them.

Ans. — I do not.

Int. 3G. — Do you know the cost or charge of taking freight
or provisions from Portland to Walla-Walla during the time
you served in the Walla- Walla or Cayuse Indian wars?

Ans. — I don't recollect. In fact none of it was transported
by contract at that time; it was all taken by pack animals or
our own wagons; that is, the wagons belonging to the Pro-
visional Government of Oregon, and by the troops.

Inl. 37. — From the military positions you have filled, can
you state the cost of supporting a body of fifty men, one thou-
sand miles from the Willamette valley, for one month in the
year of the Indian war ?

Ans. — If thoy lived as we did, the cost would be very slight.
We had very little else than beef or horse meat to eat, both
of which were very cheap.

Int. 38. — How far would a thousand dollars go in bringing
men from Canada or England to the Pacific coast, and equip-
ping and provisioning a party to go from Vancouver to Fort
Hall, when there were no forts at Walla- Walla or Boisfe, or
transportation on the Columbia river ?

Ans. — I am unable to state that in detail ; I can state the

ll" .,

I
t

■ r

1 'h»

I ill"
f

3i 31 S

value of Labor and the character of sul),sisteT)ce there, but I
cannot state what it would cost to take men from Canada there.

Int. 39. — What was the labor you speak of at Fort Hall in
1843; was it not that of the emigrants who had crossed with
you?

Ans. — Some of the emigrants who went with me hired out,
at Fort Hall, to go out with trapping parucs.

Int. 40. — IIow many of them, and for how long a time; and
did they remain there during the winter ?

Ans. — There were two or three of them who hired out. I
don't know how long they remained. I tried to hire out my-
self.

Int. 41. — When you stopped at Fort Hall, in 1843, did you
notice the height and thickness of the walls, the height and
size of the buildings within the fort, or the size of the en-
closure ? If so, please state them.

A71S. — My recollection on all these points is not positive.
The enclosure was, I think, one hundred and thirty or forty
feet square ; the wall was about eighteen or twenty inches
thick, and about twelve or fourteen feet high. There were
several low buildings inside, connected together ; the" wall of
the fort formed one side of the buildings.

Itit. 42. — Are you prepared to say, from your recollection,
that there were not a two-story dwelling-house, three ranges
of Iniildint,:-!, containing six dwelling-houses, a store and black-
smitli's shop, two two-story bastions, and one small two-story
building, inside, or connected with the enclosure ?

Ans. — There were two bastions, but they were outside of
the enclosure. There might have been as many buildings as
you designate, but they were small and rude, without floors,
and covered with earth ; I think one of them was two stories
high.

lit. 43. — Were there not two horse-parks, of large size and
thick walls, outside the fort?

Ans. — I don't recollect about two ; there was one, certainly.

Int. 44. — Do you know anything about this post after 1846?

Ans. — I do not ; 1 never saw it after 1843.

and

Int. 45. — Did you stop long enough at Fort Boise to pay
any particular attention to it ?

Ans. — Not a great deal; I was there a couple of days. I
was in the fort and around it.

Int. 40. — Is your estimate of value and cost of Boise based
on the same grounds as that of Fort Hall?

Ans. — I should think it would cost about the same. It
would not cost as much as at Fort Hall to live, as tlioy had
dried salmon there. It did not cosi much to live at either
place.
' Jnt. 47. — Do you know anything of this post in 1846 ?

Ans. — I do not ; I never saw it after 1843.

Int. 48. — Do you know how far from Boise City, the capital
of Idaho Territory, is Fort Boise ? If so, state it.

Ans. — I don't know positively ; I have been informed thirty
or forty miles.

Int. 49. — Is there not a large and prosperous mining pop-
ulation in the vicinity of Forts Hall and Boise at the present
time ?

Ans. — Boise City is a large and prosperous town. I can't
speak of Fort Hall, as I have not been there since 1843.

Int. 50. — What examination did you make of the post at
Walla- Walla, if any ? Give the size of the enclosure, the height
and thickness of the walls surrounding the fort, the number
of houses inside, the number of stores ; and state, if you know,
of what the foundation of the fort consisted.

Ans. — I could not give the size ; I think it was larger than
either of the two other forts. My impression is the founda-
tion vas of stone. I should think the Avails were twenty
inches or two feet thick, and twelve or fourteen feet high.
There Avere several small buildings inside ; I will not undertake
to state the number. My general impression is it Avas much
better constructed than the other tAvo forts. In explanation
of these houses, I will say the Avail of the fort Avas the back
wall of the building. Another wall Avas made parallel to
it, Avhich was the front, and the two Avails were partitioned
off into separate rooms, the whole covered with poles

trfl

and earth. I should not designate each room as a sei)arate
building.

Int. 51. — Was there not a quantity of buildings outside the
enclosure of Walla-Walla?

Ans. — There was not when I was there, in 1843. The fort
appeared to be nearly new when I was there.

Int. 52. — Can you state anything in reference to Walla-
Walla in 1846?

Ans. — I cannot.

Int. 53. — Is your estimate of the cost of erecting Fort
Walla-AV^alla based on the same ground as that of Fort Hall ?

Ans. — My estimates of the cost of all these buildings are
based on the cost of labor and subsistence at those places at
the time I saw them.

Inf. 54. — Were there any men of your party hired at Fort
Walla-Walla at that time ?

Ans. — Not immediately at the fort. There were some hired
twenty-five miles from there, at Wiilatpu.

Int. 55. — Do you know anything of the erection of adobe
walls and buildings, or the making of adobes ; if yea, what
has your experience been?

Ana. — Yes. My experience has been they would find a mud
hole ; drive a lot of cattle in it, so that they would mix up
the clay, and then they would form a brick about a foot long,
and six or eight inches thick, and then dry it in the sun.

Int. 56. — Were not the Indians at Walla-Walla valley nu-
merous, turbulent, and warlike ?

An8. — They were neither when I "vas there, in 1843. They
did not become so until after the Whitman massacre, which
was in the latter part of 1847. They were hostile again in
the fall of 1855.

Int. 57. — After that time were they not considered a pow-
erful and brave tribe of Indians ; and did not they and their
allies, on the Walla- Walla river, hold in check a regiment of
Oregon volunteers in Walla-Walla valley ?

Ans. — No ; the Walla-Wallas proper were not a numerous
tribe, but were warlike ; nor they did not hold a regiment in
check, but had a fight for three days with about three hundred

They

■■i

Oregon volnntoer<s. They were whip])('il jiiid driven from the
ground, and tlio troops advanced. Their allies were the Yaka-
mas, Nez Pcret-;, Palouses, Cayuses, Taigh.s, Waseopanis, and
the John Day river Indians.

Int. 58. — IIoAv far wouhl two thousand dollars go in paying
and supporting troops to protect a ])arty building a fort in
this valley, Avhen the Indians were not friendly ?

Ana. — That (juestion is so vague and indefinite that I can't
answer it.

Int. 59. — Did not all or nearly all the emigration pass down
the river in the fall of 1843?

Ans. — Nearly all of them went down either by land or
water to the Willamette valley; a few remained at Whitman's.

Int. 00. — Do not the steamboats of the Oregon Steam Navi-
gation Company, now navigating the Columbia river, land
their freight and passengers for the Upper Columbia and
Snake country, except in high water, at Wallula ?

An%. — I do not know positively ; I never was there on a
steamboat, and never saw one there. I went last fall up the
river on a steamer ; most of the passengers and freight were
put off at Umatilla; a portion went on to Wallula.

Int. 61. — Is not the stage road of Ruckle and Thomas the
only good road across the Blue Mountains, leading to the
mining country ; and do not their stages run to Wallula ?

Ans. — There is a diiference of opinion concerning the best
road across the Blue Mountains. Some claim the road by
Umatilla is the best road and much nearer. Stager: run on
both routes. Ruckle and Thomas run to Wallula.

Int. 62. — Have you ever been in the Walla-Walla valley
since you came through in 1843; if so, when were you last
there ?

Ans. — Yes, I have been there twice. I was there last Sep-
tember.

Int. 63. — Is there not a large and flourishing settlement in
that valley?

Ans. — There is.

Int. 64. — Describe the dwelling-house at Champoeg at the
time you saw it in 1846; its size, whether it was clapboarded

:!■ r

: |i.i, '

"''":-i;

and sliiiij^k'd, Iioav it was finished inside, and whether at that
time it was not a new liouse.

Ann. — My recollection of it is that it was a small house,
nearly new, shingled and weather-boarded. I don't know
how it was finished inside. I don't recollect.

Int. Go. — Describe the granary at Champoeg in 1840; its
size and structure and capacity ; and state whether this build-
ing in 184(] was not a new building.

An.'<. — I think it was nearly new. I think it was about
twenty-five feet square, high up from the ground, a rough
building.

Int. OG. — When, to your knowledge, was the town site of
Champoeg inundated by freshet so as to depreciate the 'value
of the property there previous to 1846?

Ans. — Not to my knowledge. There was a freshet in 1845.
I think it overflowed a portion of Champoeg. I don't know.
I was not there.

Int. G7. — IIoAV long were you at Astoria or Fort George in
1844?

Ans. — I was in the neighborhood about a week.

Int. G8. — Did you visit the Company's post there, and were
you inside the agent's house or any of the buildings?

Ans. — I was inside the Company's house at Astoria ?

Int. G9. — Did you notice a dwelling-house fifty by twenty
feet, another thirty by twenty, another thirty by twenty, and
store-house, of the same size of the last?

Ans. — I recollect quite a long dwelling-house, Avith two or
three rooms, I would not undertake to state the size, and
the store-house standing close by. I have no distinct recol-
lection of any other building.

Int. 70. — Were not those buildings you noticed shingled,
and might not the old and dilapidated appearance you speak
of have been caused by want of paint and exposure to
weather?

Ans. — I think they were shingled. It is possible the di-
lapidated condition might have been caused from want of
paint.

Int. 71. — Did not the patch of ground you speak of, and

the land tliosc buildings wcro on, include two acres or more
of land, free from stumps and in fine order, under fence, and
more cleiir land outside of fence?

Ans. — I aliould think there were two or three acres en-
closed for a "garden. My recollection is, it was clear from
stumps, and in good condition. There was some cleared land
outside the garden, but I don't recollect the quantity.

Int. 72. — You say the ground around was heavily timbered;
was not the whole country down to the shore covered with the
largest growth of Oregon fir-trees, and a forest from which
these grounds had been cleared for the buildings, and open
land around them?
Ans. — It was.

Int. 73. — What would it now cost in Oregon to clear free
from stumps and render smooth an acre of land in the heavy
fir forest of that country ?

Ans. — I could not undertake to state the exact amount. I
never had any experience in that. It would be very expen-
sive.

Int. 74. — At what part of Cape Disappointment did you
land in 1849, and on what part of the cape did you see Indian
huts ?

Ans. — I landed just inside the cape. I think it is called
Baker's Bay. There were some Indijin huts along the margin
of the bay.

Int. 75. — When did you see Pacific City and its buildings,
and did you ever land there ?

Ans.— I never landed at Pacific City after the town was
commenced building there. I never was on shore after 1849.
Int. 70. — Do you not think your recollection is at fault as to
the number of ships from England in each yeor. Was there
not, in 1843, the Diamond and Columbia ; in 1844, the Brothers
and Cowlitz ; in 1845, Vancouver and one other ; in 1840, the
Admiral Morgan and the Columbia ; and was there not, be-
sides the small vessels you mention, the Company's steamship
Beaver, used in the coasting trade?

Ans. — I could not positively state as to that ; there may
have been two vessels a year. I recollect seeing the Vancou-

■ . "i

.if'

Wmm I

ver there. I uIho saw tlie Beaver there once, ;iii<l tlie Cadbo-
rough.

Int. 77. — Do you riot think that a person nciiuiiinted with
the climate and fertility of soil of Califoriiiu might consis-
tently advise an cmigiaiit to settle there in preference to Oie-
gon, as it then was, in ls43 ?

Ann. — That would he a matter of opinion.

Int. 78. — You have spoken of the emigration of 184-3, and
the price of the lahor of that emigration at Forts Hall, IJoise,
and Wulla-Wiilla as governing the cost of building these forts.
I will now ask you if the laboring men of that emigration were
not so worn out by tlie fatigue of crossing the plains as to
make their labor of little value?

Ans. — No, I shouhl think not ; they had i)lenty to eat on
the road. There may have been some worn out, but the ma-
jority of them were in good condition. The trip was a long
and tedious one, but was not physically exhausting.

Int. 70. — Is it a fact that the emigration of 1842 was vei'y
small? What had they done, if anything, for set ment?

Ans. — The emigration of 1842 was very sm I think

they sold or abandoned all their wagons at Fort ilall, and
came down with pack animals. They had done very little to-
wards the development of the country at the time of my arri-
val there.

Int. 80. — IIow many 'troops were there employed in the
war in which you served as colonel, in 1856, and in which the
fight occurred in the Walla-Walla valley?

Ans. — I organized and commanded the regiment. I think
it consisted of about seven hundred men when it organized.
I took about four hundred of them, and made the campaign in
the Yakama country, on the north side of the Columbia river.

Int. 81. — Did that regiment alone comprise all the Oregon
troops in that war ?

Ans. — No, sir ; there were more troops serving in the
Bouthern por':ion of the Territory than there were in my reg-
iment, but I could not state the number. While I was absent
in the Yakama country, Colonel Kelly advanced towards

Walla-Walla, under my orders, with a Imttalion on the south
Bide of the Colunihia river.

Int. '*^2. — What was the total amount allowed hv the hoard
of commissioners appointed hy the United States (Jovernnient
for the claims for suhsistence, transportation, and j)ay of these
Orcffon troops ?

Anx. — I am unable to state anything near the amount. It
has escaped my recollection,

Int. S.">. — In the early settlement of Oregon, in 1.S44 and
184/), ditl not the settlers entertain great fears of the tribes
of Indians in the Territory of Oregon ?

Ann. — I don't think there was any ajtprehension entertained
on that suliject up to the time of the Whitman nmssaere in
1847. The Indians of the Willamette valley, where the prin-
cipal American settlements were at that time, were exceed-
ingly docile, and not disposed to make war. Nearly all the
Indian hostilities have been confined to the southern portion
of territory, north of the Columbia river, and cast of the
Cascade Mountains. Wc never had any Indian war in the Wil-
lamette valley. ,

Int. 84. — You have spoken of these forts of the Hudson's
Bay Company ; were they not strong and substantial fortifi-
cations, ample to protect the employes of the Company
ajjainst all attacks of hostile Indians, and suitable for the
purposes for which they were erected?

Ans:. — They were ample for all those purposes.

Int. 85. — Did you in 1845, at Oregon City, sign a paper
containing this language, viz:

"That this mixed population exists in the midst of numer-
ous and warlike tribes of Indians, to whom the smallest dis-
sensions among the white inhabitants would be the signal to
let loose upon their defenceless families all the horrors of sav-
age warfare?"
(Objected to as incompetent.)

Ans. — In 1845 the Legislatui3 was in session in Oregon
City. They drew up a memorial to the Congress of the Uni-
ted States, which I, among others, signed. I have no positive
recollection of the language, but I think it did contain some-

'I,,

:"i|,:

' '' Til

■ i'!
■:'• 'Hi

^,''"4

'.'•1

■ SI 'Jl'

"'"I'I'I

lih , l_^ ^ iij,i

i!'W, M„ -i

thing of the character contained in the question. We were
exceed iigly anxious for the United States to extend its laws
and jurisdiction over us.

Int. 80. — Did this paper which you signed contain this pas-
sage, now read to you, viz :

"Although such has been the result thus far of our tempo-
rary union of interests; tlPough we, the citizens of the United
States, have had no catise to complain either of exactions or
oppression at the hands of the subjects of Great Britain, but
on the contrary, it is but just to say that their conduct to-
wards us has been most friendly, liberal, and philanthropic,
yet we fear, as long .ontij;uance of the present state of things
is not to be expected, our temporary government being lim-
ited in its efficiency and crippled in its powers by ihc para-
mount duty we owe to our respective Governments, our reve-
nues being inadequate to its srpport, and the almost total
absence, apart from the Hudson's Bay Company, of the niea.'.s
of defence against the Indians, who, recent occurrences lead
us to fear, entertain hostile feelings towards the people of the
United States?"

(Objected to as incompetent.)

Ans. — 1 have not seen that memorial since I signed it. I
think it is more than probable that it contained the statements
in question. My impression is that it did.

Int. 87. — Did this paper which you signed contain this pas-
sage, now read to you, viz :

" Your memorialists would further inform your honorable
body, that while the subjects of Great Britain, through the
agency of the Hudson's Lay Company, are amply provided
with all the munitions of war, and can afford, by means of
their numerous fortifications, ample protection for themselves
and their property, the citizens of the United States are
scattered over a wide extent of territory, without a single
place of refuge, an J within themselves almost entirely destitute
of every means of defence? "

(Objected to as incompetent.)

Ana. — As I said before, I have not seen that memorial for
tv/enty-one years. I think it contained language similar to

We were

its laws

this pas-

r toiiipo-
United
etions or
tain, but
duct to-
itliropic,
if things
oing lim-
he para-
uv reve-
3St total
lie nica.'.s
ces lead
le of the

1 it. I

itcMucnts

;hid pas-

iiorablo
ugii the
rovided
eans of
uisolves
tes are
I single
cslitutc

rial for
lilar to

that which you quote. We were endeavoring to make a strong
case and get protection. I recollect the memorial, and the
person who drew it, and I have no doubt but what it contained
substantially what has been read.

Int. 88. — Do you not know that tho cost of taking flour
and other provisions to the Walla-Walla valley, in the Indian
war of 1855-56, was very groat ?

Ans. — It would have been very great to have transported
flour or supplies there.

Examination-in- Chief Resumed.

Int. 1. — You have stated in effect, in reply to some question
in the cross-examination, that you were unable to give from
recollection the dimensions of the forts and buildings, which
you have seen at different times, at the posts of the Hudson's
Bay Company, nor to describe in detail their specific condi-
tion in any given year; and you have stated also that the
want of paint and clap-boards may possibly have contributed
somewhat to tho dilapidated appearance of the buildings :
please now to state whether your memory is or is not distinct,
in regard to the general appearance of these forts and build-
ings, as you saw them at different times, and whether or not,
on reflection, you think that you have given in your tosti-
mony-in-chicf, and now wish to alter any part of the same.

Ans. — I do not think I have erred in my testimony-in-ehief.
The question was asked me, in reference to Astoria, if the ap-
pearance of the dilapidation of the buildings did not result
from the want of paint and exposure to the weather. The
buildings were very old and very much decayed ; paint might
have kept them in a better condition. My memory is distinct
on the general appearance of the b.Lildings. Of course there
may be some things in detail which have escaped my memory.

Int. 2. — Do you know of any operations of the Hudson's

Bay Company, in the Territory west of the Rocky Mountains,

on cither side of the Columbia river, in clearing the land of

timber, or in making roads with a view to opening the coun-

W-M

try to settlement? If yea, please to describe the same as
fully as you can.

(Objected to, as nothing of that kind having been inquired
into in the cross-examination.)

A718. — I never saw any land about their posts that bore evi-
dence of having been cleared, except about Astoria. There
the timber had evidently been cut off many years before. I
never saw anything deserving the name of a road, that had
been made previous to my going to the country.

J. W. Nesmith.

Washington, 3Iat/ 15, 1866.

Testimony of Justus Steinberger.

»«

Justus Steinberger, being duly sworn, according to law, de-
poses, and says :

Int. 1. — What is your name, age, place of residence, and
present occupation?

Ans. — My name is Justus Steinberger ; I am forty years
of age ; my residence is Washington city, at present ; I have
no occupation at present.

Int. 2. — Have you ever lived in Oregon and Washington
Territory ; if yea, when and where, and for how long a period
at each place ?

Ans. — I have ; I went to Oregon first in 18f50, I think in
October, and remained there until, I think, April, 1851. I
afterwards went to Oregon in February, 1852, to make it my
residence ; it has since been my residence, although I have
been absent frequently ; on one occasion for over two years.
I spent a year in Washington Territory, in the service of the
Government, in the employ of the army. I think that was
in 1860 and 1861 ; I don't recollect the day I went there, or
the day I left. I then left Washington Territory in the sum-
mer of 1861, and returned to Fort Vancouver in April, 1862,
and took command of the military district, of Oregon, with the
rank of colonel of volunteers ; and from that time until March,

iame as

1865, was in the army service of the Government, in the dis-
trict of Oregon. During my term of service, from April,
1862, to March, 1865, my immediate stations and head-
quarters were in Washington Territory.

Int. 3. — Have you ever visited any of the posts of the
Hudson's Bay Company, in what was formerly the Territory
of Oregon, west of the Rocky Mountains? If yea, please to
name the different posts in their possession which you have
seen, and with which you are acquainted, more or less.

Ans. — I have visited Fort Vancouver ; have seen the site
of the old Fort Walkv-Walla, and of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany's post on and near the mouth of the Cowlitz. I have
seen the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company at Baker's Bay,
mouth of the Columbia river, on the right bank. I have been
at Champoeg, and Fort George, or Astoria. I know Pillar
Rock; I have been by it frequently, and I think I've been
ashore at or near there. I don't remember any other places.

Int. 4. — Please to describe, as fully as you can, the character
and condition of the fort and buildings of the Company at
Vancouver when you first saw them.

An8. — My recollection of Fort Vancouver in the winter of
1850, when I first saw it, is very indistinct, and my remem-
brance of the fort refers to the time of my residence in Wash-
ington Territory and Oregon, from lhi52 to 1865. During
that time I mode frequent visits to the fort. 1 never made a
careful examination of the character of the buildings, but re-
member them as wooden structures, store-houses, and resi-
dences of the officers and employes of the Company, surrounded
by a picket stockade. The character of the whole structure
looked to me as if for defensive purposes. There wore two
bastions, if not more. I recollect two at least, with guns in
them. Some pieces of artillery were in front of the Governor's
house. There were one or two buildings which looked to me
to be store-houses, outside the picket, said to belong to the
Hudson's Bay Company ; an apple orchard enclosed, and a
number of fields enclosed, (how many, I don't know,) and
apparently under cultivation. There were also a number of
old slab buildings collected together, and called Kanaka Town.

'yu|iivi jmtvm^mfi^

imVI

Whether tliey belonged to the Hudson's Bay Company or not,
I do not knoAV. I never carefully examined the structures.
They wore built of wooden material, and compared to the style
of the recent buildings in Oregon, I tliinls were inferior in
construction and material.

Int. f). — Are you familiar with the country adjacent to the
post and bounded on the river, extending say from i point
six or ciglit miles above the fort westerly to the Cathlapootl
or Lewes river, and back from the river for a distance say of
eight or ten miles?

Ans. — I know very little of the country beyond one mile
back from the Columbia river except the Fourth Plain; I have
seen that.

Int. 6. — Have you any knowledge of the value of the land
per acre at the post at Vancouver; if yea, please to describe
the value thereof as fully as you can, discriminating between
the ditterent varieties of the land.

Ans. — It is impossible for me to answer that question in
that shape, and for the reason that I never offered to purchase
any of that land, and none of it was ever offered me for sale,
with this one exception, that when a town plot was laid off
and lots were sold in what is now called Vancouver, I owned
the one-half of ten acres in the town site, and at a point that
I believe the most valuable in the town. It cost at the rrte
of one hundred dollars per acre. I have forgotten the year
the purchase was made. It was purchased at a time that great
expectation was had of the growth and prosperity of ^'^ancou-
ver as a commercial town. I believe the property to be of
less value now than when I purchased. My recollection of
the estimated value of it, by other persons, differed so widely
in price that I could never form an opinion as to its value.

Int. 7. — What was the condition of the fort and buildings
at Vancouver in 18G3? Please to describe the same as fully
as you can.

Ans. — I didn't pay much attention to the property in 1863.
I did not live at Vancouver, but in several visits I made to
Vancouver in that year, I saw the old site of the Hudson's

■■'I

■;

■'<

■

Bay Company, Fort Vancouver, and it presented to mo the
appearcncc of old, dilapidated, and worthless ruins.

Int. 8. — Did you, while residing on the Pacific const, observe
the course of trade in that country, and the progress of settle-
ment at different points? If yea, please to state what, in your
opinion, is the prospect of the future growth and pros])ority of
the town of Vancouver.

(Opinion of witness objected to.)

A71S. — I was personally engaged in business in Oregon for
several years, and had an opportunity to observe the ])rogres8
of trade. It is my belief that, from present indications, Van-
couver will not be a point of any great commercial impor-
tance.

Int. 0. — Has or has not the town of Portland advanced in
wealth and population, materially, the last five or ton years?
If yea, hoAV does it affect the growth and developmeat of the
town of Vancouver?

Ans. — It has advanced in growth and prosperity very much ;
and its growth has retarded in some measure thnt of Van-
couver. I believe that the principal purpose in the location
of the town of Vancouver, and the inducements for tlie invest-
ments in town property there, was the prospect of its success-
ful rivalry with the city of Portland as a commercial port.
In that I think it has failed.

Int. 10. — Have you any knowledge of any of the other posts
of the Company in wliat was formerly Or.egon Territory ? If
yea, please to describe the same in detail, as fully as you can,
giving the character and condition and value of the fort and
the building's when you saw and observed them.

Ans. — I saw, in 1850, at Baker's Bay, one old building of
wood, reported to belong to the Hudson's Bay Company.
There was very little cleared land around it. The building
was of very little value ; it fronted on the bay ; the other
three sides were surrounded by a dense forest. Adjoining what
was reported to be the Hudson's Bay Company's claim, a town
site had been located, I believe by Dr. White and others, called
. Pacific City. There was but one building on the town site —
a hotel kept by Mr. Ilolman. There were expectations of its

becoming a town of importance, as a seaport. The enterprise
proved a complete failure, and was abandoned. I saw the
buildings near the mouth of the Cowlitz, on the Cowlitz river,
in 18r>0, said to belong to the Hudson's Bay Company. To
the best of my recollection, there was one large storehouse, sev-
eral small out-houses and sheds, and a few small bouses occupied
by the officers and servants of the Company. The storehouse
was a tolerably substantial building, and of rough material.
The other buildings, compared to those built bv Americans at
the present time, were of rude structure ; they were on the site
of the landing where small steamboats now land. I cannot
place any estimate upon the value of the buildings. 1 saw
what was called Fort George, now Astoria, in 1850. To the
best of my recollection, there were a few old buildings, said
to belong to the Hudson's Bay Company, of very little intrin-
sic value, and a very few acres of land, partially enclosed. It
was occupied at the time by the troops of the United States
Government as a militarj'^ post. I have no knowledge of the
property of the Hudson's Bay Company at Champoeg. I saw
the site of the Hudson's Bay Company's Fort Walla- Walla
in 1802 for the first time, and had pointed out to me two old
adbbe buildings and the remains of a stockade, said to have
belonged to the Hudson's Bay Company. They had been
repaired, and were occupied by a Mr. Van Sycle. I am un-
able to put any estimate upon their value. The site was the
landing-place for sttfamboats.

Cross-Examination.

Silt t

Int. 1. — Between 1852 and 1856, were you residing at Fort
Vancouver, or only visiting there occasionally ; if so, where
did you reside, and in wbat business were you occupied ?

Ans. — I lived at Portland, Oregon ; I was the agent of
Adams & Co.'s express and banking establishment for Oregon
and Washington Territory. I visited Fort Vancouver very
frequently.

Int. 2. — How far from the site of the fort, down the river,

was this ton acres you speak of purchasing ? Look on this
map, and, if you can, locate it.

Ans. — I can't on this map, because the Vancouver lots are
not marked here. I can describe it by saying it was next to
the saw-mill ; it was between a half-mile and a mile from the
western picket line of the Hudson's Bay Company's old fort
at Vancouver ; I don't recollect the exact distance.

Int. 3. — On the land claim of Avhat American citizen was it
situated, and of whom did you buy it ?

Ans. — I don't recollect; I bought it jointly with another
person, and paid no attention to the transfer.

Int. 4. — Do you not recollect that the town of Vancouver
was laid out in lots, and that this ten acres was below the part
laid out in lots ?

Ans. — I don't remember that, but my impression is that it

was a part of the town site, though of that I am not certain.

Int. 5. — When towns are laid out in lots, are they ever sold

in acres, or are they sold by the subdivisions of lots, defined

by the survey ?

jlns. — I can only answer that question by stating a fact. I
know that a town site was located on the Willamette river, in
Oregon, embodying the whole of a land-claim of three hun-
dred and twenty acres ; and that while a portion of the claim
adjoining the river was laid out in lots of certain dimensions,
a portion of the rear of the claim, of about forty acres, was
sold by the acre, subject to an after subdivision of the town
by the town or city authorities.

Int. 6. — If you do not know whose title you purchased, or
whose land you bought, can you tell whether you had a deed
from the Hudson's Bay Company for this land?

Ans. — I believe not. I believe no deed from the Hudson's
Bay Company.

Int. 7. — Do you still retain the part ownership of this land,
or have you sold it? If so, for what price, and how long
since?

Ans. — I have no ownership in it at present. I sold my in-
terest in it for six hundred dollars, which I considered was
more than it was worth. I sold it about six years ago.

lMiaii|i1,UFIii

ik "li '
•■■■:' M '\

Villi ,

■■■-'i"l. ■:!

:'Wi:^

'■'li;'.' I

'..:%'

, .Hill

iiii , , .

IW.'

f "-''if '^

i 'i ' '-i ■ '5

I'iijfii''!

|if

7/*^ 8. — Arc there not some objections to Portland as a place
of commerce, such us want of water in the river for ocean
steamers ; is not the being oft" the line of travel, on the
main Columbia to the mines, unother objection ; and is not
the nivrrowncss of the Willamette river, at the site of the
town, another objection ; and is not the tendency to open
direct trade from the mines with San Francisco likely to do
an injury to the commerce of Portland?

A)iK. — The want of a sufficient depth of water at Swan
Island bar and at the mouth of Willamette river, where it
empties into the Columbia river, was, at certain seasons of the
vear, an embarrassment to navisjation for ocean vessels of
heavy draft. To the citizens of Portland, it was not consid-
ered an insuperable objection to the commerce of their town.
The citizens of Portland think being off" the line of travel
is not an objection. I think the water-front at Portland is
sufficient for the present commerce of the town. The only
complaints I have ever heard of the Avant of room in the
water-front have been of the little delay that has occurred in
swinging around large steamships in their departure from the
wharves. It never aff'orded an impediment for their depai*-
ture, but took a little time to maneuvre their ships, and this
only at a very low stage of water. The citizens of Portland
do not think that the tendency of open and direct trade from
the mines to San Francisco would be an injury to their com-
mcice. They don't think any other city can compete with
them. The town of Portland was first located with a view to
the supply of the Willamette valley and Tualatin Plains, and
as at the head of navigation of the Willamette river, which
waters that country.

The country in which the gold mines have since been dis-
covered attracted to commercial men at that time no interest.
The ocean vessels running to that town, and for a few years
after its location, were able to supply the wants of the Willa-
mette valley, and Tualatin Plains, without embarrassment in
na\igation.

Portland is twelve miles up the Willamette river, from where
it empties into the Columbia river. As Portland increased

in population and prosperity, persons having an interest in
property on the Columbia river, above and below the mouth
of the AVillamette, made efforts to establish towns. Several
points were spoken of as eligible points for sea-going vessels;
among the rest, Astoria, Cathlamet, Rainier, St. Helen's, and
Vancouver. Buildings were put up on them, and every effort
was made by the proprietors of the land to attract attention
to their eligibility for that purpose.

The influence of the City of Portland has thus far over-
come the embarrassments of the navigation of the Willamette
river that I have mentioned, and has prevented any success-
ful rivalry from these towns on the Columbia. It is now, after
the discovery of the gold mines on the Columbia and its trib-
utaries, the commercial port for 'not only the Willamette val-
ley and the Tualatin Plains, but for all the country east of the
Cascades.

I think, to say nothing of the merits of the towns below
the mouth of the Willamette river, there are obstructions in
the water-front of the town of Vancouver equally as embar-
rassing to sea-going vessels as those in the Willamette river
before the city of Portland.

Int. 9, — Have not St. Helen's and Rainier long since de-
cayed, and lost any pretense of being sites of commerce?

Ans. — They have failed to come up to vhc expectation of
their original proprietors.

Int. 10. — Did Cathlamet ever have, or has it now, more than
five or six houses?

Ans. — I don't know the number of houses. I never counted
them.

Int. 11. — Are not Astoria and Vancouver, of the places you
have mentioned on the Columbia river, the only ones that
have retained their growth and most of their population?

Ans. — I believe that Astoria has a greater population now
than in IS.'iG. I am doubtful if the town of Vancouver has
as many citizen residents in it now as at some other time since
its foundation as a town. I think I can recollect when it had
a greater population than it had in March, 1865, when I last
saw it.

::i

■ , iiiiji

Int. 12. — Who was in command of the United States troops
at old Fort George, at the time you speak of, when tlie United
States troops were in possession of it?

Ans, — I think Major Ilathcway, of the Ist United States
Artillery.

Int. 13. — Does not the Walla- Walla valley, where you were
stationed some years, contain a large and flourishing settle-
ment?

Ans. — I don't remember the population of the Walla- Walla
valley. I know that along the Walla-Walla river and its
tributaries there is fertile, arable land; I can't give the ex-
act extent of it. The claims were taken under the pre-emp-
tion laws, which have, in many instances, since been divided.
This fertile land is generally occupied and improved. There
is a town in the Walla- Walla valley, within three-quarters of
a mile of Fort Walla-Walla, with a population varying from
eight to fifteen hundred persons. I do not believe that any
of the agricultural products are shipped from the valley, to
any extent, except flour. Some cattle are raised in the valley,
and a few of them sent to the mines for sale. The settlement
of this valley was commenced and promoted by the establish-
ment of a military post and the presence of United States
troops, and for the purpose of supplying them. Until within
the past four years the product of this valley in grain found
its market in the United States Government, in the supply of
United States troops at this post.

Justus Steinberger.

Washington City, J). C, May 16, 1806.

Testimony op Charles B. Wagner.

Charles B. Wagner, being duly sworn and examined according
to law, says:

Int. 1. — What is your name, age, place of residence, and
occupation ?

Ans. — Charles B. Wagner ; aged forty years ; place of res-

Idcncc, Washington City ; and occupation, an oflieor oT the*
United States army — brevet colonel, captain, and quarter-
master.

Int. 2. — Have you ever lived in Washington Territory? If
yea, when, and where, and for how long a time ?

Ans. — Yes, sir; from the latter part of August, IH^T, to
the middle of September, 1861, at Fort Vancouver, Washing-
ton Territory.

Int. 3. — Are you acquainted with the fort and l)uildings at
Vancouver, which were formerly occupied by the Hudson's
Bay Company? If yea, please to describe them as they were
when you first observed them.

Ans. — Yes, sir. When I first went there, in the hitter part of
August, 1857, the buildings then occupied by the Hudson's
Bay Company were principally embraced in what was known
as the stockade, with the exception of the salmon-house near
the river, which was outside the stockade. The buildings
were old, and some were very much dilapidated. The build-
iugs consisted of what was known as the store there, two or
three store-houses, one of which was rented and occupied by
the United States quartermaster at that time, 1857, and what
was known as the Governor's house. These were the principal
buildings within the stockade. In addition to those, there
were four or five smaller buildings, occupied by the employes
of the Hudson's Bay Company. There were a few buildings
outside the stockade, of which the salmon-house was the prin-
cipal, one small frame building, occupied by the ordnance de-
partment as a store-house, one small log building, occupied by
Mrs. Field, and four or five small huts occupied by Sandwich
Islanders or Kanakas, and several old stables ; these are about
all I remember.

Int. 4. — How did the character and condition of the fort
and buildings at this post, at the time you last saw them, com-
pare with their character and condition when you saw and
observed them for the first time ?

Am. — They had gone very much out of repair ; a number
of them were unoccupied ; some of them were partly fallen
down.

'"s 5 .1

■•'^■, S

is m

'sm'iu

Inf. r>. — Aro yon ncquaintcd with the value of the fort and
buihliii;,'s cithor collet'tively or in detail? If yea, please to
.state, as fully as you can, yonr opinion of that value at the
time you last saw them.

(Ohjeeted to as a matter of opinion.)

An8, — I could ;:;ive an opinion, so far as what I considered
their worth when I last saw them ; Iamacquainte<l with their
value. For any practical purposes, in August or Septemher,
1801, the buildings within the stockade of the Hudson's Bay
Company were of very little value, in my estimation. I should
say they were not certainly worth over six thousand or eight
thousand dollars.

Int. 0. — Please to look at the map of Vancouver and its
vicinity, here produced, and state whether, in your opinion, it
is a correct delineation of that locality

Ans. — Yes, sir; it is so.

Int. 7. — Are you ac({uainted with the country ar represented
on this map, for a space extending from a point above the saw-
mill, some six or eight miles above the fort, down the river to
the Cathlapootl river, and back from the Columbia for a dis-
tance of an average of about ten miles, embracing a tract oi
about twenty-five miles longand ten miles wide? If yea, please
to state the condition and character of the same as fully as
you can, and describe what part thereof, if any was, while
you were there, occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company.

Ans. — Yes, sir, I am acquainted with the country described
in the question. From the bank of the river, for an average
of about a mile, from, say two miles above Vancouver, the
country is low and flat down to the Cathapootl river. From
two miles above Vancouver up to the saw-mill, the country is
hilly and rough. The country in rear of this mile to, say half
a mile below Vancouver, is high land, principally covered with
timber. There are parts embraced within this average mile
from the river that are good agricultural lands and fertile. A
good portion of it, however, is liable to be overflowed every
very high stage of water each year. There was only a small
portion, in the immediate vicinity of the Hudson's Bay stockade
enclosure, occupied by the Company — how much at the saw-

mill I am unal)lc to suy. I suppose there was about one hun-
dred and thirty or forty acres enclosed ut or near the j^tnckadc.
That is the only land which I knew the IlufUuu's Tlay Coiiipany
liad enclosed, except at the saw-mill, of which I aui not able
to say how much.

Jnt. 8. — l)i<l you ever observe any marks or objects of any
kind which indicated any boundaries, or surveys of any claim
which were outside of the lands which were actually enclosed?
If yea, please to describe them.
Aiis. — No, sir ; I did not.

Int. 0. — llow were the lands occupied in this tract which
you have described, exclusive of those which were enclosed
and occupied, if at all, and by whom, from IH')! to 18*50?

Ans. — They were occupied by settlers, a number of small
farms; by the military post at Vancouver, the town of Van-
couver, and by the Catholic Mission. A greater portion of
it, however, was unoccupied.

Int. 10. — What was the condition of the town of Vancouver
during the period that you were there, nourishing or other-
wise?

Ans. — From 1857 to the spring of 1850 the town was in a
flourishing condition. After the spring of 1850 the town com-
menced to decline in its prospects.

Int. 11. — What, in your judgment, was the cause c" the
growth and establishment of the town up to a given point, and
the cause of its thereafter beginning to decline?

Ans. — Tlie principal cause of its growth from 1857 to the
spring of 1850 was, I think, by parties settling there, endeav-
oring to attract trade from Portland. The garrison at the
post at Vancouver was during a part of that time increased,
and brought a great many new settlers there for the purpose of
traffic with the garrison. Its decline commenced in the spring
of 1850, from the cause of those people who had settled there,
who had failed in their endeavors to attract trade to that point,
and also in the decrease of the number of troops at the garri-
son during that and the next year.

Int. 12. — Are you acquainted with the value of land in the
town of Vancouver and its immediate vicinity during the

'■,,;,'< .

period that you Avcro there ? If yea, please to state, as fully
as you can, what its value then was.

Ans. — Yes, sir ; I was acquainted with its value at that time.
The lots ill Vancouver, in 1857 and 1858, were sold, an ordinary
building lot in the best locati^^.ts in the town, as high as eight
hundred dollars, in rny k^owledge. Farming land in the im-
mediate neighborhood of Fort Vancouver could be bought for
forty dollars per ace for the choicest improved land. Timber
land, just below, and in rear, southwest of the town of Vancou-
ver, unimproved, was very cheap. I had a half section offered
to me for one thousand dollars. The lots in Vancouver, I know,
after the spring of 1859, decreased at least one-third in value.
I am not able to say in reference to the farming lands, whether
thev decreased or not.

Int. 13, — State, if you know, whether the town of Vancou-
ver has lost or gained in wealth and population from 1859 to
the present time.

Ans. — From 1859, within my own knowledge, up to the fall
of 18G1, it did decrease ; from the fall of 1861, up to the pres-
ent time, I knew nothing except by report.

Int. 14. — Are there any suitable places on the water-front,
in the town of Vancouver, for the erection of wharves ?

Ans. — Not in the immediate front of the town [of] Vancou-
ver, to accommodate sea-going steamers, except in a very
high sttige of water.

Int. 15. — Do you know the ordinary depth of water at the
wharf erected by the Government, just above the town of
Vancouver ; and is not that the best place for a wharf in that
immediate vicinity ?

Ans. — At ordinary stages of water, the depth of water at
the Government wharf is about fifteen feet.

Int. 16. — What, in your opinion, is the effect, if any, of the
city of Portland on the growt!. and prosperity of Vanoouver ;
and what are the grounds of your opinion?

Ans. — In my opinion, it destroys all its prospects as a com-
mercial town. The capital has got centered at Portland. Port-
land has the rich agricultural valley of Willamette to feed it.

(Witnesi's opinion objected to.)

Int. 17. — Have you ever known of any lands, in the neigh-
borhood of Vancouver, which have been cleared of timber by
the Hudson's Bay Company, or any roads which have been
opened by them ?

Ans. — No, sir ; I do not.

Cross-Examination.

Int. 1. — Is not all your personal knowledge of the matters
you have testified to, about the Hudson's Bay Company's post
at Vancouver and its vicinity, confined to the time you were
there, between the years 1857 and 1861 ?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 2. — Examine this list of buildings, stores, and work-
shops, now shown to you, and state whether they were o\\ at
Vancouver during the time you were there; and if nrt, how
many of them were there:

1 dwelling-house, 170x30 feet, lir

1 do.

2 do.
2 do.
1 do.
1 do.

Church.

1 new church,

2 school-houses,
1 new office,

1 old do.
1 kitchen,
1 bake-house,
1 prison,
1 hospital,

70x40 "

50x30 "

50x20 "

30x20 "

50x25 "

30x21, ceiled

83x36 feet.

50x40 "

30x30 "

60x24 "

40x25 "

21x21 "

32x22 "

ed and ceiled.
i (t

adjoining the Catholic

STORES.

" 1 store, No. 1,
1 do. No. 2,

86x40 feet.
90x40 "

is-

' .'..,-; "Ill

"1 store, No. 3,

100x40

feet.

1 do. No. 4,

100x40

1 salmon-store,

100x40

1 receiving-store

, 32x24

1 beef do.

75x30

1 salt do.

27x12

((

1 iron do.

40x30

1 granary,

50x40

WORKSHOPS.

"1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

blacksmith's forge,
carpenter's shop,
cooper's do.
distillery,
corn-kiln,
saddler's shop,

45x30 feet.
40x20 "
70x30 «
132x18
18x18
40x25

Indian trading-shop, 80x30
powder magazine, 18x18

1 well-house,

24x18

Ans. — I can't tell from this description of the buildings
what were there. This list includes the Mission.

Int. 3. — Was not the store occupied by quartermaster a
strong building, capable of holding large quantities of goods,
and free from leaking?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; it was a large, strong building, rough,
made of logs sawed in two, unfinished inside. The roof was
good at the time we occupied it. It was capable of holding
heavy merchandise on the first floor.

Int. 4. — W^as this store in any better way than the other
store-houses of the same kind inside the stockade ?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; it was the best store-house within the
stockade, except the one used by the Hudson's Bay Company
as a store.

Int. 5. — Were not the buildings of the Company, after they
had left there, uncared for, and left to decay ; and were not
some of them torn down either by the military authorities, or
the soldiers, at their own will ?

buildings

iiaster a
f goods,

r, rough,
roof was
holding

he other

•ities, or

Anft. — Ycp, sir ; no person took any charge or care of them.
I think there were one or two of them torn down by soldiers.

Int. 6. — Did you ever look for or examine the eountry to
see if you could discover any marks or boundaries of the
Hudson's Bay Company's claim ?

Ans. — No, sir ; I never looked for that purpose.

Jut. 7. — Is not the underbrush of the forest of very rapid
growth, and does a small groAvth of firs rapidly come up on
cleared or opened forest land left to itself?

Ans. — I don't know that I ever took any notice of that
peculiarity.

Int. 8. — Do you know whether the town of Vancouver was
laid out by tlie county commissioners of Clarke county, on a
triangular piece of land next to the western of line of the mil-
itary reserve?

Ans. — I do not.

Int. 9. — Do you know who sold, as first proprietor, the lots
in the town?

Ans. — I don't know positively, hut think it was Mrs. Short.

Int. 10. — Were there not several conflicting titles or claims
to the lands in and around Vancouver, such as the Missio'^
claim, the town-site claim, and the Short claim ?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; I understand there was.

Int. 11. — Did not the Widow Short and the county commis-
sioners also sell lots in the town of Vancouver, as being owners
of it?

Ans. — I do not know, from my own personal knowledge,
whether the county commissioners did or not.

Int. 12. — Were you not well acquainted with the business
men and citizens of the town of Vancouver ?

Ans. — By general reputation I was.

Int. 13. — Give the names of those persons engaged in busi-
ness in Vancouver in 1857 and 1858, who left in 1859, if you
can.

Ans. — I don't know as I can recall the names of any.

Int. 14, — Can you say that any one left, except a Mr.

Vaughn, of the business men ?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; there was a gentleman Avho kept a large
5C

II Jiij), mu iwmim> i) miPM -'■IDi'iMW

I "-'I

W ...

> ' si

1)
1*1

.. 11
" Hi

I tl

store — a doctor somebody; I can't recall the name; also a
Mr. Rosonstock or Mr. llosoiibaiiin.

Dit. 15. — Is not the Government wharf at the old Hudson's
Bav landiniT and on the military reserve: and is not the
deepest ^vater oft' the military reserve front?

An><. — The Government wharf is on the military reserve.
The deepest water on the front of the military reserve is at
the wliarf.

Jut. !(!. — Do you know on what part of the water-front, at
and near Vancouver, the deepest water is to be found? If so,
state it.

Ans. — Yes, sir; about three-quarters of a mile below the
military reserve, and just below the saw-mill and below the
town, is the deepest water near the bank.

Int. 17. — Is not the wharf of the Government built directly
on the bank of the river, and would not a Avharf of proper
length, run out from the bank at any place near Vancouver,
reach deep water ?

Ans. — If you go far enough out, except at one particular
point, which is the bar.

I/d. 18. — What is the greatest depth of water in the channel
of the river oft" Vancouver and its immediate [vicinity]?

Ans. — At ordinary stages of Avater, excluding the bar, it is
fourteen, fourteen and a-half, and fifteen feet. The depth of
the water in front of the wharf is about the average depth of
the channel.

Charles B. Wagner,
Brevet Col. and Ass't Quartermaister.

Washington City, May 11th, 18G6.

",rli*jSi'

11 ■' Mil \H

11; -

Testimony of Captain William A. Howard.

Captain William A. Howard, being duly sworn according to
law, deposes and says :

Int. 1. — What is your name, age, place of residence, and
occupation ?

'«||

Avs. — My name is William A. Howard; aged fifty and up-
wards; my occupation is captain in the United States Revenue
Marine; niv residence is New York Citv, Now York.

Int. 2, — Have you ever visited and observed any of the posts
of tlie Hudson's Jjay Company west of the Rocky ^Nlouiitains?
If yea, jjlease to enumerate tlie d'tterent posts which you have
visited.

Ans. — I visited the mouth of the Cowlitz, Nisqually, Van-
couver, Cape Disap])ointment, and Astoria.

Jnt. •). — How often have you visited the post at Vancouver,
and are you or not acquainted with the fort and ])uiMings at
this post which were occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company ?

Ans. — I visited there repeatedly, I suppose as many as a
dozen times. I was there in l^'A, 18.V2, and early in 1S53. I
am acquainted with the fort and buildings of the Hudson's Bay
Company at this post.

Int. 4. — Please to describe the character, condition, and
value of the fort and buildings at this post when you saw and
observed them.

Ana. — The character of the Hudson's Bay Company's trad-
ing post and fort was an enclosed picketed post. There was
certainly one bjstion there. The buildings were made in the
(.'anadian style, of uprights, I think. The buildings were in
good order at that time. There wore granaries, Avork-shops,
dwellings, and stores, large buildings, some of which were one
hundred feet long, I think. One of them was, certainly. The
buildings were rude structures, made of the wood of the country,
built by the common labor of the <lay. I think one hundred
thousand dollars would be a large allowance for buildinf; the
fort and all its appurtenances. 1 mean the stockade and all
the buildings.

Int. 5. — Arc you or not acquainted with the navigation
of the river at and near Vancouver ? If yea, please to state
whether, in your judgment, it be practicable to establish a com-
mercial town at this place, with the desirable wharves and
facilities to accommodate shipping.

Ans — It is not capable of that. There is a shoal growing
there continually, right in front of Vancouver, which destroys

.„/.l/'l(l

'1'

:,'■:> in' •

»1"

if-

:il:

iiili^'

anything in the way of wharves and piers, anil destroys navi-
gation, which renders it ineligible for a good site for a town.

Int. (J. — Please to describe separately the condition and
value of the other posts of the Hudson's Bay Company which
you have visited and observed at different tin\cs.

Alls. — The mouth of the Cowlitz, when I visited there,
was being destroyed very fast, being washed away by the en-
croaches of the river. I think one of the stores was in the
water. I visited the place a number of times, and these en-
croaches Avere going on during my acquaintance with it. When
I was first there there was a considerable body of land in front
of it, and during my visits this land was being gradually
washed away. My impression is that at my last visit one of
the buildings had been somewhat undermined by the washing
away. At Cape Disappointment, when I was there in 1853,
I saw nothing there that could claim to be a station, except a
fish house, or something of that kind. I remember two build-
ings at Astoria when I was there in 1852 and 1853 — I spent a
week there at one time — said to belong to the Hudson's Bay
Company. It was not used as a trading post. These buildings
were very old, out of order, and of little value.

Cro88-Examination.

lii

3l«)il!

;*:,s ii:

,f,iiiii>', ill!"

If 1 '

Int. 1. — While at Vancouver did you have occasion to sound
the river in front of the old stockade or near it, so as to locate
the shoal you speak of, or is your knowledge of it derived from
hearsay ?

Ans. — My knowledge is derived from my own observation.
I went there in a canoe frequently. I was there in the United
States steamer Active.

Int. 2. — Have you any knowledge of this water-front since
1853, and do you know its present condition of your own
knowledge?

Ans. — I know nothing.

Int. 3. — Was not this shoal you speak of a shifting bank of
sand, moving and liable to be swept away at any time by the
strong current of the river ?

•J

Ans. — This was evidently of shifting sand. The shoal was
a growing shoal in front of Vancouver, and was sufficient to
destroy that place for a town site for shipping.

Int. 4. — Did this shoal extend down the river so as to render
the front below the fort a poor place for wharves?

Ans. — I thinic at this time, if I mistake not, this shoal was
considerably below the fort.

Int. 5. — Do you know the fact that the Government wharf
is now a little above the Hudson's Bay Company's landing,
and has fifteen feet of water at ordinary low water 'i

Alls. — I know there is deep water there. I am confident
there was twelve or fifteen feet of water for some distance
along that point inside the shoal. "

Int. 0. — Did you make any particular examination of the
buildings of the Hudson's Bay Company inside the stockade,
so as to be able to say that many of them were not finished
inside, lined and ceiled, and some of them framed ?

Ans. — I made no particular examination of the houses, but
know some of them were ceiled.

W. A. HOAVARD,

Captain U. S. 11. llarine.
Washington City, D. C, 3Iai/ 21, 18GG.

Testimony of Joseph K. Barnes.

ington

Joseph K. Barnes, being duly sworn according to law, says :
Int. 1. — What is your name, age, place of residence, and
present occupation ?

1/Js.— J. K.Barnes; agedforty-nineyears; residence, Wash-
city; occupation, Surgeon General United States
Army.

Int. 2. — Have you ever visited Washington Territory ; if
yea, when and where ?

Ans.—l resided in Washington Territory four years, be.
tween the years 1857 to 1861, at Fort Vancouver.

Lit. 3. — Are you acquainted with the lands and buildings

[•*).i;.if,i|V,.

fi,i; ';

.:jl

"■ .. 'M %

at Vancouver which are claimed by the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany ?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 4. — Have you ever made any estimate of tlic value of
the fort and buildinrif.s at Vancouver ■vvliich Avcrc formerly
claimed and occupied by the Hudson's Bay CompaTiy ; if yea,
when, and under what circumstances?

Ans. — T Avas a member of a board of survey, ordered to
make an estimate of the value of the buildings owned by the
Hudson's Bav Companv at Fort Van ouver.

Int. i). — Please to look at the paper here presented, and
marked A and annexed, and state whether the same be a true
copy of the report which was made and signed by you and
others in pursuance of the order for a survey.

Ans. — It is a true copy, according to my best judgment and
belief.

(The admission of the above paper objected to, on the ground
that it is the report and decision of a military board or tribunal
on some of the matters that have been, or may be, in (juestion
before this joint commission ; and that, by the date of the
report, it appears to have been made after the Hudson's Bay
Company had left the premises, under notification of the com-
manding oificcr of the department that they had no rights
therein ; and, further, that the Company had no notice what-
ever of the proceeding.)

Int. 0. — Are you acquainted with the character and value
of any other posts of the Hudson's Bay Company ? If yea,
please to enumerate and describe them.

Ans. — No, sir ; I am not.

Int. 7. — What was the condition of the buildings at Van-
couver at the time that your attention was called to them ;
and what, in your opinion, Avas their value at that time?

(Objectetl to as incompetent.)

Ans. — The condition was the same as at the time when
vacated by the Company; and they were utterly valueless,
except for tlie Company's purpose.

Int. 8. — Hid you, while there, observe the policy of the Com-
pany in regard to the settlement of the country by American

Bay Com-

ic value of

formerly

y; if yea,

)r(lere(l to
od by the

ntcd, and

be a true

Y you and

fluent and

he ground
r tribunal
I (question
to of the
son's Bay
' the com-
no rights
lice what-

and value
If yea.

■me when
valueless,

citizens ? If yea, please to state whether the same was favor-
iiblo or otherwise.

AtiH. — I had no opportunity of judging of the policy of the
Company in this respect.

Int. t>. — Does this report, a copy of which has boon produced
liere, contain a true and accurate account and estimate of the
fort and buildings of the Company at the time the same were
examined by you; and have you any desire or wish to alter
the opinica which you then expressed in regard to the char-
acter and value of the fort and l)uil<lings.

(Objected to, on the same ground as the other, in reference
to the report, and for irrelevancy.)

Ani<. — It does contain a true account ; and I have not changed

my opinion.

Cross-Examination.

Int. 1. — Had you ever purchased lumber, or become ac-
quainted with the price of it, at the time you have testified to
in answer to question 7?

Ans. — I have not.

Int. 2. — Do you know anything of the value of material,
such as boards, lumber, and shingles, when once used in build-
ing, when used for other buildings and other purposes ?

Ans. — In this instance I kncAV. I took the pains to learn
the comparative value of this material.

Int. o. — Is this opinion you have given here, in answer to
interrogatory 7, your own opinion, from your personal knowl-
edge, or is it an opinion formed from information that came to
you as member of a board of officers ?

Ans. — It is my personal opinion, sustained by information
obtained.

Int. 4. — Was this personal opinion formed before you went
on that board?

Ans. — Yes, sir. It was a matter of observation, extending
over a period of some time.

Int. 5. — How many witnesses were examined by this board,
if any; and were any of them carpenters or builders ; and, if

no witnesses were examined, fi-om what source did you receive
the information you liave spoken of?

Ans. — The board advised with and took the opinion of
waster carpenters and buihlers; men who had been employed
by the Government as such ; but I am unable to say how many
or who they were after this lapse of time.

Int. 0. — Were those Avitnesses or persons you have spoken
of SAvorn, or were they heard when the board was in session?

Alls. — They were not sworn. Their opinion was obtained
while the board was in session.

Int. 7. — Were not these opinions obtained by the members
of the board individually in some instances?

Ans. — Not that I am aware of.

Int. 8. — By the report it appears that the board met at
one o'clock p. m. on the day the order issued. How long was
the board in session?

A71S. — My recollection is they occupied the most of the day.

Ini. 9. — Did you personally, or any member of the board,
examine with care the sills of the Governor's house?

Ans. — They all did, to the best of my recollection.

Int. 10. — Were you accompanied by any carpenter or builder
at that time, or were your examinations made in person?

Ans. — To the best of my recollection, one or more carpen-
ters or builders were with us throughout the whole examina-
tion.

Int. 11. — Did you not examine these buildings with a view
to the use they would be to the military authorities on a mili-
tary reserve ?

Ans. — They were examined with a view to the valuation of
the material for any military purpose.

Int. 12. — Was not the opinion you have expressed based on
the value of the material contained in these buildings for
other purposes when pulled down ?

A71S. — They were of no use to the Government as they
stood. They were simply for the value of the material.

Int. 13. — Were not these buildings left remaining on the
reserve, in your opinion, in the way of the military author-
ities and of no use to them?

Ans. — Tlioy wove of no possible use to the military author-
ities as tliev stoo<l.

Int. 14. — Before these buildings were left by the Company
did they not answer the purposes for which they were used,
as dwellini:;-hon^es, stores, and so forth, and protect and
shelter the families and goods and stores of the Company?

Ans. — T considered them poor store-houses and vt-ry poor
dwellings.

Int. 1'). —Would any person other than military authorities
have been allowed to occupy these buildin;^ on the reserve?

Ans. — No, sir.

Int. in. — Did your opinion of the value of this material
agree with that of the board, or did you differ with them?

Ans. — I can't answer that question at this time.

Int. 17. — Does your opinion now agree with that set out in
that report?

Ans. — I have had no reason to alter my opinion.

Int. 18. — Your opinion noAv is, then, that these buildings
had the value that is mentioned in the report?

Ans.—Y

es, SI

r; it "was a fair valuation.

Examinatlon-in-Chief Resumed.

Int. 1. — What was the condition of the town of Vancouver
when you left there in 1801, as compared with its condition
when you went there in 1857?

Ans. — The excitement produced by the discoveries of gold
on the upper Columbia, in 18G1, acted prejudicially to Van-
couver by removing most of the industrial population.

Int. 2. — In your opinion, is the town of Vancouver likely
to become a place of any considerable commercial importance?

(Objected to.)

Ans. — I have no data from which to form an opinion.

Int. 3. — Are the other members of the board of survey now
living?

Atis. — To the best of my knowledge they are both dead.

""''*'l'i^"lW

(Jro»s(-E.rani ui at ion Hex u ni cd.

Jut. 1. — At wliat time of the year l^<01 did you leave Van-
couver?

Ann. — In the latter part of June, IHOl.

Inf. 2. — Could this population tiiat went to the tnines have
gone there and returned before you left, in June?

Anx. — No; they could not.

Inf. 3. — Did these jieojjle who had wives or families, in
most instances, leave them at Vancouver?

An^. — A great many took their families with them.

J. K. Bahxks,
Surgeon General United Statdi.

Washington City, D, C, June 0, 18(50.

Proeecdings of a hoard of officers whieh convened at Fort Van-
couver, Washington Territory, hg virtue of the following
order, viz :

IIkADQUAUTEKS DKrARTMENT OF OrEUON,

Fort Vancouver, W. T., June 15, 18(.i0.

Special Orders, 1

No. 08. /

A board of officers wmII convene at Fort Vancouver, Wash-
ington Territory, to-day at one o'clock, to examine and report
the value of the buildings on the military reserve at Fort
Vancouver vacated by the Hudson's Bay Company.

The board will further report whether any of these buildings
can be useful to the public service.

Detail for the Board.

1. Bvt. Lieut. Colonel G. Nauman, Major M Artillery.

2. Surgeon J. K. Barnes, llediccd Department.

iiics iiiive

7r.

n. r.vt. ]\rnj(.r John F. UkyxoM);^, ('<ii>f<iiii :''/ Artlll-rii.
Ut liioiitciiiiiit Cii.\rNri:YMc'Ki:r,vi;u, ■)</ Jrti/li rt/, H-runlvr.
I3y. order of General llAUNiiV.

A, l'r,i;.\si>.\T(«.v,
Ciii>f. %1 DriKjiiuHH, A. .1. Ailjt iirttl

FullT VaNCOU villi, WASIirXCToN TkIUUTi'ILY,

oxK O'CLOCK, r. M., ./(///. I."), ij?t;o.

Tlio board inot pursuant to tin- above ordiT : ])ri'Sont, all
the mcinl)c'rri and the Uocorder. The board llirn procroded to
oxamino and appraise tlic buiblinj^s on llie military reserve
vacated by the Hudson's Bay Company.

The board doterniincd, respecting the probal)le value of
these buildini^s, as follows:

No. 1. — Store-house on the bank of the river in rear of the
Government wharf, known as the salmon-house. Tiiis liuild-
iiig has been used by the depot (luarternnister at dillerent
times as a temporary storehouse, but is noAv useless for that
purpose. Estimated value of material, §1-').

No. 2, — Two-storied building, with adjoining shed and out-
house, used by the ordnance department as store-house, »S:c. ;
out of repair, and useless except for the nnjst temporary
purposes. Estimated value of material, $")0.

No. 3. — rrincipal dwelling-house inside of pickets, known
as Governor's house ; sills, llooring, and wood-work generally
so much decayed as to be uninhabitable; entirely useless for
any military purpose. Estimated value of material, $100.

No. 4.— kitchen, (Governor's house,) entirely out of repair,
useless to the public service. Material of no value.

No. 5. — Butcher shop, &c., in a ruinous condition. Mate-
rial of no value.

No. G. — Bake-house, in a ruinous condition. jSIaterial of

no value.

No. 7. — Long building, used as quarters for employus, so
auch out of repair as to be uninhabitable and useless for any
military purpose. Estimated value of material, $20.

No. 8. — Small store-house, long since abandoned by the
Company, in a ruinous condition. Material of no value.

<'^M

W".,

i'r

■ *,

t ■

No. 0. — Blacksmith shop, long since abandoned by the
Company, in a ruinous condition. Materials of no value.

No. 10. — Fur-house, long since abandoned by the Company,
in a ruinous condition. Material of no value.

No. 11. — Porter s lodge, useless for any military purpose.
Materials of no value.

Nos. 12, T3, and 14. — Three large store-houses, useless for
any purpose connected with the public service. Estimated
value of material, $800.

No. lo. — Hudson's Bay Company's store, entirely unsuitable
for any military purpose. Estimated value of material, $150.

No. 10. — Block-hou&o, in a ruinous condition. Material of
no value.

No. 17. — Grar.ary, entirely unsuited to any purpose of the
public service. Material of no value.

No. 18. — Carpenter's wheehvright shop, long since aban-
doned by the Company, in a ruinous condition. Materials
of no value.

No. 10. — Company's office, in tolerable repair, might be
made use of temporarily. Estimated value of material, $75.

No. 20. — Guar<l-house, long since abandoned by the Com-
pany, in a ruinous condition. Material of no value.

No. 21. — Dwelling-house, formerly occupied by Mr. Gra-
hame, in a ruinous condition. Material of no value.

No. 22. — Small magazine, useless to the public service.
Material of no value.

No. 23. — Dweiiing-house on the bank of the river, near the
eastern edge of the reservation. Estimated value, $100.

No. 24. — Dwelling-house on the bank of the river, near the
Government -wharf. Estimated value, $100.

Finally, four hovels, outside of and near the southeast cor-
ner of the pickets, in a dilapidati d condition, and useless to
the public service. Materials of no value.

The board is of the opinion that none of the buildings within
the pickets are worth repairing for any military purpose, and
that, in conse([uencc of the age, decayed condition, and
crowded position of the buildings, the sanitary police of the
place demands that they be destroyed by fire, after removing

Gra-

-j-_

"vO

■^

>N.

1- — I

I —

I !

i5j

.5J

r"V

— I 1

) I

.1^.J

o W

such of the material as may be found to be of sufficient value.
The board having ho fur .her business before it, then ad-
journed sine die.

GEOiifiE Naumax,
Brevet Lieut. Col., Major <^d ArtiUerif.
Jos. K. Bauxks,
John F. llEvxoLr)-;,
Captain, Brevet Major 3tZ Artillery.

ClIAUNCEY McKeEVER,

\»t Lieut. 3t? Artillery, Recorder.

Official copy.

E. D. Townsend,
Assistant Adjutant G- neral.

Testimony of Ciiauncey McKeever.

Gen. Chauneey McKeever, being duly sworn, according to
law, deposes and says:

Int, 1. — What is your name, age, place of residence and
occupation ?

Ans. — Chauncey McKeever ; Major in Adjutant General'^;
Department, Brevet Brigadier General United States Army;
aged thirty-six years; residence, Washington City.

Lit. 2. — Have you ever resided in Washington Territory;
if yea, when and where ?

Ans. — I resided there about ten months, from about No-
vember, 18')i3, to September, 1850, at Fort Steihicoom, and
afterwards at Fort Vancouver for about a year, from Septem-
ber, 185lt, to September, 18(30.

Int. 3. — Are you acquainted with the lands and buiblingi-
at Vancouver which were formerly claimed and ocjupied by
the Hudson's Bay Company?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; I have been mer most all of tliem.

Int. 4. — Did you ever estimate, as a member of a board of
military survey, the lands and buildings at Vancouver which

N ::■

I-- 5 ;l . I'll

.'■1':;.

Ii«-

■ 78

were formerly occiipiod l)y tlio lludson's Bay Conip.any ; if
yea, ■wlieii ?

Ajia. — I was ;. mcinljor of a board wliicli was directed to
make an estimato of tlie value of the buildings, but not of
the bimls, and was rocorder for a second board for tlie same
purpose, l)ut liail no voice in tlie proceedings of tlie last board.
The first survey was made in MaVcli, 18G0, and the second in
June of the same year.

lilt. f). — IMcase to look at the paper here produceil, and
state whether, in your opinion, the same be a true copy of the
report whidi was made by you and others in pursuance of a
special order from General Harney.

A71S. — I beliovt- tills to bo a true copy of tlie report.

(All evidcMice with reforcnce to the authenticity of this re-
port, and the report Itself, is objected to as irrelevant and in-
competent, the re|»ort purporting to contain, and to be the
proceedings and deelslons of a military board or tribunal sit-
ting to detei-mlne and decide on matters that have been or
may l>e in ([uestloii before this commission.)

Inf. (i. — Did you personally inspect and appraise the build-
ings and im])rovenieiits at Vancouver which were occupied by
the Hudson's Day Company? If yea, please to describe their
condition at the time you examined them, and your judg-
ment of tiieir value at that time.

Aus. — I did examine them. Although I had no vote, I
participated in the discussions and gave my opinion. My
impression is that the ap])raisement was made by myself and
one other member of the board. I inspected the buildings in
June, lS<Ii>. They were all of them in a very dilapidated
condition. Most of the lumber and timber about them was
very much decayed. I considered the whole of them worth
about one thousand dollars.

Int. 7. — Did you ever give any attention to the growth and
development of the country on the Pj,cific coast, and the
probablo course of trade there in the future; if yea, what, in
your oi)inion, is tl.'c probability of building up a large com-
mercial town at Vancouver?

Ans. — I cannot say that I have ever given any great attcn-

tioji to this sul)jet't, but I have always taken the ground
there was no jrreat value to be attiicheil to Vaueouvor as a
comuiereial ))lace, for the reason there is no back country
likely to be settled back of Vancouver. The forests are very
dense. 1 don't think it would ])ay to clear them. There is very
little o]»en |)rairic land. An<l Portland, at that time, was a
large placc^, and had the start of A'ancouver, and was near
enough to interfere with its progress as a commercial place.
And the bar in the river near A^inconver Avas constantly
changing with the spring freshets. AVhere there might be a
fine depth of water one year, there mitrht be a sand-bar the
next year, right in front of the town.

Crossi-E.rai)iiiiation.

Int. 1. — Is the testimony you have given in reference to
the condition of the buiblings in June, LSiiO, derived from an
insj)ectio?i of those buildings in that month, as one of the
board you have mentioned?

Ans. — Ves, sir.

Int. 2. — That knowledge came to you then in that capacity
and at that time, did it?

A)is. — Ves, sir.

Int. o. — Your board met at one o'clock p. ni. How long
after this time did j^ou commence your examination of the
buildings, and for how long a time did you continue it?

Anii. — I can't say positively, but I rememl)er we got through
some tinio that afternoon. I don't think we were over three
hours.

Int. 4. — You speak of the decay of the buildings. Did you
cause the linings to be taken off of the lined buildings to exam-
ine the inside frames, or did you do nu)rc than merely look at
the exposed portions of the buiblings?

Ans. — ^Ve did more than look at the exposed portions of
the buildings; we occasionally pulled up a plank, anu we tried
to see if a nail would hold in some of the wood.

Int. 5. — Do you consider yourself a judge of carpenter's
work or the value of material?

^wws^ntfaifui ■>ijiiii

■ ^WfimiKJfJiiiWm

Mil
Ml

*'■ .■ 'I'll

:. -i

'%!,:

|.:|^

■■.■■l;» i 1

Ans. — I do not consider myself a very competent judge, but
I know something about it, having had charge of the erection
of some (fovernment buihlings, and having purchased the ma-
terials at Steilacoom.

Int. 0. — Were there any carpenters with you, ^r were any
examined by the board at this time?

Ans. — I think not. I think there was no one except the
members of the uoard.

Int. 7. — Do you feel certain that the officers comprising the
board alone examined these buildings in the three hours you
mention, and then, witliout getting information from builders
or carpenters, formed .heir opinion':"

Ans. — I think there was no one with the board at the time
we examined the buildings. I don't know whether any of the
board consulted the head carpenter or not.

Int. 8. — Had not these buildings of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany, since their departure, been exposed to the soldiers, and
been used by them for any purpose they saw fit?

Ans. — I think not. I doubt Avhether they had been touched.
I think this examination was about a month after the Com-
pany left, and possibly less than that time.

I7it. 9. — Is not your opinion of the value of these liuildings
a military value, with reference to the ground they were on,
being ou a military reserve, from which they would have to be
taken down and removed?

Atis. — y\y oi)inion of the value was based on what they
would be worth, when sold, to be taken down and removed.

Inl. 10. — Have vx>u been in Oretcon or Washino-ton since the
trade with the mining country east of the Cascades has become
so large and valual)le'.''

Ahs. — I have not been there since October, I860.

Iwt. 11. — Do yoin know anything of the history of this shift-
ing bar or sand-ba*nk yoa have spoken of, for several years
years before you noticed it, or anything at all of it, except
during the tim>e vou were at Vancouver?

Ani^. — I re'imieinber I could not get up to the wharf-boat in
the steamer in It^oo; and when I wont there in 18'/' there was
a wharf anloove the town on the military reserv*;, and large

i|pipiia«iii^ »wi,lIi».B^HWiM

steamers went up to it. This is all my knowledge about the
bank, and hearing others speak of the shifting of the bar.
Just before I left tiiero the ocean steamer had to lay below the
town and communicate by means of a small boat.

Int. 12. — Do you know whether that steamer being there
was caused by the lowncssof the water, or some other reason,
from having soldiers on board':'

Ans. — My understanding was it was caused by the lowness
of the water. I am not certain.

Examination-m- Chief Resumed.

Int. 1. — You have stated in your cross-cxumination that you
estimated the value of these buildings and improvements on
the supposition that they were to be taken doAvn and removed.
Would they, in your opinion, have possessed any additional
value if they could have been suffered to remain?

Ans. — I don't think they would. I don't think there was
any one there who wanted them for any other purpose than
for the lumber. They were not in habitable condition.

ClIAUNCEY McKeEVER,

Brevet Bngadier General and A. A. G.
Washington, D. C, June 12, 18G6.

Proceedings of a hoard of officers loJiich convened at Fort Van-
couver, W. T., pursuant to the following order:

[extract.]

Headquarters Department of Oregon,
Fort Vanccjver, W. T., Fehruarg 28th, 18G0.
Special Order, No. 25.

1. . . A board of officers will convene at Fort Vancouver
on'the 1st day of March, 1800, at eleven o'clock, A. M., or as
soon thereafter as practicable, to examine and re{)ort u])on the
value of certain improvements on the military reserve placed
there by the Hudson's Bay Company, in the event of any com-
pensation being alloAvcd for them hereafter by the Government.
GO

! "it i

*i:i I-

Detail for the Board.

Captain A. J. SJIITII, 1st I)raf/oon8.

Captain J. A. ITardih, 3/v? Artillert/.

1st Lieutenant Ciiaun'cey Mc.vKeever, 3nZ Artillery.

* ;|; ;(; ^ 4: * *

By order of General Harney.

A. Pleasonton,

Captain 2d Drar/oons, A. A. Adft. Gen I.

Fort Vancouver, W. T.,
Eleven 0' Clock, A. M., March l.s^ 18G0.

The board met pursuant to the above order. All the mem-
bers present. The board then proceeded to examine certain
improvements on the military reserve placed there by the Hud-
son's Bay Company many years ago, and lying to thcAvestof a
line of stakes commencing at a point about eighty yards to
the east of the Catholic Church, and running from thence in
a southerly direction to the river. The board find that upon
this portion of the reserve there are some four or five hundred
yards offences, eight buildings claimed by the Hudson's Bay
Company, (not including the house occupied by Mrs. Stubbs,)
which the board understand is not intended to be removed at
present.

The board find that the fence is so much decayed as to be
of no value, and that the buildings are mere shells, rapidly
going to decay, most of them propped up to prevent their fall-
ing down, the only exception being the dwelling-house in front
of the depot quartermaster's office, which, although occupied,
is also in a dilapidated condition.

The board estimate the total value of the above improve-
ments at $250, (two hundred and fifty dollars.)

There being no further business before it, the board adjourned

"sme die.''

A. J. Smith,

Captain 1st Dragoons, Present.

Jas. a. Hardie,

Ccptain Brd Artillery.
Chauncey McKeever,

1st Lieutenant Bd Artillery, Recorder.

•■ i

(I
• 1

Approved.

Headquarters Dep't op Oregox,
Fort Vancouver, W. T., March 5, 18G0.

Wm. S. Harney,
Briyadier General Commanding.

Official copy.

E. D. TOWNSEND,

Assistant Adjutant General.

Testimony oe Major General Andrew J. Smith.

Major General Andrew J. Smith, being duly sworn according
to law, says :

Int. 1. — Wliat is your name, age, place of residence, and
occupation ?

Ans. — A. J. Smith, of lawful age. I belong to the United
States Army, am Lieutenant Colonel 5th Regiment of Cav-
alry, Brevet Major General United States Army.

Int. 2. — Have you ever resided in Washington Territory ; if
yea, when and where ?

Ans. — I was stationed at Fort Vancouver in the winter and
spring of 18G0. I have passed and repassed Fort Vancouver
several times since on my way from Walla- Walla to Portland
San Francisco. I was stationed at Walla-Walla in the sum-
mer of 18G0.

Int. 3. — Arc you acquainted with the fort and buildings at
the post of Vancouver, which were formerly claimed and occu-
pied by the Hudson's Bay Company ?

Ans. — I am.

Int. 4. — Have you ever examined and appraised any of the
improvements and buildings at this post which were claimed
by the Hudson's Bay Company ; if yea, what buildings and
improvements have you examined, with the view of ascertain-
ing their value, and where ?

LM-K"

I .,.

I-' %!,

C«'

1,.,- j'

'" ■I

^ns, — I recollect being a member of a ])oar(l, in 1800, to
examine the improvements tliat belonged to the lliulson's Tlay
Conipiitiy, and assess the valne as they then stood, or would
be to the Government, in ease they should full into our hands.

Jnf. T). — What was the condition, character, and value of
the buililings, at the time your attention was called to them?

A71S. — Very dilapidated, not habitable, of no value what-
ever to the Government. I refer to the buildings on the out-
side. Also the fences that enclosed the garden and orchard
were very dilapidated.

Int. 0. — Did you ever observe the character and condition
of the stockade, and the buildings within it, while you were
there? If yea, please to describe them as nearly as you can.

Ans. — I several times visited the buildings inside the stock-
ade of the Hudson's Bay Company, and know that they were
in a very dilapidated condition, the larger store-houses being
propped up, to prevent them from falling down. They were
built of what we called puncheons. They were going to decay
rapidly — dry rot.

Int. 7. — What, in your opinion, was the value of their
stockade, and the buildings within it, at the time that you
speak of?

Ans. — I should say two hundred and fifty dollars would
cover the value to the Government. The stockade was worth
nothing, except for fire-wood. I don't feel competent to give
an opinion as to the value to any other person.

Ini. 8. — Please to look at the paper herewith presented,
and state whether the same, in your opinion, is a true copy of
the report of survey made by you and others, in pursuance of
an order from General Ilardie.

Ans. — Not knowing, I presume it is.

(xYnything in reference to this report, and the report itself,
objected to on the same grounds set out in the deposition of
McKeevei

jey

•)

Cross- Examination.

Int. 1. — Is the testimony you have given here your opinion,

as an actiii;^ iiiombor of a boanl to inspect and assc^ss tlic
value of certain improveinciits an<l buildings of the Hudson's
Bay Coni|(any?

Ann. — As T can recollect it, it is.

Int. 2. — Was that opinion reduced to writing?

Ann. — It was at the time.

(Tlie above tcstimony-in-cliii-f objectt^d to.)

Int. 3. — Is not the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars
you have mentioned also the finding of the board, as to the
value of those improvements and buildings?

Ans. — It was.

(Objected to as incompetent.)

Int. 4. — Was not this estimate of certain buildings, eight in
number, which it was deemed necessary to remove from the
reserve ?

Ans. — It was supposed to have included all belonging to the
Hudson's Bay Company at and adjacent to'thc stockade.

Int. '). — Do you recollect the date of this meeting of this
board, and the names of the members? If so, please state these
facts.

Ans. — The date was March 1, 18G0. The board consisted
of myself. Captain Ilardie, (then,) and Lieutenant C. Mc-
Keever, of the 3d artillery regiment.

Int. n. — Were not these buildings and improvements ex-
amined by this board west of a certain line of stakes that com-
menced at a point about eighty yards cast of the Catholic
church, and ran thence in a southerly direction to the river;
and did not these improvements and buildings thus valued
consist of some four or five hundred yards of fence, and eight
buildings outside of the stockade, and not including the house
occupied by Mrs. Stubbs'

(Objected to as incompetent.)

Ans. — The improvements were outside the fort and west of
the line of stakes, and were valued and estimated, including
the eight buildings inside and outside the stockade, which
were all we estimated, supposed to belong to the Hudson's Bay
Company.

Int. 7. — These eight buildings mentioned by you there, are

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-S)

1.0 V^m.

^ Itt I2J2

1.1

£ lii 120

FliotDgraphic

Sdmoes

CorporaliQn

a WIST MAIN STRHT

WnSTIR,N.Y. 14SI0

(7U) :<72-4S03

,-<SV

the buildings of the Hudson's Bay Company, wherever situated,
to which your remarks of dilapidated buildings, some of which
were propped up, apply?
Ans. — Yes, sir.

A. J. Smith,

Lieut. Col. 6th Cavah'U, Brevet Major General.
Washington City, D. C, June 13, 1806.

Testimony of Thomas Nelson.

Thomas Nehon, being duly sworn according to law, says :

Int. 1. — What is your name, place of residence, and present
occupation?

Ans. — Thomas Nelson ; I reside at Peckskill, Westchester
county, in the Stafte of New York. My occupation is that of
a lawyer.

Int. 2. — Have you ever resided in what was formerly Ore-
gon Territory; when, and where, and what was your occupa-
tion while there ?

Ans. — I have. I resided in Oregon Territory from the
early part of 1851 until, I think, August, 1853 ; I was then
Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court for the
Territory.

Int. 3. — Have you ever visited any of the posts or places
in what was formerly Oregon Territory, which were claimed
and occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company ; if yea, what
posts have you visited ?

Ans. — I have. I have visited Vancouver and Fort George,
or Astoria, and, I think, I was at Fort Umpqua. I passed
through the country ; I was at the Cowlitz Farms, claimed by
the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company.

Int. 4. — Was your attention, while you resided in what was
formerly Oregon Territory, called to the character and value
of the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company in this Territory?
If yea, please to describe how it happened that your attention
was so called to this matter.

Ans. — It was ; my attention was called to it by reason of a
letter I received from Mr. Webster, Avho was then Secretary
of State of the United States, in the fall of 185i!. !My atten-
tion was specially called to it by that letter ; but, like all
inhabitants of that country, my attention was called to it gen-
erally, by reason of its being a matter of public interest in
the Territory.

Int. 5, — In consequence of the receipt of this letter, did
you make any investigation as to the character and value of
the claim and possessions of the Company ? If yea, please to
state what you did in this behalf, and the result thereof.

Ans. — I did; I sought for information from a variety of
sources, but more especially from Dr. John McLaughlin, who
had been chief factor of the Hudson's Bay Company, a long-
time resident of that section of the country, and, by the con-
cession of almost every one in that region, better acquainted
with the subject than any other person.

(As the question shows that the result of an investigation
made by the witness is sought for, and his answer shows that
this result was obtained from various sources, all evidence
as to this result derived from information or statements of
others is objected to ; and the result itself is objected to,
except so far as he may testify from his own personal know-
ledge.)

I had my interviews with Dr. McLaughlin in October, 1852,
according to my best recollection ; I had several of them ;
without communicating to him specially the duty with which
I Avas charged, I stated to him my desire to obtain accurate
information, in reference to the character, extent, and number
of the Hudson's Bay Company's possessions, as they existed
about the time of the making the treaty between the Gov-
ernments in 1846. I took notes of the information so com-
municated to me by Dr. McLaughlin, and I have my original
notes of such information, taken by me, in his presence.

(A.11 statements made by Dr. McLaughlin at these inter-
views objected to, as incompetent and hearsay testimony.)

Int. 6. — Do these notes, to which you have referred, con-
tain an accurate statement of the substance of what Dr. Mc-

Laugblin said to you at the time that they were made by
you?

Ana. — They do.

Int. 7. — Was Dr. McLaughlin at this time in the full pos-
session of his faculties, and did Jic or not appear to have a
full knowledge and distinct recollection of the matters which
were the subject of the communication then made to you?

Ans. — He was in full possession of his faculties ; he ap-
peared to comprehend, and I have no doubt did comprehend,
fully what he communicated to me.

Int. 8. — If you have these notes in your possession now,
will you please to produce a copy of them, and have them
made a part of your testimony ?

Ans. — I here produce the original, and will have a copy an-
nexed to my deposition, accompanied by explanatory notes
in parenthesis, made by me now, and which are no part of the
original memoranda.

Ink 9. — What was the condition and character of the lands
and buildings and other improvements of the Hudson's Bay
Company at the post of Vancouver at the time you visited
this post?

Ans. — They were of the character of buildings at Vancouver,
rough. They were made, not out of sawed lumber, but out of
timber, in my judgment cut with the axe. There were several
storos, resting on blocks, unpainted, covered with shingled
roof, according to my best recollection, protecting their goods
from the weather. There were sc'eral other houses, in one
of which Mr. Ogden, who was the chief factor, resided. They
were all what might be called rude buildings ; no doubt the
best that could be made at the time of their construction.
They were built, in my judgment, with reference to the secu-
rity of what was placed inside, but had outlived the fashion
of the day, which was prevailing when I was there, a better
class of buildings being erected whilst I was there. The main
buildings were surrounded by a stockade made of fir posts,
with sharpened points, driven into the ground, and with sharp-
ened points at the upper ends, and left above the ground suf-
ficiently high to prevent the inmates from being surprised by

the Indians. In my day, in 1851 and in 1852, all danger
fi'om an attack by the Indians had passed away.

hit. 10. — What, in your judgment, was the original cost,
and what the value of the buildings and improvements of this
post, at the time that you saw and observed them ?

Ans. — The original cost I know nothing about, except as
Dr. McLaughlin told me. He stated it cost about ^100.000
all told. As to their value in 1852, when I saw them, it is
difficult for me to answer. They had, in my judgment, out-
lived their day.

Int. 11. — At the time that you were living in the Territory
was there, or not, considerable fur trade between the Company
and the Indians at Vancouver; if not, what was the nature of
the trade of the Company at Vancouver ?

Ans. — As I understood, there was but little fur trade while
I was in the Territory. The principal business of the Com-
pany Avas merchandizing.

Int. 12. — What, at the time you were in the Territory, was
the policy of the Company in respect to the sale of lands,
claimed by them at " icouver, to American citizens and other
settlers ; did they oifor their lands for sale, or did they with-
draw them from the market?

Ans. — The Company were not selling their land in Oregon
Territory. Their right to the land was much questioned ; I
mean the nature of their interest in the land under the treaty.
They were desirous of selling out all their rights in Oregon
Territory, in gross.

Int. 13. — Have you paid some attention to the growth and
development of the country in what was formerly Oregon
Territory ; if yea, what, in your opinion, is the prospect of
building up a large commercial town on the Columbia river,
at the place called Vancouver?

Ai\8. — I ha e paid some attention. I think Portland is to be
the great place of Oregon. It has had for a number of years
the principal business of the Territory, and the reputation
abroad of being the principal trading place. In my judg-
ment, with the advance it already has, Portland is destined
to outstrip all other places in Oregon, and render it highly

improbable, at all events, that a place so near to it as Van-
couver will be a place of any considerable magnitude.

Int. 14, — Have you any special knowledge of any of the
other posts of the Hudson's Bay Company in what was formerly
Oregon Territory ? If yea, please to describe their condition
and character, as particularly as you can.

Ans. — I havn't any special knowledge of any ; I have vis-
ited Fort George a number of times. There was nothing there
but log buildings and a little land enclosed.

Cross-Examination.

Int. 1. — Do you, of your own knowledge, recollect the
number of buildings within the stockade at Vancouver, or is
your recollection aided by the notes of Dr. McLaughlin's
statements?

Ans. — The precise number I do not know, of my own know-
ledge. I distinctly remember the mess-liouse and two or three
other buildings, and a building in which the employes slept ;
those are distinct in my memory ; and I am not able to speak
of the others, of my own recollection. I remember, also, a
tall house in the corner, called the bastion or donjon, with
guns mounted.

Int. 2. — Do you recollect hoAV many of these buildings were
framed ?

An8. — I believe there was a small brick building, and, with
this exception, they were all frame. The buildings were
mainly of an improved style of log buildings ; some of them
were sided up with plank. I think the building occupied by
Governor Ogden was a nicer building than the rest.

Int. 8. — Do you recollect or know how many buildings there
were outside the stockade, belonging to the Company ?

Ans. — I do not ; I remember two, certainly, one of which
was a salmon shed.

Int. 4. — Are you confident 4;hat, because the Indians were
quiet in 1851 and 1852, they would continue so after that, and
all danger from them would be over ?

Ans. — I never supposed that all danger from turbulence in

the Indi.ans had passed ; but I supposed, from the increased
number of settlers in the Territory, and the constantly dimin-
ishing number of the Indians, and the proved superiority of
the whites in all collisions, that all danger in the settlements
had passed away. In other words, I believed that for the pur-
poses of a fort it was useless.

Int. 5. — You say that you had many interviews with Dr.
McLaughlin ; did he not, in speaking of money, usually refer
to it as so many pounds ?

Ans. — I think he did occasionally, in speaking of money,
use the word pounds ; ordinarily, I think he used the names
of our own currency. He was in the habit of dealing with
persons who used our own currency. His habit was to reckon
in American currency.

Int. 6. — Do you feel sure that, in speaking of the cost of
the buildings, he did not speak of it as one hundred thousand
pounds, and not one hundred thousand dollars ?

Ans. — I am as certain of his saying one hundred thousand
dollars as I am certain of anything in my notes ; I read them
over to him as I prepared them.

Int. 7. — Did you make this statement in answer to the tenth
interrogatory, as to the $100,000, from your own recollection
of the Doctor's statements, or from the notes you have with
you?

Ans. — I remember, independent of my minutes, of having
heard it said by the Doctor that the expenditures at Fort
Vancouver amounted to $100,000.

Int. 8. — At what interview, of the several you have spoken
of, and at what part of that interview, was this statement
made ? What was his exact language ?

Ans. — It was at the interview that he had with me at my oflSco
in Oregon City, and in that part of the interview when the sub-
ject of the Vancouver Fort or trading-post was the matter of
conversation between us. The order in which these subjects
were spoken of was his own, and not at my direction, except
with reference to what was said of the Columbia river. Without
distinctly remembering on that subject, I have no doubt but
that I was the first to introduce that as a subject of conversation.

His exact language it is impossible for me state any further than
I have stated. I Avould not pretend that these notes are in all
respects in his exact language, and yet I believe them to be
as nearly so as is ordinarily the case in taking down state-
ments of a third party by a party who designs to take them
accurately. I have no doubt, and I remember that more was
said than was here stated.

Int. 0. — You have stated that you recollect the statement of
value without the aid of notes. Can you in no way give his
words, or anything more said, in the same sentence, with ref-
erence to the buildings and their cost?

Ans. — I cannot, any further than I have already stated.

Int. 10. — Is not that statement, as to the value, the sub-
stance of several statements, in reference to the buildings,
made several times in course of conversation ?

Ans. — I think he repeated it. I had several conversations
with him before I took these notes. On one occasion, I think
we had a conversation at his house, where we went over the
whole of the ground generally. Knowing the importance of get-
ting accurate information, and afraid to trust my memory, by
reason of the multiplicity of subjects that we conversed about,
he, by my invitation, came to my office, when the subject was
gone over again, and these notes were made at the time he was
making the communications to me, I reading over to him what
had been written, as a particular branch had been finished.

Int. 11. — You have stated that you recollect the statement
as to value, without your notes ; is there anything else you
distinctly remember he said as to Vancouver, without referring
to notes ?

Ans. — I remember also what he said in reference to the ex-
tent of the claim. I remember his stating the cattle roamed
at large alon«5 the shore as far up as Cathlapootl. This he
said was in the winter season ; that in the spring of the year
the melting of the snow upon the mountains swelled the Co-
lumbia river, and made it overflow its banks, and they could
not pasture there. I remember his saying the cattle ran
wild. I remember his speaking of a man by the name of
Short, who claimed some of the land, to the possession of

which the Hudson's Bay Company claimed that tlioy were
entitled. I remember also of his speaking of a saw-mill,
which was some four or five miles ofl' from the fort, and of
its not doing a great deal at that time.

Int. 13. — Is what you have just stated his language, or the
substance of what he said? How much of it, if any, is in the
notes you have mentioned ?

Ans. — That will bo best seen by referring to the notes. It
is impossible for me to say that I used the exact language used
by Dr. McLaughlin. I pretend only to state the substance,
though I have no doubt, in many instances, I used the very
words that he used.

Int. 14. — You have placed in parenthesis, several times,
words in reference to the various subjects in -your notes.
Was there not a good deal of conversation in reference to
these various topics which you have not recorded, which pre-
ceded and followed what you have put down ?

Ans. — There was.

Int. 14. — Was not the Doctor a garrulous man, full of anec-
dote, mingling together his own personal knoAvlcdge, and what
he had learned from others, so that it was difficult to distin-
guish the actual source of the information which he gave?

Ans. — He was a talkative man. I think he was not a man
of anecdote. His nature was rather grave than anecdotical.
He was full of detail and incident. It was not difficult to
distinguish the source of information which he gave when he
pretended to state what his source was. My application v^as
for his knowledge on the subject. How that knowledge was
derived by him was not a matter of particular inquiry by me.
I presumed that he had full knowledge of the subjects on
which he spoke. He had for many years been chief factor
of the Hudson's Bay Company, and for more than twenty
years, as I understood, from him and from conversations that
I had at the fort with its officers. It was matter of historv
that Mr. Ogden had had more of personal adventure in the
mountains with the Indians than Dr. McLaughlin or any other
officer of the Company. The Doctor was regarded as a care-

ful, pains-taking officer, and fully acquainted and familiar
with all the details of his official duties.

Int. 15. — Did he, in his conversation, state what portion of
the information ho gave you was derived from his own per-
sonal knowledge, and what from other persons ?

Ans. — He did not undertake to discriminate in that respect.

Int. 10. — Can you tell now what portion of the information
he gave you was from his own knowledge and what from the
information of others?

Ans. — I cannot. That was not made a matter of special
inquiry hy me, for I presumed he was fully informed on the
subject.

Int. 17. — Can you give from memory that portion of the
conversation you have spoken of, in answer to 13th interroga-
tory, which took place before or after you recorded any of it,
in the language of the Doctor?

Ans. — I can stat^somepartof the conversation that occurred
in that interview; but I cannot state the part that took place
before the record was made, or after it was made, so as to be
able to say at what period it did take place, with reference to
the time of the record made by me. I am not able to say that
I can state any of the conversation in the precise language
made use of by the parties.

Int. 18. — Did you put questions to the Doctor in that inter-
view; if so, can you now, from memory, tell what distinct
portion of your record is the result of answers to your ques-
tions, and what was given by the Doctor without questioning?

Ans. — I did put questions to the Doctor. I am not able to
select those portions of my minutes which were given in an-
swer to questions put by me. I stated generally, at the com-
mencement of my conversation with the Doctor on the subject,
my object in getting information with reference to the num-
ber, character, and condition of the Hudson's Bay Company's
claims in Oregon, and after that preliminary statement we
took up the matters seriatim.

Int. 19. — In thus taking up these matters seriatim was there
not a continual interchange of questions and answers between

8 own pcr-

the Doctor and yourself, in which the meaning was often con-
vcycil in part by the question and in part by the answer?

Arm. — I have no accurate recollection on that subject; but
I have no doubt that in many instances the question and
answer W( ild have to be taken together, in order to get at the
meaning convoyed.

Int. 20. — Have you now any distinct recollection of the
questions put by you to the Doctor, other than a general recol-
lection that they Avere proper to the subject-matter your were
inquiring into?

Aim. — I have not.

Int. 21. — With reference to their buildings, do you know how
many of them were built before 184G; how many after ; how
many were nearly new, and how long a time had been occu-
pied in building them?

Arts. — From my own knowledge, I do not. Judging from
their a])pcarance, and from Avhat I learned at the fort, they
were all built before lS4(j.

Int. 22. — In these remarks of Dr. INIcLaugiilin, did he give
you this information ; or did he state how many buildings were
put up at first, how many had been added in course of time ?

Ans. — I don't remember that he particularized the time of
the erection of these several buildings.

Int. 23. — Was Dr. McLaughlin at that time, and during your
residence, doing business for himself, in Oregon City, on his
own account?

Ans. — He was. He had a mill at Oregon City.

Int. 24. — Can you give the year, and at what time of the
year, this conversation took place ?

Ans. — In the year 1852, and in the latter part of the fall of
that year.

Int. 25. — Do you know anything about Dr. McLaughlin
being an applicant, about this time, for confirmation, by act of
Congress, for a donation claim ?

Ans. — I know that, at this time, the Oregon City claim, as
it was called, and which he had taken, had been disposed of by
the donation law to the Territory for university purposes. But
Dr. McLaughlii^ felt very much aggrieved at the taking away

of what lie called his claim ; and that ho was desirous of ro-
obtaiiiing it in any way that ho could ; that he talked of appeal-
ing to the sense of justice of the Territory legislature; that
ho talked of petitioning Congress on the subject ; and tliat ho
also talked of claiming tlio same under the treaty of 1846 as
a British subject. lie was much disturbed upon the question,
and made many and grievous r jmplaints about it, and com-
plained a great deal of the ingratitude which had been shown
to him.

Examination-in- CJiief liesumed.

Int. 1. — Do you know from anything the Doctor said, or
otherwise, whether or not he retained any interest of the Com-
pany after his resignation as chief factor ; and at or about the
time of your interview with him ; and whether or [not] he
continued, after his resignation, to be consulted concerning
the affairs of the Company, to be advised concerning their
condition ?

Ans. — I understood from the Doctor, and at the fort, that
he was in.orested in the affairs of the Company afte» he ceased
to be chief factor. I learned this whilst in Oregon, in 1851
or 1852, and perhaps in both years.

(Objected to as hearsay.)

And I also learned after he ceased to be chief factor he was
occasionally consulted.

(Also objected to as hearsay.)

Int. 2. — Did not the Hudson's Bay Company, whilejou were
in the Territory, hare free access to the courts, or was there
or not, in your opinion, any obstacle in the way of their
obtaining justice in the courts of the Territory in any case
involving the question of claims and right to land or other
property in the Territory?

Ans. — The courts of the Territory, whilst I was there, were
freely accessible to all persons. I know of no obstacle in the
way of their obtaining justice in any manner which they
thought proper to make, subject to legal investigation in the
courts. Certainly the relations of the officers of that Com-

pany with the judges wore of an agreeable and I think friendly
character. In my day I think that jurors were about as fair
as arc to be found in any country, and especially deferential
to the instructions of the court. There were some persons in
the Territory of narrow and ignorant character who were dis-
posed to rail at the Hudson's Bay Company and all other per-
sons occupying prominent positions or who had secured wealth.
But with the majority of persons not personally interested in
the matter, I think the jurors of the Territory were disposed
to render as fair verdicts as the jurors of any country.

Crotss-Uxamination Resumed.

Int. 1. — Do you think a jury of the county in whit b their
claim lay, composed chiefly of settlers on that claim, would
have been [?able] to have agreed upon a verdi^^, n favor of
the Company in a suit against an American citizen foi tres-
passing on tlicii land? Have you any acquaintance wiili the
citizeri - of Clarke county in Oregon, or did you ever hold a
court in that county at Vancouver?

AuB. — I do not think that jurors interested in the question
against the Company would be any more likely to do the Com-
pany justice there than interested jurors would do justice any-
where. I by no means supposed that all the persons in Clarke
county were interested in the question against the Company.
If they, the courts, were possessed of ample powers in refer-
ence to changing the venue so as to cause tl\e stream of jus-
tice to flow free from prejudice, passion, or interest. •

Thomas Nelson.

Washington City, D. C, June 21, 1866.

jre, were

It is hereby agreed between the parties that the part of the
minutes (hereunto annexed) of the conversation held between
the deponent and Dr. McLaughlin, relating; to the Puget's Sound
Agricultural Company, shall be offered m the case of the
Puget's Sound Agricultural Company subject to th^' same ob-

jections that were taken to the said minutes in the deposition
concerning the Hudson's Bay Company.

Note, — In reference to the value of the navigation of North
Branch of Columbia.

In the summer, river full of rapids; communication in the
spring and fall ; can't communicate i>i the summer, owing to
the melting of the snows; country north has not been ex-
plored ; there are no trading posts north of the 49th° ; where
they use the Columbia or Frazer's river, there are, or were,
seven posts; they used to go to Okanagan, then strike across
the country to Thompson river, then across land to Alexandria,
in Caledonia, on Frazer's river; they used the Columbia in
Cooing across the country to Red river and Canada ; it is best
thoroughfare with Red river, but another could be made; it
is of a strong, smooth current; it is navigable for steamboats
in spring and fall, but there is no country to cultivate.

In reference to forts and trading posts claimed [by] Hud-
son's Bay Company:

In 1846, Kootenay post., — South of Columbia, between
that and Flat-Heads; a winter post; on the Kootanay lake ;
a mere winter trading post; no farms, no cattle.

Flat-Heads. — South and cast of the last; a trading post,
called Flat-Heads; used only in the winter to trade with In-
dians; the Flat-Heads used to be met there twice a year for
trading, after buffalo hunts; mere log building.

Fort Colvilc. — Was the headquarters of the former posts;
in 1840 there was a farm ; used to raise from 1,000 to 1,500
bushels of wheat; there was a small mill forty feet square;
large amount of cattle ; two or three hundred head of cattle
in 1846; they were looked after by the people of the fort.

Okanagan. — On the Columbia; a small post; a receptacle
for the boats used in transporting goods to Frazer's river set-
tlements and posts; soil around, barren; a small garden;
cattle, new, sent there in 1826, for the use of the place.

Walla-Walla. — Poor soil around ; a mere fort ; cost a good

deal, but made strong as against Indian attacks ; no farms
there; a small garden for the use of the place; no trade in
furs; object was to subdue Indians; to supply their wants,
and bring them in subjection ; it was put there to subdue the
Indians, and with a view of making Indians defend it; In.
dians were gratified at the having of posts in their lands.

Boise. — No farms there; in the Snake country; a trading
post for Indians; post established to keep Indians in order;
two men stationed there.

Fort Hall. — built by Wyeth, an American, now in Boston;
in 1834, in the Snake country ; object to supply the trappers;
a,ttempted the salmon trade; failed; many American trappers
in the country; Hudson's Bay Company bought of Wyeth;
no farms made then by Hudson's Bay Company ; three or
four cows sent there in 1835 or 1836 by the Hudson's Bay
Company, for the purpose of giving to Indians ; land all
barren around.

Vancouver. — 1,000 to 1,500 acres used by the plough at a
period prior to 184G. There had been that amount under fence.
Saw-mill and grist-mill, about five miles east up the river;
had from two to three thousand head of cattle ; permitted to
stray where they could find pasture ; cattle are now wild ;
five stores of 100 feet; granary 60 by 40; mess-house, office,
$100,000 expended.

On the] Columbia from Cathlapootl up to the river Duthfe,
(sometimes called Vivet,) say about twenty miles, all over-
flows ; cattle used to be there in winter, and then were driven
back ; sometimes were driven back half a mile, and then again
five or six miles ; cattle were permitted to pasture ; only
occupied and tilled at and near Vancouver ; the rest was for
pasture.

Sophie's Island [Sauvie's.] — Was selected by Wyeth first ; ho
built upon it and requested McLaughlin to keep it ; buildings
fell down; McLiMighlin afterwards recorded it in Wyeth's
name. Hudson's Bay never claimed it in McLaughlin's day.
He left it in 1846. There were two buildings put up by
Company for Wyeth.

Fort George. — A store; a salmon shed; and oflScer's dwel-

100

ling. Astor was bought out. Hudson's Bay Company had a
post there in 184G; no farms; nothing but garden; about
eleven acres cleared; was once of the principal fort; aban-
doned in 1825. For a time afterwards a small trading post
for Indians, and to prevent the Indians from coming to Van-
couver and engaging in hostilities with Indians there. In 1847
or 1848 moved it over to Cape Disappointment ; before that
time no post at Cape Disappointment. After that, Ogden
took a claim which he bought of one Wheeler, an American.
Trade was then changed from Fort George and went to Dis-
appointment.

Fort Umpqua. — Post established in 1834 ; agriculture en-
gaged in in a limited degree for the use of the post, and some
cattle, pigs, and breeding mares sent there. Cattle, in fact,
were sent to all the forts for the convenience of the forts, and
to civilize the Indians; was a picket fort in 1846.

Note, as to claims of Puget's Sound Agricultural Com-
pany :

Puget's Sound; began in 1837 for Hudson's Bay Company.
In 1840 transferred to Puget's Sound Company. At Cowlitz
farms had about 2,000 (acres) under cultivation. There werg
lines designated around this farm, and fenced in some 1,500
acres; pasture was outside; three or four hundred head of
cattle ; outside of the limits was common for feeding cattle.
Considered the Cowlitz Farms to embrace about 3,000 acres
of land.

Nisqually. — About eight or nine miles of plain. The cattle
and sheep pastured over three or four miles square. Some-
times cattle strayed over eight or ten miles. Plain was
bounded on one side by the Sound, on the other side by the
Nisqually river, and the woods on the other side.

101

Testimony of Major General C. C. Augur.

Major General C. C Augur, being duly sworn according to
law, says:

Int. 1. — What is your name, place of residence, and present
occupation ?

Ans. — Christopher C. Augur, Major General of Volunteers
in the service of the United States, at present commanding
the Department of Washington.

Int. 2. — Have you ever resided in Washington Territory ; if
yea, when and where, and for how long a period?

Ana. — I hiive, from some time in November, 1852, to March,
1856, with an occasional absence. I was absent at onetime four
months. I resided at Fort Vancouver. I was stationed there,
and I was there two or three times a year after that until 1861.

Int. 3. — Aj'e you acquainted with the fort and buildings
at Vancouver which were claimed and occupied by the Hud-
son's Bay Company?

Ans. — I am generally.

Int. 4. — Did you ever make an estimate of the value of the
fort and buildings and improvements at this post which was
claimed and occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company; if yea,
where, and under what circumstances?

Ans. — I did. I was a member of a board of survey, which
was ordered to make such estimate. It was in the fall of 1853
or spring of 1854; I don't remember which.

Int. 5. — Did this board of survey make a report in writing
of their action in the premises?

Ans. — It did.

Int. 6. — Please to look at the paper here produced, (marked
A, and hereto annexed,) and state whether it be, in your
opinion, a true copy of the report which was made by the board.

Ans. — I believe it is a correct copy of the report.

Int. 7. — Are the other members of the board who acted with
you in this matter now living?

Ana. — They are not.

(The introduction of this report and ail matters connected

102

with it objected to, as being the proceedings and decision of a
military board or tribunal on matters that have been or may
be in question before this commission, and because the same
was ex imrte, it not appearing that notice was given to the
Hudson's Bay Company.)

Int. 8. — Please to look at the map here produced, drawn by
Giddings, representing the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company,
and say whether you recognize it as a just delineation of the
country, including and adjoining Vancouver, on the north side
of the Columbia river.

Ans. — So far as this shows the topography of the country,
I recognize it.

Int. 9. — Were you acquainted with the general condition of
the country described on this map, as claimed by the Hudson's
Bay Company?

Ans. — I was not. I was acquainted with only that part
that was iaiuiediatcly about Vancouver.

Int. 10. — What was the condition of that part of the country
adjoining Vancouver with which you were acquainted? How
much of it, if any, was enclosed and cultivated by the Hudson's .
Bay Company; how much, if any, was in a wild, natural state,
and used in common by all persons there for the purposes of
pasturage or culture?

Ans. — I knew the country for about six miles on the river,
commencing two miles below the military reservation, and
varying from a mile to four miles in the interior. A portion
bordering on the river, averaging three quarters of a mile,
perhaps more, in that vicinity was an open country, and
mostly cultivated by settlers and mostly enclosed. The por-
tion on the military reservation I should say was very nearly
one half, recognized as the Hudson's Bay enclosures, and so
far as I know was cultivated by their employes. The balance
of it was mostly heavy fir timber. There were two or three
small plains, called the second, third, and fourth plains, that
were open; I couldn't judge the amount of land in them; per-
haps there were one thousand acres.

103

Cross-Examination.

Int. 1. — You stated, I believe, that you could not be very
accurate about the laud around Vancouver; do you feel sure
that this strip of open land was not wider than you have de-
scribed ?

Ans. — The average width, in my judgment, was three quar-
ters of a mile in that vicinity, perhaps more.

C. C. AUGtIR,

Major General of Volunteers.
Wasiiincton City, D. C, June 2, 1806.

Copy A.— 3.

Proceedings of a Board of Officers assembled at Fort Vancouver^
\V. T.^ by virtue of the following order:

Headquarters, Fort Vancouver, W. T.,

January 17, 1854.
Orders No. 1.

In order to carry out instructions received from the War
Department, dated October 29, 1853, and from the Headquar-
ters Department of the Pacific, dated December 7, 1853, Sur-
geon B. M. Byrne, Captain T. L. Brent, A. Q. M., and Cap-
tain C. C. Augur, 4th Infantry, will constitute a Board to
assemble at this post at 10 o'clock A. M. to-day, to examine
and report upon the extent, condition, and probable value of
all improvements contained within the limits of the present
militai^ reservation at this post of six hundred and forty acres.
By order of Lieut. Col. Bonneville.

(Signed) John Withers,

2(i Lieut. 4tth Infantry, Act. Adjutant.

Fort Vancouver, W. T., January 17, 1854.
The board met pursuant to the above order. Every member
of the board was present. To enable the members to possess

104

themselves of the necessary facts and information for giving
an intelligent opinion upon the different points contemplated
by the order, the board adjourned to Monday the 23d instant.

Fort Vancouver, W. T., January 23, 1854.
The board met pursuant to adjournment, all the members
being present. The board determined as follows, respecting
the extent, condition, and probable value of the improvements
upon the reserve.

1st. — Extent of Improvements.

The board find that the military reservation, as designated
by the commanding officer, is a portion of the land claimed
by the Hudson's Bay Company, and that it includes their entire
establishment at this place, and that, with the exception of
those belonging to the United States, they claim all the build-
ings upon it as their property, and also all the improvements
of whatever character.

The board find that about one-half of this reservation has
been under cultivation at various times, and that upon this
portion of it there are about three miles of fence, about eighty
fruit trees, about eight acres of wheat in the ground, and thir-
teen small houses, some of them being rented at from $8 to
$20 per month, one large building rented by the United States
as a hospital at $40 per month, and one large store-house upon
the river, and the Catholic Church and parsonage attached.
Besides these, there is their trading establishment, surrounded
by heavy pickets, consisting of store-houses, shops, offices, &c.,
and the dwelling houses of the officers of the Company.

2d. — Condition of Improvements.

The board, find with few exceptions, all the above buildings,
fences, pickets, &c., are what would be termed old, but it can-
not arrive at the exact age of any of them. There are besides
some shells of houses and portions of decayed fences, which
they have not thought worth considering at all.

105

3cl. — Probable Value of Improvements.

The board estimates the value of the above improvements to
be as follows, guiding themselves in their valuation of buildings
by what many of them are rented for, and for fences by the
current rates for such improvements:

For

a
a
a
((
((
<(
a
a
a

a
((
a

((
<<
a
a
a
it
a
a
«
a
a

pickets around trading establishments

thirteen houses outside of pickets - - .

hospital buildings

four old sheds

Catholic Church

parsonage attached

court house

three stables

store-house on river ------

four large store-houses inside of pickets ($2,500
each) - -----_.

one dwelling-house " (Governor's)

one dwelling-house " (Graham's)

three houses (officers' and inside the pickets)

($1,000 each)

one granary ---....

blacksmith shop inside pickets - - - .
one bake-house -------

magazine -----.-.

washing-house -----..

one kitchen. Governor's house - - - .
one butcher's shop ----..

three wells, at $250 each - . - . ,
eighty fruit trees, at $20 each - - . .
eight acres of wheat in the ground, at $15 per acre,
three miles of fence, at $300 per mile

$3,000
5,200
1,333
100
2,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000

10,000
4,000
4,000

3,000

3,000
500

1,500
500
500

1,000
500
750

1,600
120
900

Total probable value

- $47,503

In estimating the above to be the probable value of the

106

property and improvements upon the reserve claimed by the
Hudson's Bay Company, the board have proceeded as though
they were claimed by private individuals, and have not deemed
it their province to inquire whether they have an adventitious
value, as being an integral portion of the Hudson's Lay Com-
pany's establishments in this country, under the peculiar
privileges and rights claimed by that Company.

There being no further business before it, the board ad-
journed sine die.

(Signed;) B. M. Byrne,

Surgeon U. S. Army.
(Signed,) T. L. Buknt,

A. Q. M. U. S. Army.
(Signed,) C. C. Augur,

Captain 'ith Infantry.

In approving the proceedings of the board of officers, I do
not wish it to be understood that the buildings will answer for
the military service. They can stand a short period only
when they cease to receive the great care bestowed upon them.
The buildings now occupied as hospital and store-house will
answer as they now do until others be erected more conveni-
ently located.

(Signed,) B. L. E. Bonneville,

Lieut. Col. 4th Infantry, commanding.
Official :

Benj. C. Card.
Col. Q. M. Bept., Bvt. Brig. Grenl.
Quartermaster General's Office, May 10, 1866.

Testimony of James A. Hardie.

James A. Hardie, being duly sworn according to law, says:
Int. 1. — What is your name, place of residence, and occu-
pation?
Am. — I am inspector general and brevet major general in

107

Territory ;

the army of the United States. My habitual station is Wash-
ington. JMy name is James A. Ilardie.

Int. 2. — Have you ever resided in Washington
if yea, when and where, and for how long a period?

Ana. — I Avas an officer. stationed at Vancouver and the Cas-
cades from 1858 to 1861.

Int. 3. — Are you acquainted with the post at Vancouver
which was formerly claimed and occupied by the Hudson's
Bay Company? If yea, please to describe the same, giving
the character of the construction of the fort and buildings
connected therewith, and their condition and value, as par-
ticularly as you can.

An8.-^\ find here a certified copy of a report of a board of
survey of which I was a member, to which I niiglit refer in
answer to this question. There were some eight or ten build-
ings within an old stockade. The buildings had been used for
ware-houses and officers' quarters, and outbuildings belonging
to the Hudson's Bay Company. These buildings were of log,
with the exception of the Governor's house and a building
which, I think, had been used as chaplain's quarters. When
I say eight or ten buildings, I mean the principal construc-
tions. There were sheds or huts, and perhaps one or two other
unimportant buildings. Also, upon the reserve was a build-
ing used as a residence, opposite the quarters of Captain
Ingalls, Quartermaster, the extreme end of the property occu-
pied by the Hudson's Bay Company. The log buildings (the
store-houses) in 1860, the occasion of the survey, were in a
state of great dilapidation, not worth repair, and having no
value except as so much hewn seasoned timber, where sound
pieces could be selected ; but very much of the timber, espe-
cially the larger pieces, was decayed. The frame buildings
were in not much better condition. The whole property had
been deteriorating from the time I saw it, in 1858, until the
time of the survey, in 1860.

Int. 4. — You speak of a report which was made by you and
others; please to look at this paper here produced, and say
whether it be, in your opinion, a true copy of the report to
which you allude in your last answer.

108

Ans. — It is, in my opinion, a true copy of the report.

(The introduction of this report, and all matters connected
with it, objected to, as being the proceeding aiid decision of a
military tribunal on matters which have been, or may be, at
issue before this commission, and further, because it does not
appear that any notice of such proceedings was given to the
Hudson's Bay Company.)

Int. 5. — Have vou any knowledge of the character and
condition of the land at or near Vancouver? If yea, please
to describe it, giving, as particularly as you can, the quantity
which was cultivated, if any, by the Hudson's Bay Company,
and general character of the country adjoining, whether or
not it was, for the most part, covered with woods, or for the
most part cultivated, or in a wild state, and open to any one
who had occasion to use it.

(The latter part of the question objected to, because the
same is leading, and suggesting to the witness an answer to
the question.)

An8. — I was necessarily somewhat acquainted with the land
in and about Vancouver. The portion of the military Reserve
on which were the fort and buildings of the Company was a
flat plain of good land, and fit for cultivation. Back of that
was an elevated plateau of inferior land, mostly covered for
miles with timber. I have an indistinct recollection of fields
cultivated by the Hudson's Bay Company, or by persons in
their employ. The maximum amount of land under cultiva-
tion by them could be obtained by judging from the amount
of fencing found upon the land in their occupancy, and that
was, I think, somewhere between seven and nine hundred yards
of fence. Latterly, that is in 1860, the place was all open;
any one could come or go through the fort or grounds at
pleasure, and the only fields, I think, enclosed, were those the
garrison used for company gardens.

Lit. 6. — Have you any knowledge of the value of the land
at and near Vancouver while you were there? If yea, please
to state what, in your judgment, was the value of the same.

Ans. — I consider the United States military reservation to be
the most valuable land in that region, excepting, of course, the

109

town site of Vancouver. To the military reservation especial
value would attach from the beauty of its site for handsome
residences. I should think the flat, alluvial land outside this
reservation ought to have been worth one hundred dollars per
acre. Upon the plateau behind it I should have hositated to
have given ten dollars per acre for any farming purposes. For
purposes of timber it would have value according to the qual-
ity of timber and its accessibility to the river. I do not, how-
ever, consider myself perfectly well acquainted with the market
value of real estate in 1858, 1859, and 18G0, in Washington
Territory, although I could not escape knowledge of the fact
that the town of Vancouver, the more valuable portion of this
section, was improving but slowly, and had failed to realize
the expectation, as to its growth and prosperity, of its friends.

Int. 7. — Have you any knowledge of the condition of the
town of Vancouver ? If yea, how [was] its condition, in
respect to growth and prosperity, when you last had any
knowledge of it, compared with its condition when you first
heard it.

Am. — It had improved slightly, but its growth was slug-
gish.

Cross-Examination.

Int. 1. — How long were you at Vancouver, and at what
time?

Ans. — I was at Vancouver all of the interval between 1858
and 1861, except some six or seven months spent at the Cas-
cades.

Int. 2. — Was your examination of these buildings made at
the time of the survey you have spoken of?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 3. — Was not that survey made for the purpose of ascer-
taining the value of certain buildings which it was intended to
move from the reservation for certain military purposes, and
not intended to include the stockade and the buildings inside
the stockade ?

An9. — I am of the impression it was intended to include

110

the wli(»lc ; hut at tliis (JiHtancc of timo my recollection is
not distinct.

Jnt. 4. — Do you think that at the timo you made this sur-
vey tho Company's aj^cnt had loft their fort?
Ann. — I am not prepared to way.

Int. i'). — JJo you recollect how 8oon after tlio survey was
made the ('oiii|»aiiy did leave the fort?

Ann. — I don't remember whether thev were there or not at
the time of the appraisement.

Jnt. 0. — l^o you recollect a line of stakes, commencing at
a point about eighty yards to the east of the Catholic Church
and running from that point, in a southerly direction, to the
river, on the reserve at the time of this survey?

Ann. — I cannot say I do; nor would I have thought of the
line of stakes if 1 had not seen it alluded to in the report of
the board of survey.

Jnt. 7. — Do you not recollect that your board was ordered
to survey certain improvements on the military reserve, and
that you did examine improvements lying to the west ol i
certain line of stakes?

Ans. — It is my general impression that we took into con-
sideration all the improvements of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany on the military reserve; I cannot be positive, however.
Int. H. — Would your impression be so strong as not to yield
to the fact, if, in a report made at the time, it appeared you
did not so examine them?

An-i. — My impression is not so strong as that I would allow
it to weigh against the official report of the board.

Int. U, — Were you on any other board to examine any other
improvements of the Hudson's Bay Company on this military
reserve ?

Ans. — Not that I remember.

Jnt. 10. — Do you recollect about what time the agents of
the Hudson's Bay Company left Vancouver ?
Alls. — I do not.

Jnt. 11. — How were these buildings treated after the Com-
pany left the fort, in the way of taking away materials and
destroying the buildings ?

Ill

Avs. — Tlio buildings wove in an oxcpodiuf^ly dilnpidatod
condition, nearly till ruined, in some in.stani'e.s faliin;^ down.
The (Jovornor's residence had a lari^o decayed spot in the floor,
throu;^h \vhi(!h theground was visible. Exposure to the weather
caused sfill (Mrlher decay and dilapidation. At first so,,tinels
wore placed to keep people out, but that diil not prevent dep-
redations of material. I don't remember whether the senti-
nels were removed afterwards or not. Home of the material
was used at the fort for out-buildings, and for other purposes,
I have no doubt that other material was taken by irresponsible
persons.

Jut. 12. — Was not this hole in the floor of the Governor's
house observed by you after the Company's agents had loft
the house and fort?

Ans. — Yes, I think it was.

Int. \'\. — When you wore at the Company's fort, in the win-
tor or spring of 18(30, did you not observe lumber or timber,
or both, in the centre A the stockade, intended for repairs?

Arm. — My impression is I did.

Int. 14. — Have you any distinct recollection of the amount
or value of his timber and lumber and what became of it?

Ans. — I iiavo none.

Examination-in- Chief Resumed.

Int. 1. — Was or was not the reason for permitting these
buildings to be thus carried away piece-meal, that they were
of no value whatever ?

Ans. — I presume the buildings were esteemed to be of so
little value that the use of small quantities of material at the
fort was tolerated.

Jas. a. Hardie,
Inspector Gen' I, Brevet Maj. Gen. U. S. A.
WAsniNOTON City, D. C, July 2, 18G6.

112

Testimony of Thomas Adams.

Thomas Adams being duly sworn, according to law, says:

Int. 1. — What is your name, present occupation, and resi-
dence ?

Ans. — Thomas Adams ; I am farming in Montgomery county,
Maryland.

Int. 2. — Have you ever visited the country formerly known
as American Oregon, and now embracing, besides that State,
the Territories of Montana, Washington, and Idaho ; if so,
during what years were you there, and in what capacity ?

Ans. — I first reached that Territory in 1853, as assistant
artist in Gove; jr Stevens' Expedition. I was left in the
Flat-Head country, with Lieuienant John MuUan, to assist him
in his explorations in that winter. I was left as special
Indian agent to the Flat-Heads, when Lieutenant Mullan was
ordered to report, appointed by Governor Stevens. I remained
there as agent until November, 1855. During that time I
went through the whole country, including Puget's Sound and
Willamette valley. From 1855 until 1860, I remained in the
country on my own account, and not in Government employ.
From the year 1860 to 1864 I was in the country, but made
two trips to the States.

Int. 3. — Did you during those years visit any of the posts
occupied or claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company, and which
ones?

Ans. — Yes, I visited Ihe Flat-Head post. Fort Hall, and
Walla- Walla post ; also Vancouver. I was at the Cowlitz
landing, but don't remember whether there was a posn there
or not. I also visited Nisqually.

Int. 4. — In what year were you first at Fort Hall ? Please
to describe it as you saw it then. What buildings and other
improvements did it embrace ; of what was it constructed, and
in what state of repair was it ?

Ans. — I was first at l^ort Hall in 1853. It was a quadri-
lateral fort, constructed of adobes, the walls of the fort com-
prising the outer and rear walls of the buildings. The roofs

113

were of mud. The servants' rooms, kitchen, blacksmith shop,
and so on, were very much dilapidated. The store-rooms, and
the rooms occupied by the chief, Mr. McArthur, were in very
good repair. The rooms occupied by Mr. McArthur had re-
cently been fitted up. There were no buildings on the out-
side of the fort, except a small shelter, about ten feet square,
used as a milk house. There was no corral outside. The fort
was used to corral the animals. I did not see any enclosed
ground for cultivation outside the fort. There was the re-
mains of an adobe wall outside the fort, but not in use when
I was there.

Int. 5. — How large a post was this, as near as you can re-
member, and can you form an opinion wh'tt it would have cost
to build such a post at the time you wery there, in 1853 ?

Ann. — I think it was about one hundred and twenty feet
by eighty feet. I should estimate the cost of construction in
1853 about six thousand dollars.

Int. 6. — Do you remember any other buildings, especially
mills, at this point ?

Ans. — There were none there.

Int. 'h — What force was employed, and what was the char-
acter and apparent value of the trade, and with whom was it
carried on?

Ans. — I think there was about six employes in the fort
besides the superintendent. I had no means of judging of the
character and value of the trade during that visit, my stay
was so short.

Int. 8. — What did you learn of the trade subsequently ?

Ans. — That the trade had fallen off so as to be entirely
worthless, from various causes. This in 1854 and 1855.

Int. 9. — Was there, judging from your knowledge of the
number of Irdians, and the quantity and value of fur-bearing
animals in that district, any considerable fur trade ?

Ans. — Fur skins proper were scarce, but dressed skins were
very considerable.

Int. 10. — Did, or not, the business of the post appear to be
inconsiderable, so far as you could observe ?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; it was inconsiderable.
8 H

114

If''

Int. 11. — What is the character of the country, within
grazing distance, around Fort Hall?

Ans. — Excellent as a grazing country ; none better.

Int. 12. — Was there any farming carried on by the Com-
pany there ?

Ans. — No, sir.

Int. 13. — In what year were you first at the Flat-Head
post, and when subsequently ?

Ans. — I was there in the spring of 1864, and was there
every year until 1862.

Int. 14. — Please to describe it, as you have done Fort Hall;
its materials, buildings, and improvements.

Ans. — It was a wooden building, about twenty-four by six-
teen feet, of one story, with a bark roof; one wooden bas-
tion, about fourteen feet square ; and two store-rooms, each
ten feet square ; also a log corral, about sixty feet square.

Int. 15. — In what condition were the buildings, and what
would it have cost to rebuild them?

Ans. — They were barely habitable, and would have cost
about twelve hundred dollars. This was in 1854 ?

Int. 16. — What was the force there ?

Ans. — Two men, an Indian boy to herd cattle, and a clerk.
This was the permanent force at the post. When they moved
or carried furs down, they got Indian help.

Int. 17. — Do you know anything of the trade in furs or
skins at that time, or subsequently ?

Ans. — The trade there was considerable. I would not con-
sider it a remun'^rative trade, for the reason there was a good
deal of opposition in the trade, making the price of furs high.

Cross-Examination .

Int. 1. — Were you ever at Fort Hall, after your visit there
in 1853, while it was occupied by the Company ?

Ans. — No, sir.

Int. 2. — Is not your personal knowledge of it, and of its
trade, as a post of the Company, from your own observation
at that time ?

115

Ans. — Yes, sir ; of course.

Int. 3. — Were there not a good many skins held by the In-
dians, and beavers trapped by them, in 1856, in the Snake
country ?

Ans. — Yes ; I should say there was. I was trading there
myself in 1856.

Int. 4. — Does not the land around Fort Hall produce fine
grass, suitable for hay, and of great value for cattle and
horses ?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 5.— In what Territory is Fort Hall at the present time?

Ans. — Idaho.

Inf. 6,— Do not the tribes which trade with the Flat-Head
post, roam over countries abounding in furs, and have large
quantities of furs annually to dispose of?

Ans.— Yea, sir; between the years 1853 to 1860. The
whites now catch ten beavers to the Indians' one.

Int. 7.— In what Territory is this Flat-Head post at the
present time ?

Ans. — Montana.

Uxamination-in- Chief Resumed.

Int. 1.— What furs or skins are obtained at the Flat-Head
post, or at Fort Hall?

Ans. — Beaver, otter, marten, fisher, and fox — the red and
cross foxes — winter weasels or ermine, and bear and wolf,
and dressed-skins of deer, elk, sheep, moose, and antelope and
buffalo.

Int. 2. — Of the kinds of furs and dressed-skins you have
mentioned brought into these posts, how many of them are
valuable sorts, and what proportion do they bear to the whole
amount ?

Ans. — The bear, fisher, and marten are the valuable skins,
and are obtained in less quantities than the beaver, otter,
wolf, and fox.

Int. 3. — Are those valuable skins obtained in large quanti-

116

ties or not ? Give, if you can, some idea of the amount of each,
and whether the trade is now remunerative.

Alls. — For reasons stated — that is on account of the oppo-
sition — I do not think it is remunerative.

Int. 4. — Have the Hudson's Bay Company ever, within your
time, kept any large bands of cattle or horses at either of
their posts ?

Ans. — No, sir.

Cross-Eamination Resumed.

I>l!

Int. 1. — Were you acquainted with the price of furs in
London, England, during the time you have mentioned ?

Ans. — No, sir.

Int. 2. — Were there not bands of horses and cattle at these
two posts in 1853 and 1854 ?

Ans. — There were none at Fort H.all, to my knowledge; I
did not see or hear of them. At the Flat-Head post I should
say there were one hundred horses and about one hundred
and fifty cattle. I understood they were private property of
Mr. McDonald, agent of the Company at Fort Colvile.

Thomas Adams.

Washington, D. C, Jidi/ 2, 1866.

District op Columbia, \
Counts/ of Washingon. J

I, Nicholas Callan, a notary public in and for the county
and district aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing
depositions hereto annexed, of Rufus Ingalls, U. S. Grant,
James W. Nesmith, Justus Steinberger, Charlej B. Wagner,
William A. Howard, Joseph K. Barnes, Chauncey McKeever.
Andrew J. Smith, Thomas Nelson, C. C. Augur, James A.
Hardie, Thomas Adams, witnesses produced by and on behalf
of tlie United States in the matter of the claims of the Hud-
son's Bay Company against the same, now pending before the
British and American joint commission for the adjustment of

117

the sain 3, were taken before me, at the office of said commis-
sion, No. 355 11 street north, in the city of Washington, Dis-
trict of Columbia, and reduced to writing under my direction
by Nicholas Callan, jr., a person agreed upon by Ebcn F.
Stone, Esq., attorney for the United States, and Edward
Lander, Esq., attorney for said Company, beginning on the
4th day of May, A. D. 1866, and terminating on the 10th day
of August, A. D. 1866, according to the several dates ap-
pended to the several depositions when they were signed
respectively.

I further certify that to each of said witnesses, before his
examination, I administered the following oath: "You swear
that the evidence you shall give in the matter of the claim of
the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States of
America shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God ; " that after the same was reduced
to writing, the deposition of each witness was carefully read
and then signed by him.

I further certify that Eben F. Stone, Esq., and Edward
Lander, Esq., were personally present during the examina-
tion and cross-examination of all of said witnesses, and the
reading and signing of their depositions.

I further certify that the certified copy of the proceedings
of a certain military board of survey, annexed to the deposi-
tion of Chauncey McKeever, and marked "A 1," is the one
referred to in his testimony, and that of A. J. Smith and of
J. A. Hardie; that the one attached to the deposition of J.
K. Barnes, marked "A 2," is the one referred to in his depo-
sition ; and the one annexed to the deposition of C. C. Augur,
marked "A 3," is the one referred to in his deposition.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand

[l. s.] and official seal this tenth day of August, A. D.
1866.

N. Callan,
Notary Public,

BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION

ON THE

HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL-
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS.

m
U

In the matter of the Claims of the Hudson's Bay Company
ayainst the United States, before the British and American
Joint Commission on Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound
Agricultural Companies' claims.

Deposition of Major Robert McFeeJy, of Cincinnati, Ohio,
taken before me, George H. Harries, a notary public
within and for the county of Hamilton, in the State of
Ohio on the sixth day of October, in the year eighteen
hundred and sixty-six, between the hours of eight o'clock,
A. M., and six o'clock, P. M., at the law oflSce of Stallo
& Kittredge, in the city of Cincinnati, Hamilton county,
Ohio, pursuant to agreement, to be read in evidence on
behalf of the United States.

Testimony of Major Robert McFeely.

Ques. 1. — What is your name, occupation, and place of res-
idence?

Ans. — My name is Robert McFeely; I am a major and
commissary of subsistence and brevet colonel United States
army ; my present place of residence is Cincinnati, Ohio.

Ques. 2. — Have you ever resided in Washington Territory ?
If yea, when, and where, and how long ?

Ans. — I have ; at Fort Vancouver, from January, 1853, un-
til the fall of 1860. I was stationed there at different inter-
vals.

Ques. 3. — Are you acquainted with the post Vancouver, in
Washington Territory, which was formerly claimed and occu-
pied by the Hudson's Bay Company? If so, please state when

119

you first became acquainted with it, how long you have resided
there.

Ans. — I am; I was first there in January, 1853, and was
stationed at the military post in the vicinity of the Hudson's
Bay fort for three or four months immediately succeeding
this time, and at different periods from that until October or
November, 1857, and continuously from that time up to Sep-
tember or October, 1860.

Ques. 4. — Will you please to describe the buildings of the
Company at that post, giving, as nearly as you can, the num-
ber, stating the material of which they were built, and the
manner in which they were constructed, and their condition at
the time when you last saw them.

Ans. — The post or fort of Hudson's Bay proper was a
stockade enclosure, the stockade being about 16 or 18 feet
high, and occupying a space of ground about five acres, as
near as I can tell. Within the stockade there were some eight
or ten buildings, store-houses, and residences, all of which
were wooden buildings. The store-houses were constructed of
planks, about three inches in thickness, fastened to upright
posts. The main store-house was a two-story building. I
think the others were one story, except the residences ; they
were old, almost uninhabitable, the material being rotten and
decayed from time and exposure.

Ques. 5. — What, in your opinion, was the value of the fort,
buildings, and improvements belonging to the Company at this
post?

Ans. — To the United States, I would state the building had
no value at all in 1860, either as store-houses or for quarters.
If sold at public sale, I doubt whether they would have brought
more than the value of the land, or a trifle more, at least. To
the Hudson's Bay Company I could not state what was their
value. That would depend upon the necessity. I suppose they
were the only Company or individuals that kept any property
of that kind.

Ques. 6. — What, in your judgment, would the land and
buildings have sold for at public sale?

Ans. — I would like, before answering, to add a little to the

120

description of the property : When I first arrived there, there
were a number of small buildings outside the stockade, and a
large store-house, called the salmon-house, near the river.
There were about fifteen small buildings occupied by the em-
ployes, with fields enclosed by fences; probably 100 acres of
ground, an old saw-mill, I think, and a grist-mill. I don't know
whether either of them was running at that time. The land
and buildings — the whole of it — could not, I think, be sold for
$100,000 at the time when I first arrived there.

Ques. 7. — What do you mean to include, all the land en-
closed and occupied, as well within as without the stockade,
with the buildings upon it? .

Ans. — I mean to include the land enclosed by fences, with
the buildings and improvements thereon, as well within as
without the stockade.

Ques. 8. — What was the character of the land enclosed *«
that post?

Ans. — The land was good for agricultural purposes, on
the bottom of the river, as rich probably as any laud in the
valley of the Columbia.

Ques. 9. — What was the condition and value of the land
adjoining Vancouver, and extending from a post say five
miles above the fort, along the river to the Cathlapootl or
Lewes' Forks, and reaching back into the interior an average
distance of ten miles, not included in your previous answer.

Ans. — The most of that country I could give only the
character from hearsay. The portion of it of which I speak
from my own knowledge is west of the Cascade Mountains,
including portions of the country traveled over by me from
Fort Dalles to the old Mission, where Pendosy was. The
Yakama Mission was rough, rolling country, alternating with
timber and prairies, and covered with good bunch grass, being
good forage for animals ; some good agricultural land along
the streams and water-courses. The land on the hills was
generally of a sandy, gravelly nature.

Ques. 10. — What was the character of the soil of the lands
back from the streams as to its fertility ?

121

An8. — It was not fcrtilo land, being sandy and gravelly,
and very dry during the summer season.

Ques. 11. — Of the 100 acres (about) of land that you have
spoken of as being enclosed near the stockade, what propor-
tion of it was under cultivation ?

Ans. — I don't think over twenty or thirty acres of it, which
were cultivated for garden purposes, the lands within the
enclosures being mostly used for grazing, and for hay or
grass.

Ques. 12. — Have you ever visited the old Fort Walla-Walla,
near Wallula? If yea, please describe the fort and the
country adjoining it as particularly as you can.

Ana. — I visited it in July, 1853. The fort consisted of
two or three, probably four, small buildings, constructed of
adobe and logs. The buildings were small, and did not cover
over about two acres of ground, to the best of my recollection.
The nature of the country adjoining was barren and sandy,
with the exception of narrow strips near the stream Touchet,
and other streams, covered with little vegetation, except sage
bushes.

Ques. 13. — Have you any knowledge of the value of that
fort, the buildings and improvements erected therewith ? If
yes, state what, in your judgment, was their value.

Ans. — I saw no land there enclosed or under cultivation.
I do not think that the cost of the construction of the build-
ings exceeded $5,000.

Ques. 14. — What use, if any, was made of this post by the
Hudson's Bay Company at the time you were there ?

Ans. — I don't know, excepting that it was occupied by
some one or two half-breeds, who were said to be employes of
the Company.

Ques. 15. — Have you ever visited che post of the Hudson's
Bay Company at Fort Boise? If yea, state when, and de-
scribe, as particularly as you can, the construction of the
fort, and the buildings and improvements connected therewith.

Ans. — I visited Fort Bois^ m the summer of 1854. The
fort consisted of one or two adobe buildings, or one building,

122

with three or four small apartments, and a small corral.
Those were all the improvements.

Que8. 16. — Have you any knowlctlgo of the value of this
fort, with the buildings and improvements connected there-
with ? If yea, please to state what, in your judgment, was
their value at the time that you observed them.

Ans. — From the nature of the buildings, and the material
of which they were constructed, I would say that the cost of
the construction and material did not exceed $2,000.

Ques. 17. — What was the character of the land in the
vicinity of Fort Boise ; what quantity, if any, was enclosed
and under cultivation ? k

Ans. — The land seemed to be sandy and barren. I saw no
lands enclosed or under cultivation.

Ques. 18. — Have you visited any other posts of the Hud-
son's Bay Company in Washington Territory ? If yea, state
what ones, and when.

Ans. — I never visited any other.

Ques. 19. — Have you any knowledge of any other matter
relating to the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company against
the United States ? If yea, please to state the same as fully
as if you were particularly interrogated in relation thereto.

Ans. — I don't recollect of any information I have in regard
to that.

Cross-Examination hy Judge Edward Lander, on behalf of the
Hudson's Bay Company.

Ques. 1. — In reply to the question in reference to post
Vancouver, you stated that the buildings were old, almost
uninhabitable, the material being rotten and decayed from
time and exposure. Is not the period of time to which you
refer in the summer and fall 1860, or thereabout ?

Ans. — Yes, sir, it is the time when I last saw the post.

Ques. 2. — Had you, at that time, occasion particularly to
examine these buildings, with reference to their condition, by
any means of examination known to mechanics for the pur-

123

poso of testing buildings, or was your opinion formed by look-
ing at thcin alone?

Ans. — I had no occasion to examine them. My opinion was
formed from general observation and from frequently visiting
the fort, and also from having occupied one of the buildings
as a commissary store-house for the United States, in the fall
and winter 18r)7 and IS/iS, which I found insecure for the
storage of Government supplies, and then vacated for that
reason.

Ques. 3. — You appraised the price and value of the 100
acres enclosed land and buildings of the Company at Fort
Vancouver. At what time do you wish that valuation to be
taken?

An8, — At the time I last visited or saw the same to the fall
of 1860.

Ques. 4. — What portion of that value do you think applies
to the land, and what to the buildings?

Ans. — I should say about one-quarter for the lands, the re-
maining three-quarters to the buildings.

Ques. 5. — You have spoken in answer to interrogation 9, of
your own personal knowledge of the country west of the Cas-
cades ?

Ans. — I mean to say east of the Cascades.

Ques. 6. — Is that the country to which you refer, in answer
to question 10, as to the character of the soil of the lands back
from the stream?

Ans. — It was; and in addition, the description would answer
the country north of Vancouver, which I visited, for four or
five miles, Avith the exception of the lands back of Vancou-
ver being more thickly timbered and prairies smaller.

Ques. 7. — Do you not know of large crops of wheat being
raised upon the country called the Mill Plain, back of Van-
couver, while you resided at Vancouver ?

Ans. — I have no recollection nor knowledge in regard to
that.

Ques. 8. — Have you ever noticed or examined farms on the
Mill Plain, or the other plains back of Vancouver, or have you

124

i^■)<

any ncquaintnncc with the amount or kind of produce raised
tlicrcoii?

Ann. — I have not.

Qucs. 9. — Have you ridden often over the land north of
Vancouver?

Ann. — I have ridden frequently north as far as what is called
Fourth Plain, about four to four and a half mile.s.

Qucs. 10. — Have you ever been off the road in that direc-
tion ?

Ann. — I never have to any great distance; probably a mile
or so — huiitiii<;.

Quis. 11. — Do you think that your recollection of the
country back of Vancouver, of which you have spoken, ac-
quired in the way you have mentioned, is sufficiently accu-
rate at this distance of time for you to designate all of it as
being sandy, gravelly, and very dry?

Ans. — I think it is for that portion which came under my
immediate observation.

Qiu'n. 12. — IIow long were you at Fort Walla-Walla?

Ans. — I was there for two or three days, in July, 1853, on
my way to Fort Owen, and again in September, on my return,
for two or three days more.

Qucs. 13. — Did you go into camp near the fort, or did you,
during the time, stop inside the fort?

Ans. — I was in camp on both periods mentioned, within two
or three miles from the fort. I visited the fort, I think, every
day during the time I remained there.

Ques. 14. — Was this fort a walled and bastion ed fort or not?

Ans. — I think it was a walled fort ;; \fhether it was bas-
tioned or not I don't recollect. The bvildings formed part of
the wall. My impression is that it v.as not stockaded.

Ques. 15. — Have you anjf recollection of length of a wall
on either side of the fort, of its height and width ?

Ans. — From the best of my recollection, I think either side
was longer than forty or fifty feet, and the height of the wall
not over eight or nine feet.

Ques. 16. — Is your recollection of this wall and its dimen-
sions as accurate as that of any other portion of the fort ?

125

Am. — r think not.

QucH, 17. — You have spoken of tho biiil(liii;^s inside the fort
as being constructed of adobe and logs. PUsise state in what
manner they were constructed of those materials.

Ann. — I think part or the whole of one or two buildings
was of adobe, and others had tho api)earance of being con-
structed >f logs ; but my recollection is not accurate enough
to give anything but my general impression of their appear
unce.

Ques. 18, — Have you, at the present date, anything more
than a general impression as to how the fort looked, without
any very accurate or definite knowledge of it?

Ans. — I have not; not more than a general impression,
without any accurate or definite knowledge of it.

QucH. 1!>. — Was tho estimate that you have given of the
cost of Fort Walla-W^lla made at the time you saw it, or has
it been made lately ?

Ans. — I have no recollection that I made an estimate at the
time I saw it ; only recently, after I read the pamphlet setting
forth the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company.

Qncs. 20. — Are you acquainted with the cost of making
adobes ?

Ans. — I am not.

Ques. 21. — Could you make an estimate of the cost of build-
ing a fort or other buildings of adobes, of which you did not
know the actual length of the different walls, their width and
height, the cost of making adobes, placed or getting it there,
and the cost of the labor employed at the time of the building
or fort ?

Ans. — I could not ; my general estimate of the cost of these
buildings was made on the basis of knowledge of the kind of
labor and the wages of the employes of the Hudson's Bay
Company, by whom, I presume, these forts were built..

Ques. 22. — Would not the cost of getting adobes far into
the interior as this fort was, the provisioning of them there,
and the force necessary to protect them from Indians while
the fort was being built, add very largely to the cost of
building it ?

126

Ans. — It would, if they were brought there for that especial
purpose, and not employed for anything else, on account of the
Hudson's Jiay Company always maintaining friendly relations
with the Indians. On account of the kind of provision with
which they subsisted their employes, the small wages which
they paid to them, they were enabled to construct these build-
ings at much less expense than they could probably be built
by others.

Ques. 23. — Is your estimate, then, based upon what, in your
opinion, buildings, as you recollect them, ought to have cost
the Hudson's Bay Company ?

Ans. — It is.

Qiics 24. — When you visited Walla- Walla, at the time you
spoke of, were you not on the road from Fort Dalles to Bitter-
root Valley ? If so, state by what road you came to Walla-
Walla, and by what you returned.

Ans. — I went by the interior trail or river road, and struck
the river road eight or ten miles below the fort, then struck
across to the Touchet, followed along that four or five miles,
struck across to the Snake river, a distance of thirty-five or
forty miles ; I came back the same road from the Touchet to
Walla-Walla.

Ques. 25. — Is the country described by you around Walla-
Walla, that along the river bank, from eight to ten miles be-
low the fort, and from the fort to the Touchet, and along that
river, as scon by you in your journey ?

Ans. — It is.

Ques. 26. — Did you seo on that road, before you got to the
Touched, any signs of bunch grass?

Ans. — I think not ; it is about the worst country I ever
saw, along the river, most of the way.

Ques. 27. — At the time you visited Fort Boise, was it be-
fore or after the flood that took place there, if you know ?

Ans. — I don't recollect of hearing of any flood there.

Ques. 28. — Who was the officer iu charge of For^ Bois^ at
the time you were there ?

Ans. — It was one of Governor Ogden's sons.

Ques, 29. — Is your estimate of the cost of these buildings

127

based upon the same reasons as your estimate of the cost of
the Hudson's Bay Comjiany, of buildings built by their ser-
vants, or not?

Ans. — It is.

Ques. 30. — ITow long were you at Fort Boise ?

Ans. — I was encamped in the vicinity, going and returning,
some four or five days in all ; I visited the fort two or three
times.

Ques. 31. — Is not your knowledge and recollection of Fort
Boisfe, at this time, rather indefinite and uncertain ?

Ans. — It is.

Ite- Examination.

Qiies. 1. — When did the Hudson's Bay Company leave the
buildings at Fort A^ancouver ?

Ans. — I don't know. My impression is the buildings were
occupied by some of their agents or employes, at the time I
left, in the fall of 18G0.

Ques. 2. — Did or not your description and estimate of the
Company's property at or near Vancouver include the build-
ings and improvements belonging to the Company on Sauvie's
Island, or not ?

Ans. — It did not ; I never was on Sauvie's Island.

Maj. ^ C, Brvt. Col. U. S. A.

Ques. 3. — In your ans^vor to the cross-interrogatory No. 4,
w^bat portion of that valu do you think applies to the land,
and what to the buildiitgs ? The notary has you now written
down one-quarter, i. c. $25,000, for the land, and three-quar-
ters, i. e. '^75,000, fo' the buildings. Is that what you said or
intended?

Ans. — What I ince.ided was, that the one-quarter estimate
of tb . aluatioUj in my judgment, was what the land was
worth, and the three-quarters of the estimate what I consid-
ered the buildings and improvements of the Hudson's Bay
Company worth.

128

Int. 4. — What, in your opinion, would the buildings and
iniprovements have sold for independently from the land ?

Ana. — For about what the material was worth for fuel,
probably not exceeding $4,000 or $5,000.

Re-Oross-.Exaniinaiion.

'>)>,!
■W

Int. 1. — Did you consider the price of $100,000, Avhich you
put upon certain lands and buildings, a fair estimate at the
time you made it?

Ans. — I did ; a fair and full estimate.

(Signed) R. MacFeely.

Maj. ^ as., Brvt. Col. U. S. A.

I, George II. Harries, a Notary Public within and for the
county of Hamilton, in the State of Ohio, do hereby certify
that Robert MacFeely was by me first sworn to testify the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that the
depositions by him subscribed, as above set forth, were reduced
to writing by myself in the presence of the said R. MacFeely,
and were subscribed by the said MacFeely in my presence, and
were taken on the 6th day of October, A. D. 186G, by agree-
ment, at the office of Stallo & Kittredge, in the city of Cincin-
nati, Ohio; that I am not counsel or attorney of either party,
or otherwise interested in the event of this suit.

(Signed) Geo. II. Harries,

Notary Public, Hamilton Co., Ohio.

Notary's fees $10, paid by defendant's attorneys.

129

In the matter of the Claims of the Hudson's Bay Compamj^
now pending before the British and American Joint Com-
mission on the Claims of the Hudson's Bay and Puf/et's
Sound Ayricnltural Companies against the United States.

Deposition of David H. Vinton, Deputy Quartermaster Gen-
eral and Brevet Brigadier General United States Army,
taken by agreement between Edward Lander, counsel Tor
the Hudson's Bay Company, and E. F. Stone, counsel
for the United States.

First. To the first interrogatory, viz : What is your name,
place of residence, and occupation ? — he saith, David H. Vin-
son, New York, Deputy Quartermaster General and Brevet
Brigadier General United States Army.

Second. To the second interrogatory, viz : Have you ever
been in what was formerly Oregon Territory ? If yea, when,
and where, and for how long a period ? — he saith. Yes, sir ; in
1849, about four months, including the time going thither and
returning to San Francisco.

Third. To the third interrogatory, viz: Have you any
knowledge of the post at Vancouver, which was formerly
claimed and occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company ? — he
saith, T have been there.

Fourtij. To the fourth interrogatory, viz: Did you ever
mo,k«, m iho form of a report, an estimate of the value of the
fo; t ."o<^^ ")uildings at Vancouver, which were claimed and oc-
cupied I vtho Hudson's Bay Company? — he saith, Yes; it was
reduced lo writing.

Filth. To the fifth interrogatory, viz : Please to look at the
paper here produced, and stat^whether or not the same is a
true copy of the report made by you, and referred to in the
pre*rious question — he saith. It is a true copy of a copy con-
te aed in ray official letter-book.

.-^rth. To tht sixth interrogatory, viz: When was the copy
in V' ur letter-book made, and have you or not any doubt that
the 3ame is an exact copy of the original? — he saith, The copy
9 H

M
1 1

130

Eli

in my letter-book was made, I presume, on the day that the
original was written ; I have not the slightest doubt that it is
an exact copy of the original.

Seventh. To the seventh interrogatory, viz : Please to look
at the paper heretofore produced, and now to be annexed to
this deposition, marked A, and state whether the same con-
tains a true statement of your judgment, at the time, of the
value of the buildings and other property described therein —
he saith. The paper referred to contains a true statement, of
my judgment, as to the value of the b aidings and other prop-
erty described therein,

(The introducti n of the paper marked A objected to as
incompetent ; and 1 1 • , because the same appears to have
been made by an office- 'ting in a judicial capacity under or-
ders to form and set out a decision on matters now at issue ;
and further, because it does not appear that the Hudson's
Bay Company had any notice whatever of the proceeding.
The latter part of the question objected to as incompetent.)

The examination of the witness on the part of the United
States, by E. F. Stone, counsel, was here concluded, and the
examination on the part of the Hudson's Bay Company, by
Edward Lander, commenced.

First. To the first interrogatory, viz : In the estimate you
made of those buildings, did you take into consideration their
value to the owners as a trading establishment and post, or
did you estimate the actual price and value of the improve-
ments at a certain and fixed rate of wages, and a fixed and cer-
tain price for lumber? — he saith, To the first part of this ques-
tion, I will answer, that to the best of my remembrance it
was surveyed and estimated for military purposes, for which
purpose I understood that tile Hudson's Bay Company were
willing to dispose of it. It was not my duty to estimate the
value of this property for the use of others. To the other
part of the question, I answer that the estimate was based
upon the price of mechanics' wages and that of ordinary la-
borers, and the price of lumber, as they prevailed prior to the
gold excitement ; but those prices were adviouced five-fold, in

131

order, as I supposed at the time, to meet the increased value
of every class of labor and of commodities to undertake the
construction of buildings like those on the ground, the amount
of which is estimated at three hundred and fifty thousand
dollars.

Second. To the second interrogatory, viz : Do you know
anything of the price of labor in 1846, or previous thereto ? —
he saith, Nothing.

Third. To the third interrogatory, viz : Were not those
buildings useful for military purposes at that time, and was
there not an intention of acquiring them for the use of the
troops then stationed at Vancouver? — he saith, They were not
entirely suitable, but would be, after slight modifications, for
quarters and barracks. The estimate was made with a view
to the purchase of those buildings for the use of troops.

Fourth. To the fourth interrogatory, viz : Have you ever
expressed any other opinion personally as to the value of the
Hudson's Bay Company's post and buildings, or of the post
buildings and lands at Vancouver, claimed by the Company ?
If so, please state it — he saith. No, sir; not to my knowledge.

Fifth. To the fifth interrogatory, viz : What would it have
cost while you were at Vancouver, in October, 1849, to have
put up those buildings? — he saith. Referring to the letter
already produced, I estimated the construction of the build-
ings, and the property enumerated, at three hundred and fifty
thousand dollars ; that comprehended land as well as build-
ings ; and those buildings consisted of the dwelling-house
occupied by the chief factor, Mr. Ogden, the dimensions of
which were 80 by 40, and having ten rooms ; two houses, quar-
ters for sub-agents, and office, 40 by 40 feet ; one building,
150 by 30 ; four store-houses, 100 by 40 ; three work-shops,
42 by 30 ; granaries, 50 by 50 ; guard-house, block-house,
bakery, and smaller appendages, a well, &c., including stock
ade enclosure. Outside the stockade there were three large
store-houses, 80 by 30 feet; two buildings, occupied as barracks
and commissary stores ; numerous out-buildings, such as quar-
ters for laborers, barns, and stables ; also fences and other
improvements.

132

Sixth. To the sixth interrogatory, viz : You have stated
that you included hvnd in your estimate ; how much land was
there, and at what price did you estimate it? — he saith, I
don't know how much land there was, but so mucli as would
form an enclosure around the buildings mentioned. I made
no special estimate of the land.

Seventh. To the seventh interrogatory, viz : What Avas your
rank in the service at the time you were at Vancouver ? — he
saith, Major and quartermaster United States Army.

Here the examination on both sides was concluded.

D. H. Vinton,

Witness.

8S.

State of New York, "1
Citt/ and County of New York, j '

I, Theodore Ritter, a notary public in and for the State of
New York, duly appointed and authorized by the Governor
of said State, under and by virtue of the laws of New York,
to take the acknowledgment and proof of deeds, &c., and to
administer oaths and take depositions, do hereby certify that
on the ninth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thou-
sand eight hundred and sixty-six, before me personally ap-
peared David II. Vinton, of the city of New York, who having
first been sworn according to law, gave the foregoing deposi-
tion, by him subscribed in answer to the foregoing interroga-
tories and cross-interrogations.

Said deposition was written out by me, to be used in the
matter of " the Claims of the Hudson's Bay Company now
pending before the British and American Joint Commission
on the Claims of the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Agri-
cultural Companies against the United States."

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal
of office, at the city of New York, the ninth day of July,
1866.

TnEODORE Ritter,
Notary Public, New York.

(Notarial)
1 Seal, i

having

Agri-

133
A.

Fort Vancouver, Oregon, October. 1, 1849.

^orh.

General :

Pursuant to your order, I have examined the property and
Ijuiklings belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company, and so far
as is practicable, made a rough estimate of the cost of the
buildings occupied by its agents and employes at a time when
the gold discoveries had not influenced the prices of labor and
materials.

The property in question, exclusive of land, consists prin-
cipally of a very comfortable dwelling-house, occupied by the
chief agent, Mr. Ogden, 80x40 feet, and having ten rooms ; two
houses, quarters for sub-agents, and office, 40x40 feet; one
building, 150x30, having seventeen rooms ; four store-houses,
100x40; three workshops, 42x30; granary, 50x50; guard-
house, block-house, bakery, and smaller appendages, well, &c.,
including stockade enclosure. These constitute the "fort"
proper; and the estimated cost of their construction may be set
down at $40,000; besides which there are, outside of the enclo-
sure, three large store-houses, 80x30 feet, two buildings, occu-
pied by the company of artillery and subsistence department,
at this post ; numerous out-buildings, such as quarters for la-
borers, barns and stables, also fences and other improvements
which may be valued at $30,000. These estimates are based
upon the prices of mechanics' wages, at $2 per diem, and or-
dinary laborers at $1. The price of lumber $20 per thousand.
At present, these prices are advanced five-fold, and if we mul-
tiply the foregoing si ns accordingly, we shall obtain the esti-
mated cost of the property enumerated, were we to undertake
their construction, viz : $350,000.

I am. General, most respectfully, your obedient servant,

D. H. Vinton,

Maj. ^ Qr. Mr.
Maj. Genl. p. F. Smith,

Comd'g. Pacific Div. U. 8. -4., Fort Vancouver, Oregon.

The foregoing is a true copy. D. H. Vinton,

Dep. Q. M. a. ^ Bvt. Brig. Gen.

134

Office of Army Clothino and Equipaok,
New York, June 21, 1866.
At the examination of David H. Vinton, a witness in the
matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company, now pend-
ing before the British and American Joint Commission on the
Claims of the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Agricultural
Companies against the United States, this paper writing marked
A, was produced and shown to David H. Vinton, and by him
deposed unto at the time of his examination, before

Theodore Bitter,
Notary Public, City, Co. and Stale N. Y.

In the matter of the Claims of the Hudson 8 Bay Company
against the United States, now pending before the British
and American Joint Commission on the claims of the Hud-
son's Bay and Puget's Sound Agricultural Companies
against the United States.

Deposition of Alfred Pleasonton, Brevet Brigadier General,
and Major of the Second Cavalry, taken by agreement
between Edward Lander, of counsel for the Hudson's Bay
Company, and E. F. Stone, of counsel for the United
States. The oath was administered by United States
Commissioner Osborn.

Testimony of Alfred Pleasonton.

Qucs. 1.— What is your place of residence, and present
occupation ?

Ans. — Alfred Pleasonton ; I am Major of the 2d United
States cavalry regiment. Brevet Brigadier General in the
United States Army.

135

Qu€8. 2. — Have you ever resided in what was formerly
Oregon Territory, now Washington Territory ; if yea, when,
and where, and for how long a period ?

An8. — I was stationed in Oregon Territory, on the staflf of
General Harney, as assistant adjutant general, in the years
1858, 1859, and 1860 ; part of 1858 and part of 18G0.

Ques. 3. — Have you any knowledge of the post at Vancou-
ver, which was formerly claimed and occupied by the Hud-
son's Bay Company?

Ans. — Yes sir, I have.

Ques. 4. — If you have any knowledge of the fcrt and build-
ings at Vancouver, please to describe the same, giving their
condition and constructive character, as near as you can, at
the time that you were acquainted with it.

Ans. — The Hudson's Bay Company had a large enclosure
there, or fort as they call it, with a picket-fence around it,
inside of which they had a number of large buildings, store-
houses, and work-shops ; and outside they had a number of
fields enclosed; and there were some houses that some of their
employes used to live in ; but these latter were in a very
dilapidated condition, and I think they were removed while I
was there. The whole establishment, however, was out of re-
pair — dilapidated; in fact I noticed when the wind would blow
pretty high, (and it did not often blow hard there,) some of
these pickets would fall down ; and the houses were in that
way, out of repair and dilapidated. The buildings were rude;
they evidently had been built for a number of years — a long
time. They were built for the purposes for which they were
intended. The material was substantial, but there was noth-
ing beyond that. •

Ques. 5. — Have you any knowledge, of the value of the
stockade, with the buildings and improvements connected
therewith ; if yea, what, in your judgment, was the value of
the same?

Ans. — I don't think the whole establishment there was
worth $10,000; I would not have given that amount for it.
That is about as near as I can answer it.

Ques. 6. — Was this fort, and other buildings connected

iii

136

therewith, at the time you Avero there, in your judgment, of
any considerable value for any purpose, or had tlie uses for
which the property was originally built passed away ?

(Objected to as leading and incompetent.)

Ans. — They were not of any value whatever ; they had
been built for a special object, and that object had passed
away.

Qucs. 7. — Was this post vacated by the Hudson's Bay
Company at the time you were there ? If yea, please to state,
if you know, what was the cause of their vacating this post.

Ans. — They did vacate it while I was there, nearly a year
after the charter, under which they held possessory rights, had
expired. Their right to remain there had expired, and they
went away.

Qiies. 8. — Have you any knowledge of the character of the
land at and near Vancouver ? If yea, please to describe the
same, giving, as fully as you can, the character and extent of
that part, if any, which was cultivated and enclosed, and the
character and extent of that part, if any, which was wild and
unoccupied.

Ans. — The character of the soil there at Vancouverl or im-
mediately around it, was gravelly and poor. There were
some places in the neighborhood where you would find a rich
spot ; but in the bottom, in the valley, the land was poor, and
I have seen it overflowed by the Columbia river there in the
spring of the year — all the lower part under water. There
was a strip of land which I suppose ran up about three miles
up the river, and from half to three-fourths of a mile wide,
which was clear, and on that was the military fort, as well as
the Hudson's Bay Company's possessions or fort; and the
United States Arsenal was there too. Then immediately back
of the military post — I suppose the military post was about
half a mile, that is where the woods commenced, what we call
the line of the post — the woods were very dense and thick,
and continued to be so. There were roads through 'hese
woods, at distances of four and six miles, and so on ; you
would come to small prairies, which were of greater or less
extent, and they would have people living in them — settlers,

137

111

cultivating. TIio Hudson's Bay Company had some few fields
around their enclosure or fort. They had a vegetable garden,
and they had an orchard there — not a very large orchard — and
some few fields there.

Ques. 9. — What was your duty while stationed at Van-
couver ?

Aii8. — I was the Adjutant General of the Department ; all
the military correspondence of the Department passed through
my hands. General Harney was the commanding officer.

Qiics. 10. — Have you any knowledge of the career and
growth of the town of Vancouver while you were there, and
of the condition and resources of the country west of the
mountains ? If yea, what, in your judgment, is the probability
of building up at Vancouver a large commercial town ?

Ans. — I know while I was there (I was probably as well ac-
quainted with the country west of the Rocky Mountains as
any one) that expeditions were sent out there, and the reports
all came to me, and there wore many eflforts made to open and
facilitate communication, that people could go and settle the
country up while I was there ; it was done by the orders of
the Government, and the question as regards the eligibility
of a position on that river was considered from examinations
made around the river, and the great objection to having
the town higher up than the mouth of the Willamette river
was a bar in the Columbia river above there, between that and
Vancouver, which was a detriment to sea-steamers coming
in when the river was low ; and that gave an advantage to the
station at Portland, on the Willamette river. The principal
progress of the town of Vancouver, while I was there, was
due to the money which was spent by the soldiers — a pretty
large garrison was kept there ; apart from the increase which
was made by the trade of the soldiers, there was no increase
there. I don't think there would be any town between the
Cascades and the mouth of the Willamette river of any con-
siderable magnitude ; that is, there is no advantages there for
one ; and I remember that there was a survey made by the
engineer of the river, for the purpose of finding out the advan-
tages or disadvantages of navigation, and the report was un-

jiji

. I'

ill

188

favorable. I don't know now whether that was ordered by
General Harney, or the order came from Washington, but it
ought to be in the records of the Department.

Cro88-Examination.

£.f|«

Qnea. 1. — Did you ever make any particular examination of
these buildings, within the stockade, while the Hudson's Bay
Company remained in possession, and were not your examina-
tions, if any, made at the time yoa visited the Company's of-
ficers at their post ?

Ans. — I have examined the establishment there of the Hud-
son's Bay Company on several occasions, sometimes when
I would go in there to make a purchase ; sometimes we would
make purchases in there. They had a store there, and I would
go in there with other officers and friends, and we would walk
around and look through ; and I have also seen it when I have
not been with officers of the Company — when I was associated
with officers of the Hudson's Bay Company ; I mean to say I
have seen it both with them and without them. The two
places are very close together, the military post and the Hud-
son's Bjiy Company ; I mean to say by that that I have had
as good facilities of seeing it as I have had of seeing the
United States military post.

QuiS. 2. — Did you ever examine the inside of the store-
houses or the other buildings with a view to ascertain if any
portion of them were rotten or out of repair ?

Ans. — Yes, sir; I have noticed that; I did not go in there
for the purpose, but I noticed it while I was there. I never
went in there for the purpose of making any special inspec-
tion, but as if I would come in here and see the ink on that
wall; but I didn't come in there for that purpose.

Quea. 3. — State what particular portion of any building or
store-house inside of the stockade was rotten or out of repair.

Ans. — I would really say that they were all out of repair,
and all had more or less timber decayed; but for me to spe-
cify any particular building that I have noticed, particularly
that the material was defective throughout the row of build-

189

ings on the cast ; if thoro was any building I noticed more
than the other, it was that row of quarters on the cast.

Qhch. 4. — Did not the appearance of dilapidation of these
buildings arise greatly from their want of paint — discoloration
from the weather?

Ann. — No; I don't think it did particularly.

Quc8. [). — When did this strong wind occur, that you speak
of, that knocked down some of the stockade? Was it before
or after the Hudson's Bay Company left?

Ans. — It was before. I will tell you the nearest I can come
to it: It was a storm that occurred on the coast, and there
was a steamer shipwrecked there. I won't be certain whether
it was in the winter of 1858 or not. There was a very violent
storm, and a steamer coming from San Francisco was wrecked
on the coast.

Ques. 6. — Were these buildings outside of the stockade in
a worse state of repair than those inside ?

Ans. — Oh, yes ; they were not fit to be inhabited at all.

Ques. 7. — Was there not a store-house or salmon-house out-
side the stockade, used by the military, at the time you were
there, for which rent was paid to the Company ?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; I would say, as regards the salmon-house,
it was under rent when General Harney came there.

Ques. 8. — Was not an ordnance store, on [the] outside of the
Company's buildings, hired by the military authorities?

Ans. — I don't remember the particular details; I remember
the salmon-house. There was a building there that was occu-
pied by the ordnance, for which rent was paid. I don't know
whether the rent was paid or not; on the contrary, in regard
to the ordnance department, all that sort of business is done
direct at Washington.

Ques. 9. — Was there not a store, inside the stockade, occu-
pied by the military authorities for storage?

Ans. — Not that I know of.

Ques. 10. — Are you acquainted with the cost ot constructing
buildings in any way?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; I have been a quartermaster, and built
posts, bridges, roads, and pretty much everything.

il •

I !

I j

1!^

140

Ques. 11. — Do you knovr the price of labor for meclianica,
and of lumber, at the time you speak of, about the town of
Vancouver ?

Ans. — I don't remember now what it was.

Ques. 12. — Were not these buildings good enough for the
purposes of the trade which the Company carried on at that
post, and were they not capable of holding their stores, and
proof from the weather?

An8. — Well, their trade as far as I saw, didn't amount
to anything; I could not answer the question. If you give
me data, then I can; but I could not without it.

Ques. 13. — Is not your opinion of the value of these build
ings based on the fact that, in your own opinion, the obj-^ct
for which they were built was no longer of importance ?

Ann. — No ; for I don't think the material of which they
were composed could have been taken down and used ; and I
don't think there could be as much economy as going and get-
ting new materials; and I formed that opinion from the fact
of having been at several military posts similarly situated,
and that very question came up, and the Government would
leave the property rather than attempt to use it again, because
it was as cheap to get new materials and build.

Ques. 14. — Was not, then, your opinion of the value of
these buildings made up with a view to taking them down and
using the materials for other pnrposes?

Ans. — No; because the question was discussed whether
they could be used for anything. We wove in want of build-
ings and stables at Fort Vancouver at that iime, and if they
could have been used for stables or store- houses to advantage,
they would have been used ; but it was decided that it would
be a disadvantage, and stables and store-houses were built
there after.

Ques. 15. — Is the value you have placed on them, then, the
mere value of the materials in th<e buildings ?

Ans. — That was just about the value; that was it; if I
thought of buying it myself, it would be the mere value of
the materials in the buildings.

Que8. 16. — Do you know whether this was the opinion of

141

the Company, that their charter had oxpiroJ, or an opinion
of the military officer of the post ?

Ans.'—l believe I cannot tell now, without having the
records; but it is my impression that the question was referred
to Washington, and that a judicial opinion had been given to
General Harney on the subject.

Qhcs. 17. — Do you know from whom this opinion emanated?

Ai}8. — I do not.

Ques. 18. — Was it upon this opinion, forwarded from Wash-
ington, that General Harney issued the order informing the
Company that they had no rights ?

(Objected to as incompetent.)

Ans. — I can only answer that by saying I don't know what
order you refer to, and I have only given it as an impression
of mine, that General Harney received his instructions from
Washington.

Ques. 19. — Was there not a correspondence between Gen-
eral Harney and the officers of the Company's post, with
reference to the lights of the Company at Vancouver, a short
time before thev left that fort ?

Ans. — There was a correspondence on several occasions
with the officers of the Company, but on different subjects ;
but I don't remember now particularly whether there was any
special correspondence in reference to the rights of the Com-
pany. Sometimes a correspondence was carried on with the
oijicers at Victoria, and sometimes with those at the fort.

Ques. 20. — When you speak of lands being gravelly at and
near Vancouver, do you not mean to say that the gravel is
found on the high grounds back of the Hudson's Bay fort ;
that is, where your buildings were?

Am. — Yes, sir ; there is gravel there, and lunre is some
gravel ac the river bottom.

Ques. 21. — Do you not know that there was a bar near the
mouth of the Willamette river, and another bar, called the
Swaa Island bar, in the Willamette river, below Portland,
whicli obstructed the approach of steamers to that place ?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; there are both of these bars, but they were
deeper, and the navigation was better, as it was decided by
the survey that was mi'de, than that on the Columbia.

iii

it
'It

142

Qucs. 22. — Is this information which you have given with
reference to the bars in the Columbia and the Willamette river
derived from your own personal knowledge, or from what you
have heard as to the report of this survey that you have
spoken of?

Ans. — I have been on the river frequently, both ways ; but
I have never sounded ihe sand-banks, and have never struck
on them. The opinion I am giving now is based on the report
of the survey that was made ; the report passed through my
office.

Qiies. 23. — Do you know where this report is, or what has
become of it?

Ans. — It ought to be with the records of the Department,
somewhere.

Ques, 24. — Do you know anything of the country, its in-
crease, and the change in the course of trade since the year
1860, of your own personal knowledge?

Ans. — No ; I left the country in the summer of 1860, and
have not been back there since.

Ques. 25. — Has your attention during the last four years
been at all directed to what occurred while you were there,
in Oregon or Washington, and has not your distinct and accu-
rate recollection of these matters been much impaired during
the last four years ?

Ans, — I have been very actively employed in other ways
for the last four years, and as regards a great- many of the
details connected with the service in Oregon while I was
there, I don't remember them ; but my opinions, as they were
formed, of the transaction of certain facts, I think they are
just as good now as they were then.

Ques. 26. — liook at this letter, now shown you, dated March
3d, 18G0, and to which your signature is attached as Acting
Assistant Adjutant General, and now in evidence in this case,
and state, if you can, whether it was written before or after
the communication from Washington, which you have spoken
of?

(Objected to as incompetent.)

Ans. — This letter appears to be an answer to a letter re-

143

ceived from Mr. Wack, the agent of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany at Fort Vancouver. I stated that it was an impression
of mine that General Harney had received instructions from
Washington on the subject, but I have nothing positive to
show that he did so, and this letter in question is not an order,
but simply a reply to a letter from Mr. Wack.

Ques. 27. — Do you recollect anything about a purchase
made by the commanding officer of the Department, General
Harney, of land near the military post, and on the lands
claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company near Vancouver?

Ans. — No ; I have no personal knowledge of any purchase.

QucB. 28. — Do you know of any land occupied by General
Harney, near the military post of Vancouver, on land claimed
by the Hudson's Bay Company ?

Ans. — I know of the General building a house about a mile
up the river, I think, on the bluff; but the terms on which he
did I don't know anything of.

A. Pleasokton,
Bvt. Brig. Gen U. S. A.

Sworn to before me this 13th day of July, A. D. 1866.

John A. O-^born,
U. 8. Com. Southern District of New York.

■ %

.1
li

i
, I-

ting
:aso,
ifter
»ken

Southern District of New York, 1
Ciii/ of New York. j

I, John A. Osborn, United States Commissioner, do hereby
certify that the foregoing deposition of Alfred Pleasonton,
a witness produced by and on behalf of the United States in
the matter of the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company
against the same, now pending before the British and Ameri-
can Joint Commission for the final settlement thereof, was
taken before me, at my office in the city of New York, and
reduced to writing, under my direction, on the 13th day of
July, 1866.

re-

144

I further certify that before this examination I adminis-
tered to said witness the following oath :

" You swear that the evidence you shall give in the matter
of the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company against the
United States of America shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God."

After the same was reduced to writing, the deposition of
said witness was carefully read to and then signed by him.

I further certify that Eben F. Stone, Esq., attoi'ney for
the United States, and Edward Lander, Esq., attorney for
the Hudson's Bay Company, were personally present during
the examination and cross-examination of said witness.

And I do further certify that I am not of counsel, nor
attorney for either of the parties in the said deposition and
caption named, nor in any way interested in the event of the
cause named in said caption.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal
[l. s.] this 30th day of July, A. D. 1866.

John A. Osborn,
U. S. Com'r Southern Dist. of Neiv York.

BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION

ON TEE

HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL-
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS.

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company
against the United States.

Deposition of J. W. Perit Muntington.

Interrogatories propounded by Caleb Gushing^ in behalf of the

United States.

Testimony of J. W. Perit Huntington.

Ques. 1. — Please to state your name ia full, your present
place of abode, and your official station, if any.

Ans. — My name is J. W. Perit Huntington ; I reside at
Salem, Oregon ; I am Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the
State of Oregon.

Ques. 2. — Have you any interest, direct or indirect, in the
claim preferred by the Hudson's Bay Company against the
United States?

Ans. — None whatever,

Ques. 3. — lu what year did you first go to Oregon ?

Ans. — In the year 1849.

Ques. 4. — Have you or not resided there continuously from
that time to the present ?

Ans. — I have resided there contir^uously from that date to
the present time.

Ques. 5. — In what part of Oregon did you reside during
the early part of your residence there ?

Ans. — From 1849 to 1852, I lived in the Umpqua Valley ;
In 1862, I lived in Walla-Walla, Washington Territory j and
my present residence is at Salem.
10 H

I*;

146

i- »|

Ques. 6. — How long have you held the office of Superin-
tendent of Indian Affairs?

Ans. — Since the 1st of April, 18G3.

Ques. 7. — Prior to your holding the office of Superintendent
of Indian Affairs, had you held any, and if so, what office or
offices in Oregon ?

Ans. — I had been county clerk of Umpqua county for two
years, the years 1852 and 1853; and I was a member of the
Oregon Legislature in 1860.

Ques. 8.— What were your professional pursuits or occupa-
tion during your residence in the valley of the Umpqua?

Ans. — My chief occupation was surveying ; farming was an
incidental occupation also.

Ques. 9. — Whether or not did your business as surveyor
lead you into opportunities of knowledge in reference to the
geography and other matters in the valley of the Umpqua ?

Ans. — It did; my knowledge of the Umpqua, both as to its
geography and its population in its early days, is very inti-
mate — very familiar indeed.

Ques. 10. — Whether or not have you had any personal know-
ledge and observation of the post of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany on the Umpqua ?

Ans. — I had ; I was a guest of Mr. Gagnior, who was the
agent in charge of the fort in the spring of 1850, for several
days, and I have frequently stopped there subsequently.

Ques. 11. — Please to state where the post of the Hudson's
Bay Company on the Umpqua is situated, relatively to the
California trail.

Ans. — It is between fifteen and twenty miles west of the
trail, and separated from it by a very high and rugged range
of mountains.

Ques. 12. — Please to state whether or not that post has any
topographical connection or otherwise with the California
trail.

Ans. — It has none whatever.

Ques. 13. — How far by the river is that post from the
ocean ?

147

Ans. — I do not know accurately ; I think between forty-
five and fifty-five miles.

Qucs. 14. — From your personal knowledge or observation
of that post, what were the uses and purposes of its occupa-
tion ?

Atis. — It was a post established for fur-trading purposes,
and especially for trading in sea-otter skins, a very valuable
class of furs, and only to be obtained in a few localities along
the coast. Its trade was never extensive, and although not
confined strictly to the sea-otter skins, it was mainly carried
on with the view of collecting them.

Ques. 15. — Wliat was the condition of this trade in 1850,
relatively to the amount of its prosecution?

Alls. — It had diminished very much from what it had been
previously ; the Company had only one white man there at
that time, and one half-breed, and then there were one or two
Indians employed about the post. They made, in 1849 and
1850 and in 1851, a little expedition down to Vancouver, with
pack-horses, for goods, and to take doAvn fur^i the number of
packs, I think, in neither instance exceeded twenty.

Ques, 16. — What buildings had the Company there, in 1850,
when you first came to the knowledge of them?

Ans. — They had a dwelling-house, a barn, and a store-
house, and one other building, the purpose of which I do not
know. Those were all staRding in a square, and enclosed by
pickets.

Qucs. 17. — In your judgment, how many acres of land were
there at this post under enclosure o:? cultivation, either or
both ?

Ans. — Between 100 and 150 acres.

Ques. 18. — Please to state, whether or not, as surveyor or
as farmer, you have had practice and occasion to judge of the
value of buildings and lands in the valley of the Umpqua.

Ans. — I have had a very good opportunity to acquire that
knowledge.

Ques. 19. — What, in your opinion, in 1850, was the value
in money of the buildings of the Company at the post of
Umpqua?

1 i
ill,.

I ;

J., I.

f « 1:

148

Ans. — Do you mean the cost of putting up, or

Ques. 20. — First, the cost of putting up, and then the ac-
tual value as they stood, Avhen you visited thera.

Ans. — I should t^ink the first cost of these buildings, with
the stockades around them, was $1,000. When I saw them,
they were very much dilapidated, and their value Avas very
small ; they were worth nothing to any one else except the
Company ; they were very much decayed, and going to ruin
pretty fast.

Que8. 21. — State, if you please, provided you know, what
became of those buildings.

Ans. — They were burned in 1853 — either 1853 or 1854 — I
am not sure which. They were burned after they had been
leased by the Company to Colonel Chapman, an American
citizen.

Ques. 22. — By whom is the land, if you know, now occu-
pied?

Ans. — It is held by Henry Beckly and John Smith, in part-
nership, both Ameriqan citizens.

Ques. 23. — State, if you know, whether they did or did not
enter on the land by license of the Company.

Ans. — No, sir ; they did not ; they derived the land by
purchase.

Ques. 24. — From whom, if you know?

Ans. — From one Robert Hutchinson, who obtained it from
Chapman, who was the lessee originally from the Hudson's
Bay Company.

Ques. 25. — You have stated that you resided some time at
Walla-Walla.

Ans. — Yes, sir; one year — one season.

Ques. 26. — Please state whether, by Walla- Walla, you mean
the United States fort of Walla-Walla, or the old establish-
ment, usually known as the Fort of Nez Percys.

Ans. — I referred to neither one ; I referred to the valley of
the Walla-Walla. The place at which I stopped was about
thirty miles southeast of the old fort Nez Perces, sometimes
^sailed Walla- Walla.

149

Ques. 27. — Have you any personal knowledge of the condi-
tion of the old fort of Nez Perces.

Av8. — I have not, prior to 1862 ; at that time it was very
much dilapidated, in fact almost entirely destroyed; my own
personal knowledge of it is the extent of it.

Ques. 28. — State, if you please, from what you saw, what
buildings, if any, had constituted the structures of that post.

Ans. — I do not know that I can state with any accuracy
what buildings constituted the post. A portion of them had
been destroyed in 1862, and all were very much dilapidated.
There was an enclosure, and an adobe wall, and some build-
ings inside of it, but their number or size I could not give.

Ques. 29. — Whether or not any land appeared to have been
enclosed at that post?

Ans. — I do not think any was enclosed there ; they had a
farm twenty miles back in the Walla- Walla Valley, twenty
miles south, which was attached to the post.

Ques. 30. — Have you any knowledge of the farm of which
you speak ?

Ana. — I have an intimate acquaintance with it.

Que8. 31. — Please to describe the quantity of enclosed land
at that farm. " -,

Ans. — I cannot give it accurately, having never mei'.sured
it ; but I should estimate i4; at from twenty to thirty acres.

Ques. 32. — What was the quality and nature of the laud
around that farm?

Ans. — There is a valley there containing 1,000, or perhapa
2,000 acres of excellent land. The land outside of that is
high land, affording some grass, but not fit for cultivation.

Ques. 33. — What, in your judgment, at the time you saw
it, was the value of that enclosed land?

Ans. — $8 or $10 dollars an acre.

Ques. 34. — Were there any buildings on it; and if so, what?

Ans. — None, sir.

Ques. 35. — Are you acquainted with the locality of the
valley of the Walla- Walla, called Wallula, and the landing-
place there?

Ans. — I am.

'.u

\ \

'i
r

150

m
I

Quen. 36. — Plcaso to describe the uses of that landing-
place.

Ans. — "VVallula is the Indian name of the old buildings,
Nez Pcrc&s or Walla-Walla ; it is at the mouth of the Walla-
Walla river, and has a high sand-point and beach running
down to the river, making a favorable steamboat landing.
The land is a drifting sand desert, producing no vegetation,
and not capable of producing any, except some very small
narrow bottoms, along the Walla-Walla creek or river, which
overflows frequently, and cannot be cultivated on that account ;
it produces some grazing, however.

Ques. 37. — State, if you know, whether or not the landing
at Wallula is now a place of landing at that region, or whether
there is or not some other place of landing preferred to it;
and if so, the name of that place.

Ans. — The landing at Umatilla has superseded that at Wal-
lula ; there are now a hundred tons of freight landed at Uma-
tilla, where there is one ton landed at Wallula.

Ques. 38. — What causes have led to the comparative aban-
donment of Wallula, and the increased use of Umatilla?

Ans. — Umatilla has been found to be a more convenient
entrepot for the traffic which goes towards Boise and Idaho.
Wallula is still used, and always will be for the traffic which
goes to Walla- Walla Valley ; but that is but a small part of
the trade of that country.

Ques. 39. — State, if you know, whether or not any act or
interference on the part of the United States Government has
procured the relative abandonment of Wal'a- Walla as a land-
ing-place ?

Ans. — I do not know that any has ; on the contrary, I
think that the fact that quartermasters have used it as a
landing-place for the supplies that are taken to Fort Walla-
Walla, in the interior, has done much to keep the place up
longer than it would otherwise have mantained itself. The
village of Wallula is a commercial rival of Umatilla now, and
there is, of coarse, the usual strife between two such places
of precedence. The last two or three years Umatilla ht.8

151

gone very much ahead of Wallula, and solely on account of
its natural advantages.

Ques. 40. — Whether, so far as you can have observed, what
proportion, if any, of the traffic of Wallula is dependent upon
the location of the United States fort at Walla- Walla, and is
created by that ?

Ans. — Fully one-half, in my judgment.

Qiics. 41. — Have you any knowledge of an enclosure, or
appearance of an enclosure, having ever existed, of a mile
square, in and around Fort Ncz Feces?

Ans. — I have not ; I never heard of any such enclosure ;
I do not think any such possible, because, in order to make
such a one, the enclosure must necessarily cross the river
Walla-Walla twice, and unless constructed very substantially,
it would be removed every year by the June freshets.

Que8. 42. — What is the quality of the land or soil immedi-
ately surrounding the fort of Nez Perces ?

Ans. — It is a desert of drifting sand, totally incapable of
producing any crop or grass, with the exception of narr<j»w
bottoms around the Walla-Walla river or creek, which are
tolerable fertile, and could be cultivated, if they were not
subject to overflow. The whole tract is utterly valueless for
agricultural purposes.

Ques. 43. — In the hills back of the immediate site of the
fort and its surroundings, have you or not ever noticed any
cattle or horses pastured ?

Ana. — I have frequently.

Ques. 44. — To whom, if you know, did they belong ?

Am. — They belonged to settlers, American citizens there.

Ques. 45. — Have you or not ever noticed any Indians pas-
turing their horses there?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; great numbers of them.

Ques. 46. — What bands of Indians?

Ans. — The Cayuses, Walla- Wallas, and Umatillas.

Cross- Examined hy Edward Lander, in behalf of the Hudson's

Bay Company.

Ques. 1. — What is the usual price of sea-otter skins ?

'«

■' I,

152

ifj;

Ir'

fVn

Ans. — I beliovo tlioir usual value in Portland has been 040
to $80 each.

Qucs. 2. — I will ask you, is there a trail connecting the Hud-
son's Bay post at Umpqua with the main-trail, from which
you say it is separated by mountains?

Ana. — Yes, sir ; there is now a wagon-road constructed, but
there was not at that period; there was a trail which passed
over that range of mountains ; it was used by the Company in
passing from the fort down to Vancouver.

Ques. 3. — You have spoken of the value of these skins. I
will ask you what the value of lumber was, at Portland, per
thousand, from the fall of 1849 to the spring of 1850, if you
know ?

Ans. — Well, I think that the average price for it :.t that
time was $100 per thousand; it was very high, I remember.

Ques. 4. — Is that the value you placed upon these buildings
at the time you saw them in 1850?

Ann. — I valued them, in the first place, by estimating the
^ost of putting up such buildings at that time.

Ques. 5.— In 1850 ?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; in the spring of 1850 ; and then I stated
in my former answer that their value at that time was very
small, because they were unsuitable for other uses than those
the Company had for them, and because they were very much
decayed and dilapidated.

Ques. 6. — I will ask you what were these buildings made of?

Ans. — They were made of logs — hewn logs.

Ques. 7. — And whether they were shingled or not ?

Ans. — I do not remember what the roofs were constructed
of; thoy were very rotten, and moss-grown, and leaky.

Ques. 8. — What was the price of square timber, at that
time, in Portland, Oregon ? But first, was the timber used in
these buildings square on four sides, or only on two? i

Ans. — I think some of them were square on four sides, and
some two.

Ques. 9. — What was the price of square timber, at that time,
in Portland, Oregon?

(Mr. Cushing. — I object to that question : first, as intro-

153

ducing now matter and as not being in the natnrc of cross-
oxaminatioii ; and secondly, as assuming that the logs at
Umpqua were what is called square timber.)

Ques. 10. — What was the price of square timber at Port-
land?

Ans. — I do not know.

Ques. 11. — I will ask you again, what was the price of square
timber in any portion of Oregon, with which you were ac-
quainted, at that time?

(Mr. Gushing objected to this question as not being in the
nature of cross-examination, and as introductory of new mat-
ter not pertinent to the present inquiry.)

(Mr. Lander. — I must say I do not see how that is ; he has
sworn that part of them were square timber. What was the
price of timber, at that time, in any part of Oregon with
which you were acquainted?)

Ana. — I know of square timber having been gotten <>ut at
six cents per foot, running measure, in the Umpqua Valley.

(^/vca. 12. — Are you aware of any settlers at the valley of
the bmpqua before you arrived there in 1849 ?

Ana. — There were six men and some families.

Ques. 13. — How long had they been in the valley at the
time of your arrival?

Ans. — The first settler went there in 1848, tlj others had
gone there in the early part of 1849.

Ques. 14. — Is your estimate of the cost of the erection of
those buildings based upon the price of labor and the value
of material in the year 1850, or not ?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; it is based upon the price of labor at that
date ; the value of timber was nothing.

Ques. 15. — The value of material at that date was simply
the value of labor bestowed upon it. Is that so ?

Ans, — I mean to say that these buildings could have been
erected for the money I name, at that time.

Ques. 16. — I will ask you this question : When you speak
of material which is of no value, do you mean the material
standing as timber in the wood?

154

Ans. — Yes, sir; there was no other material in the con-
struction — no iron.

Ques. 17. — How many laborers were there in the valley of
the Umpqua capable of putting up this building in the year
1850 ?

Ans. — Tliere were some hundrer'^s who settled there that
summer ; I do not know the number. There was a great num-
ber of people passing back and forth through the valley who
were al\\\\ys ready to work if we wanted to hire them.

Ques. 18. — What was the price of labor per month in the
valley in that year ; in the summer of 1850?

Ans.—UO to $60, with board.

Ques. 10. — Do you know the size of tliese buildings?

Ans. — I do not; I could not give it accurately.

Ques 20. — I will ask you if the dwelling-house was not 40
by 30 feet ?

An.s. — My impression would be, from recollection simply,
and of course rather vague, that it was forty feet long, and
less than thirty feet wide.

Ques. 21. — Was not the barn 45 by 30 feet ?

Ans. — I should think, probably that size.

Ques. 22. — Was not the stockade ninety feet square by
twelve feet high ?

Alls. — Yes, it might have been.

Ques. 23. — Was not the store or range of stores 40 feet by
20?

Ans. — Perhaps they were that size.

Ques. 24. — And did not all these buildings average in height
from twenty to thirty feet ?

Ans. — No, sir ; they did not average in height more than
eight feet to the eaves ; thijy were verv low.

Ques. 25. — Was not the barn over eight feet high ?

Ans. — I do not think it was over eight or ten feet.

Ques. 20. — Was this barn lower in height than the usual
log barns of Oregon, since that time ?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; the build

all

Ques. 27.— What is the

rery

^s were
present value of land in the Ump-

155

qua A^illcy per acre, where the title of land has been con-
firmed ?

Av}<. — The value of good agricultural land theiMi, unim-
proved, is from $2 to $4 an acre.

Qufs. 28. — Then I will ask the question entirely. What is
the value of good alluvial bottom-land, that has been improved,
per acre ?

Aim, — Do you mean, including the improvements?

Qncn. 20. — I mean by improvements, fence and plough;
land that is not in a natural state.

Avii. — The answer must depend on the character and ex-
tent of the improvements.

Qkcs. :50. — I will ask it again: What is the .value of culti-
vated alluvial bottom-land per acre?

A7i8. — Do ycu desire me to include the price of improve-
ments — the house ?

Ques. 31. — I cannot tell whether there is a house or not.

Ans. — I cannot answer the question, unless you can tell
me whether there is a house on it or not.

Ques. 32. — I have asked you the value of cultivated alluvial
bottom-land.

Ans. — The value of unimproved is as I havo stated ; the
value of improved or cultivated land would be enhanced pre-
cisely by the value of the permanent improvements put upon
it, which may be small or great; in fact, farms are ordinarily
sold — they are now — M-ith dwellings, and large part of the
land fences, for from $3 to $5 an acre.

Ques. 33. — In the Umpqua Valley?

Ans. — In the Umpqua Valley.

Ques. 34. — At what time, and for how long, were you in the
Walla-Walla Valley?

Ans. — I was there in 18C2, from spring until October.

Ques. 35. — Are all those answers that you have made to
questions, put to you with reference to Wallula and Walla-
Walla Valley and landing, based upon knowledge acquired at
that time?

Ans. — They are all based upon knowledge acquired at that
time or subsequently.

I' :i

!il

Mn, [!

156

Ques. 36. — Have you ever been in the Walla-Wallt^ Valley
subsequently ?

Ans. — Every season since ; I was there this year, in May.

Ques. 37. — Do you own land, or have you been farming in
the Walla-Walla "''alley ?

Ans. — I have never owned any land there, or farmed there;
I have kept cattle and sheep there in 1862 and 1863.

Ques. 38. — At the time you kept stock in the valley, did
you pay for it ; or were your stock ranging on the public
lands ?

Ans. — They were ranging on the public lands ; nobody
thought of paying for grass.

Ques. 39. — Are not those parts of the valley of the Walla-
Walla where the alluvial land is found of much greater value
than the surrounding uplands?

Ans. — They are.

Ques. 40. — Have you ever purchased or sold any of the
alluvial lands of the valley of the Walla-Walla?

Ans. — I never have.

Ques. 41. — Are there any titles at present given to the
United States Government in the valley of the Walla-Walla,
so that the value of lands with good titles can be ascertained?

(Mr. Gushing objected to this question, inasmuch as this
witness is not the proper person to prove the United States
grants of lands, if any, having no personal or official know-
ledge of that matter.)

(Witness. — I do not know whether the United States have
issued patents of lands or not.)

Ques, 42. — I will ask you this : Is not the sale of lands in
the valley of the Walla-Walla a mere delivery of possession
between the purchaser and buyer ?

(Mr. Gushing objected to this question as incompetent.)

(Witness. — I think it is not ; I think that lands are usually
sold upon a land-office certificate ; that where the proper proof
of residence has been made which entitles the resident to
possession ; they are sometimes sold in that way, and some-
times mere possession.)

Int. 43. — Is the value of $8 or ^10 per acre, which you place

up(
in
ion
of

mil

157

upon these twenty acres of enclosed land at the Old Farm
in the Walla-Walla, the value put upon it, in your own opin-
ion, on knowledge derived from your observation of the sale
of other lands?

Ans. — From my observation of the sale of lands in that
district.

Int. 44. — How near is this to the farm formerly owned by
Mr. Davis, and afterwards by Ruckell and Thomas?

Ans. '- l do not know accurately ; I should think five or six
miles.

Int. 45. — How does this enclosed land that you have spoken
of compare in value with that of the Davis farm ?

Ans. — It is less valuable.

Int. 4G. — To what extent is it less valuable ?

Ans. — It is not as good land; the Davis farm is the choice
piece of land in the Walla-Walla Valley, and indeed of all
Eastern Oregon ; and it is so much further away from market
than the Davis farm as to make its products less valuable.

Int. 47. — Which is the nearest, at the present time, to the
town of Walla- Walla ?

Ans. — The Davis farm ; to go from the town of Walla-Walla
you would pass right by the Davis farm.

Int. 48. — What is the value of the Davis farm per acre? Or,
if you know, state what was given for it.

Ans. — I do not know what was given for it. I should think
the Davis farm, in its improved condition, is worth from ^25
to $30 per acre ; it would be $10,000 for the half section ; if
it is a half section, $10,000 ; or if a quarter of a section,
$5,000.

Int. 49. — What, if you know, is the present population of
the valley of the Walla- Walla and the town of Walla- Walla ?

Ans. — I cannot give either. ^

Int. 50. — Is not the town of Walla-Walla a place of consid-
erable trade and importance for that section of country at
which supplies are purchased for the mines?

Ans. — It is.

Int. 51. — Is there not a lino of stages running from Walla-

III

158

W '

Walla acro^js the Blue Mountains to Boise and the mining
regions?

A718. — Tlioro is a line of stages running from Wallula to
Walla-Walhv, and another from Walla-Walla to Boise City,
across tlie Blue Mountains.

Int. 1)2. — How many soldiers were there stationed in the
United States fort of Walla-Walla, during the time you re-
sided there?

Ans. — When I first went there, there were six companies ;
all but two companies were sent out on the plains that sum-
mer, and, I tliink, returned there in the winter.

Int. 58. — Are not the supplies for these troops, of beef and
flour, necessary to their subsistence, produced in the valley of
the Walhi-Walla ?

Ans. — They are; all of them.

Int. 54. — Have you any idea of the amount of freight de-
livered at Wallula, for the use of the military at the fort of
Walla-Walla?

Ans. — I have not; but it is very large.

I/it. 55. — Does not the town of Wallula possess at least
1,000 inhabitants?

Ans. — I think it docs ; more than that.

Int. 50. — Is there not now in the valley of the Walla- Walla,
including the town population, 5,000 inhabitants?

Ana. — I should think 5,000 a very high estimate, but it may
come up to that.

//(/. 57. — Are there not, to the east of Wallula, the mining
towns of Orofino, Florence, and Elk City, whose supplies pass
through the town of Wallula, and are landed at Wallula ?

Ans. — No, sir; the supplies for none of those places pass
through Wallula ; they are landed at Lewiston.

Int. 58. — Do not the steamers that navigate the river, with
the exception of a few to Lewiston and White Bluffs, all of
them stop at Wallula in going up the river?

Aus. — Some only go as far as Umatilla; some go on to
Wallula ; the others go on to White Bluffs or Lewiston.

Int. 59. — At the time you left Wallula, or the valley of the

159

lining
pass

pass

with
all of

Walla-Walla, how many stores were there in Walliila for the
sale of goods ?

Ans. — I was there last April; there were then two stores
there for the sale of goods.

Int. 00. — How many hotels?

Ans. — I do not know sir ; one or two.

Int. Gl. — You have stated that it would be impos^.sible to
make a mile square of enclosed land without cro.>isiiig the
Walla-Walla river several times?

A7t'<. — Twice.

Int. 62. — What is the distance between the mouth of the
Walla-Walla river and the mouth of the Snake; and in that
distance is there a single stream to interrupt the enclosure?

A)is. — I do not know the distance; my impression is, it is
some fifteen miles; there is no stream intervening; I still
repeat iny former assertion, however.

Int. 03. — On what line of tliat enclosure would it be neces-
sary to cross the river twice ; on the north and south, or the
east and west line ?

Ans. — The town Wallula — the Old Fort — stood on a narrow
tongue of land, between the Walla-Walla creek and the Co-
lumbia river, the creek or rivjr running nearly parallel to the
Columbia ; no square mile of land could be laid oil' which
would include the old adobe fort, and not cross that stream.

Int. 04. — You mean by that, that no square mile could be
laid off, at right angles to the course of the river, without
crossing the river twice ?

Ans. — I mean that no body or tract of land could be laid
off containing a square mile, in a solid form, without crossing
the Walla-Walla river.

Int. 05. — Do you mean to say, that a mile of land, 640
acres, cannot be laid oflF without crossing the Walla-Walla
river twice, and so as to include the Old Fort?

Ans. — No. sir ; I do not think that at all ; I mean that no
square mile of land, in a compact form, could be laid off there '
to include the old adobe fort, and not cross the Walla-Walla
river, bounded by the Columbia river ou the other side; of

§■

160

course there is more than 640 acres of land on that side of the
river, more than 6,000 acres.

Int. 00. — You mean then to say, that taking the Columbia
river as one line, and the other lines being at right angles to
the river, a square mile of land could not be laid out without
crossing the river ?

An8. — Yes, sir. '

Int. 67. — Does not the Walla- Walla river, a short distance
from its mouth, in going up the river, change its direction to
the South? *

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 68. — Do you know the amount of freight delivered at
Umatilla in a year ?

Ans. — I do not.

Int. 69. — Do you know how many tons of freight are laid
down at Wallula in a day ?

Ans. — No, sir.

Int. 70. — In a year ?

Ans. — I am unable to give any statistics about it.

Int. 71. — Is there not plenty of bunch grass, upon which
cattle and stock can feed, immediately in the rear of the old
adobe fort of Wallula?

jlns, — Bunch grass is not abundant until you get four or
five miles away from the river.

Int. 72. — Is there any bunch grass suitable for pasturage
near the old fort of Wallula? /

Ans. — No, sir; there is not.

Int. 73. — How far from the old fort can the first bunch grass
be found?

^jtg. — The first bunch grass is found, I think, about three
miles off; it does not come plentifully for stock until a greater
distance is reached.

Interrogatories in rebuttal hy Caleb Cashing, in behalf of the
j United States.

Int. 1. — Were the buildings which you have described at
Fort Umpqua constructed of what is known as square timber,

161

or wore tlicy constructed of what is the usual material of log
houses ill the western States?

A7if(. — Tliey were what is known in Oregon as French-hewn
log houses; a small portion of the timher was sfjuare on four
sides, l)iit most of it was only hewn on two sides.

fiif. 2. — Have you any knoAvledgeof square timber at Port-
land, its marketable value, and the like?

A)ix. — I had not at that time.

hit. .'5. — Has the price of timber at Portland any particular
relation to your estimation of the value of log houses in the
valley of tlie Umpqua?

Ai(N. — None whatever; no more than the value of timber in
Paris; there was no connection between the two places, and
no transportation; there was no lumber used in the construc-
tion of these buildings.

Jnt. 4. — You were asked in cross-examination the height of
the stockade in tlie valley of the Umpqua; of what is that
stockade made?

ylns. — Tt was made of fir poles or small logs, planted in the
ground and tied together Avith wooden strips at the top.

Int. T). — What, in the year 1850, was the pecuniary value of
those fir logs, standing as they grew?

yln.s'. — They had no value — were*vorth nothing.

Int. 0. — As raw material, they had no value?

Ans. — They had no value.

Int. 7. — What was the value, as raw material, of the logs
of timber of which the buildings were constructed?

Ani<. — Nothing.

Int. 8. — From whoso lands must these logs and those fir
trees have been cut?

Ans. — From the public lands of the United States ; all of
them.

Int. 0. — There was nothing in the building or stockade
except the labor?

Ans. — No tiling.

Int. 10. — Was there anything in the construction there,
apart from the material and excepting the labor of cutting
11 II

162

them from the public lands of tho United States and putting;
them up?

Ana. — Nothing ; there was little or no iron used in the
buildings, and no glass.

Itit. 11. — Have you any knowledge, from your observation
of tho country and its inhabitants, of the relative cost of labor
in putting up a fir stockade in 1850 and at some time prior to
that time?

Ans, — Prior to the discovery of the gold mines in 1848 it
would cost less money than in 1850, because labor was more
abundant and much cheaper.

Int. 12. — Was or not your estimate of the labor involved,
in your estimate of the cost or value of those buildings in 1850
and of the work done upon them, greater in 1850 than it would
have boon prior to the discovery of gold?

Atis. — Much greater.

Int. 13. — From your knowledge of the Indians there, and
half-breeds, and work done by them, was or not, in your judg-
ment, the cost of their labor prior to 1848, greater or less than
the cost of white laborers in 1850?

Ans. — It was far less ; the cost of Indian labor to the Hud-
son's Bay Company was a mere nothing; they subsisted them
on potatoes and salmon, and paid them in clothing and trinkets
at most enormous prices.

Int. 14. — What implements of labor, if any, would have been
necessary for the construction of the stockade and the build-
ings at Fort Umpqua?

Ans. — An ax, broad-ax, and an auger.

Int. 15. — What was the description of the enclosed land at
Umpqua, as being upland or alluvial bottom-land ?

Ans. — Alluvial bottom-land.

Int. 16. — How much of the price, from $3 to $5, which you
have said is the value of the best of such alluvial bottom-land
now — how much of that is due to the Government as purchase
money ?

Ans. — I do not understand.

Int. 17. — This is public domain; how much do settlers have
to pay for it ?

163

id at

you
-land
jhaso

have

Ans. — The price of Government land is $1 25 an acre.

Int. 18. — In the cross-examination you state that improved
land for which the United States has been paid, which belongs
to a private proprietor now, and which is improved, not only
by fencing and by buildings, the price is from $3 to $5?

An8. — Yes, sir.

Int. 19. — Is there, or not, any particular causes which tend
to deteriorate the value of growing crops in the valley of the
Umpqua?

Ans. — I think not.

Int. 20. — Are they, or are they not, subject to vicissitudes,
such as uncertainty of weather, drought, or insects, or grass-
hoppers, or any other cause which might affect their value?

Ans. — The valley has occasionally been visited by grass-
hoppers, which are very destructive, destroying crops and
fruit trees; and indeed all the vegetation in the valley has been
destroyed by them once or twice.

Int. 21. — You have spoken in the cross-examination of the
actual value of the Davis farm on the Walla Walla; please
to describe what improvements there are upon that farm, apart
from the mere earth.

Ans. — There are some log dwellings upon it, several barns,
granaries, and other buildings — farm buildings — and it is en-
closed and subdivided into fields with good fencing, which is
very expensive there; ten times more so than in some other
parts of Oregon ; rails have to be hauled fifteen or twenty
miles.

Int. 22. — Do, or not, all these improvements enter into the
estimate of the value of the Davis farm?

Ans. — They do.

Int. 23. — What is the precise character of the improvements
made by the Hudson's Bay Company upon the farm claimed
by them on the Walla Walla?

Ans. — I do not know that they ever had any improvements
on the farm except the cabin. I do not know that there was
ever any fencing there; my impression is there fiever was; it
was cultivated, and the Indians herded stock off of it.

Int. 24. — You have spoken of hotels, one or more hotels at

164

Wallula ; be good enough to dcscribo those liotols (tliat being
a term of sotnowhat vague application) as rehitively to the
Fifth Avenue or \Vi Hard's Hotel.

Aiis. — Well, tliey are a very uncomfortable sort of hash-
houses, where a traveller is compeHed to stop and enjoy the
vermin and tlie filth as well as he can. They are lik(! other
stopping-places in a new, wild country; a man can get enough
to stay Ills stomach and a blanket to sleep in, if he wants 't.

Int. 25. — What arc the dimensions of the hotel that i:5 chiefly
in your mind?

Aus. — The one I have usually stopped at is kept in an
adobe fort, the only one remaining of the Hudson's JJiiy Fort.
It is, perhaps, 18 feet by 30 feet in dimensions, and two
stories high.

Int. 2G. — You have spoken of stores, two stores there; I
would like to understand their dimensions relatively to Mr-
Stewart's store in New York, as that word is also an extremely
vague term.

Ans. — One of them is, I should estimate very roughly, 20
or 25 feet front by 35 feet deep. The other one is much
smaller.

Int. 27. — Are these adobe or wooden buildings ?

Ans. — Wooden buildings.

7w«. 28.— Of what height?

Ans. — One story. I believe, upon reflection, that there is
a third store now, of smaller dimensions than the one whose
size I have just given.

Int. 29. — Whether is the site of Nez Perces a tract of rich,
alluvial land or not?

Ans. — It is not; it is a sandy desert.

Int. 30. — Whether there is anything of peculiar value in
the tract that was apparently occupied by the Hudson's Bay
Company at Nez Perces Fort as their farm?

Ans. — It is no better than much other land in the Walla-
Walla Valley.

Int. 31. — Are the lands of which that farm constituted a
part — have they ever been surveyed by the United States?

Ans. — Yes, sir. I think they have.

^ 1C5

Int. 32. — Arc tlicro, or not, any unsold lands of the United
States there in that rei^ion?

An». — A very small portion have ever been claimed or pur-
chased.

Int. 33. — Does your answer apply to what has been called,
in the cross-examination, alluvial lands, as well as others?

Ans, — No, sir; it includes all uplands and the alluvial
lands. A large portion of the hitter have either been pur-
chased from the United States, or taken up as donui >\\ or
pre-emption claims.

Re- Cross- Examined hy FAward Lander., in behalf of the Hud-
son a Bay Company.

Int. 1. — Arc not those lands you have spoken of as untakcn
and unclaimed, in the Walla-Walla Valley, pasturage lands,
which are not valuable for cultivation?

Ans. — They are pasturage lands; they are none of them
valuable for cultivation. The alluvial land which is valimble
for cultivation is nearly quite all held or owned or claimed by
white settlers.

J. W. Perit Huntington.

James W. Tooley,

Stenographer.

Testimony of William R. Gibson.

In the matter of the Hudson's Bay Company against the

United States.

Deposition of William M. Gibson, taken in behalf of the
United States.

Interrogatories propounded by Caleb Cushing, in behalf of the

United States.

Ques. 1. — Please to state your name in full, your official
station or rank, if any, and your place of duty.

166

An8. — My name 1*8 William R. Gibson; I am a colonel and
paymaster in the Army of the United States, and am stationed
at Washington.

Qu(;>«. 2. — Have you any interest, direct or indirect, in the
claim preferred by the Hudson's Bay Company against the
United States, except as a citizen of the United States?

Ann. — None whatever.

Qwfi. 3. — Whether or not you have, at any period of time,
resided in the former Territory of Oregon, and if so, from
what year to what year inclusive?

Ans. — From 1848 to 1856, I was stationed at what was
originally the Territory of Oregon.

Ques. 4. — In what part of Oregon did you chiefly reside?

Ans. — At Fort Dallas, in the latter part of my residence,
and in the prior part of it at Vancouver.

Ques. 5. — Have you any knowledge of the site of the old
fort of Nez Perces ?

Ans. — Yes, sir : I have been there very frequently.

Ques. 6. — Please to describe the situation of that fort rela-
tively to the United States fort of Walla-Walla?

Ans. — That I cannot do ; the present United States fort
was not built when I left the country.

Ques. 7. — State exactly where the fort of Nez Percfes was
situated ?

Ans. — The fort of Walla-Walla was then at the mouth of
the Walla-Walla river, on a sand-bank formed at the junction
of the two rivers, the Columbia and the Walla- Walla.

Ques. 8. — Is or not the fort of Walla- Walla of which you
speak a different place from the United States fort of the
Walla-Walla ?

Ans. — Yes, as I understand it ; I do not know the location
of the present United States fort of Walla-Walla.

Ques. 9. — You understand it is a different place ?

Ans. — Yes.

Ques. 10. — And is it or not the same place which is some-
times also called Nez Percys ?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Ques. 11. — Please to describe what buildings, if any, existed

167

at tho Hudson's Bay post of old Walla- Walla at the time when
you saw it.

Ann. — There was an old stockade fort with storcliousos and
'Iwollin^^-Iiuuses, two or three of them, inside the stockade; I
d'^ not know tho number ; it is some years ago since I saw it;
I huve not hcen there since 1853, and then I only made casual
visits whilst passing to and fro.

QucH. 12. — Do you know anything of a place near that fort
called VVi.llula?

Ann. — That was the landing, I believe.

Que». l-'{. — At tliat time was there or not any landing-place
near the old fort of Walla-Walla ?

An8. — There was no special landing-place other than the
beach ; the boats landed there going to and from the lower
river.

Ques. 14. — Was there or not at that time any town on that
beach ?

Ans. — No, sir ; no town there at all.

QucH. 15. — Were there or not any buildings there?

Ans. — I remember none.

Ques. 16. — Are you acquainted with Fort Hall ?

Ana. — My knowledge of Fort Hall is very limited indeed;
I have been there three different times in passing.

Qucs. 17. — Was there or not any considerable establishment
of buildings there ?

Ans. — No, sir ; I believe not.

Ques. 18. — From your observation, for what uses, and in
what manner, was that post occupied ?

Ans. — Well, the trade [had] run down vei*y much when I was
there ; they were trading more with emigrants than anything
else ; they had stock there.

Ques. 19. — Have you ever been at the place called Fort
Boise ?

Ans. — Yes, in going to and from Fort Hall.

Ques. 20. — Please to describe that place, as far as you
remember it.

Ans. — It was a small trading-post, much less than Walla-

'iii

'It

■ I'r-

HP:

*■

C-r-

>{>■*■■ -'^i''

168

Walla or Fort Hall, but I cannot describe it ; I cannot dis-
tinctly remember what it was like now.

Ques. 21. — What, according to your observation of it, was
the apparent value of that establishment in money?

Ans. — Well, it had no value for me . t all ; I would not have
bought it at an}'^ price; I could not have been hired to have
lived there ; the buildings were in a very bad condition when
I saw them; they vere in a very tumble-down condition; I
would not have given anything at all for them.

Ques. 22. — What, from your observation, were the apparent
uses and occupation of the establishment of Nes Porces or
old fort of Walla-Walla?

Ans. — From my knoMdedojo uf it, it was more a halting or
resting-place for the potiies of the Hudson's Bay Odmpany
going up into the interior with packs, than anything else.
They did some Hitle trading with the Indians with ponies.

Ques. 23. — What apparent Indian trade, other than that of
ponies, did you observe there ?

Ans. — Very little, except that they got a few skins there;
a few bear skins were taken there, and they traded beaver,
because they were compelled to do so, or they could not other-
wise have got any bear skins.

Ques. 24. — What was the quality of the land around the old
fort of Walla-Walla ?

Ans. — Immediately around the fort [it] was a sand bank,
pretty much; about twenty-five or thirty miles from there was
good land.

Ques. 25. — Whether or not on the hills at some dirftancc
from the fort there was pasturage of bunch grass ?

Ans. — Yes, sir, an abundance ; the country was noted as a
pasturage.

(Objection taken by Mr. Edward Lander to this question
and a^i^wer, on the ground that the question was a leading
one.)

Ques. 2G. — On those hills, did you or not, notice any ponies
or cattle pasturing ?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; I have frequently seen tliem there, ponies
and cattle too.

III 'I

■"w^wwifn

»i««>y

169

Ques. 27. — Have you or not, at any time liad conversation
with Peter S. Ogden, the chief agent of the Hudson's Bay
Company, in regard to the condition' of the forts of the Com-
pany in Oregon ?

Ans. — I have, in relation to the business of the Company.

Qucft. 28. — IMcase to state what he communicated to you
on that subject.

(Objecteil to by Mr. Lander, on the ground that the state-
ments of Mr. Ogden arc not within the scojie id' liis agency,
as shown by tlie testimony in this cause.)

Witness. — Mr. Ogden has frequently said to mo that the
Company merely kept up their establishment in order to make
good their claim, and that their trade had entirely fallen oiF,
and the fin- trade was worthless.

Qucx. 20. — What did you understand by the expression
"make good their claim," if anything was said by Mr. Ogden
that should communicate an explicit idea of the meaning of
the word ?

(Objected to by Mr. Lander, on the same grounds as befor(\)

Witness. — I understood that it was necessary for them to
be in possession of and occupy the property claimed, in order
that their claim might be valid and have effect.

Ques. 30. — Claim against whom ?

Ans. — Against the United States.

Ques. 8L — Did or iioi , Mr. Ogden U'^e any words commu-
nicating to you the idea that what he spoke of was claimed
against the Unittd States?

(Objected to by Mr. Lander, upon the same grounds as
before, the incompetency of the evidence; and upon the
further ground that the question is leading, and directing the
attentio?! of the witness to the answer to be marie.)

Wilneita. — He stated distinctly it was a claim against the
United States; there was no misunderstanding in the matter.

QiKt. 82. — What, according to your observatio i, was the
condition of tlie fur trade when you arrived in Oregon, as
whether on the increase, or stationary, or on the wane ?

Ans. — It was very much on the decrease, atid continued to
decrease during my stay in that country.

170

Quci.. 33. — Did or not Mr. Ogden say anything in regard
to the fur trade, and the kind of fur purchased by the Indians
at that time ?

An%, — He suid that the fur trade had become Avorthless ;
that the beaver had ceased to pay ; and the only skins they
cared for were the bear and a few fox skins ; and those were
all they could get.

(The whole of this question and answer objected to on the
grounds heretofore taken, in reference to any conversation
with Mr. Ogden.)

Wit)hi<H. — I staid at Mr. Ogden's every time; I staid at his
post, and we had then these talks together.

< h-()S8-Examinatlon hy Mr. Edward Lander, in hehalf of the
Hudson 8 Bay Company.

*
^■^

Ques. 1.— What was your rank in the service at the time
you were in Oregon ?

Ans.—l was a clerk in the Quartermaster's Department,
and afterwards Military Storekeeper,

Qncs. 2.— Do you knoAV, from your own observation, that
the landing at Wallula, or the old fort of Nes Forces, is the
usual landing for boats on the Columbia river, passing there?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Qaes. 3. — Do you not know that the old fort of Nez Perces
is not more than 200 yards from the river at the ordinary
landing?

Ans. — That was my impression of it as I now rt .omber.

Qaes. 4. — Have you ever seen the place called Wallula, and
is not the statement which you have made in reference to that
place derived from information which you have received since
you have been upon the Atlantic side?

Ans. — Of Wallula, yes sir; I do not know Wallula except
from what I have been told of it.

Ques. 5. — At the time you were at the post of the Hudson's
Bay Company at fort of Nez Perces, were not their buildings
and fort the only buildings on the land?

"1 .

Ans. — As far as I remember, I do not know of any other;
there was nobody else in the country at that time.

Qc''.s. 6. — Is your description of Fort Boise and Fort Hall
as correct, and is your r,.collection as di'^*^inct of Fort Hall
and Fort Boij^e, as of Fort Nez Perces.

Arts. — I have not been to either of those phices as often as
to the fort of Wallula.

• Ques. 7. — Do you not know that there is bunch grass, aiford-
ing pasturage for cattle and horses, commencing within a mile
from the site of the old Fort Nez Perce.^?

Ans. — Bunch grass? No sir, I do not.

Ques. 8. — How far do you say it is i'rom that fort before you
noticed the first bunch grass?

Ans. — Well the first hunch grass that I remember at all in
coming from the fort was at Whitman's Mission,

Ques. 9. — Was there no good land in the valley of the Walla-
^^alla river towards its mouth?

Ans. — I do not think there is any nearer than the Mission;
I do not remember anv now.

Ques. 10. — Between 1853 and 1856, how did tlie travelling
road run, direct from the old fort to Whitman's ^lission and
up to the creek ?

Ans. — I never was at Walla-Walla since 1853; my last visit
was in 1853.

Ques. 11. — Whether the trail from the old fort to Whitman's
Mission at the time you were at Walla-Walla run up the creek,
the Walla-Walla creek?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Ques. 12. — Were not all the horses then used and owned in
that section of the country Indian ponies ?

Ans. — Yes, sir; except a few they may have traded with the
emigrants; but the majority were of course Indian ponies.

Ques. 13. — Were .'here not inside of Fort Hall dwelling-
houses and stores?

Ans. — Yes, sir; the principal dwelling-house was outside;
the one Captain Grant occupied was. I think so; I cannot say
for certain.

charge
Ans.

172

Ques. 14. — ITow long wore you at Fort Hall at any one
time, and liow many times?

Ans. — I have been three times; I was never over three days
thorc ai any one time.

Ques. 1"). — At what seasons were you there?

Atis. — I was there in the fall and during the early summer.

Que.s. 10. — Do you think your opportunities of judging of the
trade of the post, of Avhat it consisted, and of what it had
consisted before that, are equal to those of the officer in

Of course not, sir; I know the nature of the trade
at the time I was there, and the character of the things they
took into that country, because they passed the post I was at.

Qttcs. 17. — At what year were you at Fort Boise?

Ans. — 1 was at Fort Boise in 1848; I was again at Fort
Boise in 1851 and 1852.

Ques. 18. — Who was in charge of the post at the time you
were there?

Ans. — I think his name was Craig, [Craigie;] Maxwell was
there during the last part of the time I was there.

Ques. 19. — Was there not at Fort Hall, and Avere there not
at Fort Boise, inside of the fort, storehouses and dwelling-
houses?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Ques. 20. — Were not the walls of the fort at that time in
good repair?

Ans. — I think not, sir; my impression is not; I thought it a
very dilapidated-looking place when I was there.

Ques. 21. — To which visit have you reference when you say
it was a dilapidated place?

Ans. — I thought so at the first; and I did not think it had
improved in condition at my last visit.

Qu?s. 22. — At what time of the year were you there ?

Ans. — It was the fall and in the early spring, passing to
and from Fort Hall in the fall of 1848, and the other times in
the early summer months.

Ques. 23. — Did not the dilapidated condition of these forts

pit'

-'PWPI.1'1111

pji!i,u9ii9iuui.^_i

178

arise from their being built of iidobe, and liavin<v a dusty ap-

ith

1 CUIK

lit

ion

pcaraiicc iii dry wciitnor;

An!<. — Tiiat would not account for tlicir •won
they 1()oI\(m1 very much 'worn and out of condition.

Qucs. 24. — Have you any distinct recollection of the ap-
pearance of these forts, and has not the Icii^tli of time that
has elapsed since you saw them, and the excitcfrient of the
last four years, caused your recollection to Ite impaired with
reference to tliem ?

Aiii<. — T think not, sir; mv first visit to tlicm wa^s I'lillv i

pressed on my mind, l)eeausc I had come from a lon^; iri]) over
the country, and they Avere the first houses oi- habitations
almost that I saAv.

i.'ou sav you were at Fort I>()i>e thi-ee times;

Id's. -•).

how 1<
A.

)U'f did you remain there at each time

:h ti

Jl.ni:!.

-Not

)ver a day or two at any one time.

QucH. 2l). — Is the knowledge which you have e.\j)ressed Avith
reference to the trade at Fort IJoisc derived from vour visits
there at those times?

-No, sir; not so much as

om my conversations Avi

til

Mr.Ogden in relation to his trade; and all theollicers, in fact,
of the Comi)anA- talked the same Avav.

Qnc.^. 27. — Then your statement Avith reference to the trade
is made up more from statements of Mr. Ogden than your
own observation

Ans. — Yes, sir; that and the supplies they sent in to the
post, and the trade Avith the emigrants.

Qtu'i<. 28. — Did you examine those supplies, or is your
knoAvledge of those supplies derived from the statements of
the officer in charge?

Ans. — I saAv them landed and put on the animals, and car-
ried up into the country.

Oiicx. 29. — Were not these supplies in i)ackao;r

d I

UHl POUIU

around, so that in order to ascertaiu the contents the pack-
a^-es would have to opened?

A)ii<. — Xo, sir; I know they Avere provisions tiom the man-
ner in Avhicii they Avere packed, and also from the statement
of the ollieer in charge of them; I have fretiucntly acted as

174

* ^■

h-*

agent for Mr. Ogdcn, in forwartling off these packages, at his
request.

Ques. 80. — Can you give the exact language made use of
to you by Mr. Ogdcn in any conversation you have hehl with
him?

Ann. — No, sir, I cannot; it was a frequent subject of cou-
vc'sation, and that was the burden of it — the falling off of
their trade, and their object in remaining there.

Ques. 31. — Is not the statement you have made, in refer-
ence to what Mr. O^rden told vou, the statement of an im-
prcssion made upon your mind by various conversations, none
of which you can distinctly relate!

Ans. — No, sir; it is the substance of the conversations 1
had with him; the substat ce, and not the impression left
with me; I have a distinct impression of the substance of the
conversation, not in so many words, but that was the charac-
ter of it.

Ques. 32. — Can you state Avhcrc conversations occurred — at
what place, and at what time?

Ans. — In his house at Fort Vancouver; the times were
numerous; I cannot say what time; I never expected to give
any testimony in the matter, and I never noticed it particu-
larly; in visiting the post, coming from Fort Dalles, I always
stayed with Mr. Ogden; he was a warm personal friend of
mine, and very kind.

Ques. 33. — Was there any person present at these numer-
ous conversations between Mr. Ogden and yourself, in which
the subject was talked about?

Ans. — No, sir; there was no sccresy about it. I do not
remember any parties being present.

Ques. 34. — Can you call to mind any particular conversa-
tion, giving tile date tlierewf, wliieh oceurred between you and
Mr. OgdiMi, or the date as near as you possibly can?

Ans. — No, I cannot; my visits there were fro((uent, and wo
were ccnstaiitly talking (OiEi the subject; he, time and again,
expressed the opinion r.hat they would go, all of them, to ViMm-
couver's Island before a great while; and Uio conversation
was brought about in tliat way, more particularly about our

175

separation, and my not seeing him ; but as for any particular
dates, I said before, I never had any particular reason to take
notice of tlicm for future reference.

Qucs. 35. — Can you give the time of the year that any one
of these conversations took place?

Ans. — I cannot. I have been there repeatedly at all seasonti
of the year, and wo were continually talking of these things —
repeatedly.

Qucit. oG. — Can you state the time of day at which any one
of these conversations took place?

• AvH. — Well, I really don't understand the object of the
question; I have stated that I cannot particularize any time
that these frequent conversations took place, except that it
was when I ^*- .s visiting him, and I cannot f^ay if there were
any persons present; there was no secrc-sy about it; there ni,ay
have been persons there; it was talked of continually; it was
impressed on my mind by the fact that the Hudson's Bay
Company expected to get out of that country.

Ques. oT. — Did not Mr. Ogden, in speaking of the Hudson's
Bay Conipiuiy getting out of that country, also couple it "with
a further idea that they would get out of the country when
their lands were purchased by the United States?

Ans. — Yes, sir; they expected a settlement with the Gov-
ernment; and ho frequently said that it was the interest of the
Government to buy at once, bcfoi-e the property had more
value.

Qucs. 38. — Did he not, in the same conversation, complain
strongly of the treatment which he had received from the
United States authorities, and especially of the manner in
which their land was trespassed unon by settlers?

Ans. — lie complained very bitterly of the settlers taking
their land.

Quen. 39. — Did he not, tit the same time, express the opinion
that the United States authorities ought, in someway, to have
protected them in their rights?

Ans. — Yes, sir; and frequently asked that protection.

Qaes. 40. — Did he not, at the same time, when speaking of
the decay of trade, state that it was caused by the encroach-

170

mcnts of the settlers upon the lands of the Company in some
degree ?

Ans. — No, sir; there were no settlers encroaehinjf upon any
of their liinds, e.\cej)t near Vancouver and thei^e other lands
down in the settlenuiits. There were no settlers in the Indian
counti'V, Avluie tlii'y were trading for furs, lie has made the
remark that he did not consider Oregon a fur country, since
beaver had depreciated in value.

(Jiirs. 41. — Did y(»u ever have any access to the books of
the Conij)any, so as to knov,- the amount of trade, and the
chaii'fes of trade, after vour arrival in the country?

Aiii<. — Xo, sir; I ceitainl}'^ would not seek it, and do not
sup])ose it would be olfered voluntarily.

Qhcs. 42. — Do you think that any one can tell about the
decrease of any trade in a country unless he himself is
specially interested in it?

(Mr. Cushing ol)jected to this question as too general, spec-
ulative, and argumentative, even in cross-examination.)

Wltiici<ii. — I have seen a great deal of the trading with the
Indians, and knew the character of it, and maile my impres-
sions from it.

Qiu'S. 4-'J. — Was Mr. Grahame, Mr. Mactavish, or Mr. Wirt,
[Wark,] either or any of them, present at any of these con-
versations?

Ans. — ^Iv. Mactavish did not come there until Mr. Ogden
was deceased; he succeeded liim; Mr. Wirt [Wark] was never
there; Mr. (Jrahame was chief clerk, and may have been
present; I cannot say whether he was or not.

Qn('}<. 44. — What other olKcers of the Company were there
except those that have been named to [by] you?

A)is. — There was a physician, Dr. Earclay, there, and Mr.
McNiel McArthur, and ]Mr. Lowe.

Intcrroijatorics in Jiehiittal, propounded hj Caleb C'mshing, in
behalf of the United States.

Qiies. 1. — Please to state wdiether you did, or did not, at
some portions of time, live with Mr. Ogden, as a member of
the family.

-a/ 1

177

Ana. — Only as a guest, sir, when I have been visiting the
post.

Ques. 2. — How many days, more or less, may you liave been
his guest when at that post?

Ans. — A week or two at a time.

Qae8. 3. — On those occasions did you, or not, eat with him?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Ques. 4. — Please to state whether your intercourse with him
was distant and reserved, or familiar and usual.

Ans. — It was entirely the contrary of distant. I waa on
very intimate terms with him. He was a warm personal friend
of mine from the time I entered the country.

Ques. 5. — State, if you remember, how many of such visits
yon have passed as the guest of Mr. Ogden.

Ans. — I really cannot do that.

Ques. G. — Whether few or many?

Ans. — Numerous. I was continually going backwards and
forwards, and always went there.

Ques. 7. — During what period of time, years or months,
Avere you thus continually going backwards and forwards, and
stopping there as a guest with Mr. Ogden?

A71S. — I was going there continually, from the time I left
Vancouver in 1850 until Mr. Ogden's death ; continually vis-
ited him at all seasons of the year. I frequently came down
there on My. Ogden's invitation ; he sent for me to come down.

Ques. 8. — During how many years?

Ans. — Some four years, I t}>ink, sir.

Ques. 9. — Please to state, particularly and circumstantially,
for what length of time, more or less, you acted as the agent
of^Mr. Ogden, in the business of the post, at Fort Dalles.

Ans. — Well, it was not a regular thing. He would frequent-
1}'^ write to me to see to sending his supplies up. It was not

a CO

tinu il a*

;ency, and on

ly wh

en receivin<i

e care o

f h

party, and having their animals provided for, which I did for

urn.

was

tion for: it

agency that I received no pay or compensa-
merely a friendly act on my part for Mr.
Ogden, at his request.

Qiies. 10. — You say that this agency was not continunl but

12 H

178

only occasional; please to state whether the occasions were
rare or frec|uent.

Ans. — Tiiey were not frequent, and mostly occnrrcd when
some subordinate person was going up in charge of the packs,
when he would request me to see that they got off. Frequently
his men would get drunk and neglect their business.

Qurs. 11. — According to your recollections, how many such
occasions were there in the course of a year?

Ans. — I cannot say.

Ques. 12. — In two of the cross-interrogatories reference is
made to the walls, so called, of Fort Boise; please to describe
those walls, their material and their actual condition, as w hether
in perfect repair, or dilapidated or otherwise.

Ans. — They Avere adobe walls and in very bad repair. The
weather had injured them, worn them in many places, and they
wanted a great deal of repair; in fact, it is a character of ma-
terial that wants constant repair, which I do not think they
received. I never saw any improvement in them.

Ques. 13.' — You have said, in answer to a cross-interrogatory,
that you do not know Wallula, except on information; do you
or not mean by this to exclude any knowledge of a landing-
place at the old fort of Walla-Walla?

Ans. — I never knew it by that name. I never knew them
call the place Wallula ; I have a knowledge of the usual
landing-place there.

Ques. 14. — In one of the cross-interrogatories you were asked
whether Wallula was not the usual landing for boats passing
up and down ; do you or not mean by your answer to that ques-
tion, to assert that there was no other landing-place above or
below Wallula?

Ans. — I do not know of any other being used as a landing-
place. It was possible to land both above and below.

Ques. 15. — Have you any knowledge, or not, of the landing-
place called Umatilla?

Ans. — Yes ; I know the Umatilla landing.

Ques. 16. — Have you or not any knowledge Avhich of the
two landings, Wallula or Umatilla, is most used?

Ans. — Well, at that time the landing that you call Wallula

179

was used entirely. When I left that country there wore none
of those settlements there that have been made since.

lle-Cro8%-Examlned by Edward Lander, in behalf of the Hud-
son s Day Company.

Qu('8. 1. — You speak of being agent to the Company ; do
you moan by that that you wore at any time, or ever, a regu-
lar agent of the Company, or even of Mr. Ogden ?

yln.y. — I acted only for Mr. Ogden, on various occasions, at
his re(iuest, as a personal friend of mine.

Ques. 2. — Did you act in any other way than as a friend of
Mr. Ogden's, and were your acts other than those of a friend,
without pay as agent, or compensation as such ?

Ana. — Yes, sir; these parties that I acted for were sent to
report to me and receive instructions. I never received or
expected pay for it, or considered myself as occupying any
position in the Company's service.

Qucs. 8. — Do you know anything of a landing at Umatilla
other than by hearsay, since your arrival on the Atlantic
side?

Ann. — I know it only by hearsay.

W. R. Gibson.

Washington, D. C, August 4.
James W. Tooley,

Stenocjrapher,

Witness desires to make the following explanation: Since
giving the testimony be remembers having been at Walla-
Walla' in the year 1855, the year of the Indian war, where he
was arrested by the Indian agent for attempting to remain in
the country, in disobedience of his order for all whites to

leave it.

W. R. Gibson.

District of Columbia, "|

County of Washington, if

I; Nicholas Callan, a notary public in and for the county

and District aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

^ ^^

1.0

I.I

11.25 ilii

lii|2£

■50 ^^

2.2

HI
u

■4.0

2.0

U 11.6

■^

Fhotographic

^ScMices

CarparatJon

<«^

'i J WIST MAIN STRHT
WUSTIR,N.Y. MSM

•^ -

!<^

180

depositions of J. W. Pcrit Huntington and William R. Gibson,
witnesses produced by and on behalf of the United States, in
the matter of the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company against
the same, now pending before the British and American Joint
Commission for the adjustment of the same, were taken at the
oflSce of said Commission, No. 355 H street north, in the city
of Washington, District of Columbia, and reduced to writing
by James W. Tooley, a stenographer agreed upon by Caleb
Cushing, Esq., attorney for the United States, and Edward
Lander, Esq., attorney for said Company, beginning on the

day of August, A. D. 1866, and terminating on the 4th

day of August, A. D. 1866, according to the several dates ap-
pended to the said depositions, when they were signed respect-
ively.

I further certify that to each of said witnesses, after his ex-
amination, by cansent of parties, I administered the following
oath :

"You swear that the deposition by you subscribed, in the
matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against
the United States of America, contains the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth; so help you God."

That, after the same was reduced to writing, the deposition
of each witness was carefully read and then signed by him,

I further certify that Caleb Cushing, Esq., and Edward
Lander, Esq., were personally present during the examination
and cross-examination of all of said witnesses, and the reading
and signing of their depositions.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed my notarial seal this 4th day of August, A.
[l. s.] D. 1866.

N. Callan, Notary Public.

BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION

ON THE

HUDSON'S BAY AND TUGET'S SOUM) AGRICUL-
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS.

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Compawf
against the United Staters.

Deposition of Robert J. Atkinson.

Interrogatories propounded by Caleb dishing, in behalf of the

United States.

Testimony of Robert J. Atkinson.

Robert J. Atkinson, being duly sworn according to law, deposes
and says :

Int. 1. — Please to state your name in full, your present
place of residence, and your profession.

Ans. — Robert J. Atkinson; I am temporarily residing in
Washington, D. C. ; my profession is that of a lawyer.

Int. 2. — Have you any interest in the matter of the claims
of the Hudson'sBay Company against the United States other
than as a citizen of the United States?

Ans. — No, yir.

Int. 3. — Have you at any time held the oflBce of Third Au-
ditor in the Treasury Department of the United States; and,
if so, from what day to what day ?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; I was Third Auditor from, I believe, the
15th day of September, 1854, and I retired from the office, I
think, on the 19th day of July, 1864.

Int. 4. — In a deposition made by Dougald Mactavish in
behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company, it is stated, that in the
years 1855 and 1856, supplies were furnished by said Com-

182

pany for the uses of volunteers raised by Governors Curry
and Stevens, Governors of the Territories of Oregon and Wash-
ington, on occasion of the so-called Yakama Indian war, and
vouchers for such supplies obtained from the proper officers for
the same; but in the precise words of the deponent, "when
pay day came, for some reason, the Third Auditor of the Treas-
ury at Washington cut down the bills to the amount of some-
thing like thirty thousand dollars, which sum remains unset-
tled to this day." Have you or not any such knowledge of
the transaction thus referred to as to be able to state whether
or not you are the person spoken of by Mr. Mactavish as the
Third Auditor of the Treasury at Washington ?

(All testimony in reference to any claims of the Hudson's
Bay Company against the Up'ted States not mentioned or set
up in their memorial objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)

(Mr. Cushing responds to this objection; says that it is the
fault of the Hudson's Bay Company^not by the United States,
if this foreign matter be introduced into the case, it having
been introduced by that Company apparently to raise implica-
tion or imputation of unjust treatment by the United States,
of the Hudson's Bay Company, as argument of prejudice.
Therefore Mr. Cushing persists in the interrogatory, as involv-
ing inquiry strictly responsive to the matter thus introduced
by the Hudson's Bay Company.)

Ana. — I can only say I was Third Auditor of the Treasui'y
at the time the official action referred to was had, and of course
I suppose I must be the person Mr. Mactavish alluded to.

Int. 5. — Have you or not any recollection of any such ac^
count having been preferred by the Hudson's Bay Company ?

(The personal recollection of the witness objected to on the
ground that the records of the office would show the fact, had
such an account been preferred.) • ; ■

(Mr. Cushing persists in the question as being an essential
link in the identification of the witness as being the person
into whose hands the accounts officially came.)

Ans. — Yes. I remember there were various accounts em-
braced in the claims in the Indian wars in Washington and

183

Oregon Territories presented in the name of the Hudson's Bay
Company.

Int. 6. — On inspecting files of original accounts on file in
the Treasury Department, would it or not be in your power to
identify the account referred to by Mr. Mactavish?

Ans. — Yes, sir. I refer to the claims growing out of the
Indian war in Washington and O''egon in 1855 and 1856, and
which was called here the Washington and Oregon Indian war.

Int. 7. — How long since have you looked at or examined the
accounts of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United
States for supplies on account of aiy Indian war in Washing-
ton and Oregon ?

Ans. — At the request of Mr. Gibbs, I made an examination
of those accounts one day last week.

Int. 8. — Please to state whether or no those were accounts
on which you passed as Third Auditor?

(Objected to on the ground that the action in this case was
official, and the decision on claims is to be found in the records
in the office.)

(Mr. Gushing persists in the question as necessary to the
identification of this witness as being the person who passed
upon the accounts as Auditor, that inquiry and nothing else
being contained in the interrogatory, and neither the original
accounts or any copy of them affording any internal proof
that this witness is that person.)

Ans. — They were.

Int. 9. — Can you, either at the present time or at an ad-
journment, present an official abstract of that account, to bo
made a portion of your deposition?

Ans. — The accounts are not in my possession; they are in
the records of the Third Auditor's office. I have no right to
call for copies of them, but I have no doubt the Third Auditor
will furnish to the Commission any copies or information rela-
tive to the accounts, if officially called upon. If the documents
are furnished, I have no objection to their being annexed to my
deposition. ^

Int. 10. — It appears from the account annexed, that the
total of the claim preferred by the Hudson's Bay Company

184

was $ , and the amount allowed was $ , being a

difference of $ ; please to state whether or not you are

the person who officially directed the auditing of this account
and ordered the reduction which appears in it.

(The introduction of the account, and all testimony in rela-
tion to it, objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)

(Mr. Cushing persists in this line of inquiry, for the reason
above stated, that it is responsive to matter introduced by the
Hud on's Bay Company. If Mr. Lander does not like it, he
can save all trouble on the subject, both to himself and the
United States, by striking out from Mr. Mactavish's deposition
all that matter which he now so strenuously insists is imper-
tinent and unfit to c:o before the Commissioners.)

Ans. — Yes, sir ; I aui.

Int. 11. — Please to state whether or not any accounts of
citizens of the United'States for similar supplies, on the occa-
sion of the same Indian war, came before you for auditing as
Third Auditor.

(All objected to as irrelevant.)

Ans. — Yes, sir; they did.

I7it. 12. — Please to state whether or not, in auditing the
respective accounts of the Hudson's Bay Company and of
citizens of the United States, any distinction as to amount or
rule of allowance was made between the two classes of claims ;
and if so, whether such distinction was against or in favor of
the Hudson's Bay Company.

(Objected to as irrelevant.) ,

Ans. — Of course, in my official action, no distinction was
made between claims presented by the Hudson's Bay Company
or citizens of the United States. The claims of the Hudson's
Bay Company were not reduced in the same ratio, in the aggre-
gate, as the claims of the citizens generally were reduced. The
reduction in the Hudson's Bay Company claims appears to
have been less than one-third, whereas, of the whole amount
of claims as presented, growing out of the war, less than one-
half wer« allowed and paid.

Int. 13. — Please to explain fully and explicitly the reasons
and considerations which influenced you officially in the de-

ISl

cision whicli you came to, as to the amount to be allowed on
the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company relatively to the
amount claimed by that Company.

(The reasons and considerations governing an official in a
quasi jiuVmhil capacity, in the discharge of an official duty,
objected to as incompetent, and the whole as irrelevant.)

(Mr. Cushing persists in the question on both grounds ; first,
the reasons and considerations on which an official person acts,
yfhether quasi judicially or judicially, are always competent;
otherwise it would be quite superfluous for official nersons
generally, and especially judges, to assign, as they universally
do when expected to do, the reasons of their decisions, and it
is more especially competent here, when the official action of
iliis officer, and through him the action of his Government, are
impeached by the Hudson's Bay Company. If it be compe-
tent for the Hudson's Bay Company to complain of the action
of Mr. Atkinson, then still more is it competent for Mr. Atkin-
son to assign good and official reasons for his official action.
Secondly, the evidence is responsive to evidence introduced by
the Hudson's Bay Company.)

(This does not answer the objection, because, first, opinions
of judges are not evidence as matters of fact ; second, because
these opinions are made and put on file as part of the records
of the courts over which they preside ; and third, that in
this case the opinion of the witness of record is not off'ered,
but only testimony as to what he now thinks, and his reasons
for decisions ten years old.)

(Mr. Cushing persists in the question.)

An8. — The reasons for my official action will be found fully
set forth in Public Documents, and which arose under the fol-
lowing circumstances: The question of payment of the claims
growing out of Indian hostilities in Washington and Oregon
Territories in 1855 and 185G were presented to Congress, and
there referVed to the Committee on Military Affairs of the
House of Representatives. At the request of the chairman
of the Committee, the papers connected with the claims, then
on file in the office of the Third Auditor, were examined by me,
and the result of that examination is contained in a letter ad-

186

(iresscfl to lion. C. J. Faulkner, Chairman of the Committee
on Military AffairH, dated January 10, 1859. (See Executive
Document No. i")! of House of Representatives, Thirty-Fifth
Congress, .Secohd Session.)

On the 8th of February following, the House of Represent-
atives passcid a resolution directing another examination to
be made by the Third Auditor, of the claims to be made pre-
liminary to a final settlement and adjustment, and to make
report to the House of Representatives by the first Monday in
December fullowitig of the amount respectively due to each
claimant, agreeably to certain rules prescribed by the resolu-
tion.

In pursuance of this resolution, I made another examina-
tion of the claims, and the results of that examination, were
the reasons that governed my action, and arc contained in an
official letter of the 7th of February, 1860, addressed to Hon.
William Pennington, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(See Executive Document No. 11, House of Representatives,
Thirty-Sixth Congress, First Session,)

At the same session a law was passed by Congress providing
for the settlement of these claims, substantially on the basis
of my report, and the awards made by me were under the au-
thority an<l direction of that act of Congress.

(The whole of the answer objected to as irrelevant, and the
documents referred to objected to further, as it does not appear
that the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company were presented
at this time, and both of the documents were made before any
act of Congress authorizing the payment of the claims, or the
final adjudication of the same.)

Int. 14. — Please to state whether or not the objection of Mr.
Lander to your answer is or not founded on misconception of
facts, and if so, ploase to explain that misconception.

AvH. — The claims of the Hudson's Bay Company were em-
braced in, and considered in connection with, all the other
claims growing out of those hostilities when the examinations
and reports referred to were made. All these claims were pre-
sented together; it is true that, after the passage of the act
providing for their payment, the outstanding duplicates in

187

the hands of the original claimants or other holders were re-
quired to be presented, and the final adjudication was then
made in pursuance of the act of Congress.

(Objected to as incompetent, and not best evidence of the
fact.)

Int. 15. — Please to state whether or not the original docu-
ments on file included the claims of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany, as to be hereafter annexed to your deposition, show that
the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company were before you
when you made your report.

Ans. — All the claims of every description in both Territo-
ries, including those of the Hudson's Bay Company, were
transmitted by a commission to the Department at Washing-
ten, and were before me when the examinations referred to
were made. It is proper to state that there were duplicates
of these claims in the possessio:, of the original claimants or
other holders, and these duplicates were required to be sur-
rendered, so that there might be no evidence of claim out-
standing when payment was made by the United States.

Int. 16. — Whether or not is Mr. Lander in error in assum-
ing by his objection that the claims of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany were not before you oificially when you made those two
reports ?

An%. — They were before me in the form I have stated.

, Cross- IJxamination.

Int. 1. — Did not your final action and adjudication of the
claims of the Hudson's Bay Company for supplies furnished
during the Indian war take place after the passage of an act
of Congress, and after the making of the two reports that have
been mentioned in your testimony ; and is not that adjudica-
tion and decision as to the amount due now of record in the
Third Auditor's Office ?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 2. — In your answer to interrogatory 12 you say, " The
reduction in the Hudson's Bay Conjpany's claims appears to
have been less than one-third, whereas, of the whole amount

II ^

'I
I

1 I

188

of claims, as presented, growing out of the war, less than one-
half were allowed and paid." What were the reasons that
induced you to uiake a less reduction in the Hudson's Bay
Company's claims than in the others?

Ana. — The reasons, as far as I can give them, are generally
set out in the reports before referred to. I may say that one
reason, and perhaps the principal one which occurs to nie now,
w^as, that claims for personal services rendered were reduced
in a greater ratio than claims for supplies furnished. The
Hudson's Bay Company's claims were, I think, exclusively for
supplies furnished; and I think, furthermore, that the prices
charged by them were considered as approximating more nearly
to actual cash prices than the claims of contractors or citizens
generally ; hence they were not subjected to so great reduc-
tion as many other claims were.

Int. 3. — Did you have any authority to decide favorably
upon or reject any claim arising out of the Indian war as Third
Auditor until the passage of an act of Congress, passed subse-
quent to your report dated February 7, 1800 ?

Ans. — No ; there was no appropriation by Congress, and
no officer of the Government had any authority to settle or
pay any of those claims until after the passage of the act of
2d March, 1801.

Int. 4. — Was there any evidence submitted to you to show
that the prices charged by the Hudson's Bay Company for the
supplies furnished in the Indian war were the same as those
charged to individuals for the same supplies at the same time ?

Ans. — I have no recollection that any evidence was pro-
se:; ted to me, except what accompanied the claims when origin-
ally transmitted to the Department by the Commission.

Int. 5. — Had such evidence been submitted to you, would
you, on the part of the United States, have allowed to the
Company the prices paid to them by private persons for the
same supplies at the same time?

(Mr. Cushing objects to this question, as hypothetical in
form, and therefore incompetent.) ' •■.,!.'.

Ans. — I cannot say what I would have done. I would have
considered it. The act authorized additional testimony in

189

certain cases ; and if conclusive testimony liad bocn oflTereJ to
8how that the prices allowed by me were below the actual cash
prices of such supjdies at the time, I have no doubt 1 would
have ino, eased the allowance.

Examination-in-Chief Ilesurned.

Int. 1. — In explanation of your answer to the third cross-
interrogatory, please to state whether the examination which
you made of these claims prior to the act of March 2, 1801,
Avas a volunteer examination, or an examination rt(juired of
you by competent public authority, and made by you officially
in consequence thereof.

Ans. — It was not voluntary on my part, as before stated.
The first examination was made at the request ol the Chair-
man of the Committee on Military Affairs, Avhich had tlie sub-
ject under consideration, and the second in obedience to a reso-
lution of the House of Representatives, all of which was in
my official capacity as Third Auditor of the Treasury Depart-
ment.

Int. 2. — Please to state whether the act of Congress was in
conformity with, or in contradiction to, the conclusions of
your report.

(Objected to, as asking the opinion of the witness upon a
law.)

Ans. — The act was as follows: "For the payment of claims
for services, supplies, transportation, &c., incurred in the
maintenance of said volunteers, ^2,400,000, to be paid upon
the principal, and agreeably to the rates for services, supplies,
transportation, &c., allowed and reported by the Third Audi-
tor of the Treasury, in his aforesaid report of the 7th of Feb-
ruary, 1860."

Int. 3. — Please to state, in explanation to answer to cross-
interrogatory number five, whether or not any particular cir-
cumstances existed at the time of the enactment of the act of
March 2, 1861, and immediately following thereon, which
might have had a tendency to afi'ect the question, whether
parties \rould put in additional evidence, or, witliout that,

190

rcmlily accept such sums as the act of Congress and your
report contcmplafod.

An8. — I can only say, that I think it very probable that tlio
unscttle<l condition of the country, growing out of the war,
which broke out immediately after the passage of the act in
question, operated on the minds of claimants, and induced
them to press for payment at he earliest practicable moment;
and it was known that the production of additional testimony
would necessarily cause some delay in settlement. Still it was
a matter for claimants to determine whether or not they would
present additional testimony or take the amounts allowed.

Cross- TJxam ('nation Resumed.

Int. 1. — In your answer to second interrogatory, in reUuttal,
mention is made of rates for supplies allowed and reported by
you prior to the passage of the act of March, 1861. Was
there ever an opportunity allowed to the claimants for sup-
plies for the Indian war, or to the Hudson's Bay Company, to
show th; ' these rates reported by you would not afford a fair
compensation for supplies furnished before that report was
made?

Ann. — I do not think that any test -nony was offered by the
Hudson's Bay Company during the time of the examinations
and reports referred to, nor w^as there any public notification
that such testimony might bo presented other than the pub-
lished proceedings of Congress and the known action of the
Department thereon. After the passage of the act, however,
such publication was made, and claimants were required, when
presenting their claims for settlement, to state whether they
desired payment in accordance with the allowance made by the
Third Auditor, or whether they intended to present additional
testimony, with a view of obtaining an additional allowance.

hit 2. — Was not this notice you speak of given by circular
letter, and do you know whether any letter was ever addressed
to the Hudson's Bay Company on this subject?

Ans. — My recollection is that the circular notice referred
to was published in the oflBcial newspapers of both Oregon and

191

Washington Territories. I do not know tliat any Utter was
addressed to the Hudson's Bay Company, or to anybody else.

Int. 3. — Was not the sum of §2,400,000, mentioned in your
answer above, appropriated as jiayment in full for the claims
of tliat war, according to the rates, and in pursuance of the
estimates made by you of the total amount due, and wotild
not, in case of further amount being shown to be due, by the
additional testimony mentioned in the act, another appro-
priation have had to be made, by act of Congress, to satisfy
such additional indebtedness?

Ann. — The amount reported by me, at the rates fixed for
supplies, &o., was ^2,11)3,428 82. Congress iiT)propriated
$2,400,000, leaving a margin of a little over !!ii200,'i to cover
increased allowances to be made by the Third Auditor, on
the production of additional testimony; hern ? no :idditional
testimony was required within that limitation.

R. J. AiirrNSON.

Washington City, D. C, An'imt 0, 1800.

Tkstimony or G. C. GAJiitNim.

(r. Clinton Gardner, being <Iuly sworn according to law.
deposes and says :

Int. 1. — Please to state your ijame in full, place of residence,
and occupation.

Ans. — George Clinton Gardner; residence is S;ilem, Oregon.
My profession is civil engineer, at present holding the ofiict'
of assistant astronomer and surveyor of the Northwest Bonn-
dary Survey.

Int. 2. — State whether or not you have any intercut, except
as a citizen of the United States, in the controversy between
the Hudson's Bay Company and the United States Govern-
ment.

Ans. — I have not.
, ' Int. 3. — When were you appointed assi£it;uit astronomer,

192

and have you or lot held that office from the time of your
appointment to the present day?

Ans. — I was appointed, I think, in April, 18o7, and have
held it, and do hold it now.

Int. 4. — Whether or not, in the performance of your official
duties, you passed any time in Washington Territory and
British Columbia, and if so, what time?

Ans. — I passed all the time from June, 1857, to some time
in 1801, Avith the exception of three or four months in the
latter part of 1859 and 18(50, Avhcn I paid a visit to San Fran-
cisco.

Int. 5. — Whether or not you have any knowledge of a post
of the Hudson's Bay Company on the river Kootenay, or
Kootanais ? If so, please to describe the situation of that
post relatively to rivers and to the boundary line.

Ans. — The only knowledge I have of the Kootenay post is
that we passed in August, 1860, some log houses, which the
Indians told us was the old Kootenay post. I don't remem-
ber how far it is from the boundary line; but it is near the
mouth of the Tobacco river, where it empties into the Koote-
nay, and their position is better shown on an accurate survey
that was made of the Kootenay river south of the boundary.
These log houses were on the ri^ht bank of the Tobacco river
and the left bank of the Kootenay river, in the elbow between
the two rivers.

(The statements of Indians objected to.)

Int. 6. — How many log buildings did you see there?

Ans. — I saw the remains of four.

Int. 7. — State whether or not of those four buildings one
was a Catholic mission house.

Ans. — I do not know.

Int. 8. — Describe, as well as you remember, the construction
and character of those four buildings.

Ans. — I don't remember the construction of those build-
ings, because my attention was not particularly called to it.
I passed them, without a thought of remembering them, and,
probably, the knowledge of those buildings I have may be
what I have gained from sketches I have seen since. The

193

only thing I can positively state is that I passed four dilapi-
dated buildings.

Int. 9. — Please to look at that photograph, and state whether
you have any knowledge of the origin of the photograph, in
whoso hands it now is; and if in the possession of the boundary
survey, from whom received by that Commission.

(See copy of the photograph hereto annexed, marked A.)
(The introduction of the photograph, now marked "Roman
Catholic Mission on left bank of Kootenay," objected to as
incompetent and irrelevant.)

Ans. — The photograph was made by the English Commis-
sion, one of a collection taken during their survey; copies of
most of them have been presented to the American Commis-
sioner, and also a set of them to me, one of which is a copy
of this same photograph, and is the first that I had seen of
them.

It\t. 10. — Please to state, after examining the photograph
for the purpose of refreshing your memory, whether you do
or not now remember the appearance of any one of those four
buildings at Kootenay.

Ans. — I can't say that I do.

Int. 11. — What persons, if any, did you find apparently
occupying or in charge of these buildings?
Ans. — No one.

Int. 12. — Whether or not at that time any apparent use
was made of said buildings?
Ans. — None that I am aware of.

Int. 13. — Whether or not you had any occasion, in the per-
formance of your duty on the boundary line, to go to the Koo-
tenay river, and if so, what was that occasion?

Ans. — The boundary line crosses the Kootenay ; and in
order to find the most practicable route for the transportation
of our supplies, I visited the Kootenay on a reconnoisance, with
an assistant and with several Indians.

Int. 14. — Whether or not at or in the vicinity of the build-
ings of which you h-xve spoken, which you saw at the junction
of the Kootenay and Tobacco rivers, you saw any Indians?
Ans. — I did not, except those I had belonging to my party.
13 H

I! !

11 m

I ii ill
.ill i'li

I !

ll' ill

I it

iii'

I' i

1 1 1<

Ill <l

194

/«^. 15. — Whether you have any knowledge of a post of the
Hudson's Bay Company called Fort Colvile?

Alls. — I have; I have visited Fort Colvile.

Int. 16. — At what time?

Alls. — Several times in the early part of 1860.

Int. 17. — On what river is it situated, if any, and how far
from the boundary line of Washington Territory.

Aiis. — It is situated on the Columbia river and about from
thirty to forty miles south of the boundary line.

Jilt. 18. — State, if you remember, what buildings there were
at that post.

Aris. — On the north side of the court-yard there were Store-
houses, apparently one house or building; on the east side were
the quarters of the officer in charge. I don't remember whether
there were small houses on the court-yard attached; I know
there were on the rear of his house. On the south side there
were houses for the employes; I don't know how many. There
were one or two detached houses from these; I don't remem-
ber their number.

Inf. 19. — Of what material was the store-houses constructed,
and of what size, as of one or more stories?

A.ns, — It was constructed of hewn timber and a story and a
half hinrh.

Int.'^lO. — Of what were the materials, and of what height
were the quarters of the officers?

Ans. — The quarters of the officers were of hewn timber; I
don't remember the height.

Int. 21. — Whether there were an^ palisades or other enclos-
ures for the post ?

Arts. — None that I remember; the only enclosure that I
remember was the corral, back of the officers' quarters.

Jnt. 22. — Have you any knowledge of the photograph now
exhibited to you, and if so, in whose possession have you
seen it?

A7}s. — I have seen that, or a copy of it, in the possession of
the American Commissioner, presented to him by the English
Commission.

Int. 2-3. — State Avhether or not you have any recollection

195

of the buildings purported to be there represented. (See
copy annexed, marked "B.")

Ans. — I have a very distinct recollection of these buildings.
The view shows the rear of the officers' quarters at Fort Col-
vile, with the enclosure of which I have spoken, which forms
the corral or back yard.

Int. 24. — State whether or not you have ever visited a post
of the Hudson's Bay Company, called Fort Okanagan or
Okinakaine.

Ar.j. — I have ; I think it was in the early part of 18(31. It
was on the occasion of my making a reconnoisanco of the
river Columbia from Fort Colvile to Fort Walla-Walla.

Int. 25. — State, if you remember, the character of the
buildings there.

Ans. — I do not remember the character of the buildings.
To the best of my recollection, I think they were of hewn
timber. They were occupied by Indians, and in charge of
one half-breed or full Indian, I don't know which, and were
in a dilapidated condition.

■Int. 20. — Was there any enclosed land at or about the fort ?

Ans. — None that I remember.

Int. 27. — If anything material to the subject of these in-
quiries occurs to you, which has not been specifically called
for by interrogatory, please to state it.

Ans. — I don't know there is anything.

Cross-Examination.

Int. 1. — Have you any knowledge whatever of what those
buildings were that you saw at the mouth of Tobacco Creek,
except from statements made to you by Indians?

Ans. — I can't say that I have, though my impression was
that I also have heard the Hudson's Bay agent at Kootenay
speak of those buildings as their former trading-post. I am
not sure whether the agent was Linklighter or not. Link-
lighter was there upon one visit I made to a new post on the
Kootenay, which was nothing but a small house north of the
boundary.

196

liJUi

'„■ !l

Int. 2. — Have you anything more than a mere impression
of some such statement being made to you by somebody,
without any certainty of whom the person was ?

Ans. — I have not. The general belief was that that was
the former trading-post, and it was so accepted.

Int. 3. — I believe you have stated, in your examination-in-
chief, that you saw these buildings on the left bank of the
Kootenay river but once, and that merely ih passing them ?

Ans. — I stated that I had seen them in passing them ; but
I havQ seen them since then, and upon my return from the
Rocky Mountains I have also seen them.

Int. 4. — Did you give more paj-ticular attention to them the
second time than you did the first time?

Ans. — No, sir, I did not. The first time I passed I observed
them as a matter of curiosity, and the second time, knowing
they were ti»ere, I had no curiosity to see them. We encamped
there two or three days on our return, but my attention was
not particularly called to the houses ; I saw them.

Int. 5. — How long were you at Eort Colvile at the time
you speak of?

Ans. — I visited Fort Colvile three or four times ; I don't
remember how often ; the longest time I stayed there was
over night.

Int. G. — Did you pay, at any time when you visited there,
such particular attention to the buildings as to enable you to
describe them correctly, or was your observation of them and
of the post that of a casual visitor ?

Ans. — My observation was not such as to describe them
accurately; yet my observations were not casual, being at ail
times desirous of observing the style of building, in visiting
those places, at the different posts we visited, for the purpose
of ascertaining the best style for our own buildings, which we
frequently had to construct.

Int. 7. — You have spoken of the north side of the court-
yard. Were tiiere not, on that side, two store-houses, one
sixty feet by twenty, one forty by eighteen feet, built of
square timber, one story and a half high, with two floors, and
with shingled roofs ? . * ..,,..

197

Ans. — I don't remember the exact details of the ^c buildings.
As I have stated in my evidence, I did not know whether
there were two buildings or not.

Int. 8. — Were not the officers' houses, of which you have
spoken of, on one side, a story and a half high, ceiled inside
with tongued and grooved boards, with two floors, three chim-
neys, shingled roofs, sixty feet long by eighteen feet wide?

Ans. — I don't remember the details of that building; I
think it was ceiled on the inside of the first story.

Int. 9. — Was there, at the time you were there, a large frame
dwelling-house, fifty by twenty-three feet, story and a half
high, with two floors, clapboarded and shingled, plastered in-
side, what is called hard-finished, with two large quartz-rock
chimneys, situated on one side of the court-yard?

Ana. — I don't remember it.

Int. 10. — Do you not recollect what might be called a back
family house, of square timber, boarded roof, lined with cot-
ton cloth, with two floors, about twenty-two by fifteen feet,
together with a kitchen of the same size, with shingle roof,
with quartz-rock chimney?

Ans. — I do not remember those buildings ; there were back
buildings to the officers' quarters ; I don't remember the de-
tails.

Int. 11. — Do you recollect a square timber bastion, Avith
port-holes, two stories high ?

Ana. — I think I do ; I think it was to the west of the build-
ings spoken of.

Int. 12. — Was there not a blacksmith shop and carpenter
shop and a barn, framed and boarded, about sixty by thirty
feet " ^

Ana. — I don't remember any shops, but think there was a
barn.

Int. 13. — Do you recollect the size of the corral or yard, of
which you have spoken?

Ana. — I do not ; the yard I speak of was in the rear of the
officers' quarters.

Int. 14. — Does this photograph, marked "B," referred to in
your deposition, show anything more than merely the rear of

I !

what you call the officers' quarters at Fort Colvilc ; and does
it show cither side of the court-yard of the fort, or the build-
ings thereon ?

Ans. — It shows the rear of the officers' quarters, with the
buildings attached, and the gable-end of the store-house, sit-
uated on the north side of the court-yard.

Int. If). — Would you compare your recollection of the build-
ings at Fort Colvile with the recollection of a person under
whose charge nearly all the buildings of the fort had been re-
built, and was a continuous resident of the place from 1852 to
1865 ?

Ans. — No ; I will not compare, because I have not the
means of comparison.

Int. IG. — Where your recollection differs from that of the
person mentioned in the former interrogatory, would you not
yourself believe his recollection to be more accurate and dis-
tinct? ' • ■

Ans. — There is no person individually mentioned in the
former interrogatory, and I would not draw any comparison
between my recollection and that of any other person. ,

Eamination-in-Chief Resumed.

Int. 1. — Whether or not, at some time subsequent to the es-
tablishment of the Hudson's Bay Company at Fort Colvile,
the British Boundary Commission resided for a time at Fort
Colvile, requiring especial accommodations to be provided for
them ?

Ans. — I don't know whether the British Boundary Commis-
sion resided at the fort or not before the erection of their own
quarters. They were encamped in that vicinity, and after-
wards built quarters some distance to the north of Fort Col-
vile.

G. Clinton Gardner.
Washington City, D. C, -4m^w8< 10, 1866.

199

Examination-in- Chief Resumed, February 15, 1867.

Int. 1. — Look at these photographs now exhibited to you,
and marked Copy of "A" and Copy of "B," and say whether
they are correct copies of the photographs which were marked
"A" and "B," and shown you at the time you gave your an-
sAvcrs to interrogatories 9 and 14 of your direct examination.

Ans. — They are.

G. Clinton Gardner.

February 15, 1867.

Examination of George Clinton Gardner Resumed, this 2Bd of
Aiml, 1867, at the City of Washington, D. C.

Int. 1. — What buildings were erected by the Northwest
Boundary Commission at Colvile depot ?

(The above question objected to as irrelevant.)

Ans. — Two officers' quarters of hewed timber, a story and
a half high ; one large mens' quarters, of rough logs, chinked
with small logs ; two shops, under one roof of rough logs,
built in the same manner ; one stable with loft, capable of
stabling twelve animals, with large corral in the rear. The
officers' buildings were each of them double houses. These
buildings were built in the fall of 1859.

Int. 2. — What was the cost of these buildings ?

Ans. — These buildings were built by the Boundary Survey,
and afterwards turned oVer to the Quartermasters' Depart-
ment of the army ; and they allowed for the buildings their
actual cost, as invoiced by the Boundary Survey in the fol-
lowing manner :

"Invoice of Quarters turned over by Archibald Campbell,
Commissioner Northwest Boundary Survey, to Brevet
' Major Pinkney Lugenbeel, 9th United States infantry,
at Fort Colvile, Washington Territory, August, 1861.

Cost of materials and labor, as per voucher marked
A, voucher 2, Abr. G., 4th Qr., '59 - - - - $2,075.70

200

Cost of materials, as per voucher marked B, voucher

8, Abr. G., 2d Q., 'CO 392.66

Cost of labor, as per voucher marked C - - - 930.00
See receipts of Major P. Lugenbeel, U. S. Army,
marked D.

P,398 .36

Archibald Campbell,
Com. N. W. Boundary Survey J"

The two buildings for officers' quarters were commenced
before the different parties of the Boundary Survey arrived at
Colvilo Depot, by the (luartermaster of that post, and he kept
an accurate account of everything expended upon them,
which he charged the Boundary Survey for, as per following
voucher, referred to in previous invoice as marked A.

" The United States to 2d Lieutenant William B. Hughes, 9th
Infantry, A. A. Q. M., Br.
*' On account of Northwest Boundary Survey for the cost of
the following materials, and the hire of mechanics employed
in the construction of two log-buildings, for the use of the
U. S. Boundary Commission, as winter quarters and offices,
viz :

((

For 40,000 shingles, at $6 per M

5,560 feet sided timber, at 6c. per foot
1,406 " square " at 10c. "
12,000 " lumber, at $28 per M
21 doors, at $4 each
20 windows, at $4 each
800 lbs. nails, at 19c. per lb -
18,000 brick, at $10 per M

20 barrels lime, at $2 per barrel
17 door-locks, at $2.50 each
23 prs. butts and screws
7 latches and bolts

$240.00

333.60

141.60

336.00

84.00

80.00

152.00

180.00

40.00

42.50

3.00

1.00

For Cost of building chimneys, plastering and lay-
ing hearths 102.00

Hire of extra-duty men for 20 days, at 50c. each

per day 100.00

Hire of four citizen carpenters, 20 days, at
$3 per day 240.00

, • S2,075.70

" Received at Colvile Depot, of Archibald Campbell, Commis-
sioner N. W. Boundary Survey, this 21st day of December,

1859, two thousand and seventy-five dollars and seventy cents
in full,, of the above account.

Signed duplicates.

(Signed,) Wm. B. Hugiie!?,

$2,075.70 2d Lieut. 9th Infanty, A. A. Q. 31.

"I certify that the above account is correct ; that the items
charged therein were required and furnished on account of
the service above mentioned, and that the same were necessary
therefor, the buildings having been constructed under my
supervision, with materials furnished by Q. M. Dept. U. S. A.
"(Signed,) P. Lugenbeel,

" J5y«. Maj., Oapt. 9th Inf., QonCd. Colvile Depot.''

The voucher marked "B," as per invoice, gives the cost of
materials used principally upon the out-buildings, consisting
of mens' quarters, shops, and stables, previously mentioned,
and are given as follows :

The United States to 2d Lieutenant William B. Hughes, 9th
Infantry, A. A. Q. M.

On account of Northwest Boundary Survey, for the follow-
ing Quartermaster's stores, purchased from the 1st of January,

1860, to June 20, 1860, viz :

8,573 ft. lumber, at $30 per M, $257.19 ; 4 M shin-
gles, at $6 per M, $24.00 .... $281.19
1 pr. window-sash, $4.00; 2 door-locks at $2.50 - 9.00

ill

202

12 pr. butts at 26c. each, 33.12; 5 pr. hooks and

hin<,'c,s, at 70c. each, $3.r>0 .... 6.62

2 pr. strap-hingos, at 62Ac., $1.25; 1 door-bolt, 45c. 1.70

269 lbs. cut nails, at 35c. pr. lb. - - - - 94.15

$392.66

Which, toi>other with the voucher marked "C," given as
follows :

" Account of labor performed in December, 1859, and Janu-
ary, 18G0, by employes of the Northwest Boundary Sur-
vey, on the buildings at Colvilc depot :

3 men, 1 month at 850 each per month ... $150

4 " 1 " $45 " " ... 180
15 " 1 " $40 " " .... 600

$930

"I certify that the labor, as stated above, was expended
upon the winter quarters of the Northwest Boundary Survey
at Colvilc depot.

"G. Clinton Gardner,

^^Amst. Astr. jf Surveyor.''
Gives the entire cost of those buildings.

(The whole of the above ansAver objected to as irrelevant
and incompetent. The statements or writings of other per-
sons than the witness also objected to for the same reason,
and the papers introduced and the calculations.)

Int. 3. — Would the materials employed in erecting these
buildings cost private individuals more or less than it cost the
Boundary Commission?

Ans. — I should think the materials used in these buildings
would cost private individuals about the same. The only dif.
fercnce in cost would be in the labor, which, I think, would not
exceed ^500. The doors and windows, and all the hardware*
were transported there, and probably at a greater expense
than private individuals could have transported them.

203

Int. 4. — "What do you estimate it would have cost private
individuals to have erected these buihlings in 1859?

Ai^s. — From the data 1 have, I should . estimate it at
^3,880.J}0. The cost of material and, labor, as given in pre-
ceding voucher, Avill be us follows :

Cost of material for officers' quarters - - ^1,735.70

Cost of labor for officer's quarters, as follows :
For carpenters ... - - ^240

Extra-duty mens' labor, reduced to citizen

labor at %\.^0 per day, being 200 days - 300
Rations for above laborers, 280, at 30c. - - 84

Cost of officers' quarters _ . -

Cost of materials on out-buildings
Cost of labor " - -
Cost of rations for above laborers, 660, at
30c. per ration

Cost of out-buildings - - . .

024.00

^2,3ry.).70

392.66
930.00

198.00
$1,520.66

Int. 5. — How did the buildings erected by the Northwest
Boundary Survey, at Colvile Depot, whose cost you have just
estimated, compare in value with those occupied by the Hud-
son's Bay Company at Fort Colvile, in 1859?

Arts. — From what I remember of the buildings of the
Hudson's Bay Company at Fort Colvile, I should think they
were not more than twice as extensive, and probably of not
more than double the value. I would not exchange on any
higher terms.

(All the foregoing questions and answers objected to as in-
competent and irrelevant.)

Int. 6. — Have you ever followed any of the brigade trails
of the Hudson's Bay Company in what was Washington
Territory ?

Ans. — Yes ; I have been over parts of the trail, between
Colvile and Fort Hope, on Fraser river.

Int. 7. — What was the character of this trail ?

11 '' i I'

204

Arts. — It was a broad road way, through the portions of tho
country not timbered, and through the timbered portions
opened sufficient to allow their packs to pass. Tho brigade
trail around the Kalespelm Lake, which is part of tho brigade
trail from Colvile to Fhit-IIead trading-post, follows the water's
edge, and is impassable at high-water. The most of these
brigade trails follow old Indian trails, with but little improve-
ment upon them.

Int. 8. — What do you estimate would be the average cost
per mile of these trails?

Ans. — From the cost of the trails that we opened in carry-
ing on our work, I should judge these trails did not cost as
much as ours, and the estimated cost of a portion of our trail
across the Cascade Mountains is about $20 per mile.

Cro88-Examination tins April 30, 18G7.

Int. 1. — At what time were you at Fort Colvile ?

Ans. — In March or April, 1861.

Int. 2. — How long were you there at that visit, and did you
go to the Company's post?

Ans. — I don't remember whether I went to the Company's
post or not upon that occasion. I was at the post a few days
previous.

Int. 3. — Was there any difference in the buildings at the
post at the time you first saw them, and at tho date of your
last visit?

Ans. — No marked change that I observed.

Int. 4. — Had any of the buildings been rebuilt?

Ans. — I don't think any of them had.

Int. 5. — How many buildings were there at Fort Colvile,
within the square ?

Ans. — I don't know what you would call the square ; there
was but three sides when I was there. On the north side
were store-houses, my impression, under the same roof; and
on the east side were the officers' quarters, with an extension
to the north, if I remember ; on the south side were two or
three small houses for employes.

205

Int. G. — Is that tlio best and most accurate description that
you can give of the buihlings at the Hudson's Day Company's
post at Colvile?

Attn. — No; it is only the buiUlings fronting or facj ig the
court-yard of the Hudson's Bay post.

Int. 7. — How far was the Company's post at Colvile from
the IJoundury Commission's quarters, which you have spoken
of?

Ann. — About seventeen miles, by the road.

Int. 8. — How far from the Hudson's Bay Company's post
were the buildings of the British Boundary Commission?

An%. — Between one and two miles.

Int. 0. — Were these buildings erected for the accommoda-
tion of the British Boundary Connrission during the same
winter that the American Commission pasiicd at their quar-
ters ?

Ann. — Yes ; but no* at the same time that ours were erected;
they were built afterwards, and I visited them first in the win-
ter of 18(50 and 18G1.

Int. 10. —How did they compare with the buildings of the
American Commission, in number, size, material, construction,
and finish?

Ans. — First, as regards to number, they Averc more numer-
ous ; and as regards size, they were not as large ; in regard
to material, it was about the same, I think. They probably
were not constructed with the same care, and not as well fin-
ished. . ' .

Int. 11. — You have compared the value of the Hudson's
Bay Company's buildings at Colvile with that of the value of
the American Boundary Commission at Colvile. Will you now
state the values of the American Boundary Commission build-
ings, and the British Boundary Commission buildings ?

Am. — The British Boundary Commiss'on buildings were
more numerous than the American Boundary Commission
buildings, and were worth, I should think, three times as much.

Int. 12. — Do you not know that Hiram Field was paid the
sum of $20,000 for erecting the buildings of the British Bound-
ary Commission?

' vrr

li :!

206

Ans. — No ; I did not know that Tliram FleM was paid that
amount; I understood he had the contract for building them.

Int. pi. — Was there three times as ranch lumber and other
materials used in the construction of the British Boundary
Commission buihlings as in those of the American?

Anf). — I should think there was.

Int. 14. — Were you employed in any way in the erection of
the buildings of the American Boundary Commission, the cost
of which you have detailed?

Ans. — I was employed after my arrival at Colvile from the
field ; and in order to expedite the work, the men of the differ-
ent parties were also placed at Avork upon them.

Int. 15. — AVas tli' • labor charged in estimating the cost of
the buildings ?

An>'. — Yes; as per voucher marked "C," previously re-
ferred to.

Int. IG. — Whntdocs voucher marked " C" contain?

Ahs. — Voucher marked " C" is a certificate of labor placed
upon those buildings by tho employes of the Boundary Sur-
vey.

Int. 17. — Was there no other labor placed on these buildings
by the members of the Boundary Commission than that men-
tioned in voucher " C" ?

Ans. — Tiiere was other labor placed on those buildings, as
charged in voucher marked '' A."

Inf. 18. — Do you recollect the price of labor, at that time, in
Colvile Valley?

Ans. — Yes ; the price of labor wns the same as given in
voucher " C."

Int. 10. — Was not, at this time, Colvile and its vicini'ty i'ull
of miners and prospectors, seeking to pass the winter, many
of whom Aveve glad to be employed to procure food and shelter
for tho winter ?

^1/KS'. — There- were a good many that we could have cm-
ployed; but they were not willing to remain with us the fol-
lowing season, which we required of every employe, before we
consented to keep them during the winter. Some that were

207

discharged upon going into winter-quarters returned to our
employ, in the spring, at the same wages.

Int. 20. — Is not your own personal knowledge of the cost of
these buildings confined to knowledge of the number of men
of the Boundary Commission employed, and the price paid
them; and is not the rest of your knowledge of the cost de-
rived from inspection of vouchers and certified accounts or in-
voices read off by you and copied into your answer to 2d
interrogatory to your examination-in-chicf in this case?

Alls. — My knowledge of the cost of those buildings is from
the amount of labor placeil upon them by the cniployos of the
Boundary'- Commission, together with the cr-st of material and
labor placed upon them by portions of t'.'.o escort employed,
as certified to b^' I\Iajor Lugcnbeel.

Int. 21. — Is your knowledge of the material and values
mentioned, and the labor charged in voucher marked "A,"
introduced into vour testimonv, purportinL!' to be si'j;ned bv
P. Luc-enbocl, Brevet Maior, derived from the account itself,
and the certificate 'i

Ans. — ]\Iy knov,-lcda,c of the amouu

t of

nmternil am

1 lab

is partly from tlie account and partly from tlie results of that
material and laljor. My knowledge of tlie value of the
material and labor is from the certificate.

Int. 22. — Is your knowledge of tlio material fnrni^lied, and
the prices i^harg.'d i.i voucher "B," derived from an inspec-
tion of the document itself?

Ans. — Partly fi\na the inspection of the voucher itself, and
partly from the inspection of the materials, as nearly as I re-
member them.

Int. 20. — Is not vour knowlediio of the price of these art!-
cles derived entirely from the voucher itself?

Ans. — Yc!- ; because there was no otiier price paiil for them
than that charged in the voucher.

Int. 24. — Did you pay for these articles yourself, or do you
know that they were paid for, except through the inspection
of this voucher ?

Ans. — I ('id not pay for them myself, and the receipt to
the voucher is the only evidence I have of payment.

t '"it"

m ]\m

208

Int. 25. — How many officers and men were employed, on an
average, on the Boundary Commission -when at work in the
field?

Ans. — I do not remember; I should judge about sixty.

Int. 26. — IIow many companies of soldiers were employed
as an oscort and guard for the Commission?

Ans. — On tlio western slope of the Cascades there was one
company of infantry. To the east of the Cascades there was
four companies of infantry, Avho established a military depot
at Colvile Depot, sending detachments sufficient to guard and
protect the parties [tiiat] were at work in the field.

Int. 27. — What escort did the British Commission nave ?

Ans. — The Englisl Commission, I believe, liad sappers and
miners as their escort, as well as to do the work ; the number
I do not know.

Int. 28. — How many companies were there at Colvile Depot
at the time the buildings of the American Boundary Com-
mission wore begun ?

Ans. — Two companies of infantry, I believe.

Int. 29. — State, if you know, what was the cost of bring-
ing the Company's soldiers to Fort Colvile, and maintaining
them there while acting as guard.

Ans. — I don't know. •

G. Clinton Gardner.

Deposition of Marcus A. Reno, a witness examined in the
city of Washington, at request and in behalf of the
United States, in the matter of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany against the United States, Caleb Cushing appear-
ing as counsel for the United States, j nd Edward Lander
for the said Company, sworn before Nicholas Callan, a
notary public in and for the county of Washington, Dis-
ti'ict of Columbia.

Testijmony of Marcus A. Reno. ' '

Int. 1. — State your name, rank in the army, post or station.
Ans. — Marcus A. Reno ; Captain of 1st cavalry, and Bre-

209

vet Colonel in the United States Army; my regular station
is Fort BoLsb, Idaho Territory.

Int. 2. — Have you, at any time, been on duty at the post
of Fort Boise?

Ans. — I have, at some time heretofore, hcen acquainted
with Fort Boise, a post of the Hudson's Bay Conipan}'. I was
there first in the summer of 18a9; there tuico tl:at summer.
I was tlierc four times in the summer of 18G0; was there in
the capacity of a subaltern in the 1st dragoons, that was
scouting along the emigrant route in that country'. The first
time I was there a day and night, the second time I spent
about three days there, in the summer of 18G0. I camped
there two weeks the first time, the second time I was there
about two days. Fort Boise, of the Hudson's Bay Company,
was situated on the right bank of tho Snake river, fifteen or
twenty miles below the mouth of Bois(5 river; the present
])ost, held by the United States, is on the Boise river, about
thirty miles above its mouth. The Snake river is the main
river ; the Boiso is tho branch river. Am not certain as to
the distances ; they are about the distances above stated.

Int. 3. — State whether you noted, with more or less particu-
larity, the condition of the Hudson's Bay post at Fort Boise.

An.'^. — I took notice, with some particularity, of the condf-
tioii of Fort Boise at the time of my first visit there. I took
the dimensions of the building, and noted the condition of the
country back of it, in reference to pasturage for tho animals
of our command. I kept a journal regularly every day. I
reported the rosult of my observations to the commanding
ofiiccr on my return to camp.

Int. 4. — Please to describe the character and condition of
the buildings there.

Ans. — The buildings were pretty much in ruins ; one was
quite so, the other was simply four walls that had been cov-
ered with a single slant roof; the face looking up the river
seemed to have been arranged for defence, Indian defence;
this is what I understood to be called a bastion. I only saw
two buildings there. The whole locality was entirely over-
grown with wild rye grass, very tall grass.
1-t H

il '

210

Int. 5. — Were the buildings occupied or deserted?

Ans. — These buildings -were in a deserted condition; no in-
dications of any one having been there for some time.

Inf. G. — iVt what pecuniary value should you estimate those
buildings, in the condition in M'hich they were at that time?

A}is. — I should say they Avere worthless. The walls were
built of this adobe sun-dried brick; would hardly have sup-
ported the roof; they had crumbled away, from the rain. I
think it would have been economy to have built anew, rather
than to have attempted to make them habitable.

Int. 7. — Please to state, according to your judgment and
experience, how many of your men would it have taken, and
how many days' time, to construct two such buildings.

(Mr. Lander objects to this question, unless it is previously
shoAvn that the witness had some experience in putting up
adobe buildings.)

An><. — I do not feel myself competent to answer this ques-
tion fully.

Int. 8. — Have you ever had occasion to witness or direct the
making of adobe bricks. If so, state briefly the material and
process.

A/nf^. — I have. The United States post at Fort Wallula
was built of frame work, and lined Avith adobe brick. It is a
kind of mortar formed of the ground and water, with the ad-
dition of straw; the time of making depends a great deal on
the weatiicr; dried in the sun.

Int. 9. — What is the common size of these sun-dried blocks
of mud, called adobes?

(Mr. Lander objects to this question.)

An.i. — The size varies according to the differerit uses they
are put to. The sizes I saw made were almost cubes, about
one foot. Those I saw in the buildings at Boise were the size
of ordinary bricks.

Int. 10. — State, if you please, how these adobes are formed.

An.9. — Those that I saw made were as follows : An excava-
tion was formed in the ground, the dirt from which was wet
and then manipulated with shovels. Some were made in that
way. Then, afterwards, they improved on that maniier and

211

had a kiutl of mill. This mill was nothing more than a cylin-
der and awheel to turn around by a horse, of the very simplest
construction imaginable.

Int. 11. — Please to state whether you saw any enclosed land
at Fort Boise.

Ans. — I did not. I saw no evidence of cultivation or im-
provement except the ruins of those buildings I spoke of.

Int. 12. — What was the (|uality or character of the land
immediatclv around and in the neighborhood of those two
adobe ruins?

Ann. — In the immediate vicinity of the post it was level
bottom; they call that country sage-brush country. The soil
of alkali nature. The sage-brush land is very indifferent for
cultivation ; it would require great labor to make it profitable ;
and as to pasturage, I do not think a herd of a hundred ani-
mals could live within range of the fort, and be at all service-
able. Sage brush is not considered feed for cattle; horses and
cattle will not eat it. I have heard it said mules would eat it,
but I don't believe it. I found, in the execution of the orders
I had received, that it was useless to send animals there for
pasturage.

Int. 13. — Please to state whether you have at any time been
on duty at the United States fort of Walla-Walla ; and, if so,
how long and at what time?

Ana. — I have been stationed at United States Fort Walla-
Walla from September, 18.39, to May, 1860. I spent the
winters of 1850 and 'GO and 18G0 and 'Gl there.

Int. 14. — State whether or not in the vicinity of the United
States [Fort] Walla- Walla there was a post of the Hudson's
Bay Company, known by the name of Walla-Walla or of
Wallula.

Ans. — There Avas a post of the Hudson's Bay Company on
the Columbia river called Old Walla-Walla, at the mouth of
the Walla-Walla river, not a mile above the mouth of the Walla-
Walla river, about thirty miles from the United States fort of
Walla- Walla. I never heard Fort Walla-Walla designated in
any other way than the old fort.

■I Mi

212

Int. 1/5. — Did you at any time or times visit old Fort Walla-
Walla; and, if so, how many times?

AiiH. — I visited there frequentl}'; the drst time was in May,
180<i. I visited there also in charge of a scouting party;
camped there several days.

l)tt. 10. — Please to describe what buildings or structures
constituted the old fort.

yl«.v. — I remember particularly one building, built of adobe
brick, which they called a store; also an enclosure, four Avails,
inside of which there were some small buildings; think there
wore tAvo ; not positive about that. Enclosure was arranged
like a fort for defence, and built of adobe. The two buildings
inside were of adobe. Tavo sides of the building Avere also
portions of the Avail, the building being placed in corners of
the enclosure.

Inf. 17. — Was there any enclosed land under cultivation at
the old fort?

Ans. — There was one small tract of land near the Walla-
Walla river, I suppose two or three miles above the fort;
probably ten or fifteen acres, I should judge.

Int. 18. — What Avas the character of the soil and country
around the old fort?

Ann. — In the vicinity of the old fort, a shifting, "andy soil;
the sand Avas so loose it drifted with the wind. There Avas no
vegetation worthy of the name.

Int. 19. — What persons, if any, were in occupation of the
old fort at that time ; and what business, if any, appeared to
be transacted there?

Ans. — The Oregon Steam Navigation Company, at that
time, had just succeeded in running up their first boat. They
had a landing at the old fort, and had some agents there in
occu])ation of the old buildings.

Int. 20. — Have you knowledge of any apparent use or profit-
able occupation of the old fort, at that time, by the Hudson's
Bay Company ?

Ans, — No, sir.

! I !! ■«

213

Cross- Examination.

Int. 1. — At what time of the year were you at Fort lioise ?

Arts. — I was there in Scptcmbei', 1859 ; in July and Au-
gust, 1860 ; in October and November, 1860.

Int. 2. — Was it at the first time you were there, in Septem-
ber, 1859, that you made your report to the commanding
officer?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 3. — Is not the grass injured in the month of September —
injured by the long summer drought of that country ?

Ans. — No ; I do not think it is ; the grass that form?* the
pasturage there is the bunch grass ; it is nutritious even in
the winter, when there is a sufficiency of it.

Int. 4. — On these scouting expeditions you have spoken of,
are not your horses subsisted on the pasturage you find on
your journeys?

Ans. — Entirely so.

Int. 5. — How long would you like to have your horses go
without grass on one of your journeys ?

Ans. — I should hate to have them go more than six or eight
hours.

Int. 6. — You have stated that you camped at Old Fort
Boise, first time, a day and night; at another time, two days ;
at another time, two weeks ; the next time, two or three days.
Were your horses at that time confined to sage-brush pas-
turage?

Ans. — No, sir ; our horses were herded with suitable guard,
and sent off in different directions from the camp to be grazed.
They would be taken at times as far as six miles. We were
forced to keep our camp there, because it was a depot of pro-
visions for emigrants. The most of the grazing we found was
on the river Owyhee, some two miles from Old Fort Boise.

Int. 7. — Do I understand you to mean, then, that there was
pasturage around Fort Boise, but not in the immediate vicin-
ity of your camp there?

li-

:l. ),

Pi?

1 '4

' ' !i "I

214

^>/«. — There was no pasturage around Fort Boh'e in the
inune«liate vicinity ; there was grass there that would sustain
life, scattered through the sage grass, [brush.] If it had been
optional with the commanding officer, he would not have re-
mained there the time he did. I remember, in our homeward
march, men were made to dismount and lead their horses, they
had been so reduced by scant feed at Fort JJoise.

Jnf. 8. — You stated the horses were sometimes sent six miles
for feed. Were they not often herded at shorter distances
from the fort ?

A'ii.i. — Yes, sir; herded in every direction; this six miles
[was] f»robably the longest distance.

Int. 9. — From your knowledge, derived from your camping
at Fort lioise, would it not have required a great deal of land
on both sides of the Snake river to have pastured large bands
of horses, kept by persons living at old Fort Boise?

A)i8. — It would so ; it would have required a very extensive
range.

Int. 10. — Is not Fort Boise on the emigrant trail, and the
usual and common camping-ground for parties passing up and
down the Snake ?

An8. — It is so ; but I do not think it [was] is so [much] on
account of the pasturage at that time, as for wood and water.
The Snake river is difficult to water stock in ; it is miry along
that portion of it.

Int. 11. — Might not the camping of these parties, passing
up and doy, '>. the river so often, at the same spot, have injured
the pasturage in the vicinity of and around the fort?

Ans, — The first time I was at the fort, in 1860, there had
been no encampments there that year ; the year before, the
emigration that had passed over might have destroyed it to
some extent.

Int. 12. — Do you know anything of the effect of emigration
on sage-brush lands ?

Ans. — Not from my personal knowledge.

Int. 13. — Is not the bunch grass of that country often found,
to some extent, on what is called sage-brush land?

Ans. — It is, to a very limited extent.

215

J)it. 14. — 111 your examination of Fort Boise, did you not ob-
serve an enclosure, or the remains of one, similar to that at
old Fort Walla- Walla, although not as great in extent?

Ans. — The building spoken of in my evidence as in ruins,
looked like it might be an enclosure ; but it was so crumbled
it was difficult to say what it looked like.

Inf. 1'). — You have spoken of the south face of this build-
ing with a bastion to it. Was not this the south wall of an
enclosure, similar to that of Fort "Walla-Walla ?

Ans. — No, sir; I don't think it was ; it had been a building
arranged for defence, but built more especially for a store-
house.

Int. 10. — What was the length of this south wall you spoke
of?

Ans. — I do not remember sufficiently the dimensions to say.

Int. 17. — Where was this other building situated that vou
spoke of, and how near to the building you have last spoken
of?

Ans. — Situated off the northwest angle of the main build-
ing, towards the river, from thirty to fifty yards distant ; may
have been a little less than that.

Int. 18. — Was this an enclosure resembling the old fort at
Walla- Walla ?

Ans. — It was too much in ruins for me to say what it had
been; but the extent of the foundations were greater than
they could have roofed out there.

Int. 19. — Could not buildings have been erected on the in-
side of the enclosure, and roofed, leaving an open space within
the enclosure ?

Ans. — It might have been so.

Int. 20. — You have some acquaintance with adobes, as made
by soldiers. Have you any idea how long they would last?

Ans. — I have not.

Int. 21. — Is all the earth you found fit for adobes ; and
does it not require a peculiar kind of earth for the purpose of
making adobes?

Ans. — Some kind of earth you can make adobes of with
less trouble than others.

i 1

i'l

iy::

ill

iiii

mil

iiiiiiffii

216

7w/. 22. — Could you make adobes at old Fort Walla-Walla,
of the earth there?

Ans. — Very near there ; in the bottom of the Walla-AValla
river.

I?)(. 23. — Is not the earth preferred for adobes generally a
sort of clay ?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 24. — Does it not require working by the feet of cattle
and horses, driven about, or in some other way, to make it fit
for bricks ?

Ans. — Depends upon the number you want; they require to
be worked in some way.

Int. 25. — How is the shape and measure of the brick ob-
tained, that you have spoken of?

Ana. — They have some form of mould.

Int. 26. — If you cannot [give] the length of the Avails at Fort
Boise, can you give its height or its thickness ?

A71S. — I think the short wall that was standing was seven
feet high, and one opposite was ten or eleven ; I should say they
were a foot and a half to two feet in thickness.

Int. 27. — Can you give any approximate idea of their
length ?

Ans. — I should think not more than thirty feet.

Int. 28. — You have spoken of rye grass springing up and
almost concealing the ruins ; is not this rye grass, in the
spring of the year, a good pasturage for horses ?

Ans. — It is not considered good pasturage ; it scours the
horses very much.

Int. 29. — Does not all new grass, in the spring of the year,
have that effect on horses ?

Ans. — Yes ; but not to the same extent. A horse that has
been pastured all winter would not be scoured by the moun-
tain grass, even when green ; but he would by the rye grass.

Int. 30. — Did you give a particular examination to old Fort
Walla-Walla ?

Ans. — I did not ; I was frequently in the enclosure, but did
not take the dimensions.

217

Int. 31. — Have you any particular recollection of the wall
of the fort, its height or its thickness.

Ans. — I have not.

Int. 32. — Can you say that there were not, inside of the
walls of the fort, some houses and ranges of stores ?

Ans. — I cannot.

Int. 33. — Have you any recollection of two bastions, be-
longing to the fort ?

Am. — I remember there was something of the kind.

M. A. Reno,
Capt. 1st. Cav., Bvt. Col. U. S. A.

J. Sworn and subscribed before me this ninth day of

L^' ^'-1 November, A. D. 1866.

N. Callan,
Notary PiihUf.

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson s Bay Company
against the United States.

Deposition of Leiois S. Thompson, a witness examined in the
City of Washington, and District of Columbia, on the
part and behalf of the United States, Avho, being duly
sworn, deposeth and testifies as follows :

Testimony op Lewis S. Thompson.

Int. 1. — Please to state your name at length, residence,
and profession.

Ans. — Lewis S. Thompson; residence in Jacksonville, Jack-
son county, Oregon ; I am a physician.

Int. 2. — Have you any personal knowledge of the Hudson's
Bay post at Umpqua ; and if so, under what circumstances
acquired, and at and for what time ?

Ans. — I have, having resided at Scottsburgh, the road to
and from which passes immediately in sight of the post. My

I" ' I i

i;< r

Ij; !,^'

ii.:i!'.

■1

'<j

iji

liii:^'

218

husiiic-s le<l rne to travel this loafl frcfiuently, tliore being
but one trail from S('nttsbur;^li to the interior, and that trail
passing- this jicst. I frcfiucntly travcr.st'il tlio country at and
about the post. I was at Scottsburgh from September, 1852,
to Jan nil ry, 1.S;j7.

Int. '■). — Please to describe the buildings at the post as you
saw tlu'Ui i)i 18">2. State what buildings were there.

A)if<. — T eannot exactly recollect. The buildings were
dilapidated; a portion of them were standing, and a portion
had fallen down.

lilt. 4. — Did you take notice of the character and quality
of the land about the post? And if so, please to state what
proportion of it was good land, and what, in your judgment,
was the value of a mile sfjuaro of the land at and around it.

Ann. — I did ; one-half was good land. Two thousand to
twenty-five hundred dollars. A portion of the land was good,
and a portion of it was hilly, mountainous land. The hilly
land had no particular value for tillage or grazing. I desire
to explain that I base my estimate of the land on the assump-
tion that the post stands in the centre of the land up and
down the river; a half-mile up the river, and half-mile doAvn
the river.

Int. o. — What person, if any, was in apparent charge of
the post, in behalf of the Company ?

Ans. — I do not remember the name of the person in charge
of the post ; it was a Frenchman.

Int. 0. — On which side of the river, relatively to the road
to California, and how far from it, is the post at Umpqua.
Is it on the right or the wrong side of tlie river, relatively
to that road?

^w«.-:-Umpqua is on the south or west side of the river,
the road to California passing on the opposite side at no great
distance ; the road is on one bank of the river, and the post
on the opposite bank.

hit. 7. — Have you or not any knowledge of cattle belong-
ing to the post being killed by the settlers ; and if so, under
what circumstances, and for Avhat apparent cause ?

Ans. — Nothing beyond common talk. The common repu-

219

tiition wnx tliat tlic stock was wild, and liatl not lioou liaiidlod
for sovenil voars, and tlic conscoueiice was that they wore
very tronldt-soine, ami thercforo wi-ro killed.

Int. H. — Have you or not knowledge of cattle or horses he-
loii<;iiig to the post heiiig sold hy the Company's a;xent?

A)i9. — I have not, personally. I have seen tlie corral in
Mhich the i orscs were collected, and saw persons who were
< jiployed i'l collecting them. I also saw some dead animals,
and heard statements made as to the cause of their death,
and statements conccrninj; sales.

Int. i'. — Have you or not knowledge of the farm in that
region owned or occupied by Mr. Chapman ; and if so, how
is it situated relatively to Fort I'mpqua?

Ann. — Mr. Chapman lived on the Fort Un pf|ua farm.

Int. 10. — What is the estimated value, in that country, of
Mr. Chapman's farm at tMs time?

Ann. — Fifteen hundred dollars; the land not being so val-
uable as it formerly was, when I valued it at twenty-five hun-
dred dollars.

Cross-IJxam ination .

large

repu-

Int. 1. — How far is this town of Scottsburgh from the Com-
pany's post at Umpqua?

Ans. — Twenty miles.

Int. 2. — You speak of the road running from Scotsburgb to
the interior. To what places of importance did that road lead?

Ans. — It leads to the main trail running through Oregon to
California, and is the trail over which goods are shipped to
the towns in the interior of Oakland, Winchester, Roseburgh,
Canyonville ; which towns supply the settled portions of
Umpqua valley with goods.

Int. 3. — How far from the bank of the Umpqua was the
Company's post?

Ans. — About one hundred and fifty yards.

Int. 4. — Is the Umpqua a fordable river near the fort or
not?

Ans. — It is not. There is a ford, used in summer time, about

M :,'" ;

220

three miles above the fort. I think there is a bridle trail from
tlie ford to the fort, but no wagon trail.

Int. 5. — Is there any diflSculty in crossing the river near the
fort by canoes or boats?

Ann. — There is none. That was the means of crossing from
the trail to the post,

Int. 6. — Was it not common reputation that a good many
cattle had been killed by the settlers belonging to the Com-
pany?

Ans. — It was.

Int. 7. — Was it not also common reputation that the beef
cattle of the Company, killed by the settlers, had been sold
in Scottsburgh and other places by the settlers?

Ans. — I think not. There were reports occasionally of
cattle being killed by packers passing through the country ;
they usually called the cattle elk.

Int. 8. — Were not the cattle usually kept by the settlers in
that country, many of them, of the Spanish breed?

Ans. — They were not, until, about 1854 or 1855, some
cattle of the Spanish breed were driven into that country.

Int. 9. — Did not all the cattle in that country range loose
as a general thing ?

Ayis. — They did.

Int. 10. — Who is the present occupant of the farm at the
post?

Ans. — I cannot tell. My belief is that it has not been oc-
cupied for several years.

Int. 11. — Are you acquainted with Governor Gibbs ? If so,
state what is your judgment of his competency to pass upon
the value of land personally known to him in the valley of
the Umpqua.

(Mr. Cushing objects to the question, as not matter of cross-
examination, and not competent testimony in any point of
view.)

Ans. — I am. I should think he was.

Int. 12. — Have you bought or sold any farming land in the
Umpqua Valley during the last year ?

Ans. — I am now trying to sell a farm which I have owned

'll'lli iii'ii

221

since 18.jT, coiitaining 040 acres, for two thousand dollars,
witliiii sight of Fort Umpqua, and which I would not ex-
change for the Fort Umpqua Farm.

Examlnation-m-CJiii'f liesuined.

Int. 1. — AVhcn you say that in your opinion (jovernor
Gibbri is competent to pass judgment on the value of land in
Umpqua Valley, do you mean to bo understood as implying
that he has any special competency su})erior to your own ?

Ans. — I do not.

Lit. 2. — Do you think he is any better judge of the money
value of your own farm than you yourself arc?

Alts. — I do not.

Int. 3. — Do you think that he is any better judge than you
yourself arc of the relative value of your farm and the Fort
Umpqua Farm ?

Ans. — I do not.

Int. 4. — What are your means of information as to the
value of lands in the Umpqua Valley ?

Ans. — From actual transactions, lands being bought and
sold under my knowledge.

(Mr. Lander objects to this last interrogatory, upon the
ground that it is incompetent and irrelevant, in the renewal
of an examination-in-chief.)

(Mr. Gushing res; jnds that this question is not renewal of
an examination-in-chiof, but i.-' the cross-examination of the
witness relative to the eleuKats of the matter of opinion, as
to which Mr. Lander made the witness his own by the in.tro-
duction of new matter)

Int. 5. — Who is Governor Gibbs, and how does he get the
title of Governor ?

Ans. — 1I{? is a .:nap v'lo weighs about 250 lbs., and served
four ye" '- as Govcruov of Orc!|on.

Int. 0. — You have stated that there was a report that cattle
were killed by packers going through the country, and called
elk meat. Did the report run that ihese cuttle were killed in
the corral of the Company ?

000

Ans^. — The report did not. The Company could not have
corralled tlicir cattle had they tried.

Int. 7. — Have j'^ou or not any kno'w ledge of «oa-otter or
other furs heitig traded hy the Indians to the Company, when
you first went tiicre ?

Ans. — There was little or no trade at Fort Umprjua when I
went there.

L. S. Thompson.

Wasj[tngtox, D. C, December 18, 1866.

Claim of the Ilcdsons Bajj Company againnt tJie United

States.

Deposition of A. Jl Cain, taken at the request and in l)ehalf
of the United States, hy agreement between Caleb Cush-
ing, on behalf of the United States, and Edward Lander,
on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company^

Testimony of A. J. Cain.

Int. 1. — Please to state your name at length, and your
present occupation and residence.

Ans. — !Mv name is Andrew J. Cain : have been residing at

t.' ■' o

Walla-Walla, in Washington Territoiy ; engaged in real estate
business.

Int. 2. — Have you, at any time, been employed as Indian
agent in Oregon or Washington ? And if so, please to state
for what district, and for what years.

An-'j. — I was employed as Indian agent in Washington
Territory for three years, up to SejUenibcr, 1861, in charge of
the Walla-Walla district, which embraced all of Washinjiton
Territory between the Columbia river and the Bitter-Root
Mountains.

Int. 3. — For what length of time, since then, have you re-
sided at Walla-Walla?

Ans. — Up to my departure for that city in March last.

223

Int. 4. — Please to describe tlio structure'?, if any. of the
Hudson's Bay Company at old Walla-Walla, at the time whcu
you first had kiioAvIodge of them as Indian agent.

Ann. — An ordinary sized trading-fort, made of adobes, with

a main

build

mir msule, w

hieh I suppo

so was about si\

ty ^y

thirty, all in a very dihipiilateil conditi(jn. There wi-re evi-
dences of there having been some small tenements, but I could
not judge of their character. There was but the one Imilding
left standing, which had no roof on it.

Int. o. — In what manner were these structures oceupied, if
at all, at that period ?

n.i.

■Tl

ley were unoccupied uuring

Idi

18,->1).

;ome

trad

ers

repaired the building, and occupied it in 1^^^J0.

fi)t. 6. — What is the present conditi

n)n oi

t\n

uildings, an(

if at all, occunied ?

Ans. — They have been almost entirely rebuilt; they are now
occupied by traders. New roofs have been put on tlie build-
ings, and the walls repaired — putting in doors and v indows.
Tlie walls of the fort and building, when I first saw iheui, were
in a very bad condition.

lose expense these repairs

Ii^t. 7. — State, if

ilOW

at wl

were made, and who were the traders occupying the ];i'emises.
Ans. — To the extent of my knowledge, at individual ex-
pense; Higgins and Greenwell first occupied them, al'lerwards,
Van Sickle ai\d Tatem ; I am not acquainted with the parties
occupying them of late. IJy expense of indi-

viuuai

1 .

')ce.i

;>'i an private individuals, traders.
— I low manv vears have vou l)een engaficl in

land

or re

est

;te b

usiness ; and have vou or

the
not hiid expe-

rience in t'.e purchase and sale of real estate? And if so, to
what extent?

Ans. — Engaged in that business since ISGl ; have owned
property in Wada- Walla, and negotiated large amounts of pur-
chases and sales for others.

7 '. 9. — Please to state what, in your judgment, was the in-
trl : > \(ecuniary \^alue of those structures as structures, and
apan lom tlie laud, as they stood in 1850, and befuro they
were lopaired by private traders.

224

Ai(S\ — Twcnty-fivc buiulrcd to tliree thousand dollars, at
the price of luiildiMg material then.

Jut. 10. — Describe the character of the land, as adapted to
agricultural or grazing uses, at and about old Walla-AValla.

Ans. — Land in the immediate vicinity is a sandy waste ;
there are no good farming or grazing lands until you reach
Touchet river, fourteen miles in the interior.

Int. 11. — Please to state the character of the roads, if any,
at or about ohl Walla-Walla; whether any particular road,
leading to or from old Walla-Walla, exi -ed at the time when
y(Mi first became acquainted with the y ost ; and whether trav-
elling at or al)out old H'alla-Walla requires the expensive con-
struction of roads.

Ans. — The character oj .o countr}^ did not, and never has
re(|uired any labor in making good wagon roads, beyond the
bridging of streams ; the reason of this is, because it is a prai-
rie couTitry, universally a sandy soil ; the grade of the highest
plateaux is of that eas}' character that good natural wagon
roads could always be obtained by simply making a reconnois-
anee, except as to crossing; the mountains, which are fifty
miles distant from the post. Even at the mountains, natural
roads can be obtained.

Int. 12. — Are you acquainted with the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany's post at Fort Colvile? And if so, how much, and at
what time i

^1?)*. — I am; having spent some time in the Colvile A^'alley
in the fall of 1859.

Inf. 13. — Please to describe the buildings which you saw
there at that time.

Ans. — They were of the most ordinary character, built of
logs, put u\> in a rough manner; I don't remember their di-
mensions ; I was particularly struck with the dilapidated air
the place wore.

Int. 14. — What, in your judgment, was at that time the value
in money of those buildings?

Atis. — From five to seven thousand dollars, to any one who
needed those buildings at that point.

Int. 15. — Please to inspect the lithograph Qv.iOtograph] sub-

225

mitted to you, and hereto annexed, and marked with your name,
and state whether it does or does not represent any structures
with which you are acquainted. And if so, what ?

Ans. — It represents one view of the buildings at Fort Col-
vile.

Cross-Examination.

Int. 1. — What trading-posts, other than those of the Hud-
son's Bay Company, have you ever seen in Indian country ?

Am. — I have seen none in Oregon and Washington but those
of the Hudson's Bay Company.

Int. 2. — When you speak of an ordinary sized trading post,
you mean a Hudson's Bay Company's post?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 3. — Was not this fort that you have spoken about,
113 feet square, and the walls about 12 feet high, and about
one and a half foot thick ?

Ans. — My recollection serves me that the fort was from 100
to 120 feet square ; adobe walls, from ten to twelve feet high ;
that is, the walls that were standing.

Int. 4. — Did the traders that you have spoken of repair
the walls with adobes, as well as roof the buildings ?

Ans. — They repaired the buildings, and also repaired the
walls somewhat, and used it as a corral.

Int. 5. — You have spoken of the intrinsic pecuniary value
of these structures as structures, and apart from the land in
1859. What was the value, in your opinion, of a mile square
of land, including the old post at Walla- Walla, and landing, at
the time you last saw it ?

Ans. — In 1859, a mile square had no particular value apart
from these improvements ; since then it has become valuable
as a landing, owing to the development of the mines ; it has
been quite a shipping point for the Walla- Walla Valley and
interior mines.

Int. 6. — Has not this landing a value also, caused by the
settlement of the surrounding country, for agriculture, as well
as the mining improvements ?

Ana. — To a limited extent.
15 H

^; f

I, .J

Iff I -} i ■

II; r^

111

if n;

220

Int. 7. — From your knowledge of the surrounding country,
west of the Cascade, and east of the Bitter-Root Mountains,
what, in your opinion, is the best landing on the Columbia
river for the transaction of business?

Ans. — Wallula is the most important landing.

Int. 8. — Can you place any pecuniary value on it as a town-
site?

Ans. — It would be difficult to do so, owing to the efforts
being made to establish two other points above it, one at White
Bluffs, and the other at Palouse llapids on the Snake river.

I)tt. 9. — Will not the fact that the rapids on the Columbia
and Snake prevent navigation at low-water above Wallula,
and the fact that these two other places communicate only
with extreme northern mines, prevent their becoming rivals
of Wallula to any great extent?

Ans. — Low-water, at certain seasons of the year, obstructs
navigation above Wallula, but whether to the extent of inter-
fering with the mining trade with those upper points, I am
unable to say.

Int. 10. — Do you not think yourself that the advantages
which Wallula possesses over White Bluffs, and the point on
the Palouse, will secure to Wallula the start which she now
possesses over both those places ?

Ans. — I think she possesses advantages arising from the
agricultural resources of the Walla-Walla Valley ; but as to
whether she will rival other points above in controlling mining
trade is questionable in my mind.

Int. 11. — Has not the main business transacted at Wallula
heretofore been with the southern mines and the valley of
Walla-Walla ; and does it not owe to that chiefly its present
position ?

Ans. — It does.

Int. 12. — Can either of these places you have spoken of
rival it in the trade of the southern mines or Walla- Walla
Valley?

Ans. — No.

Int. 13. — Are there not good grazing lands on the hills

227

south of the Walla-Walla river, and within two or three miles
of the old fort ?

Ans. — There is good grazing on the plateau and hill sides,
on the south side of the Walla-Walla river, within about three
miles of the old fort ; more than two miles ; about three miles.

Int. 14. — Are there not agricultural lands for farming pur-
poses along the valley of the Walla-Walla river, which flows
into the Columbia river, a short distance south of the old
fort ?

Ans. — No, sir ; there is a small piece of bottom-land, forty
or fifty acres, two miles and a- half from the fort up the river,
and som further bottom-land, a little higher up, in detached
pieces.

Int. 15. — Do you know as to the price of the old store at
Wallula?

-4/^?. — I think at one time $150 a month was paid for the
store.

Int. 16. — At the time you were at Fort Colvile, in 1859,
was or was there not a stockade around the buildings of the
fort?

Ans. — Not around all the buildings ; there was some stock-
ade ; cannot say how much.

Inf. 17. — Where did you stop when in the Colvile Valley?

Ans. — At the military post, about 12 or 14 miles from Fort
Colvile.

Int. 18. — How often were you at Fort Colvile when in the
valley ?

Ans. — I made two special visits to the fort, and was there
an entire day each tin .

Int. 19. — At the times of your visit there, did you give a
particular examination to the building at the fort?

Ans. — I gave no further examination than natural curiosity,
under the circumstances, would induce one to give.

Int. 20. — What was that examination?

Ans. — The gentleman in charge of the post went with me,
and an officer of the army, round the post and surroundings,
explaining in a general way the character of the operations.

■ :!' if "

il.

■ I"

i I'll ki

liii

■I

i 'i

ill!

ilj^:'

228

Inl. 21. — Did these buildings face outwardly or inwardly
upon as((uare in the centre?

Ann. — I cannot answer that question distinctly. There were
some old buildings detached from the main building.

Jilt. 22. — Do you remember whether the stockade of which
you have spoken extended on three sides?

Ans. — I can't say. Saw evidences of there having been a
stockade.

//(/. 2;>. — Was there an open place in the centre, surrounded
hy buildings?

Ans. — I don't remember such.

J71I. 24. — Do you remember a large frame dwelling-house,
about .00 by 23 feet, a story and a half high, clapboarded
and shingled and plastered ? >

Ans. — I remember being in a house of similar dimensions ;
do not recollect it as described.

Int. 2.'). — Do you remember any clapboarded and shingled
house there ?

Ans. — I can't say that I could speak particularly of the
character of the roofs.

Int. 20. — If you cannot speak as to the roofs, can you say
whether any building was clapboarded?

Ans. — My ii ipression is, that there were some that were
clapboarded.

Int. 27. — Is it not a very unusual thing to clapboard any
building in that country, unless it be a very valuable one?

(Mr. Gushing objects to this question as too argumentative,
and as ar^suming facts for the premises which do not a^jpear.)

Ans. — No, sir.

Int. 28. — Did you notice chimneys to these buildings ?

A71S. — I cannot remember the chimneys. I saw fire-places.

Int. 20. — Did you notice a store-house 60 feet by 20 ?

Ans. — I was in a store-house, but did not take sufficient
notice as to size.

Int. 30. — Were you in or did you see any other store-house
than the one you have mentioned?

Ans. — I was in the attic of the building, looking at some furs,

229

but I do not know whether it was in the same building I had
been in or not.

Int. 31. — Do you or not recollect whether there was another
store-house than the one j'ou first mentioned?

Ans. — I do not remember.

Int. 32. — Do you recollect a timber bastion of two stories
high ?

An8. — My impression is that I saw such a bastion — a vague
impression.

Int. 33. — Have you anything now but a vague impression of
the buildings you saw there in 1859 ?

Ans. — Yes, sir. I have distinct recollection of the officer's
quarters and the trading-house where they were trading with
the Indians; and there were some out-buildings occupied by
some half-breeds and some Indians.

Int. 34. — Are these the buildings you noticed, and to which
your testimony already given applies ?

Ans. — One of those buildings I was in.

Int. 35. — You have stated, in answer to the last interroga-
tory, that you were in one of these buildings, and you have
also stated that you "have distinct recollection of the officers'
quarters, the trading-house, and some out-buildings;" which
of these buildings and out-buildings do you now mean to say

that

you were in

Ans. — I accepted the hospitality of the officer in command
of the post in the building occupied by him. I visited, with
him, another building where there was trading with the In-
dians, and then visited another building separate and apart, to
see some half-breed Indians. AVhen I said " one of these
buildings," I was alluding to the building on the lithograph.

Int. 36. — Is the building in which you say you accepted the
officer's hospitality the same which you before mentioned as
that of the officers' quarters?

Am. — Y"es.

Int. 37. — Do you know whether the officers' quarters was a
frame building or built of logs ?

Ans. — It was a log building.

Int. 38. — Was it clapboarded and shingled or not?

! 'H

230

iii' I

i|',, V'

Ans. — I only remember examining the interior of the build-
ing, and its general appearance outside.

Int. 39. — Was it plastered inside or not?

Ans. — Remember no plastering ; saw some wood-work and
papering.

I}it. 40. — Was there a good roof on the house or not?

Arts. — From the general appearance inside, I suppose there
was.

Int. 41. — From the general appearance of the house inside,
do you consider the house in good repair?

Ans. — Very good repair, for the character of the house,
and what you would call good repair for this part of the
country.

Int. 42. — Was the store-house you have mentioned in as
good repair as the officers' quarters ?

Alls. — The building was not near as well finished, and would
not need as much repair.

Int. 43. — Were the goods of the Company stored in the
store-house of which you have been speaking ?

Ans. — I know nothing about any other goods than those
I saw displayed in the store-house alluded to.

Int. 44. — Do not all buildings, built of squared timber,
and neither clapboarded or painted, after exposure to the
weather, look both worn and dilapidated?

Ans. — As a general rule, they do ; but they maintain their
proportion.

Int. 45. — Does this lithograph you have referred to exhibit
anything more than the side and rear of one of the buildings
at Fort Colvile, and the out-building, shed, and stable belong-
ing to it?

Ans. — My recollection is that this lithograph gives a side-
view of one of the main buildings, out-houses attached, and
stabling.

Int. 46. — Is this building, the side-view of Avhich is expose;!
in the lithograph, one of the buildings you have mentioned as
visited or noticed by you ?

Ans. — The main building to the left, in the lithograph, is
the officers' quarters.

231

Int. 47. — Were or were not the officers' quarters and store-
Louse built of square timber ?

Aiu. — The logs had been faced ; I cannot recollect whether
they had been squared or not.

Int. 48. — State what position, relatively, the valleys of Col-
vile and Walla- Walla bear to the country east of the Cascade
Range and the mining regions, and their relative value to the
surrounding country as agricultural and farming sections.

Ans. — Walla-Walla and Colvile Valleys are the only two
agricultural districts east of the Cascade Mountains in Wash-
ington Territory; Colvile Valley bears the same relation to the
northern mines in British Columbia that Walla-Walla Valley
does to the southern mines in Idaho Territory.

Int. 49. — IIow does the value of the agricultural lands of
these two valleys compare with the value of lands in the coun-
try there and east of the Cascade and west of the Bitter-Root
and Rocky Mountains?

Ans. — Walla-Walla and Colvile Valleys embrace the only
two large bodies of agricultural or valuable lands east of the
Cascade Mountains in Washington Territory ; other lands in
the same district of country are available for grazing pur-
poses alone.

Int. 50. — Are you acquainted with the prices of transport-
ation on the Columbia river and in the interior, prior to the
gold excitement? Also state what was the price per ton of
freight from Portland to old Walla-Walla, and what would
have been a fair price for freight, at the rates then charging
per pound, from old Walla-Walla to Fort Boise?

Ans. — Yes, sir. The price of freight per ton from Portland
to old Walla- Walla was from ^120 to $130, and a fair charge of
freight from old Walla- Walla to Fort Boise would be 20 cents
per pound.

Direct Examination Resumed.

Int. 1. — Are there any rocks or stones in the neighborhood
of Fort Colvile, as marble, sandstone, quartz, or any other?

!i '1

232

f'A

lli. '■ is; ■.ii

11^

Ann. — I observed nothing but some limestone. The lime-
stone was from 12 to 15 miles from Fort Colvilc.

Int. 2. — Wliat is the character or nature of the earth about
FortColvile?

Ana. — Some santly loam, and a good deal of gravel, called
gravelly land.

Int. 3. — Did you notice any quartz rocks there, on the banks
of the river ?

Ans. — I did i.ot observe any, and none have been discovered
to my knowledge.

Int. 4. — Is it inferable, because of a house being clap-
boarded, that it necessarily follows that the house is an ex-
pensive one or intended for expensive uses?

Ans. — Quite the reverse.

Int. 5. — You said you had some impression of seeing a bas-
tion at Fort Colvile ; was the thing of which you thus speak
a large projecting mass of earth or masonry at the angle of a
fortified work, which is the definition of a bastion in the
dictionary before me?

Ans. — No, sir.

Int. 6. — Did you see any guns mounted on that or any other
fortifi'^ation at Fort Colvile, or any port-holes for guns?

Ans. — No, sir.

Int. 7.- -What, so far as you recollect, was the particular
thing at Fort Colvile dignified in the cross-interrogatory by
the name of bastion ?

Ans. — It was what on the frontier is called a small block-
house, built of logs, and capable of containing six or eight
men, for defence against Indians.

Int. 8. — When, in the course of the cross-examination, you
spoke of the agricultural capabilities) of the valleys of the
Colvile and the Walla- Walla, did you or not intend that word
agricultural as implying tillage only ?

Ans. — I meant tillable land only.

Int. 9. — From your knowledge of land and its uses, do you
or not say that land may well be profitably used in grazing as
in tillage?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

233

Int. 10. — What proportion, in your judgment, a«< convorsnnt
with the ])iirchiisc and wale of land, of the surface of Wash-
ington Territory lias passed into the hands of private pro-
prietors ?

uiitH. — Not over one-thousandth part.

Int. 11. — What is the present population of Washington
Territory, as estimated at the present time?

Ans, — About twenty thousand.

Int. 12. — What, in your estimation, is the extent of surface
of land in the Colvile Valley?

Ans. — About three hundred square miles.

Int. 13. — What is, at this time, the price per acre of land
of average quality, for mere agricultural purposes, in the valley
of the Colvile?

Ans. — Value of land there is entirely estimated by the
amount of improvements on it?

Int. 14. — If unimproved, has it any marketable value per
acre; and, if so, how much?

Ans. — Not aware that it has above government price, there
,eing so much subject to public entry.

Int. 15. — What is the superficial extent of the land of the
valley of the Walla-Walla?

Ans. — About a thousand square miles.

Int. 16. — What is the value per acre of the average land, for
agricultural use, in the valley of the Walla- Walla?

Ans. — From $5 to ^20 per acre, owing to the character of
the lands and the improvements.

Int. 17. — If the land be wholly unimproved, what is its
market value? •

Ans. — Except a few choice localities, not above government
price.

Int. 18. — Is there or not a river named Walla- Walla, from
which the valley derives its name?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 19. — At what distance from the old English post of
Walla-Walla is the town of Walla- Walla, and hew is it situated
relatively to it?

Ans. — The town of Walla- Walla is situated fn the centre
of the valley, 30 miles distant from the old English post.

Ill '. , ■;

I.-' I.

II:!

ill

234

/w^ 20.— Is the United States post of Walla- Walla in the
same place as the Hudson's Lay Company's post ; and if not,
how far off? •

Ans. — No, sir; it is about thirty miles distant, in the inte-
rior, one mile from the town of Walla, Walla.

Int. 21. — How does the river Walla- Walla run, relatively
to the Columbia?

A71S. — The Walla-Walla river, in its course from the Blue
Mountain to where it empties into the Columbia, makes a
right angle with the course of the Columbia, below the mouth
of Snake river, which also flows into the Columbia. The Blue
Mountain is on the south side of the Columbia. From the
point where the Walla-Walla enters the Columbia, the course
of the Columbia is nearly east and west, and that of the
Walla-Walla from south to north.

Int. 22. — Is Wallula the name of a river, or a landij g only ?

An8. — Tiie name of a steamboat landing only.

I7it. 23. — How is this landing situated relatively to the
Walla-Walla and tl-e Columbia rivers ?

Ans. — It is situated in the angle made by the two rivers,
and about half a mile above the mouth of the Walla- Walla
river.

Int. 24. — Whon you first saw this landing-place, in 1859,
was there any wharf, pier, jetty, or other such structure at the
landing-place ?

Ans. — Nothing of the kind, either then or since.

Int. 25. — Was it or not simply the bank of the river in its
natural state ?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

I)it. 26. — Was there at that time any enclosure of this land-
ing, either above or below, or any other sign of private ap-
propriation?

Ans. — None whatever.

Int. 26 n5. — Has any wharf been co'^iStructed or placed there
since ; and if so, of what character, and by whom ?

Ans. — There has been no improvement made of that
character. The Government has a wharf-boat moored there.

Int. 27. — In the last cross-interrogatory there is question
of freight from Portland to old Walla-Walla, and from old

235

Walla- Walla to Fort Boise, "prior to the gold excitement;"
what year do you intend by that?

Ans. — I allude to the years 1858 and 1850; ISo'J, more
particularly.

Int. 28. — State particularly what freigh': you speak of from
Portland to old Walla-Walla, how much of such freight there
was, by whom transported, and where landed, and what your
means of knowledge were on that whole subject.

Ans. — Quartermasters' and Indian Department freight, of
goods belonging to the Government. The amount Avas very
limited, sufficient only to employ one small steamboat, making
weekly trips from the Des Chutes to Wallula. The sstcamboat
was private property, belonging to Thompson, Coe >!c Co.
Freight was landed at Wallula, the most of it, but a portion
was carried above, up Snake river. My knowledge on the
subject is derived from my having made shipments as Indian

agent.

Int. 20. — What amount of freight at that time, bv whom
transported, and on whose account, went from old Walla-
Walla to Fort Boise ?

Ans. — I know of none being transported there until after

the d

iscovery oi

rold.

Int. 30. — Please explain what you intended by stating, in
answer to the cross-interrogatory No. 50, that freight would
be twenty cents per pound from old Walla-Walla to Fort
Boise, when it now appears that no goods were transported.

Ans. — I meant that that would be about a reasonable price
if there had b )on goods to be transported at that time, based
on the prices of transportation and labor since that time.

Int. 31. — By Avhat route, and in what manner, would such
freight have been conveyed from old Walla- Walla lu Fort
Boise ?

Ans. — It would be transported across the mountai.i.i upon
what is called the old emigrant road, the road made bv the
first emigrants that came into Oregon. It could bo trans-
ported on pack animals, or in wagons.

Lit. 32. — You have stated that your estimation of what
such freigiit would be, if it had existed, is founded on know-

is.

t !'*i

l:!:i

236

ledge of the prices since 1859. Are the prices the same as
before 1859 ; and if not, in Avhat respect do they differ ?

A)is. — Prices have been reduced since, owing to competition
and the large amount of freight to be transported. In 1859,
the amount of freight to be transported was so limited there
were no persons engaged in land transportation.

Int. 33. — As to transportation from above the Dalles to
old Walla- Walla, how does the price of freight, since 1859,
range as compared with the price at that time?

Am. — It is greatly reduced, having been as low as $20 a
ton, when there were opposition boats running.

Int. 34. — Since 1859, how many boats, and how many times
in the course of a year, touch at Wallula ?

Ans. — The number of boats gradually increased, first
making semi-weekly and tri-weekly trips to Wallula, and for
the last two or three years making daily trips, except a por-
tion of the winter season, when the water would be very low,
scarcity of business, or ice in the river.

Int. 35. — State whether or not, within your knowledge as
a shipper, or otherwise within your knowledge, any person or
company has claimed dockage, wharfage, or tolls of any sort,
on account of boats touching at the so-called landing of Wal-
lula.

Anfi. — I have no knowledge of anything of the kind.

Int. 36. — Describe by name and locality the landing-places
referred to, in the cross-examination, as existing above Wal-
lula.

Ans. — White Bluffs is about 60 miles above, on the Colum-
bia river; Palouse Rapids about the same distance up the
Snake river ; Lewiston about 160 miles up Snake river ; these
places arc in an easterly direction from Wallula.

Int. 37. — Relatively to the business of the northern mines,
how far does competition exist belween the four landing-places
of Lewiston, White Bluffs, Palouse Rapids, and Wallula?

Ans. — Nearly all the freight for the northern mines goes
above Wallula to the three points named.

Int. 38. — Whether or not, below Wallula, there is a landing-
place at Umatilla, and how far, relatively to the southern

237

mines, there is actual or possible competition between Uma-
tilla and AYallula ?

Ans. — Umatilla has competed so successfully as to obtain
the greater share of the trade of the southern mines.

Int. 39. — From your knowledge of the progress of settlement
of the new States and Territories, and of the rise and growth
of settlements on rivers, whether or not the growtli of such
settlements depends more or less on the combination between
natural advantages of locality and the enterprise of individ-
uals ?

(Mr. liander objects to this question as rssuming facts, and
being argumentative.)
Ans. — Of course.

Int. 40. — Whether or not the value of landing-places and
town-sites on the rivers in Washington Territory is more or
less prospective and speculative?
Ans. — It is.

Int. 41. — You state in cross-examination that a mile square,
at old Walla-Walla, lias become valuable since 1859, because
of the landing. State Avhat portion of the mile square, having
the old fort for its centre, has thus been raised in value.

Ans. — That portion in the vicinity of the old fort that has
been built upon. The building of the trading-housc< estab-
lished the landing there.

Int. 42. — Who were the persons carrying on trade at that
point?

Ans. — I am only personally acquainted with a few; I sup-
pose there are twenty or thirty persons engaged in different
branches of trade.

Int. 43. — So far as you know, are they not private individ-
uals, engaged in their own business.
Ans. — They are.

Int. 44. — What proportion of the mile square, having the
old fort for its centre, is occupied by the buildings of these
traders ?
Ans. — About 80 acres.

Int. 45. — What, in your judgment, is the average value of
the residue of the mile square per acre?

238

Ansi. — It has no value, except a speculative one.

Inf. 4<5. — Has the Hudson's Bay Companj', to your knowl-
edge, any enclosures on this mile square, other than the site
which the structures of the fort occupy ?

Ans. — None.

Inf. 47. — You stated in cross-examination that at one time
$150 a month store- rent had been paid. State how long time,
by whom, and to whom.

Aniii. — It was in 18(52 or 1803, during the first mining ex-
citement ; I understood from Mr. Tatem that he and his part-
ner wore then receiving that rent ; I was not ac(|uainted with
the party occup^'ing the building and paj ing it ; I have no
knowledge of the length of time stores rented.

Int. 48. — What is the present rent for similar storage ?

Ann. — I would suppose about $50 a month.

Inf. 49. — What would have been the rent prior to 1862 ?

Ans:. — There was so little business done there then, there
was no fixed value.

Int. 50. — What are the dimensions and capacity of storage
of the building or buildings which you rate at $50 a month?

An$. — A store-room, in a business locality, of from 60 to
80 feet by 25 or 30.

lit. 51. — Do you now speak of a particular store-room, or
store-rooms in general?

Ans. — I speak of store-rooms in general, at business points
in that coun- -y.

Int. 52. — Of what material would such a store-room as you
speak of be constructed?

Ans. — Of wood, generally.

I)tt. 53. — What would be the cost of construction of such a
building ?

J».>.— About $2,500.

Int. 54. — In the cross-examination, you spoke of a forty-acre
lot, of tillable quality land, about two and a half miles from
old Fort W^alla-Walla. How much good tillage land is there
in those intervening two and a half miles?

Ans. — There is none at all. .

(.1

Ni;

239

Cross- Examination Resumed.

Int. 1. — Are not the square buildings, of two stories high,
erected at the corners of stockaded forts, in such a manner as
to command by the fire from them one or two sides of a stock-
ade, usually called and understood to be bastions in Washing-
ton Territory and the Indian country of the United States ?

(Mr. Gushing objects to the question, because the witness is
not a military expert.)

Ans. — Usually called bastions, sometimes block-houses.

Int. 2. — You have spoken, in answer to interrogatory 13, as
to the value of land for mere agricultural purposes iu Colvile
Valley. Do you mean to include in the term agricultural
both grazing and tillage lands ? .

Ans. — I can't say that I do.

Int. 3. — Do you wish to be understood as saying that at
the present time there is no difference in value in the Colvile
Valley, between land capable of tillage and that suitable only
for pasturage?

Ans. — In the Colvile Valley proper there is but little dif-
ference.

Int. 4. — When were you last in the Colvile Valley ?

Ans. — Late in the fall of 1859.

Int. 5. — Can you answer, as to your own knowledge, any-
thing as to the value of land in Colvile Valley, since 18G0,
per acre ?

Ans. — I can only speak of my intercourse, business rela-
tions, with residents of the valley.

Int. 6. — With how many of them have you talked, in refer-
ence to the value of the land, since 1860 ?

Ans. — Have had repeated conversations, I suppose, with
fifteen or twenty of the early settlers there.

Int. 7. — When was the last conversation you had with any
person in reference to the value of land in Colvile Valley, and
who was it ?

Ans. — With H. P. Isaacs and Mr. Lasiter, of Walla- Walla,

\M !■ M'^

240

■'H'm

li : I !. *'!

i'?

ir.

§■■ ^'

last February ; Mr. Isaacs being the owner of a farm in that
valley.

Int. 8. — Have you ever had any conversation with any one
with reference to the value of lands immediately around the
Hudson's Bay Company's Fort at Colvile, and claimed by
them?

Ans. — I cannot now remember having had any special con-
versation with reference to those lands.

Int. 9. — Have not your conversations been with reference
to lands lying around and near the United States post in Col-
vile Valley ?

Ans. — My conversations were generally about the improved
lands, most of which are in the vicinity of the post.

Int. 10. — Have there been any United States surveys ex-
tended over Colvile Valley ?

Ans. — None, unless made during last summer, since my
absence.

Int. 11. — Where there are no surveys, and no title in case
of sale of lands, does the vendor transfer or convey anything
but a mere possession ?

Ans — He does not.

Int. 12. — Have you, then, in what you have stated in refer-
ence to the value of land around the United States military
post in Colvile Valley, had any reference to the value of lands
to which a title could be had ?

Ans. — All the inhabitants in Colvile expect to perfect their
titles under the Government by purchase, under the pre-
emption laws.

Int. 13. — Do you wish to be understood as saying that a
man who sells his possession of land ever expects to obtain a
title from the United States?

(Mr. Cushing objects to the question, inasmuch as it puts
words into the witness's mouth which he has never uttered.)

Ans. — I don't exactly understand the question.

Int. 14. — Do you understand the difference between a squat-
ter upon land, and one who owns and can make title to it ?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 15. — Does the fact that the vendor being in possession

241

and able to make a good title make any difference in the price
of the land which he occupies and the land equally good and
■well situated occupied by a s(|uatter?

A71S. — There would be a difference ; in some localities, very
great ; and in others, very little.

Int. 15 a. — Do you know whether or no the Indian title to
lands in the Colvile Valley has been extinguished so as to
open them to settlement ?

Arts. — I don't know ; I don't know whether they made any
treaties last summer or not.

Int. 10. — Do 3''ou not know that there are no lands i?ubject
to public entry, at Government price, in the Colvile Valley,
at the present ti/ne, or during the last few years ?

Ans. — There was none at the time I left Walla- Walla ; but
the citizens of Colvile Valley liave been anticipating every
year, for three years past, being able to perfect their titles.

Inf. 17. — Do you not know good tillable lands have been
sold in the Walla- Walla Valley for .$50 per acre ?

Ans. — Have known farms to be sold, with the improvements,
at th?t price, including dwelling-house, out-houses, barns, and
fencing, 160 acres in the tract. Several acres sold at this
price. They had fine buildings for tlia.t country.

Int. 18. — V^ould not any good land, unimproved, in the
valley of the Walla-Walla, capable of tillage, be worth at the
present time from $10 to $20 per acre?

Ans. — No, sir.

Int. 19. — How much is such land worth?

Ans. — It would be difficult for me to put an estimate on
unimproved lands.

Int. 20. — Was there any wharf, wharf-boat, or jetty at
Umatilla landing, when you were there last?

Ans. — There was a Avharf-boat only.

Int. 21. — When were you last at White Bluffs?

Ans. — It has been three or four years.

Int. 22. — Was there any wharf, wharf-boat, or jetty at
White Bluffs when you were there ?

Ans. — No.
16 H

-I"!

';! ■'i.tliiri'

242

Int. 23. — Was there any hcuse at White Bluffs when you
were there ?

A )!.<<. — No.

Int. 24. — Was tlicre any wharf, wharf-boat, jetty, or any
house at Palouse Landing, Avhcn you saw it last?

Ans. — There Avas one house only.

Int. 25. — AVhat was the size of that house, and by whom
was it built?

A71S. — I do not remember the size; I am under the impres-
sion that the house had been built by the proprietors of the
ferrv.

ft/

Int. 20. — Was it anything else but a small log-house?

Ans. — It was more than that. •

Int. 27.— What was it ?

Ans. — A frame building, with considerable storage room,
freight being frequently stored there.

Int. 2(S. — In estimating the cost of transportation of freight
from old Fort Walla-Walla to Fort Boise, did you not take
into consideration the price paid by you for transportation by
land, at the time you speak of, from old Walla- Walla to the
Indian agency at LapAvai ?

Ans. — I did. Lapwai is twelve miles above the point where
the Koos-koo-ski or Clear Water empties into the Snake river,
beinff on the Koos-koo-ski or Clear Water.

Int. 21). — What did you pay per pound for transportation?

Ans. — Six cents.

Int. 30. — Is not Wallula the only landing, of those you
have mentioned, on the Columbia and the Snake, that has a
productive country back of it ?

Avs. — Umatilla landing has a small amount of productive
country back of it, but not in the immediate vicinity of it.
But there is no point compares with Walla-Walla in that
respect.

Int. CI. — Do not unoccupied lots, in new towns, that bear a
speculative value, have an absolute value and a price asked
for them?

.rl«».— Not always.

243

Examination-in- Chief Resumed.

Int. 1. — At the close of your first cross-examination by Mr.
Lander, he put a question to you which he prefatorily intro-
duced by stating that it was new matter, namely, cross-
interrogatories 48 and 49, in which inquiry was made of you
how the value of the valleys of Colville and Walla- Walla, as
agricultural and farming sections, compared with the value of
lands in the country east of the Cascades and west of the
Bitter Root and Rocky Mountains, as to which you made
answer. Have you any personal knowledge of the country
west of the valley of the Columbia river in the region of Fort
Colvile (assuming that to be the region you designate as the
Colvile Valley) and the country intervening between that
valley and the Cascade Mountains, 'so as to enable you, from
personal observation, to compare the lands of one of those
regions with the lands of the other?

Ans. — I could not, from personal observation, compare the
two regions, not having visited the region between Colvile
Valley and the Cascade Mountains.

Int. 2. — Have you any personal knowledge of the whole
region of country between the Colvile Valley and the Bitter
Root Mountains, so as to enable you to speak, from personal
knowledge, as to the character of the lands in all that region ?

Ans. — My knowledge of that portion of the country alluded
to, from personal observation, is very limited. Have roda over
it very hastily.

I7it. 3. — Please to state what portion of the country between
the mouth of the Walla-Walla on the south. Fort Colvile on
the north, the Columbia river on the west, and the Rocky
Mountains on the east, you have personally observed, so as to be
able to state, by absolute exclusion, that in all that vast region
east of the Colville and Walla-Walla valleys, no agricultural
or farming lands exist, and grazing alone?

(Mr. Lander objects to the question, because it puts words
into the witness's mouth, and because the witness has not stated
that there was no such land in th ) section of country spoken of.)

244

M'^'

f ;^ . ■

(Mv. Cusliing adheres to his question because, although it
docs not profess, as the objection implies, to repeat any words
of the witnoss, yet it does apply to his statcmen'. in answer to
cross-interrogatory 49, that the " Walla- Walla and Colvilo
Valleys embrace the only two large bodies of agricultural or
valuable lands east of the Cascade Mountains in Washington
Territory," and adds "other lands in the same district of
country are available for grazing purposes alone.'')

(Mr. Lander renews his objection to the interrogatory, on
the further ground that the witness has said nothing of a
country west of the Ilocky Mountains alone, but of a country
west of the Bitter Root and Rocky jNIountains, and of no
country whatsoever lying east of the Bitter Root Mountains.)

(The Commissioners' attention is respectfully called to the
fact that Mr. Lander, in the 49th cross-interrogatory, calls
for comparison of the Colvile and Walla- Walla Valleys as to
the whole region east of the Cascades and west of the Bitter
Root and Ilocky Mountains. If the Bitter Root and Rocky
Mountains are identical, and represent one and the same line
of longitude, then his objection is pertinent; but if there be
any space of territory east of the Bitter Root Mountains and
west of the Rocky Mountains, then that territory is compre-
hended by his interrogatory, and by the answer of the wit-
ness, and is a fit subject of explanation.)

Ans. — I have no personal knowledge of the country lying
between the Bitter Root and Rocky Mountains, but have trav-
elled over the balance of the country designiied, but never
gave any special attention to lands except in the Colvile and
Walla- Walla Valleys and the Nez Perc<5s reservation.

Int. 4. — What do you understand by the Bitter Root Moun-
tains ? Is it a ridge or a dispersed body of mountains ? If a
ridge, does it run north and south or east and west; and if it
be a ridge, where is its point of commencement, and where
does it end ; and what relation, if any, have they to the Bitter
Root river?

Ans. — They are a separate and distinct range of mountains;
it runs in a northwardly and southerly direction; it begins*
near 48th parallel; they have been called by early explorers

245

spurs of the Rocky Mountains. The Bitter Root river flows
through the Bitter Root Valley, which lies between the Bitter
Root Mountains and the Rocky Mountains.

Int. fi. — Assuming, as you state, that the Bitter Root Moun-
tains commence at the 48th parallel, near Lake I'end-Oreille,
how far south does the range extend?

A718. — I should think between three or four hundrcfl miles.

Int. 6. — That is to say, some five or six degrees of latitude
southwardly?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 7. — In all this region of four hundred miles in length,
what proportion of the land have you seen with your own
eyes, so as to determine its quality for use?

Ans. — I have seen scarcely any south of the 4Gth parallel,
and none east of the Bitter Root Mountains.

Int. 8. — How much have you seen of the tract within the
large westwardly bend of the Columbia river, between the
mouth of the Walla- Walla and the mouth of the Spokane ?

Ans. — I have travelled across it, in difl'erent directions, two
or three times.

Int. 9. — How much have you seen of the country on the
upper waters of the Pelouse and the Spokane rivers ?

Ans. — I never made but one trip across that part of the

country.

A. J. Cain.

Examination of A. J. Cain resumed hy consent.

Int. 1. — Have you any knowledge concerning the use of
bateaux for transportation on the upper waters of the Colum-
bia river ?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 2. — Have you or not transported goods, or caused them
to be transported, by such bateaux ?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 3. — At what time, and in what capacity ?

Ans. — In the year 1860 I acted in the capacity of Indian
agent for Washington Territory.

24G

:;; f"

Mil

I"' .

U'nii

l! ,1 I ;j;,

;""!'!

Jnt. 4, — Is or is not the transportation of goods by bateaux
still continued on the upper waters of the Columbia?

Ahx. — No, sir; all the transportation is by steamboat.

Jnt. /j. — State, if you know, why transportation by steamers
has taken the place of transportation by bateaux.

An8. — Transportation by steamboat is so much cheaper.
I built five four-ton bateaux in 1800, for the purpose of trans-
porting Indian Department goods from the Des Chutes to Lap-
wai, on the [Nez] Perce reservation, under the belief that I
could save in transportation, but the experiment was a failure,
so far as economy was conceriicd. I sold the bateaux, and
shipped by steamboat and wagon. I employed Indians ex-
clusively, with the exception of one white man. I employed
Indians because it was cheaper.

Int. 6. — State whether or not, during your knowledge of
that part of the country, there has been any impediment to
prevent anybody — the Hudson's Bay Company, or anybody
else — from transporting goods by bateaux on that river, apart
from the question of expense.

Arts. — I am satisfied there has not, as there are a nnmber
of persons, besides the Oregon Steam Navigation Company,
engaged in transportation from Portland to the Upper Colum-
bia and Snake river.

Int. 7. — State, if you know, whether or not the steamers
plying on the Upper Columbia have any special privileges as
such.

Ans. — None that I am aware of, except being able to com-
mand a large capital.

Int. 8. — State, if you know, whether or not these steamers
are common carriers, taking all such lawful freight as offers.

Ans. — They are common carriers, and take all lawful freight
offered.

Int. 9. — Have you any knowledge of the portages in that

region .''

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 10. — State, if you know, whether any of those portages
are or have been obstructed.
Ans. — The portages on the Washington Territory side of

247

the Columbia river have never been obstructed. I am not
familiar Avitli the Oregon side, on the Lower Columbia; but
the portages of the Upper Columbia, on both sides, both Ore-
gon and Washington, have never been obstructed.

Cro88-U.rnni inntion.

Int. 1. — Are there any steamboats running on the upper
waters of the Columbia, on that stretch of the river, of about
one hundred and twenty miles, between White Blufl's and Fort
Colvile?

Ana. — No, sir.

Int. 2. — At the time you speak of, at which you constructed
bateaux, for the purpose of transportation, what did you pay
per ton for transportation by steamer from the Des Chutes to
Wallulp. ; and what per pound for land transportation, from
Wallula to Lapwai ?

Ans. — My recollection is about ^75 a ton, by measurement,
from the Des Chutes to old Fort Walla-Walla. I paid six cents
per pou)iLl, for land transportation, from old Fort Walla- Walla
to Lapv, ;ii. ^

Int. 3. — Was this, at the time y©u speak of, in the former
part of your examination, as being before the gold excitement?

Ans. — Yes; prior to the gold excitement.

Int. 4. — Has not the Oregon Steam Navigation Company,
to whom the steamers plying on the Upper Columbia belong,
control and ownership, through the stockholders of the rail-
roads at the Cascade Portage, on both sides of the river, and
of the only railroad at the Dalles portage?

Ans. — Members of that Company claim the ownership of
the land on the Oregon side of the Cascade Portage, but never
had any exclusive control on the Washington side, beyond the
control of the railroad built by themselves.

Int. 5. — Does not the railroad, on the Washington side o^
the Cascade Portage, obstruct the landing of freight at some
stages of the water ?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 6. — Is not the whole of the land on the Cascade Port-

'I' .

M* ' i

.'V-v'l

248

ago, including' the landings claimed by donation or pre-
emption claimants, under the laws of the United States, and
as United States military reservations, the only privilege
granted through these lands being a right of way b^ the rail-
road and a wagon road ?

Alls. — Yes, sir.

Int. 7. — Can goods be transported r.p the Columbia river,
without passing over these different portages ?

Ans. — No, sir.

Examination-in- Chief Resumed.

Int. 1. — Are not the three railroads, of which you have
spoken, one at the Dalles, and two at the Cascades, public
railroads for the transportation of passengers and freight ?

Ans. — They are.

Int. 2. — Is there not a wagon road at these portages ?

Ans. — Yes ; there is a wagon road on each side of the river
at the Cascades, as I know, having been over it. The one on
the AVashington side has always been a public highway. There
is also a wagon road at the Dalles Postage, which is a public
highway. '

Int. 3. — Whether or not the means of transportation across
these portages, for wagons or pack animals, or for the backs
of men, are as good as they were prior to the construction of
those railroads?

Ans. — They are, in fact, better.

Int. 4. — Whether or no<; any person may not now pass those
portages with pack-animals or a pack on his back ?

Ans. — I know that they can on the Washington Territory
side.

Int. 5. — You spoke of i landing at the Casc"des being oc-
cupied by the railroad ; whether or not there are other land-
ings there ? And if so, what ?

Ans. — Another landing could be made just below or just
above.

249

Cross-Examitiation Itcsumed.

Int. 1. — Is tliere now, or can there bi obtaineil, a landing
on the Wasliington Territory side of the Cascade Portage,
which is not now or would not liave to ho located on the land
of some private person, or of a corporation, or on the Unitc<i
States military reservation?

(Mr. Gushing objects to this question as involving matters
of law and fact, and the matter of fact being record, not
provable by this witness. I note the same objoctitjn to cross-
interrogatory 6.)

Ans. — There could not, without locating on lauds claimed
by individuals, corporated on the Government.

Int. 2. — Is not a landing necessary for transportation of
freight above and below the falls at the Cascade Portage ?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 3. — Is not the upper landing, used by those avIio travel
over the present wagon road at the Cascade, on the land
claimed by a private individual?

Ans. — I am not aware of any individual claiming exclusive
control of the landino; at the terminus of the Avac!;o!i road.

Int. 4. — Is net this landing on the land clainird of a Mr.
Bradford and his wife?

Ans. — I am under the impression it is.

(Mr. Cushing objects to the question and the answer both.)

Int. 5. — You have twice stated, in reply to re-examination,
that on the Washington Territory side there is a public high-
way, and that passengers pass freely as they please. Do you
wish to be understood that there is not a puljlic highway over
which these passengers can pass, if they please, on the Oregon
side of the Cascade Portage ?

Ans. — I have no positive information as to thr j.ortage on
the Oregon side.

Int. G. — Was not the railroad and common road, if any, on
the Oregon side, the private property of a person named
Ruckle, and used and controlled by him exclusively, or nearly

•<i!

ll' ,.■■■*

hm*m

■i ' .it

250

so, for tlio accommodation of freight and passengers on a cer-
tain line of stetimhoats?

Aus. — Colonel Ruckle exercised ownership over a portion
of the land, and my impression is, built the road under a char-
ter from the Oregon Legislature ; I am not familiar with any
exclusive privilege c.\(.'rcised by him.

Int. 7. — You have stated that the railroad on the Washing-
ton side of the Cascade Portage was a public railroad. Do you
not know that the freight going up the river on a line of steam-
boots not connected with the parties owning this road was
taken over this portage, and that of the Dalles, on the com-
mon road?

(Mr. Cushing objects to this question as designedly obscure,
and intended to entrap the witness, and to introduce matters
of illegal inference instead of fact.)

Aus. — I knoAv of freight having gone over the common
road.

Int. 8. — AVas not the freight which you know to have passed
over the Avagon road that you have just spoken of, freight
brought up the river by the Peoples' Line of steamers, the line
not connected with the owners of the Portage railroad?

Ans. — Freight by the Peoples' Line of steamers was ship-
ped over the common road.

Ite-£xan>m ation-in- (Jliief.

Int. 1. — Was not this a public railroad, chartered by the
Legislature?

Ans. — The Company built the road under a charter from the
Washington Territory Legislature, with provisions similar to
usual railroud charters.

Int. 2. — Do you mean to be understood as stating, in an-
swer to the two last previous cross-interrogatories, that the
officers of the railroad unlawfully, and in violation of their
charter, excluded freight therefrom?

Ans. — No, sir.

Int. 3. — Have you any knowledge of any freight having
been excluded from that railroad by its officers?

Ans. — 1 have not.

251

Int. 4. — State, if you know, for what reason, on the occasion
or occasions of which you speak, such freight not being ex-
cluded from the railroad was transported by wagons.

(Objected to by Mr. Lander as assuming the facts that
freiglit was excluded, when the witness merely stated that he
personally did not know of any exclusion.)

(Mr. Cushing adheres to the question, because its object is
to disprove an influence which the cross-interrogatories in-
tended to iiliply contrary to the fact.)

Ans. — U:.3 of the owners of the Peoples' Line informed me
they shipped their freight over the wagon road in order to se-
cure a sufficient sympathy and influence to obtain a charter
for another road, thus demonstrating one road was insufficient
to do the business.

Cross-Examinatio n Ilesum ed.

Int. 1. — Have you not heard other reasons, given in con-
versations, for the course adopted by the Peoples' Line?

(Mr. Cushing objects to this question as incompetent, and-
as out of time.)

Ans. — None ofher than the Oregon Steam Navigation Com-
pany, when there »vas a rush of business, would send their

own freight over the railroad first.

A. J. Cain.
Washington, D. C, December 19, 18G6.

Claim of the Hudson s Bay Company against the United States.

Deposition of George W. Slioemahcr, taken at the request and
in behalf of the United States, by agreement between
Caleb Cushing, on behalf of the United States, and Ed-
ward Lander, on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company.

Testimony of George W. Shoemaker.

Int. 1. — Please to state your name at length, your place of
abode, and your official capacity, if any.
Ans. — George W. Shoemaker; at present in the city of

Vi'

I-:

1 >"■-

■'■III i\-.

>n\ 'Hc:

:i''' t •■

' ' 7 ^"

■l^.. ■ '

; i ■

■

pl^'

B;,i!i

. *■

i •' 'irM ,

'.ifi,':ii!

'^KW:i

252

Philadelphia ; I am in no business at present ; have been in
the Quartermaster's Department, and .^ince that, been farm-
ing. I was farming in Walla-Walla Valley several years.

Int. 2. — Please to state during what years you were in the
Walla-Walla Valley.

Ans. — I went there in 1858, and left there in 18G4.

Int. 3. — Whether or not you had charge at anv time of the
sutler's store at new Walla-Walla, and h.ad teams running to
and from the landing at old Walla-Walla?

Ans. — I did have charge of the sutler's store, and had teams
running as in((uired of.

Int. 4. — State, if you know, at what time, and under what
circumstances, the landing-place at old Walla-Walla came to
be called Wallula.

Ans. — I think it was in 1862 that J. M. Van Syckle christ-
ened it Wallula. He was the government transportation
agent stationed at old Fort Walla-Walla, also afterwards
steamer agent — express agent.

Int. 5. — When Van Syck'e went there, were the buildings
of the old fort occupied by anybody?

Ans. — About that time occupied as an embarcadera by a
few persons engaged in transporting goods up the Columbia
river, and also some Indians were there fishing for salmon.

Int. 6. — State, if you know, whether there was any apparent
occupation of the buildings by the Hudson's Bay Company or
its agents.

Ans. — None, to the best of my knowledge.

Int. 7. — State, if you know, whether Van Syckle settled
there in local business, and whether the same proved profitable
or not.

Ans. — He kept a store, general grocery, of supplies; proved
profitable at that time, under the gold excitement. Van
Syckle's exertions caused Wallula to be an important place.
After the gold excitement died out, business declined, until
Umatilla sprung into existence some twenty-odd miles below
on the Columbia river, which turned the trade from Wallula,
and Van Syckle became a ruined man.

Int. 8. — How many buildings were constructed there at the

been in

;n farm-

irs.

c in the

c of the

ming to

253

landing during the period of its prosperity or before, and what
is their present condition?

Aiis. — Some twenty-five or thirty; of Avhicli the principal
building was constructed by Mr. Van Syckle and his partner
Tatem; the other buildings were what is commonly called bal-
loon frames, with one or two exceptions, being very cheap
structures, the cheapest known to carpenters, and some of
them part or wholly of canvas. After Mr. Yiiu Syckle became
embarrassed, the place went down; nearly all the buildings
ceased to be occupied, or to have any value as buildings, and
a number of them were torn down and the materials sold for
'umber. One building was sold to the Government for a store-
house.

Int. 0. — Tlease to state the condition and apparent value of
the old buildings of the Hudson's Bay Company there.

Aiis. — The whole place Avas in a dilapidated condition ; the
buildings were built of adobes. At the time I saw the old
buildings, they were worth from $500 to $1,000, provided any-
body Avantcd them.

Ltt. 10. — State what means of personal knowledge you have
concerning these buildings, and whether or not, by profession
or experience, you are a judge of the value of the buildings.

Ans. — My l)usinoss called me there for several years. Be-
ing a house builder and carpenter by trade, I consider myself
a judge of the value of buildings.

Jnf. 11. — Please to state whether those buildings, as they
stood when you first saw them, were or were not capable of
any beneficial use. ^

Ans. — None of them tenantable.

Int. 12. — Whether or not was the landing-place enclosed
in, or the open beach or bank of the river?

Ans. — No enclosure; open beach and bank of the river, com-
mon to all.

lid. lo. — "What trade now stops at "Wallula?

Ans. — The California Steam Navigation Company and some
sail vessels touch there, on their way up the river ; also, a stage
line runs there, in connection with the steamers, and teams

254

" : ' r

' •■': ' .'^,''

flip

■I, 5, .-JS

:.:s'l:.

•V ,,;

li'"'

111' ''

111

11'

haul up tlio valley. Most of the goods of the trade there are
for the Walla-WaHa Valley.

Ivt. 14. — In addition to Umatilla, below Wallula, is there
any place or places above, which have affected, by competi-
tion, the business at Wallula?

Ans. — The town of Lewiston has. It has taken all the
upper trade from it.

Int. 15. — Arc all the supplies for the valley of the Walla-
Walla, through the whole j'ear, landed at Wallula, or are they
conveyed partly by some other route?

Ans. — They are conveyed to a great extent by another
route. That route is overland from the Dalles city.

Int. 10. — At the time of your last being at Wallula, what
persons were doing local business there, if any, and what kind
of business ?

Ans. — I do not remember their names. There are two
houses selling goods there — small stocks, small retail busi-
ness — and one person selling bad whiskey. There had been
a hotel there, but it was being closed up for want of business.

Int. 17. — Have you personal knowledge of the quality of
the land at and around old Walla- Walla; and, if so, what are
your means of knowledge, either by observation or by prac-
tical experience? And, if so, state the same.

Ans. — I have such knowledge. My means of knowledge
were by observation and practical experience in farming and
teaming. For several miles around old Fort Walla- Walla, it
is nothing but sand, rocks, and alkaline bottom-lands, and of
no value for farming or grazing. The bottom-lands are sub-
ject to overflow, which prevents the cultivation of the few
acies that might otherwise be cultivated.

Int. 18. — Who is the nearest settler to old Fort Walla-
Walla ?

Ans. — A man by the name of Pambrill, about two and a half
to three miles up the Walla-Walla river ; and he does not live
by farming, but by fish or game and teaming.

Int. 19. — Please to state what you know regarding the Hud-
son's Bay Company's farm.

Ans. — It is about 18 or 20 miles from old Fort Walla- Walla,

255

up the river, on the east side. I do not know tlic extent of it;
it is immediately west of the Whitman farm ; it is called the
Protestant Mission.

Int. 20. — What was the value of the said farm wiien you
first saw it, and now?

Ans. — Cannot form any idea, not knowing the boumlaries.

Int. 21. — Whether or not the farms in that region have any
value, independently of actual occupation and improvement'.''

Alls. — Very little, if any.

Int. 22. — State, if you know, what has been the chief cause
of value to Wallula, and to cultivation in the valley of the
Walla-Walla.

Ans. — The establishment of the Government post in Walla-
Walla Valley. The post created the town of Walla- Walla,
and in order to draw settlers there, for the supply of the post,
it became necessary for the officers of the Government to en-
courage settlers to come there by the supply of seeds and other
proper means, including, in some cases, farming implements
and teams, which obviated the necessity of bringing grain
from Vancouver at great expense to the Government. Tiie
families there previously were half-breed families, or Cana-
dians, or others, and those, not many in number, sent there
for trapping in former years, and who did not cultivate the
land, except in little garden spots, affording no surplus.

Cross-Examination.

Int. 1. — When did you leave Wallula?

Ans. — In November, 18G4, and have not been there since.

Int. 2. — During the summer of 18G4, were you engaged in
the sutler's store at the military post in Walla-Walla Valley?

Ans. — I was.

Int. 3. — Was that your business all the time you remained
in the valley of the Walla-Walla?

Ans. — No. I was there two years and ten months in that
business; then farming for several years, in person.

Int. 4. — Where were you farming?

Ans. — On the west line of the Government military post.

25G

iHi

,' '*!

i :!

f.'ii

Int. ''). — AVcro you on your own farm, or farming for others?

An». — On my own farm.

Int. (3. — Arc you still the owner of that farm, or have you
sold it ?

Ana. — I lijive sold it.

Inf. 7. — Wa- it land you had entered and paid for?

Anx. — Y(',«.

Inf. 8. — J low much did you sell your land for ?

AnK. — Twenty-six hundred dollars — with the improvements
and sonic fuinifure and farming implements.

Inf. !.'. — Is it your opinion that you obtained a fair pi ice
for your farm?

Ana. — 1 think I did, for the time I sold it.

Inf. 10. — l>id not Van Syckle or others repair and occupy
a portion of the Hudson's Bay Company's old fort, "Walla-
Walla?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 11. — At what time did the gold excitement go down?

Ans. — The Salmon river and Oro-Fino gold excitement died
out in spring of 1802 or 'G3.

Inf. 12. — Were there not, in the spring and summer of 1863,
a large numher of passengers and a great deal of freight
lande<l at Wallula, passing to the Boise mines?

Ans. — There was very little of the passengers of that ex-
citement came to Wallula; the majority went to Umatilla.

Inf. 18. — ITow many times were you at Umatilla in the
spring and smnmcr of 18G3?

Ans. — Oiilv once.

Inf. 14. — Are you able, then, from your personal observa-
tion at Umatilla, to state the number of passengers that went
there in 1SG3?

Ans. — I know it, not from observation alone, but from other
circumstances.

Inf. 15. — "Were you farming in spring and summer of 18G3?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. IG. — How far did you live from the main road leading
from Wallula to the Boise mines, and how far from the road
leading from Umatilla to the Boise mines ?

257

An8. — I was half a mile from the road leading from Wal-
lula to Walla-Walla. I was six miles from the nearest direct
road from Wallula to the Boise mines. The next road from
Umatilla to the Bois6 mines was about twenty miles from me.
My farm was about thirty miles from Wallula.

Int. 17. — Are not many buildings in the towns on the Pa-
cific coast, in Washington Territory, built of balloon frames ?

Ans. — The majority are built in that way.

Int. 18.— When did Van Syckle leave Wallula?

An8. — He had not left when I came away.

Int. 19. — How many houses in Wallula did you see torn
down in the fall of 1864 ?

Ans. — In the summer of 1864, I saw teams hauling lumber
up from Wallula, and on inquiry, I was told it was buildings
torn down at Wallula, and next time when I went there I saw
where they had been torn down. I can't say how many build-
ings were torn down, from the fact that the materials were
removed. I saw the space where the buildings had been.

Int. 20. — IIow many spaces did you see, from which build-
ings had had been removed, at the time you speak of?

Ans. — I don't know.

Int. 21. — Can you locate any particular spot in the town of
Wallula from which the building had been removed ?

Ans. — Next door to Samuel Crider's, or a few lots from it.

Int. 22. — What sort of a house was it ?

Ans. — It was a wooden building.

Int. 23. — You have placed a value on the buildings of the
Hudson's Bay Company ?

Ans. — Yes ; when I first saw them.

Int. 24. — At what time do you wish this valuation to be
dated?

^W8.— 1859.

Int. 25. — When you saw these buildings, at the time you
placed the value upon them, were you any judge whatever of
the value or cost of adobe buildings ?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; I have seen many of such locations. The
value of a building depends a geat deal on its location.

17 H

t n

»• <;

■W t':':i

i.i,.:< ;^jj

ii''^'^

1 1 ill

258

Jilt. 26. — Do not the steamers of the Navigation Company,
for most of the year, stop at Wallula?

Aiifi. — Yes, sir ; but a part of the year they run up as far
as Lcwiston.

Int. 27. — Is not Wallula, during the summer and fall
months, the head of navigation on the Columbia river ?

A)i.^. — It is, in the latter part of the summer; more par-
ticularly in the fall.

Int. 28. — At the time you left the valley of the Walla-
Walla, had the new stage road through the Blue Mountains
been finished?

Ans. — They were working on it still, though the stages
were running on it.

Int. 21). — Were you at the town of Lewiston in the year of
18G4, or any other time ?

Ans. — I was, in the fall of 1863, and the spring of 1863.

Int. 30. — At the time you were at Lewiston, had the swerv-
ing excitement of the Oro-Fino and Salmon river mines be-
yond Lewiston ceased ?

Ans. — No; it was in its height.

Int. 31. — Are you prepared, from your own knowledge of
the trade and business at Lewiston, since the gold excitement
ceased, as you have before stated, to say anything in refer-
ence to it ?

Ans. — Nothing, of my own knowledge.

Int. 32. — What was the population of the Walla-Walla
Valley at the time you left it ?

Ans. — The vote for sheriiF for that county was something
less than 500 ; that was the summer I left.

Int. 33. — Did you leave the valley of the Walla- Walla the
same summer which Mr. Cole was elected to Congress ?

Ans. — I returned to New York December 15, 1864. I was
just thirty-six days from Walla- Walla city to New Y'^ork city.

Int. 34. — What is the distance by land from the Dalles to
Walla-Walla?

Ans. — 180 miles.

Int. 35. — What was the price per pound for freight from

259

the Dallos to Walla-Walla, by land transportation, in the
spring and summer of 18(14 ?

Alts. — From four to six cents per pound, and that taken
out in trade sometimes.

Jn(. 36. — Immediately around Fort Walla-Walla, in the
spring of the year, is there not bunch grass found amongst
the sage brush ?

Ahs. — No, sir.

Int. 37. — Were you ever at Walla- Walla in the spring of
the year ?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 88. — Across the river Walla-Walla, from the old fort
on the bluffs, within three miles of the old fort, is there not
bunch grass t© be found at all seasons of the year ?

Ans. — On top of the hills there is bunch grass three miles
off. There is pretty good grazing on those hills in spots.
Some call the grass sheep-grass.

Int. 39. — Was there no demand for the productions of the
Walla- Walla Valley in the year 1868, and the part of 1864
that you resided there, except that afforded by the military
post ?

Ans. — None for grain, with the exception of Umatilla and
Lewiston, and also Auburn.

Int. 40. — How many flouring mills, and how many run of
stone in each mill, were there in the valley of .the AValla-
Walla, in 1864?

Ans. — There were two running ; thinks he saw two run of
stones, Scms's mill ; another mill on Dry Creek.

Int. 41. — How many soldiers were there quartered at the
military post in the summer of 1864?

Ans. — Some four to six companies ; two of cavalry ; three
of the companies on my books.

Int. 42 — Why did you not have the balance of the compa-
nies on your books ?

Ans. — I don't know that there were more than three com-
panies. I understood that a part of the companies go out on
expeditions, and some of them went out that summer. This

2G0

■i-i

iii^^

was a I'cgular thing every summer. The post was built for a
scven-coinpany post.

Int. 4'i, — Do you feci certain tliat there were any compa-
nies sent out to meet the emigration in the year 1SG4?

Ans. — I could, not swear positively on this point ; I know
it was a general thing to go out.

Int. 44. — Was there not a great mining excitement in 1803
and 1S<J4 about the mines of Boise, and late in the summer of
1864, of Owyhee?

Ans. — There was no extraordinary excitement ; there was
some little excitement — I mean Walla-Walla.

Int. 45. — Do you know anything about the freight and pas-
sengers passing up Columbia river so as to be able to say
whether there were more passengers and freight, or not, in
1803 and 1804, when you say there was no ordinary excite-
ment, than in 1802, when you say there was an excitement?

Ans. — I saw that at Walla-Walla, and all over the coun-
try, in 1802, there was a general excitement, and the trade
was then pretty equally divided between the W^alla-Walla
route and the Lewiston route, until the latter end of the ex-
citement, when Lewiston had the best of it. There were a
great many more passengers and freight in 1801 and 18C2
than in 1803 and 1804.

G. W. Shoemaker.

December 19, 1866.

li<i' .

I'm

! r;;!

Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States.

Deposition of Ceorge B. Simpson, taken at the request and in
behalf of the United States, by agreement between Caleb
Gushing, on behalf of the United States, and Edward
Lander, on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company.

Testimony of George B. Simpson.

Int. 1. — What is your name, residence, and occupation ?
Ans. — George B. Simpson ; late additional paymaster of

261

tlio Unitoil States Army ; temporary residence iu Washington
city, an<l a citizen of Oregon.

l)d. 2. — Were you ever at Fort Hall, a post of the Hud-
son's ]{ay Company in what was Oregon Territory ? If so,
T^hat time or times?

Ana.-'Yc^ ; in 1852 or 1855.

Int. 3. — What was the condition of Fort Hall at those
times?

Ans. — The condition of the fort was very good at those
times.

Int. 4. — Did the Hudson's Bay Company, at that time, have
any trade Avith emigrants or with Indians at that post ? And
if so, state what was its nature ?

Ans. — From what I saw, I judged they had a limited trade
with the Indians; this was in 1852; but I did not learn that
they had any trade with the emigrants. From what I saw, my
impressions were, both in the years 1852 and 1855, that they
merely held the post, under the treaty between the United
States and Great Britain, guaranteeing them certain possess-
ory rights.

Int. 5. — In 1855, did the Hudson's Bay Company have any
trade with the Indians in furs at Fort Hall ?

Ans. — I do not know that they had. From what I saw, I
judged that they still retained a very limited trade.

Int. 6. — Were there any agents of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany at Fort Hall in 1855 ; and, if so, how many ?

Ans. — I saw one only — Mr. William Sinclair.

Int. 7. — Were there any cattle or horses owned by the Hud-
son's Bay Company at Fort Hall in 1855?

Ans. — Neither saw or knew of any cattle ; they had some
horses, but only a few.

Int. 8. — Were you ever at Fort Boisfe, another post of the
Hudson's Bay Company; and, if so, when?

Ans.— I was at Fort Boise in 1852, 1853, and 1855.

Int. 9. — What was the condition and value of the buildings
and land at the post in 1853?

Ans. — The buildings were in a dilapidated condition ; the
land was nearly a desert, with the exception of a little strip

f'm

u im

262

along the river; the building and land I should judge to have
been worth $3,000.

Int. 10. — What was the value of these same buildings and
land in 1855?

A718. — Very little difference in i^^eir value. The buildings
may have depreciated some.

Int. 11. — Was there any trade in fui^, between the Hud-
son's Bay Company and Indians or trappers at Fort Boise, at
the times you were there; and, if so, how much?

Ans. — None, to my knowledge.

Int. 12.- -What would you estimate to have been the value
of the post at Fort Hall, including buihHngs and lauds, when
you were tliore in 1852?

Ans. — From my knowledge of such improvements in Utah,
I judge them to have been worth about $5,000. I include in
this estimate the land and buildings. The land has no com-
parative value.

■■*■ V'.

I|ii!

Cross-Uxammation.

Int. 1. — What length of time were you at Fort Hall in 1852
and 1855 ?

Ans. — In 1852, I was there most of one day. In 1855, I
was the guest of Mr. Slncliiir two or three days. In 1852, I
was there about August 1; in 1855, in August..

Int. 2. — Was it from that visit in 1852 that you received
the impression that the Compai.y merely held the post under
the treaty ?

Ans. — It was partially from that visit and partially from
the further fact that former agents of the Company were
trading with the emigrants on their own account.

Int. 3. — Have you any personal knowledge of former agents
of the Company trading with the emigrants on their own ac-
count ?

An,i. — Yes, sir.

Int. 4. — State whac former agents of the Company you saw
trading with the emigrants, and at what time and places.

Ans. — Mr. McArthui*, Mr. Mayett, and, I think, Mr. Grant;

263

but I am not positive about the last. I know that Mr.
McArthur was a former agent of the Company, but I do not
know that the others were. Nearly all the trading with the
emigrants was done by persons not connected with the Com-
pany.

Int. 5. — Do you, from your own personal knowledge, know
at what periods of the year furs were brought into Fort Ilall
to trade by trappers and Indians?

Ans. — I do not.

hit. 6. — Is your personal knowledge of the trade at Fort
Hall confined to the day you spent tliert in 1H;'2 and the two
or three days spent there in 1850 't

Ans. — No, sir.

Int. 7. — What other days were you there than tho?>e you
have mentioned?

Ans: — No other time.

Int. 8. — What do you mean by personal information, other
than what you saw in 1852 and 1855?

Ans. — Information derived from others; one of whom, Mr.
Sinclair, was an officer of the Company — the agent at Fort
Hall in 1853 and 1855.

Int. 9. — Did you go out upon the range at either time that
you were at Fort Hall ?

Alls. — I did not go out upon any special range; I passed up
the river bottom from the emigrants' trail to the fort: and, in
1855, I passed up the bottoms, between one and two uiiles, to
Mr. McArthur's trading, p^st then crossed the river, above
the fort.

Int. 10. — In making- your valuatioTi of the land and l)uild-
ings at Fort Boise, how much land did you include as belong-
ing to tiio Company ?

Ans. — I did not include any specific amount of land, as it
was nearly all a sage plain, and of no comparative value.

Int. 11. — Have you not seen sage plains cultivated by means
of irrigation ?

Ann. — I have seen them so cultivated.

Int. 12. — What length of time were you at Fort Boi^e, at
your different visits, and at what seasons of the year ?

■n] [j

i i

s :il

■'i '[4

264

Ans. — I was at Fort Boise about one clay each in 1852 and
1853; and in 1855 I was there three or four, and I may have
been five, days.

George B. Simpson,
Late Add'l Paymaster U. S. A.
Washington City, D. C, December 21, 1806.

'':i|

t^l^li

ii J

District op Columbia, \
County of Washingon. j

I, Nicliolas Callan, a notary public in and for the county
and District aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing
depositions, hereunto annexed, of Robert J. Atkinson, George
Clinton Gardner, Marcus A. Reno, Lewis S. Thompson, A. J.
Cain, George W. Shoemaker, and George B. Simpson, wit-
nesses produced by and on behalf of the United States in the
matter of the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company against
the same, now pending before the British and American Joint
Commission for the adjustment of the same, were taken before
me at the office of said Commission, No. 355 H street north,
in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, and reduced
to writing, under my direction, by a person agreed upon by
Caleb Gushing, Esq., attorney for the United States, and
Edward Lander, Esq., attorney for said Company, beginning
on the 6th day of August, 1866, and ending on the 21st day of
December, 1866, (excepting the resumed examination of George
Clinton Gardner, which was commenced on the 28d April and
concluded on the 30th April, 1867,) according to th -^veral
dates appended to the several depositions, when they were
signed respectively.

I furthe?^ certify that to each of said witnesses, before his
examination, I administered the following oath :

" You swear that the evidence you shall give in the matter
of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United
States of America shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the timth, so help you God."

And that, after the same was reduced to writing, the depo-

266

sition of each witness was carefully read and then signed by
ln'm.

I further certify that Caleb Gushing, and Edward Lander,
Esqs., were personally present during the examination and
cross-exam aation of all of said witnesses, and the reading
and signing of their depositions.

Witness my hand and notarial seal this 19th uay of June,

[L. s.] A. D. 18G7.

N. Callan,

'Notary Public.

„j.. ill

V*-

wmm

nil • .

Hi*

BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION

CN THE

HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL-
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIM.

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company vs.

The United States.

Ji'iii

Deposition of Major General Philip H. Sheridan, a witness
sworn and examined in the city of New Orleans, in the
State of Louisiana, by virtue of the commission hereto
annexed, issued by the Honorable John Rose and the
Honorable S. Johnson, commissioners, to me, the under-
signed commissioner, directed, for the examination of the
said witness, in the matter of the claim of the Hudson's
Bay Company against the United States of America.

Testimony of Philip H. Sheridan.

Philip H. Sheridan, Major General in the Army of the
United States, now on duty at the city of New Orleans, a
witness produced on the part and behalf of the United States,
being first by me, said commissioner, duly and solemnly sworn,
pursuant to the directions hereto also annexed, in answer to
the interrogations and cross-interrogations propounded to him
in the matter aforesaid, deposeth and says as folioAvs, to Avit :

Ans. 1. — To the first interrogatory he saith: Major General
Philip H. Sheridan, United States Army; city of New Orleans,
State of Louisiana.

Ans. 2. — To the second interrogatory he saith: I w-^s in
Washington Territory from about the 1st of Octobci-, I800,
until some time in May, 185G. During this period I was on
the expedition against the Lakina Indians, and stationed, for

267

short intcrv<als, at the Dalles of the Coluiul/ia, Fort Van-
couver, and the Cascade of the Columbia.

Ans. S. — To the third interrogatory he sitith: I am ac-
quainted with the military post of Vancouver. As to whether
the ground covered by the garrison was previously occupied
by the Hudson's Bay Company or not, I cannot say. I have
heard it said that the Hudson's Bay Company claimed the
ground upon which it was built. Outside of the garrison
f(?nce, I think immediately south of the garrison, was what
was called the Hudson's Bay Company's establishment, which
was surrounded by a square or rectangular picket, with block-
houses inside at diagonal corners. The establishment com-
prised some six or seven very largo, gloomy-looking frame
structures of wood, rudely built, and, from their appearance,
very old. There was also a house occupied by the store,
nearly as rude as the others, but a little more cheerful, with a
ceiled floor, making .an up-stairs store-room or extensive gar-
ret. There was no covering above the up-stairs room but the
roof, if I recollect right. Then there was the chief factor's
house, very old, but a little more modern in appearance, with
a portico covered Avith grape vines. There were, in addition,
several smaller houses, in which the servants of the Company
lived, very ordinary in construction. These servants were
composed of half-breed Indians, Ranches, or mixed races; or,
if the heads of the families were white, their families were
half-breeds, quadroons, or octoroons. These houses were all
insignificant in appearance and construction. Outside of this
picketed establishment there were several small houses of very
insignificant value, occupied by the same character of people.
These houses were so frail and so contemptible that I have
known some of the vicious teamsters of our Quartermaster's
Department, in driving their teams, strike the corners of some
of these houses with the hubs of their wagon wheels, and ren-
der them uninhabitable by the collision. The large, gloomy
store-houses inside the picket enclosure were, I think, very
old; they had the look of primitive construction, and had the
decay of old aiie.

Ans. 4. — To the fourth interrogatory he saith: I eannot

*• I'l

:.' I

m,)*

268

answer this question directly, but can give my feelings in
reference to these buildings and improvements at the time.
They were situate, I think, three-fourths of a mile from the
river, and were of no value as store-houses, because incon-
venient from the location. Doubtless they were important for
the storage of furs ; but the settlement of the country, and
the progress attending it, would cause people to choose other
places for storage, which gave them the advantages of modern
improvements and less porterage. I can recollect very well
that my impressions at the time were that it would be a good
thing if they would burn down. In this, of course, I was
onl}'^ estimating xheir actual value. Since then I have had
some experience of the value realized for buildings put up for
special purposes, and, by the progress of events, becoming
inconvenient and unnecessary. Structures, for instance, like
the cavalry stables erected in this instance, were necessary and
valuable when put up, costing about ($290,000) two hundred
and ninety thousand dol ars; and when found unnecessary,
these stables were sold at five thousand dollars or six thousand
dollars, and the boards and framework of these stables were
new. the structure new, the timbers new, and the demand
created by the contiguity of a large city of two hundred
thousand inhabitants. So we may say that the storehouses
of the Company were, by the almost entire cessation of the
fur trade and the progress of settlement, rendered useless and
unnecessary, and their actual worth could have been but little,
as tliere was no market for the materials, even if they were
sound. I might also say the same of the Sedgwick Hospital,
erected in the vicinity of this city. It cost over seven hun-
dred thousand dollars, ($700,000,) and is perhaps the finest
military hospital in the United Sta-tes, It was erected for a
special purpose, and fulfilled its object; but if sold now, the
material would not bring twenty thousand dollars, ($20,000.)

Ans. "). — To the fifth interrogfitory he saith : I liave not.

Ans. 1. — And to the first cross- interrogatory he saith • There
were hostilities existing with tiie Lackiiw, Indians and some
of the Indians on Puget's Sound.

Ans. 2. — To the second crass-interrogatory ho saith : I di '
not.

269

Ans. 3. — To the third cross-interrogatory he saith : My im-
pression of the buildings came from visiting the Hudson's Bay
Company's officers, and from a variety of other circumstances
connected with my official duties while residing there.

Ans. 4. — To the fourth cross-interrogatory he saith : I
cannot give the number of buildings inside of the fort or
stockade.

Ans. 5. — To the fifth cross-interrogatory he saith : I cannot
say; I think there Avere one or two large store-houses down
near the bank of the Columbia River. These two store-houses
were the only buildings I considered of any particular value,
and that was on account of their location. They were both
very old and out of repair. One of them was occupied by
Capt. McFeeley, as a commissary store-house for a short
time.

Ans. 0. — To the sixth cross-interrogatory he saith : I have
placed no value on the buildings. I have some experience in
buildings, but cau give you no idea of the amount of lumber
in any of them.

uhus. 7. — To the seventh cross-interrogatory he saith : For
the value I have placed upon them, I refer you to my answer,
hereinbefore made, to the fourth direct interrogatory.

Ans. 8. — To the eighth cross-interrogatory he saith : I do
not exactly recollect the price of lumber at Vancouver at that
time ; but subsequently, in the Willamette Valley, at Oregon
city, and other points higher up the valley, I purchased lumber
at fair prices.

Ans. 9. — To the ninth cross-interrogatory he saith : Of the
number I have no knowledge.

Ans. 10. — To the tenth cross-interrogatory he saith : I can-
not tell precise dates. I visited Vancouver several times be-
tween October, 1855, and September, 18^1. I was then sta-
tioned ill Or<^gon,

An». 11. — To the eleventh cross-interrogatory he saith: I
did not pay any particular attention to the lands of the Com-
pany, for the opposite reason which I have given for putting a
,ery light value on the structures of the Company— we might
consider the lands occupied by them as increasing in value.

270

Ans. 12. — To the twelfth cross-intorrogatnrj he saith: I wag
a sccoihI Lieutenant, Fourth Infantry, United States Army.

P. II. Sheridan,
Major General U. S. A.

Exaniinatioii taken, reduced to writing, and by the said
witness suhscribcd and sworn to, this the thirtieth day of the
month of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and sixty-six.

In faith whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and
affixed my seal as Commissioner aforesaid, at my office in the
said city of Nuw Orleans, the day and year above written.

Jas. Graham,

Commissioner.

> f

V*'

I ''1

III.;!
ii

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson s Bay Company afjainst
the United States of America.

To James Graliam, Commissioner, New Orleans, Andrew Hero,
Jr., Notary Public, New Orleans, or any other person
duly authorized to take depositions in the State of Louis-
iana :

Know ye, that in confidence of your prudence and fidelity,
you have been appointed, and by these presents you, or any one
of you, is invested Avith full power and authority to examine
Major General Piiilip H. Sheridan, on his corporal oath, as a
witness in the above-entitled cause, upon the interrogations
annexed to this Commission on the part of the United States,
and the cross-interrogatories thereto annexed by the Hudson's
Bay Company.

Therefore, you are hereby required, that you, or either
of you, at certain days and places, to be appointed by you for
that purpose, do require the said Major General Philip H.
Sheridan to come before you, and then and there examine him
on oath on said interrogatories, and reduce the same to writ-

271

ing, in conformity with instructions hereto annexed. And
when the said deposition shall have been completed, you will
return the same, annexed to this writ, closed up under your
seal, and addressed, by mail, to George Gibbs, Esq., Clerk of
said Commission, at the office thereof, in the city of Wash-

ington.

Witness:

Alexander S. Johnsox,

Comnmsioner.
John Rose,

Com. for Great Britain.

INSTRUCTIONS.

BRITI.^II AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION ON HUDSON'S BAY
AND rUGET'S SOUND AGRICULTURAL COMDANIES" CLAIMS.

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against
the United States of America.

Instructions for the Execution of the Commission.

The deposition may be preceded by the following heading:

"Deposition of , a witness sworn and examined

in the city of New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana, by
virtue of this Commission, issued by the Honorable John
Rose and the Honorable Alexander S. Johnson, Commission-
ers, to me directed, for the examination of a witness in the
matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against
the United States of America."

The Commissioner then calls the witness before him, and
administers to him the following oath, namely :

"You swear that the evidence you shall give in the matter
of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United
States of America shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God."

The witness having been thus sworn, the evidence given by
him will be reduced to writing, thus :

''''Philip H, Sheridan^ Major General in the Army of the

i \\

* • f!|

1
pi

lili

•I: ^' ■'w-affl

^■: M

272

United States, now on duty at the city of New Oidcans, a wit-
ness produced on the part and behalf of the United States,
in answer to tlic following interrogatories and cross-interrog-
atories, deposeth and says as follows :"

When the deposition of the witness is concluded, he must
suh.scribe his name thereto.

The deposition, with all documents and papers, if any,
accompanying the same, will be returned before the Commis-
sioners with all convenient diligence.

Attest : George Gibbs,

Clei'k.

:^dii

In the matter of the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company, now
pcndiny before the British and American Joint Commission
on the Claims of the Hudson's Bay and Puyefs Sound
Agricultural Companies against the United States.

Interrogatories to be addressed, on behalf of the United States,
to Major General Philip H. Sheridan, now stationed at
New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana.

Ques. 1. — What is your name, place of residence, and pres-
ent occupation?

Ques. 2. — Have you ever resided in Washington Territory;
if yea, where and when, and for how long a period?

Ques. 3. — Are you acquainted with the post in Washington
Territory, called Vancouver, that was formerly occupied by
the Hudson's Bay Company? If yea, will you please to de-
scribe the same, as it was, when it came under your personal
observation, giving, as fully as you can, the number and char-
acter of the buildings and improvements which were in the
possession of the Company, and the extent of land which was
occupied by them, and the nature of their occupation.

Ques. 4. — What, in your judgment, was the value of the
buildings and improvements at that post, which were claimed
and occupied by the Company, at the time that you had an
opportunity to observe them ?

Ques. 5. — Have you any knowledge of any other matter
which may affect the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company

278

against the Unitoil States? If yea, please to state the same
as fully as if you were specially interrogated in relation
thereto,

C. Cusiiixa,
Counsel for the United States.

In the matter of claims of the Hudson's Bay Companif now
jjendint/ before the Britinh and American Joint Commission
on the Claims of the Hudson's Baij and PujieCs Sound
Aijrieultural Companies against th'. United States.

€ross-intcrrogatories to be addressed, on behalf of the Hud-
son's Bay Company, to Major General Philip II. Sheri-
daji, now stationed at New Orleans, in the State of Lou-
isiana.

Ques. 1. — During the time you were stationed at Fort Van-
couver, was there not an Indian war going on in Washington
Territory?

Ques. 2. — Did you at any time give a particular examina-
tion to the Hudson's Bay Company's fort at Vancouver, with
a view to ascertain the number and condition of the buildings,
so far as regarded decay and repair or necessity for it?

Ques. 3. — Is not any knowledge you may have of those
buildings and their condition derived from your casual obser-
vations made while going in or out of the fort for business, or
on visits to the officers of the Company?

Ques. 4. — Can you give the number of buildings inside the
fort in 1856, stating how many of them were store-houses,
how many were dwelling-houses, how many small shops, what
the size of the largest dwelling-house was, what that of the
smallest? If so, please give the answer in the order in which
the questions are put.

Ques. 6. — How many buildings were there outside the fort
or stockade?

Ques. G. — If you have placed any value on those buildings,
you will please state whether you have any experience in
18 H

'?'

■ ■

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

/>.*^!^

ur ^^

1.0

1.1

£ ta IIP

v-^mm

Photographic

Sdmces

Corporation

3>^

23 WK/ MAIN STMIT
Wn»TCII,N.Y. 14Str

'^<i^

if"

2T4

building, or can estimate by mere observation tbc.amount of
lumber in any given building. If your answer is yea to this
question, then state how much lumber there was in the house
of the chief factor, and what its value was in material alone.

Qucs. 1. — Has not any value you have placed on those
buildings been a value based upon their use to the United
States, w^hose they then were, and not an estimate having
reference to their value to the Company or any person other
than the Cuited States ?

Ques. 8. — Were you acquainted with the cost of lumber or
the price of labor at Vancouver at the time at which you have
valued those buildings, if at all?

Qites. 0. — How many buildings of the Company outside of
the stockade were removed or burnt down while you were at
Vancouver?

Ques. 10. — Please to state for how much of the time you
spent in Oregon and AVashington you were stationed at Van-
couver, giving, if you can recollect them, the dates of your
arrival at and departure from there?

Ques. 11. — Please to state whether, during the time you were
stationed al Vancouver, you paid any particular attention to
the lands of the Hudson's Bay Company, their enclosures, fields,
and orchards, with any view to a definite and certain knowl-
edge of them, or whether your observations were those of a
casual nature, feeling no particular interest in the subject, and
your knowledge thus acquired slight, and neither accurate or
positive.

Ques. 12. — What was your rank in the Army of the United
States while you were in Washington Territory ?

Chas. D. Day,
Counsel for the Hudson s Bay Company,

Deposition of Rear Admiral Charles Wilkea, U. S. N., sworn
and examined in the city of Charlotte, county of Meck-
lenburg, State of North Carolina, in behalf of the United
States of America, by virtue of an agreement between

275

Charles C. Beaman, Jr., Esq., agent and attorney for
the United States of America, and Edward Lauder, agent
and attorney for Hudson's Bay Company, before me,
Charles Overman, a justice of the peace in and for the
city of Charlotte, county of Mecklenburg, State of North
Carolina.

Testimony of Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes.

Int. 1. — Are you the same Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes
who testified in the case of Puget's Sound Agricultural Com-
pany against the United States ?

Alls. — I am.

Int. 2. — When on your exploring expedition in the year
1841, state whether or no you visited and made a map of the
Columbia river and the adjacent country.

Ans. — I did.

Int. 3. — Whether or no you made a report of what you and
your officers saw and learned at that time. If so, state by
whom it was written, and by what authority it was published.

Ans. — I did make a report, written by myself, from my
own notes and observations ; and it comprises reports, and
official reports of officers and scientific gentlemen attached to
the expedition, completed and published by the authority of
Congress.

Int. 4. — Whether or no you visited at that time Astoria, a
station of the Hudson's Bay Company? If so, state its situa-
tion and what you saw.

Ans. — I did visit it. It is situated (11) eleven miles from
the bar, on the left bank of the river, on elevated ground
rising from the river. It covers the space of about twenty
(20) acres, or thirty, (30,) on which buildings could be erected.
There was one dwelling-house, of moderate dimensions, one

(1) story, and several out-buildings. A garden of about two

(2) acres of ground, all in a dilapidated condition. About
two (2) acres were enclosed. The two acres cultivated were
enclosed.

Int. 5. — How many officers and men of the Hudson's Bay
Company were stationed there ?

276

Ans. — Mr. Birnie was the officer, and half dozen servants.

Int. 6. — Whether or no, in your report, you made this state-
ment in regard to the post at Astoria: "The Company paid
little regard to it, and the idea of holding or improving it as
a post has long since been given up;" and whether or no you
made this statement of your own knowledge, and now remem-
ber the same to be true.

Ans. — I made that statement from my own knowledge, in
part, and from information derived from the officers of the
Hudson's Bay Company; and I now remember and believe the
same to be accurate and true.

, (Question and answer objected to, the introduction of all
statements taken from the report of the witness objected to,
and all information received from others, and all testimony
except that which he gives from his own personal knowledge,
as incompetent and irrelevant.)

Int. 7. — Were you at the station of Astoria more than once?
If so, state how often, and about how long you have remained
there.

Ans. — I was there twice : first time about (4) four days ;
second time some weeks there and in the vicinity.

Int. 8. — What do you consider the cost of the buildings at
Astoria to have been ; and what the value of the (2) two acres
of ground enclosed at the time you were there?

Ans. — I suppose the cost of the buildings was five or six
hundred dollars, and the value of the land probably twenty
(20) or twenty-five (25) dollars per acre.

Int. 9. — Whether during the year 1841 you visited and sur-
veyed Cape Disappointment. If so, state whether, at that
time, the Hudson's Bay Company had any post or buildings
there.

Ans. — I visited it in 1841, and was very often employed on
the cape and in its immediate vicinity, between it and Astoria.
There was no habitation, nor an individual except myself and
party, on the cape or its adjacent land during the whole period.

Int. 10. — What use did you make of the capo?

Ans. — I used it as a point of triangulation in my survey of
the mouth of the river.

2T7

two acres

Int. 11. — What is the character of a mile square of land
about the point and including the point ?

Ans. — Abrupt, rocky, and uncultivated, and not susceptible
of cultivation.

Int. 12. — What is the character of the harbor on the inside
of the cape ?

Ans. — It is a temporary roadstead.

Int. 13. — What is the value for public purposes of as much
land as would be used and necessary for a suitable light-house
and fort on this point?

Ans. — I should think five hundred ($500) to be a high price.

Int. 14. — Whether or no you are acquainted with a place
known as Pillar Rock, on the right bank of the Columbia ; if
so, describe it.

Ans. — I am acquainted with the rock. It stands about two
hundred (200) yards, I should think, from the shore. The
shore is perpendicular.

Int. 15. — Had the Hudson's Bay Company in 1841 any sta-
tion or post at or near Pillar Kock?

Ans. — None whatever.

Int. 16. — Whether or no the Hudson's Bay Company had
made at any time, before or during your visit, any claim to
any land at Pillar Rock.

Ans. — None to my knowledge, nor did I hear of any.

Int. 17. — Whether or no there was any station of the Hud-
son's Bay Company on the right bank of the Cowlitz river
where it enters into the Columbia, in 1841.

Ans. — There was none, and I should not Lave expected to
find one, from the situation and character of the soil.

Int. 18. — What is the situation and character of the land
described in the last question?

Ans. — Low; subject to be overflowed by both the Cowlitz
and Columbia rivers.

Int. 19. — Whether you visited a place on the Willamette
river known as Champoeg; if so, state what was its situa-
tion.

Ans. — I did. It was a low sandy point projecting from the
right bank into the river. It was one of the landings at which

,k'

278

I stopped. It was low prairie, subject, as I was informed by
Mr. Johnson, who lived near, to inundation.

(The statement on information of Mr. Johnson objected to
as incompetent.)

Int. 20. — AVhethcr the Hudson's Bay Company had any sta-
tion at Champoeg in 1841.

Ans. — None.

Int. 21. — Whether or no you visited in 1841 a post of the
Hudson's Bay Company on the Columbia river known as Van-
couver?

Ans. — I did.

Int. 22. — Were you there more than once? If so, about how
long were you there in all?

Ans. — I was there twice; the first time eight (8) or ten (10)
days, second time three or four weeks, I think.

Int. 23. — By whom were you entertained ?

Ans. — By Dr. McLoughlin the first time, and the second
time by Dr. McLoughlin and Sir George Simpson.

Int. 24. — Whether or no that part of your report which de-
scribes the station at Vancouver was made from your own
notes, and from what you yourself saw and heard.

(Objected to as irrelevant.)

Ans. — It was.

(The answer objected to also.)

Int. 25. — Whether or no you used this language in your re-
port: "We came in at the back of the village, which consists
of about fifty (50) comfortable log houses. The fort stands
at some distance beyond the village, and to the eye ap-
pears like an upright wall of pickets twenty-five (25) feet
high. This encloses the houses, shops, and magazines of
the Company. The enclosure contains about four (4) acres,
which appear to be under full cultivation. Beyond the fort
large granaries are to be seen. At one end is Dr. McLough-
lin's house, built after the model of the French Canadian,
of one story, weather-boarded, and painted white. It has
a piazza and small flower beds, with grape and other vines
in front. Near by are the rooms for the clerks and visitors,
with the blacksmith's and cooper's shops. In the centre stands

279

tlie £<oinan Catholic chapel, and near by the flag-staff. Beyond
these again are the stores, magazines of powder, warerooms,
and offices?"

A718. — I did.

Int. 26. — Whether or no you, from your own knowledge,
used the language just quoted, and now remember it, and de-
clare the same to be true.

Ans. — Yea ; I made it from my own knowledge, and as a
general description. I remember it, and it is true.

Int. 27. — Whether or no you used this language in your re-
port : " Everything may be had within the fort. They have
an extensive apothecary's shop, a bakery, blacksmith's and
cooper's shop, trade offices for buying, others for selling, others
again for keeping accounts and transacting buisiness?"

Ana. — I did, sir.

Int. 28. — Whether or no you, from your own knowledge,
used the language just quoted, and now remember it, and de-
clare the same to be true.

Ans. — It is, of my own knowledge. I perfectly remember
it. It is true.

Int. 29. — Whether or no you used this language in your re-
port : " Vancouver is the headquarters of the Northwest or
Columbia department, which also includes New Caledonia.
All the returns of furs are received here, and hither all ac-
counts are transmitted for settlement?"

Ans. — I did.

Int. 30. — Whether or no you, from your own knowledge,
used the language just quoted, and now remember it, and de-
clare the same to be true.

Ans. — The knowledge is derived from the officers of the
Company, Sir George Simpson, Dr. McLoughlin, Mr. Ogden,
and Mr. Douglas. I remember it, and believe it to be true.

Int. 31. — Whether or no you used this language in your
report : " The interiors of the houses in the fort are unpretend-
ing ; they are simply finished with pine-board panels, without
any paint ; bunks are built for bedsteads ; but the whole,
though plain, is as comfortable as could be desired. Besides
the storehouses, there is also a granary, which is a frame

»r

'■!

Urn

280

building of ti^o (2) stories, and the only one, the rest being
built of logs?"

An8. — I did.

Int. 32. — Whether or no, you, from your own knowledge,
used the language just quoted, and now remember it, and de-
clare the same to be true?

A718. — I made it from my own knowledge, and fully remem-
ber that it was at that time true.

Int. 33. — What would you estimate the cost of the fort,
dwelling-houses, store-houses, and all other buildings existing
or near by the fort at Vancouver, to have been?

Ans. — I did estimate, while there, the cost of the erection
of the fort and the accompanying buildings at the sum of
about fifty thousand ($50,000) dollars. Captain Hudson coin-
cided with me in this estimate.

(Captain Hudson's opinion objected to as incompetent.)

Int. 34. — Whether or no you used this language in your
report : " The farm at Vancouver is about nine (9) miles square.
On this they have two dairies, and milk upwards of one hun-
dred (100) cows. There are also two (2) other dairies situated
on Wappatoo Island, on the Willamette, where they have one
hundred and fifty (150) cows?"

Ans. — I did. Wappatoo Island, I understand, is now known
as Sauvies' Island.

Int. 35. — Whether or no you, from your own knowledge,
used the language just quoted, and now remember it, and de-
clare the same to be true ?

Ans. — No; this is not of my own knowledge, but knowledge
derived from the officers of the Hudson's Bay Company. I
remember their statements, and believe them to be true.

Int. 30. — Whether or no you used this language in your
report: "One afternoon we rode with Mr. Douglas to visit
the dairy farm, which lies to the west of Vancouver on the
Callapuya;" [Cathlapootl] and do you remember it, and de-
clare it to be true?

A718. — Yes, sir ; I did see it, and I do remember it.

Int. 37. — Whether or no you used this language in your
report: "They have likewise a grist-mill and saw-mill, both

281

well constructed, about six miles above Vancouver on the Co-
lumbia river. I visited the grist-mill, which is situated on a
small stream, but owing to the height of the river, which threw
a quantity of back-water on the wheel, it was not in action.
The mill has one run of stones, and is a well-built edifice.
The saw-mill is two (2) miles beyond the grist-mill. A similar
mistake has been made in choosing its position, for the mill is
placed so low, that for the part of the season when they have
most water they are unable to use it. There are in it sev-
eral runs of saws, and it is remarkably well built. The qual-
ity of timber cut into boards is inferior to what we should
deem merchantable in the United States, and is little better
than our hemlock. They have a large smith-shop here, which,
besides doing the work of the mill, makes all the axes and
hatchets used by the trappers."

A718. — Yes, sir.

Int. 38. — Whether or no you, from your own knowledge,
used the language just quoted, and now remember it and de-
clare the same to be true?

Ans. — From my own knowledge, drawn from observation,
I remember it, and declare the same to be true.

Int. 39. — What do you estimate the cost of all the buildings
on the farms about Vancouver and at Sauvie's Island, of the
grist and saw-mills, together with the large smith's shop, to
have been?

Ana. — The cost of the four dairies might have been from
one hundred and fifty (150) to two hundred (^200) dollars each,
that of the grist-mill three hundred ($300) dollars, and that of
the saw-mill and blacksmith shop four thousand five hundred
($4,500) dollars. The cabins at the 2 mills were worth one
thousand ($1,000) dollars.

Int. 40. — Whether or no you used this language in your re-
port: "The stock on the Vancouver farm is about three thou-
sand (3,000) head of cattle, two thousand five hundred sheep,
and about three hundred brood mares?"

Ans. — I did, and the information was derived from the
officers of the Company, and I remember it, and believe it to
be true.

11' yi

:•

mti

282

Jnt. 41. — Whether or no you ever heard or know of any
particular boundaries or lines, natural or artificial, to the
Hudson's Bay Company's lands or pasturage at Vancouver?

Ans. — I never did. The Company told mo they had nine
miles square. I know of no maps or descriptive boundaries in
existence.

Int. 42. — What would you estimate the value of a tract of
land extending in front along the bank of the Columbia river
from a point a few miles above the saAV-mill, to the Callapuya
[Cathlapootl] river about twenty-five (2.5) miles, and back-
ward from the Columbia river about ten (10) miles?

Ati». — As an agricultural space or area, with the exception
of a mile square about Vancouver, for agricultural purposes
my estimate would be a little above that of the public lands
per acre, say from one dollar and twenty-five cents (^1.25) to
one fifty ($1.50) per acre. The space from about a niilo and
a quarter to a mile and a half to the westward, where the Cal-
lapuya [Cathlapootl] comes to its mouth, some fifteen {15) miles,
and back from the river some five (5) miles in breadth is entirely
submerged, with the exception of a few knolls and the river
bank, in the months of June and July, by the waters of the
Columbia, so as to preclude any raising of grain, and unfit,
therefore, for any crops. Above the fort some three (3) miles
it is in like manner submerged. With reference to the high
prairie, the soil is there of the character of the high prairie —
gravelly and thin.

IiH. 43. — Whether or no you used this language in your re-
port: "From the circumstance of this annual inundation of
the river prairies, they will always be unfit for husbandry, yet
they are admirably adapted for grazing, except during the
periods of high water. There is no precaution that can pre-
vent the inroad of the water. At Vancouver they were at the
expense of throwing up a long embankment of earth, but
without the desired eflfect."

Ans. — I made this statement, and remember the circum-
stances.

Jnt. 44. — About how many square miles of the tract of land

283

described in interrogatory No. 42 were subject to this annual
inundation?

Ans. — Taking t'le dimensions given, about scvcnty-fivo (75)
square miles below and about five square miles above Van-
couver.

(All the above interrogatories which contain language pur-
porting to be used by the witness in his report of an exploring
expedition and the answers thereto, and all other questions
and answers relating to said language, objected to as incom-
petent and irrelevant.)

Int. 45. — Whether or no Mr. Drayton, an officer connected
with your expedition, was detached l)y you to ascend the Co-
lumbia river as far as Walla-Walla, a post of the Hudson's
Bay Company, in the year 1841 ; if so, state whether he made
an official report to you, and whether he is now alive.

Ans. — He did, under orders from me, make a part of the
survey and a report of his observations. In obedience to my
orders he went to Walla-Walla and the country beyond as far
as the Grand Ronde in the Blue Mountains. He visited
Walla-Walla. He is not alive; he died in 1859.

Int. 46. — Whether or not you used this language in your
report: "Fort Walla- Walla is about two hundred (200) feet
square, and is built of pickets, with a gallery or staging on the
inside, whence the pickets may be looked over. It has two (2)
bastions, one on the southwest and the other on the north-
east. On the inside are several buildings, constructed of logs
and mud; one of them is the Indian store; the whole is cov-
ered with sand and dust, which is blown about in vast quan-
tities. The climate is hot and everything about the fort seems
so dry that it appeared as if a single spark would ignite the
whole and reduce it to ashes."

Ans. — Yes, sir.

(The above question and answer objected to as incompetent.)

Int. 46. — Whether or no you now remember that in the
words just quoted you embodied a part of Mr. Drayton's offi-
cial report to you?

Ans. — I do, and believe them to be true, both as to facts
and circumstances.

284

(Above question and answer objected to as incompetent and
irrelevant.)

Int. 47. — Whether or no you used this language in your
report: "There is very little vegetation near the Fort, not
only on account of the heat and dryness, but owing to the
vast clouds of drifting sand, which a»'o frequently so great as
to darken the sky. In summer it b'.ows hero constantly, and
at night the Avind generally amounts to a gale;" an>i whether
you remembered it to have embodied a part of Mr. Drayton's
report.

Ana. — I did use it, and firmly believe it to be true, both in
facts and circumstances.

(The above question and answer objected to as incompetent.)

Int. 48. — Whether or no you detached Lieutenant Johnson,
an officer under your command, to visit Forts Okanagan, Col-
ville, and other places, and gave him these orders, and others:
"Your inquiries at posts and forts will lead to much informa-
tion of the country, with capabilities, productions, climate,
soil, &c. ; they will particularly embrace the following, viz :
How long ih^ posts or forts have been occupied; state of fur
trade in tl^e interior; number of forts established; where,
and among what tribes."

Ans. — I did.

(The above question and answer objected to as incompetent
and irrelevant.)

Int. 49. — Whether or no Lieutenant Johnson visited Forts
Okanagan and Colville and officially reported to you what he
saAv and learned there, and whether he is now alive.

Ans. — He did ; he visited those forts in obedience to his
orders, and made his report, including note-books, maps, and
surveys, to me. He has been dead some six or seven years.

(The above question and answer objected to as incompetent
and irrelevant.)

Int. 50. — Whether or no you used this language in your re-
port : " Okanagan is situated on a poor, flat, sandy rock, about
two miles above the junction of the river of that name with
the Columbia. It is a square, picketed in the same manner
as those already described, but destitute of bastions; and re-

285

movctl sixty (GO) yards from tho Columbia, within the pickets,
there is a large house for the reception of tho Cnmpany'H offi-
cers, consisting of several apartments, and from each end of
it two rows of low mud huts run towards tho entrance. These
serve as offices, and dwellings for tho trappers and their fami-
lies. In the centre is an open space. Besides tho care of
the barges for navigating tho river, and the horses for the
land journey to the northern posts, they collect here what
skins they can. Tho country affords about eighty beaver skins
during the year, the price of which is usually twenty charges
of powder and ball. Some bear, marten, and other skins are
also obtained, for which the prices vary, and it appears to bo
the practice of the Company to buy all the skins that uva
brought in, in order to encourage the Indians to procure thoLi.
At this post they have some goats and (35) thirty-live Iioad of
very fine cattle, which produce abundance of milk and '• tter.
The soil is too p^'^r Cor farming operations, and only a few
potatoes are grown."

Ans. — I did.

(Above question and answer objected to as incompetent.)

Ifit. 51. — Whether or no you now remembei that, in the
words just quoted, you embraced a part of Lieutenant John-
son's official report to you?

Ans. — I do remember it, and believe the facts and circum-
stances therein stated to- be accurate and true.

(Above question and answer objected to, as incompetent and
irrelevant.)

Int. 52. — Whether or not you used this language in your
report: "The largest stream passed was one near Colvile, on
which the Hudson's Bay Company have their grist-mill. Within
two miles of the fort, the house of the Company's storekeeper
was passed. Lieutenant Johnson having reached Fort Colvile
with his party, it Avas determined that they should spend three
days there. Fort Colvile is situated on the east bank of the
Columbia river, just above the Kettle Falls. In this place, the
river, pent up by the obstructions below, ha. formed a lateral
channel, which nearly encircles a level tract of land containing
about two hundred acres of rich soil. Of this peninsuk about

f I

286

one hundred and thirty r ores are in cultivation, and bear crops
composed chiefly of wheat, barley, and potatoes. Fort Col-
vile, like all the other posts of the Hudson's Bay Company, is
surrounded by high pickets with bastions, forming a formidable
defensive work against the Indians. Within the pickets all the
dwellings and storehouses of the Company are enclosed. At
Colvile the number of beaver skins purchased is but small,
and the packs which accrue annually from it and its two out-
posts, Kootanay and Flatheads, with the purchases made by a
person who travels through the Flathead country, amount only
to forty, (40,) including the bear and wolf skins. Muskrats,
martens, and foxes arc the kinds most numerous in this neigh-
borhood. The outposts above mentioned are in charge of a
Canadian trader, who received his outfit from Colvile."

J./ V. — I did.

(Above question and answer objected to as incompetent.)

Lit- 53. — Whether or no you remember that in the words
just quoted you embodied a part of Lieutenant Johnson's offi-
cial report to you?

Ans. — I remember that I did embody part of his report, and
believe the facts cited to be true.

(Question and answer objected to as incompetent and irrele-
vant.)

Int. .54. — AVhether or no you detached Lieutenant Emmons,
an officer under your command, and gave him this order and
others: " Should you visit any of the forts or stations of the
honorable Hudson's Bay Company, you will procure every
information relative to them, together with that of any mis-
sionaries;" and whether or no he officially reported to you
what he saw and learned in regard to FortUmpqua?

Ans. — I did give him those instructions; and he made a full
official report.

Int. 55. — Whether or no you used this language in your
report? Fort Umpqua was, like all those built in this coun-
try, enclosed by a tall line of pickets, with bastions at diag-
onal corners. It is about two hundred (200) feet square, and
is situated more than one hundred and fifty (150) yards from
the river, upon an extensive plain. It is garrisoned by five

287

men, two women, and nine dogs, and contains a dwelling for
the superintendent, as well as storehouses, and some smaller
buildings for the officer's and servants' apartments?

Ans. — I did.

Int. 50. — Whether or no you now remember that in the
words just quoted, you embodied a part of Lieutenant Em-
mons's othcial report to you?

Ans. — I remember that I d,id embody a part of his report
in the words quoted, and believe the facts and circumstances
related to be true.

(All the above questions relating to Lieutenant Emmons and
the language relative to the Umpqua post, and the answers
thereto, objected to as incompetent and irrelevant.)

Int. 57. — Whether or no you used this language in your
report in reference to the tract of country known as Van-
couver's Island, Washington Territory, and Oregon : "I satis-
fied myself that the accounts given of the depopulation of this
country are not exaggerated, for places were pointed out to
me where dwelt whole tribes that have bden entirely swept
off, and during the time of the greatest mortality the shores
of the river were strewed Avith the dead and dying. This
disease occurs, it is said, semi-annually, and in the case of
foreigners it is more mild at each succeeding attack. Owing
to the above causes, the population is much less than I ex-
pected to find it. I made every exertion to obtain correct
information. The whole Territory may be considered as con-
taining about (20,000) twenty thousand Indians ; and this
from a careful revision of the data obtained by myself and
some of the officers I am satisfied is rather above than under
the truth. The whites and half-breeds are between seven and
eight hundred."

Ans. — I did; and now remember it to have been derived
from the best authority.

(The above question and answer objected to as incompetent.)

Int. 58. — Whether or no you used this language in your
report: "At Vancouver I was again kindly made welcome
by Dr. McLoughlin, Mr. Douglas, and the officers of the
establishment. During my absence, Mr. Peter Ogden, chief

I n

11.

it
I

288

factor cf the northern district, had arrived with his brigade.
Mr. Ogden had been (32) thirty-two years in this country,
and consequently possesses much information respecting it,
having travelled nearly all over it. Furs are very plenty in
the northern region, and are purchased at low prices from the
Indians. His return this year was valued at ($100,000) one
hundred thousand dollars, and this he informed me was much
less than the usual amount. On the other hand, the southern
section of this country, I was here informed, was scarcely
worth the expense of an outlay for a party of trappers."
Ans. — I did.

(The above question and an ,vcr objected to as incompetent.)
Int. 59. — Whether or no you now remember the language
just quoted, and declare the same to be true ?
Ans. — I do.

(Question and answer objected to as incompetent.)
Int. GO. — Whether or no you used this language in your
report: "The trade and operations of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany are extensive, and the expense with which they are
attended is very great. I am inclined to think that it is hardly
possible for any one to form an exact estimate of the amount
of profit they derive from their business on the west side of
the mountains. The stock of the Company certainly pays a
large dividend ; and it is asserted that, in addition, a very
considerable surplus has been accumulated to meet any emer-
gency; yet it may be questioned whether their trade in Ore-
gon Territory yields any profit, although it is now conducted
at much less cost tl>an formerly. This diminution of cost
arises from the fact that a great part of the provisions are
now raised in the country, by the labor of their own servants.
The value of all the furs obtained on this coast does not ex-
ceed forty thousand (^40,000) pounds annually; and when the
costs of keeping up their posts, and a marine composed of
four ships and a steamer, is taken into account, and allowances
made for losses, interest, and insurance, little surplus can be
left for distribution. I am, indeed, persuaded that the pro-
ceeds of their business will not long exceed their expenses,
even if they do so at present. The statement of the Com-

289

pany's affairs presents no criterion by which to judge of the
successor their business on the Northwest 'coast. I learned
that it was the general impression among the officers that such
has been the falling off in the trade that it does not now much
more than pay the expenses."

Aiis. — I did.

(Question and answer objected to as incompetent.)

Jilt. 61. — Whether or no you now remember the. language
just quoted, and declare the same to be true ?

Ans. — I do.

(Question ard answer objected to as incompetent.)

Int. G2. — What opportunities did you have for learning the
value of the trade of the Hudson's Bay Company ?

Ans. — I had a great many opportunities of learning, in
conversation, and eliciting opinions, in relation to the then
value, as well as future prospects, of the trade in furs and
peltries obtained, the modes of trapping, fitting out, disci-
pline, and operations at their various posts, the times and sea-
sons best suited for the conveyance of the articles dealt in,
both by land and water, and also information in regard to the
climate, and the character and numbers, and intercourse with
the Indians. Also, the emigration from the States, and the
condition in which the parties arrived in the Territory, together
with the routes most practicable through the Rocky Mountains.

(Question and answer objected to as incompetent.)

Int. 63. — What do you mean by the southern section of this
countr}'?

Ans. — The section south of [the] 49° parallel.

■1 *

Cross-Examination,

Int. 1. — How many buildings and out-buildings were there
at Astoria ?

Ans. — I think about five (5.)

Int. 2. — How many of these were main buildings, and how
many out-buildings?

Ans. — I think there was one main building; Birnie's head-
quarters had two rooms.
19 H

in .

ifil

lii

290

Int. 3. — How many sheds were there?

A71S. — I should like to know the definition of a ftJtcd.

Int. 4. — Have you not stated and caused to bo published in
the year 1850 the following about the post at Astoria: "Half
a dozen log houses, with as many sheds, and a pig-stye or two,
are all that it can boast of."

Ans. — It was published in 1845. The paragraph alluded
to was descriptive of the famous Astoria as it first met my e\c
in the morning after my arrival, and it is accurate as a de-
scriptive view of it embraced in the landscape.

lilt. 5. — In estimating the cost of buildings at Astoria, did
you make your estimate of their cost at the time you saw them
from their then appearance or not ?

Ans. — Having given my estimate of their cost in the direct
examination, I make the same answer I did then.

Int. G. — Do vou now say that the cost of those buildings at
the time of their erection was five or six hundred dollars?

Ans. — I do not knoAV when they were erected, but I say that
they ought not to have cost more than that.

Int. 7. — What is the value to the United States of a position
on which a light-house can be Greeted, and a fortification built,
commanding to some extent the entrance of one of the largest
rivers within its domain?

Ans. — I think it is of no value to the United States, but of
great value to the commercial world, if a light-house is needed
there. I am of the opinion, and always have been so, from
the knowledge I have of the Columbia river and its approaches,
that where the light-house is placed it is useless. Its proper
position should have been on the top of the cape, solely for
the purpose of indicating the position of the. cape to vessels
approaching at night. No light-house can bo of any service
for any vessels entering the Columbia river at night. For
that reason I deem it useless where I understand it has been
placed.

Int. 8. — Was there any settlement or clearing whatever at
any place on the right bank of the Cowlitz when you were
there?

Ans. — No, sir.

291

Int. 9.— Did you notice, within two miles of the place you
called Champoeg and described as low prairie, any higher
ground on the same bank of the river?

Ans. — Yes, sir, I did. The low prairie terminates a short dis-
tance below the sandspit of Champoeg. There the rocky ledge
rises some fifteen hundred (1,500) feet in height, and continues
on the other side of the river, and back on the same side, ex-
tending down the river some fifteen miles, to where the Willa-
mette river falls abruptly some fifteen or twenty feet. All this
tract with rocky ledges is unsuitable for cultivation. Above
Champoeg, on the right bank of the Willamette river, the lower
prairie extends a long distance, some four or five miles in
width : thence it rises to a second, and finally to the upper
prairie.

Int. 10. — You have estimated the cost of the erection of the
fort at Vancouver and the accompanying buildings. Do you
know the date when they were built, the cost of labor at the
time, the value of the materials, or the danger from Indians
to be guarded against ?

Ans. — I do not know the time the buildings or the pickets
of the lower fort were put up. The building of the original
forts on the second steppes is alleged to have been in 1825,
at which time it is deemed that no establishment could be
erected on the lower prairie, on account of its overflow. It
was subsequently built, and the estimate I have formed of the
cost of the buildings is derived from information given me by
Dr. McLoughlin, Sir George Simpson, Mr. Ogden, and Mr.
Douglas, who described to me the facility and speed with
which such buildings could be constructed; likewise the quan-
tity of lumber and the materials used in the construction. At
the time of ' i building, and from the nature of its pickets,
without defences, it was evident that all apprehension from
attacks of Indians had passed.

Int. 11. — How long did you stop at the saw-mill and grist-
mill at the time you say the water had backed up so as to affect
the running of the mill ?

Ans. — I suppose I was there some three hours; ample time
to inspect the whole establishment, and to take lunch.

I '

, 11

292

Int. 12.— Did you ever visit and inspect these mills at any-
other time, and is all your personal knowledge from observa-
tion derived from the visit you have described in your last
answer 'i

Ans. — No, sir ; I think I rode out there several times during
my stay.

Int. 13. — Were these rides you have mentioned taken at
the time of your first or second visit to Vancouver ?

Ans. — My second visit.

Jnt. 14. — At the time of your second visit to Vancouver
what was the stage of the water in the Columbia river ?

Ans. — It was much lower than at the first.

Int. lo. — Could the mills you have spoken of, the saw and
grist-mills, have been built without the aid of experienced or
skilled workmen and millwrights ?

Ans. — I think they could with an intelligent superintendent.

Int. 16. — Do you suppose that the person who superintended
the erection of those mills and their machinery could give a
more accurate statement of their cost than you could from
your inspection of them?

Ans. — He might in a few particulars, but generally I think
not.

Int. 17. — Were not the materials used in this saw-mill better
than what are used in most buildings, so that in few indeed
can such materials be seen ?

Ans. — No, sir; economical construction of both saw and
grist-mills requires strong framing, on a good, strong founda-
tion. The husk frames that support the stones require special
attention. I have spoken of this mill a& being constructed of
good timber, but it was apparent to me that it had been badly
located, on several accounts, and the gang of saws was indis-
putable evidence of the paucity of stream. On account of the
want of water for any duration of time, it was necessary to
have it speedily done. The presence of the blacksmith shop
at that locality was, in my mind, a proof that repairs are fre-
quently required, and promptly to be made, in order to insure
no loss of time by the advance of the season.

Int. 18. — Have you not, in speaking of this mill, made this

293

statement, and caused it to be published, in the year 1845, as
follows: "It is remarkably well built. In few buildings in-
deed can such materials be seen as are here used? "

Ans. — Yes, sir, I have. I will add now that the buildings
themselves have very little more to do with the mill than the
watch-case has with the works.

Int. 19. — Is not the smith's shop you have mentioned a
large one; and is it not used for the manufacture of axes and
hatchets for trappers, at the rate of from twenty-five to fifty
per day ?

Ans. — So I was then told, and believed so.

Int. 20. — Were you not surprised at seeing the celerity with
which these axes were made?

Ans. — I might have been.

Int. 21. — Have you not once positively stated that you were
so surprised at this celerity ?

Ans. — I probably have so stated in my book.

Int. 22. — At what time did you visit the Dairy Farm, on the
Callapuyas, [Cathlapootl,] in company with one of its officers,
at your first or second visit to the post ?

Ans. — I think I must have visited it at both times.

Int. 23. — Did you ride through the woods, or through the
open prairies on your way ?

Am. — Both.

Int. 24. — Did not the high water compel you to go through
the woods, at the time you rode there, on your first visit to
Vancouver ?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; we went through the woods, and through
prairies on the verge.

Int. 25. — Is not the Callapuya also called the Cathlapootl ?

Ans. — I presume it is ; I did not know of it until this ex-
amination.

Int. 26. — At which visit to the Callapuyas [Cathlapootl]
farms did you see the large herds of cattle feeding and re-
posing?

Ans. — At my first visit.

Int. 27. — At the time you visited Callapuyas, or Cathla-

294

pootl farm, was there not a dairy establishment, managed by
a Canadian and his wife?

Aus. — So I was told.

Int. 28. — Have you not stated, and is it not printed, as
follows : *' And at the dairy we were regaled with most ex-
cellent milk, and found the whole establishment well managed
by a Canadian and his wife?"

An)i. — I have so stated in my report of the expedition
published by the Government.

Int. 20. — You have stated that you were at Vancouver, at
your first visit, for eight or ten days. Will you state, as near
as you can, the date of your arrival at Vancouver, and the
date of your departure?

Ans. — I got there first about the last of May, and left on
the 4th day of June, for the Willamette Valley ; got back the
12th, and left again on the 17th of June. I call all this one
visit, and my first visit.

Int. 30. — At what time did you return at your second visit,
and how long did you remain ?

Ans. — I returned about the first of September, and re-
mained several weeks.

Int. 31. — What difference was there in the height of the
water in the river, between the time you arrived there on the
last of May, and when you left there on the 4th of June?

Ans. — The river was rising, and was higher on the 4th of
June, than when I first arrived.

Int. 32. — Had it began to fall when you returned from the
Willamette ?

Ans. — It was higher when I left, on the 17th of June, than
at any time during my first visit.

Int. 33. — Does the Columbia river overflow its banks any-
where, except in the lower prairie, and does it rise anywhere,
except on the lower parts of the prairie?

Ans. — I don't know that it overflows its bank anywhere,
but the percolation causes all its own, and the backwaters of
its tributaries, to set back and submerge the lower grounds.

Int. 34. — Have you not stated, in speaking of the Columbia

295

and its rise, and the effect on the prairie, that the water rises
on the low parts of the prairie ?

Aiis, — I liave so stated.

Int. 3o. — Did you not see in the granary of the Company,
wheat, flour, barley, and buckwheat?

Ans. — Yes; but I do not know that they came from the
farm.

lut. 30. — At the time you were at Vancouver, did you see
any bulls, of the English breed of cattle ?

Ana. — I think I saw one or two.

Int. 37. — Do you not know that a milch cow sold in the
Willamette Valley about the time you were there for sixty (60)
dollars?

Ans. — Yes; the enhanced price was owing to the great diffi-
culty in breaking the wild cattle to milch cattle.

Int. 38. — Do you not consider the situation of Vancouver
favorable for agricultural purposes, and have you not so stated?

Ans. — I think I have not so stated, nor do I consider its
value to consist in agricultural purposes.

Int. 39. — Have you not stated in a report purporting to be
written by you after a certain exploration, and published, that
the situation of Vancouver is favorable for agricultural pur-
poses ?

Ars. — I think not, sir; on the contrary, I think I have
given reasons why it is not so.

Lit. 40. — Is not Vancouver at the head of navigation for
sea-going vessels on the Columbia river?

Ans. — I've said that it may be so considered, but vessels go
above it /ibout forty miles, to the foot of the Cascades.

\_Addition to the answer to cross-interrogatory 39. — I find on
examination that I made this statement, but it has reference
to the mile square around Vancouver.]

Int. 41. — Can a vessel drawing fourteen feet of water reach
Vancouver at the lowest state of the river ?

Ans. — Yes, I think she can ; indeed I may say I know she
can.

Int. 42. — Is not Vancouver the most eligible site on the

• n

'III!

■ I

Hij

llllit

|||||

lill

wIIh' iI 1

^Ulni i

296

river for the building up of a commercial town when the coun-
try should become populated ?

Ans. — As far as my opinion goes I think it is.

Int. 43. — Have you not stated that "Vancouver is a large
manufacturing, agricultural, and commercial depot; and also
that the Company's establishment at Vancouver is upon an
extensive scale, and is worthy of the vast interest of which it
is the centre?"

Atis. — I have, or words to that effect. Those remarks are
to be confined to the operations of the Company, to its wants
and business. It is not to be understood as embracing a gen-
eral view of manufactures and trade relative to commerce.

Int. 44. — When did you see the Columbia river at its lowest
stage?

Ans. — In the latter part of September.

Int. 45. — Did you visit the Callapuyas or Cathlapootl farm
in the latter part of September?

Ans. — It strikes mo that I did.

Int. 46. — State, if you can, w^hcther there is not a lake, or
a series of "lakes, at low water, extending from a point two or
three miles below Vancouver nearly to Cathlapootl.

Ai}S. — The whole country within a mile and a half of Van-
couver westward, has the appearance of a low, marshy ground,
such as the retiring of the Columbia floods would present.

Int. 47. — Did you, or did you not, observe any collection
or collections of water between the points described in the
former question at the time specified?

Ans. — The Callapuyas or Cathlapootl creek might be traced
to some distance by large spaces of water lying on either side
of it as far as the eye could reach.

Int. 48. — Did you witness the Columbia at its greatest and
least heights?

Ans. — From the accounts I received from creditable wit-
nesses, I do not believe that I saw it either at one or the other.

Int. 49. — Have you not stated, in a report made after your
visit to Columbia river in 1841, and published, that " I wit-
nessed the Columbia at its greatest and least heights?"

Ans. — If I did so, it was with reference to the time of my

297

visit. I could not have intcnfled those words to apply to all
times and all seasons, for I had the most reliable information
from Mr. Ogden and Mr Birnie, that the Colunil»ia had swept
over even the site of the present Fort Vancouver. This circum-
stance, when there, I should have deemed almost impossible.
About two miles below Fort Murrier, at the mouth of the lower
Willamette, there is a bar, which at times I've been informed
has less than ten (10) feet of water on it in the lowest stages
of the water.

(The portion of this answer of the witness stated upon in-
formation objected to.)

Int. 50. — What section of country did you mean, when, in
speaking of the number of cattle in it, you stated that there
were upwards of (10,000) ten thousand cattle in 1841. Was
it, or was it not, the Willamette Valley?

Ans. — It was not, as regards the Willamette Valley. It was
most probably intended for the whole country as far as 54°
40', and derived from most reliable information.

Int. 51. — What country do the parties which trap on their
way go to from Vancouver, and return with cattle?

Ans, — California.

Int. 52. — Is this a country which is very well adapted to
the raising of cattle and sheep?

Ans. — There are plenty of cattle, no sheep in California.

Int. 53. — Have you not used this language in a report made
after your exploration : " This southern country, as Avill be seen
from what has already been stated, is very well adapted to
the raising of cattle and sheep; of the former many have been
introduced by parties which trap on their way thither and
return with cattle?"

Ans. — Yes sir, that is stated in my report.

Int. 54. — Did not Mr. Ogden bring in the furs collected from
all the posts on the Columbia and its tributaries above Van-
couver, including New Caledonia and Colvile?

Ans. — I understood from Mr. Ogden that he had brought
in all the furs from the northern posts, and doubt whether any
of the posts of the southern section of the country were re-
ferred to. '

298

Int. Cn. — Was it from this statement of Mr. Ogdcn that
you have stated that the southern section of the country was
scarcely worth the exi)ense of an outlay of a party of trappers?

Ans. — Not only from the statement of Mr. Ogdcn, but from
the statonients of Dr. McLoughlin, Mr. Douglas, and Sir
George Simpson; with all of whom I had frequent conversa-
tions relative to the value and expense of the several post-
throughout the whole country, in which they coincided very
nearly in opinion.

Int. AC). — Did you not understand distinctly that the south-
ern section of the country was that portion of the country not
included within the business control of those posts of the
Company from Avhich Mr. Ogden brought the furs, with his
brigade, arriving at Vancouver in the month of June, 1841?

A7\s, — From the indistinctness of the question, I can give
it no definite answer. If put in a more definite form, I should
bo glad to afford all the information in my power.

Int. ku. — Were there any settlers at Vancouver and Fort
Astoria Avhen you were there in 1841, other than the officers
and employes of the Hudson's Bay Company?

Ans. — I think there were a number of persons intending to
settle, or who so expressed themselves to me; whether they
had settled or located themselves, I've no actual knowledge.

Itit. o8. — Did you, at either of your visits to Vancouver in
1841, see a single house or dwelling, of any kind whatever,
belonging to or in the possession of any person other than an
officer or an employe of the Hudson's Bay Company, or of
some one or more of the officers or men of the vessels under
your command?

Ans. — I may have seen houses or shanties erected about
Fort Vancouver that might have bee.i occupied by others than
officers or employes of the Company. While there, I was fre-
quently asked by the visitors and emigrants from the United
States, what rights they had in the country, and whether or
not they could choose locations on which to erect shanties and
occupy land. * *

Int. 50. — Was there any government in the country at the
time of your visits in 1841 ? ,

290

, or of
under

Auf. — I <li<l not consitlcr that thcic was any.

Int. 60. — Ilavo you not stated, in speaking, iit a report made
by you of your explorations after 1841, of the moniherH of the
Willamette Mission and Dr. McLoughlin, that "they invari-
ably spoke of Dr. McLoughlin in the highest terms. Thcj
were averse to his absolute rule of the whole territory, and,
although it was considered by them as despotic, they could
not adduce any instance of the wrong application of his
power?"

A)t8.—^Tho paragraphs quoted arc to bo understood as re-
ferring to the moneyed power which Dr. McLoughlin, being at
the head of the Hudson's Bay Company, could give or with-
hold at his pleasure. In some cases, he thought proper to
extend a helping hand, or afford means to settlers, while in
other cases he denied it. This was calculated to produce a
great deal of ill feeling, as well as good feeling.

Int. 61. — Have you not also stated, at the same time, and in
the same report, in speaking of the settlers, that "the settlers
are also deterred from crimes, as the Company have the power
of sending them to Canada for trial?"

Ans. — I have stated so; and this applies to those settlors
who were formerly in the service of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany.

Int. 62. — So far as your knowledge extends, has Dr.
McLoughlin extended to new-comers and settlers, of good
character, every facility in his power, and also invariably
given them the use of cattle, horses, farming utensils, and sup-
plies, to facilitate their operations until such time as they are
able to provide for themselves ?

Ans. — I think he has. All cases of any misunderstand-
ing between himself and settlers, that came to my knowledge,
proved his liberality and solicitude for their welfare.

Int. 63. — Did not the officers of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany aflford to yourself, and the officers under ycur command,
every facility within their power to further the i;xploration in
which you were engaged?

Ans. — I think they did, sir.

Int. 64. — Look at this letter, now shown to you and marked

i:«,

300

Exhibit A, and state whether the letter of which it purports
to be a copy was written by you and sent to the person to
whom it is addressed.

Ans. — I wrote the letter of which the letter now shown to
me is a correct copy, and sent it to the persons to whom it is
addressed.

Int. Gi). — Look at this extract from a letter, marked Exhibit
B, and state whether it is an extract from the letter from which
it purports to be taken, written by you to John McLoughlin,
Esq., and sent to the person to whom it is addressed.

Ans. — That is a correct extract from the letter, and was sent
as directed.

Int. 6G. — What nu 'ber of posts are occupied by the Hud-
son's Bay Company in the territory used by them on the north-
west coast ? Are not these posts located at the best points for
trade, so as to secure the resort of the Indians without inter-
fering with their usual habits ? Did not the Company also
occupy places in the vicinity of the abodes of the Indians
during the most favorable part of the year for obtaining the
proceeds of their hunting ?

Ans. — I think they did. At that time it was so. I'm not
prepared to speak as to the present time. I was told that
they had twenty-five posts.

Me-Examination.

Int. 1. — What was the value, in 1841, of the square mile of
land around Fort Vancouver, excepted by you in your answer
to the 42d interrogatory of the direct examination, which trac;
of land you have described as favorable for agHcultural pur-
poses?

Ans. — I judge it was worth some ten or twelve thousand
dollars.

Int. 2. — Whether or no you own and manage a saw and
grist-mill, and consider yourself competent to estimate the cost
of such mills?

Ans. — I do own saw-mills and grist-mills, and have had com-
petent persons to manage them. I have built, repaired, and

301

rebuilt them, and from the expenses incurred I deem myself to
be competent to pass an opinion on their efficiency and value.

I7it. 3. — What was the average price of unbroken cattle in
the Willamette Valley in 1841?

Ans. — About ten dollars, (SlO*)

Int. 4. — Whether or no you consider that it would be safe
for a sailing vessel to pass at night in or out of the mouth of
the Columbia river even if there were a light-house on Cape
Disappointment?

Ans. — I should consider it impracticable and dangerous; it
is very dangerous even in the day-time.

Int. 5. — Whether or no you ever at any time before 1S47 made
any estimate of the value of all the posts and tra('' of the Hud-
son's Bay Company south of the 49° of north latitude; if so,
state under what circumstances you made it, and what it was?

Ans. — I made such an estimate at the suggestions of many
persons connected with the Government and Congress, and to
Sir George Simpson during a visit of his to Washington. I
think this visit was about the year 184G, prior to or about the
time of the making of the treaty. The amount I estimated
then to be Avorth was a half million dollars for all the posts
of Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Companies. Sir George
Simpson thought it ought to be a million. I told him that it
might be so, but advised him to get that sum inserted in the
treaty, for I thought thai if he left it out of the treaty he
might ijet much less.

(Answer objected to a.j incompetent.)

Cross- E.xamination Resumed,

Lit 1. — In what State are the saw and grist-mills that you
oAvn situated?

Ans. — One within two miles, and some Vfithin twenty-five '
miles of this place.

Int. 2. — Do you not know that the difference in the cost of
mills is caused by a difference in the framing, gearing, and
machinerv ?

Ans. — I am wil'ing to say that there is a very great differ-
ence in the cost of mills.

Int. 3. — At the time you mado this estimate which you speak

l!ii

''^-WHiaiili'ln'i

■MmMim

302

of, of the value of all the posts and trade of the Hudson's
Bay and Pugct's Sound Companies south of 40°, what was
your estimate or idea of the income of the Companies from
those posts ?

Ans. — My idea was that it was of very little, if any, profit
south of 49°.

Int. 4. — Was it on this profit that you estimated the value
of their trade and posts to be five hundred thousand dollars?

Ans. — It could not have been on the profits, for I did not
believe there were any. Nor can I at the present time desig-
nate on what the estimate was based. I merely state the fact
what I then stated, and of what was stated to me by Sir
George Simpson.

Int. 5. — Was your estimate of the value of all the outside
the mile square, and included within certain limits at Van-
couver, and also your estimate of the value of that mile square
at ten or tw^elve thousand dollars ($10,000 or $12,000) an esti-
mate based upon their value for agricultural and pasturage
purposes?

Ans. — My former answers to these questions are definitive.

Charles Wilkes.

City op Charlotte, \

County of Mecklenburg, State of North Carolina. )

Hudson's Bay Company in the matter against the United
States in the above case. It is agreed by the undersigned
that the testimony of Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes, U. S. N.,
a witness procured by and on behalf of the United States of
America, in defence to the claims made n.gainst the United
States by the Hudson's Bay Company, before the British and
American Joint Commission for the adjustment of the same,
shall be taken before Charles Overman, a justice of the peace
for and in the county and State aforesaid.
This the 31st day of December, A. D. 1866.

Edward Lander,

Of Counsel for II. B. Co.
Charles C. Be am an, Jr.
Attorney for the United States.

303

Exhibit A.

Copy.] U. S. BiiiG PoRPorsE,

Baker's Bay, Octoha- 'k 1841.

Gentlemen: My last duty, before leaving; the Columbia, I
feel to bo that of expressing to you my sincere thanks for the
important aid and facilities which you have afforded the expe-
dition, on all occasions, for carrying out the object of our visit
to this part of the world, and be assured it will prove a very
pleasing part of my duty to make a due representation of it
to my Government.

Your personal kindness and friendly attentions to myself
and officers, from our first arrival, and also to Captain Hud-
son and his officers, after the wreck of the Peacock, have laid
us under many obligations, which I trust it may be, at some
future day, in our power to return.

We all would request, through you, an expression of our
feelings for the many attentions and kindnesses received, and
the pleasures afforded us by the officers of the Hudson's Bay
Company's service with whom we have had any intercourse,
which will be long remembered with pleasure.

With my sincere wishes for the health, happiness, and pros-
perity of yourselves and families, I am, very truly, your
obedient servant,

(Signed) Charles Wilkes,

Commanding Exploring Expedition.
To John McLoughlin and James Douglas, Esq's,

OJiief Factors H. B. C. Service, Vancouver.

Exhibit B.

Extract from letter of Captain Wilkes, dated United States

brig Porpoise, Columbia river, October 2, 1841, to John

McLaughlin, Esq., Chief Factor Hudson's Bay Company,

Fort Vancouver.

"In making this request, I am well aware of the desire the

Honorable Hudson's Bay Company and its officers have always

'im"

804

shown to do everything in their power to afford relief to thoi<o
in distress, and the deep feeling all attached to this squadron
have evinced for the relief extended to ourselves individually
during the late disaster, and it will be only placing a suitable
boat in the hands of the Company, in which to afford relief
more promptly. I therefore have little doubt but that you
will not object to assume the charge; and I assure you it will
afford me great satisfaction hereafter to hear that she has been
of any use in saving lives or property."

City op Charlotte, )

Coiintt/ of 3L'c]dcnhurg, State of North Carolina, j

I, Charles Overman, a justice of the peace in and for the
county and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the fore-
going deposition, hereto annexed, of Hear Admiral Charles
Wilkes, U. S. N., a witness produced by and on behalf of the
United States of America in defence to the claims made
against the United States by the Hudson's Bay Company,
before the British and American Joint Commission for the
adjustment of the same, was taken before me at the office of
the First National Bank of Charlotte, in the city of Charlotte,
North Carolina, and reduced to writing under my direction
and in my personal presence, by P. P. Zimmerman, a person
agreed upon by Charles C. Beaman, Jr., Esq., attorney for the
United States, and Edward Lander, Esq., attorney for the said
Company, beginning on the 2d day of January, A. D. 18G7,
continuing from day to day until the 4th day of January,
1867, when it was signed according to the date appended to
said deposition.

I further certify that said deposition was taken before me
in pursuance of the written agreement hereto annexed, between
said Charles C. Beaman, Jr., Esq., and Edward Lander, Esq.
I further certify that to said witness, before his examination,
I administered the following oath:

"You swear that the evidence which you shall give in the
matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against

m m

305

the United States of America shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you Grod."

That after the same was reduced to writing, the deposition
was carefully read to, and then signed by said witness.

I further certify that Edward Lander, Esq., attorney for
said Company, Avas personally present during the examination
and cross-examination of said witness, and the reading and
signing of his deposition.

I further certify that the documents marked A and B, hereto
annexed, are those referred to in examination of said witness.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand at said
office the 4th day of January, A. D. 1807.

Charles Overman, J. P.

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company vs. the

United States.

Deposition of anvitness (on behalf of the United States) sworn
and examined in the city of Philadelphia, Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, before me, Charles Sergeant, United
States commissioner in and for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, by virtue of a verbal agreement made
and entered into between C. C. Beaman, Esq., as counsel
for the United States, and Edward Lander, as counsel for
the Hudson's Bay Company.

Testimony of George Davidson.

George Davidson being first duly sworn, deposes and testi-
fies as follows :

Qiu'S. 1. What is your name, residence, and present occu-
pation?

Ans. George Davidson ; Germantown, Philadelphia ; I am
Assistant United States Coast Survey.

Ques. 2. Did you ever visit Cape Disappointment at the
entrance of the Columbia river, and if so in what capacity ?

Ans. I was stationed at Cape Disappointment from some
20 H

'"' I

'i:l! I

Mi' J' ■

»M;il

306

time in June 1851, to the following October, in charge of the
astronomical work and of the tojiographical work, having special
reference to the propriety of locating a light-house on that
cape.

Ques. 3. Whether or no A. M. Harrison was an assistant
under you ?

A71S. — Yes, he was.

Ques. 4. — Whether or no he made a topographical map of
Cape Disappointment?

Ans. — He did of the southern part of the cape.

Ques. 5. — Whether or no a portion of the map, now shown
you, entitled "Mouth of Columbia River, &c., published in
1851," to be marked "A," and hereafter annexed to your
deposition, is a reduced copy of the map made by Mr. Har-
rison ?

Ans. — It is.

Ques. 6. — Will you, from your own knowledge, dep^nbc
this cape?

Ans. — It is a rocky promontory, formed, by hills of hori-
zontal columnar .basalt, rising at the highest point of the
cape to an elevation of about 287 feet, and covered with a
thin stratum of vegetable soil. The ocean faces of the cape
are rocky, very precipitous, and in most cases inaccessible.
For the most part, these ocean faces are covered ^rom a line
about thirty feet above the water with grass and fern, and
destitute of trees to their summits, which, at the southern
part of the cape, are very narrow. From these ridges the
land slopes more gradually towards the inner side of the cape
facing on Baker's Bay. Along the shore line, inside of the
cape, are two short stretches of low ground, with good land-
ing beaches. From the summit of the ridges to the inner shores
it is covered with a dense growth of fir and underbrush,
through which I had to open and grade an ox-sled road be-
tween the summit of the cape and the first cove inside.
Landing upon the outside of the cape is, at all times, danger-
ous, and can only be effected in certain localities when there
is no sea on.

Ques. 7. — What was the value of this land at that time?

307

Ans. — I would not have paid the Government price for it.
The only value to be paid upon tlic land would have been on
iiccount of its timber ; but the whole country in this rcf^ion
is covered with as good timber, and more accessible.

Ques. 8. — Whether or no you ever heard, whe!i you were
there in 1851, of an occupation at that time, or any previous
.^ine, of this cape by the Hudson's Bay Company?

Ans. — I did not.

Quc8. 0. — Whether or no you saw any marks of previous
occupation or any marks of boundary lines of this cape?

Ans. — I saw no marks of th6 cultivation of the soil or of
any timber having been cut upon the part of the map figured,
but there were buildings erected and in state of being erected
in the locality designated at Pacific City. I was well acquainted
with the people in this vicinity*and with Captain Scarborough,
living at Chinook, and formerly of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany, and cannot remember any claim being intimated or
asserted for the Hudson's Bay Company, although it was well
known for months that I was occupying the cape with my
parties for Government work.

(So much of answer to interrogatory ninth as refers to the
statements of others objected to.)

Ques. 10. — Whether or no you selected a point for the loca-
tion of a light-house?

Ans. — I did. The points selected by me were the highest
point of Cape Disappointment and Point Adams, on the south
side of the entrance — advising that two lights be built; but
advising that if only one should be constructed, it should be
at Point Adams, because the south channel of the Columbia
river, passing around Point Adams, was at that time, and
from then up to the time of my leaving the Pacific coast, in
the year 1860, almost invariably used by vessels entering and
leaving the Columbia river; and because I have known
Cape Disappointment to be enveloped in fog for a few hours
after sunset, while Point Adams was without fog. And I con-
sidered it practicable that, with a beacon light on the hills
behind Point Chinook, steamers might be enabled to enter and
leave the river by the south channel at night. This they can.

308

hot do by cither channel now, and could not well do by the
north channel at any time, because the shore along Baker's
bay, inside of Cape Disappointment, is much lower than Cape
*Disii[)pointment, and it would be difficult to establish ran<Te
ligiits. The light on Cape Disappointment is used altogetiier
by vessels at night, as a mark or signal by which to know
their approximate position when off the mouth of the river.
Vessels coming from the northward cannot see the light as at
present located until they are nearly abreast of the Cape.

Qtnm. 11. — What was the value, in 1851, for public purposes
of sufficient land for the proper location of a lighthouse, and
necessary buildings on Cape Disappointment?

Aii8. — Not more than the Government price of the land.
I should judge that the amount of ground required for the
light-house site would be a tract of land lying between the
height and the first small cove inside the cape, about seven
hundred yards in length by two hundred and fifty in width ;
this would give ample facility and space for the construction
of a road from the landing to the summit, for the conveyance
of light-house material, and a small patch of level ground at
the landing for residences and a garden, with a fine spring of
water at the landing. This tract, when I was there, was not
worth ton dollars to anybody to locate and live upon.

Ques. 12, — What is the character of the entrance to the
Columbia river ?

Ans. — The width of the Columbia river between Cape Dis-
appointment and Point Adams is nearly six miles. Lying
between them is an extensive shoal, known as the Middle
Sands. The inner or up-river point of this shoal is not cov-
ered at high water, and is known as Sand Island. This shoal
divides the entrance to the river into two channels : that Ivin";
between it and Cape Disappointment is known as the North
channel, and that between it and Point Adams is known as
the South channel. The entrance to each of these channels
is obstructed by a bar. That of the North channel had gen-
erally more Avater upon it than the bar of the South channel,
but the North channel was seldom used on account of its
greater length, and being a dead-beat to windward for over

309

two miles The South channel, although more changeable in
its general location, is almost invariably used, on account of
its shortness and because the pilots are better acquainted
it. I have entered the Columbia river by the South channel
as late as 1857. From the top of Cape Disappointment, for
several months in 1851, (June to October,) I daily saAV the
condition of the two bars ; at times the sea was so smooth
that no person, except one thoroughly acquainted with the
ranges and marks about the entrance of the river, could have
known the accurate position of either bar, there being not
less than five fathoms water at high water on the North bar,
and not less than four and a quarter fathoms at high water
on the South bar. At other times I have seen a continuous
line of fearful breakers extending from the cape northwest-
erly, round in a horse-shoe form, along the line of the bar and
ocean point of middle sands to the beach a mile or two below
Point Adams. At such a time it would have been impracti-
cable and unsafe to have gone in or have taken out any vessel
through either- channel, even supposing wind, tide, and cur-
rents to be favorable, and a pilot on board. I have frequently
seen, during heavy weather, vessels lying off and on for a
week at a time, unable to effect an entrance. I knew of one
case, but did not see it, where a vessel has laid off and on over
forty days in vain attempts to get in. I have known lumber-
laden vessels lying in the river for over two weeks trying to
get out, and afraid to take the risks of going through a break-
ing bar. My general conclusion is, and always has been, that
the Columbia river entrance is of the most dangerous char-
acter, and in my official reports and directions for entering
this river have always advised the waiting for a pilot.

Several surveys of the entrance to the Columbia river have
been made by the United States Coast Survey, but their sale
is only made with a distinct understanding that they represent
the condition of the entrance at the time of survey only, and
not for any other period, and the Coast Survey does not fur-
nish sailing directions for entering the river, except for the
particular time of the survey.

Adjourned to May 7.

''V

f.^'i

l.V

Bii.

310

(All tho foregoing testimony which relates to the cu.\nncls
of the Columbia river objected to.)

CroH8- Examination.

Qucs. 1. — After you left this place, in 1851, when did you
return to it, and how long did you remain there?

An8. — I returned on duty again in 1853, but cannot state
exactly the time I remained in tho river, but about a week.
I think I was in again in 1855, and was in twice in 1857 — the
first time about a week or two, the second time a day or so.
October, 1857, was tho last time I was there.

Ques. 2. — Is not your personal knowledge of the use made of
the two channels of the Columbia river confined to the times
you visited it?

Ans. — No; because I have been ofiicially called upon to
make examinations and comparison of the different surveys of
the river by the United States to discover the law of changes
in the channels, draw up directions for entering them, and to
ascertain the amount of trade in the river, and by what chan-
nels that trade entered and left. I have also compared all
accessible surveys of the river, from tho time of Vancouver up
to those made by the Coast Survey.

(The whole of the above answer objected to which refers to
anything but the personal observation of the witness, the rest
being hearsay.)

Ques. 3. — When did you last go into the mouth of the Co-
lumbia river?

Ans. — In October, 1857.

Ques. 4. — Can you state how many Steamers a month went
to Portland, on the Willamette river, while you were on that
coast?

Ana. — I have not been on that coast for six years.

George Davidson.

United States of America, 1
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. J

I, Charles Sergeant, United States Commissioner, duly
appointed and commissioned by the Circuit Court of the

Sll

United States in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
do hereby certify that the foregoing deposition of (Jeorgo
Davidson was taken and reduced to writing by me, in the
presence of said witness, from his statements on the sixth and
seventh days of May, 18(37, at my office, No. 123 South Fifth
street, Philadelphia, in pursuance of a verbal agreement made
in my presence by C. C. Beaman, Esq., as counsel for the
United States, and Edward Lander, Esq., as counsel for the
Hudson's Bay Company.

I further certify that to said witness, before his examina-
tion, I administered the following oath :

" You do swear that the evidence you are about to give in
the matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against
the United States shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God."

I further certify that said deposition was by me carefully
read to said witness, and then signed by him in my presence.

I further certify that the paper, hereto annexed, marked
"A," is the one referred to in the foregoing testimony of
George Davidson.

In testimony whereof I have hereto set my hand and affixed
my official seal, at my office in the city of Philadel-
phia, this seventh day of May, 1867.

Charles Sergeant,
U. S. Oonir in and for the Eastern List, of Penn.

[L. S.]

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company vs.

the United States.

Deposition of a witness (on behalf of the United States)
sworn and examined in the city of Philadelphia, Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, before me, Charles Sergeant,
United States Commissioner in and for the said Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, by virtue of a verbal agreement
entered into between C. C. Beaman, Esq., as counsel for

812

the United States, and Edward Lander, as counsel for
tlio Hudson's Bay Company.

Testimony of Alexander M. Harrison.

Alcxanihr M. Harrison, being first duly sworn, deposes and
testifies as follows:

Ques. 1. — What is your name, residence, and present occu-
pation ?

Ai}s. — Alexander M. Harrison ; I reside at Plymouth,
Massachusetts ; I am an assistant, United States Coast Sur-
vey.

Quc8. 2. — Are you acquainted with Cape Disappointment,
at the mouth of the Columbia river, Washington Territory ?

Ans. — Yes.

Ques. 3. — In what capacity, and when did you become ac-
quainted with it?

Ans, — As an officer in the United States Coast Survey, in
1851.

Ques. 4. — What were your particular duties on that survey r

An%. — I was in charge of a topographical party, for the
purpose of making a topographical survey of the cape, under
the direction of Assistant George Davidson.

Ques. 5. — Look at this map, entitled " Mouth of the Colum-
bia River, &c.," published in 1851, and marked "A," and to
be hereafter attached to your deposition, and state what it
represents.

Ans. — It represents a preliminary survey of the entrance to
the Columbia river, and some distacce Inside the entrance.

Ques. 6. — Referring to that part of the map marked Cape
Hancock or Disappointment, state what it represents.

Ans. — A minute topographical survey of all the features of
the ground, from the entrance point to the distance of a little
over a mile northward, embraced between the inner and outer
shores.

Ques. 7. — Of what is this portion of the map a copy ?

Ans. — A reduced copy of my original survey.

813

msol for

oscs and

snt occu-

lymoutli,
Dast Sur-

)intmcnt,
ritory '{

icome ac-

urvey, in

; survey "r
, for the
)e, under

e Colum-
," and to
! what it

trance to
ranee,
ked Cape

atures of
)f a little
md outer

py-

Ques. 8. — Will you describe the various marks upDii thin
section of the map, and explain what they mean ?

An8. — Tho darker shades upon the shorc-liiu' represent
l)old, rocky, precipitous bluffs, and tho lighter Hliudes or hach-
ures represent more gradual slopes; tho small stars are con-
ventional signs for representation of cone-bearing trees an«l
the other sigi s for deciduous trees; the straight, unbroken
sho'v;-line, dotted along its edge, represents >and-beach ;
tl . bold headland on tho northwestern part of this sketch, is,
^t ]i\^M tide, an elevated island, with rocky and bluff shores;
tlie first small dotted lino outside of the shore-line represents
the mean low-water mark.

Qiies. 9. — Will you state any particular opportunities you
had for knowing the character of this point?

Ans. — I was there in tho neighborhood of four months, from
some time in June to some time in October, and the minute-
ness of my survey necessitated a personal inspection of the
entire ground.

Qufis. 10. — Will you now describe the character of the cape 'i

Ans. — The shore-line, with tho exception of that portion
formed by sand-beaches, consists of bold, abrupt, basalt-rock,
presenting, in some places, almost a perpendicular face to the
sea; a sharp, high ridge, extending along the southern and
western shores, from which the land slopes irregularly to the
east and north ; the ground for tho most part is densely
wooded, and not at all available for agricultural purposes ;
there are one or two small patches, none of them of a greater
area than an acre, which could bo made available as truck-
gardens.

Qiies. 11. — Were there any inhabitated buildings or ruins
of buildings within tho limits of your survey ?

Ans. — £ saw none whatever.

Ques. 12. — Was there any cultivated ground within the
limits of your survey ?

Ans. — No.

Ques. 13. — What would you estimate to be the value of the
land embraced in your survey ?

Ans. — I would not have given the Government price for it

1 '!.„,,„ ^-..

314

and paid taxes. I can conceive of it having no value except
for the timber, of which there was an abundance in this whole
region much more accessible.

Ques. 14. — Whether or no your party made any examina-
tion with a view to locating a light-house on this cape?

Ans. — Yes, sir; we did.

Ques. 15. — Where did you locate it ?

Ans. — On the highest point of the cape, nearest its south-
ern extremity.

Ques. 16. — How much land would be needed for the light-
house you located ?

Ans. — About from three and a half to four acres, extendino;
across the cape from the selected position, to include the first
cove in the height of the cape.

Ques. 17. — What would be the value of this land for public
purposes ?

Ajis. — About the Government price.

Ques. 18. — Whether or no you knew or heard of any occu-
pation of this cape at the time you were there by any officers
or servants of the Hudson's Bay Company?

Ans. — I did not.

(The portion of question 18, asking if the witness heard, ob-
jected to.)

Ques. 19. — Whether or not you knew of a house on this cape
occupied by a man by the name of Kipling?

Ans. — My memory is not clear as to names; but I did knoAv
of and visited a house a few times on the inner shore north of
the limits of my survey, occupied by, I believe, a half-breed,
whom I also employed on one or tv/o occasions to take me across
to i'oint Adams. I think he mentioned having been once in
the employ of the Hudson's Bay Company ; but I am pretty
clear in my recollection that he intimated, if he did not dis-
tinctly assert, that he was now trading for himself. I knoAV
I made purchases of him, for the Indi?,ns which I employ, and
for my own men, of tobacco, and, at the time, I wa'^i clearly
under the impression that it was on his own account. As I
remember, his house was a log-house. My recollection as to
the size of the house is crude, but I should say it was about

315

forty foet by twenty feet; it was one story high. I should
say the house was worth then considerably less than one thou-
sand dollars.

(Interrogatory 19 objected to as incompetent, and all the
ansAver thereto, and especially the statement purporting to be
made by a half-breed.)

Ques. 20. — Whether or no there was any cultivated ground
around this house?

Ans. — I don't remember.

Ques. 21. — What was the character of the entrance of the
Columbia river ?

Ans. — It is very difficult of entrance, and at times impossi-
ble. It is not, or was not at that time, ever entered at night.
I have seen a continuous line of breakers from Cape Disap-
pointment extending across to Point Adams. Tlie ])ar is con-
tinually shifting. I surveyed Sand Island, lying between the
two points of the entrance, and know that it is continually
changing in position and configuration.

Ques. 22. — What, in your judgment, would be the import-
ance of [a] light in Cape Disappointment ?

Ans. — Merely as a mark to hold your position. It is use-
less to enter by, without a range on the shore of IJaker's Bay ;
and the north channel, for which it would be available, is
rarely used, and never at night.

Adjourned to May 7.

Gross- Examination hy Counsel for Company.

(If this map is proposed to ' e introduced in the trial of the
case, or if it has been introduced in any deposition, or the in-
troduction of it, either us annexed to this deposition or any
other in which it is mentioned, objected to as incompetent.)

(All the testimony in legard to the bar in tlie mouth of the
Columbia river object**,^ to.)

Ques. ".. Are you certain of the length of the land sur-
veyed by you? If so, state its greatest length, and in what
direction.

Ans. — About a mile long, and in a northwesterly direction.

p :

JS'EI ' i

^i|i'! ■

m *i

'<i il

!J«

m^.

316

Ques. 2. — What was the width of this land you suvveyed from
the Ocean to the shores of Baker's Bay, if you did survey it?

Ans. — Approximately, a third of a mile, average width.

Ques. 3. — Standing on Cape Disappointment, and looking
towards Baker's Bay, or inward towards the land, is there not
low ground within the portion of land you surveyed?

Ans. — Yes ; but compared with the whole area, very little.

Ques. 4. — Were you living upon the shore at the time you
made this survey?

Ans. — Yes ; encamped upon the shore.

Ques. 5, — State where your camp was located; and, if you
can do so, point to it on the map.

A?is. — On the first bight, after rounding the southeastern
point of the cape called Cape Bluff, and directly under the
inner or western slope of the bluff.

Ques. 6. — I see noticed here Pacific City on the map; how
far was this location from the extremity of your survey?

Ans. — About a quarter of a mile.

Ques. T. — Were there any houses between the place called
Pacific City and your survey ?

Ans. — One.

Ques. 8. — How far was that house from the line of your
survey ?

Ans. — That I could not say exactly.

Ques. 9. — When the north channel came into general use,
would not the light-house on Cape Disappointment be of great
value to navigators?

Ans. — It might be of some v.alue, but not much Avithout a
range on the shore of Baker's Bay ; and, from my recollection
of the topography there, I say this would be impracticable,
from the fact that the ground along the shores of the bay is
lower than, and would be covered or hidden by Cape Disap-
pointment.

Ques. 10. — Is it, then, your opinion that the only point of
land available for a light-house at the usually navi^^ated chan-
nel of a great river, the only outlet to the commerce of a
numerous population, is of little value?

317

Ans. — I don't regard Cape Hancock or Disappointment as
the only available point for a light-house. Indeed, I have
serious doubts whether that is the point where a light-house
should be erected at all.

Ques, 11. — State where, in your opinion, a light-house could
be erected for the benefit of those navigating the North chan-
nel, at the entrance of the Columbia river, could be located
other than on the land you have stated that you have sur-
veyed ?

Ahs. — To answer that question exactly would require an
examination for that special purpose. When I was there the
North channel was not used at all ; whatever vessels came in
and went out, during the period of our stay there, did so
r'u'ough the South channel; and it appeared to me then, as
, Iocs now, that Point Adams should have been selected as
the one for the location of the light-house, from which ranges
could readily be obtained. I looked upon the light upon Cape
Disappointment merely as a means of holding your position
off the mouth of the river.

Ques. 12. — Is not your preference for a light-house at Point
Adams caused by the fact, as you state, that when you were
there the South channel was the one used by vessels enter-
ing the river?

Ans. — Partially ; but I still see the objection which I have
heretofore stated in the matter of ranges at Cape Disappoint-
ment.

Qut-- )■'■ -Are you acquainted with the cost of erectin<T
buili' n^.'-* ;>{, the mouth of the Columbia river, or thereabouts
or do you iaiow of the sales of any buildings there?

Ans. — I uu form an approximate estimate of the cost of
buildinjjo of the character of that of which I have testified.
i knew of the sale of no buildings while I was there.

Ques. 14. — Do you know anything of the cost of skilled
labor, or value of material, or the cost of transportation ?

A:'s. — I can form a tolerably close estimate with regard to
a bu -ing of the character of the one which I saw there.

Q"r-. '5. — Do you, personally, know anything of the use

318

made of the channels, at the entrance of the Oolumljia river,
''ince the time you left there ?
Ana. — I do not.

A. :>[. IlAiinrsoN,
Ass't U. S. Coad Survey.

f'!i !

I! >:

United States of America, \
Eastern District of Pcnnsijlvania. j

I, Charles Sergeant, United Sta'cs Commissioner, duly
appointed and conn lissioned by the Circuit Court of the
United States in and .( ■ Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

do hereby certify that U. loregoing deposition of Alexander
M. Harrison was taken and reduced to writing by mc, in the
presence of said witness, from his statements on the sixth and
seventh days of May, 1867, at my oflicc, No. 123 South Fifth
street, Philadelphia, in pursuance of a verbal agreement made
in my presence by C. C. Beaman, Esq., as counsel for the
United States, and Edword l^ander, Esq., counsel for the
Hudson's Bay Company.

I further certify that to said witness, before his examina-
tion, I administered the following oath:

" You do swear that the evidence you arc about to give in
the matter of the claim of the Hudson's ]iay Company against
the United States shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God."

I further certify that the said deposition was by me care-
fully read to said witness, and then signed by him in my
presence.

I do further certify that the paper, hereto annexed, and
marked "A," is the one referred to in the testimony of Alex-
ander M. Harrison.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and
official seal, at my office in the city of Philadelphia,
l-^- ^'-l this seventh day of May, 1867.

ClIAULES SeR(!EANT,

U. *S'. Commissioner.

BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION

ON THE

HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL-
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS.

} cxamiua-

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson s Bay Company
against the United States.

Deposition of Alexander Gardner, taken at the request and
in behalf of tho United States, by agreement between C.
C. B^anian, on behalf of the United States, and Edward
Lander, on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company.

Testimony of Alexander Gardner.

♦
Alexander Gardner being duly sworn, deposeth and says :

Int. 1. — State your name, residence, and occupation.

Ans. — My name is Alexander Gardner, my residence Wash-
ington city, D. C., and my occupation photographer.

Int. 2. — Please to state whether the photograph exhibited
to you and identified by your signature at the bottom, "Alex-
ander Gardner, No. 1," was or not prepared at your establish-
ment, and under your direction.

Ans. — It was.

Int. 3. — At whose request did you do this ?

Ans. — At the request of George Gibbs, Esq., Secretary of
the British and American Joint Commission.

Int. 4. — Please to state from what original, if any, that
photograph was copied.

Ans. — It was copied from another photograph placed in my
hands for that purpose by Mr. Gibbs, having inscribed on it,
at its lower corner, the words following : " Roman Catholic
21 H

I M

s:'):™ ,.■!':

320

Mission on left bank of Kootenay river." (Mr. Lander ob-
jects to the foregoing testimony.)

Int. 5. — Please to state whetlier another photograph, now
presented to you, and which is identified by containing on it
the printed inscriptions, " Alo'r Gardner, Photographer, 511
Seventh street, Washington," was or was not taken at your
establishment, and if so, at whose request.

Ans. — It was at Mr. Gibbs's request.

Int. G. — Please to state, if any, from what original that pho-
tograph was copied.

Ans. — It was copied from another photograph placed in my
hands for that purpose by Mr. Gibbs, having inscribed on its
lower corner the words following: " H. B. C, Fort Colvile."

Int. 7. — State whether or not the two copy photographs
made in your office as above described are true and correct
representations of the original photographs placed in your
hands for that purpose by Mr. Gibbs.

An8. — They are.

Cross- Examination.

%>i. ;

t ■,11

Int. 1. — By whom were these copies made?

Ans. — One of two men, Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Knox ; I do
not remember which.

Int. 2. — What part of the copying of this photograph was
done in your presence?

Ans. — The whole of it. I saw it focused, I saw it exposed

in the camera, and I saw it developed.

Alex. Gardner.
January/ 30, 1867.

i :)i:.

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudmn's Bay Company
against the United States.

Deposition of Charles T. Gardner, taken at the request and
in behalf of the United States, by agreement between C.
C. Beaman, on behalf of the United States, and Edward
Lander, on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company.

321

mder ob-

aph, now
ling on it
pher, 511
\ at your

that pho-
ned in my
ed on its
:)olvile."
)tograph3
d correct
in your

ox ; I do
raph was
; exposed

RDNER.

Oompant/

^uest and
itween C.
1 Edward
*ny.

Testimony of Giiarles T. Gardner.

Charles T, Gardner being duly sworn, deposeth as follows :

Int. 1. — Please to state your name at length, and your pres-
ent residence.

An». — Charles T. Gardner, Washington city, D. 0.

Int. 2. — Were you or not in Oregon at or about the year
1853, and at different times since then?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 3. — What was your profession at the time of your first
residence in Ore;;on ?

Ans. -Civil engineer and surveyoi^

hit. 4. — Whether or not were you employed in the survey
of the Northwestern boundary ?

Ans. — I was. It was in the winter of 1858 and 1859, and
I remained in this employment until 1861.

Int. 5. — State whether or not you have since served in the
army of the United States.

Ans. — I have.

Int. 6. — What is your present employment or occupation?

Ans. — Clerk in the Third Auditor's oflSce of the Treasury.

Int. 7. — Have you any knowledge of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany post at Umpqua, and if so, at and for what time?

Ans. — In 1854 I subdivided the townships around Umpqua
and from there to Scottsburg, on the Umpqua river. This
subdivision passed through a tract of land claimed by Colonel
Chapman.

hit. 8. — What w^as the name of the place at which Colonel
Chapman's claim wa situated?

Arts. — Fort Umpqua.

Int. 9. — Describe what buildings, if any, existed at that
time at Fort Umpqua.

Ans. — As far as my recollection serves, there were the
remains of a log house.
Int. 10. — What person, if any, was residing in that house?
Ans. — No one, to my knowledge.

Int. 11. — On which side of the river is Fort Umpqua, rela-
tively to the road to California?

Iill ,1 1

if;

■■f]\';.

'^l,-'

322

Ans. — On tlio opposite side.

Int. 12. — State whether there was any corral containing
Cattle at Fort Umpqua.

Ans. — No, sir.

Int. 12. — How far is Fort Umpqua from Scottsburg, in your
estimation?

Ans. — About twenty miles.

Int. 14. — How near to the river is the fort?

Ans. — About one hundred and fifty yards.

Int. 15. — State whether or not Colonel Chapman occupied
the farm at Fort Umpqua?

Ans. — He <lid.

Int. IG. What was the quality of the land at and about Fort
Umpqua?

Ans. — First rate, according to our definition in tlie survey.
Where the Fort was and Colonel Chapman's house was, was a
plain, the half section run into the mountain.

Int. 17. — Have you any knowledge of cattle belonging to
the Hudson's Bay Company in that region?

Ans. — I have none.

Int. 18. — Have you any knowledge of the Hudson's Bay post
at Champoog?

Ans. — I ;ive stopped there; I think in 1854.

Int. 19. — What building or other improvements did the post
consist of?

Ans. — I don't remember.

Int. 20. — Have you knowledge of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany post at Kootenay?

Ans. — I liave been there, in 1860, whilst employed on the
boundary survey.

Int. 21. — PlL*a?e, if you recollect, state what improvements
there were at that post.

Ans. — There was a log house in a dilapidated condition,
and a shed, apparently. I don't think there was any fence
around. Saw land there that had been cultivated, but was
ngt then in cultivation.

Int. 22. — What was the extent of the land which seemed
once to have been cultivated?

$28

Ans.-^I can't say. I should think not more than forty
acres.

Int. 23. — What was the qua*lity of the land?

Ans. — Good.

Int. 24. — Were any persons apparently in charge of the post?

Ans. — No one.

Int. 25.— Have you knowledge of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany Post at Fort Colvile? And if so, at what time?

^^8.— Yes, in 1859-60-61.

Int. 26.— Please to describe the improvements at Fort Col-
vile.

• jins. — Fort Colvile was a pallisade enclosure with towers at
each corner, built of logs. There were two storehouses with
furs. In each one they had a store where they sold goods to the
Indians. Outside of the Fort was Angus McDonald's house;
he was chief trader. There were two or three houses that
joined his.

jfil^ 27. — Was there any enclosed or cultivated land at or

near Fort Colvile?

Ans. — There was some ; I don't think it belonged to Mr.
McDonald. It was about three-quarters of a mile from the
post. Don't remember the quantity of enclosed or cultivated
land.

Int. 28. — State whether or not you have recollection of a
Catholic Mission House at Kootenay.

Ans. — I have none.

CrosaSxamination.

jnt. 1. — How near to the remains of a log house at Umpqua
was the house of Colonel Chapman ?

Ans. — I should judge about 150 yards.

Int. 2. — Were there any remains of a stockade where yott
noticed the remains of a log house ?

Ans. — There were signs of a stockade having been there.

Int. 3. — Could you tell, from the remains you saw thercj
whether that had been a log house or a barn ?

Ans. — I thought it had been a log house.

1 'i 1

i'i:

324

il''l

ir !

Int. 4. — Were there not remains of some five buildings at
the place where you noticed the stockade?

Ans. — I don't remember.

Int. 5. — How many buildings were there on this place of
Colonel Chapman's at the time you saw it?

Ans. — His house, a small house whore the Indians lived,
and his barn.

Int. 6. — In making out your notes of the land surveyed by
you as deputy surveyor of the United States, are you not re-
quired to divide the lands surveyed into classes of diflFerent
quality, such as first rate, second rate, &c. ?

Ans. — Yes, sir.

Int. 7. — Do you not place in the class denominated first
rate the best and richest lands you surveyed?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 8. — Do you mean by the word first rate, in speaking of
the Umpqua land, the first-class lands of your surveys ?

Ans. — Yes, among the first-class lands.

Int. 9. — How does the land at the place you call Kootenay
compare with the land at Umpqua?

Ans — Not near so good. It is sandy, but good land.

Int. 10. — Was there anything at the place you call Kootenay
to designate it as a post of the Hudson's Bay Company?

Ans. — Nothing.

Int. 11. — Have you any personal knowledge that this was
a post of the Hudson's Bay Company?

Ans. — I was told so.

Int. 12. — How long were you at Fort Colvile ?

Ans. — Been there several times; stopped a day or two at a
time; always there during the winter.

Int. 13. — Did not the snow cover the ground at the time of
your visits there?

Ans. — It did.

Int. 14. — Did you visit the barns or the mills of the Com-
pany while you were at Fort Colvile?

Ans. — No.

325

Jte-Examination in Chief.

Itit. 1. — Whether or not, among the persons employed by or
with you, the place you describe as Kootenay was reputed to
be the site of the post of the Hudson's Bay Company, or from
what other persons you derived knowledge to that effect?

Ans. — The party that were with me knew nothing about it
but what they learned from me. My information was obtained
from the maps that I received from the officers of the survey
to guide me in my work.

(Mr. Lander objects to this last answer as incompetent.)

Charles T. Gardner.
January/ 30, 1867.

Examination Resumed.

Int. 1. — Are you acquainted with a landing or other place
in Oregon, occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company, by the
name either of Monticello or Caweeman?

Ans. — I am.

Int. 2. — Please state what it is.

Ana. — On the west bank of the Cowlitz river, about two or
three miles above where it empties into the Columbia river.

Int. 3. — Please state what you know of the use or occupa-
tion of that place by the Company.

Ans. — I know there was a store there. In this store were
the goods usually kept in a Hudson's Bay store, as blankets,
beads, and so forth, for trade with the Indians. As well as I
remember, it was a long house, probably thirty feet in length
by fifteen.

Int. 4. — Please to describe the landing there, whether there
were any wharves constructed, or any portion of the landing
visibly appropriated by enclosure.

(Mr. Lander objects to this question.)

Ans. — I landed from a canoe on the bank of the river — no
wharf or any constructed landing.

Int. 5. — Was there any plank path or any other accommo-
dations for facilitating the landing of persons or goods at that
place?

1 !

326

A)iH. — Thoro was no plank there. There was a foot-trail on
the bank.

Int. G. — Was there any person in occupation of the store of
the Company at that time?

Ans. — Yes, there was.

Int. 7. — Did the Hudson's Bay Company, or any agent of
theirs, demand tolls or compensation from you for the accom-
modation of beaching your canoe at th ) landing and availing
yourself of the foot-trail after you landed?

Ana. — No.

Cro88-Uxaminatmi.

Int. 1. — IIoAV do you know that the store you mention as
belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company was actually the
store of the Company?

Ans. — I was introduced to the gentleman who had charge
of the store as one of the Hudson's Bay Company's men.

Int. 2. — What was his name?

Ans. — I have forgotten.

Int. 3. — Was this store situated on the bank of the river, or
on the west side of the little street running by the landing?

Ans. — I think on the bank of the river.

In', 4. — Who was the person who at that time claimed to
posses ' the landing and the land immediately around it, who
did pr.'i ctically control it?

Ana. — Mr. Huntington.

Int. 5. — At the time you were there, were there not some
piles driven along the bank to prevent its being washed away
by the current of the river?

Ana. — None that I noticed.

Chas. T. Gardner.

Washington, D. C, January 30, 1867.

327

Claim of the Hudson 8 Bay Company af/ainst the United States,

Deposition of Simpson P. Moses, taken at the request and in
lehalf of the United States, by agreement between C. C.
Beainan on behalf of ^hc United States, and Edward
Lander on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company.

Testimony of Simpson P. Mosks.

Int. 1. — Are you the same person examined as a witness
this day in the matter of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com-
pany's claim against the United States?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 2. — State whether or no the Hudson's Bay Company
imported any merchandise into your collection district, when
you were United States collector of customs for the district of
Puget's Sound?

Ans. — They did, paying duties amounting in the aggregate
to about $5,000.

Int. 3. — Where were these goods sold?

Ans. — At Fort Nisqually.

Int. 4. — Who was the agent of the Hudson's Bay Company
in these matters?

Ans. — Dr. Tolmie. The imports of merchandise were con-
signed to him. He was also an officer of the Puget's Sound
Agricultural Company in charge of the post.

Int. 5. — How was the value of the Company's interests
affected by being required to pay duties on their imports
through your district?

Ans. — Dr. Tolmie represented to me that their interests had
suffered seriously thereby, and that they would in future im-
port their goods at Vancouver, on the Columbia river, and
bring them across <he country.

Int. 6. — State whether or no you ever visited Fort Van-
couver, on the Columbia river.

(Statements of Dr. Tolmie objected to as incompetent.)

Ans. — I was at Fort Vancouver on two occasions — in the
winter of 1852-3, and the spring of 1853.

328

Int. 7. — State whether you had any conversation with Gov-
ernor Ballenden, chief factor in charge of the Hudson's Bay
Company's post at Vancouver, in regard to their right to im-
port merchandise into the Columbia river.

Ans. — I had a general conversation with him on the subject,
in which he contended the treaty gave the Company the right
of importation free of duties.

(Statement of Ballenden objected to as incompetent.)

Int. 8. — Was the Hudson's Bay Company permitted to in-
troduce goods into the Columbia river free of duty or not?

Ans. — The Company was required to pay duty.

Int. 1). — State whether or not you had any conversation
with Governor Ballenden in regard to the value to the Com-
pany of tiie navigation of the Columbia river under the treaty,
if the Company was compelled to pay duties.

Ans. — Governor Ballenden remarked to me that the require-
ments of our revenue system, as practised at the custom-houses
in that country, were such as to ren<ler that right of no value
to them, and that the Company had determined to discontinue
the use of the north branch of the river, and that the Com-
pany was then constructing, or about to construct, a road
from a point on the Pacific, within the British territory,
striking inland, so as to supply their posts independent of the
annoyance of the American custom-houses.

(Statement of Ballenden objected to as incompetent.)

Fehruary 7, 1867. ' ^^^^'^^ ^' ^^"'^^-

In the matter of the Claim of the Iluasop'n Bay Company
against the United States.

Before me personally came Simpson P. Moses, to whom I
administered the following oath :

"You swear that the evidence you shall give in the matter
of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United
States shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth. So help you God."

Witness my hand this seventh day of February, A. D. 1867.

SAM'L H. HUNTINGTON,

Chief Clerk Court of Claims.

Tmmit^^n »'. i vi".

■TO"A

329

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson s Ba?/ Company
against the United States,

Cross-Examination op Simpson P. Mopes.

Int. 1. — How do you know that the Hudson's Bay Company
were required to pay duties at the Columbia river, and did
vour collection district extend to the Columbia river?

Ans. — My district did not extend to the Columbia river,
and I only knew the Hudson's Bay Company paid duties there
from the statement of the officers of the customs there on the
river, and from the statement of the officers of the Company,
and also because it was a matter of notoriety which was never
controverted.

Lit. 2. — Did not Dr. Tolmie complain of your interpretation
of 'he revenue laws in your collection district, and was not
that one of the reasons given for importing goods into the
Columbia district, and subjecting them to the very great
additional cost of land transportation from the river to the
post at I^isqually ?

Ans. — Dr. Tolmie did so complain, as he had previously
complained in like manner of the interpretation at Astoria.
At the time when he complained of interpretation he paid the
il'jties under written protest, which protest I forwarded to the
Treasury Department, and my interpretation was sustained,
of which fact I notified Dr. Tolmie.

Int. 3. — V hat reason did Dr. Tolmie give you for adding
so greatly to the cost of his goods by importing them by the
way of the Columbia river?

Ans. — He gave me only a general reason, that the Company
thought it would be to their advantage to do so, and tiiat they
had so determined.

Int. 4. — At what time did you have this conversation you
have spoken of with Mr. Ballenden?

Ans. — It was November or December, 1852, to the best of
my recollection.

Int. 5. — Did not Mr. Ballenden in this conversation tell

830

you that the custom-house authorities interfered with their
navigation of the river above Astoria?

Ans. — He said that the annoyances that the Company had
to Submit to from the American custom-house authorities were
such as to render the Company's right under the treaty to the
use of the river of no value to them.

InL 6. — Did he say anything to you about the threats to
seize a vessel of the Company engaged in navigating the river
above Astoria ?

Ans. — No ; he said nothing of that sort.

Simpson P. Moses.

Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States.

Deposition of the Hon. William (tILPIN, taken at the request
and in behalf of the United States, by agreement between
C. C. Beaman, on behalf of the United States, and Ed-
ward Lander, on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company.

Testimony of Hon. William Gilpin.

Int. 1. — What is your name, residence, and present occu-
pation?

Ans. — William Gilpin, Denver, Colorado. I am now Gov-
ernor-elect of the State of Colorado.

Int. 2. — Under what circumstances and with what purpose
did you cross the Plains in 1843?

Ans. — I made the journey from St. Louis to the mouth of
the Columbia for the purpose of personal and individual exam-
ination and information.

Int. 3. — What particular education or opportunities have
you had which would enable you to judge and estimate the
value of lands in new settlements, or the cost of erecting build-
ings in such settlements?

Ans. — Preliminary training at the Military Academy at
West Point, service in the army, and residence on the frontier
from the age of 16. I have traversed the interior of the
continent a great deal in military expeditions and otherwise.

331

Tni. 4. — State whether you ever visited Fort Hall, a station
of the Hudson's Bay Company.

Ans. — I visited and remained several days at Fort Hall,
going out to the Pacific sea, in September, 1843, and returned
from the Pacific in June, 1844, remaining at this time several
weeks at the fort.

Int. 5. — Describe the station of Fort Hall.

Ans. — Fort Hall was a small quadrangular trading-post,
about 100 feet square, constructed of adobe and logs — log
cabins.

Int. G. — What would you estimate tho cost and value of this
station, with the buildings?

Ans. — As I saw the buildings, they were of little value as
structures, and designed for mere temporary use, for the pro-
tection of stores and trade with the Indians. I am able to
estimate the value of this class of buiidijigs, as I have built
such buildings, and I once was in treaty to purchase Bent's
Fort, on the Upper Arkansas, and know what value was put
upon it. Fort Hall was bought by the Company from Mr.
Wyeth. I should think that $2,000 would be a generous,
equitable price for all the structures I saAV at Fort Hall.

Int. 7. — State whether or no there were anv lands enclosed
or cultivated, or occupied and used for the pastui'a l'c of horses
and cattle, at Fort Hall.

An^. — My recollection is that there was no cultivated land
of any kind at Fort Hall; no enclosures, except small, tem-
porary corrals, with poles. My recollection is that there were
about 300 or 350 head of stock, under the charge of the per-
sons at the fort. These were herded, and grazed at large over
the surrounding domain. I know of no lands enclosed or
reclaimed for permanent use from year to year, except the
fort.

Int. 8. — How many men stationed at Fort Hall?

Ans. — About 11.

Int. 9. — What was the condition of the trade?

Ans. — From repeated conversations with the officers of the
Company and American traders, I came to the conclusion that
the amount of trade there was uncertain and transient, on

•I

832

account of the migratory character of the surrounding In-
dians.

(Interrogatory objected to as incompetent and hearsay.)
Int. 10. — Have you visited any other stations of the Hud-
son's Bay Company?

Ans.—YQ%', in 1843 and 1844, Boise, Walla- Walla, Van-
couver, Fort George, and Champoeg.

Int. 11. — When and how long were you at Fort Boise?
Ans. — Three or four days, in October, 1843, and Juno, 1844.
Int. 12. — Describe Fort Boise.

Ans. — Fort Boise was in all particulars similar to Fort
Hall, and I judge to have been a place of about equal valuo
with Fort Hall. The buildings were somewhat better fin-
ished, but of less valuo as a trading point. I think there
were only G or 7 men stationed there. Its chief consequence
was as a place of rest and refitment for the passing trains of
the Company. I did not observe any lands enclosed or spe-
cially used in agriculture or pasturage. I should not put the
value of the buildings and post at Boise over ^2,500 or |^3,000.
Int. 13. — How long and when were you at Walla-Walla?
Arts, — In October, 1843, some eight days; in April and
May, 1844, some twenty-five or thirty days.

Int. 14. — What was the character of the post at Walla-
Walla?

Ans. — The houses were well constructed, of adobe. There
were no oorrals or out-houses of any valuo near the fort.
Walla-Walla was the depot for transportation to the posts
north, east, and south of it, and for the purchase of animals
of transportation. I think there were small cultivated fields
of a few acres at some distance from the fort, on the Walla-
Walla river, where potatoes were grown. I think the Com-
pany had no stock there other than horses. The permanent
equipment of the fort was very small, five persons only. I
should set down the moneyed value of the place at $8,000 or
$9,000, including the cultivated land. The country around
Walla-Walla was extremely sandy, of no value for cultiva-
tion, enclosure, or pasturage at that time.

Int. 15. — State whether you had any conversation with

333

oundinjr In-

fc at Walla-

ution with

Major Grant, chief trader Hudson's Bi y Company, with re-
gard to the value of the Company's posts and trade south and
east of the Columbia river.

(Objected to as incompetent.)

Ans. — I had frequent conversation with him, and others in
the service of the Company, on this subject. The general
impression made on me by those conversations was, that their
presence in the country was transient, and taeir posts held in
that light, their connection with it liable to csase immediately
on the termination of the diplomatic discussions then pend-
ing. It was further stated that the intention of the Company
was to abandon the posts south and east of the Columbia if
they could not sell them privately. In those rggionsof coun-
try whore the Company had the prospect of permanent con-
trol, the Company established and pursued a s-^t policy and
discipline calculated to enhance and enrich the general busi-
ness of the fur trade; but on the contrary, where the sover-
eignty was in dispute, they were less careful of the permanent
and prospective favorable condition of the country, and per-
mitted a state of things calculated to exhaust it rapidly, and
bring about the destruction of the fur-bearing crop of ani-
mals. The Company were gradually curtailing their opera-
tions in the disputed territory, owing to diminution of the
supply of fur-bearing animals.

Int. 16. — When, and how long, and under what circum-
stances did you visit Fort Vancouver?

Ans. — My recollection is that I visited Vancouver in No-
vember, 1843, in February, 1844, and April, 1844. I was
there about ten days on each occasion, and on the two last
occasions was specially the guest of Governor John McLough-
lin, and was treated by him with the greatest hospitality and
kindness.

Int. 17. — Describe Fort Vancouver.

Ans. — The main establishment consisted, as I remember, of
some seven or ten dwelling-houses, framed, surrounding a
parade, the whole enveloped in a picket enclosure. These
houses were ample in size, substantial, and convenient dwell-
ings. Outside was one large store and warehouses, and some

Ill !l

lii:

!1M

334

distance, some hundred yards off, was a small village, the resi-
dence of the employes and their families, consisting of cabins,
neat cabins. Besides these were shelters, built near the river
an<l elsewhere, to facilitate the loading and unloading of ves-
sels and their cargoes ; also corrals, for stables, and for hogs
and poultry.

Int. 18. — What would you estimate to have been the value
of the buildings you have just described, together Avith a
square mile, extending half a mile up and down the river and
a mile back?

Ans. — I should estimate at a liberal price, the cost of put-
ting up the building $50,000, and for the land $45,000, the
total liberal cash value being $95,000.

Int. 19. — What do you know of the amount of land culti-
vated, and the value of the crops raised at and around Van-
couver ?

Ans. — I recollect to have visited a well-conducted and sub-
stantial farm east of Vancouver, six miles off, well equipped
in all particulars. My recollection is that there were 300
acres of wheat, oats, and potatoes in constant cultivation.
There were also a garden and orchard. I do not know of any
other cultivated lands about Vancouver. I do not know the
value of the crops raised on these lands, but a large portion
of the wheat sent to Sitka was purchased from settlers in the
valley of the Willamette and from California.

Int. 20. — State whether you visited any mills belonging to
the Company in the vicinity of Vancouver, and if so, give an
estimate of their cost and value.

^ws.--At the mouth of a considerable creek, flowing into
the Columbia from the north, and I think opposite the farm,
I visited a group of water-mills. These consisted of a mill for
the manufacture of wheat into flour, good sized and well
equipped, and of, I think, two saw-mills. These saw-mills
were very large and substantial as to size and structure. I
should estimate the mills at $60,000 or $65,000.

Int. 21. — State whether or not you knew or heard of any
map of any land claimed by the Company around Vancouver,
or whether you heard the officers of the Company make any

I'fl :i''i

385

claim to any other land than that actually occupied by
them.

Ans. — I did not hoar of or see any map, other than a man-
uscript chart purporting to illustrate the entrance to and navi-
gation of the river Columbia as high as the Cascades, and
Arrowsmith's general map, printed in London, of the region
occupied by the Hudson Bay Company in North America. I
understood, from what I saw and heard from the officers of the
Company, that the Company did not claim any permanent
right or title in the soil, other than the use of it, and the value
attached to it in the prosecution of their business as traders.

(Statement of officers objected to as incompetent.)

Int. 22. — What would you estimate to have been the value
of a tract of land extending in front along the bank of the Co-
lumbia river twenty-five miles, and extending back from said
river about ten miles, and excluding the tract a mile square
you have already valued around the Fort, the said land run-
ning 17 miles down the river below Vancouver and 8 miles
above.

Ans. — I can form no estimate. I knew of no claimed occu-
pancy of such a tract of land; it was then wild and unoccupied
in all particulars.

Int. 23. — State, if you can, the number of cattle and sheep
owned by the Company.

Ans. — The number was small. Most of those around Van-
couver and other posts were, as I understand, owned by indi-
viduals or by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, and
kept around the posts for better protection.

Inf. 24. — When were you at Champoog, and what was its
condition?

Ans. — I was there at various times, particularly March 4th,
1844. I have no recollection of any buildings there but sheds.
I did not understand that the Hudson's Bay Company had any
station there; my understanding was that it was used merely
as a landing place.

Int. 25. — When were you at Astoria (Fort George?)

Ans. — April 1st, 1844; three or four days.

Int. 26. — What was the character of the Post ?
22 H

ii , .1

fit*

ll^l 1

1 ii

if 1

?-/!" ■' / ';

*;i!' . ;| 1

f\i:. %

i''V" ' r 'Id

336

^w«. — It was of the very smallest class, consisting of a single
building; it was the point where vessels anchored. Captain
Birnie and his family, with one or two assistants, Avere all
the persons I saw there. The only trade of the post was
salted salmon.

Int. 27. — What do you know of the policy of the officers of
the Company to induce intelligent Americans to go to the
Sandwich Islands, and of their expectation of the final settle-
ment of the boundary line between the United States and
Sritish America?

Ans. — There was perceivable an earnest desire to give to
their own Government as much as possible the benefit of exclu-
sive occupancy by British subjects of all the country between
the Columbia river and the ocean. The officers of the Com-
pany were very liberal and generous in giving free passage to
Americans to the Sandwich Islands. The officers of the Com-
pany expected and desired that the Columbia river should be
made the line between the United States and British America.

Int. 28. — State Avhat you know of the origin of provisional
government beyond the Rocky Mountains.

Am. — Provision for self-government was arranged and
adopted by the people at a mass meeting at Champoeg 4th
March, 1844, and I was appointed the first delegate to the
American Congress from the inhabitants of Oregon.

Int. 29. — What do you know of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany's post of Umpqua?

Ana. — I met Mr. Paul Fraser, an officer of the Company;
he gave me an exact, description of the establishment at Ump-
qua, leading me to estimate its size, value, and importance as
ranking with Boise and Fort Hall, and its desirableness as a
place of trade diminishing.

William Gilpin.

Washington City, Felruary 8, 1867.

337

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company agaimt

the United States.

Before me personally came William Gilpin, to whom I ad-
ministered the following oath:

" You swear that the evidence you shall give in the matter
of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
So help you God."

Witness my hand this eighth of February, A. D. 1867.

Sam'l H. Huntington,

Chief Clerk Court of Claims.

Cross-Examination.

Int. 1. — You have estimated Fort Hall on your recollection
of it; suppose Fort Hall to have consisted of the buildings
and horse-yards or corrals in good repair, set out on page 123
of the testimony in behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company, and
now shown to you, what value would you put upon it in 1843,
or at any time within three years preceding or following that
time?

Ans. — In giving the estimate I did in the examination-in-
chief, I had in my mind the establishment as set forth here,
such being my distinct recollection of the fort and its sur-
roundings.

Int. 2. — Do you recollect any adobe horse-yard or corrai at
Fort Hall 165 by 130 feet?

Ans. — I remember having seen and perhaps used such cor-
ral as existed at the time I was there. Its construction was
rude and imperfect ; a portion of it of poles.

Int. 3. — How many bastions were there at Fort Hall ?

Ans. — I have no distinct recollection of the bastions. At
two corners of the fort the inhabited building had attics or
upper structures, which served the purposes of bastions for
defence.

Int. 4. — Do you know inything of the cost of maintaining

iliiini

338

and equipping a party of men for the purpose of crossing the
Plains, and trapping, or hunting, or doing >vork in the moun-
tains?

Ans. — I have had great experience and general knowledge
of such things, and have seen and accompanied many such.
The cost of these expeditions is so various as that each specific
one varies from all the rest, according to the point of depart-
ure, the distance travelled, and the length of time occupied.

Int. 5. — What will be the cost, as near as you can estimate
it, of a party of twenty men, leaving St. Joseph, Missouri, for
an expedition on the Plains to Fort Hall and back, and time
occupied being six months, about the years 1843-4-5 and C?

Ans. — I should say the minimum cost would be $150 per
man, and the maximum $300, say, average, $200 per man.

Int. 6. — How much cultivated land was thereat Fort Walla-
Walla belonging to the Fort?

Ans. — My recollection is from 5 to 7 acres.

Int. 7. — What value do you place on those 5 or 7 acres?

Ans. — The fields were small bottoms upon the creeks, and
their value from $10 to $12 per acre.

Int. 8. — You have estimated the moneyed value of Fort Walla-
Walla, including the cultivated land, at $8 or $9,000; what
value would you put upon it, excluding the land of the value
of which you have just spoken?

Ans.— The estimate of $8,000 or ^^0,000 was intended to
embrace the aggregate of everything that went to give value
to the place. The buildings of Fort Walla- Walla were at that
time new, and built to replace an older establishment that had
been burnt down. I would estimate at the sum already esti-
mated, deducting the valuation placed by me upon the land.

Int. 9. — While you were visiting at Vancouver did you ride
down the river from the Fort and visit any farm or dairies on
the Cathlapootl river ?

Ans. — I think not. I only rode 3 or 4 miles down the river
to some lakes.

Int. 10. — At what time in the year did you make this ride
of 4 miles down the river?

Ans. — In the spring ; saw them ploughing.

889

Int. 11. — Did you place any value on the Company's Post
at Astoria, which you have described?

Ans. — I think I should value the buildings I saw there at
$1,200 or $1,500.

William Gilpin.

■Washington, February 11, 1857.

Ill the matter of the Claim of the JTudson's Bay Company
against the United States.

Deposition of Francis Hudson, a witness examined on behalf
of the United States, by agreement between Mr. Beaman,
on behalf of the United States, and Mr. Lander, on behalf
of the Hudson's Bay Company.

Testimony of Francis Hudson.

Int. 1. — What is your name, residence, and occupation?

Ans. — Francis Hudson, Washington City, D. C, am employ^
of Coast Survey.

Int. 2. — Have you ever been in Washington Territory ? If
so, state in what capacity and during what time.

Ans. — Yes. I was there as computer on the Northwest
Boundary Survey, during the years 1859 and 1860.

Int. 3. — Are you acquainted with the location of the Post
lately occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company and known as
Kootenay ? If so, please state where it was situated, and whether
it was north or south of the 49th parallel of north latitude.

Ans. — I know two such places, one to the north of the 49th
parallel, and one to the south of the line. I was fully under
the impression that the one north of the line was also called
Kootenay, and my impression is that the one south of the line
was the old post, and was not occupied.

Int. 4. — Will you describe the Fort Kootenay north of the
line?

Ans. — I was only there once. My recollection is that there
was only one building there, that was the dwelling of the oflS-
cer in charge. I saw but one man connected with the Hudson's
Bay Company there.

'\m«' ■iiv*i>

IKir

I'M

B"'

''Hi

li ''

.MB

P^'!

'fll

lUi'.M.

s, ;i.;?

1' 1,'"

I 'lifl

840

Int. r>. — AVoro there any cultivated lands at this post?

Ans. — None at all.

Int. C. — (Mr. Laiulor objects to all statements in reference
to a post north of the line as irrelevant.)

Int. 7. — Will you describe the post known as Fort Kootenay,
which you say was south of the line, and was not occupied?

Ans. — ^It was about five miles south of the 49th parallel,
and not more than a mile north of the Tobacco river, certainly
not two miles. To the best of my recollection it consisted of a
building called a churcli; there was also a dwelling for the
man in charge, as I understood, and there were four smaller
buildings I believe; I am not certain there were four.

Int. 8. — Look at the photograph now shown you, which is
in evidence, and marked Alexander Gardner, No. 1, and say
if you recognize it as a correct representative of the building
called a church.

Ans. — I recognize the building in photograph as the one
I was told was a church.

Int. 9. — State also, if the other buildings were larger or
smaller, and similarly built.

Ans. — The dwelling of the man in charge was much smaller
and was similarly built, and the other buildings were much
inferior and quite small.

Int. 10. — How long were you at and about the post last
described?

Ans. — I can't answer certainly; it might have been about
four or five weeks.

l7it. 11. — Whether you saw any persons living at this post;
if so, how many, and how employed.

Ans. — I saw no one there.

Int. 12. — Whether or no you saw any land that appeared
to have been cultivated?

Ans. — None.

Int. 13. — Did you see any herds of cattle or horses at this
post?

Ans. — None at all.

Int. 14. — Whether or no, while the Commission was sta-
tioned near where the Kootenay river crosses the 49th parallel

841

of latitude, you saw or heard of any other fort or post of the
Hudson's Buy Company, or any other white man's habitation
on or near the Kootenay and Tobacco rivers than the one you
have already described ?

(Mr. Lander objects to that portion of the question where
witness is asked about what he heard.)

Ans. — No, none at all.

F. Hudson.

February 13, 1867.

CroHS' Examination.

Jut. 1. — IIow did you know that this building you recog-
nize in the photograph was a church?

Aihs. — I do not know that it was a chuch, but it was gen-
erally reputed so by the officers of the Boundary Commission.

Int. 2. — Do you not believe that thi.' reputation among the
officers of the Commission arose from statements of Indian
guides?

J«s. — I cannot say; I think it quite possible.

Tf'. 3 — About how largo was this building, giving as near
as you can its length, its height, and its width?

Ans. — I never made an estimate at the time, but I should
say about 40 by 15, and not more than 5 feet high at the
eaves.

Int. 4. — How often did you visit this place?

Ans. — I can't say precisely, but certainly half a dozen
times.

Int. 5. — What was there about it that made you ride five
miles to visit this particular locality?

Ans. — Well, in the first place, I walked there; I visited it
once out of curiosity, and was there several times while on
duty.

Int. G. — Might there not have been on the Tobacco plain
remains of other buildings, which may have escaped your
notice by being concealed by undergrowth or grass.

Ans. — I don't know where the Tobacco plains are; they are
located in half a dozen difi'erent places.

iv.

342

Int. 8. — Might there not have been in the valley of the
Kootenay, and within four miles of the Tobacco river, and
north of it, remains of buildings not seen by you?

Ans. — I think not, decidedly.

lilt. 9. — Was this church which you hu,ve described built
of square logs or not ?

Ans. — The building pointed out *o me as a church was not
built of square logs.

Int. 10. — Were any of the other buildings, described by
you as being there, built of square logs ?

Ans. — None of them.

F. Hudson.

Washington, D. C, Feliruary 13, 1867.

V 111 i

:ji' ill

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against

the United States.

Before me personally appeared Francis Hudson, to w^hom I
administered the following oath :

"You solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in
the matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against
the United States shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. So help you God."

Witness my hand this 13th day of February, A. D. 1867.

Sam'l H. Huntington,

Chief Clerk Court of Claims.

Washington City.

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against

the United States.

The deposition of James G. Swan, takea inbeh-'lf of the United
States. C. C. Bearaan representing the United States, and
Edward Lander representing the Hudson's Bay Company.

Testimony of James G. Swan.

Int. 1. — Please to state your name in full, residence, and
occupation

-^(|iniPig0ll|V^i||Mi|>i iimpin!i9H)np)IR.piJilik IMW.

343

Alls. — James G. Swan, Port Townslicnd, Washington Terri-
tory, merchant.

Int. 2. — Are you acquainted with the lands and territory
on the mouth of the Columbia river, below where the Cowlitz
river enters ?

Ans. — I am. I went to reside at Shoal-water Ba}', near the
mouth of the Columbia river, in 1852, and resided there about
four years. A part of the time T was inspector of the customs
under General Adair, the collector at Astoria.

Int. 3. — Are you acquainted with Astoria or Fort George,
the former post of the Hudson's Bay Company ?

Ans. — I am.

Int. 4. — What was its character, condition, or value at the
time you knew it?

Ans. — At the time I was there, there was no vestige of any
post of the Hudson's Bay Company.

Int. 5. — Whether or no you ever visited Cape Disappoint-
ment?

Ans. — I have visited that portion of it known as Pacific
City, at Baker's Bay.

Intii^ 6. — Whether or no vou know or ever heard of the occu-
pation of any land on Cape Disappointment by the Hudson's
Bay Company previous to 1856 ?

Ans. — I never heard of any such occupancy or any such
claim. I never heard Duchesney or Captain Scarborough, both
formerly in the service of the Hudson's Bay Company, men-
tion any such claim.

(Mr. Lander objects to so much of the above question as
refers to what the witness had heard.)

Int. 7. — What were your acquaintance and opportunities for
conversation with Mr. Duchesney and Captain Scarborough?

Ans. — I stopped at Duchesney's house on my way to Asto-
ria, whenever I had occasion to go to Astoria, and met Cap-
tain Scarborough in Duchesney's house.

James G. Swan.

February 16, 1867.

il!

\if

344

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudsoria Bay Company
against the United Slates.

Deposition of Titian R. Peale, witness produced and examined
on the part if the United States, by agreement between
C. C. Beaman, counsel for the United States, and Edward
Lander, counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company.

Testimony of Titian 11. Peale.

Int. 1. — What is your name, residence, and occupation ?

Ans. — Titian R. Peale, Washington city; occupation, ex-
aminer of patents.

Int. 2. — In what particular service were you employed in
the year 1841?

Ans. — I was a naturalist in the United States exploring ex-
pedition under Captain Wilkes, and was on board the United
States ship Peacock, and was Avrecked at the mouth of the
Columbia river in the last of the month of July of that year.

Int. 3. — Whether, during the year 1841, you ever visited
Cape Disappointment? If so, describe the character gof the
cape.

Ans. — I did. The Peacock was wrecked oif Cape Disap-
pointment; it was r, rocky promontory, fronting on marshy
land, th*^ timber commencing behind the marsh, to the west of
Baker's Bay.

Int. 4. — W^as there any part of a tract of land at the end
of this cape containing G40 acres suitable for cultivation ?

Ans. — I should think not.

Int. 5. — Whether or no there was any post of the Hudson's
Bay Company on this cape in 1841 ?

Ans. — At that time there was no building there, or prepa-
ration for buildings, that we saw.

Int. 6. — Whether or no you ever visited Astoria, known as
Fort George ?

. Ans. — I was there for two days in the last of July, 1841.
It was then in charge of Mr. Birnie. The principal building
was of squared logs, or puncheons, erected on the slope of a

345

the Hudson's

ei'e, or prepa-

hill, one story at one end, and two stories at the other end.
There were several out-buildings, smaller in dimensions, also
built of timber.

Int. 7. — What would you estjmate to have been the value
of the buildings of this post?

Ans. — I should suppose they could not have cost more than
$500 or $000.

Int. 8. — What do you know of the trade at this post?

Ans.- ^t the time we were there I understood from Mr.
Biniie the trade to be almost entirely in salmon, a few sea-
otter skins, and articles of a similar character.

(The understanding from Mr. Birnie objected to by Mr.
Lander as incompetent.)

Int. 9. — Have you ever visited Fort Vancouver, a Post of
the Hudson's Bay Company on the Columbia river?

Ans. — I was at Fort Vancouver for about a week in the
latter part of July, 1841. The fort was a stockade built of
timber, the main building being enclosed within the stockade,
being built of square logs, the smaller buildings built of
puncheons. Puncheons are split logs set in a frame to econo-
mize lumber. All the buildings were of one story, with a
basement collar in some of the larger buildings. The outer
buildings Avere not built with the same care as those within
the stockade.

Int. 10. — Of what kind of timber were these buildings con-
structed, how were they put together, and where was the tim-
ber cut?

Ans. — The material was usually pine, or a kind of cypress
grown in the immediate neighborhood, and were squared by
hand, and put together by a kind of dovc-taiiing in the better-
finished houses. The windows in the residences were glazed,
with metal hinges to the doors. There was no iron used in
the joining together of these timbers

Int. 11. — Can you estimate how long this pine or cypress
timber would Avithstand exposure to the weather?

Ans. — I have no knowledge how long it would stand expo-
sure to the weather. It was a perishable material, however,
as we saw at the first site occupied by Fort Vancouver, which

W r I

I !

I Jl

346

was on the second plateau of tK'" river, wlicre little ornothing
remained, though but fc.v years had expired from the time of
removal.

Int. 12. — What would you estimate to have been the cost
of the stockade and the buildings which you saw at Fort Van-
couver ?

Ans. — From the fact that the timber grew on the spot I
should not suppose that the erection of the buildings and
stockade could have cost more than $2o,000.

Int. 13. — What do you know of the value of the fur trade
at Fort Vancouver?

Ans. — I have no recollection now of the value of the fur
trade at that period, but was informed that its value was
decreasing.

(Mr; Lander objects to any statements learned from infor-
mation of others as incompetent.)

Int. 14. — State under what circumstances and from whom
you received this information.

Ans. — I received the information from both Governors
Douglas and McLoughlin, both officers of the Company. This
was in answer to my inquiries whether their agricultural im-
provements had anything to do with the fur trade. They
both gave me the impression the fur trade was decreasing in
value, and the agricultural Improvements were being made to
increase resources and provide a retreat for the members of
the Company retiring from active life.

(Information derived from the statements of the oflScers of
the Company objected to by Mr. Lander.)

Cross- Examination by Mr. Lander.

Int. 1. — Where did you go on shore at Cape Disappoint-
ment?

Ans, — We landed on the west side of Baker's Bay, inside
of Cape Disappointment.

Int. 2. — Did you remain there any length of time?

Ans. — Only twenty-four hours.

Int. 3. — At what time of the day did you arrive, and when
did you leave?

347

Ic or nothing
I the time of

he fur trade

members of

le officers of

yiws. — We landed in the morning and left there the next
.moniing for Astoria.

Int. 4. — Did you make any other visit than this you have
mentioned to Cape Disappointment?

Ans. — No, I did not.

Int. 5. — Did you erect a tent on the beach?

A)is. — No; there was no accommodation provided for the
officers or men until we got to Astoria, except that, I think,
Mr. Jiirnie, or some one, sent down a tent the morning I left
there.

Int. 6. — Did you go on to the Cape Disappointment?

Ans. — I did. I went by land on the beach. I went as far
as I could by the beach and then ascended the promontory.

Int. 7. — At what time did you return to the camp?

Ans. — I think I went and returned in about two hours and
a luilf.

Int. 8. — In what other, if any, direction did you go after
you returned to camp?

Ans. — Across the Columbia river to the missionary station,
in canoes. The station was on the south side of the river.
Wc did not return from the mission to Cape Disappointment,
but went from the mission in boats to Astoria.

Int. 9. — Have you ever built or caused to be built any
squared log buildings in what was then Oregon ; or do you
personally know the cost of any such buildings, or the price
of the labor of those employed in building them?

Ans. — No. I do not know personally the cost of any such
buildings, nor do I know the price of labor in Oregon. I
knew public buildings built in other places than Oregon, and
the price of labor did not enter into the estimate of cost. The
time we were in Oregon there could be no estimate put on
labor, as there was no currency.

Int. 10. — Did you see any trading done at Astoria while
you were there?

Ans. — Only for salmon.

Int. 11. — At the time you visited Fort Vancouver what con*
dition were the buildings in within the stockade?

Ans. — They were all in good condition at that period.

1 ,Nft-'f"."»;i»'«!7!»"WMWUi

348

lit

Int. 12. — Were there any buildings in process of erection at
that time within the stockade?

Ans. — I have no recollection of seeing any.

Int. 13. — Do you not recollect that some of these buildings
within the stockade, used for storehouses, were of two stories?

Avs. — On tl c east and south front, I now recollect that
there were buildings of two stories used as stores.

Int. 14. — Did you give such a particular examination to
the buildings within the stockade as to impress it upon your
memory with such distinctness as to enable you, after twenty-
six years, to give an accurate description of the buildings you
saw in 1841?

Ans. — No; I did not so observe them as to remember dis-
tinctly at the present time. I do not remember all the build-
ings distinctly. My impressions are stronger in reference to
the dwelling-houses.

Int. 15. — Can you state of what kind of wood these build-
ings were built? If so, state what it was.

Ans. — Pine and cypress.

Int. 16. — What other name, if any, is there for the tree you
call cypress?

Ans. — I do not remember the botanical name.

Int. 17. — Is the cypress you have reference to a deciduous
tree?

Ans. — No; it is an evergreen.

Int. 18. — Were not the pine and cypress you refer to resin-
ous trees ?

Ans. — They were.

Int. 19. — Do you not know that the resinous trees can remain
a long time exposed to the weather without aecay?

Ans. — Some do, but not all, the hemlock of the eastern
regions being considered a perishable wood.

Int. 20. — Do you know anything of the red fir tree of Ore-
gon and Washington Territory?

Ans. — I do not.

Int. 21. — Can you tell, by looking upon squared timber in
buildings which have been erected for several years, of what
species of fir or pine ihf^ are built?

n^ffl^r^^mmti^i^^wiinmnti

f erection at

i these build-

a deciduous

refer to resin-

r tree of Ore-

349

Ans. — I think I could with tolerable certainty.

Int. 22. — Is not your statement that those buildings were
erected from pine aiid cypress trees rather derived from the
fact that you believed you saw trees of this description grow-
ing in a forest back of the site of the old fort, than from the
fact that you observed these two kinds of wood in the build-
ings themselves?

Aiix. — That is true as regards the buildings themselves.
As regards the stockade, my impression is that they were of
the kinds of trees the stumps of which were still existing in
the immediate neighborhood.

Jilt. 23. — Have you any better means of knowledge of the
cost of the buildings at Vancouver than you had of those at
Astoria?

Ans. — I have not.

Examination-in- Chief Resumed.

Int. 1. — Whether or no, from the promontory at the ex-
tremity of Cape Disappointment you had a view of a tract of
land a mile square?

Ans. — I think I had. It was a marshy meadow land, with a
fringe of timber next to Baker's Bay.

Cross-Examination Resumed.

Int. 1. — Is not Cape Disappointment a promontory rising
nearly 200 feet abruptly from the water; does not that height
continue backwards to the north, as observed from the water
in Baker's Bay, to gome distance, certainly for more than a
mile?

Ans. — My present impression is that Cape Disappointment
is not that high. I have been speaking of the main point,
which is disconnected from the high land which forms the west
side of Baker's Bay.

Int. 2. — Was not the land on Cape Disappointment, imme-
diatel}'^ north where you stood, covered for at least a quarter
of a mile with a thick growth of timber?

Ans. — No ; my recollection is that for about a quarter of

350

a mile north of Cape Disappointment is a low, sandy beach,
bounded inland by bushes.

Int. 3. — From where you stood, how far could you see
looking inland?

Arts. — My recollection is that it was about half a mile across
the meadow land up to the timber.

Int. 4. — About how much land, if you are able to estimate it,
Avas embraced in the marshy space you have spoken of; what
was its length and breadth ?

Ans. — It was about half a mile square.

T. R. ^EALE.

February 25, 1807.

In the matter of the. Claim of the Iltfdsons Bay Companij
ayaimt the United States.

Deposition of General Benjamin Alvord. Witness examined
on behalf of the United States by agreement between C.
C. Beaman, counsel for the United States, and Edward
Lander, counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company.

Testimony of General Benjamin Alvord.

Int. 1. — What is your name, residence, occupation?

Ans. — Benjamin Alvord, residence. New York city, pay-
master in the United States Army.

Int. 2. — Have you ever been at Fort Vancouver, a post of
the Hudson's Bay Company ? If so, when, and at what time or
times?

Ans. — I arrived at Fort Vancouver in September, 1852, and
left there in the spring of 1805. I was at that post the greater
portion of that time. From 1855 I was employed as pay-
master in the United States Army ; from 1802 to 1805 as
Brigadier General of volunteers in command of the district
of Oregon.

Int. 3. — Describe Vancouver as you saw it in 1852.

Ans. — There was a stockade surrounded with pickets, occu-
pied by the Hudson's Bay Company. Outside of the pickets

HI iii9t» wmmfftm

351

there was one building belonging to the Company occupied as
a hospital by the United States troops, a Catholic church, and
two or three buildings surrounding it, and two or three other
small buildings. Inside the pickets was a building occupied
as a store in the lower story, the upper story was a storehouse,
and two other largo buildings were storehouses. There was
also one building occupied by the officers of the Company, one
building as an office, and a range of smaller buildings occu-
pied by the servants of the Company; also a magazine and
block-house.

Jnt. 4. — Describe any changes that took place in the build-
ing while you were there.

Ans. — In 1859, when the Company left, the buildings were,
most of them, very much dilapidated, some of them in decay,
especially as most of the buildings had, I think, a wooden
foundation.

Int. 5. — How were the buildings of the Company constructed,
and of what material, and where was it procured?

Ans. — Of Douglas spruce logs hewn square, in a portion of
the buildings; some of them were of logs unhewn, procured in
that vicinity. There was a spruce forest in the rear of the
post. The unhewn logs were put together in notches. I don't
remember how the hewed logs were put together.

Int. 6. — What would you estimate to have been the value of
the stockade and all the buildings owned by the Company at
this Post in 1852?

Ans. — About $25,000 for the stockade and buildings within
the pickets. The price of lumber was very high, and for that
reason the United States military barracks were built of logs.

Int. 7. — What would you estimate the stockade and build-
ings to have been worth in 1859?

Ans. — They were so much decayed they were worth very
Httle.

Int. 8. — What do you know of the military reservation at
Fort Vancouver?

Ans. — A military reservation of four square miles was first
laid off. In the spring of 1853 a law of Congress reduced all

23 H

:ti

;

i ii

III' 1 1

1^ I

1? ill

852

military rcsorvntiona for forts in Orof^on to 040 acres. T was
tliero wlicii flic lines of the small reservation were run.

Inf. 1*. — AVIictlier or no the Hudson's Bay Company desired
that the reservation should be lai\iie or small?

(Mr. Lander objects to this question as incompetent, irrele-
vant.)

Ani<. — I think a largo reservation was agreeable to the TTud-
son's Bay Company as protecting them against the encroach-
ments of the settlers.

Int. 10. — Tiook at the photographs now shown you marked
"C" and 'M)," and state what they rejjresent.

ybi.s'. — The one marked "C" is the northeast corner of the
Hudson's Bay stockade at Fort A'^ancouvcr from the inside,
embracing the building occupied by the ollicers of the Com-
pany, and another building occupied by the servants of the
Company. Tiie one marked "D" represents the northwest
corner of the stockade, embracing the principal store.

(JrosH- Examination.

Int. 1. — Was there not outside the pickets a building occu-
pied as an ordnance building?

An.'?. — A portion of the building I have described as being
used as a hospital was also used as an ordnance storehouse.

Int. 2. — Look on this list of ])uildings within the fort,
dwelling-houses, stores, and workshops, now shown to you, on
the 202d and 20-3d pages of the printed testimony in behalf
of the Hudson's Bay Company, and state whether these build-
ings were not there in 1852, and whether those buildings were
not there in 18.59.

Ans. — I would add to ray first description of the buildings
a granary and blacksmith's shop, and a building adjoining the
oflScers' quarters near the gate; the latter, when I first became
acquainted with it, was very much gone to decay.

I)it. 3. — Can you name any particular building of those you
have mentioned inside of the stockade which was in decay in
1859?

Ans. — The building occupied by the ofiicers of the Company
was propped up repeatedly, and the other building, the other

853

the buildings

! first became

.«i{le of the gate, was in considerable decay. All the store-
houses Avere much in want of repair.

Int. 4. — State in what manner the building occupied by the
officers was propped up.

Ana, — My impression is, the foundations were decayed. I
witnessed, once or twice, the process of repair. I saw work-
men at work on the front porch, in the front part of the
house.

Int. 5. — In what part of the storehouses did you notice any
decay ?

Ans. — The foundations of the building occupied at one lime
as a commissary storehouse.

Int. 6. — What portion of the foundation was in decay, and
to what extent?

Ans. — I cannot say. My attention was drawn to that build-
ing, at one time, in connection Avith abandoning its use as a
storehouse, and the necessity of one being built by the Quar-
termaster's Department.

Int. 7. — What, if any, estimate was made of the cost of the
building spoken of above for the quartermaster?

Ans. — I don't know.

Int. 8. — Do you feel certain that there was any building
within the stockade built of unhewn logs?

Ans. — I think none of the principal buildings were.

Int. 9. — State what building was built of unhewn logs, and
in what part of the enclosure.

Ans. — I cannot say.

Int. 10. — Do you not think you may be mistaken in saying
that any of the buildings inside of the enclosure Avere built
either of hcAved logs or unhcAvn logs ?

Ans. — The whole fort was of logs. All the principal build-
ings were of hewn logs.

Int. 11. — Did you observe the building carefully enough to
say whether these buildings were of hewn logs or sawed logs?

Ans. — I think a portion were hcAved and a portion sawed.

hit. 12. — Can you say whether the house occujpied by the
chief factor was a frame or a log house?

Ans. — I think it was a log house Avith clap-boards on it.

3r)4

Jnt. 13. — Do you know anything of the price of saweil
lumber per 1,000 feet, at board measure, in 18G2, at Van-
couver?

Ah8. — I came there in 1852, and stayed a few days, and
went to the Dalles. Lumber at the Dalles in the summer of
1853 sold at .^75 a thousand.

Int. 14. — Is the estimate you place on these buildings in
1852 based upon the idea that they were built of hewn and
unhewn logs?

Ans. — No.

Int. 15. — Do you know the price, and can you now state it,
per running foot of hewn timber, such as you say some of
these buildings were built of in 1852?

Ans. — No.

Int. 10. — Have you ever calculated or estimated what amount
of hewn timber or sawed lumber there was in any single building
you have spoken of inside the stockade in 1852?

Alls. — No.

Int. 17. — Did you know, and can you now state, what was
the price of shingles per thousand at Vancouver in 1852 ?

Ans. — No.

Int. 18. — Do you know the price or value of laboi*, skilled
and unskilled, at Vancouver, in 1852?

Ans. — Carpenters asked from ^4 to $5 a day.

Int. 19. — What value do you place on the buildings at Van-
couver in 1859 ?

Ans. — They had been of so little value since the Hudson's
Bay Company left them, that the military authorities have
never occupied them except for stabling horses, mules, and
animals in the winter time.

Int. 20. — Do you wish to be understood in saying that they
were of little value, because they were of little value to the
military authorities on the military reservation?

Ans. — I do, because there was frequent want of quarters.
Buildings in the town adjoining have been hired, and no prop-
osition made to occupy the abandoned buildings of the Hud-
son's Bay Company.

Int. 21. — When you speak of their being of little value, how

Oiit) •

long after thoy were left by the IIikIsoh'm liay Company did
you put this value upon tlioin?

An8. — Immediately after they left, for no occupation by the
Quartermaster's Department except as above described, was
made.

Int. 22. — In what year and what time of the year did the
Company leave?

Ans. — The summer of 1850, I think.

Int. 23. — In what year and what time of the year was the
British Boundary Commission encamped inside the stockade
at Vancouver?

Ans. — I don't know.

Washington City, Fehrnary 26, 1867.

Examination-in- Chief Resumed.

Lit. 1. — What do you know of the character of the winter
of 1852 in Oregon?

Ans. — That winter I commanded at Fort Dalles, Oregon.
The winter was one of extraordinary severity. The navigation
of the Columbia closed on tiie 4th of December, 1852, and
remained closed until the latter part of January. It generally
did not close until Christmas. A large number of cattle came
across the Plains that fall, and great numbers of them in the
vicinity of the Dalles perished from cold and want of food.
Usually, the bunch grass of the prairies was accessible for their
subsistence, but was not accessible that winter from the depth
of snow.

Cross- Examination Resumed.

Int. 1. — Is not the Dalles situated at the foot of the Cascade
mountains and on its eastern base, about 60 miles, if not more,
from the western base, and is not the climate east of the Cas-
cades different in chara'Jteristics from the country west of the
Cascades?

Ans. — The foot of the eastern slope of the Cascade range is
20 miles below the Dalles. On my arrival at the Dalles, in
1852, the settlers said that during the previous winter there

"3^

iiim

I^H

||MH

] WiWIil

856

was very little snow, and the winter bland and mild as the
climate of Italy. This deluded the emigrants to leaving their
cattle there that winter. The climate at the Dalles is gener-
ally a little colder than at Fort Vancouver, but great numbers
of catlle perished that vinte/ in the Willamette Valley, and
n the whole region Avest of the Cascxde mountains.

Int. 2. — Is not your statement as: 3 the numbers of cattle
dying in the Willamette Valley and Avest of the Cascades
derived from statementc rsa.de to you by others, and not from
your own personal knowledge?

Anf<. — In the summer of 1853 I was ordered to Umpqua
and Rogue River Valley to locate a military road, and made
nquirios all along the line of my travel through the Willa-
mette Valley as to the severity of the previous winter.

Int. 3. — Did you notice the emigrant cattle at the Dalles
among which this mortality occurred of which you have spoken ?

Ans. — I did.

Int. 4. — Were they not on arrival very low in the flesh, and
unable to stand, from that reason, the cold of that winter?

Ans. — They were; but all cattle were alike. Even mules
were killed for want of food, if for no other reason. If a thaw
came, the snow was immediately frozen, and the grass entirely
inaccessible.

Int. 5. — Do you not know that a mule is an animal much
less capable of sustaining severe cold, and more liable to per-
ish from it, than either the horse or the ox?

Ans. — I don't think so.

Int. 6. — Do you not know that some of these emigrant cattle
survived that winter?

Ans. — I think that none survived that were not fed by their
owners.

lilt. 7. — Did not a large number of these emigrant cattle
belong to an emigrant by the name of Hayes?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 8. — Was not this man Hayes afterwards a resident on
P'jget's Sound ?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 9. — Is not the Cascade range between Vancouver and

357

the Dalles, a range of mountains some 60 or 70 miles in
width, and is not the country on the eastern slope of the
Cascades, and to the east of it, a vast, open plain or plateau,
generally free from forests, and, as a general rule, dry and
arid ?

Ans. — The description in the question is generally correct.
The width of the Cascade range is about fifty miles.

Int. 10 — Is not the country west of the Cascades and north
of the Cumberland river, and for at least 20 miles south of
it, almost an unbroken forest, with here and there prairies
interspersed, and with a moist and huimid cli'i'ate ?

Ans. Yes.

Int. 11. — Are you aware of the fact that the forests in the
winter season afford shelter and food to cattle ranging in
them?

Ans. — To a certain extent this is true.

(All the above testimony with reference to the Dalks, the
winters of 1852 and 1853, the emigrant cattle, umI the mor-
tality among them, objected to by Mr. Lander us immaterial
and irrelevant.)

Bkxj. Alvord,
Paymaster and Bvt. Brig. General U. S. Army.

February 28, 1857.

In. the matter of the Cla'ai ;j Hie Hudson's Bay Comjtany ayainst

the United States.

resident on

Deposition of Benjamin F. Dowkll, witness examined on be-
half of the United States by agreement between C. C.
Beaman, counsel for the United States, and Edwin Lan-
der, counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company.

Testimosy of B. F. Dowell.

Int. 1. — What is your name, residence, and occupation?
Ans. — Benjamin F. Dowell, Jacksonville, Jackson county,
Oregon, attorney at law.

358

1,1 ^H:

l«'ir^

^1 s'l '

Jw<. 2. — Have you ever visited Umpqua, a post of the Hud-
son's Bay Company ?

Ans. — I have.

Int. 3. — State when you first saw it, and what condition it
was then in.

J??.s. — The first time I saw it was in the fall of 1852. I
did not examine it particularly. There were some log houses,
and what is called the corral, for the purpose of catching
wild horses and cattle. The time I first visited it a beef had
just been killed, and I bought some of the beef.

Int. 4. — What value would you put on these buildings the
first time you saw them ?

Anx. — The buildings I saw were dilapidated log buildings,
with puncheon floors, very rough. I do not think they were
worth over $500 ; corral was old and dilapidated.

Int 5. — What other times did you visit the post, and what
changes had taken place?

Alls. — I visited the post again in 1853, 1854, and 1855. I
don't remember whether there were any changes in 1853, with
the exception that there appeared to be nobody living in the
houses, and the man from whom I bought beef, who was a
Frenchman, I think his name is Garnier, I met in the first
prairie above Scottsburg, and he told me he was living in the
said prairie about two and a half miles from Scottsburg.
When I was back in 1854 or 1855, I don't remember which,
considerable improvement had taken place. The place was
not then in possession of the Hudson's Bay Company, but a
man by the name of Chapman was in possession. Both the
last times I was there, I saw Mr. Chapman's s'^ns at work.
The buildings all looked fresh, as if they had L^en just put
up. There Avas some fencing at the latter period there. I saw
no fencing when I was there first. I saw no cultivated laml
when I was first there.

Int. G. — What opportunities have you had of estimating the
value of lands west of the Kocky mountains, and particularly
in the neighborhood of Umpqua?

Ans. — From the spring of 1853 to the fall of 1856 I was
the owner of a pack-train, and travelled with it constantly

359

through Oregon, transporting supplies from the different farms
and towns in northern Oregon, and from Scottshurg tlirough
Umpqua Valley to Jacksonville, Oregon, and to Yreka, Cali-
fornia, or I was transporting supplies for the Oregon volun-
teers i i the Indian wars. Since 1850 I have been engaged in
practising law in Jackson and Umpqua counties, and drawing
deeds for parties buying lands. I have bought three farms,
one in Polk county, one in Umpqua Valley, now Douglas
county, and one in Jackson county, and I have travelled
through Umpqua Valley two or three times every year since
1852, and heard men price their lands there.

Int. 7. — Do you know whether the Hudson's Bay Company
claimed any land around their post at Umpqua'

Ans. — I don't know, of my own knowledge, tliat they did.
The man in charge of the place claimed the corral and the
cattle as belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company.

(Mr. Lander objects to statements of the man in charge as
incompetent.)

Int. 8. — Wiiat was the value of a tract of land of a mile
oi^uare fronting oti Umpqua river, including the post as the
centre, or nearly so, in 1852, and what is its present value?

Ans. — I think in 1852 it would sell from somewhere between
$1,500 and $2,000. If the tract of land was run up the river,
so as to include the prairie, and so as just to cover the house
below, it would get much better land, and in that case I think
it would be worth $2,000. If it was a mile square with the
post in the centre, it would only, I think, be worth $1,500.
This estimate includes all the buildings and improvements that
were on it at the time. I don't think the present value is as
much as it was in 1852 and 1853, though the buildings and
improvements are worth double what they were in 1852.
Land there has depreciated. The reason of this is that Scotts-
hurg has not increased in importance as was expected.

Int. 9. — Upon what particular knowledge do you found this
estimate of Umpqua?

Ans. — I know of two tracts of land, clo**^ by, on the east
side of the river, containing 320 acres each, that belong to
Dr. L. S. Thompson, who has offered to sell both the said

'"**

3«0

m mm

1, h:t^'-

tracts to mo for $2,000. Thoy have us fjood improvements as
the land at Umpqua, the land.s are bettor, and tiic location is
better.

(Mr. Lander objects to this answer as irrelevant and incom-
petent.)

Int. 10. — Have you ever visited Fort Hall, a station of the
Hudson's Bay Company ? If so, when? Please state its con-
dition then.

Ans. — I visited Fort Hall in 1H50. It was a large fort,
built of adobe brick. I suppose it was about 200 feet square.
There were buildings inside of the fort on the corners suitable
for a storehouse and a dwelling, and the managing agent of
the Hudson's Bay Company, I think his name was (J rant, was
living there.

Int. 11. — What do you know of the trade at Fort Hall?
Ans. — Our company sold to the managing agent there quite
a lot of dry goods. We sold the goods at about the retail
price in Missouri, some at less. They had scarcely anything
on hand at the post to sell. We were three days selling the
goods. The only trade I saw except what we sold, some of
our company bought a horse in part payment for the goods at
$Q0, the pick of a band of about forty or fifty.
Int. 12. — Did you see any cultivated land there?
Ann. — I did not.

Int. 13. — What was the value at that time per acre of laud
in the neighborhood of Fort Hall?

Ans. — The whole country was vacant, unappropriated public
lands of the United States. There was no settlement at that
time along the road I travelled from Fort Laramie to Fort
Hall, except a little post occupied by the United State troops
about five miles from Fort Hall. Anybo<ly could take the
land by settling on it. Nobody would do it at that time. Right
around Fort Hall the land was very poor, a sandy plain, of
no value except as a trading post.

Int. 14. — What do you know of the station of thj Hudson's
Bay Company known as Walla-Walla?

Ana. — I visited Fort Walla-Walla in December, 1855, in
company with Colonel Kelly's command, Indian Agent Olney,

361

an<l Mr. Sinclair, the agent of the Hudson's Bay Company.
And last year I saw it four or five times.

]M. 15. — Deserrbe it as you first saw it.

Ans. — It was an adobe Fort, very much like Fort Hall — had
the appearance of having; been recently ransacked by the
Indians.

Int. 16. — What would you estimate to have been the value
of this post?

Ann. — I should say it would not have sold for over $2,000
although it perhaps cost more.

Int. 17. — Do you know of the circumstances under which
the Hudson's Bay Company left Fort Walla-Walla?

Ans. — All I know on this subject is what the agent of the
Company; Mr. Sinclair, told me. I don't know that it ever
was abandoned. I know there was nobody in it when I first
went there in 1855, and the property had the appearance of
everything being taken out.

Int. 18. — What did Mr. Sinclair say to you about the cir-
cumstances under which the Hudson's Bay Company left Fort
Walla-Walla?

(Mr. Lander objects to this question as incompetent.)

Ann. — lie told me that he was the commander of the post
at Walla- Walla for the Hudson's Bay Company. He told me
the reason why he left the Fort was that several miners trav-
elling between Oregon and Colvile had been killed by the
Indians, that Indians had reported it so to him, and a short
time after that, Piupiumoxmox, the head chief of the Walla-
Walla Indians, with several of his tribe, came to the Fort and
demanded of him all the powder he had, and required him to
send for more powder for him. He said he told Piupiumoxmox
that he had but little, and what little he had he wante<l for his
own defence. He said he suspicioned that he wanted to make
war from his wanting so much, and Puipuimoxmox threatened
to kill him if he did not let him have all the powder ho had
and send for more powder. He said Piupiumoxmox finally
went away without getitng any powder or doing anything but
threatening to kill him. A few days after this he was informed
by the Indian Agent Olncy that Agent Boleu had been killed

i'v

' ..''■>

f'^ ^M]}

a'.i,

1 '

362

by the Yakama Indians on the opposite side of the river. Ifc
said he was satisfied from these two facts that Piupiumoxunox
and Kaniaiakane had combined together, and that war was inev-
itable, and thej had to leave to save their lives. He said, to
keep the Indians from using the powder and lead against the
whites, he threw all the powder and lead he had into the river.
Mr. Sinclair buried his one or two howitzers in a cache. I
sent some of my men to dig them up, and we got them. Sev-
eral Frenchmen that had Indian wives and farms on the Walla-
Walla river, lefL and went to the Dalles. Mr. Sinclair said all
the Americans and Frenchmen left and went to the Dalles.
Mr. Sinclair said the reason he did not take his things with
him from the Fort, was that he did not have transportation.
He did not have time to gather up the cattle.

Int. 19. — Were the buildings at Fort Walla-Walla injuroil
by the Indians at this time?

Ans. — No, except the gates and doors were broken open.
I went to the Fort among the first after the Indians had sacked
it. I went there with Mr. Sinclair and a lot of soldiers.

Int. 20. — What was the character and value of the lands
about Walla-Walla?

Ans. — It was a barren, sandy plain of but little value, except
the fort. There is a town there now, and it is worth a good
deal more now than it was then.

( ^ross-Uxam in at ion .

Int. 1. — At the time you first saw Fort Umpqua, did you
put a value on the buildings you then saw there?

A71S. — I dul not.

Int. 2. — Is not the value you have put upon it a value made
up at the present time?

Ana. — No, sir; I fixed th'e valuation from the observation
of the place in 18r)4, ami from my general knowledge of tin'
price of the property iu that vicinity m lh.")2 and 1853; and
by D*". Thompson tryinug to sell hts place, and not doing it.

Int. 3. — Wliat circumstance caused you in the year 18-^
to put a value upou hese at Cmp(|ua?

value mailc

observation

303

Ann. — I was told by somobocly, I don't remcrabor who, that
somebody had jumped the Hudson Bay Company's claim at
Umpqua, and 1 got to studying how much he had made by so
doing.

Int. 4. — Were there stockades surrounding the buildinss at
Umpqua when you saw it first?

Ans. — I think there was.

Int. 5. — Do you include the stockades and bastions in your
valuation?

Ana. — I don't think I considered the stockades worth any-
thing at that time, as the citizens were living in the valley
without any stockades; I did not consider the stockades worth
anything, but for the wood.

Int. G. — Do you recollect a dwelling-house there when you
first saw it?

Ans. — Yes, there was a dwelling-house there.

Int. 7. — Do you now restate what you paid in your exami-
iiation-in-chief in reference to those buildings the first time
you saw them?

A)is. — I do; I did not examine the Fort at Umpqua particu-
larly; I went over to get some beef, and got it; I went over
from my camp on the opposite side of the river in siglit of the
fort, about a half a mile distant. I saw they were killng a
beef, and then went over.

Jnt. 8. — What office did you fill when you visited Fort
Walla-Walla with Colonel Kelly?

Ans. — I was the owner of the transportation animals, and
bud the management of the transportation.

Int. 1). — Which was the larger fort, Fort Hall or Fort Walla-
Walla?

An.^. — I don't know that there was any difference in the
size of them.

Inf. 10. — Which in your opinion cost the most to build?

A Hi. — 1 think Fort Walla-Walla cost the most.

Int. 11. — What in your opinion would be the difference in
tlie cost of those two forts?

Anfi. — I !*ln)uld suppose there was not much difference in
tl«; actual labor of building, but my impression from my knowl-

r ill

, 1

li-ni'^'

ii 4 1

uti

3G4

ccI;^o of Indians is that it would cost more at Fort Hall to
build, as the Indians there were not so good to work as the
the Indians about Walla-Walla; I suppose the labor was mostly
done by Indians and Frenchnicn ; I understand the adobes
are made out of the natural turf of the prairies, ploughed up
with either horses or oxen, and then put right on the walls
without over being burnt at all; the walls are 2 or 2J feet
thick; the adobes have no appearance of being burnt; they
make a pretty comfortable house.

Int. 12. — Was not a portion of the fort at Walla-Walla
still used and occupied when you was there last?

A)m. — I know a portion of the house was; and probably
the whole of the old storehouse was standing.

Int. \?». — Did not in your opinion the fort at Walla- Walla
cost much more than the $2,000 you have estimated it at, in
your answ(!r to interrogatory 16?

Ans. — I do think so; I don't think you could put up an
adobe house such as that for $2,000 now, but I could put up
a brick house or a wooden house for $2,000 that I would
rather have.

lilt. 14. — Can you estimate the cost of this building at all,
with a wall of over a hundred feet square, with all its build-
ings inside ?

Ann. — I have no way of estimating the cost of such a build-
ing, because I never saw anything like it put up, and of course
could only conjecture as to the amount of labor it would take.
I could tell no more as to the number of days it would take,
than as to the number of days it took to put up any of the
forts I saw at Arlington yesterday.

Int. 15. — How long were you at Fort Walla-Walla, itself,
and under what circumstances?

Ans. — The first time I was there, I was there about three
hours; the next day I was there all day, shooting at the In-
dians across the river ; the next time I was there, I was there
two or three hours, looking round ; ten or twelve days after-
wards I rode by and never stopped at all ; in the spring fol-
lowing, in lSf)6, we camped near there, and was lack and
forth several times ; I was there again in 1865 and 1866.

ralla-Walla

365

Int. IG. — At the time you were there in 18GG, did you land
at tlic town of Wallula?

Ans. — I did.

Int. 17. — Were there many goods landed at Wallula from
the steamer in which you came up?

Ann. — I saw hut little goods landed, but there was a good
supply of goods in the town; I have no doubt they were all
landed there.

Int. 18. — How many times a Aveek did steamers from below
stop at Wallula ?

Am. — I think they were running three times a week.

Int. 19. — Did the steamers go higher up the river?

Ans. — The steamer I was on went above ; they said were
going to Lewiston.

Int. 20. — Are not corrals used as well for tame as wild
animals?

Ans. — They are.

r>. F. DOWELL.
March 11, 1SG7.

In the matter of the Claim of the JIu<hon''s Bay (Jompanij ar/atmt

the United States.

Deposition of Edward J. AT.r.EX, a witness produced on the
part of the United States, and examined at Washington
city, this 23d day of February, A. D. 18G7, by virtue of
an agreement between C. (J. Beaman, counsel for the United
States, and Edward Lander, counsel for the Hudson's Bay
Company.

Testimony of Edward J. Allen.

Int. 1. — What is your name, residence, and occupation ?

Ans. — Edward J. Allen, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, secretary
and treasurer of the Pacific and Atlantic Telegraph Company
of the United States.

Int. 2. — Have you ever visited Fort Boise, a post of the
Hudson's Bay Company ?

M-'^

£xm

i ,

1 BnSJl'^

1 '^M|

\ ■ i

rlii

■

iMffln

:/,

(r
'j

j! :: *

806

An», — I have.

Int. 3. — State when you visited it, how long you rca^ained,
and under what circumstanccH.

Ann. — I visited it in the Hummer of 1852 ; ^' ' cmained there
about a month ; I passed there as an emigrant, and remained
ferrying there.

Int. 4. — What was tlic condition of the fort at that time?

Ans. — Very diLapidated, ruinous.

Int. 5. — What Avau the value of the buildings?

Ans. — I don't know for what purpose they Avould have any
value; the value would be so slight it Avould be difficult to
estimate it.

Int. 6. — How was that fort occupied ?

Ans. — By one white man in charge, an employe of the
Hudson's Bay Company.

Int. 7. — What was the value of the trade at this post ?

Ans. — I saw no trading transaction at all, while I was there
in furs ; the employe in charge told me the trade had dwindled
away to almost nothing; that the value of the furs brought
there did not pay his compensation ; the Indians there were
in an impoverished condition ; they died in great numbers
while I was there ; in such great numbers that their bodies
were piled up and burnt by the employe in charge; I was
assured by the employe in charge that the few furs obtained
were of very poor quality ; I so thought on seeing some of
the furs.

(Statement of employe objected to as incompetent.)

Int. 8. — State whether or no you saw any cattle or culti-
vated lands about the post belonging to the Hudson's Bay
Company.

Ans. — I never heard any claim made to cattle there by the
Company, except that I think the employe in charge bought
some cattle that had been brought there by emigrants, auu
were broken down. I saw no cultivated lands there.

Cross-Examination.

Int. 1. — Are you the same Edward J. Allen who testified in
the case of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company?

307

Ann. — I am.

Lit. 2. — What time in the summer of 1852 were you at Fort
Boise ?

Au8. — About mid-summer.

Int. -3. — Wliat was the name of the person you have spoken
of as telling you there were few furs and of poor quality?

Aiis. — I don't recall his name; I have it in published letters
describing that place, but I have forgotten it now.

Int. 4. — Was he a white man?

Ans. — lie was a Scotchman. That is my recollection.

Int. 5. — How many bodies of Indians did you see piled up
at any one time and burned?

Ann. — I can't recall the number. I saw, I think, twenty or
thirty dead, left unburied, and some they had disposed of.
The stench was insupportable. I did not get near enough to
count them.

Int. G. — How many of these burnings did you see during the
month you were at Boise?

Ans. — I don't remember how many ; it was all done in a
day or two.

Int. 0. — How many bodies were piled together and burning
at once?

Ans. — I don't know ; I did not got near enough to count
them.

Int. 8. — What wood was there in the country that he could
and did use for this purpose?

Ans. — He used quantities of willow that grows there, and
burns with a very fragrant smell.

Int. 9. — Is not this willow a small tree, properly called a
bush ?

Ans. — Yes ; I guess it is more properly called a bush.

Int. 10. — What is the width of the river at this point ?

Ans. — Between a quarter and half a mile.

Int. 11. — Were you not on the other side of the stream of
this river during the time of the burning of Indians?

Ans. — I w^as on both sides, backwards and forwards.

Int. 12. — To what do you attribute this sickness of the
Indians ?
24 H

.^^
'^^

.0.. ^.%^

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

1.1

ltt|21 125
■<< l&i ■2.2

£ »& 120

L25 IHU 116

Fhotographic

Sdmces

CorparatiQn

■$->

3;i WMT MAIN STRHT
(7U)ft/i-4S03

368

Ans. — Generally, to their degraded, filthy habits, and more
immediately to eating cattle that had died on the plains.

Int. 13. — Was there not in the river at that time an abund-
ance of salmon in good order, the usual food of the Indians ?

Ans. — I don't know.

Int. 14. — Have you not a short time since stated, in con-
versation, that the salmon were so thick in the river that they
did not get out of the way of your ferry-boat ?

Ans. — No.

Int. 15. — State what you did say in reference to salmon in
the river.

Ans. — I saw multitudes of salmon in the river in such a
diseased condition that they were rotten. I saw the Indians
catch those fish, and I believe they ate them. They were so
weak and diseased as to be readily caught by the hand and
struck by an oar.

Int. 16. — Was not the flesh upon these salmon firm, and did
they not afford an excellent article of food?

Atis. — No.

Int. 17. — Was the flesh in such condition that pieces of it
would iall off the fish while it was alive ?

Ans. — Yes, it was.

Int. 18. — Did this person whom you say was in charge, him-
self, personally, assist in burning Indians ?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; he did.

Int. 14. — Did the Indians themselves assist in it ?

Ans. — He had some assistance ; I don't know whether it
was Indians or half-breeds ?

Int. 20 — How many half-breeds were there at the time?

Ans. — I don't know.

Int. 21. — How many men were there employed in the fort?

Ans. — I think but the one, the white man.

Int. 22. — What were the half-breeds doing there ?

Ans. — I don't know. ' *

Int. 23. — Did you see more than one half-breed at Fort
Bois^ at that time ?

Ans, — I don't remember.

Int. 24. — Did you see one half-breed?

369

nd more
ns.

1 abund-
[ndians ?

I, in con-
that they

almon in

in such a
e Indians
y were so
hand and

m, and did

leces 01 It
large, him-

whether it
LC time?
n the fort ?

ed at Fort

Ans. — I think there was a half-breed there, but I don't
distinctly remember.

Int. 25. — Is this single white man whom you saw about the
fort the one who made the statements you detailed in your
examination-in-chief?,

Ans. — Yes, he was.

Int. 2G. — Do you feel certain there was but one white man
at the fort while vou were there ?

Ans. — I remember seeing but one white man who belonged
to the fort ; there were emigrants passing by.

Edward J. Allen.

Sworn and subscribed before me this 29th day of May, 1867.

N. CALL AN,

Notary Public.

District of Columbia, \
County 'of Waslnngton. /

I, Sauiuci II. Huntington, Clerk of the United States Court
of Claims, do hereby certify that the foregoing depositions
hereto attached of Alexander Gardner, Charles T. Gardner,
Simpson P. Moses, William Gilpin, Francis Hudson, James
G. Swan, Titian R. Peale, Benjamin Alvord, and B. F. Dow-
ell, and the direct examination of Edward J. Allen, witnesses
produced by and on behalf of the United States in the matter
of the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company against the
United States, now pending before the British and American
Joint Commission for the final adjustment of the same thereof,
were taken at the city of Washington, and reduced to writing
under my direction by a person agreed upon by Charles C.
Bcaman, Jr., Esq., attorney for the United States, and Ed-
ward Lander, Esq., attorney for said Company, beginning on
the 30th day of January, 1867, and ending on the IGth day
of March, 1867, according to the several dates appended to
said depositions when they were signed respectively.

I fur'^her certify that to each of said witnesses, before hia
examination, I administered the following oath:

"You swear that the evidence you shall givo in the matter
of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the Uui-

370

ted States of America shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. So help you God." That after the
same was reduced to writing, the deposition of each witness
was carefully read over, and then signed by him.

I furtlier certify that Charles C. Beaman, Jr., Esq., and
Edward Lander, Esq., were personally present during the
examination of all of said witnesses, and the reading and
signing of their depositions.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and the
official seal of said Court, at Washington, this twenty-
[l. s.] sixth day of June, A. D. 1867.

Sam'l H. Huntington,

Cleric of the Court of Claims.

371

In the matter of the Claim of the ITucIsoh's Bay Company
against the United Slates.

Deposition of William B. McMurtrie, witness examined on
behalf of the United States, at Washington city, D. C,
this 2d day of May, 18G7.

Testimony of William B. McMurtrie.

Int. 1. — State your name, residence, and occupation ?

Ans. — William B. McMurtrie; hydrographic draughtsman,
Coast Survey ; Washington city, D. C.

Int. 2. — Did you ever visit the mouth of the Columbia river?
If so, state when, and under what circumstances ?

Ans. — Yes, several times. In 1850, in the spring, was my
first visit there; visited there for several years following. I
was hydrographic draughtsman to the United States Coast
Survey, surveying from the mouth of the Columbia river to
Tongue point, above Astoria.

Int. 3. — Did you ever visit Cape Disappointment?

Ans. — Yes, several times.

Int. 4. — Look at this map, marked "A," annexed to your
deposition, entitled "Mouth of the Columbia River," &c.,
published in 1851, and state if you know under what circum-
stances it was prepared, and by whom.

A)is. — This preliminary survey was commenced by the Uni-
ted States Coast Survey, by the hydrographic party under
command of William P. McArthur, lieutenant of the United
States Navy and assistant in the United States Coast Survey.
It was prepared in the spring and summer of 1850, for better
knowledge of the entrance and channel of the said river.

Int. 5. — Were you connected with the surveying party which
made this chart?

Ans. — I was.

Int. 6. — Will you describe Cape Disappointment?

Ans. — It is a bold headland, northern side of the Columbia
river, the boldest portion of that coast for some miles. It is

372

covered with pines, almost from the water's edge to the crest
of the hills or bluffs; McKcnzie's Head being an exception, as
having no trees upon it. The height of these bluffs or head-
lands at Cape Disappointment gradually falls off in elevation
to the northward.

Int. 7. — Will you describe certain marks which appear on
the map of this Cape shown you?

Ans. — The shaded portions of this survey indicate slopings
or depressions, the darkest portion representing the steeper or
more abrupt portions of the land; the white indicate the high-
est portions of the elevations. The low-water mark or sand-
beach, by fine dotted lines; the six-feet curves of water
represented by single dotted lines; the twelve-feet curves, by
two dots, and the space and two dots again, and so on con-
tinuing, the two dots being for two fathoms ; and then three
dots again represent three fathoms. The pine trees are rep-
resented by star-shaped points, other trees by points of round
edges in clusters.

Int. 8. — What was the character of the entrance of the
Columbia river?

Ans. — It consists of immense shoals or sand-bars, which are
constantly shifting, the north and south channels working
their way through these shoals or sand-bars; Avhich channels
are shifted more to the northward or southward as these shoals
or sand-bars are removed by currents or winds. The channels
seldom, if ever, lead in the same direction for two successive
seasons. For sailing-vessels, the entrance to the mouth of the
Columbia river is considered dangerous.

Int. 9. — What advantage is a light-house at the mouth of
the Columbia?

Ans. — The only advantage of a light-house at Cape Disap-
pointment is for vessels to hold on to their position during the
night.

Int. 10. — Did you ever visit any post of the Hudson's Bay
Company on this Cape ?

Ans. — I visited a house fronting on Baker's Bay, I should
think a mile or more from the point of the Cape, which was said to
have belonged to the Hudson's Bay Company by a man who lived

373

there, who was left in charge. The house was some distance
beyond the filled-in porHon of the topographical drawing rep-
resented on this chart or map. This house, I should think,
was about thirty feet in length by about twenty in width or
depth. It was situated on sloping ground fronting Baker's
Bay, built, I think, of logs or hewn timber; I think not more
than one story high.

Int. 11. — What do you estimate to have been the value of
this building ?

Ans. — I should think it could not have cost more than three
or four hundred dollars.

Int. 12. — Was there any cultivated ground about this build-

ing:

An8. — I did not notice any.

Int. 13. — Whether or no you saw any other buildings on the
Cape?

Ans. — I did not see any others.

Int. 14. — Did you see any land on the Cape which appeared
to have been cultivated ?

Ans. — I did not.

Int. 15. — Who was in charge of this building?

Ans. — A man whom I took to be a half-breed, whose name
I have forgotten. I saw at one time another person with him
in front of the premises, whom I took to be a half-breed.
Sometimes I saw a few Indians, probably curious as to our
proceedings.

Int. 16. — What was the value of the land on the Cape ?

Ans. — I do not think there was any value to be attached to
it at all, because it could not be cultivated except in such a
circumscribed space as to make it valueless.

Int. 17. — Did you ever visit Astoria, on the Columbia river?

Ans. — Yes, frequently.

Int. 18. — Whether or no you ever saw there a post or any
buildings of the Hudson's Bay Company ?

Ans. — I saw a building there said to belong to the Hudson's
Bay Company, used as a store-house. This building was, I
should think, about sixty feet in length, twenty-five or thirty-
feet in depth or width; I think it was built of squared timber;

■l:';'H

U-4

4-Ji

til

374

I never yras in it. It appeared to have been built some time.
There were several other houses, small frame houses and log
houses, in the vicinity of said store-house, occupied by persons
said to be employed in the service of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany.

Cro%s-Exam in at ion .

Int. 1. — Have you any acquaintance of the cost of putting
up buildings in Oregon, or have you ever superintended the
erection of any buildings ?

Ans. — I have no knowledge of the cost of erecting buildings
in Oregon, excepting through the information derived from
others ; and I have never superintended the erection of any
buildings.

Wm. B. McMurtrie.

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson % Bay Covipamj

against the United States. %

Deposition of Commander William Gibson, a witness exam-
ined on behalf of the United States by agreement between
Mr. C. C. Beaman, on the part of the United States, and

^ Mr. Edward Lander, on the part of the lludson's Bay Com-
pany, this 22d day of May, 1867, at Washington city, D. C.

Testimony of William Gibson.

Int. 1. — State your name, residence, and occupation.

Ans. — William Gibson ; Commander in the United States
Navy ; now stationed in Washington, D. C.

Int. 2. — Were you ever at Cape Disappointment, at the
mouth of the Columbia river? If so, state when, and in
what particular service ?

Ans. — I was at Cape Disappointment in the summer of
1850. I was engaged at that time in the survey of the mouth

375

of the Columbia river, as a passed midshipman on boarcf the
schooner Ewing, in a party commanded by Lieut. McArthur.

Int. 3. — Look at the map, now shown you, entitled "Mouth
of the Columbia lliver," &c., published in 1851, to be marked
"A," and to be attached to your deposition, and state what
particular marks on this map were made from your particular
observation.

Ans. — Perhaps a majority of the soundings ; in addition to
which I computed the triangulations.

Int. 4. — Will you describe Capo Disappointment?

Ans. — It was a promontory of columnar basalt, with steep
escarpments on the south and west, more sloping on the east-
ern side towards the small cove ; heavily timbered on its crest,
with tangled undergrowth, grass, bushes, and creepers. It is
rocky, with a thin soil in most places. I visited it several
times.

Int. 5. — Whether or no there were any signs of cultivation
or occupation of the part of this Cape figured on the map?

Ans. — No signs of cultivation that I observed, and no signs
of occupation, except one man living in a solitary house, a
little to the northward of the cove — whether on or beyond the
figured portion of the map I cannot say, and one or two boats
in the cove.

Int. G. — What would you say of the value of the land on
Cape Disappointment ?

Ans. — It is valueless, except for its timber; the whole of
this portion of Oregon being also richly wooded with spruce,
fir, hemlock, and cedar.

Int. 7. — Please describe the house you have referred to as
a little to the northward of the cove.

Ans. — To the best of my recollection, it was a small frame-
house, perhaps twenty feet front, short two stories or a story
and a half high, with two rooms on a floor. I slept in it one
night ; it was occupied by one man, but was nearly bare of
furniture. I saw no cultivated land about the house.

Int. 8. — Whether or no there were any signs of the use of
this house as a trading-post ?
Ans. — I saw none.

I^VItlllJ.V.

376

Int. 0. — What would you estimate to have been the cost and
value of this house ?

Ann. — A few hundred dollars ; not exceeding five.

Int. 10. — Whether or not you saw any other houses on Cape
Disappointment than the one you have described?

Am. — To the best of my recollection, I saw no other house.

Int. 11. — What do you know of the channels and the en-
trance at the mouth of the Columbia river, and the importance
of ligiit-houses at Capo Disappointment and Point Adams?

Ana. — Except in very light win<ls, the breakers are heavy,
in a horse-shoe form, across the whole mouth of the Columbia;
the current of the river is strong, and the channels arc there-
fore continually shifting. At the time of our survey, in 18.30,
the south channel Avas the shoalest, though with seventeen and
a half feet at low-water on the bar. It was also the shortest
and the most direct, also the one used by all vessels at that
time, with the solitary exception of the United States steamer
Massachusetts, which on one occasion went out the north
channel. The northern channel was the deepest, but was
much the longest, with many sharp elbows to turn in order to
reach Astoria and the channel up the river. Sailing-vessels
would also have to beat up to Cape Disappointment from the
bar of this channel against the prevailing winds. I think a
light-house on Cape Disappointment important for vessels ap-
proaching the river to make and hold on by; but a light-house
with a beacon range on Point Adams I consider of much
greater importance, as this would enable vessels to run in the
south channel at night, if the position of the beacon were
changed from time to time with the shifting of the bar.

Cross- Examination — May 27, 1867.

Int. 1. — By what party was the map shown to you in this
examination made, and who was in charge of the party?

Ans. — By a party of naval officers and seamen, in the Coast
Survey schooner Ewing, Lieutenant Commanding William P.
McArthur in charge.

377

Int. 2. — Do you know anything of the fortification or bat-
tery on Cape Disappointment ?

Ans. — I <lo n 't.

Int. 3. — Do ; lu know anything of the navigation of the
mouth of the river since 1850?

Ans. — Nothing.

Int. 4. — Did not, in your time, the passengcr-stcaniors draw-
ing any great depth of water — such as the Panama, the Oregon,
the California — go through the northern channel passing in
and out of the river?

Ans. — I don't know. I have no knowledge of but one vessel
using that passage in coming out; it was the United States
steamer Massachusetts, with the rifle regiment on board. Sho
chose that passage, I was informed, on account of her draught
of water, and on account of the roughness of the sea, which
broke in seven fathoms.

Int. 5. — During the time vou were at the mouth of the

o V

Columbia river, was or was not the passenger-steamer a small
steamer of about 600 tons, called the Columbia ?

Ans. — I do not remember ; at all events, she was not run-
ning while we were engaged on that survey. There was no
passenger-steamer running at that time.

Int. 7. — What, in your opinion, would be the value to the
United States of a mile square of land used for the purpose
of building a light-house and placing a fort so as to command
the entrance of one of the channels of the only navigable
river in a thousand miles of coast?

Ans. — I consider a light-house on Cape Disappointment im-
portant for vessels, to make, even if they do not use, the north
channel. A fortification in that location, at the mouth of so
great a river, is also very important. I cannot estimate its
value numerically, which depends, I should think, upon many
circumstances, including its value to the party holding or
claiming it.

Int. 8. — How long were you at this house which you have
described, to the northward of the Cape, in which you slept
one night ; what time in the day did you arrive there, and
what time did you leave ?

378

Ana. — Wo arrived there in the afternoon, in a hoat that wo
were in, a good while hcfore dark ; I do not remember prc-
ciacly how long. The crew deserted, with the boat, durinf»
the night, and about 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning the man
who lived in the house lent us a boat, in which wo left for the
vessel. I never noticed the 'iouse particularly at any other
time.

Int. 0. — Were you there at any other time, to make any
stay whatever ?

Ans. — I was ashore on Cape Disappointment several times,
but never was at the house any other time.

Int. 10. — Did you at the time of this visit go off the beach
into the country back of the house ?

Ana. — Not to any distance.

Int. 11. — What distance did you go, and in what direction
from the beach ?

Ana. — I strolled about the vicinity of the house in various

directions. I had no observations to make except on Cape

Disappointment and in the cove.

William Gibson,

Commander, U. S. Navy.

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company
against the United States.

Deposition of Major General Gordon Granger, witness pro-
duced on the part of the United States, this 29th day of
May, 1867, at Washington city, D. C.

Testimony op Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger.

Int. 1. — What is your name, residence, and present occupa-
tion?

Ans. — Gordon Granger; Colonel and Brevet Major General,
United States Army ; residence, New York city.

Int. 2. — Are you acquainted with Fort Hall, a post of the
Hudson's Bay Company ? '

Ans. — I was there frequently from about the 1st of August,
1849, until June, 1850, while stationed at Cantonment Loring,
about four miles distant, being then a Lieutenant and Brevet

lat direction

879

Captain in tlio Regiment of Mounted Riflemen. I was there
(luring this interval at least fifty times.

Int. 3. — Will you describe the Hudson's Bay Company's
post known as Fort Hall ?

Ans. — The post proper was a parallelogram of about ir)0
feet in depth by 7o to 100 in width, built of adobe. The walls
of the front portion, as near as I can remember, contained two
buildings, the whole height of which was from fifteen to twenty
feet. One was about twenty feet scjuare, the other longer.
The upper story of one of them was used as a dwelling by
Captain Grant, the Company's officer in charge; the other
building was used as stables and store-rooms. The outer walls
of this portion of the fort were about twelve feot in hei^lit,
the walls of the fort forming the back wall of the buildings, us
high up as it went. There were other suiaH buildings within
this enclosure, used for various purposes, such as blac! ..lith's
shop, servants' q''n'r!rs, &c., very small, and would not be
considered fit for civilized people to inhabit. To the rear the
walls extended back towards the Snake river, forming a yard.
These walls were from four to six feet in height, and a foot to
a foot and a half in thickness.

Int. 4. — Were there any other buildings outside ?

Ans. — I don't recollect anything outside these walls.

Int. 5. — What was the condition of this fort when you saw it?

Ans. — The outer walls were much dilapidated ; in many
places cracked and crumbled. The buildings, roofs, &c., old
and decayed. We had one rain, in the spring of 1850, which
nearly drowned Captain Grant out. I considered this fort
nearly or quite untenable, from the leaky and bad condition
of the roofs, walls, &c.

Int. 6. — How much would you estimate that Fort Ilall had
deteriorated from its value when new?

Ans. — I should estimate that, as a fort or building, it was
not worth more than one-fourth of what it was when new.

Int. 7. — AVhether or not you have ever constructed any
buildings of adobe ?

Ans. — I have, both in Texas and New Mexico.

Int. 8. — What would you estimate would have been tne cost

380

ri^-,h

I"'

in 1850 of crccHng such a post as the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany's Fort Hall ?

Ans. — My answer will have to he approximate. I should
say from ^10,000 to $15,000. In giving this estimate I rate
lahor at $50 a month.

Int. 9. — What is the character of the land round Fort Hall?

Ans. — With the exception of the river bottom and a little
stream called Portncuf, the land is utterly sterile and worth-
less, producing nothing but wild sage or artemesia.

Int. 10. — Was there any cultivated land around the fort?

Ans. — There was a little patch of an acre and a half spaded
up. They tried to raise vegetables, but did not succeed.

Int. 11. — What do you know of the trade of this post?

Ans. — At that time there was little or no trade that I was
aware of. The fur trade seemed to have been almost entirely
abandoned, from the scarcity of furs and their decreased value.
The Indians about there were the Digger and Snake Indians,
the poorest and meanest of all the Indians. There were not
exceeding ten persons at the fort — Captain Grant and family,
some Canadians, and three or four old Indians.

Int. 12. — Whether or not there wci-e any cattle belonging
to the post and ranging over the country?

Ans. — I think Captain Grant had a small herd — from twenty
to thirty cattle, and the same number of ponies and mules, not
exceeding seventy-five in all. This herd was grazed along
this narrow belt I spoke of, on Portneuf Valley and Snake
river. For miles there is not a spear of grass ; then you come
to spots that arc lower where grass grows.

Int. 13. — Whether or not there were any cattle kept at the
post?

Ans. — The cattle I have referred to, when driven up, were
herded in the fort.

Int. 14. — How does the cost of erecting adobe buildings
compare with the cost of erecting wooden buildings ^

Ans. — The adobe, both in Texas and New Mexico, is con-
sidered the cheapest, much. The same thing holds good in
old Mexico, in the dry portions of the country.

Int. 15. — Which would be the most expensive, if sufficient

381

wood could be procured within half a mile, and no expense
but for cutting and hauling?

Ans. — The adobe would still be the cheapest.

Int. IG. — Will you please describe how adobe buildings are
made?

Ans. — Adobes are made with clay, soil, or earth. The
earth is mixed with water; the earth is worked up, something
like hastily-mixed mortar, to something like consistency, then
moulded similar to brick, in size eighteen inches long, nine
inches wide, six inches thick, and then dried in the sun until
hard, which takes from three to six days, depending on the
weather. They are laid up in the walls, chimneys, partitions,
ice, like brick. The pointing or mortar used is the same earth,
mixed with the hoes, from which the adobe is made. The roofs
of the buildings at Fort Hall were first a layer of poles, and
on them were piled the natural earth, covered with natural
earth to the thickness of one to two feet. I iiave had a good
deal of experience in the construction of adobes.

Cross-Examination.

riven up, were

lexico, is con-

ire, if sufficient

Int. 1. — On what stream was Cantonment Loring ?

Ans. — It was on a small bayou of Snake river ?

Int. 2. — What number of men, horses, pack animals, and
draught animals wintered at Cantonment Loring?

Ans. — Wo arrived at Cantonment Loring, say with about
250 men, about 1,200 horses, mules, and cattle. About two-
thirds of that number died from starvation. The few we
saved was by forage brought out in the train ; and we drove
them into little valleys, and cut some grass in August.

Int. 3. — Was there much snow that winter ?

Ans. — It was looiccd upon as a severe winter.

Int. 4. — Did not the officers in command, when deciding to
remain at Cantonment Loring during the winter, from all the
information they could derive, believe that they could carry
most of their animals through the winter on the natural grasses
of the country, in addition to the forage they had with them?
Ans. — It was considered very doubtful; so much so [that] the

382

great trouble was in determining what portion of the commaiKl
should remain. It was considered hazardous to remain.

Int. 5. — Were not these animals much reduced in flesh by
their journey across the plains, and unable to stand the cold
of that winter?

Ans. — Yes, sir. On our arrival, most of these animals were
thin and jaded, but, from the time of our arrival until the
snows set in, most of them had recuperated.

Int. G. — At what time in the spring did you break camp
and leave Cantonment Loring?

Ans. — I think it was about June 1 ; but I cannot be posi-
tive of this.

Int. 7. — Had the grass started to any extent when you left
Fort Hall ?

Ans. — I should think the grass was about one to tAvo weeks
old when we left.

Int. 8. — After leaving the river bottom of the Snake river,
is there not a plateau about seventy-five feet?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 9. — Did you examine this plateau about the fort with
any care?

Ans. — I have passed over it, in every direction, a great
many times.

Int. 10. — Did you not notice it particularly in the winter
season?

Ans. — More particularly before winter set in, in hunting
for little valleys for mowing and grazing.

Int. 11. — Didyou not see on this plateau bunch grass growing ?

Ans. — Did not see any bunch grass growing; sage was the
only thing that grew there.

Int. 12. — Will you look at this document, now shown to you,
in evidence in this cause, on page 123, published evidence for
the Claimants, under head of "Post No. 7, Fort Hall," and
say how far it is correct, to the best of your recollection ?

Ans. — In addition to what I have stated, I recollect that
there were some buildings running along the wall, cut up into
apartments ten to twelve feet square. I remember there Avere
perhaps six or eight of these. I also recollect the bastions,

383

ind the cold

he fort -with

two in all. I think the size is correctly stated in the printed
evidence. You could put two men on each side.

Int. 13. — Can you estimate the cost of this fort, built by a
party of men strong enough to protect themselves against un-
friendly Indians, brought from the frontiers of the United
States, including in the estimate the cost of subsistence and
wages for the trip out and back, taking into consideration the
length of time necessary for the journey out and return, and
the erection of buildings?

Ans. — It './ould take a great deal of time. It would only
be arrived at after a long and very careful calculation. You
would have to estimate various items — as wages, subsistence,
transportation, material, time, &c., &c.

Int. 14. — Would it not largely exceed the estimate you have
put, of wages at $50 a month?

Ans. — I do not think it would, taking -into consideration
that the necessary outfit could be sold on the return.

Int. 15. — Is not the grass in September and October very
much parched and dried up, in the vicinity of Fort Hall,
owing to the want of rain in the summer months?

Ans. — Yes, sir ; in 1849 it remained generally green until
killed by the frost.

Int. 16. — Is not your recollection of Fort Hall and its sur*
roundings somewhat uncertain and indistinct, owing to the
lapse of years, and the exciting scenes of the late war, in
which you have so largely participated?

Ans. — Of course many of the details have escaped my
memory, it being now nearly eighteen years since I was there.

Int. 17. — Are not the adobe buildings you speak of, in New
Mexico and other sections of the country which you have
spoken of, built in a region of country which unite? two con-
ditions, absence of timber and an almost entire freedom from
rain ?

^«5.*-Yes, sir.

Gordon Granger,
Bvt. Major Qeneraly U. S. A.
25 H

384

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company
against the United States.

Deposition of Sylvester Mowry, witness examined on behalf
of the United States, this 30th day of May, 1867, at
Washington city, D. C.

Testimony of Sylvester Mowry.

Int. 1. — State your name, residence, and occupation.

Ans. — Sylvester Mowry, Arizona; engaged in mining.

Int. 2. — Have you ever visited Fort Colvile, a post of the
Hudson's Bay Company? if so, describe it.

Ans. — Yes, sir. I was there in the fall of 1853, in Captain
McClellan's expedition for the survey of the Pacific railroad.
There wc e a number of Wooden buildings, with a stockade,
which was partially demolished. One building was occupied
by the Chief Trader, Mr. McDonald, I think. They were
plain wooden, serviceable buildings, in tolerable repair.
Some were occupied, and some were not. The place had the
appearance of having been formerly occupied by a much
larger force. I dined twice with Mr. McDonald, once pri-
vately, and the other time a kind of State dinner, given to
Captain McClellan and the officers. The stores were sent
up from Fort Vancouver; there was nothing there to enable
them to give a decent dinner to a stranger. The buildings
were decaying; there seemed to be no desire to keep them up.
I was informed by the officers of the Company that they
expected soon to be bought out by the United States.

Int. 3. — How much do you think that this fort has depre-
ciated in wilue as a fort or building since it had been built ?

Ans. — Forty per cent.

Int. 4. — Whether or not you have had experience in erect-
ing buildings; if so, where? •

Ans. — At my own cost, in Arizona. I have put up perhaps
forty or fifty buildings, both adobe and wood.

Int. 5. — How long do you think it would have taken twenty-
five men to have built Fort Colvile, stockade and all, if the

Wi^

385

ice in erect-

timber could have been obtained on the ground, or within a
quarter of a mile?

Ans. — From four to six months.

Int. 6. — Have you ever visited Fort Okanagan? if so,
describe it.

Ans. — I have. I was there at the same time with Captain
McClellan. Okanagan was almost deserted. There was a
French half-breed in charge of the place. He had two
women and four or five Indians with him. The place was all
run down. The place was gone to ruin; no attempt to keep
it up. Very few furs there. We could have bought them all
for a small sum.

Int. 7. — How much do you think the buildings at Fort
Okanagan had depreciated in quality?

Ans. — Seventy-five per cent. The buildings were low,
small hovels, only partially occupied. The man in charge
represented himself as neglected by the Company, and begged
for the smallest things. I think ten men could have built the
post in three months.

Int. 8. — Have you ever visited Walla- Walla, a post of the
Hudson's Bay Company?

Ans. — Yes. It was a quadrangular fort, made of adobe.
It seemed to be in tolerable repair. I think it was not used
much as a trading post; more as a station, to supply the posts
above.

Int. 9. — What do you know of the comparative cost of
adobe and wooden buildings?

Ans. — Adobes are much the cheapest under equal circum-
stances. Adobes are sun-burnt mud-brick. A simple frame,
like a ladder, made of wood, generally having six apertures
for mou . , generally the apertures eighteen inches long,
nine inches wide, and six inches deep. This frame has han-
dles at each end, so that it can be easily carried by two men.
The moulds are laid flat on the ground, and the apertures are
filled with mud. A little straw or refuse from the stable is
mixed with the mud, to give it adhesion. The frame is lifted
and placed alongside of the adobes just moulded, and the
flame process repeated. After a short drying in the sun, they

880

are turned so as to rest on the longest edge, and then turned
completely over to finish drying. For special purposes, tlicy
are sometimes made smaller, seldom less than twelve inches.
When made by contract in Arizona, $8 a thousand would be
considered a good price.

Int. 10. — State whether or no you have any particular
knowledge of the cost of adobe and wooden buildings.

Ans. — At my own place in Arizona, where timber was
abundant, it was found much cheaper to put up adobes. Tiie
wooden buildings cost one-half as much more. In building
the buildings at the village for my workmen at the mines, the
first buildings were of wood, logs, and slabs, and after two or
three were built the building of them was abandoned, it being
found [that] adobes were much cheaper. This arises from the
fact that the use of skilled labor, and the tools necessary to
use in building wooden houses, demand a high price in all
frontier countries. Adode houses can be built with the rudest
kind of labor, and made comfortable and habitable at very
small cost.

(All testimony with reference to Arizona and experience
there objected to as irrelevant.)

Cross-examination of Sylvester Mowry — May 21, 1867.

mMt

Int. 1. — How many days were you at Colvile in 1853?

Ans. — Four or five.

Int. 2. — Were you all the time at the fort, or camped
near it?

Ans. — We first camped across the river, then moved across.

Int. 3. — How much time were you actually at Fort Colvile?

Ans. — I suppose I was there twenty-four hours.

Int. 4. — Do you think that you gave much time to the
examination of these buildings, their method of construction,
the condition of the roof, soundness of the sills, or in any
way so inspected them as to enable you to have an accurate
and correct idea of the time it would take to build them with
a certain number of men, or of their soundness or fitness for
service?

887

Ans. — I made no special examination. My observation
was that dictated by natural curiosity, and I saw enough, in
the examination I made, to form an intelligent judgment as
to the general condition of the post, its state of repair, and
how much time it would take to build it with a certain number
of men.

Int. 5. — Is the opinion which you gave in answer to inter-
rogatory 3 — as. to how long it would take twenty-five men to
build Fort Colvile and the stockade, with the timber to be
obtained within a quarter of a mile of the place — an opinion
formed by you at the time? or is it an opinion formed at the
time the question was put, and based upon your present recol-
lection of the fort and its surroundings?

Ans. — Formed from my present recollections, and thinking
of the matter since I was notified I would be called as a
witness.

Int. 6. — Do you recollect at Colvile a range of stores sixty
feet by twenty-five?

Ans. — I remember a range of buildings, store?; I did not
measure them.

Int. 7. — Do you recollect another range of stores of fifty
feet by twenty-one?

Ans. — I have no special recollection of this second range
of stores. My recollection of the place is suflScient for me to
recognize it if there was a drawing of it.

Int. 8, — Do you recollect another store, separate and dis-
tinct from two ranges just spoken of?

Ans. — I recollect a separate building, but my impression is
that it was not used as a store.

Int. 9. — Do you recollect these two dwelling-houses, and a
range of officers' houses, making in all three houses inhabited
by the officers and employes of the fort ?

Ans. — I recollect distinctly Mr. McDonald's dwelling-house
and some other building which was pointed out for the officers
and employes, but I understood they were not all inhabited.

Int. 10. — Can you give the length and width of the range
of stores you recollect at the fort?

388

Am. — I cannot give any accurate idea.

Int. 11. — Can you give the length and width of the house
you dined in with Mr. McDonald?

Ans. — I should think it was in the neighborhood of about
forty feet square.

Int. 12. — Was it a new house ?

Ans. — No.

Int. 13. — Can you give the dimensions of any of the other
buildings they told you were the dwelling-houses ?

Ans. — Not accurately.

Int. 14. — How long were you at Fort Okanagan?

Ans. — We camped there one night, I think. I was in the
fort twice, a few minutes each time.

Int. 15. — Was it not a stockade fort?

Ans. — There was an enclosure; the buildings were inside.

Int. 16. — Can you say that there was not, inside the stockade
at Okanagan, two dwelling-houses — one thirty-eight feet by
twenty-two, one twenty-two by twenty-two?

Ans. — There were some tumble-down affairs; you might
call them houses. I don't remember the dimensions. The
one that I went into was very rudely built, with low ceiling,
in bad repair?

Int. 17. — Do you know whether this was a store-house, or a
dwelling-house belonging to the fort?

Ans. — My impression is that it was used as both. I went
there to interpret for some of the oflScers who wanted to buy
some furs, and I saw in the building two squaws, pointed out
as the wives of the man in charge.

Int. 18. — Did you see another building within the stockade
of the same size as that into which you entered?

Ans. — I don't recollect it.

Int. 19. — Did you see a third building in the inside, about
one-half as large as that you entered? ,

Ans. — I have no special recollection of it.

Int. 20. — Do you think a building thirty-eight feet by twenty-
two is a small building? •

Ans, — It depends on what you are going to use it for; it

389

louse, or a

would bo a small building for a church, and a large one for a
stable. ♦ '

Int. 21. — What is your recollection of the size of that
building in which you were at Fort Okanagan, its length and
width?

Ans. — I should think probably it might have been twenty-
five or thirty feet long by fifteen or twenty wide.

Int. 22. — At what time in the year were you at Fort Okan-
agan ?

Am. — It was in the fall; snow had fallen.

Int. 23. — What time of the year were you at Colvile?

Ans. — We were there a few days before arriving at Fort
Okanagan.

Int. 24. — Were you at Colvile more than once in the year
1853?

Arts. — No, sir.

Int. 25. — How long were you at Walla- Walla?

An9. — We camped above and below the fort. In passing
it I rode in, and took a casual look.

Int. 26. — Were not your laborers in Arizona chiefly Mexi-
cans and Indians, or of the mixed race of Mexican and
Indian ?

Ans. — Altogether, excepting those engaged in skilled labor.

Int. 27. — Were they not unskillful, even in the use of
the axe?

Ans. — No; they use the axe very well.

Int. 28. — Do they not usually live in adobe buildings, and
are they not well skilled in the erection of this sort of
dwelling?

Ans. — Yes; nearly all Indians or mixed race of Indians
and Mexicans know how to make adobes, but the laying of
them is a trade.

Sylvester Mowry.

May 31, 1867.

890

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company
agaimt the United States.

Deposition of William J. Terry, a witness examined on
behalf of the United States, this 20th of May, 18G7, at
Washington city, D. C.

Testimony of William J. Terry.

Int. 1. — State your name, residence, and occupation?
Ana. — My name is William J. Terry; residence, Walla-
Walla, Washington Territory; general business.

Tnt. 2. — What do you know of Fort Walla- Walla, a post of
the Hudson's Bay Company?

Ans. — My acquaintance with it began in the spring of 1857.
It was then a square wall, running round, with an entrance
fronting on the river, with sheds or forms of houses on the
nside. Those sheds had no roofs, only the walls were stand-
ng. The walls of the houses and the outside wall were torn
down in several places. The whole place was a dilapidated-
looking concern.

Int. 3. — What changes have taken place in this post since?

Ana. — When I left it, in December last, only one wall that
I could see was standing.

Int. 4. — What was its value when you first knew it?

Ana. — It was not worth ten dollars.

Int. 5. — What is its value now ?

Ana. — Of no value, except as land.

Int. 6. — What is the character of the land round that post?

Ans. — It is sandy alkali, and bears nothing but sage-brush.
It is altogether unfit for cultivation. When I first knew it, it
could not have been sold at any price.

Int. 7. — What would you estimate to have been the cost of
:he original Fort Walla- Walla?

Ana. — Mr. Pambrun, who was in charge at Fort Walla
Walla at one time, is my father-in-law, and from him I have
learned much in regard to the character of the Company and

891

its peculiar managcniont. I should think it did not ovif,'inally
cost them more than ^2,500. I have put up adoho huiJdiiigs
in Texas. I think thnt I could put up such a building as that
fort was when new for $10,000, even considering labor as
worth 050 per month. This estimate refers to the present time.

Examination-in-Chief Resumed this June 7, 18G7.

Int. 8. — Please to add any thing which you desire, in addi
tion to the above, on the subject of Walla- Walla.

Am. — I do not wish to add any thing, except this: I would
not take 0200 a month salary to live at Walla- Walla, fs I first
saw it, which was in the spring of 1857. I clerked for a gen-
tleman in the western part of Texas, when I was seventeen
years old, and he put up adobes, with my assistance, and this
experience enables me to form an opinion as to the cost of
adobes.

Int. 9. — Have you at any time visited Fort Umpqua; and,
if so, when ? "

Am. — Late in the fall of 1851.

Int. 10. — Please to describe what you saw of the structures
of Fort Umpqua.

Ans. — There was a lot of low, flat, dirt-covered houses.
There was what I call a half-breed living there.

Int. 11. — Did you observe any signs of any kind of business
transacted there at that time ?

Ans. — None that I could see.

Cross-Examination.

Int. 1.— When you went to old Fort Walla- Walla, in 1857,
what business took you there, and how long did you remain
there?

Ans. — I went to the new fort to see Colonel Steptoe, and on
my return stopped at the old fort a couple of days.

Int. 2. — Who was at the old fort when you went there?

Ans. — I think C. P. Higgins.

392

Int. 3. — Was not Mr. Higgins at that time in possession of
the fort ?

Ann. — Yes, I think ho was.

Int. 4. — Was not Iliggins at that time acting as receiving
freight-agent for the Quartermaster's Department?

Am. — If ho was there at the time, that w^as his business.
I was there several times, and found Mr. Higgins in the posi-
tion I have stated, but I am not entirely certain whether I
found him there the first time.

Int. 5. — Was there not at the same time a guard of soldiers
in possession of the landing there?

Ans. — I am not certain whether they were in possession of
the landing, but they were camped there to protect the goods
from hostile Indians.

Int. 6. — In the summer of 1857, when your visit to old Fort
Walla-Walla took place, was there not an Indian war going
on in that section of the country ?

Ans. — I think not. There was no war at Walla- Walla ut
there was an Indian war going on in the country nort of
there — the Spokane country.

Int. 7. — Was your first visit there before or after Steptoe's
defeat ?

Ans. — I think it was before.

Int. 8. — Where was your horse pastured while you were
there ?

Ans. — I turned him out with some Indian horses, I think.

Int. 9. — Is not your opinion of the original cost to the Com-
pany of old Fort Walla- Walla derived from your conversations
with your father-in-law, Mr. Pambrun ?

Ans. -From his conversations and my own knowledge of
the character and style of business of the Company.

Int. 10. — What dealings have you ever had with the Hudson's
Bay Company?

Ans. — I bought some wearing apparel from them at Fort
Vancouver.

Int. 11. — Did you pay the hands who were engaged in build-
ing adobes in Texas ?

Ans. — I was clerk in the store, and paid them for their

893

work. They were peons. I gave them 2;") cents a Jay and so
much a week in corn.

Int. 12. — Did you superintend the construction of these
adobe buildings ?

An». — No, I did not. I know what it cost when it was fin-
ished.

Int. 13. — Of what size was the fort at old Walla-Walla "

Ans. — I don't know.

Int. 14. — How long wore you at Fort Umpqua ?

Ans. — To the best of my knowledge, I spent one evening
there ; camped outside.

Int. 15. — Between what places were you travelling at that
time, and in what manner?

An%. — Between Yreka, in California, and Scottsburg, in
Oregon. I was travelling on horseback.

W. J. Terry.

.hivp 7 18(17.

lowledge of

BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION

OS THE

HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL-
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS.

8 4

]]

In the matter of the Claim of the Iliuhon's Bay Company
against the United States.

Deposition of . jiin F. Nodlk, witness introduced on the part
of the United States, this 27th day of June, 1867, taken
in the office of the Joint Commission, at Washington city,
D. C.

Testimony of John F. Noble.

Int. 1. — Please to state your name and official station.

yb?5. — John F. Noble; first lieutenant in the Oregon Cav-
alry until the 31st day of December, 186G, but at present
holding no office.

Int. 2. — Have you at any time resided in the limits of the
former Territory of Oregon ; and, if so, from what year to
what year, and at what places ?

Ans.—I have; from 1849 to 1851, then from 1854 to 1867;
at Vancouver, Dalles, Wayletpu, or the Whitman Mission,
and at Fort Walla-Walla, Camp Watson, Grant county.

Int. 3. — At what time did you reside at Fort Vancoaver?

Ans.— From the fall of 1849 to 1851.

Int. 4. — Were you personally acquainted with any of the
principal officers of the Hudson's Bay Company there ; and,
if so, under what particular circumstances?

Ans. — I was ; from personal friendship, and from official
duty as Quartermaster's Clerk to Captain, now General,
Ingalls, of the United States Army. I had frequently inter-
course with those gentlemen.

305

CO liver :

Int. 0. — Whetlior you have, at any part of that time, been
acquainted with Mr. Ogdcn ?

Ans. — I was. *

Int. 6. — Have you heard him make any statements, and, if
any, what, concerning the fur trade of the Company?

Ans:. — Mr. Ogdcn told me that the depreciation of the price
of heaver had ruined their trade of the country.

(The above question and answer objected to as incompetent.)

Int. 7. — State anything further which occurs to you, in an-
swer to the general matter of tlie question.

Ans. — I do not remember rehitivc to the subject in question
beyond what I have already stated.

Int. 8. — What office in the Hudson's Bay Cj'/ipany did Mr.
Ogden then hold ?

Ans. — Chief factor.

Int. 9. — Were you acquainted with ^Ir. Graham, one of the
Company's officers at Fort Vancouver?

Ans. — I was.

Int. 10.— What office did he hold ?

Ans. — When I first know him ho was a clerk of the Com-
pany ; afterwards he was promoted to a chief trader, as I was
informed. I knew him in both capacities.

int. 11. — Have you heard him speak of locating a claim at
Fort Vancover; and, if so, what did he say on the subject?

Ans. — I have. He stated that he had taken a claim em-
bracing what was then known as Fort Vancouver. He said
that, having taken the oath of allegiance to the United States,
he took the claim, believing it to be valuable, as this property
would soon revert to the United States.

(Objected to as irrelevant and as incompetent.)

Int. 12. — Have you resided at Walla-Walla any time; and,
if so, when ?

Ans. — I have. I commanded the United States Fort Walla-
Walla from the latter part of 1865 to the latter part of 18<j6.

Int. 13. — Whilst in command there, had you occasion to visit
or see the old Hudson's Bay post of Walla-Walla ?

Ans, — Knowi^ as such, I have.

396

Int. 14. — Whether was the post occupied or unoccupied by
officers of the Hudson's Bay Company ?

Ans. — It was not occupied.

Int. 15. — What was the condition of the buildings of tlu
former post?

Ans. — In a dilapidated condition.

Int. 10. — Had you had any previous knowledge of this post ;
and, if so, when ?

Ans. — In 1854-5-6 and 8.

Int. 17. — State the conditions of the buildings of the old
post during that period?

Ans. — Not in good condition.

Int. 18. — Were they occupied at that period by officers ot
the Company ?

An%. — They were in 1854-5 ; afterwards I do not remember.

Int. 19. — What persons did you see there in 1854 ?

AnB. — To the best of my belief, Mr. James Sinclair. There
were other persons there, but I do not know who.

Cross-Examination .

Int. 1. — Where was Mr. Ogden when he made the statements
given by you in your examination?

Ans. — He was within the pickets of Fort Vancouver.

Int. 2. — Was he in the house or in the open air ?

Ans. — He was on the stoop of the house he resided in.

Int. 3. — What year was this, and what time in the year ?

Ans. — It was in the year 1850, and the early part of it; the
exact time I do not remember.

Int. 4. — Can you state what time in the day it was when
this conversation took place ?

A71S. — I cannot, from the time thai has elapsed.

Int. 5. — Who was present, beside yourself and Mr. Ogden,
at the time this conversation took place ?

Ans. — I do not remember distinctly, but think that the now
Colonel W. R. Gibson, of the Pay Department of the United
States Army, was present.

Int. 6. — Did Mr. Gibson join in the conversation ?

Hi!«-MJ.

397

iatements

Ans. — In this particular conversation, I cannot answer, as
we sat upon the stoop conversing for some time on various
subjects.

Int. 7. — Could Mr. Gibson, from the position he occupietl*,
have heard this remark when it was made?

Ans. — If he was the person, he must certainly have heard
the conversation.

Int. 8. — Can you not specify with greater accuracy the time,
and state whether it was before or after the usual dinner-time
at that post ?

Ans. — I cannot; but, to the best of my belief, think it was
after dinner.

Int. 9. — Are you certain that Mr. Ogden made use of this
language, "Had ruined their trade of the country?"

Ans. — To the best of my belief, (though I do not testify to
the language being verbatim,) it was the purport of his lan-
guage to me.

Int. 10. — Was Mr. Ogden in the habit of talking to you
freely about the affairs of the Company ?

Ans. — Not as a general thing, except in casual common con-
versation.

Int. 11. — Was this a casual or general remark addressed as
well to the gentlemen present as to yourself?

Ans. — I presume it was.

Int. 12. — What was the occupation of Mr. Gibson at that
time ?

Ans, — He was a clerk in the Quartermaster's Department.

Int. 13. — About what was the age of Mr. Gibson at that
time, and yours?

A.ns. — I can't say as to Mr. Gibson's age then. I was then
about twenty-two.

Int. 14. — Where was Mr. Graham when he made the state-
ment to you, which you have detailed?

Ans. — Not once but many times, and, to the best of my be-
lief, in various places.

Int. 15. — Did he tell you he had taken the oath of allegiance
to the United States?

Ans. — No, he did not. I wish to correct my former stacc-

«l

1*£

398

ment by saying that he had declared his intention to become
an American citizen.

• Cross-Examination liesumcd^ June 28, 1867.

Int. 1(). — What time in 1851 did you leave Vancouver?

Ans. — Some time during the month of February.

Int. 17. — Did Mr. Graham make this statement to you
shortly after your arrival in 1849?

Ans. — The statements were made to me in 1850.

Int. 18. — Please state what time in the year 1850?

Ans. — From the length of time I am unable to state tlio
time of the year.

Int. 19.— Was it early in the year 1850?

Ans. — I am unable £o say, from the great length of time
that has elapsed.

Int. 20. — Can't you tell, wMth some degree of certainty, at
what time of the year 1850 he first made those statements to you?

Ans. — I will say it was in the latter part of 1850.

Int. 21. — Are you able to say, with any certainty, that thia
statement was not made to you early or in the middle of 1850?

Ans. — I cannot.

Int. 22. — Then all you have to say is, that some time in the
year 1850 this statement was made to you?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 23. — Were you intimate enough with the officers of the
Hudson's Bay Company to know that by the term the country,
they meant all that portion of the continent of North America
over which their posts extended, and in which the affairs of
the Company were controlled by the factors and traders?

Ans. — I was very intimate with many of the officers, but
cannot answer the question, it being so general and extensive.

Int. 24. — What did you understand by the term country in
Mr. Ogden's convv^rsation?

Ans. — I understood the posts occupied by the Company
within the territory of the United States.

Int. 25. — Did you know the extent of their possessions, and
what the oflicers included in the term country?

Ans. — I did not.

Jno. F. Noble.

399

In the matter of (he Claim of the Hudson » Bay Company against

the United States.

Deposition of George Gibbs, examined May 25, 18G7, at
Washington city, D. C.

Testimony op George Gibbs.

Int. 1. — Are vou the same George Gibbs who has testified
in the matter of the chiim of the Pugct's Sound Agricultural
Company against the United States?

Alls. — I am.

Int. 2. — Have you any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect,
in the result of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company
against the United States?

Ans. — None, except as a citizen of the United States.

Int. 3. — What posts of the Hudson's Bay Company south
of the 49tli parallel of latitude have you ever visited?

Ans. — On my route to Oregon in the summer and fall of
1840, I visited, in passing, Fort Hall and Fort Boise, on the
Snake river. After my arrival within the settled part of
Oregon, in December of that year, I went to Astoria, near the
mouth of the Columbia river, where I remained until the
spring of 1851, visiting meanwhile frequently Fort Vancouver,
and casually visiting the Hudson's Bay Company's store at
Chinook beach, the place occupied by the so-called fishery at
Pillar rock, and the post at the mouth of the Cowlitz. I was
also ashore and spent a night on Sauvie's Island. Cape Dis-
appointment I once visited, but later. In the spring of 1851
I visited Champoeg. From January 1st to July 1st, 1853, I
was at Astoria, as collector of the port. In July, 1853, I left
Fort Vancouver with an expedition under Captain, since
Major General, McClclIan, for the exploration of the Cascade
mountains and the country to the east of them, during which
expedition I visited Fort Okanagan, Forts Colvile, and Walla-
Walla, spending four days at Fort Colvile. On reaching Fort
Vancouver, on my return late in the fall, I again went down
20 H

Mil

Xi^ I. -IF,

400

to the mouth of the Columbia river, and again visited Astoria
and Chinook; returning from there I went over to Pugct's
Sound, where I remained, with occasional visits to Vancouver
by way of the Cowlitz, and to Astoria, until the departure of
the Northwestern Boundary Survey, in the summer of 1(S';7.
In the fall of 1859 and '60, I visited and wintered near Fort
Colvile. In 1860 I was in the Kootenay country, and passed
by what had been the Kootenay post. On my return in the
fall I passed by and went into old Fort Walla-Walla, and
thence down to Fort Vancouver. In that winter I came to
the States.

Int. 4. — Whether or not you made notes of what you saw
and observed during the expedition of McClellan's?

Ans. — I did. I was employed as geologist, and incidentally
as interpreter with the Indians. I was in the habit of keeping
notes of daily observations, and, on the completion of the
journey, prepared reports, both on the geology of the interior,
and the Indian tribes of the Territory, which reports were
publisiied in the first volume of the Pacific Railroad Surveys.

Int. 5. — Whether or no your report to Captain McClellan
on the Indian tribes made any reference to the Hudson's Bay
Company and its posts ?

Ans. — It did. I enumerated the various posts of the Com-
pany, according to my own observation, aided by the best in-
formation I could obtain from the officers of the Hudson's
Bay Company and others.

Int. 6. — Will you describe the Hudson's Bay Company's
post at Astoria ?

Ans. — The buildings when I first went there were, I think,
four in number, common log huts, and very much out of re-
pair. The Company had abandoned them as a trading-post.
though I believe they still kept a person in them to hold pos-
flession. In the spring or summer of 1850 Major Hatheway
came down with a detachment of artillery. He remained
there, I think, a year, and I think put these buildings in some
repair, and built or hired others. The point on which the post
is situated was included in the donation claim of Shively and
Welch, who also had buildings there. The amount of cleared

401

land was but small. A portion of the hill side behind the post
had once been cleared and cultivated by the Company or their
predecessors, but was grown up in small firs. The site at
Astoria was generally considered as the property of the
United States Government, and held by the Company on its
behalf, as it had been captured during the war of 1812, and
at its conclusion formally restored to the United States Gov-
ernment. The Company never occupied the post after Major
HathcAvay left, and the buildings gradually rotted down, or
were torn down by the claimants of the land.

Int. 7. — What do you estimate to have been the value of
these buildings ?

Ans. — In my report to Captain McClellan, before alluded to,
I stated that "the old buildings at Astoria were of no value
whatever," and now, from distinct recollection of the value of
the buildings in 1853, I corroborate that statement.

Int. 8. — Whether or no there was any Indian trade at As-
toria when you first went there ?

Ans. — None at all at the Company's post. There were but
few Indians living on the lower Columbia, and those few traded
either at the settler's stores or over at Chinook.

Int. 9. — What do you know of any occupation of Cape Dis-
appointment by the Hudson's Bay Company?

Ans. — Gov. Ogden, of the Hudson's Bay Company, informed
me that they had a tract of land occupied by an old servant at
Cape Disappointment, and I so referred to it in my report.
Some remarks of his left on my mind the impression that it
was his own private claim. I remember the name of one
Kippling or Piske as a Hudson's Bay man, living at the Cape,
There could have been but little, if any, trade with the Indi-
ans carried on there ; nor was it any place for trade, as what
few Indians there were frequented the Chinook beach, which
was much more convenient, as there was a small store there,
kept by one Duchesny, who was supplied with goods by the
Company, and delivered his furs to them in return. I know
that he only got a few furs, save that he obtained ten sea otter
skins in one season. During the whole of my residence at
Astoria, and frequent visits to the place afterwards, and on

402

occasion of one visit to the Capo I never had obsorvatfon or
knowledge of any trading-post belonging to tlie Company on
the Cape, and if there had been any there it must have been
seen or known by me.

(Statements made by others to tlic witness objected to.)

Int. 10. — What tU) you know of the use of tlie different chan-
nels at the entrance of the Columbia river by vessels?

A71S. — From the spring of 1850, wlien the south channel
was first properly sounded out b^^ Captain White, the bar-pilot,
and subsequently by the United States Coast Survey schooner
Ewing, all sailing vessels and all steamers, except those of
heavy draft, passed through the south channel as long as 1
knew anything of the river, this channel being the shortest
and straightest, though not so deep by half a fathom as the
north channel, besides which it led immediately to a good an-
chorage or to the direct route to Astoria. I was agent for the
pilots during the year 1850, as well as deputy collector of the
port, and knew all about the entrances and exits of vessels to
and from the river, and the opinions of the pilots and ship-
masters.

Int. 11. — What do you know of a fishing Station at Fillar
Rock occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company?

Ans. — There was a fishing station at Pillar Rock, but the
Hudson's Bay Company never occupied it while I was in the
country, nor to my knowledge, while in the country, did they
ever use or claim one there. I Avas there at the height of the
fishing season in the spring of 1850, when it was occupied by
a citiz:n of Astoria named Hensill, who purchased the fish
from the Indians as they seined them. He cured them on the
spot, and was the only white occupant of the place. I re-
member nothing of any buildings there, except, I think, a
drying shed, made of split boards, such as the Indians were in
the habit of constructing for their own use.

Int. 12. — What do you know of any buildings occupied or
used by the Company at the mouth of the Cowlitz?

Ans. — I was at the place several times, and remember the
buildings, though not very particularly. There was a granary
and a house in which a eouple of Canadians lived, who took

403

care of it. They were at a place sometimes called Monticello
and sometimes Cawceman. Very little business appeared to
be doing there at any time that I visited the place.

Int. 13. — What do you know of any buildings used or occu-
pied by the Company at Walla-Walla?

Ana. — I remember distinctly the post a^Walla-Walla. In
tny official report I described it from notes taken on the spot,
as follows: "There are here three or four one-story adobe
buildings, with offices enclosed by a wall of the same material,
some thirty-five yards on each side, having a bastion at one
angle. It is almost utterly valueless, except as a station
where horses can be kept for t)ie trains. There is indeed some
trade with the neighboring Indians, chiefly in cash, but not
enough to warrant its maintenance, except for the above pur-
pose. The fort is in very indifferent repair, and the country
in the immediate neighborhood a desert of drifting sand. Some
eighteen or twenty miles up the Walla-Walla river is a so-
called farm, on which are two small buildings, a dwelling-house
and dairy. There was formerly a dam for irrigation, but it is
broken down. They have here some twenty acres cultivated
in different spots; the principal object is grazing. The force
here consists of Mr. Pambrun, chief clerk, one interpreter,
two traders, and six men, Canadians and Indians. I now dis-
tinctly recollect the correctness of this description, and that it
was founded on my personal observation at the time, except
that the statement about the trade of the Company with the
neighboring Indians was derived from some officer of the
Company, I think Mr. Pambrun. I omitted stating in the
description that there was some stabling and buildings of one
kind and another outside of the walls, but they were of a very
rude description, of little or no value. There is no vegetation
on the lands around the fort capable of sustaining animals. I
revisited the fort in the fall of 1860, after the abandonment
by the Hudson's Bay Company, and found it in a still more
ruinous condition, chiefly from natural decay and neglect.

(Statements of Mr. Pambrun objected to.)

404

Examination Resumed.

Int. 14. — What do you know of the post of the Hudson »
Bay Company at Colvile ?

Ans. — Fort Cofvile is situated on the left bank of the
Columbia river, about a mile above the Kettle Falls, upon
the second terrace, and some distance back from the water at
its ordinary stages, the lower terrace being flooded during the
freshets. The buildings were enclosed in 1853 with pickets
only on two sides, the remainder of the stockade having rotted
down or been removed. They constituted a dwelling, tiiree
or four storehouses, and some smaller buildings used as a
blacksmith's shop, all of one story, and built of square logs.
The stockade was originally a square of about seventy yards;
one bastion remained. About thirty yards in the rear of this
square were a cattle yard, hay shed, and so forth, enclosing a
space of forty by sixty yards, roughly fenced in, and the sheds
covered with bark. On the left of the front were seven huts?
occupied by the lower employes of the Company. They were
of rude construction and much decayed. On the right of tiie
square, in the rear, at the distance of a few hundred yards,
were three more buildings, used for storing produce. A line
of huts for employes was also strung along the edge of the
terrace below. Fort Colvile had formerly been a chief factor's
post, the highest ofiice in charge of a station, and here the
annual accounts of the whole country were consolidated pre-
vious to transmission across the mountains. I lea.ned, how-
ever, from Mr. McDonald that this route was to be' discontin-
ued. Everything, in fact, denoted the evacuation of the
country by the Company. I think it was during this year
that the last boat expedition from Fort Vancouver to Colvile
bringing goods in any considerable quantity by the way of
the Columbia river, and the last express across the mountains
from Colvile to York factory^ took place. The force at Fort
Colville in 1853 consisted of Mr. McDonald, then a chief
clerk, assisted by a trader and about twenty Canadians and
Iraquois Indians. In former years goods were sent through

405

this post to those north of the line, but th&t route had been
abandoned. The amount of furs collected there, as I learned
from Mr. McDonald, was not large, and came chiefly from the
upper Columbia and its branches. They were principally
bear, beaver, muskrat, martin, and fox skins. The beaver
were not considered to be worth more in London than the
cost at Colvile. Behind Fort Colvile, and elevated above it
about a hundred feet, is a narrow valley, bordered by ranges
of hills, through which runs a stream known as Mill or White
Mud creek. In this valley the discharged servants of the
Company were settled to the number of fifteen, mostly Cana-
dians and half-breeds. The soil was good, but most of the
bottoms marshy, and covered by the waters of the creek dur-
ing its freshets. Their cabins were stretched along the valley
at the foot of the hills for a considerable distance. In thia
valley is a cattle-post about nine miles distant from the fort,
and a grist-mill of- one pair of stones three miles from the
fort. Here formerly the flour for the northern posts waa
ground, from wheat raised on the Company's farm near the
fort. This farm had been once of some extent, but only a
small portion was cultivated in 1853. This description of
Fort Colvile and its surroundings I have given from notes
carefully taken on the spot at the time, part of which were
embraced in my official report heretofore referred to, and aa
which my memory, now refreshed by the same, is clear and
distinct, with the exception of certain details of measurement.

(All the statements made from reports and hearsay objected
to.)

Int. 15. — Whether or no you have ever made any measure-
ment of the buildings within the picketed square?

Ans. — I did. I made a plot of the enclosure, carefully
stepping off the distances and dimensions of the buildings.
That plot is now mislaid, but the measurement and descrip-
tion of the principal buildings I find in my note-book, as fol-
lows : " First, the principal dwelling-house about 45 by 20,
of squared logs, one story, in pretty good order. Second, a
building on the right of it 15 by 20, one story, new roof, used
as a storehouse. Third, an old building 40 by 20, adjoining

?l,

40G

the last, and used for the same purpose. Fourth, a dotaclicd
building on the left of the dwelling 45 by 15. The above
constitute the principal ones. Their attics arc also lighted
at the ends. The main dwelling has two rear buildings, used
as a kitchen, &c. Fifth, an old building, 45 by 15 behind the
last. Sixth and seventh, two small ones, used as blacksmith's
shop, &c., in a line with the last, and in the rear. Th pickets
formerly enclosed the whole of these, forming a S(iua>'o about
70 yards on each side. They have, however been rcninvcd,
except on the right of Nos. 1, 2, and 3, where thoy enclosed
a narrow yard containing a shed and two small houses. One
bastion twelve feet square remains on the northwest corner."
The description of the post in my previous answer applies
also to my visit in 1850, except that I think some repairs Imd
been put upon the dwelling-house and one of the stores. The
other buildings were more dilapidated than before.

Int. 16. — What do you know of the character of the flour
ground at the Company's mill on Mill creek ?

Ans. — The Northwestern Boundary Survey purchased a
small quantity of flour of the Company in the fall of 1850,
while waiting for the arrival of its own stores. It was so dark
and inferior in quality that the employes refused to eat it,
and, if I recollect aright, we borrowed some from the escort to
replace it.

(Question and answer objected to as irrelevant.)

Int. 17. — Whether or not you spent a winter at the United
States post, Fort Colvile, some twelve or fifteen miles from
the Hudson's Bay Company post Irno'^n as Colvile?

Ans. — I did, the winter of 185()-B(> there, while that post
was building.

Int. 18. — Referring to the buildings occupied by the North-
western Boundary Survey at Fort Colvile, during the winter
of 1859-60, how did they compare in value with the buildings
at the Hudson's Bay Company's post at Colvile?

Ans. — They were greatly superior, both in comfort and
stability. I think they were decidedly worth more. They
contained more glass and iron work, and brick chimneys in-
stead of stone chimneys. Comparing these buildings, at the

407

tiini^ of their erection in 1859, with the dihipiihited condition
of the Hudson's Bay Company's buildint^s at the same ptM'iod,
tlicre could bo no doubt as to the great suj)erlority in value of
tlie former, to say nothing of the difllercncc in the cost of con-
struction at the different times thev were erected.

(Question and answer objected to as irrelevant.)

Int. 10. — IVhat do you know of the Company's post at Fort
Okaiiagan ?

Aiis. — Fort Okaniigan is situated on the rijjht bank of the
Columbia river, n little above the mouth of the Okinakane. It
consisted of three small houses enclosed by a stockade. There
had been some outbuildings, but they had been sulfereil to
decay. There was no appearance of business there and no
goods on hand. One trader, a Canadian, was the only white
man on the ground. A few furs only were taken, and tlie post
clearly did not pay its expenses. The post had once been of
consequence as a stopping-place, but was apparently kept up
for form sake. It was in a state of perfect squalor.

Int. 20. — What do you know of Fort Kootenay, a post of
the Hudson's Bay Company?

Ans. — I spent some weeks in its neighborhood in the full of
1860. It is on the left bank of the Kootenay river, one of the
upper main branches of the Columbia, and a little above the
mouth of Tobacco river, a few miles south of the 49th parallel.
All that there was of it was two small, worthless log cabins.
Tlicre was no one at the post, Linktater, the trader in charge,
not having yet returned from Fort Colvile. In fact, I think
he never stopped there again, but moved to a point north of
the boundary line. The post was occupied only during the
winter months, the trader bringing up a fe^r goods in the fall,
trading them off with the Indians during the winter, and car-
rying the proceeds back to Colvile in the spring before the
rise of the rivers rendered the trail impassable. I met him
coming up with a small train of horses and two or three In-
dians as I went down the river on my way to Colvile. I re-
cognize the building shown in the photograph marked as being
a log building at Kootenay, which was designated by the In-
dians of the neighborhood as the Catholic Mission.

tmm^vm^^n^T^n^

»i\

408

Examination llesumed June 10, 1867.

Int. 21. — Describe Fort Vancouver, and the land embraced
in the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company?

Ans. — Fort Vancouver is the principal establishment of the
Hudson's Bay Company within the territories of the United
States. It is situated upon the right bank of the Columbia
river, about one hundred miles from its mouth, and six milea
above the junction of the Willamette river. It is a few hundred
yards from the bank. The post was a parallelogram, enclosed
by a stockade of 200 by 175 yards, twelve feet in heiglit, and
was defended by bastions on the northwest and southeast an-
gles, mounted with cannon. Within were the Governor's
house, two smaller buildings used by clerks, a range of dwell-
ings for families, and five large two-story warehouses, besides
offices. Without, there was another large store-house, in
1853, occupied by the United States. They were nearly all
built of square logs, framed together after the fashion known
as the Canadian fashion. At some little distance there was
also a village of fifty or sixty cabins, occupied by a mongrel
crowd of Canadians, Kanakas, and Indians ; and chore was a
house, for storing cured salmon, on the bank of the river. Of
the houses in this village, the greater part were built of slabs
from the Company mills ; a fev: only were constructed of logs,
and contained two or three rooms. The buildings in and out-
side of the fort were all old and considerably decayed, only
the repairs necessary to keep them in tenantable order having
been for some years expended. There were at that time two
chief factors at the post, Messrs. Peter Skene Ogden and
Dugald Mactavish, with a considerable number of clerks and
other employes. The claim of the Company embraced, as I
was informed by Governor Oi;den, several tracts; first, the
claim on which the fort and United States barracks were sit-
uated, with a small one behind it, making, together, a tract of
about four miles square. About one thousand acres were en-
closed, or under cultivation, attached to which were sheds,
stabling, and a small dwelling for a farm. Adjoining this, to

"IpWpBJi^W^ip-'.'iT^lw.. 'iwji.ll nwMJJILi^

409

louse, in

the eastward, was another tract, known as the Mill Plane, two
and a half by three-quarter miles, on which was a saw-mill hav-
ing tolerable wattr-power, but subject to stoppage during fresh-
ets. Besides the above, they claimed two other small prairies
behind the first mentioned, which are respectively a half and
one mile -quare. The above were the lands which I understood
from Mr. Ogden to be in their then actual occupation. They
claimed, however, as I was informed by him, some 20 miles along
the Columbia river, but to what distance back he did not men-
tion. These diflferent tracts were separated by belts of wood.
Concerning what is called the Mill Plain, I have but little
recollection. The so-called Fort Plain, on which were situ-
ated both the Company's fort and the United States barracks,
was about 1,000 yards deep from the Columbia river to the
woods behind the latter. The lower part is meadow, liable to
be submerged by the annual freshet, the rear rising, by a
grndual slope, to a height of 100 feet. From the Company's
post to the mouth of the Cathlapootl river, extended a belt of
alluvial land, intersected by ponds and sloughs, and almost
entirely overflowed during the summer. This averaged from
one to three miles in depth from the river back to the rising
ground, but hardly anywhere did the land itself occupy more
than a mile of this depth, the rest being permanently covered
by water. The immediate bank of the river, as is usual with
alluvial deposits, was somewhat higher than the ground directly
behind it, and, where aot actually overflowed, would have con-
stituted a natural levee against the freshets. Such, however,
is the porous charactci" of the soil that the waters percolating
through and under these banks overflows the land behind be-
fore it reaches their top. The rise of the river usually com^
monces in May, and continues, with interruptions, until July,
gradually subsiding during the latter part of that month and
August, ocoasion^^Uy i iching the height of 19 or 20 feet.
The te^^"". nature of the water, which is between 40 to 60 de-
grees J; atirenheit, durjiig this period, is suflicient to destroy
many kinds of vegetation ; and the season, after the subsidence,
is too short to plant the usual crops. The deposit from the
water, moreover, is a sand derived from the attrition of rocks,

410

without chemical decomposition, and does not tend to fertilize
the ground. The higher ground lack of Vancouver, and
thence to the foot of the mountains, is gravelly and poor, ex-
cept that on tlio banks of the streams there arc narrow skirts
of rich soil. This gravelly country is speedily cxhaustc ', two
crops of wheat being as much as it will produce. The timi)or
on the bottom lands of the Columbia is ciiiefly Cottonwood;
on the smaller streams, vine maple, and alder. The upland
is covered with the usual growth of the Coast region of Ore-
gon, the Douglas fir predominating. This forest is almost
entirely of secondary growth, and has been deadened over a
large tract of country by fires, which have run through it.
There is, besides, a general want of moisture in the soil, every
thing parching after the conclusion of the rainy season.

(The statements made from hearsay objected to.)

lilt. 22. — What do you know of Sauvie's Island, and the
Company's farm there?

Ans. — The island is a trrct of similar country to that bor-
dering the Columbia on the opposite side, filled with sloughs
and shallow ponds, which occupy at least half of its surface.
It is so much subject to overflow, that during the season of the
freshet the cattle were sometimes obli<jed to swim to the niain
land. These lands, however, after ihe subsidence of the
freshet, produced good grass. With regard to the Company's
farm, I never stopped there but once. The house was on the
bank of the Columbia, and I camped out of doors without
going into it.

Itit. 23. — What trade was carried on at Vancouver, and
with whom?

. Ans. — From 1849, when I first went into the country, on-
ward, the trade was almost entirely with citizens, and was
general merchandising. The Indian population had almost
entirely disappeared from the lower Columbia, but three or
four wretched individuals survived, who certainly did no ^
trading. A few Klikatats occasionally came down fr le
mountains to trade horses and dressed skins. ars

gathered at Colvile and the other upper posts, were ar:e

still brought down to Vancouver for exportation; bu •> In-

fertilize
iver, and
poor, ox-
•ow skirts
istc ' . two
'ho timiior
;tonwoo(l;
lie upland
<n of Ore-
is almost
ed over a
irough it.
5oil, every
son.

411

Jian trade of tlio post itself may be considered to liavc Civiscd.
A portion of their ;:;oods were shipped to San Francisco, annthcr
portion disposed of to merchants on the WMlaniette, or by the
Company's agents there, the Indian goods being chicHy sent
to A'ictoria.

Int. 24. — What do vou know of cattle and horses at I'fvt
Vancouver, and of their alleged destruction by settlers?

Ans. — Prior to 1H49 it is impossible that many cattle euuM
jiavc been driven oft" b}'' Americans, for even in the year l>;4i)
tjie number of Atnerican settlers about there was ompara-
tively small, aiul most of them had gone to the mi les. I rc-
uiember that when, in 1858, Captain MeClellan's expedition
started from Vancouver for the mountains. Governor Ogdou
.rated, in my presence, that he would fiml cattle that had iiin

1 in the woods, and authorize<l him to kill what he no 'Ud
for the use of his party. But, although we had two expe-
rienced professional hunters with us, avo never saw horn or
hoof mark until we got into the Indian country, on the other
side of the mountains. As to the horses, the Company could
not have kept many at that place, as all their own travel from
there was by water; and when we wished to purchase our out-
fit from them, we Avere obliged to wait some days for Governor
Ogdcn to send over and purchase them from the Indians.

Int. 25. — What was the value of Fort Vancouver as a town
site?

J«s.- -Ai'coiding to my observation, Vancouver never would
have made .'i-.j important town site, for the reason that it has*
no b. ek 00 j'ltry for its support on the north side of the river,
and is too i'-\r a,I c,vc the mouth of the Willamette for the produce
of the Will -.iiotte valley to have reached it, 'even if the title had
been oKar in the Company. It possesses great attraction from
its beauty of situation, and the natural lay of the land; but
it was better suited for a trading or military post than a town.

Int. 20, — Where did the timber come from of which tlie
Hu': ion's Bay and military posts at Vancouver were built, and
V'h"' was the quality of the timber?

An-. ' Most of the timber came from the public lands in the
immediate vicinity. It was fur, a species of timber which

iilll.i»iHJHJifi»ijpiiR^*p*w

412

readily decays when in contact with the ground. Most of the
forest behind the post had been deadened by the fires which
had swept through it, and on some occasion must have threa-
tened the post itself.

I7it. 27. — Look at the photographs here exhibited, and say
whether they correctly represent the buildings at Fort Van-
couver?

Ans. — They correctly represent two angles of the interior
of the square, the first showing the Governor's house and an
office on the north side, and the Ion ^ low of buildings occupiod
by families on the east. The S' cond exhibits the northwesr,
corner, showin-,' the Company's sale shop and part of a store-
house, with a ht., md another building, the use of which
I do not remember.

Int. 28. — Do you know anything of an orchard at Fort Van-
couver?

Ans. — There was a field enclosed and planted in apple trees
directly back of the fort, but my recolletstion of them is that
they were natural and not grafted trees.

Int. 29. — What salmon fisheries were there on the Columbia
river, and by whom carried on?

Ans. — Salmon fisheries were carried on almost altogether
by Indians. Positions for them were found almost everywhere.
Owing to the diminution in the number of the Indians, how-
ever, the places where it was actually pursued were but few.
In 1850 they fished at Chinook, Pillar rock, at Pretty Girl'g
village, at Wakanasissee, at the mouth of the Clackamas, on
the Willamette, at the Cascades, and elsewhere.

Int. 30. — What was the general state of the fur trade in
1849 in Oregon, and subsequently?

Ans. — The fur trade was greatly on the decline, and the evi-
dences of its decay were to be seen at all the Company's posts
I visited. At Astoria no furs at all were taken. At Chi-
nook, as I have elsewhere stated, but a few sea otters. Beavers
were so abundant in the streams within striking distance of
the settlements that their signs were everywhere to be seen.
Governor Ogden told me, as early as 1850, that American
Oregon never was a fur country, except "or beaver; that their

413

skins (lid not then pay to transport to London, and that, not
paying for transportation to London, they were not hunted
much, and had become as abundant as they were in the first
flush of the fur trade. Although they purchased all the furs
brought on to them by Indians, as a matter of policy, they
cared nothing for the beaver. Mr. McDonald, the clerk in
charge of Fort Colville, also told me in 1853, and repeated
the statement in 1859-60, that the fur trade did not pay its
expenses, and that they retained their posts only until a set-
tlement should be made Avith the United States. In fact, this
was a matter of notoriety throughout the country, palpable
from their reduced establishments, decayed buildings, and the
unsettled feeling of their employes.

(The statements of Ogden and McDonald made to the wit-
ness objected to, and the matter of notoriety also objected to.)

Examination Resumed J%me 11, 1867.

1
1

Int. 31. — Do you know the amount of furs actually collected
in Oregon in any one year ?

An%. — I think it was in the year 1855 that Mr. Angus
McDonald, the officer in charge at Fort Colvile, by way of
experiment, brought over the yearly collection of furs from
that place to Fort Nisqually by way of the Nahchess Pass.
He had with him a brigade of 200 horses, carrying two packs
apiece of 90 pounds each. That was the only occasion upon
which I happened to know the amount of furs collected in the
interior, or on which the train came to Puget's Sound. I saw
the furs afterwards opened at Fort Nisqually, where they
were shown me by Dr. Tolmie, and considered that most of the
skins were of inferior value, that is of the commoner kinds.

Int. 32. — What general improvements of the country had
the Company introduced in the way of roads, &c. ?

An%. — No important ones. The Company was content for
the most part with following the ordinary Indian trails, ex-
pending no unnecessary labor, but merely cutting or burning
out logs occasionally, where the obstructions could not be
gotten over otherwise. There were a few miles of track of

^wr

414

about tlio cluivacter of ordinary wood roads at and around
Fort Vancouver connecting tlio different prairies. They had
also cut out so much of the trail from Cowlitz landing to Fort
Nisqually as ran through tlie woods, say about one-fouvih of
the distance, which whole distance is l)etween 60 and 70 miles.
Some little necessary road work had also been made at Fort
Nisqually and at Fort Colvile, but nothing that desc, -
tion. The route from Colvile to the Flatlieads and Kootenav
posts was entirely unworked; that portion of the same which
followed the rivers they traversed only in spring and fall,
at seasons of low water, making their way along the bank as
best they might. The road party of the Northwestern Bound-
ary Survey, varying from 8 to 18 men, employed at a time,
cut out more road in cither one of three seasons, making' a
clear track of 8 feet wide, grading up and down hill where it
was necessary, and constructing bridges, some of considerable
length, than the Hudson's Bay Company had done during its
whole occupancy of the country, so far as any mark of axe or
hoof could show it.

Int. 33. — How did the Pacific Railroad and the North-
western Boundary Survey supply themselves with stores, by
the Columbia river or otherwise?

(This question objected to as irrelevant.)

Ans. — Tlie Pacific Railroad Survey, under Captain McClel-
lan, in the first place, took its provisions from Fort Vancouver
across the mountains by an Indian trail south of Mount St.
Helens, cutting it out sufficiently for the purposes of passage.
It afterwards sent over the NahchessPass to Fort Steilacoitm
for fresh supplies. The Boundary Surve}' transported its
provisions by a route cut out by its own employes from Chil-
oweyuck depot, on Frazer river, to Fort Colvile, and thence by
the route before referred to to the Rock^ Mountains. DuriiK'

ft o

the time that the post at Colvile was maintaineb goods ami
provisions of all kinds were brought there by land, either from
Wallula or the White Bluffs, usually by the former. The
Columbia river above the White Bluffs was not used by them
at all, land transportation being mere certain and speedy,
cheaper and less laborious, than by way of the Columbia river.
(The above question and answer objected to as irrelevant.)

415

Int. 34. — IIow have the Hudson's Bay Company ol late
carried on their transportation to Colvile?

Am. — For several years before 18G0, when I left there, they
had obtained their supplies from Victoria hy way of Frazer
river and the pass of the mountains between Fort Hope and
the Siniilkamcen.

Int. 35. — What effect, if any, has the discovery of gold on
the Columbia river and its tributaries had on the Company's
business ?

Ans. — Up to the time of my leaving the country, late in
1860, 't had a slight and transient influence. In 1854, 1 think
it was, gold was discovered at the junction of Clarke's fork
and the Columbia, about 30 miles above Fort Colvile, and
some excitement was caused, quite a number of persons flock-
ing to those diggings. It proved, however, that the gold here
was limited to a small space, and the spot was soon deserted,
except by a very few persons. In 1859, gold was discovered
by the Boundary Survey upon the Similkameen, near its junc-
tion with the Okinakane, and subsequently upon Rock creek,
a branch of theNehoialpilkuro, which enters the Columbia op-
posite Colvile, At this time, however, the establishment of
the United States post at Fort Colvile, and the building of a
small village in this neighborhood, at which stores and miners'
goods were kept, and the running of pack-trains loaded with
provisions from Oregon to the mines, prevented the Company
from deriving much advantage from the discovery. These
places also proved of no lasting productiveness. What effect
the more recent discovery of mines in what are Idaho and
Montana Territorii may have had, I do not know. But I
think that shorter and more practicable routes would be adapted
better than any by Fort Colvile.

Int. 36. — What has been the policy of the Company in
regard to the settlement of the country by Americans, so far
as you have learned ?

Ans. — I have conversed freely with officers of the Hudson's

Bay Company upon the subject of its settlement, as well as

with early emigrants to Oregon. The policy of the Company,

as fur traders, as I learned from them, was decidedly hostile

27 H

^'1

p
i!

416

to it. The late Dr. McLaughlin informed me that he had hccn
severely censured at home for his supposed encouragement of
immigration, and Mr. Ogden, speaking of the colonization of
Vancouver Island, in its relati&n to the Jtftairs of the Company,
said that it was a scheme of Mr. Douglass to make himself a
Governor, adding, "What have we to do with Colonics — for niy
own part, I am a fur-trader."" The officers of the Company diil
not hesitate to express their disappointment at the settlement
of the boundary by the 49th parallel^ instead o-f the Coiumbitv
river, as they had expected.

(Statements o>f officers objected to.)

Int. 37. — Were or were not their own employes encouragcl
to take up lands, and was it not a matter of complaint, liv
American settlers, after the treaty, that they should IVave been
admitted to this right?

Ans. — They were; and several small colonies of discharged
servants were formed accordingly. One was in the valley of
the Willamette, at what is known as the French prairie. There
was a small settlement of them on the Nisqually Plains, about
Muck, and what is called the Canadian Plain ; and nearly all
the land in the small valley back ef Fort Colvilc was occupied
in the same way by their people. In particular, the settlement
in the Willamette Valley was cemplained of, as having been
made south of the Columbia river.

(Question and answer objected to.)

Int. 38. — How was the war of 1847, commo'nly called the
Cayuse War, begun, by which the Company, as is stated, suf-
fered great interruptien in its trade, and what Indians were
engaged therein ?

An^. — ^The war was coiamenced by the massacre of Dr,
Whitman, his wife, and other persons, and the abduction of
several young women from the missian established by him neav
the Walla-Walla river, some miles above the fort. The Indi-
ans engaged in it were chiefly Cayuse and Walla- Wallas, with
some few from the adjoining tribes. This lead to an expedi-
tion from the Willamette Valley to punish the aggressors. On
this occasion it was that Governor Ogden promptly interfered
and ransomed the women..

417

(Question and answer objected to as irrelevant.)

Int. 3U. — What was the Company's policy towards the In-
dians, fo far as it fell under your observation ?

Ana. — The policy of the Company was dictated by a wise
consideration of its own interests. They were every where
pacificators of the feuds which existed between the different
tribes, and they promptly punished aggressions upon them-
selves, and extended their protection and assistance to the
American settlers also, although they avoided identifying their
interests with those of the latter. As regards the Indians,
however, their system of tra<lc was calculated to impoverish
them, the amount paid for furs or other articles" of trade being
vastly disproportloncd to their value, and in objects of a char-
acter suited to gratify their vanity, rather than to improve
their actual condition. So far as any moral or religious in-
struction was concerned they did nothing.

Int. 40. — Do you know of any obstructions at the portages
of the Columbia river by which the Company was hindered
ill using them?

Ans. — None whatever. The only point where an obstruc-
tion might be supposed tc exist is at the Cascades, where the
laud is claimed under the donation act by citizens; but no
obstacles have ever been offered to my ktiowledge to the pas-
sage of any one there. Steamboats and railroads, affording
much easier means of communication than bateaux, it is not
likely that they will be resorted to.

Int. 41. — Do you know anything of the Kettle Falls near
Colvile, and of their value for manufacturing purposes?

Am. — The Kettle Falls constitute a mixed rapid and cas-
cade, broken by rocks extending across the whole width of
the Columbia river. Its value for manufacturing, or other
purposes than as a fishery, is nothing. In the first place,
almost every stream throughout the country affords one or
more water-powers more easily manageable, and sufficient for
all ordinary purposes. In the second place, if every foot of
habitable land within available distance of these falls was
inhabited and cultivated it could not produce raw material
enough to make their use profitable.

418

Vi-'i

if!'* 1

Int. 42. — Did you ever hear Dr. McLouglilin speak of the
indebtedness of the citizens to liim ?

(Objected to as irrelevant and incompetent.)

Ans. — Dr. McLoughlin complained to me of the mode in
which he liad been treated by the settlers ; that they owcn]
him about $30,000 for advances made to them during early
times in the country, and that the men Avho owed most wore
most abusive of him. At the same time ho mentioned tht-
censure that he had received from his own countrymen for en-
couraging immigration.

Int. 43. — Do you know any other matter touching the claim
of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States, or
is there any explanation which you wish to make?

Ayis. — I wish to make a statement touching certain of my
acts as deputy collector of the district of Oregon, and the
correspondence which I held with Governor Ogden of the
Hudson's Bay Company, printed in the documentary evidence
of the Company, and to which my attention has been neces-
sarily drawn while reading the proofs. In my official letter
written by me to Governor Ogden 1st, March, 1850, in the ab-
sence of General Adair, who was then in San Francisco, ami
a postscript dated March 10, 1850, I explained certain pro-
visions in the revcnije laws for the guidance of the Company
in their future importations. This was done simply as a mat-
ter of courtesy to them, for it was their duty beforehand to
know and follow the provisions of law in the United States.
As it was, I incurred a dangerous responsibility in granting
the permit, and giving credit for duties as I did. The Com-
pany, I may mention, had claimed and insisted that their goods
imported from foreign countries should be admitted free of
duty, and accordingly paid the duties under protest, althougli
those bought by American citizens were charged. In no case
were duties charged upon American goods imported by the
Company, except in one, occurring in 1853, when goods alloged
to be such were imported from England, but without certifi-
cate of origin. In that case a part of the cargo consisteii of
tobacco and flour, and I extracted the duties thereon, leaving
it to the company to obtain the proper consular certificate.

ami npply for reimbursement in usual form. And I unhesi-
tatingly say, that no vexatious embarrassments were thrown
ill the way of the Company by mo, either while deputy under
General Adair, or subsequently when collector myself; nor,
so far as I know, by General Adair. On the contrary, I went
beyond the law in affording facilities, which nothing but the
necessities of the country would have justified. Forfeitures
which might have been exacted, and by which money could
have been made, were, on more than one occasion, passed
by or remitted. As regards the Prince of Wales, I have to
say that, in preventing her from carrying on trade not con-
nected with the Hudson's Bay Company or British subjects,
trading with the same, I acted in accordance with the require-
ments of the revenue laws, and under the advice of Mr. Hol-
brook, the United States district attorney, who was present
when the order to her master was issued. The stoppage had
nothing to do with any interest that I might have had in the
steamer referred to by Mr. Ogden. That interest was, in fact,
contingent, that is to say, I had the refusal of a share in her
for the consideration of, I think, $1,000. I never paid for,
and consequently never really owned it, though I believe it
was made out in my name, and a short time afterwards, at my
own instance, the agreement was cancelled. For the rest, the
Hudson's Bay Company were not entitled by the treaty to the
navigation of the Willamette, but solely to that of the main
stream. The case of the French ships was not in point, as
they were not coasters, but brought in dutiable goods consigned
to Oregon City, and left France not knowing that any port
of entry had been established. They were permitted by Gen-
eral Adair to ascend the river from the necessity of the case,
there being no warehouses at Astoria, nor means of transpor-
tation thence up, except in the original vessels.

Cross-Examination taken this lith day of June, 1867.

Int. 1. — Where was your place of residence, or where did
you spend your time between the spring of 1851, after your
visit to Champoeg, and the 1st of January, 1853?

420

b*?'ii;

Ans. — I went down to California that summer, and was om-
ployed on an expedition to treat with the Indians of North-
western California. On my return from there, late in the fall,
I went up to Oregon, and again returned to California. I
spent the rest of the winter at Humboldt bay, and in tlio spiiinr
went into the Klamath river mines, where I worked until late
in the fall. Hearing of my appointment as collector of Asto-
ria, I went down to San Francisco, and thence back to Orej'oii.
where I arrived late in December, and entered upon the dufie^.
of the offio.

hit. 2. — What was the size of the buildings at Astoria that
you have described at huts?

Ans. — I think the largest one may have possibly been 30 or
40 feet in length, the others from 20 to 25. I speak merely
from recollection, and I suppose the term hut applies not so
much as to size as to character.

Jnt 3. — Were not these buildings shingled?

Ans. — I think they were covered with shakes.

Int. 4. — Were you ever inside the largest of these buildings';

Ans. — I think I have been several times.

Int. 5. — Of what was it built?

Ans. — Of logs chinked.

Int. 6. — Was it not built of square logs, ceiled inside, with a
sbiogle roof?

Ars. — My impression is that the logs were roughly squared,
that ij to say, the sides partially flattened with the axe. As
to any ceiling I have no recollection ; as I have said before, I
think it was covered with shakes.

Int. 7. — Was there not a person in charge, and in possession
of this post at Astoria, when Major Hatheway arrived there J"

Ans. — That I cannot say, hue sometime during the year
1850 the Company had a man named Edward Spencer down
there to receive goods.

Int. 8. — How far is the custom-house, where you were, from
this post?

Ans. — The custom-house in 1850 was one mile east of the
post. In January, 1853, when I was collector, I moved it
down to a house in the immediate neighborhood of the post.

421

Int. 9. — How many times, between your first ftrrival at As-
toria and the time of Major Hatheway's taking nossessiiju of
the post, ^ore you at the post, and inside of either the main
Ijuilding or the store there?

AnS. — I was back-wards and forwards between the custom-
liouse and the village of Astoria during that winter, at least
once or twi&e a week, passing by the Hudson's Buy buildings,
but I do not think there was any store opened, not any other
tlian a merely r^onJin^fl,l occupancy, -even if there was tbat.

Inf. 10. — How many times were you, during the period
aiontioned, inside any of the buildings at the Company's post?

A)t«. — I have i»ot the mest remote recollection.

Int. IL — Were you inside any of them at any time during
the period mentioned? If so, state -which building it was,
•whether shortly after your *rriv-al there, or later, and who
you found there?

An6. — As I have stiid before, I cannot tnalce any answer to
•tiiat question. At this distance of time, so trivial a fact as
the entering a Hudson^s Bay house at Astoria would not re-
main in tny memory. If any store was kept there, I should
-undoubtedly ha^ve visited it, as there was then only one other,
I think, at the place.

Int. 12. — Where did Major Hatlieway stop on bis first ar-
rival at Astoria?

Ans. — He may liave stopped over night at General Adair^s,
as there was already an oflBcer witb a detachment of troops
there. But I think they went immediately down to the point
•where the post was.

Int. 13. — Did you meet and converse with Major Hathcway
at General Adair^s, or Astoria, before he occupied the Com-
pany's posf?

Ans. — I don't know, if I saw h'im, most likely.

Int. 14. — Where -were yoa when Major Hatheway arrived at
Astoria?

Ah9. — I presume I was at General Adair's. I might have
been up the river.

Int. 15. — State, if you can, when you first saw Major Hath-
cway, after his arrival at Astoria, and where you saw him ?

i«!

•^'^Hi;li

422

Ans. — That wonlcl be utterly impossible.

Int. 16. — Was there nat two acres of cleared land surroanif-
ing the post at Astoria?

Ans. — I should think there was about that.

Int. 17. — Were you at Astoiia, when Major Hatheway left'

An8. — No; I left before he did.

Int. 18. — At what time did yon revisit Astoria after you
left it, as stated in your last answer?

Ans. — In speaking of leaving Astoria, I referred to my going
to California, not to Champoeg. On my return, some tiuie
during the winter of 1851-52, Major Hatheway had' trans-
ferred his headquarters to Vancouver. Colonel Loring, Tvitli
the regiment of mounted riflemen, having been ordered Lome,

Int. ID. — When did Major Ilatheway arrive at Astc ria?

Ans. — I think in the spring or early summer of 1850.

Int. 20. — If you were in California at the tii .e Major Hath-
eway left, how can you state of your own knowledge how long;
he remained at Astoria?

A718. — In the first place, I don't think I have stated of my
own knowledge how long he remained there. In the second
place, I judge of the time he left there- by seeing him there at
one time and at Vancouver at another.

Inf. 21- — Were you not absent s'x months in California?

An.'?. — There, or thereabouts^

Int. 22. — How can you tell of your own personal knowlodgc
at what time during your absence in California Major Hath-
eway left Astoria?

Ans. — I .lave not pretended to do it.

Int. 23. — Have you not stated in your examination-in-chicf
that IMajor Hathaway came down in the spring or summer of
1850, and have you not made this further statement — ^"he re-
mained there, I think, a year?"

Ans. — I have made that statoment.

Int. 24. — "Who besides yourself, at the time yon were first
at Astoria, considered the site as the property of the United
States Government?

Ans. — The settlers and Americans generally, who knew the
circumstances of the capture of the fort during the war, and'

423

its surrender to the United States at the conclusion thereof.
It was also the impression of the oflBcers of the Ar.ny when
thoy made a requisition for possession on the Hudson's Bay
Company, and, if I mistake not, recognized by the offitors of
the Company at the time.

Int. 25. — Give the name, if you can do so, of a single set-
tler at Astoria, who, before the taking possession of this post
by Major Hathaw^ay, stated to you, as his opinion, that this
site was the property of the United States Government?

Ans. — I think I can state, without hesitation, that Mr.
Shiveley and Mr. Welch, who had taken that claim under the
Donation Act, did so, under the belief that it was land open
to occupation, and held by the Company simply as tenants at
will of the United States.

Int. 26. — Did either of these men make any such statement
to you personally ?

Ans. — It was a matter often talked about by the settlers in
tliat neighborhood, and I am perfectly w^ell satisfied I have
heard one or both of them assert it.

Int. 27. — Did they, or either of them, ever say to you that
this fort had been captured during the war of 1812, and at its
conclusion formally restored to the United States Government?

Ans. — I don't know that they said this, in so many words.
The fort can hardly bo said to have been captured by the Brit-
ish, because, before the arrival of a British man-of-war at
Astoria, Mr. Astor's partners had sold the same to the North-
west Fur Company ; but its flag was changed, and at the con-
clu?>ion of the war it was again surrendered to the United
States.

Int. 28. — Which of these statements do you now wish to be
considered the correct one — the one made in answt i to "In-
terrogatory 6," examination-in-chief, or the one i i^tde in an-
swer to the last interrogatory?

Arts. — I don't think that they are particularly inconsistent.
Perhaps, instead of saying captured by, I should say betrayed
to Groat Britain.

Int. 29. — Do you know anything about the matter pcrson-

424

ally, and have you not, in reference to this matter, svorn to
what you thought was the real history of the transaction ?

Ans. — In so far as what I have stated to have been the opin-
ion of persons living at Astoria while I was there, I have stated
it upon my own kriowledge. As to the rest, I have stated what
I believe to be matter of historical record.

Int. 30. — Do you feel confident to swear to the truth of all
the historical record which you have incorporated into ynur
testimony ?

Ans. — I don't think I have incorporated a great deal nf
history iii my testimony, but I am perfectly well satisfied of
tho truth of whatever I may have cited.

Iitt. 31. — Are you satisfied of the truth of this fact, sworn
to in your examination-in-chief on the 25th day of May, 18t!7,
when, in speaking of the post at Astoria, you say "it had
been captured during the war of 1812 ?"

Ans. — I th'nk I have already qualified that. Of course I
did not intend to swear that an event which took place before
my birth was absolutely and unqualifiedly true. As to the
rest, a British vessel, named, I think, the Kacoon, is histori-
cally reported to have been sent there to capture Astoria, and
historically reported to have arrived too late.

Int. 32. — Are you noAV prepared to say which of the versions
you have given of the transactions at Astoria is the correct
one ?

Ans. — In my original statement that the fort had been cap-
tured, meaning simply to state that its flag had been changed,
I supposed that I had since explained that satisfactorily.

Int. 33. — Is this statement, which you made in reference to
the transaction at Astoria, in answer to the 6th interrogatory-
in-chief, as accurate and correct, as the other statements made
throughout your examination-in-chief, as to other matters
which you yourself did not personally see?

Ans. — Without knowing what was the purport of that inter-
rogatory, or the answer thereto, I have not the means of draw-
ing any comparison between the correctness of that and the
answer to any other interrogatory or interrogatories which I

425

may have made. I have endeavored in all cases to make my
answers as correct and explicit as possible.

Int. 34. — In Cross-Interrogatory 28, your attention was
particularly called to your answer to Interrogatory (J, in ref-
erence to transactions at Astoria; that language is as follows:
»'It had been captured during the Avar of 1812." The ques-
tion id now repeated — is this statement as accurate as state-
ments as to other matters which you yourself did not person-
ally see?

Ans. — I have already made a qualification to that answer,
substituting the words "betrayed to" for "capturc<l by," and
with this qualification or correction my answers are, according
to my belief, correct.

Int. 35. — T)o you not now believe that, historically speak-
ing, this post was sold by the officer or officers in charge of it
to another set of traders?

Ans. — I do, with this qualification, that they were or became
partners in the second set, to the injury of their principal.

Int. 36. — Do you not think some of the statements made by
you, in this examination in reference to matters not within
your own personal knowledge, will also require qualification,
in the same manner as that in reference to the capture of As-
toria or Fort George?

Ans. — None that I know of.

Int. 37. — You have made the statement in your oxumination-
in-chief that at the conclusion of the war of 1812, possession
of Astoria or Fort George was formally restored to the United
States: to what officer of the United States, civil, military, or
naval was it formally restored, and by what officer of the
Government of Great Britain was that formal restoration
made?

Ans. — That is more than I at this moment recollect, such,
however, is my impression, at any rate such a belief undoubt-
edly influenced the parties occupying that claim.

Int. 38. — Will you state distinctly that you had even an
impression that it is historically true that Fort George was
ever formally restored to the Government of the United States

426

by that of Great Britain, through any officer or agent of either
power?

Ans. — I have a very strong impression, and, in fact, con-
viction, that such was the case.

Int. 30. — Do you believe this impression to be as correct as
the other historical statements made by you in this deposition?

Ans. — I shall not pretend to draw any comparison as to
correctness between historical facts to which I have incident-
ally referred. If I had not supposed them to be correct, I
should not have alluded to them.

lilt. 40. — How many settlers were at Astoria or within two
miles of Fort George previous to Major Hatheway's takiixr
possession of Fort George, not including the officer^i and em-
ployes of the custom-house?

Ans. — There were Shiveley and Welch on the claim on which
the Hudson's Bay Company's post was situated, and there
were several others, I think, who occupied houses on that claim.
Westward of them was Col. John McClure's claim, upon which
was the village of Astoria, at that time having perhaps ten or
a dozen houses.

Int. 41. — How many stores were there open in this town,
during your first residence there?

Ans. — The principal store was that of Leonard and Green,
originally near the custom-house, and afterwards moved down
to the village. I think there were two small stores at the vil-
lage £*lso. A large one was built there, I think, in 1850,
which was the one Leonard and Green afterwards moved into.

Int. 42. — Is this town on McClure's claim which you say
you visited once or twice a week passing by the Company's
store?

Ans. — That was about all there was of it at that time.

Int. 43. — Did these donation claimants, Shiveley and Welch,
claim to own the Company's post at Astoria as part of their
donation claim?

Ans. — They did.

Int. 44. — Did they allow any one to reside on their claim,
except such persona as purchased lots, or obtained leave from
them ?

427

Ans. — I think not. I remember that they made great com-
plaints about the military coming on the ground.

Cross-Examination resumed June 15th, 1867.

Int. 45. — Before Major Hatheway took possession of the
post at Astoria, did you see any Indians purchasing goods at
any of the stores you have mentioned as being on the McClure
claim?

Ans. — I don't remember ever seeing any Indians trading at
those stores, or any other stores, during the period mentioned.

Int. 4G. — Were you ever at Cape Disappointment ?

Ans. — I have been once.

Int. 47. — How did you go there; who accompanied you ; in
what year, and what time of the year was it; and how long
did you remain ?

Ans. — I stopped there in a steamer, and went ashore in a
boat. I think it was in 1855. Capt. Dall, I think, commanded
the steamer, but I don't recollect who accompanied me on shore.
I do not remember the time of the year. We may have re-
mained an hour or two.

Int. 49. — What was the name of the steamer ?

Ans. — That is more than I remember ; probably the Co-
lumbia.

Int. 50. — Where were you going to at the time, or coming
from?

Ans. — I was going round to Victoria and the Sound.

Int. 51. — Was not the Columbia a small steamship for a
sea-going steamer, and of light draught ?

Ans. — The Columbia was, I think, a vessel of 600 or 80(»
tons, and of a draught suited to the navigation of the Colum-
bia and Willamette rivers. She wai, however, a staunch sea-
boat.

Int. 52. — Did you not on this occasion pass out of the river
by the north channel?

Ans. — ^Ye did ; there having been some changes in the south
channel, and the swash channel not being buoyed out.

Int. 53. — During the time you remained on shore at Cape

428

Disappointment, did you go to the Hudson's Bay Companv's
store at tliat point ?

Ans. — I never heard that the Company had a store there?

Int. 54. — Did you go into any house at the time you wore
there ?

Ans. — I don't rcmemher.

Int. 55. — Was not the name of the person whom you s])cak
of as a Kudson's Bay Company's man living at the Cape,
Thomas Fisko Kipling?

Ans. — He was sometimes called Piske and sometimes Kip-
ling.

I7it. 50. — Do you not know that while you were at iVstoria
there was at Cape Disappointment, in charge of the Hudson's
Bay Company's estahlishment, a Mr. Henry Maxwell?

Ans. — I have no recollection of such a person, nor do I
know of anv establishment further than I have stated in niv
direct examination.

Int. 57. — Have you not stated, during the course of your
examination, that you heard the name of Kipling or Piske
living at the Cape — did you never hear of the name of a per-
son living at tiie Cape of the name of Maxwell ?

Ans. — Not that I remember.

Int. 58, — Were not the remarks of Mr. Ogdcn, in reference
to a tract of land of the Hudson's Bay Company, which left
on your mind an impression that this tract was his own private
land claim, made in a jocose and laughing manner?

Ans. — Tliov wore. At the same time I inferred from his
remarks that tliis claim at Cape Disappointment was one hold
by the Hudson's Bay Company or himself simply for specu-
lative purposes — in the same way that he spoke of a claim
that he hail once taken on Tongue Point. I knew that the
officers of the Company had taken Company claims in their
own names, either for the purpose of covering the Company
or holding the land in their own right when a settlement should
be effected, or both.

Int. 51>. — State anv one single instance in which you ever
saw the record of atiy paper connected with, or belonging to.
a claim for land, under the laws of tlie United States, made

429

Iv any officer in the employment of the Hudson's Bay Com-
piiiiv idone.

Aihs. — I was not speaking of the records, which I never
personally eXiiinined. Mr. James A. Graham, of the llud-
soii's Bay Company, chief clerk of Fort Vancouver, told me
distinctly that he had taken Fort Vcancouver as \m claim ; I
prisiinied, at the time, to protect it.

Int. 60. — The purposes, then, for which you state these
claims were taken, in your answer to "Interrogatory 58," are
now to be understood us an assumption of your own ?

yl/^!^•. — Of course they were to a certain extent presump-
tions, as I do not remember that cither distinctly stated the
uiutive he had in view. Had, however the United States pur-
tliased the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company whilst these
individual claims were valid on the record, there was nothins
to prevent oilicers of the Hudson's Bay Company from hold-
iiiii them for their private benefit, they being citizens of the
Uniicl States, or declaring their intention to become such.

7;/^ 01. — Give the name of anv other officer of the Com-
pany who told you he had a claim under the laws of the United
States.

An^. — I don't know that any other officer of the Company
over told me that he had such a claim.

Int. 02. — When did Mr. Graham make this statement to
you as to his claim ; where did he make it; who was present,
if atiy one, at the time; and state as near as you can the exact
laiiu'uaiie he made use of?

Alls. — The statement was made to me by Mr. Graham, if I
recollect right, in the Hudson's Bay Company's post at Van-
couver. I cannot state positively in what year. It was, how-
ever, at a time when some excitement existed about encroach-
ments on this Hudson's Bay Company claim, and I think
must have been in 1855 or '6. I have no recollection if any
one was present, or who.

Jnt. 63. — Was Mr. Ogden'& statement made to you before
or after this ?

Alls. — If I am correct in the date of Mr. Graham's atate-
ment, Mr. Ogden was already dead.

430

Int. G4. — When was this statement of Mr. Ogdeii's mailo
to you ?

Ans. — I think in 1853, while I was employed in the Pucific
Railroad Survey.

Int. Gi). — NVus it in his own house?

Ans. — I presume it was. I was a great deal at his house
while at Vancouver, and he was seldom out.

Int. GG. — Was it before or after dinner?

Ans. — I presume before dinner.

Int. 61. — Was this statement made to you deliberately ia
reply to any direct question, or at any time when you wore
seeking information to embody in your report, or for anv
other purpose of which you informed him, or was it made in
general and careless conversation ?

Ans. — I frequently discussed with Governor Ogden the
subject of the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company against
the United States, both in regard to land and other matters,
and I presume it was in one of these conversations that he
made the remark.

Int. 68, — What was the language that Mr. Ogden made use
of, from which you inferred that the tract of land at Cape
Disappointment was held for speculative purposes?

Ans. — The remark to the effect that that was his claim. 1
could conceive, however, of no other object which any one
would have in holding it.

Int. 69. — Are we now to understand, then, that inference
made by you from this statement of his was the conception of
your own mind?

Ans. — I believe that an inference is usually a conception of
a man's own mind arising from the words or acts of another.

I7it. 70. — How far is Cape Disappointment from the place
you have called Chinook beach by the usual method of travel?

uins. — I think six or eight miles.

Int. 71. — Have you not been compelled to look upon a chart
or map for the purpose of informing your mind since the last
question was isked you?

Ans. — Yes ; and I find the distance is greater, say about
15 miles.

431

Int. 72. — How far is it from Chinook boacli to Astoria ?

A)\s. — I think eight or ten miles across the river.

Int. 73. — Is not this navigation around the mouth of the
Columbia river often dangerous for canoes and boats ?

A)i8. — Very.

Int. 74. — Did you not, about August, 1850, about the time
that you refused to allow the schooner Prince of Wales to take
freight for Judge Strong up the river, meet with Mr. Maxwell,
tiie agent of the Company at Cape Disappointment, when he
came to Astoria?

An8. — I have no recollection, as I have already stated, of
any such person.

Int. 75. — He is referred to in a letter of Judge Strong's of
16th of August, 1850, dated Astoria, in this language: "When
I saw your agent hero this evening; he is now on the north
side of the river, but is expected here." Did you see the
agent thus referred to about that time?

Arts. — I have no recollection of seeing him or any other
agent about that time; nor have I any recollection of ever
having seen an agent by the name of Maxwell. The only
knowledge I have of any such person, beyond the knowledge
of the counsel, as connected with the affair of the Prince of
Wales, is the following extract from Governor Ogden's letter
of August 25, 1850, to Sir George Simpson, in which he says:
"The enclosed documents I now forward you will explain
themselves. Owing to the stupidity of Maxwell he has not
forwarded to me the originals;" but who this stupid Maxwell
was I do not know.

Int. 70. — Did you not receive, before Major Hatheway took
possession of the Company's post, orders for money from Mr.
Ogden, drawn on Edward Spencer, officer in charge of the
Hudson's Bay Company's establishment at Astoria, and were
not those orders collected?

Ans. — I find by my letter to Mr. Ogden of March 1, 1850,
that I pointed out an error in the calculation of duties on the
cargo of the bark Victory, Captain Ryan, and that Governor
Ogden, in consequence, forwarded to me an order on Edward
Spencer for the difference, amounting $18.02^. This last fact
28 H

432

appears by his letter to me of 25th of March, 1850. Both
letters arc printed in the evidence for the claimants, and are,
I doubt not, correct copies, and exhibit the facts. As to the col-
lection of the money, I presume of course it was duly paid. The
Company was very exact in the transaction of their business,
still as to a transaction which took place 17 years ago, involv-
ing the payment of ^18.02J, I don't think that I should have
remembered it had it not been for this printed correspondence.

Int. 11. — Was Edward Spencer at that time at the Com-
pany's establishment at Astoria?

Ans. — I presume he was; but I should not have remembered
except for this letter of Mr. Ogden's, or the original, now in
my possession.

Int. 78. — Do you now remember, from your own recollec-
tion, after having seen the letter, that Edward Spencer was
there?

Ans. — I remember Spencer perfectly well as a man that I
met frequently, but whether at that time I saw him or not, I
cannot recollect, having had no occasion to fix his 'presence in
my memory.

Int. 79. — Did you receive any other orders on Mr. Spencer
from Mr. Ogden?

Ans. — Possibly yes, and possibly not. The details of
ordinary business transactions occurring so long ago, in which
I am interested only as a subordinate, and which have long
since been settled, are not likely to be preserved fresh in the
memory.

Int. 80. — Was not the steamer by which you went to Puget's
Sound in 1855, a steamer called the California, with troops on
board for Fort Steilacoom and the Sound?

Ans. — No.

Int. 81. — How many vessels entered at the port of Astoria
during the time you were there as deputy collector?

Ans. — That I cannot answer without referring to the re-
turns. The number, however, was considerable considering
the state of the country and its very limited population. They
were mostly sailing vessels of different descriptions, which
brought small assorted cargoes up from San FranciK^co, and

483

took down on their return voyage cargoes of lumber, piles, and
eountry produce. There were one or two vessels from the Sand-
wich Islands, one belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company.
There were also one or two vessels from Victoria, Vancouver's
Island. There may have been one vessel direct from England,
but concerning these circumstances I cannot pretend to answer
positively, as I have not looked over the papers from that day
to this.

Int. 82. — Were there more than four vessels that made
entry at the custom-house during the time you were acting
as deputy collector ?

Ant. — Of vessels bringing dutiable goods I do not think
there were more than five or six between the 1st of January,
1850, and the time I left, in the spring of 1851. I have omitted
to state in speaking of the vessels that arrived at the port
that during the summer of 1850 the Pacific Mail Company
commenced to despatch vessels from San Francisco to Astoria,
and latterly to Portland.

Int. 83. — Were the duties on the goods carried in these five
or six vessels paid in money?

Ans. — They were, except that time was given in some cases
to the Hudson's Bay Company to collect the necessary amount
in such coin as the law required, gold dust not being receiv-
able, and the ordinary currency of the country, including
<!oins of almost every kind and every nation.

Int. 84. — Were not these duties, or portions of them, some-
times paid by the Hudson's Bay Company in orders or drafts?

Ans. — I do not recollect any other instance than the case
of the small draft made by Mr. Ogdon upon Spencer. Every
indulgence and facility was, however, given to the Hudson's
Bay Company in the matter of paying their duties to a much
greater degree than to American importers.

Int. 85. — Were not goods of the Company landed and stored
at Astoria?

Ans. — None that I remember. There could not have been
in any large quantity, or of any great value, for they had no
place to keep them in, and no use for them there.

Int, 86. — Give the names of any single sailing vessels that

484

you saw or know passing out of the Columbia river bv the
south cliannch

Ans. — The first vessel which passed out of the south chan-
nel after my arrival at Astoria was the bark Louisiana, hiu;-
bor and produce loaded, for San Francisco. After that time
no vessel went out or came in while I was there with a pilot
on board by any other channel, unless it might have been one
of the heavier draught California steamers.

Int. 87. — Was this south channel closed in 185-3 ?

Ans. — I don't know that it was; but I think that either in
1855, or within a couple of years afterwards, the channel had
changed considerably, and in particular stages of water the
north channel, so long almost abandoned, was again used.

Int. 88. — How near to Pillar Rock was the fishing station
you saw used by Mr. Ilensill?

Ans. — Pillar Rock is an isolated column of basalt in the
Columbia river, and the station on the main land, the north
bank of the Columbia river, takes its name from it. It is, I
suppose, a mile or two from the rock. I do not recollect ex-
actly.

Int. 80. — Did this man, Ilensill, have a donation claim as
the fishing station ?

Ana. — No ; he went there just as a Hudson's Bay man
might have done, camped there, and traded cotton shirts and
pocket handkerchiefs, and other articles, with the Indians for
salmon.

Cross- Examination Bcsumcd, June 17, 18G7.

Int. 90. — Was not Ilensill an employe of the Hudson's Bay
Company?

Ans. — He kept a small store at Astoria, and kept a small
store on his own account.

Int. 91. — How many times were you at Pillar Rock fishing
during your first resilience at Astoria ?

Ans. — I think, besides the visit there of which I have
spoken, I camped there once or twice on my way up and down
the river.

435

)een one

Int. 02. — How lon^T did you remain there at the time of
this visit you speak of?

Ana. — I don't remember; I was there h)ng enough to watch
the scincing, cleaning, a)ul salting the fish.

Int. 93. — Did you remain on the beach or visit the trading
jilace of Ilensill wliile you were there ?

Am. — I think he had a tent tlicre, and Iiad some goods for
trade. I recollect his showing me how he cured the fish.
Whether I went to his tent I don't remember.

Int. 94. — Did you see Hcnsill pay for any fish purchased
from the Indians ?

An%. — At this length of time I cannot say, though I have a
vogue recollection of his telling me something about prices.

Int. 0.5. — What was the name of the officer in charge of the
Company's post at Cowlitz ?

Ans. — Edward Spencer was there at one time — the same
who was previously at Astoria,

Int. OG. — Was Edward Spencer an Englishman, a Scotch-
man, or of what nation was he ?

fins. — I think ho was a quarter-breed, but of what nation-
ality I r^o not know.

Int. 97. — Who else was there with him ?

Ans. — I don't remember ; I think there was one or two
Canadians.

Int. 98. — When was Edward Spencer at Astoria ?

Ans. — By a letter from Gov. Ogden to me, he appears to
to have been there in 1850 ; otherwise, I don't think that I
should have remembered the fact.

Int. 99. — Have you any recollection what Edward Spencer
did at Astoria ?

Ans. — Gov. Ogden wrote of him as the Company's agent,
and sent me a draft for a small sum of raon^y on him. That
is all that I remember of Mr. Spencer.

Int. 100, — When were you at Walla-Walla ; how long did
you remain there at your first, and, if you made any other, at
your subsequent visits?

Ans. — I never was there but twice — once in the fall of 1853
and once in the fall of 1860. I cannot state exactly how

ilffe ;:' '

4B6

long I was there on eitbcr occasion. On the first occasion I
was there long enough to examine the fort, note the dimen-
sions of the buildings, and make a ground plan of it. On the
second occasion I merely went inside to see :n what condition
it wasr

Int. 101. — How did you arrive ut Walla- Walla when you
first visited it, by water or by Ipwd?

Ans. — By land.

Int. 102. — How many men were in the party that arrived
there with you ; and how many animals ?

Ana. — There were Capt. McClellan and his party, soue forty
or fifty men, with thoir i-iding animals, and their pack tram.

Int. 103. — How near to Fort Walla-Walla did this party go
into camp, and how long did they remain there?

Ans. — We camped on the Columbia, some way below there:
how far I cannot now remember; remained there overnight.

Int. 104. — Where did your party go, after breaking camp-
next morning?

Ans. — Pushed down the road to the Dalles.

Int. 105. — Where did you camp the day before, and by what
route did you come to the camp you mentioned ?

Ans. — We camped on the Walla-Walla river, above the post.

I)it. 10&. — How far above the post ?

Ans. — I don't remember the distance above.

Int. lOT. — In your travel between these two camps, did your
train pass by old Walla- Walla ?

ns. — Yes ; I have alrai ly said that we did.

Int. 108. — Did you leave the train, and stop at the post at
that time?

Ans. — I think there were sevei al of us stopped there, while
the train went on.

Int. 109. — At what time in the day d''l the train pass the
fort ?

Ans. — That I can't say ; it was probably not late, as we
made a short march that day.'

Int. 110. — What time of that day did you arrive at the camp
before the fort ?

Ans. — That is utterly impossible for me to say.

437

Int. 111. — Do you now recollect where you camped t'le night
before you passed the fort, or where you camped the night
afterwards, from your own memory at all, and are not those
statements you have made in reference to it derived from a
note-book which you have consulted ?

Ans. — So far certainly as regards the camping grounds, the
statements are derived from my note-book, and not from
memory.

Int. 112. — Did you see the farm you have mentioned in your
answer to "Interrogatory 13?"

Am. — I do not remember whether we passed it or not ; I
think that possibly my information in that respect was derived
from Mr. Pambrun, the Company's agent at Walla-Walla.
This 1 could not now pretend to state positively.

Int. 113. — Did you see the dam you mentioned, for irrigating
purposes, which you say was broken down?

Ans. — I think I have some vague recollection both of the
farm and the dam ; but on this point I am less positive than
the others.

Int. 114. — Did you see twenty acres of cultivated lands in
different spots about this farm, or any place near Fort Walla-
Walla?

Am. — TiiO twenty acres spoken of were at the above-men-
tioned farm. The exact amount of land under cultivation
there, I presume I learnt from the Company's people.

Int. 115. — Do you make this statement in reference to the
cultivated land from your recollection of having seen it, or
from the examination just made of your note-book?

Am. — I remember perfectly well seeing cultivated land on
that river; the amount I did not measure of course, but pro-
bably derived it from the information of persons on the ground.
That amount, however, I derived from my note-book, in which
I made entries from day to day of my own uuservation and
information gathered from others.

Int. 116. — How many horses belonging to the Company did
you see around this post?

An9. — I don't suppose I saw any, unless it r ight have been
a riding animal or two.

438

Int. 117. — How many persons in the employ of the Com-
pany, officers and others, did you see at the post at this visit?

Ans. — I recollect seeing Mr. Pambrun, whom I had known
before. He is the only one I could individually recall. I
have no recollection of the number I may have seen, as the
men were not paraded for inspection.

Int. 118. — How long were you at Walla- Walla at the time
of your second visit in 18G0?

Ans. — But a short time, while waiting for the steamboat,
long enough, however, for me to go into the fort and examine
its condition.

Int. 119. — Was not a portion of the old fort at this time
repaired and in occupation of some one?

Ans. — I saw no evidence of repair. I recollect that there-
was a man there who appeared to be in charge.

Int. 120. — What time of the year were you there at your
first visit in 1853 ?

Ans. — Early part of November.

Int. 121. — Had the fall rains set in at that time?

Ans. — They had not. The whole country was in a whirl-
wind of blowing sand.

Int. 122. — Did you notice at the time of your first visit a
horse park outside of the walls of the fort of some fifty feet
square?

Ans. — I recollect that there were some outside arrangements,
and very probably a corral of that size.

Int. 123 — Is your description of Fort Colvile a description
of it at the time you visited there with the McClellan expedi-
tion in 1853, or a description of it at the time you visited it
with the Boundary Survey?

Ans. — I referred to Fort Colvile in 1853 chiefly.

Int. 124. — What time of the year were you there this first
visit?

Ans. — I think it was in October.

Int. 125. — What stage of water was there in the Columbia
river at that time?

Ans. — A low stage.

439

Int. 126. — At the time of your second visit was there any
freshet in the river.

Ans. — There was not. I was there in the fall of 1850 and
the spring and fall of 1860; the freshets of the river occur in
summer.

Int. 126^-. — At which of your visits was it that everything
denoted the intended evacuation of the country by the Com-
pany?

Ans. — At the first. At the time of my second visit there
was a ^ mporary activity in business, caused by the arrival of
the Commission, which, to a certain extent, aftocted the Com-
pany's post. In the interim, however, they had built a new
post just south of the boundary line at a cost of .^20,000, as I
was told by Mr. McDonald. This post is called Fort Shep-
herd; it is on the Columbia river, a little above the junction of
Clarke's fork. It is on quite a large scale, and was constructed
with a view to the abandonment of Fort Colvile, but had not
been opened for general trade.

Int. 127. — How long were you at Colvile in 18;").^?

Ans. — We were encamped in the immediate neighborhood,
c close to it, I think, four days.

Int. 128. — State where you were camped, and at what dis-
tance from Fort Colvile?

Ans. — The camp was on the Columbia, about a quarter of a
mile, I should think, from the post.

Int. 129. — How far, in any direction, did you ride or walk
from the camp during the four days you remained there?

Ans. — On that occasion I think I went no further than the
falls, and elsewhere within a radius of one or two miles until
we left.

Int. 130. — Did you visit the mill at this time?

Ans. — I think not; I don't think I ever was at the mill.

Int. 131. — What is this description of Fort Colvile in 1853,
given by you, taken from?

Ans. — The description of Fort Colvile in 1853 was given
from observation on the spot, assisted by information from
Mr. McDonald, the Company's officer in charge.

Int. 132. — Was not the greater portion of this description

^w«

m^: !

m0f

mm.

440

of Colvile, in answer to "Interrogatory 14," taken almost
entirely from your report on the Indians of Washington Ter-
ritory, made to the then Captain McClellan ; and is it not, so
far as taken from that report, verbatim?

Ans. — So far as the mode of expression is concerned most
of my description is in the language of that report, and was
taken from it. The report is, however, in consonance with
my own recollection of the place, and its wording was followed
for greater precision and correctness.

Int. 133. — Did you not have this report open before you,
and, with that open, did you not dictate the answer to be writ-
ten out?

Ans. — Substantially I did.

Int. 134. — Which is correct, the language of the report, or
the language of your answer ?

Ans. — I don't know that there was any discrepancy between
them.

Int. 135. — Is it true that the stockade had been removed
except on the north ?

Ans. — I think it has been removed except on the north and
a small portion on the east.

Int. 136. — Do you know which of these two statements is
correct, first, that the stockade had been removed except on
the north ; and, second, that it had been removed except on
the north and east, in your last answer ?

Ans. — I shall say to that substantially the first answer was
correct, for I think that but a portion of the stockade, and a
small portion at that, was left standing on the east side.

Int. 138. — Is this statement a correct one ?

Ans. — I think it is entirely.

lilt. 139. — Which of the two statements is correct, " The
buildings were enclosed in 1853 with pickets only on two
sides;" or this statement, speaking of the stockade: "This
had been lemoved, except on the north, where it encloses a
narrow yard containing ofiices ? " This last from your report.

A71S. — I mean that the pickets had been entirely removed
from two sides, and, for the most part, on the third. There
was a narrow yard between the buildings and the remainder

441

of the stockade. The pickets or stockade had been entirely
removed except on two sides, and, as I recollect, almost en-
tirely on a third side.

Jnt. 140. — How do you know they had been removed ?

Ans. — Because they were not there. The post was said to
have been once completely enclosed. I think also the marks
of the original lines were upon the ground at the time I mea-
sured it.

Int. 141. — Was this statement, speaking of the stockade,
true at the time you embodied it in your report: " This had
been removed except on the north?"

Ans. — I presume it was substantially as stated, if not liter-
ally. It, at any rate, was so intended to be.

Int. 142. — What later knowledge have you which enables
you to modify that statement, in this language, speaking of the
stockade : " The remainder of the stockade having rotted down
or been removed ?"

Ans. — I have no later knowledge on the subject of the stock-
ade than 1853, and now, on referring to my original notes, I
find the statement that the buildings were enclosed with pickets
only on two sides. My recollection is, however, very strong
that they were gone on most of the third side also, and, in
drawing up that report, I presume that, I disregarded that
remaining fragment on the east.

Int. 14.3. — What caused you then to modify the statement
that the stockade had been removed, by the statement that
they either rotted down or had been removed ?

Ans. — I presume the principal reason for removing it would
have been its being rotten.

Int. 144. — Did you see a boat expedition from Vancouver
to Colvile, or notice the express across the mountains from
Colvile to York factory ?

Ans. — No; I did not soo the boat expedition; but Avhcn
arrived at Atahnam, in the Yakama country, the Indians
reported certain statements as having been made by the offi-
cer in charge of that boat party tending to excite the hos-
tility of the Indians, and Captain McClellan reported the
same to Governor Ogden, requesting an explanation. On our

442

I
plft

arrival at Fort Colvilo wc learned from Mr. McDonald tliat
he had himself been in charge of that party, and that Gov-
ernor Ogden had accordingly referred the matter to him. He
informed us that the story was one gotten up by the Indians
themselves to embarrass our progress, and that there was no
truth in it. It was in that way that I knew of the boat expe-
dition. As to the express across the Rocky Mountains, both
Mr. McDonald and Governor Ogden mentioned the matter to
me.

Int. 145. — Have you stated the facts about the boat expe-
dition and the express from your note-book or from your
memory?

Ans. — I speak now from memory, although I think both
subjects arc referred to in my note-book.

J)it. 14G. — Does your note-book contain any statement that
that was the last boat expedition from Vancouver to Colvile?

Ans. — I presume not.

Int. 147. — Have you any personal knowledge which enables
you to say that this was the last boat expedition bringing
goods in any considerable quantity, and that the last express
from Colvile across the mountains to York factory took place
that year?

Ans. — The statement is, if I recollect right, qualified in my
direct examination, but I know that Mr. McDonald one year
brought his furs to Nisqually by horses, and I believe took
his goods back on his return. The Company about tiiis time
opened the road from Fort Hope across the mountains, by
which they afterwards carried their goods to Colvile and the
northern posts. As regards the express across the Rocky
Mountains to York factory ceasing to run, I got that informa-
tion from officers of the Company.

Int. 148. — How is this statement qualified in your examina-
tion-in-chief?

Ans. — On looking at the examination I do not see any fur-
ther qualification than that as regards the quantity of goods
eent in that way. Boats may, however, have gone up the river
for a year or two later, but I do not think that the annual
supply was carried by them.

443

ir cxamma-

Int. 149. — Do you personally know anything about the an-
nual supply of Colvile before 1850 and 18G0, independently of
hearsay ?

Am. — I know that I frequently conversed with the Com-
pany's officers in regard to the various routes of communica-
tion, and their efforts to open the route by way of Fraser
river into the interior, and it is from them that my informa-
tion on the subject, and the impressions that I formed, are in
great moasure derived.

Int. 150. — Name the officer of the Hudson's Bay Company
who told you that this was the last boat expedition in 1853
bringing goods in considerable quantity to Fort Colvile.

Ann. — There is no officer whom I could name as having stated
that fact in so many words.

Int. 151. — Have you not inferred from seeing McDonald
)vitli furs at Nisqually, and hearing there was a road from Fort
Hope across the mountains?

Ans. — Not alone from that, but, among other things, know-
ing the wish of the Company to transfer the route from the
Columbia to Fraser river, the efforts thov had made to find a
euitable pass within British territory, and the gradual transfer
of the Indian trade to Victoria.

Int. 152. — Can you say that you know now, or ever did
know, from any person authorized to express them, the wish
of the Hudson's Bay Company to transfer their route from the
Columbia to Fraser river? Is not that an inference of your

own

Ans. — I never knew they wished to disguise it. Mr. A. C.
Anderson, in the winter of 1853-4, gave me a map showing a
number of routes which he had examined by orders of the
Company with a view of finding a practicable pass across the
Cascades to the north of the line. These routes were exam-
ined at very considerable expense and very great labor, and
the examination had been continued through a series of years.
Without being able to cite the name of any single officer of
the Company as making the statement, I am very clear that
more than one of them, in general conversation upon the sub-
ject, admitted it freely.

444

Int. 153.— Bo you personally know of the examination or
working of any road across the Cascade Mountains north of
the 49th parallel by the Hudson's Bay Company before the
year 1858 ?

Ana. — When I was at Port Langley in 1858, Mr. Yale, the
officer in charge there, told me he had attempted to cut out a
route by the way of the Chiloweyuk, a branch of Fraser river,
the route afterwards opened by the Boundary Survey. He told
me he had also found a route from Fort Yale across, but that
it had been abandoned in favor of the route from Fort Hope.
I have had no ocular observation of Hudson's Bay parties on
any of these routes, but I saw on the Chiloweyuk marks of
cutting which I supposed to have been done by Mr. Yale's
party.

Int. 154. — When did you examine the soil of Mill creek?

Ans. — I examined it more particularly in 1853, as my orders
then were to collect specimens of soil in different parts of the
country for analysis. While I was there, however, on my
second visit, I saw a good deal of ploughing done.

Int. 155. — How far is Mill creek from your camp in 1853
at Colvile?

Ans — The mouth of the creek is two or three miles below
Colvile; but our return route from there led us up the valley
of the creek to its source.

Int. 156. — Were you ever on Mill creek during the freshet?

Ans. — I have seen a considerable part of the valley of Mill
creek covered with water by the melting of the snow.

Cross-Examination resumed June 18, 1867.

Int. 157. — What portion of Mill creek did you examine, and
how far from its mouth did you begin its examination?

Ans. — I should think we struck Mill creek about five miles
from its mouth, and followed up the valley.

Int. 158. — Did that examination consist of anything more
than riding along the creek, and looking at the country as
you rode? ' -

Ans. — I observed the country carefully as I rode, and, as

445

was my practice, dismounted, and collected what I considered
well characterized the specimens of the soil. I Avish to state
here in reference to the opinions I have expressed as to the
agricultural value of the lands in the Territory, they were in
every instance as favorable as I could honestly make them,
and that I took pains in inquiries from residents and experts
to ascertain its capacity wherever we went.

Int. 159. — With how many settlers or occupants of the
White Mud Valley did you converse on your return journey
in 1853? . .

Ans. — The only one I can now recall was Mr. 'Angus Mc-
Donald, the chief officer of the Company at Fort Colvile,
under whose management whatever property the Company
might have possessed in Mill Creek Valley was. He is a gen-
tleman of great intelligence and habits of observation, and
who was perfectly familiar with the valley and its productions,
from him I obtained most of the specific information I ob-
tained in relation thereto. As to any inhabitants of White
Mud, which, as I understand, is merely a locality in the valley,
I remember none at that time except Indians.

Int. 160. — Is not Mill creek also called White Mud?

Ans. — Not that I ever heard.

I)it. 161. — Have you not youi'self, in speaking of this creek,
spoken of it as Mill creek or White Mud?

Ana. — I don't think I ever have, taking the creek or its
valley as a whole.

Int. 162. — Did you notice any cabins on Mill creek on the
return journey of the McClellan expedition?

Ans. — There were scattered along Mill creek for a number
of miles the houses of discharged servants, most of which might
be designated as cabins.

Int. 163. — Did you go into any of these cabins, or converse
with any of the occupants? If so, name them.

Ans. — That I cannot now remember, though I probably did.

Int. 164. — Did you purchase the flour, or see it after it was
purchased, which you say the employes of the Bounla.;- C ni-
mission refused to eat?

Ans. — I did not purchase it, but I saw it.

l*ri

'(!!

»'!.'

440

Int. 105. — How ilo you know it was purchased at Col vile?

Aiis. — Ilear.say, of course. Wc did not bring it alonr; with
us, and I don't know where else it could have been obtained.
I was told by our commissary it came from the Company's niill.

Int. 100. — Who told you the employes would not eat it?

Ans. — I myself heard the employes making complaint
about it.

I/it. 107. — AVho was your Commissary?

Ans. — Mr. John N. King.

Int. 108. — Under whoso charge were the buildings of the
Northwester?! Boundary Commission erected in "1850 and 1800?

Anf>. — I am not positive about that. I think that the offi-
cers' quarters were erected by the person employed by the
escort in erecting the garrison buildings, as it was intended
that the}^ should be uniform with those. The men's quarters,
stables, and so forth, were, I believe, erected entirely by our
own men, and I suppose under the direction of Lieutenant,
since General, John G. Parke.

Lit. 109. — Do you know when the Hudson's Bay buildings
at Colvile wore erected?

Alls. — Not of my own knowledge. I have been informed,
however, that after the amalgamation of the Hudson's Bay with
theNoi'thwest Company, about the year 1822, the post founded
by Astor's part}', and known as the Spokane House, was aban-
doned, and Fort Colvile erected instead of it. It was I believe
a very old fort.

Int. 170. — Is this the time you speak of when you mention
the cost of its construction?

Ans. — In speaking of the cost of any of Hudson's Bay
Company's posts, I should refer to any time preceding 1848,
the date of the discovery of gold in California.

Int. 171. — How many times were you at Fort Colvile during
the winter of 1859-00 ?

Ans. — I don't know; several times. We used to take sleigh
rides down there.

Int. 172. — At the time of these visits, was not the country
covered Avith snow ?

447

ou mention

Aiis. — After tho winter fairly set in it wag. I had, how-
ever, stopped there two or three times previously.

Int. 173. — How far was it from Fort Colvile to tho camp of
the Boundary Commission ?

Ans. — Twelve or fourteen miles, I think.

Int. 174. — How long did you stop at Fort Okanagan when
you visited it in 1813 ?

Ans. — The main camp was in the neighborhood, I think,
about a week, while we made reconnoissances in tho surround-
ing country. I don't suppose I was at the post itself more
than three times.

Int. 175. — How long did you remain there at those times ?

Ans. — I don't remember. It was not a place attractive
enough to keep any one there longer than to transact his busi-
ness. I remember, however, having examined the furs col-
lected there during the preceding season.

Int. 176. — Who was the officer in charge of the post?

Ans. — A Canadian named Lafleur.

Int. 177. — Did you not, in making your answer to " Inter-
rogatory 14," in reference to Fort Okanagan, have before you
your report on Indian tribes, and did you not dictate tlio
answer to be written down almost entirely from that book ?

Ans. — From that report and the notes I took on tho spot.

Int. 178. — Did you have any conversation with the Canadian
in charge, with reference to the post?

Ans. — Yes ; I rode over with him from our camp to the
post, I think, on both occasions, and had a good deal of talk
vith him about its aifairs and the country around.

Int. 179. — Do you know, from your personal knowledge,
anything more of Okanagan now than you did in 1853 ?

Ans. — Nothing.

Int. 180. — Was your report then true, to the best of your
knowledge and belief ?

Avs. — Of course it was.

Int. 181. — What authority have you for this statement
made in your report : " The post does not probably pay its
expenses?"

^w«.— Mr. McDonald's, of Fort Colvile.
29 H

3iJj

r'JIm.vi

•■I
'I

448

/n<. 182. — Give, as near as you can, Mr. McDonald's Ian'
guage, and when it was, and who were present.

Ant. — I cannot pretend to state his exact words. He stated,
however, that but few furs were taken there. The conversation
was after my arrival at Fort Oolvile in the same fall. Wliether
any body was present or not, I don't remember.

Int. 188. — Did he state to you that the post probably did
not pay its expenses, or was that an inference of yours from
the statement which you say he did make?

Ana. — It was not an inference from that statement alone.
He did state that the fort did not pay expenses, and he stated
also that few furs were taken there.

Int. 184. — Did he state plainly and distinctly to you that
this post did not pay expenses?

Ans. — Such is my recollection of his language, and I have
no doubt of it.

Int. 185. — Did you believe at the time you wrote your
report that this post did not pay its expenses from Mr. Mc-
Donald's statement ?

Ana. — Certainly I did.

Int. 186. — Why, then, did you qualify Mr. McDonald's
statement, and say that the post did not probably pay ex-
penses?

Ana. — I did not remember that I had ; my remembrance
was that the statement was unqualified.

Int. 187. — Was not this statement made by you in your re-
port on the Indian tribes, spoken of before : "A few furs only
are taken, and the post probably does not pay expenses;"
and have you not, in answer to "Interrogatory 181," admitted
the correctness of the latter part of this quotation, and given
Mr. McDonald as your authority for the statement ?

Ana. — Yes.

Int. 188. — Do you now state that it is correct, as qualified?

An». — It is undoubtedly true, as qualified. I believe it is
also true without qualification. McDonald did tell me that
the posts, collectively, in the American territory did not pay
their expenses, and it is possible that in speaking of Okana-
gan separately, he may not have used the expression absolutely

44D

t)iat it did not pay. I know that the trade of Olcanagan was
particularly referred to.

Int. 18&. — Have you any knowledge of the trade in the
country, other than McDonald's statement, and are not the
statements just referred to by you the authority on which you
have spoken of the profit, or want of profit, of the post at
Okanagan ?

Arts. — Not altogether; as I am tolerably well acquainted
with the quantity and kinds of animals the furs of which
would be brought to Okanagan for sale. I know also that
the Indians trading there are not numerous. I saw what the
post contained, both in the way of furs and goods ; and t
should form my own opinions, independent of information from
others.

Int. 190. — Was it your own opinion in 1853, independent of
the statement of Mr. McDonald, that "a few furs only were
taken, and that the post probably did not pay expenses ?"

Ana. — I presume it was. Certainly, on looking back, that
would be my opinion now.

Int. 191. — Is it not your opinion now also that the post
clearly did not pay expenses ?

Ans. — I have already stated that I do not believe it did ;
otherwise, after Lafleur's death, the Company would have sent
«ome white man to replace him, instead, as I have heard, leav^
ing it in charge of an Indian.

Int. 192. — Is not the fact of Lafleur's death mere hearsay
on your part ?

Am. — Of course ; I did not see him die, but I was told,
when in Oregon in 1860, that Lafleur had been drowned in
crossing the Walla-Walla river. I had heard the year previ-
ous, from my Indian guide, that the post was in charge of his
brother-in-law.

Int. 193. — Was there not at Fort Okanagan powder and
ball?

Ans. — I presume there was.

hit. 194. — Have you not stated that the price for martin or
red fox, at Okanagan, was ten charges of powder and ball,
and for beaver, otter, or bear skin thirty charges ?

j'^#f

''i^.W

Vi-l'jU

f\\4:

.vf.'

450

Ans. — Yes ; those were the prices given me by Laflcur.
Int. 195. — Arc you acquainted with tiie habits of the ani-
mals hist mentioned in the country within a hundred miles
north and south, and fifty east and west, of Fort Okanagan —
with their number and varieties ?

Ans. — I have been through ti '',t country from north to
south, on one expedition in 1858, and east and west in both
1853 and 1859, on the first of which occasions wo had profes-
sional hunters, and, on both, naturalists engaged in collcctiiig
specimens of all the different animals to be found there; and
I have also talked with the Indian guides and hunters, and I
am well satisfied that animals of the description mentioucil, or
any other fur-beaving animsls, are very scarce througliout the
whole.

Int. 196. — "Were not your professional hunters occupied in
the search of animals for food ?

Ans. — They were; and very few of them they got. But
they were also instructed to collect specimens of every thing
of interest.

Itit. 197. — Did your hunters or your naturalists on either of
these expeditions have with them, or use, traps for beaver or
otter ?

Ans. — The huntc vs had no traps, but, had they found signs
of game, they had sense enough to make traps for tiic occa-
sion. The naturjilists, I think, had traps, but only fo4' small
animahi. They also held out inducements to the Indians to
bring in animals.

Int. 198. — Did you ever see or know of any small trap being
set by any naturalist of your expedition ; if so, state when it
was, and whom?

Ans. — I recollect that Dr. Kcnnerly set traps in the neigh-
borhood of Colville, and, I think, elsewhere on the route.

Int. 199. — Do you not know that traps for the taking of
tLo fur-bearing animals, especially fox, beaver, otter, and boar,
require to be made with great care and skill, and cannot be
made but by a person skilled in the art?

Ans. — I know that the traps used by regular trappers arc
constructed with a certain degree of skill and adaptation, but

451

ruder methods are often employed with perhaps equal success,
and in the case of the larger animals particularly, the gun
can be used instead of the trap, at any rate, when they are
abundant.

Int. 200. — Did you ever see a trap of large size set for the
purpose of catching animals on the Pacific coast or in the in-
terior ; if so, state where it was and at what time?

Ans. — I don't know that I did. I think that Dr. Kennerly
had a boar or wolf trap with- him, but do not remember to
have seen it used. ,

Cross-Examination Besumed, June 19, 1867-

Int. 201. — Do you speak French sufficiently well to hold a
conversation in that language?

Ans. — I can carry on ordinary conversation in French, with-
out pretending to any grammatical accuracy or to fluency.

Int. 202. — In what language did you converse with Mr.
Lafleur ?

Ans. — In very bad French. I had previously picked up
some of the Canadian patois, and generally made myself in-
telligible to him, and understood mostj at any rate, of what
he said.

Int. 203. — What season of the year did Mr. McDonald arrive
at Nisqually with the furs?

Ans. — That I cannot "xactly state. It must have been in
the summer or fall, or hw could "not have crossed the moun-
tains on account i>f the snows.

Int. 204. — Did vou not learn from Mr. McDonald when ho
was speaking to ycu about the boat expedition up the river in
1853, that they had gone down the river the same season be-
fore coming up?

Am. — No; I don't think I learned it- I took it for granted,
as a matter of course, McDonald's station being at Colvile he
must have jjone down in order to come back again.

Int. 205. — In speaking of the fur trade, which you say Mr.
McDonald did in your answers, did he not tell you that the
furs were taken down every season from the post to the main

-'Ov;

Ji » '

•'

452

depot at Vancover by the same expedition that brought back
goods and supplies ?

Ans. — I knew that fact without his telling me.

Int. 206. — How then could you say that you saw at Okan-
agan, the last season's furs, when you could only have seen
those collected since the boat expedition of that season?

Ana. — I spoke of the season preceding my visit there, which
was in the latter part of the summer or beginning of the fall,
and the furs which I saw I suppose were receive<l subsequently
to the departure of the boats, but collected at what time I
don't know. The season of collecting and the season of trade
not necessarily corresponding.

Int. 207. — You wish now to be understood then by the terms
"during the preceding season" to mean the time preceding
your arrival there, and after departure of the boat expedition?

Ans. — Without knowing anything about the fact, I supposed
that the boat expedition took down in the spring all the furs
that it then found at Okanagan ; but it is to be noticed that
the Okanagan post was inhabited through the year, and that
therefore there was not the same necessity of the furs being
collected during the winter that there was in relation to the
Kootenay and Flat Head posts, which were abandoned early
in the spring.

l7it. 208. — How long after you left Okanagan did you arrive
at Colvile?

An8. — On reference to my note-book, I find that I was mis-
taken in the date, and that it was much later when we reached
Okanagan than I at first supposed. We reached Fort Okana-
gan, on the first occasion, on the 21st of Sep. ,jiber, and left
there finally on the 5th of October, reaching Fort Colvile on
the 18th, and remaining until the 22d.

Int. 209. — What date did you leave Vancouver?;

Ana. — On the 18th of July.

Int. 210. — Had the boat expedition from Okanagan reached
Vancouver before you left?

Ana. — I presume it had, as we heard of it between the 8th
and lOtb of August while at Cheques, on the summit of the

453

Cascade range, at which time it had passed up the river on its
return, as we were told by the Indians.

Int. 211. — Did not your party have letters from the agents
of the Company, to McDonald, the officer in charge at Fort
CoWile?

Ans. — I presume they had.

Int. 212.; — Were not your party in constant communication
with the Company's officers at Fort Vancouver before you left
for the interior, and were you not the chief agent in that com-
munication ?

A')is. — If I recollect right I arrived there two days before
the party started. The quartermaster of the expedition,
Lieutenant Hodges, who was equally well known to the Com-
pany as myself, in conjunction with Captain U. S. Grant, the
quartermaster at Fort Vancouver, made most, if not all, of
the arrangements.

Int. 213. — Did you not make use of this language in your
oxamination-in-chief, speaking of the country around Colvile
i,ud the creek near there, "a narrow valley bordered by
ranges of hills, through which runs a stream known as Mill or
White Mud creek?" From whom did you hear there were two
names to this creek?

Ans. — Looking again at my note-book, I see that both names
are used in relation to the same stream, but my impression is
that the White Mud creek is properly the stream called the
Little Pend-Oreille, which runs into it near the farm claimed
by the Company.

Int. 214. — Do you now believe that the entry in your note-
book made at the time was incorrect?

Ans. — In one sense it might have been, for I d j not recol-
lect, on my second visit, ever hearing it called by the latter
name, and I probably applied the name of the junction to the
entire stream.

Int. 215. — In what did you rely in giving your description
of Colvile, on your note-book or on your memory, and where
they differ, on which do you prefer that reliance should be
placed?

Ans.— In describing Fort Colvile as it was in 1853, I re-

■f^t,.

ri T

i^mm

m. .4

;«*■■*''''■** Jib

^:i«

454

ferred chiefly to my note-book, the important facts, however,
as I consider them, being all in my memory. The notes, serv-
ing to render that memory more distinct, especially as having
traversed the ground the second time, and at a more recent
period, they would prevent my confusing the condition of
things at the difiFerent dates.

Int. 216. — When you answered "Interrogatory 14," did
you then know that Mill creek was known as White Mud
creek ?

Ans. — In giving the name of White Mud creek as another
name for Mill creek I undoubtedly simply read from the notes
■without the phrase making any impression on my mind. I
knew, of course, just as much about it as now. The name
given to the creek in my published report is Slawntehus, by
which name it was inserted on our map, and I believe that
also was simply the name of a locality on the creek, like that of
White Mud. The importance of the question never occurred
to mo for a moment.

Int. 217. — What authority did you have for this statement,
speaking of Fort Okanagan, in answer to "Interrogatory 19:"
"The post clearly did not pay its expenses?"

Ans. — I have already answered that question in reply to
previous cross-questions.

Int. 218. — What new light had you on the subject that led
you to say at the date of your report that the post pro )ably
did not pay expenses, and some fourteen years afterwards to
swear that it clearly did not pay its expenses ?

Ans. — In answer to this I refer to my answer to interroga-
tories numbered from 181 to 188 inclusive.

Int. 219. — How do you know that the buildings you have
described as the Kootenay post were so in reality ?

Ans. — If they were not, there was no Kootenay post south
of the line, as this was the only place where any buildings
were to be seen on the Kootenay river between the 49th par-
allel and the great bend of the Kootenay ; because they are
so located on British and American official maps; and because
I was so informed by the Indian guides.

455

Int. 220. — Were these buildings you saw made of squared
timber ?

Ans. — They were not. The logs might have been flattened
somewhat where they rested on one another, but even this I
doubt.

Int. 221. — Did you have any conversation with this man
Linklater when you met him coming up ?

Ans. — I stopped and spoke to him, and asked him some
thing about the route.

Int. '2J2,'2. — Were you at this place at any other time than
at the time you spent some weeks in its neighborhood in the
fall of 18G0 ?

Ans. — No.

Int. 223. — How long were you at this place?

Ans. — If you mean by this place the Kootenay post, I
was there only long enough to look around at it in passing.

Int. 224. — Is the photograph mentioned in your answer a
photograph of either of the two buildings which you say con-
stituted the Company's post at Kootenay ?

Ans. — It is not. It is a log house, constructed, as I was
informed, by the Indians for a church, in which the Catholic
priests who occasionally visited the Kootenays hold service,
but it is in the immediate neighborhood of the post.

Int. 225. — Have you not described in your Indian report
the Company's post at Vancouver ?

Ans. — I have.

Int. 226. — Have you not embodied in your answer to Inter-
rogatory 21 an extract from that report verbatim, with the
necessary change in the grammar, beginning with the words,
"The post was a parallelogram," and ending witb the sen-
tence, "clerks and other employes;" and also another extract,
beginning with the words, "On which the fort and United
States barracks are situated," and ending with the words,
"respectively half and one mile square?"

Ans. — I have embodied in my answer substantially extracts
from that report, the extent of which a comparison of the
two would show.

nS'ft

i^ti

<■';

-»'.','''

■H. .M

456

Int. 227. — Does this description which you have given of
Fort Vancouver describe it as it was in the summer of 1853?

Ans. — It was so intended to do, and I think does.

Int. 228. — Did you make this statement from information
from Governor Ogden or from your own knowledge : " The plain
on which the fort and the United States barracks are situated,
with a small one behind it, making together a tract of about
four miles square?"

Ans. — That description embraced the original United States
reservation made by Colonel Loring in 1850, with the appro-
bation of Governor Ogden, and for the protection of the Com-
pany, as well as of the post, from intrusion by settlers. During
my conversation with Governor Ogden, in reference to the
Company's claims, I think that tract was specially referred to
as being one known and designated.

Int. 229. — Did he tell you how many acres were under cui*
tivation ?

Ans. — According to my recollection, the amount mentioned
in the report was given to me by him.

Inf. 2.30. — How much did he sav was in cultivation ?

Ans. — I think the amount there mentioned was a thousand
acres.

Int. 231. — Did he tell you at that time that there was a
thousand acres in cultivation?

Ans. — I don't know that he did. I think it was enclosed or
under cultivation ; but I do not pretend to quote the words of
the report without having it before me.

Int. 232. — Do you now distinctly recollect, without the re-
port or your note-book, what Mr. Ogden did tell you about
the Company's land claim &t Vancouver?

Ans. — I recollect distinctly having conversations with Mr.
Ogden on the subjeci;, whose information I embrace in the
report, and from it into nhe testimony. I refer to the direct
interrogatory for my reply, not choosing to quote literally by
memory from the wiitt#u asatemenj..

«■>■

457

CroiB-Examination Resumed, June 25, 1867.

e under cul-

it montioned

there was a

Int. 234. — How long were you at Vancouver before the de-
parture of General McClellan's expedition?

Ans. — I am not positive. It was but a few days, however.

Int. '235. — Have you not already stated in the course of
this examination that you arrived at Vancouver two days be-
fore the party started?

Ans. — I do not recollect that I have, as this examination
commenced some time ago. I do not pretend to recollect all
the details, concerning many of which I refreshed my mind by
reference to my notes.

Int. 236. — Were you not fully occupied while at Vancouver
in preparations for your departure?

Ans. — I presume I was, most of the time.

Int. 237. — What time did you return to Vancouver, and how
many days did you remain there?

Ans. — I returned late in the fall. The number of days I
do not remember, but it was only a few.

Int. 238. — Where did you go from Vancouver ?

Ans. — I went down to Astoria, thence to Chinock and
Shoal- Water Bay, and attempted to pass through by way of
the Willopah to the Boisfort prairie and to Olympia. I failed
in consequence of the weather, returned to Chinook and Asto-
ria, thence went to Monticello and the Cowlitz Farm and to
Olympia. On reconsideration, I think I w^as at Vancouver
about a week before going down the river.

Int. 239. — What was the stage of the river at Vancouver
when you were there before starting on McClellan's expe-
dition ?

Alls. — Th« river was well up.

Int. 240. — How far below Vancouver, going down the river
by land, were you at this time?

Anx. — I did not go down the river by land.

Int. 241, — How far were you in any direction by land from
Fort Vancouver, at the time you were there, before the start-

458

ing of McClcllan's expedition in 1853, on the north side of the
river?

Ans. — I don't know, though I very probably took short
rides in the vicinity.

Int. 242.— State where, in what direction, and with whom,
or by yourself, you took any single ride at the time just
spoken of?

Ans. — In the first place, I have not stated that I took any
ride, though I was in the habit of riding, as everybody in that
country is. In the second place, I don't charge my memory
with matters of that sort.

Int. 243. — Can you state that you were at a distance of two
miles in any direction from Fort Vancouver, either on foot or
horseback, at the time you were there, before the starting of
McClellan's expedition?

Ans. — No, I don't recollect about it.

Int. 244. — After your return from the McClellan expedi-
tion did you at that time go more than two miles in any direc-
tion on the north side of the river ?

Ans. — I think not.

Int. 245. — Were you at Vancouver at any other times during
the year 1853 than the time already mentioned?

Ans. — I was, on several occasions.

Int. 246. — State when those occasions were, and, as near as
you can, the dates, and how long you remained there?

Ans. — I cannot give the dates. I was backwards and for-
wards on the business of the custom-house, cr for pleasure,
between the time of my return to Oregon, in January, and the
departure of that expedition.

Int. 247. — If you were there more than a day at any one
time, state at which of these visits that was.

Ans. — I did not keep a record of daily transactions, except
during the various expeditions on which I was employed by
the Government, although I certainly made minutes of matters
which were brought to my attention, or excited my interest,
but not always with dates. I remember that I was there on
the discharge of the cargoes of the two vessels consigned to
the Company, which arrived during my collectorship; but how

L as near as

at any one

459

long I staid on either of those occasions, or any other, I will
not pretend to state now.

Int. 248. — Can you now state that at any of these times you
vent, either on foot or on horseback, more than two miles
from Fort Vancouver in any direction on the north bank of the
river?

Anst. — No, I cannot state whether upon any particular occa-
sion I did.

Int. 249'. — Can you state whether on any of those occasions
you did?

Ans. — I have been frequently more than two miles in dif-
ferent directions from Fo:t Vancouver, and on that side of the
river, but when I do not precisely remember.

Int. 250. — You have stated that in the year 1853, and be-
fore the visit you made to Vancouver when you started on the
McClellan expedition, that you were at Fort Vancouver on
several occasions for business or pleasure, will you now state
whether upon any of these visits you went in any direction
from Fort Vancouver more than two miles on the north side
of the river?

Ans. — I think I did.

Int. 251. — State in what direction you rode or walked, how
far you went, and in what month it was.

Ans. — I have already informed you that as to details of this
kind I could give no precise answer. I used to go out to the
Fourth Plain, which is in a northeasterly direction from the
post, and up or down the river, as the notion took me, when
riding for pleasure.

Int. 252.— Did you go to the Fourth Plain in 1853, before
you started on the McClellan expedition?

Ans. — More than probably.

Int. 253. — Do you distinctly recollect this visit to the Fourth
Plain, and can you state where you stopped when you got
there, or who was with you?

Ans. — No, I can't distinctly recollect anything about it,
any more than I can the thousand and one rides that I have
taken without particular purpose in the course of my life.
When I went out there I usually called at Mr. Covington's.

■u

460

tni. 254. — IIow far did you go down the river on the north
Bide before you left on the McClellan expedition in 1853?

Ans. — Really I don't remember, nor whether I went down
or up in that year, although I presume I did ; how far I can't
say.

Int. 255. — State how far you ever went down the river at
any time before the McClellan expedition, on the north side?

Aiis. — I won't pretend to state.

Jnt. 25G. — Were you ever down the river as far as the
Cathlapootl river, by land, before the McClellan expedition
in 1853?

Ans. — No, 1 never was.

Int. 257. — Look on this map now shoWn to you, in evidence
in this cause, and say whether you were ever down the river
below Vancouver to the Shallapoo lake before the McClellan
expedition in 1853?

Ans. — I really can't say, though I think it more than pro*
bable.

Int. 258.— -At what date did you visit the Cathlapootl river
by land, and what time of the year?

Ans. — I cannot lay my hand on the memorandum-book in
which I kept the filed notes of that exploration to ascertain the
exact date; it was, however, some time in the latter part of
the summer or early in the fall of 1855.

Int. 259.—- Were you ever at the Mill Plain before the Mc-
Clellan expedition?

Ans.-^l have already stated that my recollection of the
Mill Plain is indistinct. I have been there, and once camped
near the mouth of the creek on which the mill is, but I don't
recollect much about it, nor when I was there.

Int. 260. — When was this report of the Indian tribes written
from which you have made extracts in your deposition?

Ans. — In the winter of 1853-4.

Int. 261. — Did Gov. Ogden make these statements to you at
your visit after your return from the McClellan expedition,
while you stopped at Vancouver?

Am.-^l frequently conversed with Governor Ogden on the
subject of the Company and its claims, from the time I first

461

became acquainted usitk him in 1849-50 down to his death*
With regard to the statement of those claims as worded in
this report, I think it was made at the time of my return from
the McClellan expedition. This, however, may not be abso*
lately so. I will now state this, that although that report has
been published for many years, and has been read by leading
officers of the Hudson's Bay Company, no one of them has
ever yet controverted, in my presence, the statements I have
made there.

Int. 262. — You wish to state, then, that your communica-
tions from Mr. Ogdcn, to the best of your knowledge, were
made after your return from the McClellan expedition ?

Ans. — No ; I don't say so positively, though I am positive
I had communication with Governor Ogden after my return-
from the McClellan expedition, and before the publication of
my report.
Int. 263. — How many times were you on Sauvic's island?
Ans. — Only once that I recollect.

Int. 264. — Was it at this visit that you observed the fact
that the cattle were obliged to swim to the main land on
account of the freshet ?

Ans. — No ; that was not a matter of personal observation.
That the island was very low, and subject to freshet, at least
in part, any one could see from the deck of a steamer in pass-
ing ; that the cattle had been obliged to swim to the main
land, I was informed by others.

Int. 266.— Were you ever at Vancouver during the period
of high water before the fall of 1853 ?
Ans. — Yes ; I was there in 1850.
Int. 266. — How long did you stay there at that time ?
Ans. — I really don't recollect ; I was there probably more
than once.

Int. 267. — Was it at this time you made those scientific ob-
Bervations which you detailed in your description of Vancou-
ver with reference to the freshets in the river ?

Ans. — With regard to the freshets of the Columbia river,
I noticed, I presume, many of the facts at that time, others I
probably learned from other persons. In reference to the

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

^ A

^.^

1.0

1.1

11.25

itt l&i §22
Sf y£ 12.0

-►

Fhotograiiitc

Sdmoes

Carporation

50^

<***
l^..

23 WMT MAIN STRUT

VY<UTIIt,N.Y. USM

(71«)l7a-4S03

•\

462

periods of its rise and fall, and temperature of the water, I
obtained particular data in the summer of 1854 from a person
whom I employed to make observations, and whose register I
transmitted to Washington, which register was published in
the reports of the Pacific Railroad Survey.

Int. 268. — What did you hear was the temperature of the
water in the river ?

Ans. — The exact temperature you will find in the report as
printed. According to my recollection, however, it stood
during the rise of the river at a very low point, gradually
increasing in elevation with the subsidence. It was so near
the freezing point, at any rate, that, according to the farmers,
wheat would not survive it.

Int. 269. — What have you already before stated was the
temperature of this river?

Ans. — I think I stated, from my notes, it varied from 40°
to 60°.

Int. 270. — Was that the statement made to you by your
observer ?

Ans. — I believe it was ; but without reference anew to his
report, I will not be absolutely certain.

Int. 271. — Can you not be certain of this statement with-
out referring to his notes ?

Ans. — I have already answered that question according to
n^y recollection.

Int. 272. — Who was the author of the statement that the
deposit from the river does not tend to fertilize the ground?
Ana. — I was myself. It was the result of my observation.
Int. 273. — In what year did you notice this deposit, and
arrive at the conclusion you have just given ?

An%. — I really don't know when I first noticed it. I men-
tioned it as early as 1850-51, in a report which I drew up upon
Oregon Territory. The same perso'h who made the observa-
tions in 1854 collected, under my instructions, specimens of
the deposit from time to time during the freshet, and an ex'
amination of these confirmed me in that opinion.

Int. 274. — Have you ever observed the hay crop upon the
land, immediately around Fort Yancouver, subject to overflow?

463

AfiB. — ^1 have. •

Int. 275. — State whether it is a large or a small crop.

Ans.-^lt is excellent. The moisture remaining in the soil
after the subsidence of the freshet tends to produce a good
crop of any plant hardy enough to withstand the previous
temperature. .

Int. 276.— *Has your knowledge or observation, either as
geologist or farmer, enabled you to explain the phenomenon
of a large crop of grass upon a moistened deposit of sand?

Ans. — Moisture will sustain vegetation, as observation has
shown, in the desert of Sahara itself. Of course the decay of
a portion of the grass adds something to the fertility of the
ground.

Int.t2n. — Is it your scientific opinion, derived from your
own observations and that of the other scientific observer, that
the deposits on the banks of the Columbia river, extending
inland a mile or so, are deposits of sand ?

Ans.—^Yes; and it is, moreover, my opinion that three feet
in depth of it, without more moisture than is to be found on
the uplands, would be equally wanting in fertility.

Int. 278. — What streams are there back of Vancouver, be-
tween that place and the mountains ?

Ana. — There is a stream called Salmon creek. There are
also the two forks of Gathlapootl and their tributaries. There
are, I think, other small streams ; though I do not now recol-
lect them.

Int. 279.— Into what river does the Salmon creek flow, and
when did you see it?

Ans. — It is a number of years since I have seen it. My
impression is, it runs into one of the sloughs or ponds below
Fort Vancouver. »

Int. 280. — Were you ever more than a mile back of Fort
Vancouver, except on the road leading from there to the
prairie, on which Mr. Covington's claim was situated?

Ans. — I do not now remember. I do not think that I ever
went off the roads, back, any distance into the woods.

Int. 281. — What road did you ever ride over, leading back
of Vancouver, except the one above mentioned?
80 H

4G4 .

Ans. — I don't remember any ; though there may have Tjecii
other roads, which I do not now recall.

Int. 282. — How far up the bank of the stream called Salmon
ereek, from its mouth, have you ever been ?

Ans. — Really I don't remember ; I must have have crossed
it or its outlet on my way down the Columbia, and I think
that is one of the streams crossed by the road we took to the
mountains.

Int. 283. — Were you ever on any part of the banks of
Salmon creek, except at its outlet?

Ans. — I think, as I before stated, it is one of the streams
crossed by the trail we took on our route.

Int. 284. — Do you know anything about the stream, except
at its outlet, and where you crossed it on your road to the
mountains?

Avs. — Only by general observation of the country, or, as
was probably the case at the date of my report, from such in-
formation as I could obtain from others.

Int. 285. — Have you mentioned in your report anything
about the streams or country back of Vancouver, except what
you have stated on confirmation from Governor Ogden ?

Ans. — I think that in my report I described the character
of the country behind Fort Vancouver as sterile, with the ex-
ception of the bottoms bordering on the streams. How far
Gov. Ogden may have corroborated this statement I do not
remember. In passing through it, I certainly observed it with
attention myself.

Int. 286. — Did Gov. Ogden ever say anything to yoti with
reference to the country back of Vancouver ?

Ans. — I don't remember whether he did or not.

Cross-Examination Resumed June 26, 1867.

Int. 287. — Was not your personal observation of the country
back of Vancouver confined to such observation as you could
make of it in passing along the road leading from there by
the Third and Fourth Plain and Mr. Covington's house to the
mountains?

465

>!»«. — Yes, it was, excepting that I had visited Mr. Coving-
ton, on the Fourth Phiin, several times, and perhaps ridden out
on some otlier trail through the woods.

Int. 288. — Is there any other trail or road that you can
designate going into the country back of Vancouver from that
place ? .

Alls. — I have a vague impression that there is another road
or trail to the westward of that, but of this I am not certain.

Int. 28l>. — Have you embodied in your description of Van-
couver, ill your report, or in your deposition in answer to In-
terrogatory 21, statements mi.de to you by other persons than
Gov. Ogdcn ?

Ann. — In my reply to that interrogatory, I will say that I
have doubtless embodied to a certain extent my own observa-
tions and impressions, but the substance was, so far as I was
able to give it, founded upon or corroborated by Mr. Ogden.
It is utterly impossible for any one to divest himself altogether
of the coloring given to any statement of facts by his personal
observation, but I think that substantially I have represented
Mr. Ogdcn's remarks with correctness.

Cioss-Exawination Resumed^ June 27, 1SG7.

Int. 289. — Is there not a portion of this answer to Interrog-
atory 21 derived from your own observation alone, uncorrob-
orated by any statement of Mr. Ogden?

Ans. — Portions of the answer undoubtedly v/oro derived
from my own observation alone. There were other parts
concerning which my information w^as derived from Mr. Ogden.

Int. 290. — Did Mr. Ogden tell you that the village, which
you say was of cabins, was occupied by servants, Kanakas, and
Indians?

An». — That the chief population of the village consisted of
such was obvious enough without applying to him lur inform-
ation on the point.

Int. 291. — Why did you change the language ia your re-
port, in speaking of the inhabitants of i-hese buildings, " were,"
you say, "occupied by servants. Kanakas, and Indians," to

466

"occupied by a mongrel crowd of Canadians, Kanakas, and
Indians?"

Ans. — I really do not know that I had any particular mo-
tive, unless it was for a clearer description.

Int. 292. — Were all the servants of the Company Canadians?

Ans. — No; nor have I said that they were.

Int. 293. — State now who occupied this village you have
spoken of?

Ans. — Chiefly the servants of the Company.

Int. 294. — Do you wish your description of the village now
to be in this form, a village of fifty or sixty cabins occupied
by the servants of the Company?

Ans. — Were I to make any correction in the statement it
would be that, if anything, I have overstated the number of
•cabins.

Int. 295. — Did any Canadians occupy this village in 1853?

Ans. — I think they did. That is my recollection.

Int. 296. — Why did you not mention this fact in your re-
port made about that time?

Ans. — I do not suppose I considered it a matter of any con-
sequence.

Int. 297. — Is it not a matter of as much consequence if
Canadians lived there as if Kanakas and Indians lived there?

Ans. — Chiefly to the Canadians I should think.

Int. 298. — Why did you make that change in your descrip-
tion of the inhabitants of the village ?

Ans. — I do not remember any particular motive in making
the change, nor do I now consider it of any importance.

Int. 299. — Do you now recollect a single Canadian living in
one of the houses of that village; if so, state what part of the
village it was in, the kind of house he lived in, and the time
at which you saw him there?

Ans. — I have described generally the character of the pop-
ulation of that village. As to any acquaintance with them,
whether Kanakas, Canadians, or Indians, I have none indi-
vidually.

Int. 300. — Do you not think your memory was better of this
village in 1853 and '54 than it is now in 1867? '•

467

Ans. — Undoubtedly, as to matters of detail.

Jnt. 301. — Of what were the buildings inside the stockade,
and the large store-house hired bj the United States in 1853,
outside the stockade, built?

Ans. — All the buildings inside and outside the stockade
were built of wood, though their construction was not altogether
the same. •

Int. 302. — Enumerate the buildings inside the stockade that
were built of square logs?

Ans. — Nearly all the buildings, according to my recollec-
tion, were built of square logs, or at least had that appear-
ance. There were, however, I think, one or two that were
framed and boarded.

Int. 303. — Of what was the Governor's house built?

Ans. — Of that I am not positive. I think the front alone
was clap-boarded.

Int. 304. — Have you not once stated in the report from
which you have quoted in your deposition, including this house
with others in a description, made use of this language: "They
are all built of square logs."

Ans. — I have used the words, but in reference particularly
to the warehouses, though most of the other buildings were
constructed in the same way.

Int. 305. — Was the Governor's house built of square logs
framed together?

Ans. — I have already said I would not be positive as to the
construction of the Governor's house, but I think that it was
so tuilt, and in front covered with clap-boards.

Int. 306. — Were the smaller buildings used by clerks built
of square logs framed together?

Ans. — Tiiat I cannot say.

Int. 307. — Was the range of dwellings for families built of
square logs framed together?

Ans. — I think it was.

Int. 308. — Is this statement true, made by you in your
report, or not: "Within are the Governor's house, two smaller
buildings used by clerks, a range of dwellings for families, and
five large two-story waaehouses, besides offices. Without there

468

is another large storehouse, at present hired by the United
States. These are all built of square logs framed togetlier?"
Arts. — I have once told you that the words "they are all
square logs so framed," referred, as I think, more particularly
to the large warehouses. Substantially the statement was true,
as it was intended to be.

Int. 309. — If that statement was substantially true, why did
you change the language of the report to this form, in your
answer to Interrogatory 21: "Within were the Governor's
house, two smaller buildings used by clerks, a range of dwell-
ings for families, and five large two-story warehouses, besides
offices. Without there was another large storehouse, then
occupied by the United States. They were nearly all built of
square logs, framed together after the fashion known as the
Canadian fashion?"

Ana. — I do not notice any difference between the two state-
ments, except the introduction of the word "nearly," a quali-
fication which might have been suggested to my mind by some
passing doubt.

Int. 310. — When did you first learn that the framed build-
ings, in the form these were framed, was called the Canadian
fashion ?

Ans. — Really I don't remember. The mode of framing was
peculiar, so far as I recollect, to the Hudson's Bay Company.
Int. 311. — Did you ever hear the form of building men-
tioned as Canadian until you noticed it so described in the
testimony which you had printed in the case?

Ans. — I presume it was as familiar to me as it was to other
witnesses. The peculiarity of the buildings was a matter of
common remark.

Int. 312. — Are you now prepared to say from your recol-
lection that these buildings were built of square logs at all?
Ans. — I have nothing further to state on that subject.
Int. 313. — Did you notice them particularly?
Ans. — I presume I did at the time.

Int. 314. — Can you tell the diflFerence between squared logs
and sawed plank ?
Ans. — I presume so, if I had been looking at them.

4C0

Int. 315. — Wore these warehouses built of square logs or of
tliick sawn plank?

Ans. — I have stated already on that point all I have to say,
and have nothing further to add.

Int. 316. — Describe, if you please, what you mean by the
term "square logs," of which you say these buildings were
erected, the thickness of the log, and whether squared by the
axe or by the saw.

An9. — These are details which I do not recollect. By square
logs I mean logs reduced on all four sides.

Int. 317. — What do you understand to be meant by the term
plank, as distinpt from that of square log?

Ann. — I presume the distinction is simply one of thickness.

Int. 318. — If these ])uildings were erected chiefly of lumber,
and prepared at a saw-mill with the saw, would you not now
consider your description of that as built of square logs as
inaccurate?

Ans. — Not necessarily, for logs may be squared at tlie saw-
mill.

Int. 319. — Of what were two smaller buildings, used by
clerks inside the stockade, built?

Ans. — I do not remember further than I have already stated.

Int. 320. — Have you stated anything in reference to what
they were built of in tliis deposition?

Ans. — I tliink not with particularity^

Int. 321. — Can you now state of what they were built?

Ans. — Not with absolute confidence.

Int. 322. — Is there any tlifference between houses built in
the Canadian fashion and those that are called rabbet-luilt
houses?

Ans. — I do not know to what stylo of house you refer by
rabbet-built houses ; nor do I remember anj others built after
this Canadian fashion.

Int. 323. — How many years do you refer to in this expres-
sion, in speaking of repairs, when you say " Only the repairs
necessary to keep them in tenantable order, having been fox
some years expended?"

Ans. — From the date of the treaty.

4Ta

Int. 324.— Up to what time ?

Ans. — Up to the time of the report.

Int. 325. — Was it so intended in the answer to Interroga-
tory 21 ?

An%. — In the answer to that interrogatory the date of the
report seems to have heen in view.

Int. 326. — Is that statement the result of your own personal
observation, or is it derived from others ?

Ans. — I presume that both sources of information were used.

Int. 327. — Who told you that from the date of the treaty
that only such repairs had been expended 1

An». — I don't remember any one in partftjular. I don't
know that any one made the statement in so many words. It
is, however, a conviction that I had formed.

Int. 328. — IIow long, did you remain at Vancouver after
your arrival there in 1849 before you went to Astoria ?

Ans. — I don't know p not long. It was a nvere cursory visit.

Int. 329. — Up to what date do you wish to be understood as
stating that your knowledge of the trade of the Company at
Vancouver extended, you having spoken of it from 1849 on-
ward?

Ans. — In reply to tliat question, my knowledge, from per-
sonal observation, extended of course only through, the period
of my visits to the place, which were scattered over several
years, and were more frequent while I was connected with the-
custom-house. In a small comjmunity, such as Oregon was at
that time, the affairs of the Company w'ere necessarily, to a
certain extent, known by every one-.

Int. 330. — What perixxl of time, then, do you wish to- include
in the language "from 1849 onward"" in your answer to Inter-
rogatory 23?

Ans. — To the time of my leaving the country in 1860-61.

Int. 331. — Will you say you were acquainted with the trade
of the Company at Vancouver after the time you jained the
Boundary Commission in 1857 ?

Ans. — After I joined the Boundary Commission I was at
the post at Victoria, those on Fraser river, and the Upper Col-
umbia. I saw what was transacted there,, and by impressions

»n I was at

471

dcrive<l at those places, as also from conversation with those
irho visited Vancouver, came to the conclusion I have above
stp'cd.

i Y. 332. — After you went to Puget's Sound in the winter
of 1853, how many times did you visit Vancouver before join-
the Boundary Commission ?

An8. — Several times.

Int. 333. — State the numborof times and the months in the
year you visited there.

Ans, — The longest time that I was there was in the fall and
winter of 1855. As to the dates of other visits that I made
there, I could not give them without reference to note-books.
At the time I speak of I was engaged in surveying and making
a map of the route from Vancouver to Stcilacoom.

Int. 334. — ^Do you personally know, other than from general
reputation and hearsay, what trade was carried on at Van-
couver ?

An». — To a great extent I do, Just as one knows the char-
scter of trade cari*ied on by a merchant elsewhere.

Int. 335. — In this answer as to the character of the trade,
do you mean the character of the goods that be sells, or the
class of customers who purchase from him?

Ans. — Both ; the number of Indians in the country having
diminished to so great an extent as no longer to afford scope
for an extensive trade with them.

Int. 336. — Were you often in the sale room inside the stock-
ade?

Ans. — Yes; I have frequently made purchases there.

Int. 337. — Were you often enough inside of the store from
1849 to 1861, and so observed the people trading there, as to
enable you to say, from personal observation, with whom the
trade of the Company at Vancouver during all that length of
time was car^'ied on ?

Ans. — My knowledge of the trade of the Company was in
part derived also from its agents elsewhere, as in Portland
and Oregon City, from the merchants and others with whom
they traded, and from invoices of the goods they imported ?

472

Jnt. 3.^8. — What officer of the Company wns ever btatiuiiCil
at Portland?

An». — I don't know tliat any officer of tlio Coinpiiny was
ever stationed at Portland. Mr. William S. Of^den at one
time acted as their agent there, or sold goods for thfni.

Int. 330. — Did Mr. Ogden tell you bo, or ia that an im-
pression of your ip'.nd?

Ans. — I am coi.vinced from the goods that he had fur sale
there, as well as from my recollection of conversations with
him, that such was the case.

Int, 340. — Where did you stay when at your first visit to
Vancouver in 1840?

Ans. — I don't know. I don't remember more about the
visit than the fact of going there and callitig upon Mr. Ogdoii,

Int. 341. — State the time, if any, during your visits to Van-
couver, that you resided inside the stockade?

Ana. — I never did reside there.

Int. 342. — Did you not, at all your visits to Vancouver, oc-
cupy quarters at the military post?

Ana. — Always there, or in its neighborhood.

Cro88-Exani{nation Resumed, June 28, 1807.

Int. b43. — State how ■ any times you were at Vancouver iu
the year 1850?

Ans. — That I am unable to state. I went up and down the
river several times, usually stoj)ping at Vancouver on these
occasions.

Int. 344. — AVhat was the longest time you were ut Van-
couver on any one of these occasions?

Ans. — I don't know. I suppose a Aveek or two.

Int. 345. — Were you not this year deputy collector at As-
toria and agent for the pilots?

Ans. — I was.

Int. 34G. — State in what month of the year 1850 you spent
a week at Vancouver, what business took you there, if any,
and where you stopped while there?

Ans. — I cannot state specifically any of tliose details, ex-

473

Di' statiuiic<l

first visit to

iricouvcr, oc-

ccpt that wlicii at Vancouver I stoppcil at the (luartors of some
one or other ollicer, aii(l that I soiiu'titues went tiiore on the
ciistoni-hoiise business and sometimes for my own anniscment.
I had no reason to keep a record of excursions up and down
the river, except so far as the business of the office required.
It wouM now bo a difficult thing, oven if practicable, forme to
furnish such details.

Jnt. 347. — Can you now recollect any particulai visit to
Vancouver during the year 18.jO, which is brought to your
recollection by any particular incident that occurred during it?

Ans. — I recollect going up on the first trip of the little
steamer Columbia.

Lit. 348, — What month of the year 1850 wu :liat, and how
loiig did you remaiji there?

Ans. — I do not recollect what month it wa.*, or how long I
remained. An inquiry into details of that ' scrij)iion is i)er-
fectly idle. Those things, which arc matters of litvjuent oc-
currence, uro rarely fixed in my memory evi n tur shorter
:iriods, although the general impressions produced may bo
lasting.

Int. 349. — Was the first trip of tho first steamer that was to
run from Astoria up the river of so little importance that you
cannot recollect in what month it took place?

Ans. — Tho event itself was of sufficient importance to re-
member. The particular mouth was not of sufficient conse-
quence.

Int. 350. — Does not your name appear on the register as
one of tho owners or stockholders of that steamer ?

Ans. — I have explained that matter fully, in writing at the
end of my direct examination. I do not remember whether
my name was on the register or not, nor do I now remember
whether the vessel was registered or merely licensed.

Int. 351. — Was not this the only steamer Avhich plied on the
Columbia river during your term of service as deputy collector,
or which had either license or register from the custom-house
at Astoria ?

Ans. — I think that the Lot Whitecomb was likewise built
and registered, or licensed during that period.

474

Int. 352. — Who had charge of the books at the custom-
houio?

Ans. — I had ; of course, under the supervision of the Col-
lector.

Int. 353. — Can you not now recollect whether these two
steamers sailed under a register or a license?

Ans. — It is so long since I have had anything to do with
custom-house business, or the revenue laws, that I cannot an-
swer with any certainty. My impression is that registration
is necessary in the first place, and that where the trade is con-
fined to home navigation a license is taken instead, for the
purpose of saving forms and the expense.

Int. 354. — How long after you took office as deputy collector
Avas it before the steamer Columbia made her first trip on the
river?

Ans. — It must have been some months, as Mr. Frost, her
principal projector, had to go down to San Francisco to bring
up the machinery and the mechanics Avho built her.

Int. 355. — Did you go to Vancouver, in the year 1850, be-
fore the first trip of this steamer ; and, if so, how did you go?

Ans. — I think I went up once, if not twice, in a canoe, and I
believe also in a whale-boat, for I remember bringing down
army officers, who had business at the mouth of the river.

Int. 350. — How many times afterwards, in the year 1850,
did you go to Vancouver ?

Ans. — It is more than I can say. I think I went up on a
subsequent trip with General Persifer S. Smith and the officers
of his staff, and I believe on other occasions.

Int. 357. — On which of these occasions did you stay one
week at Vancouver?

Ans. — Very likely on more than one trip.

Int. 358. — Were you in the store of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany at A'^ancouver on all these visits you made there ?

Ans. — It is utterly impossible for me to say more than that
I was in the habit of going there.

Int. 359. — Can you recollect distinctly any time, during
these visits at Vancouver, when you were inside the sales-store

475

f the river.

(1 you stay one

of the IIuJsou's Bay Company, ami can state who you saw
within the store, either as purchasers or visitors?

^w*t.— I cannot, I presutnel was in there both with officera
of the army and witli citizens, hut, after such a lap^e of time,
I would not pretend to recollect a matter of no moment in
itself.

Int. 3G0. — Can you designate any time, at your visits to
Vancouver, prior to your going toPuget's Sound, in which you
can say who was inside the sales-store at Fort Vancouver with
you, either as visitors or purchasers?

Ans. — I remember purchasing some goods for Capt. McClel-
Inn, in 1853, at which time ArchibaM McKinlay, the son-iti-law
of Mr. Ogden, and Robert Newell, of Champoeg, assisted me
in their selection.

Int. 361. — On this or any other occasion, prior to the time
mentioned, can you remember that you saw any one, besides
yourself and those assisting you, purchasing goods at this
sales-store ?

Ans. — No one in particular.

Int. 362. — What goods, and at what date, and by what ves-
sel of the Company did you see shipped to San Francisco ?

Ans. — Without referring to the custom-house records, to
which I have not access at present, I could not answer that
question definitively, and of my own personal observation,
but I remember a purchase reported to have been made of a
large lot of coffee, from Gov. Ogden, by a merchant, who rode
over from Portland before the news of the steamer's arrival
was received at Vancouver, at several cents a pound less than
it was worth at San Francisco.

(The whole of that portion of the answer founded on report
objected to as irrelevant and incompetent.)

Int. 363. — How many Indian goods of the Company did
you see 6ent to Victoria?

Ans. — All those matters will appear by the records of the
custom-house. I only remember they were sent in quantities
to Victoria, and also to Nisqually. My recollection of the
goods being stjut to Nisqually is the more distinct, as a vessel
carrying some of them was seiaed for smuggling by the Col-

476

lector's orders, and subsequently released on an arranfifoinout
with Gov. Douglas to make regular returns and pay the tluties
on goods shipped to the Sound. This was before the estab-
lishment of a port of entry there.

Jnt. ;3(t4. — Were these goods shipped, that you refer to
during your tenn of service as deputy collector or durincj your
term as collector?

Ans. — Daring the term of my service as deputy collector.

Int. 3().j. — State the names of vessels by which they were
shipped, and, if you can, the (i[uantitics of goods.

Ans. — I do not remember the name of the vessel, ily
recollection of the occurrence is this, that she was the annual
ship from London, that she discharged only a part of her carfQ
at Fort Vancouver, and took the rest round to Victoria, from
whence a portion of them were sent to Nisqually.

Int. 3(JG. — Were these goods shipped from England to Vic-
toria or from Vancouver?

Ans. — I understood them to be goods which were not sale-
able in Oregon, in consequence of the falling off of the Indian
trade, and they were sent, on their arrival from England,
round to Victoria.

Int. 307. — Were you at Vancouver at the time or nt Astoria?

Ans. — If I recollect aright, I went up to Vancouver to
receive the vessel to entry there.

Int. 3GH. — Was the whole cargo of this vessel entered at
the custom-house at Astoria?

Ans. — Of course only such portions as were landed there.

Int. 30'.). — Where was the entry of these goods made, at the
custom-house or not ?

A71S. — Owing to the condition of the country at the time,
vessels were permitted to proceed up the river at once, on
depositing the necessary papers with the collector, and all the
formalities Averc afterwards completed at Vancouver or Port-
land, as it might be, and the returns made to the office.

Int. 370. — IIow do you know that the goods taken round to
Victoria by the annual ship were not originally intended for
that port, they not having been entered in the district of As-
toria?

477

lanJ to Vic-

• Ans. — That was of course a matter of informatiun. The
change in the condition of the country, owing to the discovery
of gold in California and the flocking in of settlers, the dimi-
nution of the number of Indians from disease, and the conse-
quent change in the trade, was a subject of common discussion.

Itit. oil. — Were not the invoices of tlic cargo exhibited to
you either at Astoria or Vancouver?

Ans. — I suppose the invoices of all the goods unloaded at
Vancouver were of course exhibited to me.

Lit. 372. — Who told you that the goods sent to Victoria
were unsaleable in Oregon? If an olHctr of the Company,
give his name, and the language he made use of in giving the
statement.

An.^. — It is utterly impossible for me to do that. It was a
matter of general understanding at the time.

(All statements made on general understanding objected to.)

Int. 373. — Were you in Astoria when goods you say were
shipped by the annual ship were so shipped?

An-'i. — I do not know.

L)t. 374. — What was the name of the vessel you say was
seized for violation of the revenue law ai»d carrying goods to
Nisqually ?

Aps. — I think either the Prince of Wales or the Cadboro.

Int. 375. — What was the name of the officer employed in
making the seizure?

An.s. — I believe Captain Bennett II. Hill, commanding at
Fort Stcilacoom.

Cross-Examination Resumed, July 1, 18G7.

Int. 376. — State what time the Prince of Wales left the
river for Puget's Sound, and whether that was not the vessel
you refused to allow to take freight up the river for Judge
Strong.

Ans. — The Prince of Wales was the vessel I refused to let
take freight up the river for Judge Strong. As to the time
when she left the river, I don't remember.

Int. 377. — Did the Prince of Wales ever, to your knowledge,

4T8

while you were connected with the custom-house, leave tlie
river for any port or harbor?

Alls. — I think the Prince of Wales, during the time I was
connected with the custoui'liouse, was in and .out of the river
more than once.

Int. 378. — Did she ever clear for Victoria or Puget*s Sound
"while you were connected with the custom-house?

An«. — I cannot say without reference to the records of the
office, which, I suppose, can be found either at Astoria or at
the Department of the Treasury; but I think that she m-cnU
trips from time to time outside the river.

Jnt. 379.— For what place did she sail at either of those
times you have mentioned?

An^. — In the first place, I have never stated positively that
she was in or out of the river, but simply that my recollection
is, that she from time to time made trips outside or to other
places. Without reference to the records kept at the time, it
Would be almost impossible for me to name any vessel of the
number that traded there that came from or went to any par*
ticular place.

Int. S80» — What was the tonnage of the Prince of Wales, as
near as you can give It, and how was she rigged?

Ans. — She was a small vessel, her tonnage I do not remem-
ber. I should say, at a guess> probably 125 or 150 tons. As
to her rig, it was indescribable.

Int. 381.— AVas Captain Hill an inspector of customs at the
time of the seizure you have spoken of?

Ans. — Captain Hill was an officer of the United States Army
in command of the post at Steilacoom, on Puget's Sound, and
as such w^as called upon by the Collector oT the District of
Oregon to enforce the laws of the United States*

Int. 382. — Is not all you know about the seizure of theves*
sel, and Captain Hill's connection with it, from mere report.

Ans. — I think it is from memory, and having been within
my official knowledge at the time.

Int. 683.— Did Captain Hill make a written report ; and, if
he did, did you see it ?

^n».~-That is more than I can state positively at this time>

thcr of those

ustoms at the

479

Int. 384. — Can you not remember that the seizure of the
vessel by Captain Hill was made by him upon a charge that a
deserter or deserters were harbored on board ?

Ans. — I have no such recollection whatever. On the con-
trary, according to my recollection, the vessel was seized for
smuggling goods into American waters.

Int. 385. — Can you tell whether Captain Hill reported the
seizure to the custom-house first, or whether the orders went
from the custom-house to Captain Hill to seize the vessel?

Ans. — No, I cannot; but I think the request went from the
custom-house to him.

Int. 386. — Who carried the request from the custom-house
to him, and what officer of the custom-house went over at the
time to take charge of the vessel ?

Ans. — I do not remember who carried the request to Captain
Hill. I think, however, that Captain Hill was requested by
General Adair to stop the vessel in consequence of informa-
tion received at Astoria that goods were .brought to Nisqually
for trade there which had not paid duties at Astoria, which
was then the only collection district in Oregon. The custom-
house could have had nothing to do with arresting a vessel for
harboring deserters. I don't remember that any officer of the
custom-house went over on that occasion, but I think that
General Adair had commissioned a gentleman who was on the
Sound to act as a temporary inspector.

Int. 387. — Who was that gentleman ?

Ans. — A Mr. Dorr was commissioned on one occasion, but
whether he was there at the time of this seizure I cannot say
now.

Int. 388. — Was Dorr ever at Astoria while you were con-
nected with the custom-house?

Ans, — He was.

Int. 389. — What time did he arrive there from San Fran-
cisco?

Ans. — Some time in 1850, according to my recollection. He
arrived in the tame vessel with the United States District At-
torney, Mr. Holbrook.

Int. 390. — Was he not sent over to Puget's Sound at the
31 H

480

time of the seizure of a vessel called the Albion not bclonffinff
to the Hudson's Bay Company ?

Ans. — He was.

Int. 391. — Did that seizure take place during the time of
your connection with the custom-house ?

Ans. — It did.

Int. 392. — What month of the year did this seizure take
place, and what year ?

Ans. — It took place in 1850, and I think in the spring or
summer of that year.

Int. 393. — How long did Dorr remain on the Sound ?

Ans. — That is more than I now remember.

Int. 394. — When did the annual ship arrive at Vancouver
in the year 1850 ?

Ans. — That is more than I can tell, without reference to
papers to which at present I have not access. I thjnk it was
in the summer.

Int. 395. — Were the goods that were sent round to Victoria
from Vancouver by the annual ship invoiced?

Ans. — I presume they were.

Int. 396. — Have you not stated that the annual ship took
round the goods from England that were not landed at Van-
couver ?

Ans. — My recollection is, that the annual ship brought out
goods consigned to the Hudson's Bay Company, upon portion
of which only duties were paid, the remainder being taken to
Victoria, within the British dominions.

Jnt. 397. — Do you mean to say that any portion of the
goods invoiced in England as shipped to the district of Asto-
ria, are allowed to proceed to Victoria without having duties
collected on them within the district to which they were in-
voiced as being shipped?

Ans. — Owing to the condition of the country at the time, a
very large latitude was allowed to all vessels from foreign
ports arriving there — the technicalities of the custom-house
not being enforced as rigidly as they would have been in At-
lantic ports. I will not pretend to state from memory only, and
at this distance of time, that the goods taken to Victoria were

481

the time of

lI to Victoria

Victoria were

originally invoiced to Vancouver, but that such was my im-
pression.

Int. 398. — Can you tell whether the vessel you think was
seized on the Sound was the Prince of Wales, the Cadboro, or
the Mary Dare ?

Ans. — I really don't know.

Int. 399.— -From 1849, when you first went into the country,
onward, did you ever see a single package of furs brought
irom Colvile and the other upper posts to Vancouver for ex-
portation ? If so, state what year it was in, what month in
the year, and the person in charge of the furs.

Ans. — Yes. Gov. Ogden once took me up into the packing-
room at Fort Vancouver and showed me the collection of furs,
so far as they were exposed. I think this must have been in the
summer of the year 1850, because I recollect that it was to
me at the time a curiosity. That is the only time I recollect
seeing the furs at Vancouver. I have seen the furs of the
Company elsewhere, at othjr times.

Int. 400.-— Was not this Interrogatory 23 in the form it now
is, "What trade was carried on at Vancouver, and with
whom," and the answer written out by yourself?

Ans. — It was dictated by me.

Ans. — Our horses were supplied in July, 1853.

Int. 402. — Was not this Interrogatory 24, " What do you
know of cattle and horses at Fort Vancouver and their alleged
destruction by settlers," dictated and propounded by you?

Ans. — I informed the counsel for the United States in this
case, at his request, witl; regard to the various matters I was
able to testify, and to save trouble wrote out several interrog-
atories relating more particularly to general matters, being
the concluding interrogatories of my direct examination, of
which I think this was one.

Int. 403. —Is not this question another, " What was the value
ai Fort Vancouver as a town site?"

Ans. — I think it was.

Int. 404. — Cannot the residents on the Columbia river save

482

in distance by goingf to Vancouver, instead of passing up the
Willamette river to Portland ?

Ans. — The distance from the mouth of the Willamette to
Vancouver, and thence to Portlaritr by land, is about the same
as the distance from the mouth of the Willamette to Portland
by the latter ^iver.

Cro88-Examination resumed July 2, 1867.

Int. 405. — How far from the edge of the woods behind the
fort, in any direction, had "the forest behind been deadened
by the fires which struck through it?" "

Ans. — But a short distance. Entering the forest, on our
.way out from Fo?t Vancouver, my attention was called to the
fact that it had been deadened by fire, and I inquired of Mr,
Lewes, the interpreter furnished us by Gov. Ogden, himself a
gentleman who then was, or had been, in the service of the
Hudson's Bay Company, over how great a district of country
this fire had passed. He told me that there had been two fires
which had run through it, one of which, if I remember right,
had extended from the Cascade mountains nearly to the coast,
and had endangered the fort itself.

(The latter part of the answer objected to, as not responsive
to the question, and the statements of Mr. Lewes as hearsay
and incompetent.)

Int. 40G. — Back of what portion of the Fort Plain was this
'deadening of the forest on its edge; how large a space did it
occupy on the edge ; and at what period of time did you first
notice it?

Ans. — The only answer I can give to that is, that I first
noticed it during the McClellan expedition, and that we passed
through a very extensive tract of deadened forest, travelling
nortwestward from Fort Vancouver, and subsequently, in 1855,
I found Mr. Lewes's statement corroborated by the condition
of the forest between Fort Vancouver and northward towards
the Cowlitz river.

Int4 407. — -Is not the edge of this forest directly behind the

483

■military post at Vancouver, where you generally stopped
during your visits to Vancouver?

Ans. — Yes ; it is within two or three hundred yards.

Jnt. 408. — Is not the road which you speak of that which
you travelled on during the McClellan expedition, the one
leading from the fort to the mountains ?

Ana — The one whicii I first spoke of, is.

Int. 409. — How far to the east side of the road could you
•see the forest was deadened ?

Ans. — No further than one could see through dead timber.

Jnt. 410. — Did not the military road, in the survey of which,
in 1855, you noticed* timber along the Columbia, from Van-
couver to Cowlitz, run along the edge of the highlands, directly
tack of the alluvial lands of the Columbia river bottom?

Ans. — There was no military road whatever. The survey
Tfas made for the purpose of locating a military road, and the
first line travelled was entirely through the alluvial lands of
the Columbia river. In consequence of the obstacles which
•existed, I recommended the establishment of the road upon
the timbered table land.

Int. 411. — Did not the proposed route of this military road,
■AS shown on the map to have been surveyed by Lieut. Derby,
-assisted by George Gibbs, C. E., run in the manner directed
in the |)revious interrogatory^

Ans. — The line as proposed ran along the highlands, and
<within a short distance of the alluvial lands, but back of the
same.

Int. 412. — Did not Mr. Lewes make his statement to you in
this form, that the timber had been deadened hy fires on a
portion of the hills back from the Columbia river, and going
'down the river towards the Cathlapootl?

Ans. — The statement made by Mr. Lewes to me, which I
wrote down at the time, was as follows, and I am now reading
from ray note-book : " Lewes says that there have been two
rgreat fires in these forests ; one, in 1844, commenced on the
'Columbia river, at the Cascades, and swept down, taking in a
tract as far down as the Fourth Plain — Fort Vancouver itself
3)eing saved with great difficulty ; thcncxj down to the Cowlitz,

484

and, turning up that river, crossed it, and ran to Shoalwatcr
bay. The other took somewhere on Wiltkwu, (the south fork
o£ the Cathlapootl,) from a fire left by an old Indian doctor,
and, crossing, it went down to Vancouver again in one direc-
tion, down the Cathlapootl in another, and again to the Cow-
litz."

Int. 413. — Standing on the Fort Plain, and looking at the
forest which runs along back of it, is there a single spot visible
in that line of trees which appears to have been deadened by
fire?

Ans. — I can better answer that questfon by reference to
the same note-book than I could from memory, as I really
do not at this moment recollect whether the trees on the edge-
of the forest were deadened or not. I find on the date of
July 15, 1853, the fallowing in regard to the timber : "Timber
near the fort^ like that between Switzler'^s and the Willamette,
small, indicating a recent or secondary growth ; character,,
however, the same as elsewhere. The succession of timber,,
hard-wood following pine, not appearing to hold good in this
country."

Int. 414. — Where did you fi^rst notice timber deadened by
fire on the road followed by the McOlellan expedition from>
Vancouver to the mountains ?.

Arts. — That I can't say. I presume ft waa between the-
First and Fourth Plain behind Vancouver, as it was on thfr
day — the 21st of July — that we moved camp, a very short
distance that I find the statement made by Mr. Lewes re-
corded.

Int. 415. — Is your recollection of there being deadened
timber on the road at all derived from the fact that you find
an entry in your note-book of statements made by Lewes?

Ana. — By no means ; but I referred to Mr. Lewes's state-^
ment,. which I then entered in my note-book, as the most
xeliable, direct, and circumstantial evidence which I could'
give. The fact of there being deadened timber over an ex-^
tensive tract upon that route I perfectly remember.

Int. 416. — How far did you travel on that particular day,,
giving the distance in miles and parts of miles?.

485

Ans. — The diatanco between the First and Fourth Plains I
do not recollect ; I suppose they are not more than four or
five miles apart. According to my note-book, wo had been
encamped two days at the First Plain, and on the 21st moved
to the Fourth Plain, where we waited for the arrival of the
train.

JdL 417. — How far is the First Plain from the Fourth
Plain ?

Ans. — I really don't remember. These so-called plains are
merely holes in the woods, and of no considerable extent.

Int. 418. — Did you see any deadened timber between the
First and Second Plain that day?

Ans. — I won't pretend to say. Upon the subject of this
timber I have given the most precise and definite information
that I am able to give. The notes from which I have given it
were carefully prepared, as were all the notes I kept upon the
different expeditions in which I was employed, with a view to
my own instruction as well as to the information I was to
communicate to the Government, having no idea at the time
that the question of definite limits would ever arise. As to
the boundaries of this burnt district, I neither described it
in my notes, or retained it in my recollection.

Int. 419. — Did you see any forest deadened by fire between
the Second and Third Plains?

Ans. — I regret exceedingly that upon that point I cannot
give you more satisfactory information. The amount of timber
deadened by fire in the State of Oregon and the Territory of
Washington is very great, and crossing the Cascade range from
the Dalles of the Columbia to Oregon City, in the fall of 1849,
the forest was on fire for many miles, and although the autum-
nal rains had commenced, our wagon train was in some places
in danger of being lost. Still later in the same season, in
crossing the Coast range of mountains from the upper Willam-
ette to Yakoona bay, I crossed another tract recently burnt)
some fifteen miles square. You will therefore readily imagine
that the extent of a fire a hundred or two yards, more or less,
in any particular direction in that country is a matter which
one would not particularly note.

486

Int. 420. — Did you sco any forest deadened by fire between
the Third and Fourth Plains ?

An8. — Really I can't say; I will not pretend to locate the
boundaries of the burnt district.

Int. 421. — What do you mean by small trees, when you
speak of the trees in the forest near Fort Vancouver, and be-
tween Switzler's and the Willamette, as being small? Give
the dimensions of an average fir tree on the road between
Switzler's and the Willamette and near Fort Vancouver.

An». — Size, in regard to trees as in regard to men, is com-
parative. Timber which w^ould bo considered small on the
Pacific coast might be very large timber here, and I made
no such comparison. My reference to the size of the timber
was solely as a comparison with what might be called the
primeval or original forest. I certainly will not pretend to
average the size of the trees, through there. The diameter
of trees in unbroken forests in Oregon will often run from 5
to 10 feet, and their height from 200 to 250, n'ul I am very
certain that no trees in the district to which I avo referred
approach those dimensions.

Int. 422. — Is not the smaller timber of the secondary growth
better suited for the making of lumber than the large trees,
whose dimensions you have just given?

Ans. — Undoubtedly trees may be too large, as are those of
5 and 10 feet in diameter, for the ordinary purposes of sawed
lumber. But, on the other hand, trees of a secondary growth
are not necessarily of a better quality of wood than the first.

Int. 423. — What do you mean when you say most of the
timber came from the public lands in the immediate vicinity,
in speaking of the timber of which the Hudson's Bay and
military posts were built?

An». — I mean that the land was the land of the United
States, and not of the Hudson's Bay Company.

Int. 424.-^Do you wish to be understood as charging that
the Hudson's Bay Company were trespassers, and cut timber
upon land to which they had no right?

An». — I so understand it. I look upon them in the light of
any other squatters upon public land in the United States,

487

with this distinction, that having had, before the question of
boundary was settled, a license from the British Govcnmiont
to trade with the Indians, they may bo considered as having
the right to remain there until the expiration of that license,
but no longer.

Int. 425. — Could you not have said, with equal truth, in
reply to interrogatory 2G, that most of the timber came from
the lands in the immediate vicinity, without making use of the
term public lands, and thus saved yourself from making, infer-
entially, charge of trespass?

An%. — Well, I don't know that it would have made any dif-
ference any way.

Int. 426. — Was not this interrogatory 26 dictated and pro-
pounded by yourself in this form: "Where did the timber
come from of which the Hudson's Bay and military posts at
Vancouver were built, and what Avas tliequality of the timber?''

Ans. — The form of the question was drawn up by myself.
The suggestic, as to title came from one of the counsel for the
Government.

Cro8»-Examination Resumed, July 5, 1867.

Int. 427. — There being no reference to title in interrogatory
26, which interrogatory is set out in cross-interrogatory 426,
please to explain what you mean in your last answer when
you say "the suggestion as to title came from one of the
counsel for the Government."

Ans. — That the timber with which Fort Vancouver was
built came from the public land of the United States, and that
one of the counsel had previously suggested the inquiry which
I put into the form I did.

Int. 428. — What do you mean by the language, "the sug-
gestion as to title came from one of the counsel for the Gov-
ernment?"

An». — I mean simply that the wo: ding of that interrogatory
was my own, but that, as I understood, it called for the
information the counsel desired.

488

Int. 429. — Do you mean to say that the counsel of the Gov-
ernment desired intormation from vou as to title?

Ans. — My expression in the first place was a loose one.
The counsel for the United States had requested me to give
such general information as I could with regard to all matters
relating to the Hudson's Bay claims not embraced in the direct
interrogatories already propounded, and in doing so I spoke of
the ownership of the lands being in the United States. Of
course tlio legal point of the title of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany was not submitted to me for an opinion, nor did I intend
to convey the idea it had. I meant, however, to give my own
views in relation to the matter.

Int. 430. — Do you wish now to be understood as saying that
no : uggcstion of title was made to you by the counsel of the
United States in reference to the 26th interrogatory or the
answer thereto ?

Avs. — I wish so far to qualify that reply as to state that no
legal opinion was desired of me.

Int. 431.— Do you mean to say, then, now that while no legal
opinion was required of you by the counsel of the United
States, that a suggestion of title was made by counsel of i\\Q
United States, in reference to the 2Gth interrogatory, or the
answer thereto.

An». — I mean to say this, that the fact that this timber was
cut from the land of the United States was spoken of, in con-
versation between counsel and myself, as an item in the cost
of the construction of those buildings. On reflection, I do
not desire to state that any intention existed to draw from me
the reply in the form in which I made it, but that the fact was
predominant in my mind at the time of that question of title.

Int. 432. — In that conversation, did vou mention that item
in the cost of construction, or did the counsel speak of it to
you?

Ans. — I do not remember who first alluded to it.

Int. 433. — Do you wish to be understood as saying that you
framed this question and made the answer thereto with a view
to meet "an item in the cost of construction," which item was
talked of by you and the counsel?

489

1 of the Gov-

a loose one.
!(! me to give
to all matters
1 in the direct

so I spoke of
I States. Of
I's Bay Com-
r did I intend

give my o^vn

IS saying that
ounsel of the
gatory or the

) state that no

while no legal
of the United
counsel of the
gatory, or the

us timber was
ken of, in con-
em in the cost
ellection, I do
ilraw from me
at the fact was
cstion of title,
ition that item
speak of it to

a it.

ying that you
eto with a view
which item was

Ana. — Looking at the claim for cost of construction of those-
buildings as an excessive one, the timber being obtained from
publ'c lands, that idea undoubtedly suggested to me the fornt
of reply which I made.

Int. 434. — Had you not that idea when you framed the-
question, and did you not then intend the form of reply which
you made ?

Ans. — I presume I had.

Int. 435. — Were you acquainted with J. F. Minter, civil en-
gineer, and J. K. Dunean, an officer in the army of tlie United
States; if so, what positions did they fill in 1853, and what
credit is to be attached to any reports made by them of matters
which they officially reported on ?

Ana. — I was acquainted with both of them. Lieut. Duncan
had charge of the topography of the survey ; Mr. Minter made-
the field notes of the route. As to the credit to be attavdicd!
to their reports, all confidence, of course, is duo to them in
matters under their actual observation, and within the sphere
of their respective professions.

Int. 436. — Do you know where Simsik is, and how far fron*
Vancouver ?

Ans. — Simsik, according to my recollection, is one of the
small prairies back of Fort Vancouver ; the distance I don't,
remember.

Int. 437. — Is the Fourth Plain known also as Kolsas ; and,
if 80, how fiiiT is Simsik from Ko'.sas, and in what direction?

Ana. — My g^^neral recollection of the route through these
small plains is that it was northeast. Not having recently ex-
amined the map «>r report upon theso points, however, I can
only say that I believe that Kolsas was the name of one-
of these plains; which, I do not now remember, nor can I give-
the distance, from memory, from one to the other.

Int. 438. — Have you not somewhere stated in this examin-
ation that your second camp was called Kolsas, on the Fourth
Plain, and had the same made a part of one of your answers,,
and afterwards caused the same to be scratched out?

Ana. — On looking at the original minute of answer to In-
terrugatory 414, it appears that these words arc scratchedt

490

out, *' Moved camp to Fourth Plain, called by the Indians?
Kolsas," and, looking at the note-book from which I then read,
I find that it was the second camp.

Int. 439. — Is your recollection of the country back of Van-
couver«sufficie.'itly accurate to enable you to speak as to the
accuracy of the report of the officer of the McClellan expedi-
tion whose special duty it Avas to report on the topography of
the country?

An%. — My recollection of details relating to the country back
of Vancouver is at this period of time not perfect, and, for that
reason, I have referred, in describing it, to my note-book. I
should, however, have more confidence in my own opinion,
then formed and recorded, than in that of another person,
particularly when I do not remember what his opinion was.

Int. 440. — Do you mean to say that in the descriptions you
have given in your testimony you have relied on your note-
book made at the time, and not on your present recollection?

Ans. — I mean to sav this, that in matters of detail I have
preferred my note-book to my memory.

Int. 441- — Is this description taken from the topographical
report of Lieutenant J. K. Duncan correct in its main features,
when speaking of the road leading from Vancouver to the
mountains, and speaking of the country, too, he says: "Two
■miles from Vancouver the trail crosses a brook twenty feet
wide. From this stream the country along the trail breaks
into small openings or plains having no timber on them. They
*'ary from a half to several miles in extent, are very level, and
are separated from each other by narrow strips of woods.
Kolsas, the largest of these plains, about seven miles from
Vancouver, is six or seven miles long and three or four in
breadth. From Kolsas tUe trail bears to the northeast for
six mile-!, to a plain called Simsik, about a mile and a half long..
The country between Vancouver and Simsik is similar in char-
acter, heavily timbered with firs, spruce, and dense undergrowth
of maple and hazel bushes?"

Ans. — I should think that the description generally is cor-
Tcct, though in several points I will not vouch for itai absolute
accuracy-

491

Int. 442. — Is tills statement, talccn from tlio itinerary of
Captain McClellan's route by J. S. Mintcr, correct: "From
Fort Vancouver to Camp Waliwaikec Avagon road through firs,
with dense underbrush, road good; crossed a running creek
one three-quarter miles?"

Avs. — I presume it is, though I do not recollect the condi-
tion of the road.

Int. 443. — Are there not other buildings on the cast side of
the stockade not shown by the photographs referred to in your
answer to Interrogatory 27, and which you say represents the
Governor's house, &c. ?

Ans. — I do not recall any on the east side, though there
may have been others.

Int. 444. — How far from the back of the long building, which
you say was on the east side, is it to the stockade?

Ans. — I never measured the distance.

Int. 445. — What building is it which appears in this photo-
graph to be in the rear of the picture and back of the Gov-
ernor's house and the long building?

Ans. — ] don't know it.

Int. 440. — Does this photograph do anytliing more than
represent three buildings and part of another, in the north-
east angle of the enclosure, without showing the stockade, or
whatever might be concealed from view behind these build-
ings ?

Ans. — No, it does not.

Int. 447. — Was there not a building of some kind between
the sales-shop and the bastion, not represented in this picture,
which ^ou say represents the northwest corner?

Ans. — I do not remember any.

Int. 448. — Can you tell how far back of the buildings rep-
resented in the photograph was the stockade ?

Ans. — No.

Int. 449. — Did you dictate and propound to yourself Inter-
rogatory 27, in reference to these photographs ?

Ans. — I did.

Int. 450. — Did you ever see any fruit on the apple trees in

492

tlic field back of the fort, or ever eat any of the apples taken
from the trees?

An%. — I think I have seen fruit there. I have no recollec-
tion of eating any of it.

Int. 451. — Did yo^u ever see any of the fruit when ripe, or
nearly so ?

Ans. — Not that I now recollect*

Int. 452. — What fishing stations on the Columbia river, be*
sides those mentioned in your answer to Interrogatory 29, did
you ever notice west of the Cascades?

Ans. — I think when I first went there there was one station
where Rainier now is.

Int. 45-3. — rState whether in 1849 you yourself saw signs of
beaver ?

Ana. — I do not remember that in 1849 I saw beaver signs.

Int. 454. — State when you first saw beaver signs, and where
it was ?

Ans. — The first occasions on which I can at this moment
recall seeing beaver signs were on the Cowlitz and the Chihalis
rivers, and I think in 1854.

Int. 455. — Do you remember seeing beaver signs again after
that time until you joined the Boundary Survey ?

Ans. — Yes \ on the same streams and others.

Int. 456. — State when, on what river, and in whose company
you next saw beaver signs after 1854.

Ans. — I remember distinctly to have seen beaver signs in
abundance more than on one occasion, both on those streams
and the waters running into Puget's Sound, but in whose com-
pany I do not know.

Int. 457. — State the time and the name of the stream
running into Puget'ftj Sound on which you saw beaver sign.

Ans. — I have seen beaver signs on the stream running into
Puget's Sound in the neighborhood of Fort Townshend. I
think that was in 1856.

Int. 458. — What authority have you for the statement that
at Chinook but a few sea otters were taken in answer to In*
terrogatory 30, 'as to the general state of the fur trade?

Ans. — My authority wa« Duchesnay, who kept the store

493

hose company

tliero- The fact was also notorious to every one living in tho
neighborhoocl.

(The statement of Duchcsnay and the matter of notoriety
objected to.)

Int. 459. — Was not Duchcsnay's statement simply that in
one season he had obtained ten sea otter skins?

Ans. — He stated the obtaining of ten sea otter skins as a
matter of congratulation.

Int. 4G0. — Did he say anything to you in reference to other
furs ?
Ans. — Nothing that I recollect.

Tnt. 4G1. — Are not sea otter skins by far the most valuable
furs known to the fur trade on the northwest coast, and, even
at the time Duchcsnay made this statement to you, difficult to
obtain ?
Ans. — Yes.

Int. 462. — Who was present when Governor Ogden told
you that American Oregon never was a fur-bearing country ?
Ans. — I don't know.

Int. 46.3. — When d'ld this conversation take place ?
Ans. — It must have been within a year after my arrival in
the country.

Int. 464. — Is this statement with referencj to Governor
Ogden made from memory or taken from your note-book ?
Ans. — Both. It impressed me very strongly at the time.
Int. 465. — Can you not now, by referring to your note-
book, give the date of this conversation ?

Ans. — No ; but it is embraced in a paper which I prepared
long previous to the published report.

Int. 466. — For what purpose was that paper prepared, lo
whom directed, and where is it now?

Ans. — The paper was one of several which I prepared on
the condition of Oregon, for whom I do not remember now ;
but the rough draft is, I believe, among my papers.

Cross-Examination Ilesumed, July 6, 1867.

Int. 467. — Did you have your note-book or the paper men-
tioned above before you at the time you gave this statement
of Governor Ogden's to be taken down ?

494

Ans. — Perhaps not at tlic moment.

Int. 4G8. — Which one did you examine before you made the
Statement, and how long before you made the statement did
you examine the paper or book ?

Alts. — I remember seeing tiie article to which I have re-
ferred recently, but how many days before making the state-
ment I don't remember.

Int. 405). — Repeat now from memory the statement you h, e
just referred to as made by Governor Ogden and preserved by
you.

Ans. — The statement was substantially this : that American
Oregon never was a fur country, except in regard to beaver;
that, in consequence of the fall in the price of beaver, they
had, in eifect, ceased to be hunted, and had become as numer-
ous as thev were at the first flush of the trade.

Int. 470. — How long after your first answer to Interroga-
tory 30 did you cause the following interlination to be maJe
in that answer: "Not paying for tranc^ :rtation to London,
they were not hunted much?"

Ans. — I have caused no interlineation whatever to be made
in that testimony, excepting while the same was being taken,
and before the conclusion of any day's examination, unless it
might be in the presence of counsel and in reference to mat-
ters of verbal correction.

Int. 471. — Was this interlineation, just mentioned, made at
the time you first answered Interrogatory 30, or at some other
time, in the presence of counsel?

Arts. — It was part of my original answer to the question.
Int. 472. — Did you recollect, then, at the time when the
answer was made, that Mr. Ogden gave as a reason for their
hunting beaver their not paying for transportation to London?

Ans. — I gave as a reason for the fur trade not paying that
beaver were not worth more, laid down in London, than their
actual cost.

Int. 473. — The reason given, then, for not hunting the beaver
is yours, and not Gov. Ogden's?

Ana. — The reason for the falling-off in the value of the fur

49o

T the state-

it American
I to beaver ;
)eaver, tlicy
e as nunier-

trudo, in consciincncc of the fall in the price of heaver, was
Tiov. ()!j;(lcii's, and not mine.

Int. 474. — Dill Gov. Of^ilen make use of this language to
you, in speaking of heaver, "That they did not then pay to
to transport to London, and that, not paying for transportation
to London, thev were not hunted much?

l/hs\

■lie certainly stated to tliat effect.

Ill

Int. 47"). — State what he did say with reference to heaver,
connection with London.

Anfi. — That I have already stated.

Int. 47il. — Whv did vou not recollect about ten minutes
since, when asked to repeat from memory tlie statements of
Gov. Ogden, that he said anything about beaver not paying
transportation to London, and that being the cause why they
were not hunted ?

-Because I was thinking more of the fact than the

HS.

words

Int. 477. — Can you give the exact language made use of by
Gov. Ogdeu in reference to the fur trade?

Ann. — No; I have never pretended to.

Int. 47S. — Did he ever make use, in speaking to you, of the
term American Orejion in this connection, " American Ororron
never was a fur country?"

An<. — lie distinguished between the portion of Oregon be-
longing to the United States, from the country north of it.

Int. 471). — Is not the language "American Oregon never
was a fur country" your own, and taken from a report on In-
ilian tribes, before referred to, made by you, with the excep-

tion that the words "strictly speaking" are left out

ns.

presume the expression occurs

that

report.

Int. 480. — Ls not all the language given by you as that of
Gov, Ogden, in answer to Interrogatory oO, your own?

Ans. — It is as near his as I can remember.

Int. 481. — Was not this Interrogatory 30, as to the general
state of the fur trade, one of your own interrogatories ?

Ans. — I believe it was.

Int. 48'2. — Is this Interrogatory 31 yours also : " Do you

49i

know the amount of fur;} actually collected in Oregon in any
one year?"

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 483. — What Indian trail did the Company follow, in
making a road from Fort Vancouver to their saw-mills, near
Mill Plain?

Ans. — I have not specified that as one which they did follow.

Int. 484. — Have you, in your answer to Interrogatory 32,
specified any Indian trail which the Company followed in
making a road ?

Ans. — I do not remember now how specific I was in replying
to that question. I can specify trails, if desired.

Int. 485. — Can you specify any Indian trail which you
yourself saw, and knew to be an Indian trail, while you were
in Oregon, that you, after thus seeing it, saw or knew to be
changed into a road or followed as a road by the Hudson's
Bay Company ?

Ans. — I have seen Michel Ogden, in 1860, with a Com-
pany's train, on the trail from the Flat-Head Fort to Fort
Colvile. I have seen Linklater, in the same year, on the
trail to Fort Kootenay. I have seen, in 1849, Mr. McArtlmr
on the trai' to Fort Hall. I have seen other parties on otiicr
routes or trails, at different times.

Int. 486. — How do you know that these trails between the
Company's posts were not originally trails of the Company,
and laid out by them, though common afterwards to Indians
and whites?

Ans. — Both by common repute, and because the Indians had
no other travelled trails between such points.

Int. 487. — Is not common repute and hearsay the authority
for this statement: "They have also cut out so much of the
trail from Cowlitz Landing to Nisqually as ran through the
woods?"

Ans. — Dr. Tolmie is my authority for the statement that
the Company had cut out the trail there.

Int. 488. — What was the width of this road as cut through
the timber in the bottom of the Chihalis river?

Ans. — It varied in width in that part known as Saunders'

497

on in any

Bottom, two or three tracks sometimes straggling parallel to
each other through the timber. How much the Company cut
out, I don't know.

Int. 489. — To what width was the timber cut for the passage
of the trail in what you call Saunders' Bottom at the time you
first saw it, and state when you did first see it?

Am. — I first saw that in December, 1853. It was with dif-
ficulty that two wagons could pass. How far, at that time,
the timber was cut, I don't remember.

Int. 490. — Do you know anything about the condition, from
your own observation, of the road, 60 or 70 miles in leiigth,
from Cowlitz's Landing to Fort Nisqually, before 1853?

^M«.— Having subsequently surveyed the route of the road,
with a view to its improvement, I know, from personal obser-
vation, that in places it must have been a bad one.

Int. 491. — Did not all the travel from Columbia river to
the Sound pass over at least 40 miles of this route during the
time you personally knew it, and until the new military road
was opened on the other side of the Chihalis river ?

Ans. — It did, but it did not amount to much.

Int. 492. — Was there not, to your knowledge, in the sum-
mer season, a four-horse coach running from Olympia, on the
Sound, over a portion of the old route to Monticello, on the
Cowlitz river, below a place called Cowlitz Landing?

Ans. — I never saw it.

Int. 493. — Did not Dr. Tolmie, in some of the conversations,
speaking of the Cowlitz road, tell you that the coach was run-
ning over that road, or a portion of it?

Ans. — No.

Int. 494. — On this road, from Cowlitz Landing to Fort Nis-
qually, were there not numerous bridges built over low
grounds, swamps, and some of the very small streams occur-
ring on the road?

Ans. — There was some very rough corduroying, and a few
small bridges.

Int. 495. — Did the employes of the Boundary Survey build
any bridges, or corduroy, on any portion of the trail they cut?

Ans. — They did.

498

Int. 49 J. — Did tlio Boundary Commission travel with any-
thing hut pack animals?

Ann. — Thoy did, from Colvilc to Walla-Walla, and froiii
Colvilo to Sinyakwateon.

Int. 498. — Did the Boundary Survey use anything hut pack
animals in travelling over the clear tract of 8 foct wide, cut
out by its employes?

Ajih. — No, of course not.

Int. 499. — Were the bridges you speak of constructed by
the Boundary Survey anything better or different than tlie
common corduroy?

Ans. — Some of thorn were very well constructed, of split
puncheons, spiked down.

Int. 500. — Were there any barges or steamers on the Colum-
bia river, above White Bluffs, which could be hired for trans-
portation during the time of the McClellan expedition or the
Boundary Survey^

Ans. — There were no steamers. Bateaux could have been
hired at Colvile, if required.

Int. 501. — What authority have you for the statement that
for several years before 1860, the transportation of supplies to
Colvile was from Victoria?

Ans. — Partly from officers of the Hudson's Bay Company.
and in part from citizens and what I knew myself.

Int. 502. — State when your personal observation of this
transportation between Colvile aad Victoria first took jdacc.
giving the exact date.

Ans. — My personal observation was of a negative character,
in ceasing to see their bateaux and boatmen. The exact
dates I cannot pretend to give.

Int. 503. — Do you know anything of their bateaux, AvitL
boatmen, passing up and down the Columbia river, except
from hearsay ?

Ans. — I have seen bateaux and boatmen at Fort Vancouver
in early times. I also saw them in 1853 at Colvile. Subse-
quently I do not recollect to have seen any, though I may
have seen them at Vancouver.

499

Int. 504. — At what date did you first visit Colvilo after
1853 ?

Ann. — Not until IS'jO.

Int. .OOr). — Were there not bateaux at Colvilc at tliat time?

Ans. — I recollect seeing two, uhich had been built some
time and never been used.

Int. 50G. — Could not the Commission have hired them ?

Ans. — I presume they could.

Int. 507. — Would these bateaux hold enough to have been
of use in bringing freight from White Bluffs to Colvilo for the
Boundary Survey party ?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 508.— Who did they belong to ?

Ann. — I understood to one of the discharged men of the
Company.

Gross-Examination Resumed, July 8, 18G7.

Int. 500. — Do you know anything of your own personal
observation of the condition and prospects of the mining region
on the w^estern slope of the Rocky Mountains since 1800?

Ans. — No ; I have not been there since.

Int. 510. — Do you know anything from your own personal
observation, since 1860, of mines on the Columbia river and
its tributaries north of 49° ?

Ans. — Nothing from personal observation.

Int. 511. — What portion of the year did you spend at the
boundary survey camp, United States post, near Colville ?

Ans. — I spent the winter, from some time in November,
1859, until March, 1860, and subsequently was there again for
a short time in the fall of 1860.

Int. 512. — During these times you have last mentioned, did
any pack-train arrive from Oregon at the post or the village
near the post ?

Ans. — I think the last Government train from Walla- Walla
was already in when I stopped at the post in 1859, but that a
sutler's train, and perhaps goods for store-keepers at the vil-

600

lage of Pinkneyville, arrived afterwards; as to 1800, I know
nothing.

Int. 613. — Did you see that train with goods for the sutler?

Ana. — I can't say that I did, but I believe that the sutler
brought up goods after my arrival there.

Int. 514. — Were you well acquainted with the late Dr.
McLoughlin ?

Ans. — I was.

Int. 515. — Where did he reside ?

Ans. — At Oregon City.

Int. 510. — Did you visit Oregon City as frequently a? , ou
did Fort Vancouver ?

Ans. — I think not.

Int. 517. — Did Dr. McLoughlin tell you that he had helped
and assisted the early emigrants in their settlement of Oregon?

Ans. — He did.

Int. 518. — Did he tell you that he was at that time an officer
of the Hudson's Bay Company and the head of the establish-
ment at Vancouver ?

Ans. — At the time of which he spoke, he was an officer of
the Hudson's Bay Company and in charge of Fort Vancouver;
that he said so in terms, I cannot say. It was as well kno^vn
as the fact of one having been President ofthe United States
at a particular period.

Int. 519. — Name the officer of the Hudson's Bay Company
who told you that the policy of the Company as fur traders
was decidedly hostile to settlement of Oregon by the early
emigrants. State, also, the time when and the place where it
occurred, and giving also the rank of the officer in the Corn-
pan}^ at the time ?

Ans. — Incidentally it was apparent in conversation with the
officers generally; directly, the only officers whose names I
could give are Dr. McLoughlin and Governor Ogden. This
information was received in the course of conversations that
took place during various visits that I made to them at Oregon
City and Fort Vancouver, the precise dates of which I am
unable t<i give.

601

Int. 520. — At what time did Governor 0<»(lou speak to you
of tlic roloiiizatioTi of Vancouver's Lslaiid?

A)is. — I cannot give the date of conversations of which I
took no note.

Int. 521. — Have you not, in reporting these conversations
of Dr. McLoughlin and Governor Ugdcn, rather ;^iven your
impressions of what they said than the actual conversations,
rrtho substance of them?

An'^. — I think I have given the substance of them correctly.

Int. 522. — In your conversation with the officers of the
Company, did you learn the fact that there were no colonists
whatever on Vancouver's island at the time Mr. Douglas was
made Governor ?

Ans. — I cannot say that I did.

Ih(, 523. — Name the officer of the Company who told you
that he was disappointed at the settlement of the boundary,
giving time and place, and also the rank of the officer in the
Company at the time.

Ans, — I cannot name any one in particular. I do not think
any of them would deny it.

Int. 524. — Have you ever been on French Prairie, in the
valley of the Willamette?

Ans. — Yes ; I have passed through it.

Int. 525. — Did you ever converse with any of the settlers
on French Prairie while passing through there? if so, state
when was it, and give the name or names of the party or parties
with whom you had any conversation or conversations.

Ans. — I have no recollection whether I conversed or not
with parties resident on the French Prairie while in the act of
passing through it.

Lit. 526. — What discharged servant of the Company, know-
ing him to be such, did you ever see settled or residing on
French Prairie?

An8. — I have seen Canadians whose homos were on the
French Prairie, who, by common report, had been servants of
the Company.

Int. 527. — Is not all you know about the settlement on
French Prairie embodied in your last aiswer, namely, that

502

you have seen Canadians, reported to be servants of the Com-
pany, who had settled upon the French Prairie ?

Ans. — It is a matter of recollection, though I cannot spccifv
individuals, nor swear to the fact of their having been in tlie
service of the Company, that such was the common and undi-
vided acceptance of the fact.

Int. 518. — Is not the statement that the employes of t)io
Company were encouraged to take up land an inference ot"
your own, from the fact that Canadians, by common report.
former servants of the Company, had taken up land in Oregon ■:■

Ans. — I think not.

Int. 529. — By what authority, other than common report
or hearsay, did you make this statement?

Ans. — That sort of conviction that grows oat of familiar
acquaintance with all the surroundings, and the general tone
of conversation.

Int. 530. — M^ere not these settlements made before your
arrival in the country in 1849 ?

Ans. — They were for the most part.

Int. 531. — Were you ever on Muck Prairie, or the Canadian
Plain, so called, on the Nisqually Plains, before 1853 ?

Ana. — No.

Int. 532. — State when you were first on the Muck Prairie,
and how often you visited it thereafter, and, as near as you
can, the dates of these visits.

Ans. — In 1855. I don't remember how often I subsequently
visited them, but not often ; I can't state the dates.

Int. 533. — Can you state distinctly and plainly that you
have made more than one visit to Muck Plain ?

Ans. — I distinctly remember but one, though I think I have
been there more than once.

Int. 634. — At the house or claim of what settler on the
Muck Plain did you stop at the time of the visit wiiich you
distinctly recollect ?

Ans. — I cannot nt. »v be positive. I was surveying at the
time, and I think stopped at twr or three houses, probably
Wren's or Smith's among the number.

J03

the Corn-

ot specify

?en in the

and undi-

yes of t)ie
ferenco of
on veport,

11 Oregon '(

ion report

)f familiar
sneral tone

efore your

J Canadian
53?

ok Prairie,
ear as you

)scquently

y that you

link I have

tier on the
which you

ing at the
s, probably

Int. 3o'). — State when you first visited the Cani<,dian Plain,
and how many visits you made there.

Ans. — I certainly visited it on that occasion ; (fcn't remember
any other time.

Int. 5o(]. — Were you at the farm of any settlor on the
Canadian Plain ?

Ans. — Most probably ; but I cannot specify from memory.

Int. 5o7. — Is not all the statement made by you, in answer
to Interrogatory 88, in reference to the Cayusc war, made
from hearsay and common report?

Ans. — Of course it was. I was not in the country at the
time, though I was when some of the Indians were hung for
the offence ; was cognizant of the testimony given, and con-
versed tliereou with officers of the Company and with citizens.

Int. 538. — Did you hear the testimony of witnesses on the
trial of these Indians?

Ans. — I don't remember whether I was present or not.

Int. 530. — V/as it published and read by you afterwards?

Ans. — I think it was published in full ; and I either read it
or heard the substance at the time.

Int. 540. — Were not the Interrogatories 38, as to the Cayuse
war; 37, as to settlement by employes of the (.'oinpany; 30,
as to the policy of tho Company as regards settlement ; 35, as
to the effect of the discovery of gold on the Company's busi-
ness; 34, as to transportation of the Company from Colvile;
33, as to the way the Pacific Railroad and Boundary Commis-
sion supp'od themselves; 32, as to the roads; and 31, as to
the amount of furs collected — all questions dictatt;d, asked,
and ans">vi^i'ed bv vou ?

Ans. — Tliov were; most, if not all, of 'them.

Int. 541. — What reason had you for asking yourself tho
last question, "How the Cayuse war of 1847 was begun,"
'.viien you knew nothing of its origin personally, and could
only onswcr by hearsay?

A}is. — JMie object was to show that, with all the influence of
the Company itscli' upon those Indians, in their immediate
neighborhood, they had not been able to prevent this massacre,

504

and that it was not through the fault of citizens of the United
States that tliis war and interruption to their trade occurred.

Int. 543. — In carrying out your object of showing that the
influence of the Company over the Indians couhl not prevent
this massacre, was this the only instance of the kind that you
recollected ?

Ans. — I think the case of the Molele war in the Willamette
Valley shows also their want of influence, but I do not think
that aff'ected their trade.

Int. 544. — Do j'ou think it important to show that the Com-
pany had not much influence over the Indian tribes in Oregon?

Ans. — I think it important to show that the loss of their
trade did not originate through the fault of our people.

I7it. 545. — Was the question 38, and the answer thereto, the
best that you coald do in carrying out this import,' at '^^^"1?

Ans. — That I really cannot say.

Int. 546. — Don't you recollect, amongst other reporti-, that
you were told, and believed, that Dr. Whitman and his wife
were American nissionaries, settled in the Cayusc and Walla-
Walla countries; that the other persons massjfcrod comprised
residents at this American mission and emigrants who had
safely passed through the Snake country, and were then stop-
ping at the mission ; and that the young women abducted were
chiefly American emigrants of the same year.

Ans. — I remember, with the exception of the date of the
emigration.

Int. 547. — Did you not also hear that the attack upon this
mission and its occupants arose from a belief on the part of
the savages that some injury had been done, or was about t
be done, to them by Dr. Whitman and those with him ?

Ans. — I heard that one of the causes of the massacre was
the superstition on the part of the Indians as to the origin of
the measles which existed among them.

Int. 548. — Have not these superstitions as to the origin of
the measles and small-pox several times been reported to you
as causes which led the Indians either to drive off or obstr' t
both scientific parties and settlers?

Ans. — They certainly have led to such opposition.

505

f the United

lie occurred.

ing that the

not prevent

ind that you

e AYiHamctte
do not think

hat the Com-
;s in Oregon?
loss of their
people,
r thereto, the
rtaat -^^ic^t?

reports, that
and his wife
se and Walla-
I'ed comprised
xnts who had
ere then stop-
ibducted were

date of the

tack upon this
on the part of
• was about t
th him ?
! massacre was
the origin of

the origin of
eported to you
off or obstr' t

jition.

Int. 549. — Did you not hear, as you have stated in your
answer to Interrogatory 38, that Governor Ogdon promptly
interfered and ransomed the women, and that he at once, upon
hearing the news of the massacre of these people and the cap-
tivity of others, in person, and accompanied by a large party
of the employes of the Company, went to the scene of the
massacre, and, by the exercise of his influence, rescued from
captivity men as well as women ?

Ans. — I have heard and believe those facts. Governor
Ogden behaved nobly and promptly on that occasion, as I have
stated in my printed report. I do not knoAV, however, that
any men were saved.

Int. 550. — Have you not also heard that these captives were
purchased from the Indians, and that no portion of the ex-
pense of this expedition, or of the expense incurred in rescuing
the captives, had ever been asked either of the Government of
Oregon or of that of the United States by the Hudson's Bay
Company ?

Ans. — I did so hear, and believe it to be true.

Int. 551. — Do you not know that before the Indian war of
1855 and 1856 the Indian tribes east of the Cascade range
were rich in horses, and that some of the tribes were possessors
of cattle also ?

Ans — Some of the tribes, or rather individuals in those
tribes, possessed large bands of horses. In other tribes horses
were scarce. A few of them had cattle.

Int. 552. — Did not the Company, so far as your knowledge
went, furnish to the Indians the blankets which they wore,
•lieir hats and shirts, and all the clothing they could afford to
. uichase. Were not the traps of the hunters and the guns
used by them also furnished by the Company, and were not
all these articles usually purchased by the Indians with their
furs or with their labor ?

Ans, — The Company, until the American merchants largely
entered the country, certainly furnished all those articles, but
of late years only a small portion for fu.'s and very little for
labo', obtaining exorbitant prices for them.

Int. 553. — How often, and at what distances of time between

fii

506

your visits, have you visited the Cascade portage of the Col-
umbia river?

Ans. — About three times. I was there in the fall of 18o3;
I think again in 1855, and again in 1800.

Int. 554. — Did you stop on either of these visits longer than
was absolutely necessary to make the portage?

Ans. — I was on two occasions there for some hours.

Int. 555. — State when those occasions were, and what de-
layed you longer than was necessary to make the portage?

Ans. — In 1853 and 1860. In the first case, I was detained
there by weather, and. I think, waiting for transportation.
In the second, durin-^ the connection of the boats from the
Dalles to the Cascfdes, and from the Cascades to Vancouver?

/ '/. 556. — Did you delay ten minutes longer than was abso-
lute!;, ossary at this last visit in 1860 ?

Ans." I did not hurry myself.

Int. 557. — Between the arrival of the down-boat steamer at
the Cascades and the departure of the down-boat from the
Cascades at the lower end of the portage, could you have found
any moment of time that you were not necessarily compelled
to stop at the portage ?

Ans. — I could not get away before I did.

Int. 558. — At the time you were there in 1860 at the Cas-
cades, were you on the north bank of the river, where the
portage is usually made, at all ?

Ans. — I was on the north bank of the river.

Int. 559. — Was there a railroad, with cars upon it, in use
at that time on either bank of the river?

Ans. — There was either a railroad or tramway over which
baggage was conveyed on the north bank, and some tressel
work had been put up on the south side for another.

Cross-Examination Resumed, July 9, 1867.

Int. 560. — Was there anything like a railroad operated by
horse or mule power or steam at the Cascades, on either side
of the Columbia river, at the time you crossed the portage for
the last time?

507

on it, in use

Ans. — There was somctliing like a roiiroad; by ^Yllat power
it was manajiotl, wiiethcr bv mule or hand, I tlon't know.

Jnt. C^W.- — What was its length; between what points docs
it run; uas it made witii flat bar upon wood, or with the iron
rail used for railroads operated by locomotives?

Alls. — That is more than I can say. My impression is that
it passeil the length of the portage.

Int. 0(12. — Did you see this road at all; if so, state at what
points yon did see it ?

Aitit.^-l did see the road; at what points I cannot define.

Inf. t'A')'-' — Did you see it except at the landing?

Ans. — If I recollect right, I did.

Jiit. r)(i4. — State the points between the landings where you
saw it, and how far you were from it at the time you saw it.

A)i.9. — I remember distinctly the existence of the road, and
the fact (if nassiiicT close bv it ; as to the rest. I don't remember.

Int. '){'»•'}. — Is what you have last stated all you recollect of
tliis road — " That you recollect passing by a road of some
kind?"

Ans. — Pretty much all.

Int. TjiX) — ITow often were you at the Dalles?

J««.— En 1841), 18r>3, and 18(30.

Int. 5(37. — How long were you there in 1853, and how long
Avcre vou there in 18G0?

Ans. — I think over niiidit in each case ; certainly on the
latter occasion.

Jnt. -'f^iS. — Do you know, of your own knowledge, Avherc
the usual landings wore for steamers and batteaux before 18(30?

Anit. — Only from the fact of our own landing in 1853 in boats.

Jnt. 5(.'1>. — Did a part of the jMcClellan expedition go down
the river, in 1853, in boats?

Ans. — It did.

Int. 57(). — In 1860 were you any longer at the portage of
the Dalles than the time required to land from the steamer at
the landing, pass directly from the landing to the town at the
Dalles, pass the night at the iiotel, and go from there to tho
steamboat landing, and embark the next morning?

Ans. — I think not.

508

Int. K>1\. — Were you in 1860 anything more than a passen-
ger on the travelled route by steamers down the river, going
through with the utmost expedition that travellers could be
carried on that route ?

Am. — Nothing.

Int. bl'l. — How long were you at the Cascades at the time
you think you were there in 1855 ?

Ans. — Not over a day.

Int. 573. — Did you notice any steai i " •'" ^-r ^■-'itcaux land
at, or freight crossing the portage, at the time you were there
in 1855 ?

Ans. — I recollect none but the boat I was in.

Int. 574. — Was there any freight passing over the portage
when you were there in 1853, except that of the McClellan
expedition?

Ans. — That I can't say.

Int. 575. — Was not the height of the Kettle Falls at the
main fall some twenty feet ?

Ans. — Perhaps so.

Int. 576. — What stream in that country, except that on
which the Hudson's Bay Company's mill is located, near Col-
vile, affords a good water-power ?

Ans. — I will instance two — the Spokane, and the Nehoial-
pitkwu.

Int. 577. — How far from Colvile is the water-power on the
Spokane, and how far from Colvile is the water-power on the
Nehoialpitkwu ?

Ans. — The falls of the Spokane are fifty or sixty miles;
those of the Nehoialpitkwu, twenty-five or thirty. There is also
another fall on that branch of the Mill river on which the
United States military post is situated, ten or twelve miles
from the Hudson's Bay Company's post at Colvile, which I
should judge to be equally good.

Int. 578. — In what direction from Colvile is the Nehoialpit-
kwu river, what was the stage of the water in the river at the
time you saw the power, what was the height of the fall, and
how wide was the river, and what depth of water did it carry,
and into what stream did it empty ?

509

^alls at the

A)is. — Directly west of Colvilc; the water was at an ordinary
low stage; the river fordahle for animals belly deep; the fall
about twenty feet, if I recollect right; the stream 1 judge to
be fifty yards wide, though narrowed at that point. It falls
into the Columbia.

Inf. .071). — Is not this stream difficult to get at by common
travel at tlio falls, and surrounded by a hilly or mountainous
country ?

Ans. — At the time of my visit no wagon road had been
opened there. The valley was bordered by hills on either
side, covered with forests, except the\alley of the river, in
which are prairies next in value to those at Fort Colvile.

Int. 580. — How wide is the valley for ten miles above and
below the falls ?

Ans. — That I could not say without looking at th) survey
of it.

Int. 581. — Were you ever at the falls of Spokane that you
have mentioned?

Ans. — I was not.

Int. 582. — Is not the power on Mill creek, near the Govern-
ment post, wtthin a few miles of the head of that stream ?

Ans. — It is, I suppose, within a few miles of the head of
that branch of the stream.

Ini. 583. — Is not the Avhole of that country on the plateau,
for a long distance to the south of Fort Colvile, and north and
east of it, and part of the country west, suitable for grazing
purposes, and for the extensive raising of sheep?

Ans. — In the first place the plateau lies south of the Spo-
kane river, and I consider it an inferior grazing country, and
unsuitable for sheep from its climate. As to the country north
and ea- of Colvile, I know of none suitable either for cattle
or sheep, excepting the narrow valley of the Kootenay river.

Int. 584. — Is not what was called the Colvile Valley itself
valuable for agricultural purposes?

Ans. — It is, but its extent is very limited.

Int. 585. — In speaking of the roads, you have stated that
the Company used the Indian trails, do you not know the fact
that Indians did not have much communication with each other,

510

!in<l knew hut small portions of the conntrr, as a rjoiioviil nilc
that wore inhahitod hy the tribes to which tlicy belonged?

Ans. — yio, that is not the fact.

Int. O'SO. — AVorc you not a member of General McClellan's
expedition, and is not his report carefully prepared, and the
statements therein to be considered accurat<; and true?

Anfi. — I was a member of that expedition; the report wn?
I know, carefully prepared, and the statements therein accu-
rate and true, so far as his knowledge went.

I)it. 5S7. — Is this statement from General McClellan's re-
port correct: "Guides we took from place to place, as we
could find them; for even among the Indians there were none
who knew more than small portions of the country we trav-
ersed?"

Ans. — Captain McClellan was under a mistake as to tlio
motives which actuated the guides. Their jealousy of one
another is such, that each tribe is unwilling that members of
another should convey strangers through their lands. Thar,
however, they do know extended tracts of country may be
inferred from the fact that one of our guides, mIio came from
the Yakama country, left us at Colvile, on hi.? way to the
Buffalo Range, east of the Rocky Mountains, whither a nuu:-
ber of his people had already gone.

Int. 5Sf^. — Would not traversing the Indian country by large
parties of a trading company, engaged in supplying the Indians
with goods, cause the Indians who accompanied the trains to
become better acquainted with the Company and the other
tribes?

Ans. — Undoubtedlv.

Int. 580. — After the treaty of 1846, would not the control
and influence of the Hudson's Bay Company over the Indians
south of 4'Jth degree be materially diminished, and, to use
your own language, would not "the sceptre depart from
Judah?"

A71S. — In those parts of the country occupied by the Ameri-
cans this would un([uestionab1y be so.

I:it. 500. — You have stated in your report that some Indians

511

' tiie Amcri-

wcrc rich in horses; the price of the horses of what trihe \fere
worth from $40 to j^lOO?

A)ix. — The horses I spoke of were, I presume, Nez Forces
and Walla- Walla.

Int. 591. — Is your statement in your report correct where,
in si)oakiiig of horses, you say the best arc those belonging to
the Cay use and Nez Perces?

Ann. — -The best that I saw did.

Int. 502. — Did you see the horses of Piu-piu-mox-mox in
the fall of 18.33?

Ana. — Most probably.

Int. 50-3. — Was not "this man a chief of the Cayuse or Walla-
Wallas?

Ans. — I think he was a Walla-Walla.

Int. 594. — Where was Dr. McLoughlin when he made this
statement to you in reference to the indebtedness of citizens
to him, and when was it?

Ans. — At his own liouse, and prior to the preparation of my
report to McClellan, as I had there referred to it.

Jilt. 595. — Can you not give the time of this conversation
more distinctly?

Ans, — I cannot. I called upon Dr. McLoughlin whenever
I was in Oregon City. It may have taken place at one or
more numerous visits.

Lit 596. — Did Dr. McLoughlin tell you that the settlers
owed him personally $30,000?

Ans. — I so distinctly understood him.

Int. 597. — Was he the author of the statement you have
made concerning a Molele war?

Ans. — He may very possibly have spoken of it among others.

Int. 598. — When did this Molele war occur, and with what
tribe of Indians, and how many whites were killed in it?

Ans. — It happened, I believe, a year or two before I came
into the country. The Indians engaged were the Molele tribe,
inhabiting the eastern side of the Willamette Valley and the
Cascade i-ange. The number of killed and wounded on both
sides, I believe, was very small.
33 H

612

Int. 599. — Was it aiiytliing more than a short quarrel be-
tween a very small tribe of Indians and the whites?

Ann. — No; the Indians were but few, but plucky.
^' Int. COO. — Were not interrogatories 42, as to Dr. McLough-
lin's statement of indebtedness of citizens to him; 41, as- to
value of Kettle Falls for manufacturing purj)oses; 40, as to
obstruction of portages of the Columbia; and .39, as to the
Company's policy in regard to the Indians, asked by yourself
and dictated by you ?

Ans. — They were all prepared and written out by myself,
and answered by myself.

Int. 601. — Is this Interrogatory 48 also one of 3'^ours; "Do
you know any other matter touching the claim of tiic Hudson's
Bay Company against the United States, or is there any ex-
planation which you wish to make?"

Ans. — It Avas.

Int. G02. — Did you not receive from the Secretary of State
of the United States a statement that your action in refusing
to allow the Prince of Wales to take Judge Strong's freight up
the river was disapproved of?

Ana. — Instructions came from the Secretary of the Treasury
in regard to that matter, directing, if I recollect right, that no
interference with the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company
under the treaty should take place; inferentially, I presume,
disapproving of what had been done.

Cross- Examination Resumed. July 10, 1867.

Int. 603. — In what instance was it that you incurred a dan-
gerous responsibility in granting a permit?

Ans. — In the case of the Victory, Captain Ryan.

Int. 004. — How came you to grant this permit to the Vic-
tory for the goods belonging to thvT Company and those be-
longing to otiier parties on board the vessel?

Ans. — From the exigency of the case, there being no ware-
house at the port of entry where the goods could be stored.

Int. 605. — What became of the goods belonging to other
parties on the Victory; where were they landed?

513

Ana. — The vessel was consigned to the Company. I pre-
sume all the goods on board belonged to them or their people,

Int. 600. — Where did the vessels from foreign ports that you
say passed the bar of the Columbia river, during the year
1850, discharge their cargo ?

Ana. — I do not think any vessel from foreign parts arrived
during that year, except the Mary Dare, from the Sandwich
Islands, also consigned to the Company, and she was allowed
to go to Vancouver.

Int. 607. — Where did the vessels that arrived during the
year 1850 from the Sandwich Islands discharge their cargo?

Ans. — I have already said that I recollect but one vessel
from the Sandwich Islands.

Int. 608. — Have you not elsewhere stated that there were
one or two vessels entered from the Sandwich Islands ?

Ana. — I have.

Int. 609. — When did the French vessels go up the river to
load above Astoria ?

Ana. — Before I arrived there.

Int. 610. — During your term of service as deputy collector
and collector, do you recollect that any vessel coming from
foreign ports with dutiable goods on board, deUined for Port-
land, was allowed to pass up the river and discharge her freight
at that place, under the supervision of an inspector or other
proper oflScer of the custom-house?

Ana. — None that I remember from foreign ports.

Int. 611. — Do you remember any vessel from foreign ports,
during the time specified, discharging dutiable goods at Asto-
ria?

Ans. — No.

Int. 612. — Do you now distinctly state that within your
recollection, while you were discharging the duties of deputy
collector and collector, there was no instance in which »n in-
spector or other proper oflScer of customs accompanies' :i. • jssel
to Portland, for the purpose of supervising the discharge of
the goods subject to duty of her cargo?

Ana. — No, I don't; I recollect one case of an Auierican ves-
sel bringing bonded goods from San Francisco.

514

Titt. 01. ^. — Did nn inspector accompany this vessol to Port-
land ?

Ann. — T don't remember.

Int. (514. — Were those bonded goods landed at Astoria?

Ann. — They were not.

Int. (Jl.'j. — Do not tho regulations of the rcvonnc service
require that a proper officer of the customs should be present
when dutiable goods are landed?

Anif. — I believe they do.

Int. 61G. — Did these bonded good? pass up the river Aviiile
you were deputy collector or collector?

Ana, — I really do not remember at which time.

Int. C17. — Where were tho duties paid?

An». — I suppose at the custom-house.

Int. G18. — Were they paid before tho vessel went up the
river or afterwards?

Ans. — Tliat is more than I can tell.

Int. G19. — Why did you incur the responsibility of giving
credit for duties to the Hudson's Bay Company, as you have
Stated in your answer to Interrogatory 43?

Ans. — As a matter of comity, and from circumstanc arising
out of the condition of the country.

Int. 620. — What were those circumstances ?

An». — The fact that population was almost entirely seated
above Astoria.

Int. 621. — In 1850, was not time given to the Company only
in some instances, and that for the purpose of enabling them
to collect the necessary gold coin to pay the duties in, the
ordinary currency of the country at that time being coin of
almost every kind?

Ans. — The ordinary currency of the country at the time
was gold dust, coin of every kind being scarce. I know that
the Company had not coin at all times, but that was no busi-
ness of the collector.

Int. 622. — Did you not, as a part of your now erased answer

to Interrogatory 601, state that there was but one case in which

you had any remembrance whether credit was desired or not,

' and that was the case in which a considerable amount of duties

615

sel to Port-

mc" irising

was to bo paid; and afterwards, in answer to an inte.-r();5;itory
now oriijjod, stated that answer to refer to the Victory 'i Was
that the one instaiAco in which you reinanSer crulit to have
been asked and given, and was that tiio Victory'!'

Ann. — I caused that portion of the answer to bo erased
before coi. eluding my re[)ly, because, upon reflection, I do not
feel justified in speaking positivcjly of tlio details of tr^nnac-
tions occurring at that distance of time, in which there may
have been some complication, and which I have since had no
occasion to recall.

Int. 023. — Did you not also say, and cause to be erased, in
answer to Interrogatory 631, that eventually but a part of the
duties were paid in coin ? Is it or is it not true that the duties on
foreign goods on vessels entering at the custom-house in 1850
were paid in coin, or not?

Aiis. — I believe all duties were paid in coin, with the ex-
ception of part of those of the Company.

Int. 024. — Do you wish now to change or modify in on.y
respect, in view of your late answers, your answer to cross-
interrogatory 83, when, in speaking of ihe duties on the goods
carried in the five or six vessels that entered the Columbia
river during your time as deputy collector, between January
1, 1850, and the spring of 1851, when you left, in answer to
that Interrogatory 83 — "Were the duties on the goods carried
on these five or six vessels paid in money ?" — you say, "They
were, except that time was given in some cases to the Hud-
son's Bay Company to collect the necessary amount in such
coin as the law required, gold dust not being receivable, and
the ordinary currency of the country including coins of al-
most every kind and every nation ?"

Ans. — I should explain that in reference to the currency,
gold dust was in common use in all ordinary transactions ;
that that could not be taken in payment of duties ; and that
American gold or American coin of any sfirt was difficult to
obtain. Most of the coin in the country was foreign, and not
receivable. For the rest, I see nothing to modify.

Int. 625. — State a single instance, if you can, in which,
under the revenue laws of the United States, a forfeiture migb*

516

have beeii exacted of the vessel, or property, or goods of the
Hudson's Bay Company by which money could have been
made, and which, during your term of service as custom-house
of?cer, was passed by or omitted ?

Ans. — The vessel, I think was the Cadboro, from Victoria
to Nisqually. At any rate, it was one of the Company's ves-
sels that took goods to Nisqually without previous notice or
entry.

Int. 626. — How was this vessel finally released ?

An8. — As I remember, on payment of duties, and an agree-
ment on the part of the Company to make returns in future.

Int. 627. — How early in your time of service as deputy
collector was this vessel se'zed?

Ans. — I do not now recollect.

Int. 628. — When was the custom-housi-^ at Astoria opened?

Ans. — I think General Adair arrived there early in 1849.

Int. 629. — How long before your arrival at Astoria had
vessels made entry in the custom-house?

Ans, — I believe at least as early as the preceding June.

Int. 630. — Was the collector, General Adair, at Astoria,
when you forbade the master of the Prince of Wales to take
Judge Strong's freight on board?

Ans. — I think he was, but am not positive.

Int. 631. — Did he direct the writing of the letter forbidding
this freight to be taken, or did you act in that matter on your
own responsibility?

Ans. — That I can't say. The letter is written on the part
of the collector, and, I suppose, by his authority, although
signed by me. If he wei*^ at Astoria I should not have written
it without his approbation.

Int. 632. — Where had the United States District Attorney,
Holbrook, come from at the time you wrote this letter ; how
long had he been at that point, and what was his business
there ?

Ans. — The Prince of Wales had been forbidden by me as
early as the 10th of March preceding from being employed in
any other than the actual service of the Company, and from
navigating the Willamette river, as I informed Gov. Ogden in

517

a letter or postcript of that date. Mr. Holbrook was then
present. It was to that date, and not to the date of the
August letter that I refer. He had, I think, just arrived from
San Francisco.

Jnt. 633. — Do you wish new to state that Mr. Holbrook was
not present when the order to the master of the Prince of
Wales was issued?

Ans. — I do not remember whether he was or not.

Int. 634. — Have you not once stated in your explanation of
your order to her master not to take freight, that District
Attorney Holbrook was present, and that you acted under his
advice?

Ans. — He was present, and I acted by his advice when I
issued the original order or rather notice that she could not
enter upon other than the trade of the Company, which he
attempted to infringe on this occasion, and that was what I
intended to state.

Int. 635. — You now state, then, that Mr. Holbrook, the
United States district attorney, was not present when the
order for the master of the Prince of Wales was issued?

Ans. — No; I totd you I did not remember anything about
that.

Int. 636. — If you did not remember anything about it, why
did you state, in your explanation in answer to Interrogatory
43, that " Mr. Holbrook, the United States District Attorney,
was present when the order to her (referring to the Prince of
Wales) master was issued?"

Ans. — The statement is incorrect as far as it expresses the
order given to her master. I should have said the instructions
to Mr. Ogden, though I may have given an order to her master
at that time also.

Int. 637. — How did Mr. Holbrook n 'd Mr. Dorr go up the
river about the 10th of March, 1850?

Ans. — I don't remember.

Int. 638. — Was not your explanation of the Prince of Wales
matter made in view of the correspondence put on file by the
Company in this case, and printed as a part of their testimony,
and had you, at the time you made this explanation, rccolleo-

518

tion of any other letter or correspondence other than that so
printed?

Ans. — It was made in view of this correspondence, and of
this only.

I7it. 639. — Was not the interest of a thousand dollars in the
steamer referred to in your ansA\\jr, to be paid for by you out
of the profits of your share, and was not the share allotted to
you on account of your supposed influence as deputy collector
and, practically, collector of that district?

Ati8. — It was not necessarily to have been paid for out of
the profits, nor was it so allotted to my knowledge.

Int. 640. — If not necessarily to have been paid for out of
the profits, was it not in contemplation of parties interested
that your share of one thousand [dollars] would be paid out of
the profits ?

An8. — 1 cannot say what others may have contemplated in
relation thereto. In respect to myself, I certainly expected
her to be profitable, and that those profits would go at any
rate in part payment.

Int. 641. — Did the steamer prove to be a profitable invest-
ment?

Arts, — I think she did, to some of the parties.

Int. 642. — Did she prove to be a profitable investment when
she was running from Astoria up the river, before your con-
nection with her ceased?

Ans. — My connection with her was a very short one. I
hardly know whether it lasted more than a week or two ; and
as to her profits during the time I cs»nnot say. I wish to state,
in addition to a former reply, that I had acted as clerk to the
Company during the time of her building, and that, doubtless,
was one motive in giving me the refusal of the share.

Int. 643. — Did not your name appear on her register as one
of the owners ?

Ans. — I have already answered that question.

Int. 644. — What was the answer that you then made ?

Ans. — That I did not remember.

Int. 645. — Would not the register for that vessel have been
issued by yourself, though signed by the Collector?

Ans. — It would.

519

Cross- Examination Resumed, July 11, 18G7.

I for out of

able iiivest-

Int. G4G. — Have you not in this language of your explana-
tion, " P'or the rest, the Hudson's Bay Company wore not enti-
tled by the treaty to the navigation of the Wiilainette," given
your opinion as a lawyer on the construction of the treaty,
and not testified to a fact derived from your own personal ob-
servation ?

Ans. — I have given the opinion under which I acted.

Int. 647. — Is that your opinion ?

Ans. — It is.

Int. 648. — Did the French ships which you mention in your
explanation pay their duties before they went up the river?

Avs. — One (lid not pay, at least, all her duties. As to the
other, I know nothing about it, except that there was some
correction subsequently made.

Int. 649. — Wore you there when the French ships arrived?

Ans. — They had both arrived before I readied the country.

Int. 650. — Does the law of the United States authorize the
collector of a newly-constituted district for the collection of
customs to allow a vessel from a foreign port to unload, that
took her departure from that port not knowing the existence
of that port of entry, above the port and to navigate Ameri-
can waters?

Ans. — I do not propose to enter into an arguuieut upon the
laws of the United States.

Int. 651. — Were the Hudson's Bay vessels coasters ?

Ans. — I did not consider them such.

Int. 'o-'yl. — Did they bring in dutiable goods?

Ans. — They did.

Int. 653. — Were there any warehouses at Astoria while you
were deputy collector there?

Ans. — There was one, but not suitable for storing goods.

Int. 654. — What distinction, then, can you make between
the case of the French ships and the vessels of the Hudson's
Bay Company, except that the latter left France not knowing
of a port of entry at Astoria ?

520

Ans. — The statement refers simply to the Willamette river,
of which Mr. Ogden complains. The Prince of Wales was not
admitted to navigate it, while the French ships were — the
Prince of Wales attempting thereby to establish a coasting
trade between Astoria and that river.

Int. 655. — Did not General Adair incur the same dangerous
responsibility, as collector, in granting the permit to the
French vessels and giving a partial credit for the duties to
one of them, that you say you did in reference to the Hud-
son's Bay vessel ?

Ans. — Of course.

Int. 650. — Have you not, in the preparation and calling of
witnesses, and in the defence of this case, acted in the same
manner as you have stated you did in the defence of the case
of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, except so far as
your own evidence in this case is concerned, in reference to
certain interrogatories?

Ans. — Certainly I have.

George Gibbs.

Direct examination resumed this 11th day of August, 1867, of

Mr. George Gibbs.

Int. 1. — Do you desire to make any explanation or modi-
fication of any part of your testimony ; if so, please to make
the same?

Ans. Yes, sir ; on examination of retained copies of some
custom-house papers, made while I was deputy collector in the
year 1850, and which I have looked over since my cross-ex-
amination, I find that I was mistaken in sayirg that certain
parcels of goods imported by the Hudson's Bay Company
were taken first to Fort Vancouver, and thence transported to
Victoria. Inspection of these papers shows that the goods
were taken to Victoria in the first place in the annual ship
from London, and that such portions of them as were fitted
for the Oregon market were sent thence to Vancouver. I will

521

also state that I may have confounded the Prince of Wales
with some other vessel belonging to the Company, in respect
to her having left the Columbia river, as I do not find her
name among the clearances and entrances.

.George Gibbs.

Further interrogatories addressed to George Gibhs on heJialf of

the United States.

Int. 1. — In the 27th interrogatory you refer to certain pho-
tographs. Please examine the two now presented to you and
say whether they are or are not the same referred to in that
interrogatory.

Ans. — They are. They are marked C and D.

George Gibbs.

Washington, August 24, 1867.

Examination in chief of G. C. Gardner resumed February

loth, 1867.

Int. 1. — Look at these photographs now exhibited to you,
and marked copy of "A" and copy of "B," and say whether
they are correct copies of the photographs which were
marked "A" and "B," and shown you at the time you gave
your answers to Interrogatories 9 and 14 of your direct ex-
amination?

Ans. — They are.

G. Clinton Gardner.

February 15, 1867.

Further Interrogatories addressed to George Clinton Gardner
on behalf of the United States, Washington, August 23,
1867.

Int. 1. — Please to examine the photograph exhibited to
you and state whether or no you recognize it as representing
any object which you have ever seen. (Annexed, marked E.)

Ans. — I recollect it as a photograph of houses which stand
to the north of Fort Col vile, about the same distance from the
bank of the river Columbia as the Fort, and not a great dis-
tance from the Fort.

G. Clinton Gardner.

District of Columbia, "I
County of Washington. /

I, Nicholas Callan, a Notary Public, in and for the county
and district aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing
depositions hereto attached, of William B. McMurtrie, Wil-
liam Gibson, Gordon Granger, Sylvester Mowry, William J.
Terry, John F. Noble, George Gibbs, and George Clinton
Gardner, witnesses produced by and on behalf of the United
States, as also the cross-examination of Edward J. Allen, a
witness previously examined in chief before Samuel H. Hunt-
ington, clerk of the Court of Claims, in the matter of the
claims of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United
States, now pending before the British and American Joint
Commission for the final adjustment thereof, were taken and
reduced toMvriting in the said city of Washington, under my
direction, by a person agreed upon by Charles C. Beaman, jr.,
Esq., attorney for the United States, and Edward Lander,
Esq., attorney for the said Company, commencing with the
second day of May and ending with the twenty-third day of
August, 1807, according to the dates of the several depositions
when they were respectively signed.

523

I further certify that to each of said witnesses before his
examination, I administered the following oatli:

"You swear that the evidence you shall give in the matter
of the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company against the
United States of America, shall be the truth, tlic whole truth,
and nothing but the truth : so help you God."

And, that after the same was reduced to writing the depo-
sition of each witness was carefully read to and then signed
by him in the presence of the counsel for claimants and de-
fendants.

I further certify that the map marked " A. W. W. B.," at-
tached to the deposition of said William B. McMurtrie, and
the photographs marked C, D, and E, attachc<l to the several
depositions of George Gibbs and G. Clinton Gardner are the
ones therein respectively referred to.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and
official seal tliis 24th day of August, 1807.

Nicholas Cat.lan,
Notary Public.

BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION

ON THE

HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL-
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS.

In the matter of tJte Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company
against the United Slates.

Deposition of Rufus Ingalls, Assistant Quartermaster General,
Brevet Major General, U. S. Army, duly sworn accord-
ing to law, and examined in the city of New York, State
of New York, by virtue of an agreement between Charles
C. Beaman, jr., agent and attorney for the United States
of America, and Edward Lander, agent and attorney for
the Hudson's Bay Company, before me, W. H. Gardner,
a notary public in and for the State of New York, duly
commissioned and sworn, on the part of the United Statet^.

Testimony of Bvt. Maj. Gen. Ingalls.

Int. 1. — Will you describe Fort Vancouver, post of the Hud-
son's Bay Company?

Alls. — I first saw the post of the Hudson's Bay Company at
Vancouver in May, 1849, at which time it was about its height
of prosperity. The post itself was surrounded by a stockade
of probably some eighteen hundred feet in length. The prin-
cipal buildings were within the stockade, and consisted of such
as were described in my former examination.

Int. 2, — Whether or no you ever built any buildings near
Fort Vancouver ? If so, what ones?

(Objected to as irrelevant.)

Ans. — I did. I commenced building at Fort Vancouver in
he same year, (1849,) and built what ia known as the military

525

post at Fort Vancouver in 1850 ; and was engaged in building
and repairing buildings for several years afterwards. All the
buildings at the different military posts in Oregon and Wash-
ington Territory were erected under my supervision.

Int. 3. — Give a comparative estimate of the number and
capacity of the buildings at the 'military post of Fort Van-
couver, as compared with the Hudson's Bay Company's post
of the same name.

(Objected to as incompetent.)

Ans. — In 1850, the Hudson's Bay Company's establishment,
as to buildings, was more extensive, probably, than at any
other time. In the autumn of that year the military post at
Fort Vancouver consisted of ten sets, with kitchens and out-
buildings to correspond, and three or four sets of barracks.
I considered that the post was worth as much, and had cost
more, than the trading-post of the Hudson's Bay Company at
that place.

Int. 4. — Will you please state under what circumstances the
military post was erected, and what was its cost?

(Objected to as irrelevant.)

An%. — It was the first military post established in that coun-
try. It was located at Vancouver upon the advice and with
the consent of the Hudson's Bay Company, as represented in
the person of Peter Skene Ogden, chief factor of the Hud-
son's Bay Company, in charge at that place. It was also con-
sidered the most central location for the distribution of supplies.
The object of troops at that point was for general protection.
In a report which I made about that time, after a detailed
examination, the cost of the public buildings was tifty thousand
dollars. The post, however, had been bniit when the cost of
labor and material was highest. Mechanics, for instance, were
paid eight dollars per day, and lumber from sixty to one hun-
dred and twenty-five dollars per thousand, while the Hudson's
Bay Company's post was constructed at leisure, and when
labor and material were very low.

Int. 5. — Whether or no you believe that you could have
built, during the years 1849 and 1850, a post like the Hudson's

Bay Company's post at F^rt Vancouver, with its stoclcado and
builfliitgs, for fifty thousand dolhxrs?
(Ohjcctcd to as incompetent.)

Alls. — I do not say I couM have done it in those years. I
believe I couM have done it for less three years earlier or later,
with the fa(,'ilities existing at those periods.

Inf. (5. — How long do you estimate it would have taken one
hundred workmen, of which ten were skilled and the rest ordi-
nary Avorkmcn, to have built such a post as the Hudson's Bay
Company's post at Vancouver, at that place?

A71S. — The work should, in my opinion, have mostly been
done iri the course of a year.

Inf. 7. — Whether or no you have visited Fort Vancouver
since your previous testimony in the case? If so, describe
the Hud on's Bay Company's post as you then saw it.

Alls. — I visited Fort Vancouver last year, in July and Sep-
tember. The Hudson's Bay Company's post had disappeared
almost altogether ; no houses nor sheds remained; there wag
one little rick of rotten hay and straw, partially covered by a
portion of a fallen roof, only remaining to mark the site.

Jilt. 8. — What would you estimate to have been the largest
number of acres cultivated by the Hudson's Bay Company
during any one year during your stay at the post?

A)is. — I do not know; probably the Company did not know
exactly. During the earlier years the number was large, say
two thousand for all purposes, except grazing.

Int. 0. — What do yon know of any servants of the Hudson's
Bay Company taking land around Fort Vancouver as donation
claims?

Ans. — I know that, in 1850, Governor Ogden adopted th*^
policy of placing old servants of the Company on most of the
valuable portions of land included in the Company's claim,
under a nominal lease, to preserve the lands from squatters,
with the expectation that if the Company did not hold these
lands these servants would hold under the donation law. I
had this from Governor Ogden himself. (All the above answer,
made from statements of Gov. Ogden, objected to as incompe-
tent, and also as not the best testimony of the matter therein

527

stated.) And I know that some of these servants afterwards
held their claims.

Int. 10. — What do you know of the mills owned by the Com-
pany on the creek above Fort Vancouver ?

Ans. — I know they had a grist-mill and saw-mill in fair
working condition, five and six miles above the fort, on small
streams, and near the bank of the Columbia river. The saw-
mill was a simple, plain, ordinary mill, which never should
have cost much money. There had been another mill previ-
ously built, but, to my knowledge, never worked by the Com-
pany. The saw-mill, which was worked by the Company, was
a single saw, and which, when worked to its greatest capacity,
would cut out some three thousand feet per day, but was fre-
quently out of repair.

Int. 11. — Do you know why the other saw-mill was not used?

Ans. — I do not know much about the other mill, which was
said to have had a gang of saws.

Int. 12 — What would you estimate to have been the value of
the mill with a single saw in 1851 ?

Ans. — At the close of that year I would not have given five
thousand dollars for it ; I have no other test to apply.

Int. 13. — Whether or no you had not yourself, previously
to this time, run this mill?

Ans. — In 1850, in the early part of the year, the mill was
run under my direction for six months; but the expense at-
tending it was very heavy, and the* mill was frequently out of
repair; lumber at the time was unprecedentedly high. After
this, I would not have leased and run the mill on hardly any
terms.

Int. 14. — What was the character of the roads about Fort
Vancouver?

Ans. — In 1849, in the open country, the roads were very
fair, and a person could ride or drive almost any where. The
roads leading to the mill and Fourth Plains, in the summer
time, were very good dirt roads. They had been made on In-
dian trails through the forests. At a later time, good wide
roads were made through these forests by our own people.

Int. 15. — What do you know of forests deadened by fire ?
34 H

628

Ans. — There were very heavy fires in the fall of 1849, which
deadened large tracts of timber lands in the vicinity of Fort
Vancouver.

Int. 10. — Whether or no you know of any distillery used
by the Hudson's Bay Company at their post?

Ans. — There was no distillery at Fort Vancouver, to my
knowledge, during my period of service there, used by the
Hudson's Bay Company.

CrosS'Examination.

Int. 1. — Uave you not been previously examined on the
part of the United States in this case; and, if so, at what
time?

Ans. — 1 have been ; about fourteen months ago.

Int. 2. — At what time in 1850 did you commence to build
the Government posts at Fort Vancouver?

A71S. — The first buildings I put up there, I put up in 1849,
commencing in the month of June.

Int. 3. — Did you not commence the building of the military
post at Fort Vancouver, which consisted of ten sots of oflBccrs'
quarters, with kitchens and out-buildings to correspond, in the
spring of 1850?

Ans. — I did.

Int. 4. — Was not this post, at the time you built it, built of
logs squared only on two sides?

Ans. — Mainly. There were two sots, however, that were
highly-finished and expensive houses for that country at that
time. The one set was known as the commanding officer's
quarters ; the other, the office and quarters of the chief quar-
termaster.

Int. 5. — Did these two sets, during the year 1850, differ from
the other buildings, except in being built with logs more care-
fully squared on the four sides, instead of being reduced only
on two ?

Ans. — The logs in all of the buildings were carefully selected,
but were not squared, as a rule, in any case, but were notched
at the ends and laid one above the other, and were made tight

529

by what is known as chinking and daubing. Subsequently,
when it became necessary to lino and finish them inside, the
inner portion of the logs were squared so as to permit the
lining to bo done properly. The commanding olTicer's house
was a large two-story building, and Avas finished, by being
thoroughly lined and painted, in 18;j0. The quartermaster's
house was a large two-story frame building, finished, by being
lathed, plastered, and painted, in the same year.

Int. 0. — Was this quartermaster's house included in your
estimate of the cost of the post at fifty thousand dollars?

Ana. — It was.

Int. 7. — What was the cost of that quartermaster's house,
plastered and painted and in complete order? Give also its
size?

Ans. — It was a house prepared in all its different parts in
New England, shipped to California, purchased by Major Allen
for about eleven hundred df)llars, and sent to mo. The bill
included lath, lime, shingles, &c. All the different parts were
properly marked, so as to be readily put up. It covered, on
the ground, some thirty-five by forty feet, with an L of some
forty or fifty feet. The latter was one story. The main house
was two stories high. And, Avhen ready for occupancy, tho
estimated cost was reported at four thousand five hundred dol-
lars.

Int. 8. — In this reported cost, of what items did the thirty-
four hundred dollars, the amount over and above the sum of
eleven hundred dollars, consist ?

Ans. — In the original plan the house was cut up into sev-
eral small rooms, and did not provide for halls. The plan was
considerably modified and enlarged, requiring considerable
material and extra labor.

Int. 9. — Had your lime, laths, lumber, shingles, bricks, and all
that went into the construction of that house, had to have been
purchased and prepared for use at Vancouver in the spring of
1850, at what would you estimate the cost of that house?

Ans. — In the spring of 1850, lumber and all materials for
house-building were exceedingly high. The house referred to
would probably have cost, under the circumstances, ten or

630

twelve thousand dollars, and perhaps more. It war bought^
however, in the fall of 1850, when all such materials were
abundant and cheap in California.

Int. 10. — Was there a cellar and foundation to this house,
or was it simply set on blocks?

Ans. — There was no cellar r.iider the house, but a large de-
tached deep-root house. Tiie house rested on brick columns
or blocks.

Int. 11. — Please answer Cross-Interrogatory 9, with refer-
ence to the summer and fall of 1850, at Fort Vancouver.

Ans. — The prices declined gradually and regularly from the
early spring of 1850, to the fall of that year. The house re-
ferred to was the last house put up in that year, and was built
in the very last part of it.

Int. 12. — So far, then, as this last named (quartermaster's)
house was concerned, you do not wish to be considered as say-
ing that it was built when labor *and material was highest ?

Ans. — On the contrary, it was built when labor and material
was lower. The carpenters, however, were paid the same
prices that they were earlier in the season.

Int. 13. — How many carpenters were employed on the
quartermaster's house ; and for how long a time ?

Ans. — I have no data. I have no means of answering the
question.

Int. 14. — Were not soldiers employed in the building of the
quartermaster's house ?

Ans. — It is probable that they assisted. A large number
of soldiers were employed that year on extra duty, getting
out timber, &c., though the carpenter's work was principally
done by citizen employes.

Int. 15. — In stating the cost of that building, what portion
of the sum of thirty-four hundred dollars do you suppose was
made up of money paid to soldiers for labor ?

Ans. — I jannot tell. I do not think that the soldiers were
employed hardly any in the constiuction of this house.

Int. 16. — What was the amount allowed to an enlisted man
put upon extra duty at Vancouver in the year 1850 per day ?

531

Am. — If a common laborer, ho was paid twcnty-fivo cents,
if a mechanic, fifty cents ; to the best of my recollection.

Int. 17. — In stating the amount of cost of buildings, was
the item of the cost, made up of soldiers' labor, charged at
the rates you have mentioned?

Ans. — It should have been, and I believe was.

Int. 18. — Cannot shingles be put on log houses by persons
who are not skilled carpenters ?

Ans. — Yes. And in building the garrisons such labor was
made use of for that purpose.

Int. 19. — What was the width and length of the command-
ant's house at Vancouver ?

Ans. — The outer dimensions on the grou^hd, including the
piazza, were at least about sixty feet by fifty. The main
house was two-story, and had eight rooms ; four below, and
four above. Each of about regulation size, sixteen by six-
teen feet, with a large broad hall through the cer tre of the
house, on both floors. The main house without the piazza,
but including the hall, was about forty feet front, by about
thirty-two or thirty-four feet deep.

Int. 20. — Please repeat the statement made by you in your
former cross-examination, as to the cost of the commanding
ofificer's quarters ?

Ans. — Seven thousand five hundred dollars.

Int. 21. — What was the size and height of the other build-
ings erected at this time, which you described as buildings
not finished, as well as the commandant's quarters, and the
quartermaster's?

Ans. — There were eight sets of officer's quarters, with
kitchens, all of one-story each. The officer's quarters were
about forty by thirty-four feet on the ground, on the outside,
including the hall. Each set of quarters consisted of four
rooms each, exclusive of the attics ; the kitchens of two
rooms each. The quarters had piazzas in front of each r,et,
eight or ten feet deep. And in 1850 they were finished iu the
manner before described.

Int. 22. — What was the cost of one of these sets built of
logs, carefully selected ; notchet' at the ends and barked, and

532

laid one above the other, and made tight by what is known as
chinking and daubing, and shingled and partitioned into
rooms, with floors and rough ceiling of board overhead?

Ans. — The estimated cost of such a btiilding was twenty-
five hundred dollars.

Int. 23. — Can you tell what estimated force of enlisted
men ■\>.is employed on extra duty in the erection of these
buildings ?

Ans. — I cannot tell without a reference to the papers for
that period. And then I could not tell the force employed
on any particular house.

Int. 24. — Where were the logs obtained of which this post
was built?

Ans. — They were obtained from the forest immediately in
the rear of the present site of Fort Vancouver.

Int. 25. — Was there any trouble in finding logs sufficient
for the purpose, immediately around the Fort ?

Ans. — Those nearest to the edge of the forest suitable for
log houses had been used before our arrival there for a variety
of purposes, but by going into the forest from one to three
miles, sufficient were found.

Ird. 26. — Did not the difficulty in getting timber for the
buildings arise from the fact that the forest trees were gener-
ally too large to be used in building log-houses ; and that the
small ones had been culled out ?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 27. — What number of enlisted men were there at the
post of Fort Vancouver, during the fall of 1849, and the
winter 1849 and 1850 ?

Ans. — During the fall and winter of 1849, and until May,
1850, there was but one company of artillery, numbering
probably some seventy men. For the balance of the year,
1850, there were four or six companies of the Rifle Regiment.
The companies were small.

Int. 28. — In estimating the cost of these buildings, did the
transportation of material employed in their construction
enter into the cost in any other way than in an estimate of

533

the amount paid to those employed as drivers of teams used
in hauling material?

Ans. — The expenses of the Government, going to make up
the same, were presumed to have entered into the cost.

Int. 29. — Where the teams used in transporting freight or
material are owned by the Government at the time, and not
hired from private individuals, is there any addition made to
the cost of a building, on account of that transportation?
And if so, how is the cost of transportation estimated ?

Ans. — If precise cost be the aim, and not approximate, the
expense of such transportation must be counted in. The
main items, in arriving at the cost, is the money value to the
Government of the animals, wagons, harness, forage, and
drivers for the time so employed.

Int. 30. — Do you mean to say that the cost of animals and
wagons, or other carriage, employed in transporting logs from
the forests to the building sites at Vancouver, and the forage
for those animals, (the wagons or other carriage, and the
animals, remaining on hand after the construction of the
buildings,) entered into or was estimated as an item in the
cost of the construction of those buildings ?

Ans. — I cannot swear positively. Such should have been
the case. I mean by this, that a certain allowance or per-
centage, of say six per cent., on the prime cost of animals
and wagons, should be allowed for use, and wear and tear.

Int. 31. — Could you form an estimate of the cost of the
buildings of the Hudson Bay Company's post, or the military
post at Vancouver ; the buildings to be erected when land was
in a state of nature, the forests to be levelled, the ground to
be graded and grubbed free from the stumps, and the men
engaged in the construction, and the subsistence to support
them, were required to be brought from the Atlantic side of
the continent, and protected in their labors by a sufiicicnt
force,'^lso brought with them, and whose subsistence had to
accompany them, or b-j transported with them?

Ans. — I have had many more difficult duties to perform ;
many of a similar character. I am of the opinion I could do
it, if the duty devolved upon me.

534

Int. 32. — What would estimate, taking into consideration
the number of troops requisite to protect the laborers in cross-
ing the continent, in the years 1840 to 1843, and to protect
them in the construction of the buildings ?

A71S. — To form anything like a correct estimate would re-
quire very detailed specifications. I cannot now give a correct
estimate.

Int. 33. — Can you form a correct estimate of the number
of men required to build a certain number of buildings, and
the length of time to be taken, without knowing before hand,
the condition of the country at the time they were built, the
means available for transportation of material, and the pres-
ence or absence of skilled labor ?

Ans. — I think not.

Int. 34. — Can you tell the cost of transportation and sub-
sistence for the " Rifle Regiment " from the Atlantic side to
the Pacific ?

Ans. — I had no connection with that march, and cannot tell.

Int. 35. — Have you ever had any experience in the building
of houses in the Canadian or rabbet fashion ?

Ans. — I have never built one in that fashion, but have re-
paired, and had charge of several of the largest belonging to
the Hudson's Bay Company at Vancouver.

Int. 36. — Have you had charge of the levelling and pre-
paring the ground for the putting up of a stockade and the
erecting of one ?

Ans. — Not that I recollect.

Int. 37. — What was the cost of the improvements made in
one of the smaller eight sets of buildings at Vancouver, sub-
sequently to their erection in 1850, and when were these im-
provements made ?

Ans. — I cannot tell exactly, as a large portion of the im-
provements were made by another officer. I estimate th^ cost
at at least twenty-five hundred dollars. These improvements
were made chiefly in 1855 and 1856.

Int. 38. — Have you not somewhere stated in a former ex-
amination, that the improvements subsequently made would

535

bring the smaller ones up to seven or eight thousand dollars
apiece?

Ans. — Possibly I might. I don't remember.

Int. 39. — In giving your opinion that a hundred workmen
could have done most of the work in building a post such as
that of the Hudson's Bay Company at Vancouver in the course
of a year, have you taken into considei'ation the fact, that
during a considerable portion of the year work could not bo
done, without shelter, on account of the rain ?

Ans. — I did not consider that the rain in that locality would
seriously impede the work.

Int. 40. — Of what was the store-house, inside the stockade,
hired to the United States, and under your control, built ?

A71S. — It was a large two-story frame building, filled in, in
the Canadian or rabbet style, with sawed plank and straight
edged slabs, floors of three-inch plank, building not battened.
The frame was very heavy, with a shingled roof. It was
built of fir timber and lumber. Perhaps the shingles were
cedar.

Int. 41. — Were the other large store-houses within the stock-
ade built in the same way ?

Ans. — They were; except the main store, which was clap-
boarded, and more expense put upon it.

Int. 42. — Does not your estimate of a hundred workmen,
building this in the course of a year, suppose the material of
which the structures were to be erected, to be furnished them
at the place where they were at work ?

Ans. — Not exactly. I meant with the facilities of the Hud-
son's Bay Company in their possession at that time.

Int. 43. — Can you give the cost to the United States, of the
commandant's quarters at the military post of the Dalles ?

A718. — I cannot. I do not know that it was ever known.

Int. 44. — AVithdrawn.

Int. 45. — Did not the commandant's quarters at the Dalles,
so far as your knowledge and belief extends, cost at least
three times as much as the commandant's quarters at Van-
couver ?

Ans. — I believe it did.

536

Int. 40. — Do you personally know anything of the price of
labor and material at Vancouver prior to 1849 ?

Ans. — No.

Int. 47. — In answering Interrogatory 6 (direct examina-
tion,) as to the length of time it would have taken to build
such a post as the Hudson Bay Company's post at Vancouver ;
what buildings did you include in the term post ?

Ans. — The chief factor's house, the bachelor's block, for
officers and clerks, the office, the store-houses, and the black-
smith's shop, surrounded by the stockade.

Int. 48. — Was that what you also meant, in ansv/er to In-
terrogatory 5 of the direct examination ?

Ana. — Substantially.

Int. 49. — In answer to Interrogatory 9 (direct examina-
tion,) you have stated that you " know that some old servants
of the Company held their claims." Give the name of any
one person, whom you personally knew to be in the employ of
the Company, that afterwards held a claim about Vancouver?

Ans. — I would name two Canadian Frenchmen, Proulx and
LaFramboise.

Int. 50.— Do you recollect a Board of Survey at Fort Van-
couver, early in 1860, to examine and report upon the value
of certain improvements on the military reserve, placed there
by the Hudson's Bay Company ? If so, state if you can, the
circumstances that led to the appointment of that Board, and
what the object was, which was intended to be accomplished
at the time the Board was appointed ?

Ans. — I do recollect perfectly. Some land enclosed by the
Hudson's Bay Company, also claimed by the " Catholic Mis-
sion," and on which were a fc ' old buildings belong to ser-
vants of the Company was required for military uses. The
object of this Board was to assess the damages, to have the
land freed, and put in use for purposes of drill, «fec.

Int. 51. — Was that the same land referred to in your letter
to John Wark, Esq., dated March 5th, 1860, and now shown
to you, and in evidence in this case, on pages 190 and 191,
of the printed evidence in behalf the plaintiff?

Am. — It was.

537

ancouver

Int. 52. — From what point did the line of stakes, marking
out the line indicated by the markers, mentioned in your letter
start, and in what direction did it run, and where did it end?

Ans. — It started from a point some seventy or eighty yards
easterly from the Catholic-mission building, and ran in a south-
erly direction; thence in a straight line to the Columbia river.

Int. 53. — Which side of the stockade of the Hudson's Bay
Company's post did it run, and how far was the line from that
stockade?

Ans. — The line was four hundred or more yards, I think, to
the west of the Hudson's Bay Company's stockade.

Int. 54. — Do you recollect what the eight buildings were,
Tvhose value was estimated by that survey ?

Ans. — I knew them at the time, but cannot recall them with
certainty now.

Int. 55. — Were the "Johnson House," the "Salmon House,"
and the "Field House" included in the eight buildings, as esti-
mated?

Ans. — I don't think they were.

Int. 50. — Were these three last buildings removed or taken
down at the time the fences and the other buildings west of the
line of the stakes were removed and the land prepared for
military purposes?

Ans. — Not at the time. The "Field House" still stands
where it was, and is the house that was occupied by Mrs.
Stubbs.

Int. 57. — Do you recollect when the "Salmon House" was
taken down and removed, and by whom?

Ans. — I recollect of having it taken down, in 1860, 1 think.
It was not removed; it was simply taken down. This was
after the place was vacated by the Hudson's Bay Company.

Int. 58. — What became of the "Johnson House?"

Ans. — I had it removed in 1860 to the western line of the
reserve, not far from the river. This was the house in which
I lived in 1849. The other "Johnson House" was pulled
down some time in 1857.

Int. 59. — Were not all the houses and fences on the reserve
west of the stakes, except those referred to in the last three

538

questions, taken down or removed immediately after the report
of the Board of Survey, to render the ground fit for military
use?

Ans. — They were all removed.

Int. GO. — What buildings were erected by the United States
prior to the 24th of September, 1857, in addition to those built
under your direction in 1849 and 1850, at the post of Van-
couver?

Ans. — There wore new stables and a blacksmith's shop, with
new and additional barracks for soldiers, and the wharf was
nearly completed.

Int. Gl. — Can you give any estimate of the cost of these
improvements you have just mentioned?

Ans. — I should say fifty thousand dollars.

Int. 62. — In what direction from Vancouver were those lands
on which were deadened timber, caused by the fires of the fall
of 1849 ? .

Ans. — Northeasterly.

Int. G3. — Where did this fire commerce?

Ans. — I do not know exactly; but probably ten or fifteen
miles to the east of the fort, in the forests near the river.

Int. 64. — Is not the line of forests immediately back of the
United States post now free from deadened timber ?

Ans. — Quite so.

Int. 65. — Was not the road from the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany's post to the Mill Plain, in 1849 and 1850, corduroyed
or bridged for a portion of the distance ?

Ans. — It was.

Int. 66. — Was there not a road from the mills back to the
Mill Plain, and roads through the woods connecting the differ-
ent plains back of Vancouver with each other and with the
Hudson's Bay Company's post?

Ans. — Yes.

Int. 67. — Was there not also a road running down the river
for some distance?

Ans. — There was ; a very good road.

Int. 68. — Do you not think you may be mistaken in the idea

539

cost of these

that these roads running through the woods were laid out on
Indian trails?

Ans. — It was told me that they were. It does not make
any difference whether they were or not, as they were good
enough to answer any purpose. Possibly I was misinformed.

Int. 60. — In what year did General Persifer Smith make his
visit to Fort Vancouver?

Ans. — In the autumn of 1849.

Int. 70. — At the time of his visit, had any of the officers,
soldiers or followers of the Rifle Regiment, that crossed the
plains in that year, arrived at Vancouver?

Ans. — During his visit at Vancouver the advance of the
Rifle Regiment arrived there in the month of October.

Int. 72. — When did General Smith leave; and did lie ajjain
visit Vancouver in that year or the next?

Ans. — He left late in the year 1840, and did not visit the
place again, so far as I can recollect.

RUFUS lNGi»LLS,

Bvt. 3IaJ. Gen. and Asst. Q. M. General.
New York, July 27, 1807.

•ni

lown the river

State of New York, "I
Gity and County of New York. /

I, W. II. Gardner, a notary public, in and for the State of
New York, duly commissioned and sworn, do hereby certify
that the foregoing deposition of Brevet Major General Rufus
Ingalls was taken and reduced to writing by me, in the pres-
ence of said Avitness, from his statements, at No. 17 State street,
in the city of New York, in pursuance of an agreement made
between Charles C. Beaman, jr., Esq., as counsel for the Uni-
ted States, and Edward Lander, Esq., counsel for the Ilutlson's
Bay Company, the said deposition being commenced on the
25th day of July, continued on the 26th, and concluded on
the 27th day of July, 1867.

I further certify that, to the said witness, before his exam-
ination, I administered the following oath :

It J

640

"You do swear, in the presence of the ever-living Cfod, that
the answers to bo given by you to the interrogatories and
cross-interrogatories to be propounded to you by me in the
matter of the Hudson's Bay Company vs. the United States
of America, shall be tho truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth."

I further certify that the said deposition was by me care-
fully read to said witness, and then signed by him in my pres-
ence.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand
[seal.] and affixed my official seal this 27th day of July,
in the year 1867.

W. H. Gardner,

Notary Public.

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company
against the United States.

Deposition of Q-eorge Sucleley, 31. D., of tho city of New York,
duly sworn and examined in the said city by virtue of an
agreement between Chas. C. Beaman, jr., agent and at-
torney for the United States of America, and Edward
Lander, agent and attorney for the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany, before me, W. H. Gardner, a notary public of the
State of New York, duly commissioned and sworn, on the
part of the United States.

Testimony of George Suckley, M. D.

Int. 1. — What is your name, residence, and occupation ?

A71S. — George Suckley ; I reside in New York city, and am
a physician.

Int. 2. — Are you the same George Suckley who has already
given testimony in the matter of the Puget's Sound Agricul-
tural Company against the United States?

Ans. — I am.

Int. 3. — Whether or no you have ever visited Fort Colvile

541

I Fort Colvile

post of the Hudson's Bay Company? If so, state wlien, and
under Avliat circumstances?

Ans. — I visited Fort Colvile in 1853, while attached to the
"Northern Pacific Railroad Exploration." I was there some
three or four days, and was the guest of the Company.

lilt. 4. — Will you describe Fort Colvile as you saw it and
now remember: and in your answer state how much the build-
ings had depreciated, if anything, from their original value as
buildings; and how long, in your opinion, it would have taken
twenty-five men to have built such buildings in that place?

(The opinion of the witness asked for in the above inter-
rogatory herr objected to by Mr. Lander, i; uunscl on the part
of the Hudson's Bay Company.)

Ans. — My general remembrance is pretty good. The build-
ings were common structures, what I might term home-made,
that is, built by men who were not skilled or export carpen-
ters, in my judgment. The buildings were not very large, and
were, I think, built partly of square timber and logs; some of
them might have been built of plank or boards. Nearly all of
them were what we generally call one-story buildings. I can-
not be precise as to the number. The buildings wore what I
should term worn; they were fairly good, hv* not at all new.
People were living in them, excepting those that were occupied
as storehouses or for other purposes connected with the Com-
pany's business. There was some fenced land near the fort.
I should say that with twenty-five soldiers of about the average
mechanical ability of those I superintended in building army
hospitals, that I could build Fort Colvile in thirty days or less.

jyif^ 5. — What would you estimate the value of the buildings
at Fort Colvile to have been?

jlfig, — The money value I could not give; the relative value,
taken as constructions per se, in my mind, would place Fort
Colvile below Fort Nisqually, but better than ''Boise," "Walla-
Walla," or "Okanagan."

jjil^ (3. — Have you ever visited Fort Okanagan?

Ans. — Yes, sir; in 1853.

jnt, 7. — How long were you there ?

jLn«. — I think the good part of two days.

642

Int. 8. — Will you describe this post?

Ann. — It was poor enough ; not, to my mind, as well built
as Fort Walla-Walla, which I visited three or four days subse-
quent to my visiting Fort Okanagan.

Int. 9. — How long do you think it would have taken twenty-
five soldiers to have built such a place as Fort Okanagan at
that place? *

Ans. — I should think that twenty-five men, of the class I
am asked about, ought to build such a place in about two dayg.

Int. 10. — How long were you at Fort Walla- Walla?

Ana. — I think I was there three nights and days.

Int. 11. — Describe it as you saw and remember it.

Ans- — I would place it, in point of value and construction,
midway between Fort Okanagan and Fort Colvile — Fort Col-
vile being situate near growing timber, while Fort Walla-Walla
was farther distant.

Int. 12. — Have you ever visited Fort Boise, post of the Hud-
son's Bay Company?

Ans. — Yes, sir; in 185-4 I was in and about Fort Boise for
about three weeks.

Int. 13. — Will you describe Fort Boisfe as you saw and re-
member it?

Ans. — As compared with Fort Okanagan, I should say it
was of cheaper construction, in so far as the amount of labor
was required to build it. The material of the building was
principally adobe or sun-dried bricks. It would be difficult to
compare the value of such a construction with those of Fort
Walla-Walla or Nisqually. It is difficult to decide between
the value of adobe and wood, human labor and transportation
being the only guide.

Int. 14. — Have you ever had any experience in the construc-
tion of an adobe building?

Ans. — I have.

Int. 15. — How long do you think it would have taken twenty-
five men to have built Fort Boise ?

Ans. — From what I saw when I helped to build an adobe
house in Utah, if we allow for the time that adobe bricks are
drying, the mere labor of building such fort ought to be per-

r)43

formed in five days, ami perhaps less. If I remerriber cor-
rectly, and I think I do, the roofs of the Fort Boise buildings
■were made of willow brush and mud. I think there were no
glass windows, but am not sure on that point.

Int. IG. — Wiiat do you remember of the trade at, or the
number and character of the servants employed by the Hud-
son's Bay Company at their posts "Colvile," "Okanagan,"
"Boise," and "Walla- Walla?"

Ans, — Colvile, when I was there, was in charge of Mr. Angus
McDonald, whom I took to bo a superior man, and as subor-
dinate to him there were Indians, half-breeds, and a few white
men, and one Sandwich Islander, that I remember. Judging
of men at the other named forts, I would place them, as to
grade, with those of Angus McDonald's subordinates. The
more prominent posts had the best men attached. Okanagan,
Boise, and Walla-Walla to me appeared to have a very inferior
set. I judged that the trade of the three last-named posts was
far inferior to that of Fort Colvile. Foit Colvile seemed to
me to be doing a good trade, while the other three forts ap-
peared to be doiog but very little. At Fort Colvile, I was told
by an employe that the Company purchased beaver skins for
thirty charges of powder and ball apiece, and musk-rat skins
for one charge of powder and ball apiece.

Cross- Examination.

1
4

Jnt. 1. — How many buildings were there at Fort Colvile at
the time of your visit within the stockade?

Ans. — My remembrance of the stockade is bad. If there
was one, it was imperfect. I think there were not more than
eight or ten comfortably-inhabitable buildings at the post —
distributed as usual at such posts.

Int. 2. — Have you no distinct recollection of a stockade at
Fort Colvile?

Ans. — My recollection was not distinct as to the stockade.

Int. 3. — Have you a distinct recollection of any particular
building at Colvile, so as to describe it ?

Ang, — The house that Mr. McDonald lived in was larger

■)44

than the other inhabited buildings. At this hite date I can-
not recollect as to the exact size of the buildings there, or
within a few feet of their size. And I will not be positive,
but the McDonald house Avas jfreatcr in lici^jrht of stories than
the others, and '. wered a greater area of ground than other
inhabitable buildings at the post.

Int. 4. — Did you no^ e with any particularity any of these
buildings at the post?

Ans. — T buve a very fair recollection of the place, the same
as most any man would have of a place visited some thirteen
or fourteen years previous ; and with the exception of the ex-
istence of a stockade at the post, I think my memory clear.

Int. 5. — Can you give the size of the dwelling house?

Ans. — Only approximately — not by feet. Say a house
built with a hall-way, with a. fair sized comfortable room on
each side. In the rear, or back part of the house there were
rooms used for kitchen and tlie more ordinary household pur-
poses, as I supposed.

fnt. (). — Of what was that house built, whether of logs,
square timber ; or was it a frame house?

yb!.s. — I think that buildinji was of dressed lofjs. I will not
say fully dressed, but comfortably square, for protection
against weather.

Int. 7. — Is this your distinct recollection of the manner in
which that particular house was built, or is it an impression
as to the manner in which all tiic houses were built at that
post ?

Ans. — I do not remember seeing any house there but what
Avas built of wood. I don't think an adobe was used except
perhaps for chimneys. Except in size, the house that Mr.
McDonald lived in did not strike me to be of much better
construction than the others; and of about the same ma-
terial.

Int. 8. — Was this house of McDonald's ceiled inside with
tongued and grooved boards ?

A718. — I never took the boards off to see.

Int. 9. — Were the rooms, or any of them boarded on the
inside with planed boards?

545

Ans. — I have my do'ibts as to there being any planeil
boards, my remembrance is not sufllciently clear to say posi-
tively whether they were or not.

Int. 10. — Did you see there a large store, or range of stores,
sixty feet by twenty-five; two floors, and a story and half
high; built of square timber in the Canadian fashion?

Ans. — I remember the store in purchasing powder then^ to
pay an Indian. I am not an expert in the Canadian style of
architecture, and cannot therefore answer the latter part of
the question.

Int. 11. — Have vou anv rorioliection as to the size of that
store where you purchased ti:. powder to pay the Indian ?

Ans. — It was a jxood, fair sized i)uihliii";.

Int. 12. — Do you recollect another store at Colvilc besides
the o'.ie vou visited to buv pov^'dcr?

A71S. — My inipressio)! and l)elief is that there were two build-
ings there called stores by the peojjle, but one was a store-
house for the safe-keeping of furs, and the other more par-
ticularly a shop, where Indians brought their fuis to barter,
and where barter goods were kept.

Int. 13. — What was the relative size of these two stores you
mentioned, to each other V

Avft. — The one I termed the store-house was the largest.

Int. 14. — Do you recollect also,* a range of buildings occu-
pied by officers, called ollicer'.i houses, a story and a half high,
shinsled, Avith three chimneys?

Ans. — T'o ; not by that name.

Int. 15. — Do you recollect a range of buildings, besides
the -0 you mentioned ?

An-i. — The general plan of the fort was, as I remember, in
the f'^rm of a hollow square; the buildings not touching each
other.

Int. 10. — Was there a bastion at Fort Colvile?

An.<i. — I think there ^as ; but am not positive.

Int. 17. — Was there a barn ?

vl>»^. — There were some buildings scattered about which
might have been barns, or might have been dwellings.

Jpl. 18. — Was there a horse park there?

546

A718. — There were fenced enclosures, which might have been
used for corrals.

.Int. 19. — Were you in any of these buildings, which you
think you noticed there, other than the McDonald house, and
the store where you bought the powder?

Ans. — I was in buildings where my men were housed; I, as
well as they, being guests of the Company.

Int. 20. — How were the walls of the room you occupied
furnished off?

Ans. — I slept in a room in the McDonald house, which was
the principal sitting room of the officers in charge of the post.
The finish of the room was plain, comporting with the entire
finish of the establishment. I do not think there was any
mortar used in its finish. The ceilings, walls, and floors being
of boards or wood.

Int. 21. — Can you state how the roofs of these buildings
were covered ?

Ans. — I will not be positive, but the roofs were dark
colored; and at this late day, I would say that they W(i(>
covered with hand-made, rived or choppol shingles.

Int. 22. — Of what was Fort Okanagan built?

Ans. — My general impression and remembrance is, the
buildings were small, squared timber edifices of rude construc-
tion. •

Int. 23. — Was there a stockade at Okanagan ?

Ans. — I am not positive, but think there was one, if there
was one, it was not so good as that of Fort Nisqually.

Int. 24. — Of what was Fort Walla-Walla constructed ?

Ans. — To the best of my recollection, it was built of adobe
and logs.

Int. 25. — How far distant was the growing timber you spoke
of in answer to Interrogatory 11, from Walla-Walla ?

Ans. — The timber, such as you would obtain logs from
nearest Fort Walla-Walla, was about fifteen miles further
away from it than that which was nearest to Fort Colvile.

Int. 26. — Was there a stockade at Fort Walla-Walla?

Ans. — Not in the strict sense of the word, it was more in
the nature of an adobe wall.

547

;rc dark

ley wi.n<^

5 is, the

construc-

, if there

ly-

ted?
of adobe

Int. 27. — Was there any of the timber you have spoken of
used in the construction of this wall ?

An8. — I am not positive as to that.

Int. 28. — How much timber was used in the construction of
the fort, and in what part of it was it used?

Ans. — My recollection is that the buildings composing the
establishment, were principally of the adobe or mud construc-
tion, with plates of timber for the rafters to lie upon. The
fort had wooden doors, and I think had wooden window shut-
ters.

Int. 29. — You have said in answer to interrogatory No.
13, in speaking of Fort Boise, the "material of the build-
ing was principally adobe or sun-dried bricks." "It Avould
be difficult to compare the value of such a construction, with
those of Forts Walla- Walla or Nisqually." In what did
the construction of Boise differ from that of Forts Walla-
Walla or Nisqually?

A718. — Wood was principally used in the construction of
Fort Nisqually, and wood and mud mixed at Fort Walla-
Walla. Fort Boise was more completely an adobe building.

inf. 30. — Was there an adobe Avail enclosing the buildings
at Fort Boise?

Ans. — I think not. There was a horse-corral close to the
fort, but I cannot call it a wall.

Int. 31. — At what time of the year Avcre you at Fort Boise?

Ans. — I was there, as near as I can recollect as to date, in
the latter part of August and in the month of September,
1854, with "Haller's Expedition."

Int. 32. — Did you make a report on these posts to the com-
manding officer of the North Pacific Railroad Expedition?

An». — Not particularly as regards -^he posts; but I think

they were embraced in the general report, with the excejition
of Fort Boise.

Int. 33. — Has not your recollection of this Avholo country
grown indistinct and dim in the liip«(o of years?

Ans. — 1 think I remember th*- country as well as most any-
body else would, not having been tJ»ere for thirteen, fourteen,
or fifteen years.

'k*

548

Examination-in- Chief Resumed.

Int. 1. — What e\pericnce have you had in the erection of
buildings of any kind?

Ans. — I generally directed, superintended, as well as planned,
the transformation of buildings at Clarysville, Md., and caused
additional buildings to bo built, to accommodate about four
hundred men; and at "Point of Rocks," on the Appomatox
river, 1 builc very substantial buildings to accommodate nearly
four thousand men, eleven of which buildings were nearly three
hundred feet each in length by nearly thirty feet wide; others
of them were smaller. The buildings, as well as their shingles,
were made, under my direction and personal supervision, by
convalescent soldiers, with a very limited assistance from the
U. 3. Quartermaster's Department and some detailed men,
decailed by the generals commanding the army with which I
was at the time serving. I was Medical Director of the Army
of the James, under the command of Major Generals Butlor
and Ord; and it was within the limits of their command that
the above-named buildings were erected.

Int. 2. — What were these buildings built of?

Ans. — Pine logs, neatly laid, with well-shingled roofs, good
board floors, cross-pieces, purlins, and joists, being of sawod
timber. The partitions for rooms were also of sawed timber.

hit. 3. — What experience have you had in building adobe
buildings ?

Ans. — 1 mixed the mortar to make the bricks and helped
carry the dried bricks to the men who laid them.

f Cross- Examination.

Int. 1. — Were these buildings anything more than open log
buildings with shingle roofs?

Ans. — They were most carefully Jind compactly built.

Int. 2. — Were the logs squared on four sides and the build-
ings chinked and plastered?

549

cction of

planned,
id causetl
»out four
)pomatox
itc nearly
arly three
lo; others
I' shingles,
•vision, by
; from the
liled men,
h which I
f the Army
L-als Butlor
mand that

oofs, good

2 of sawed

cd timber.

ding adobe

and helped

|an open log

built.
id the build-

Ans. — The logs were not scjuarcd, but dressed to fit well ;
they were chinked where necessary.

Int. 3. — What width was left between the logs before chink-

ing

Ans. — The logs were generally about thirty feet long, the
general taper of the tree being taken into consideration in the
construction, the chinking being more necessary at the small
ends.

Int. 4. — Were these buildings lined inside with planed
boards ?

Am. — Where there was a necessity they were. The rooms
set apart for special purposes were carefully finished ; some of
them were also papered.

Int. 5. — Was not this work done by a large force of labor-
ers ; and had you not at your command all the men you
desired?

Ans. — The force varied greatly from time to time. I was
often much annoyed by not having as many men as I wanted
to facilitate the operation.

George Suck ley.

State of New York, )
Oiti/ and County of Netv York, f

I, W. II. Gardner, a notary public, in and for the State of
New York, duly commissioned and sworn, do hereby certify
that the foregoing deposition of George Suckley, was taken
and reduced {o writing by me, in the presence of said witness,
from his statements on this 23d day of July, 18G7, at No. 103
St. Mark's Place, in the city of New York, in pursuance of an
agreement made between Chas. C. Beaman, jr., Esq., as coun-
sel for the United States, and Edward Lander, Esq., counsel
for the Hudson's Bay Company.

I further certify that, to the said witness, before his exam-
ination, I administered the following oath :

"You do swear, in the presence of the evcr-li\ing God, that
the answers to be given by you to the interrogatories and

■h.

550

cross-interrogatories to be propounded to you by me in the
mattci" of the Hudson's Bay Company vs. the United States of
America, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth."

I further certify that the said deposition was by me care-
fully read to said witness, and then signed by him in my pres-
ence.

In testimony whereof I have hereto set my hand
[seal.] and affixed my official seal this 23d day of July,
in the year, 1867.

W. H. Gardner,

Notary Public.

BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION

ON TIIK

HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL-
TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS.

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson s Baij Company
against the United States.

Deposition of James 31. Alden, a witness produced on the part
and behalf of the United States, at the city of Washing-
ton, this 12tli day of September, 1807. — Examination by
Mr. Gushing.

Testimony of James M. Aldex.

Int. 1. — What is your name, residence, and present occupa-
tion?

Ans. — James M. Ahlen, Vice Admiral's secretary, U. S. N.,
Annapolis, Maryland.

Int. 2. — Please to state whether at any time you have had
personal knowledge of the river Kootenay, in North-western
America; and if so, when, for how long a time, and under what
circumstances?

Ans. — I was employed as artist on the North-western Boun-
dary Commission, and spent several weeks on that river in the
summer and fall of 1860.

Int. 3. — What is the general course of the river relatively
to the boundary line of British Columbia and the Territory of
Washington?

Ans. — It rises in British Columbia, crosses the boundary
line, and runs for a certain distance in a southern direction,
and then makes a great bend in the United States, curving
36 II

^!i!!

552

round to the westward, then flows in [a] northerly direction
again, and empties into the Columbia river.

Int. 4. — Whilst on the Kootenay at that time did you see
the buildings of the post of the Hudson's Bay Company at
Kootenay ?

Arts. — I did.

Int. 5. — Please to state their location relatively to the river
and the boundary line?

Ans. — They Avere from three to four miles, as well as I
could judge, to the south of the boundary line, (latitude 49°,)
and the river was not in sight from them, but it was no great
distance.

Int. 6. — On which side of the river were the buildings situ-
ated.

Ans. — On the left bank.

Int. 7. — What is the general course of the river at that
point?

Ans. — Flowing south.

Int. 8. — Please to describe the topographical features of
the locality of that post.

Ans. — The post was on a gravelly plain, covered with brush
wood principally and scattered pine trees. The plain, I sup-
pose, was two miles wi le at that place, as well as I remember,
and then the mountains rose abruptly from the plains. The
character of the country in that vicinity, for many miles to the
northward and for some distance below, was gravel plain with
scattered pine trees; very poor soil as a general thing. These
were narrow plains, constituting a terrace on each side of the
river. The greater part of the plain was unfit for cultivation;
some places afforded light herbage for pasturage, and some
none at all, but generally the land was of a very miserable
quality.

Int. 9. — Did you see any land there under enclosure or cul-
tivation?

Ans. — I did not.

Int. 10. — Please to describe the buildings at the post.

Ans. — There were four or five log huts. The largest one I
entered and found to be a church; it \sas entirely empty, ex-

553

ccpt some religious engravings; there was a picture of Pius
IX and of saints. I recognized it as a church by its form,
and it was so spoken of. It was not chinked so as to be suit-
able for a store or dwelling-house, and the light was received
within through the chinks. It was constructed of ley's. You
could see daylight through the roof, which was apparently of
bark covered with mud. It was of one story. It was a long
narrow building, at least thirty feet long, but the length much
greater than the breadth.

Int. 11. — Please to look at the photograph now presented
to you and state whether you do or do not recognise what it
represents?

Ans. — 1 have no doubt that is the building I entered. I
recognize it by the building anc? the door, but the door was
not then closed with logs as it now is in the photograph. In
order to identify the photograph presented to me I have writ-
ten my name on its face.

Int. 12. — Please to describe the other buildings relatively
to this in size and construction.

Ans. — There were four other buildings according to the best
of my recollection ; they were on the further side of the church
from the river, and all near the church; there was no one liv-
ing there apparently; one of the huts was considerably larger
than the others: the door was closed; it was not high enough
to permit a man to enter without stooping very much. Mr.
King informed me that this was Mr. Linklater's house. The
building was not more than one-third of the size of the church,
if that. I do not think it was that, though somewhat larger
than the other huts. These huts were all alike in construc-
tion; they were built of logs and chinked up; certainly this
was the case with the house in which Mr. Linklater was said
to have lived; I could not say as to the others. I had par-
ticular reason for taking notice of the post at Kootenay, be-
cause I was employed to sketch the prominent points on our
route. I rode round in various [directions] about those build-
ings, and came to the conclusion I would not take a sketch,
as the place Avas of no importance.

r>rA

[Mr. Lantlcr objects to the statement of Mr. King as hear-
say and incompeteftt.]

J7tt. 13. — Please to look again at the photograph and state
wlietherthe small building on the left of the photograph is the
building you liave just been describing or some other.

Ans. — It is another building, according to the best of my
recollection. The building I have been describing is farther
down the river, though not a great distance.

IiU. 14. — Whether or not the door represented in the small
building on the photograph is different from or such as you
described in the building you call Lmklater's?

Ans. — Precisely similar, relatively, to the size of the door.

Int. 15. — What was the general condition of these buildings
in respect of repair or dilapidation?

Ans. — They looked very much dilapidated. That is the
usual appearance of wooden buildings in that country even if
they are not very old.

Int. 16. — Have you ever participated in or witnessed the
construction of log houses of this description?

Ans. — I have. I particularly recollect the construction of
Camp Kootenay, near the Kootenay post.

Int. 17. — In your judgfnent how much time and how many
axe-men would it take to erect such a log house as that you
describe as Linklater's?

Ans. — From what I have seen I should say that three axe-
men could erect such a house in such a place, where proper
trees were handy, in half a day.

Int. 18. — Whether or not the neighborhood of this post is a
more or less wooded country ? *

Ans. — It was wooded universally with just the proper trees
for the construction of such houses. The trees are tall and
very suitable for the purpose, requiring but little labor to pre-
pare them.

Int. 19. — What buildings, if any, other than those which
you have described, did you sec on the banks of the Koote-
nay?

A71S. — None other, except those built by our party. Of
course T do not speak of Indian wigwams as buildings. We

Hi)!)

built a good many Imts similar to thcso, only nicer ajid licttcr
buildings. Vo were more particular in getting logs of equal
size, and chinking tliem with pieces of wood to keeji the moss
in, and the ends were always trimmed ofl'verv iioatlv, niakin^
a nice looking job, and used canvas for the roofs of the build-
ings.

Int. 20. — Please to state whether the Kootenaj' rises at cer-
tain seasons and spreads out into lake-like spots?

A)i8. — It has the same character as the Clarke's fork of the
Columbia, and spreads out over the low islands, niaking one
large channel instead of several small ones.

Jnt. 21. — Please to look at the map presented to you, enti-
tled "The Provinces of British Columbia and Vancouver
Island, with portions of the United Stales and Hudson's Hay
Territories," contained in a Parliamentary Blue Book, entitled
"Papers Relative to the Affairs of British Columbia," and
state how more or less the river Kootennv, as there desi<;nod,
corresponds to your recollection of its configuration and course.

Alls. — It appears to have a general resemblance according
to my recollection of its course. I came upon it near a point
marked Bad river, north of Tobacco Plains, and then came
down the river on the right bank to the 49th parallel, then
crossed the river at that point, after remaining there tAvo
weeks, and encamped on the left bank of the Kootenay on the
49th parallel, nearly opposite our old camp. In the fall of
the same year (1860) returned to the Kootenay and came
down the Kootenay on the left bank, and crossed the river at
a point where the river makes a sharp bend to t'lc westward.
We contjriued along the right bank until the river makes a
sharp bend northwardly, and so along the same bank until wc
came to a place called Chclemta.

(The above answer as to tiie travel on the Kootenay ob-
jected to as irrelevant.)

Int. 22. — Please to state whether or not, in either of those
journcyings or tarryings on the Kootenay river, you saw any
buildings other than those you have previously described?

Alls. — I did not.

Int. 23. — Did you sec, anywhere on the south side of the

m
W

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

1.1

■10 ^^"

Sf 184

125

IIS

lit
u

■4.0

2.0

L25 iU iJA

HwlDgrapiTic

Sdenoes

Carporation

^^%

3) WMT MAIN STRUT

VViUTiR,N.Y. MSM

(71*)«7a-4S03

.^^

•\

556

river Kootenay, three dwelling-houses and a store, all of hewn
square timber?

Ana. — I did not.

Int. 24. — Wore the buildings which you have described as
the Hudson's Bay Company's post at Kootenay, constructed
all, or any of them, of hewn square timber, or were they of
notched logs?

Ans. — To the best of my recollection they were of notched
logs.

Int. 25. — From your knowledge of the course of the Koote-
nay river, south of the 49th parallel, where must a post have
been, if on the south side of the river?

Ans. — It must have been on the great bend the river makes
from the eastward to the westward; and if there had been any
post of the Company I should certainly have kinwn of it.
Although I did not take astronomical observations, I was very
particular in noticing everything connected with the history
of the country and its topography, and all matters of interest,
and especially all matters connected with the Hudson's Bay
Company.

Int. 26. — Had you knowledge, at that time, of any post of
the Hudson's Bay Company north of the 49th parallel, and on
the same river Kootenay?

Ans. — I had information from various members of our party
that Mr. Linklater, agent of the Hudson's Bay Company, had
moved about one mile north of the 49th parallel and established
a new post there, and abandoned the old post.

Examination Resumed, September 13, 1867. <

Int. 27. — In your profession as artist are you conversant
with photographs, lithographs, engravings, as taken from actual
drawings by the hand and eye ?

Ans. — I am, to a considerable extent.

Int. 28. — Please to look at the photograph previously pre-
sented to you, and state how, in your judgment, that was
taken on the spot, whether by hand-drawing or photography?

Ans. — It was photographed directly from nature on the spot.

557

Int. 29. — In your judgment is the building there represented
according to the appearance of the photograph, constructed of
square timber or of logs?

Ans. — Of logs.

Int. 30. — Suppose the Linklater building to have been con-
structed of square timber, bow much additional time of three
axe-men would the difference between logs not squared and
logs squared require?

Arts. — I could not say, as I have not seen anything of that
kind done; all the squaring I have seen done there was very
rude work. I mean by this the Hudson's Bay Company's work
in general.

Int. 31. — Was the squaring which you refer to in the work
of the Hudson's Bay Company, as you saw it, the work of a
saw or of an axe?

Ans. — I should judge that all I remember was done with an
axe.

Int. 32. — Please to specify any one or more of the posts
which you thus have in your mind?

Ans. — Fort Langley and Fort Hope, on Frazer river.

Int. 33. — Is there any saw-mill, so far as you know, in the
vicinity of Fort Kootenay?

Ans. — There is not.

Int. 34. — Did you or not observe in the vicinity of Fort
Kootenay any track or trail of Hudson's Bay Company?

Ans. — I observed a trail at Fort Kootenay leading along
the left bank of the river, used by the Hudson's Bay Company
and the Indians.

Int. 35. — How far south on the Kootenay did that trail, as
seen by you, extend?

Ans. — It extended to the great bend, which was the south-
ernmost point, where the river makes its bend to the west. It
then crossed the river, atid continued on the other bank to the
point previously spoken of called Chelemta. It then re-
crossed the Kootenay, and left the river.

Int. 36. — Have you read at any time, either heretofore or
recently. Sir George Simpson's journey round the world?

Ans. — I have.

■■

558 .

Int. 37. — Have you or not, at my request, read particularly
that portion of tlio narrative which refers to Avhat is there
spoken of as the rendezvous for the collection of furs of Ed-
ward Borland, an agent of the Hudson's Bay Conipany?

Ans. — I have read that part particularly at your request.
I had previously read the whole book while engaged on duty
in Northwestern Boundary Survey.

(The above question and answer objected to as irrelevant
and incompetent.)

Int. 38. — From your knowledge of the topography of the
country on the Kootenay, are you able or not, to judge at what
point was the rendezvous in question, as indicated by Sir
George Simpson?

Ann.- I formed an opinion from reading the book where this
point Avas, that it was at the great bend of the Kootenay.
One reason for this opinion is the short time afterwards, when
according to the narrative he reached the " Kullespelm lake."

(The above question and answer objected to as irrelevant.)

All the questions and answers in the above examination re-
ferring to a photograph marked Roman Catholic Mission,
objected to as irrelevant.

Cross- Examination hy Mr. Lander.

Int. 1. — How long were you at the place which you have
described as being the Hudson's Bay Company's post at Koot-
enay ?

Ans. — I was at the fort I suppose half an hour, long enough
to dismount and make a thorough examination of it. I rode
round it first, then dismounted, and examined as I have before
testified. I wished to get a point from which I could include
all the buildings in a sketch, but I could find no such point.
We made three camps in that vicinity, the last one was near it.

Int. 2. — Did not the river take its bend to the westward at
or near this place you have described ?

Ana. — It did not to the best of my knowledge and belief,
its general course at that point was north and south, and so
continued for many miles above and below that point. The

559

general course is north for a long distance above the boundary
and below Kootenay.

Int. 3. — Look at this map shown to you by the counsel on
the examination-in-chicf, and state whether it does not show
a fort called " Old Kootenay," directly at the bend of the river
on its south side?

Ans. — There is a point so marked on the map.

Int. 4. — Did you ride over the plain on Avhich you were en-
camped in diftorent directions, or did you confine your rides
to a trail running through the brush?

Avs. — I rode an 1 walked in many different directions all
over the plain.

Int. 5. — Did you not discover good land upon portions of
this plain?

Ans. — I did not. I saw no land I considered good in that
part of the country. Some thirty miles north of the boundary
I saw very good land, a small prairie called Joseph's prairie.
It was good land, good pasturage, and good cultivatable land;
land fit for cultivation. The land of Tobacco Plains Avhore
Fort Kootenay is situated is very generally poor.

Int. 6. — Is not the most of this land on the plain where you
encamped covered with brush?

Ans. — There is no brush anywhere round there, it is open
round where wo camped, it was perfectly bare where we last
camped. There was no underbrush in the vicinity, nothing
but grass and bear-berry, which is a recumbent plant.

Int. 7. — Have you not said you encamped on the same plain
on which was the post designated by you as the Hudson's Bay
Company's post called Kootenay?

Ans. — I have. The country for thirty or forty miles was a
scries of openings, generally devoid of brush, covciod with this
kind of grass, very poor grass, and uva ursi. .

(The above question objected to as attributing to the witness
words he did not utter, and as referring by the word "plain"
to no specific locality, and involving necessary equivocation.)

Int. 8. — Was that the character of the country around the
post you have designated as Kootenay, covered with grass and
uva ursi ?

37 H

560

Ans. — It was the general character except that round the
post, it may have less open with more brush. The general
character was the same as the country farther north, but the
plain was rather narrower. The whole country was gravelled
terrace. I saw no places fit for cultivation, there were places
where you get pasture; it was poor pasture, fit for Indian
ponies and such as the horses of that region could subsist on.

Ijit. 9. — Have you not said that the post was on a plain, and
have you not also said that you enca;nped at three places near
that post?

Ans. — I said the post was on a plain ; by plain I do not mean
to bo understood as a level plain. I mean the Tobacco Plains,
a tract of country in some places level, in others rolling hills,
extending for many miles along the river to a point south of
the Kootenay post. They call it "the plains" there because the
rest of the country is densely wooded and these are compara-
tively open, and comparatively level. The general character
of the country is the same. I have said that our camps were
but a few miles distant, our two principal camps were both at
the 49th parallel. Our third camp was nearer to the post, avc
only occupied that a few days.

Int. lO.-^Were not the excursions you have spoken of on
these plains as made on foot, and on horseback, made from the
two camps by the boundary line ?

Ans. — They were.

hit. 11. — Did any one of these excursions, except the one
you have particularly mentioned, extend to the Catholic Mis-
sion ?

Ans. — They did not. I went to the vicinity of the post
once, but I only examined the buildings at the post once.

Int. 12. — Who told you that the buildings near the Catholic
Mission constituted the Hudson's Bay Company's post at
Kootenay ?

Ans. — Quite a number of persons attached to the Boundary
Survey, some of whom had previously visited that place. Be-
fore I went to it some of them spoke of the huts there.

Int. 13. — Were not each and every one who spoke to you

about this place, persons who came with you, and not resi-
dents of tlic country ?

A)is. — Xone of them were residents of that part of the coun-
try ; they were all attached to the Boundary Commission.

Int. 14. — Were not three out of the four buildings you have
described as constituting the post near the Catholic Mission,
at least half the length of that Mission-house ?

Ans. — They were not half the length, to the best of my
recollection ; one of them was larger than the others.

Int. 15. — What was the height of those buildings ?

Ans. — I could not say the exact height; they seemed to
me lower than we should ordinarily build log houses.

Int. 10. — Did you go into either of these houses?

Ans. — I did not, the doors were shut ; I only entered the
church?

Int. 17. — Who was Mr. King that pointed out the house
and said it was Linklater's ? Was he connected with the
Boundary Commission ?

Ans. — Mr. King was commissary and quarter-master of the
Boundary Commission.

Int. 18. — Have you any idea of the size of the house you
call Linklater's, its length, width, and height, or of what the
roof consisted, or can you state positively whether it was built
of round or hewn logs ?

Ans. — It was less than half the size of the church, I should
say ; to the best of my recollection the roof was like the roof
of the church, constructed like the roofs of that country, of
bark and mud, and the timber round logs ; I think if they had
been squared I should have noticed it ; they were very infer-
ior log buildings, from their appearance outside ; I don't know
what they were inside, as I did not enter them.

Int. 19. — Was this house of Linklater's as high as the Cath-
olic Mission?

Ans. — Not nearly so high, it was very low.

J. M. AliDEN.

562

District of Columbia, ^
County of Washington ; / '

I, Nicholas Callan, a notary public, in and for the county
and District aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoiiif^
deposition, hereto attached, of James Madison Alden, a wit-
ness produced, sworn, and examined by and on behalf of the
United States, in the matter of the claims of the Hudson's
Bay Company against the same, now pending before the Brit-
ish and American Joint Commission for the final adjustment
thereof, was taken and reduced to writing in the city of Wash-
ington, under my direction, by a person agreed upon by Caleb
Cushing, attorney for the United States, and Edward Lander,
attorney for the said Hudson's Bay Company, commencing
on the twelfth and ending on the thirteenth day of Septem-
ber, 1867.

I further certify that I administered the following oath to
said witness before his examination :

"You swear that the evidence you shall give in the matter
of the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United
States of America, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth; so help you God."

I further certify that after the same was reduced to writ-
ing, the deposition of said witness was careful read to and
then signed by him in the presence of the counsel for the
United States and of the claimants.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand
[seal.] and seal of oflSce this fourteenth day of September,

one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven.
,• .- - .,^ N. Callan,

, . Notary Public.

ounty
?goincr

a wit-
of tlio
dsoii's
5 Brit-
tmeiit
Wash.
Caleb
mdcr,
mciiKr
(ptem-

ath to

natter
Jiiited
1, and

I writ-
and
>r the

'• hand
mbor,

hlie.

Iritis^ attb American ^oint Sommissiim.

I ]Sr D E X

TESTIMONY ON PART OF THE UNITED STATES

IN THE MATTER OF THE

CLAIM OF THE HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.

Vol. II. — ATLANTIC.

■"""'S^-^-

S*' it. ' ».". ' WM,-;

INDEX.

A. •

Astoria, Description of.

Major General Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 10,

ans. 42, 43; p. 15, ans. 19.
Justus Steinberger, witness, p. 54, ans. 10.
Hon. James W. Nesmith, witness, p. 29, ans. 24,

25.
Thomas Nelson, p. 90, ans. 14.
Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes, witness, p. 275,

ans. 4; p. 276, ans. 6.
Hon. William Gilpin, p. 335, ans. 25, 20.
James G. Swan, witness, p. 343, ans. 2, 3, 4.
George Gibbs, witness, p. 400, ans. 6; p. 420,

ans. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ; p. 426, ans. 40, 41.
Titian R. Peale, witness, p. 344, ans. 6, 7.
William B. McMurtrie, witness, p. 373, ans. 17,

18.
Buildings at, in 1844.

Hon. James W. Nesmith, witness, p. 44, ans.

69, 70; p. 49, ans. 1.
Hon. William Gilpin, p. 339, ans. 11.
Enclosed Land there.

Hon. James W. Nesmith, witness, p. 44, ans. 71.
Timber at.

Hon. James W. Nesmith, witness, p. 45, ans. 72.
Its present condition.

Justus Steinberger, witness, p. 57, ans. 11.
Buildings at, in 1841.

Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes, witness, p. 276,

ans. 8; p. 289, ans. 1, 2; p. 290, ans. 4, G.
Titian R. Peale, 'witness, p. 345, ans. 7.

Astoria, Description of, (continued.)
Buildings at, in 1850.

William B. McMurtrie, witness, p. 373, ans. 17>
18.
Buildings at, in 1853.

George Gibbs, witness, p. 401, ans. 7.
Trade of. »

Titian R. Peale, witness, p. 345, ans. 8; p. 347,

ans. 10.
George Gibbs, witness, p. 427, ans. 45; p. 532,
ans. 81, 82, 88, 84, 85.

Bois^, Fort, Description of.

Hon. James W. Nesmith, witness, p. 27, ans. 17;

p. 41, ans. 46.
Major Robert McFeely, witness, p. 121, ans. 15;

p. 122, ans. 16.
Brevet Colonel Marcus A. Beno, witness, p. 211,

ans. 11.
Major Robert McFeely, witness, p. 122, ans. 17.
William R. Gibson, witness, p. 167, ans. 20; p.

168, ans. 21; p. 172, ans. 21 ; p. 178, ans. 12.
Marcus A. Reno, witness, p. 209, ans. 2, 3.
Hon. William Gilpin, p. 332, ans. 12.
Edward J. Allen, witness, p. 365, ans. 2; p. 366,

ans. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
George Suckley, M. D., witness, p. 542, ans. 13,

15 ; p. 547, ans. 29, 80.
Trade at.

George B. Simpson, p. 262, ans. 11.
Edward J. Allen, witness, p. 866, ans. 7.
George Suckley, witness, p. 543, ans. 16.
Buildings at.

Marcus A. Reno, witness, p. 209, ans. 4 ; p. 210,

ans. 6; p. 215, ans. 14, 15, 17; p. 216, ans.

26, 27; p. 217, ans. 83.
George B. Simpson, witness, p. 261, ans. 9; p.

262, ans. 10.

Boise, Fort, Description of, (continued.)

Large Town at.

Hon. James W. Nesmith, p. 41, ans. 49.
Land at.

Marcus A. Reno, p. 211, ans. 12.

George B. Simpson, witness, p. — , ans. 9; p.
263, ans. 10.

Edward J. Allen, witness, p. 366, ans. 8.
Grass at.

Marcus A. Reno, witness,, p. 213, ans. 3, 7; p.
214, ans. 9; p. 216, ans. 28.
Employees at.

Edward J. Allen, witness, p. 366, ans. 6.
Cattle at.

Edward J. Alien, witness, p. 366, ans. 8.

Ghampoeg, Description of.

Hon. James W. Nesmith, witness, p. 28, ans. 22;
p. 29, ans. 23 ; p. 43, ans. 64 ; p. 47, ans. 65,
'66.

Hon. William Gilpin, p. 335, ans. 24.
Hudson's Bay Company had no station at, in 1841.

Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes, witness, p. 277,
ans. 19, 20.

Colville, Description of.

George Clinton Gardner, witness, p. 194, ans.

15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 ; p. 196, ans. 5, 6,

7; p. 197, ans. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; p. 204,

ans. 5.
A. J. Cain, witness, p. 224, ans. 12, 13, 14; p.

225, ans. 3, 4 ; p. 227, ans. 16 ; p. 229, ans.

33, 37.
Charles T. Gardner, witness, p. 323, ans. 26.
A. J. Cain, witness, p. 232, ans. 7.
Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes, witness, p. 285,

ans. 52; p. 286, ans. 53.

.' I .

Colville, Description of, (continued.)

Sylvester Mowry, p. 384, ans. 2, 3, 5; p. 387,

ans. 6, 8, 9; p. 388, ans. 11.
George Gibbs, witness, p. 404, ans. 14; p. 405,
ans. 15; p. 406, ans. 16, 18; p. 439, ans.
126|.
George Suckley, M. D., p. 541, ans. 4, 5; p.
643, ans. 1,3; p. 544, ans. 4, 5, 6, 7 ; p. 545,
ans. 10, 11, 12 ; p. 546, ans. 20, 24.
Photograph of.

G. C. Gardner, witness, p. 194, ans. 22, 23; p.

197, ans. 14 ; p. 199, ans. 1.
A. J. Cain, witness, p. 225, ans. 15; p. 230, ans.
45, 46.
Buildings erected by Northwest Boundary Commis-
sion at.

George Clinton Gardner, witness, p. 199, ans. 1,
2 ; p. 202, ans. 3; p. 203, ans. 4, 5.
Trail from to Fort Hope.

Geo. Clinton Gardner, witness, p. 203, ans. 6, 7;
p. 204, ans. 8.
Valley of.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 231, ans. 48, 49; p.. 233,

ans. 12. • :

George Gibbs, witness, p. 609, ans. 584.
Minerals near.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 231, ans. 1.
Land at.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 232, ans. 2; p. .233, ans.

13,14.
Charles T. Gardner, witness, p. 323, ans. 27.
Lands in Colville valley, not subject to entry.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 241, ans. 16.
Grazing near.

George Gibbs, witness, p. 509, ans. 583.
Trade at.

George Suckley, witness, p. 643, ans. 16

Columbia River.

Navigation of.

Hon. James W. Nesmith, p. 43, ans. 60.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 235, ans. 28, 29, 30, 81,

32; p. 236, ans. 33, 34.
George W. Shoemaker, witness, p. 258, ans. 26;
. p. 260, ans. 45.

Cost of.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 231, ans. 50; p. 242, ans.

28, 29; p. 247, ans. 2, 3.
George W. Shoemaker, witness, p. 259, ans. 35.
Bateaux in Upper.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 245, ans. 1, 2, 3 ; p. 246,
ans. 4, 5, 6.
Steamers on Upper.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 246, ans. 7, 8; p. 247,
ans. 1.
Portage of. \, •

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 246, ans. 10; p. 247, ans.
6; p. 248, ans. 7, 4, 5; p. 249, ans. 5.
' George Gibbs, p. 417, ans. 40.

Landings on.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 249, ans. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Percolation of water of.

Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes, p. 294, ans. 33.
Depth of River at Vancouver.

Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes, witness, p. 295;
ans. 41. ,

Entrance of.

Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes, p. 301, ans. 4.
George Davidson, witness, p. 308, ans. 12.
Alexander M. Harrison, witness, p. 315, ans. 21.
William B. McMurtrie, witness, p. 372, ans. 8.
Alexander M. Harrison, witness, p. 317, ans. 11.
William Gibson, witness, p. 376, ans. 11.
George Gibbs, witness, p. 402, ans. 10; p. 431,
ans. 73; p. 434, ans. 86, 87.
Salmon Fisheries on.

George Gibbs, witness, p. 412, ans. 29.

!9ti.R I

8 *

Columbia River, (continued.)
Map of Mouth of.

George Davidson, ivitness, p. 306, ans. 5.
Williatn B. McMurtrie, witness, p. 372, ans. 7,

4,5.
William Gibson, witness, p. 375, ans. 3.
Cowlitz, Description of.

General Rufus Ingalls, p. 10, ans. 43; p. 14,

ans. 17; p. 15, ans. 20.
Justus Steinberger, p. 54, ans. 10.
Captain William A. Howard, witness, p. 68,

ans. 6.
George Gibbs, witness, p. 402, ans. 12.
No Station at, in 1841.

Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes, witness, p. 277,
ans. 17, 18; p. 290, ans. 8.

Disappointment, Cape, Description of.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 10, ans. 43.

James W. Nesmith, witness, p. 30, ans. 26, 27;

p. 45, ans. 74.
Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes, p. 276, ans. 9,

11, 12.
George Davidson, witness, p. 306, ans 6.
Alexander M. Harrison, witness, p. 313, ans. 10.
William B. McMurtrie, witness, p. 371, ans 6.
George Gibbs, witness, p. 401, ans. 9.
Titian R. Peale, witness, p. 344, ans. 3, 4, 5.
William Gibson, witness, p. 375, ans. 4, 5, 6, 7,

8; p. 376, ans. 9. ,

Value of land for Light-House at.

Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes, p. 277, ans. 13;

p. 290, ans. 7.
United States Buildings at.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 15, ans. 21.
Justus Steinberger, p. 53, ans. 10.

Disappointment Capo, Description of, (continuoil.)
Value of Land at.

George Davidson, witness, p. 30G, ans. 7; p.

308, ans. 11.
Alexander M. Harrison, witness, p. 313, ans. 13 ;

p. 314, ans. 17.
William Gibson, witness, p. 377, ans. 7.

Not occupied by Hudson's Bay Company.

George Davidson, witness, p. 307. ans. 8, 9.
A. M. Harrison, witness, p. 313, ans. 11, 12; p.

314, ans. 18.
J. G. Swan, p. 343, ans. 0, 7.
Light-House at.

Charles Wilkes, witness, p. 277, ans. 13; p. 290,

ans. 7.
George Davidson, p. 308, ana. 10.
A. M. Harrison, witness, p. 315, ans. 22.
W. B. McMurtrio, p. 372, ans. 9.
Wm. Gibson, p. 370, ans. 11; p. 377, ans. 7.
A. M. Harrison, p. 314, ans. 15, 16 ; p. 317,

ans. 10, 11.
A. M. Harrison, witness, p. 314, ans. 19, 20.
W. B. McMurtrie, witness, p. 372, ans 10; p.

373, ans. 11, 12.
Character of Land at.

J. 11. Peale, p. 349, ans. 1, 2.

Benj. Alvord, p. 350, ans. 3, 4.

W. B. McMurtrie, witness, p. 373, ans. 12, 14,

IG.

Map of Mouth of Columbia, "A."

W. B. McMurtrie, p. 371, ans. 4, 5,
Wm. Gibson, witness, p. 375, ans. 3.

Value of, for Fortifications.

Wm. Gibson, witness, p. 377, ans. 7.
Governor Ogden's supposed Claim at.

Geo. Gibbs, witness, p. 428, ans. 68.
Vol. II, At.— 2.

F. •, ■ ',. ^ ■"-.■-

Flat Head Post, Description of.

Thomsis Adams, witness, p. 114, ans. 13, 14, 15.
Employees tlicro.

Thomas Adams, witness, p. 114, ans. IG.
Trade there.

Thomas Adams, witness, p. 114, ans. 17.

Furs at. -^

Thomas Adams, witness, p. 115, ans. 1, 2, 3.
Number of Horses or Cattle at.

Thomas Adams, p, 116, ans 4.
Fur Trade, Effect of Settlement of Country on.

Rufus Injralls, p. 6, ans. 22 ; p. 13, ans. 12.
W. R. Gibson, witness, p. 169, ans. 32.
Charles Wilkes, p. 298, ans. 55.
Jno. F. Noble, witness, p. 395, ans. 5, 6, 8 ; p.

396, ans. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
George Gibbs, witness, p. 412, ans. 30; p. 413,

ans. 31.
Charles Wilkes, witness, p. 287, ans. 58; p. 288,
' ans. 60; p. 298, ans. 55.
Fort Hall, Description of.

James W. Nesmith, witness, p. 26, ans. 15; p.

27, ans. 6; p. 40, ans. 41, 42, 43.
Thomas Adams, witness, p. 112, ans. 4; p. 113,

ans. 5.
W. II. Gibson, witness, p. 167, ans. 17.
Geo. B. Simpson, witness, p. 262, ans. 12.
William Gilpin, witness, p. 331, ans. 5, 6 ; p.

337, ans. 2, 3.
B. F. Dowell, witness, p. 360, ans. 10.
W. R. Gibson, witness, p. 167, ans. 18.
Gordon Granger, witness, p. 379, ans. 3, 4, 5,

6; p. 380, ans. 8; p. 382, ans. 12; p. 383,

ans. 14.
Trade at.

Thomas Adams, p. 113, ans. 7, 8, 9.

Geo. B. Simpson, witness, p. 261, ans. 4, 5, 6.

Fort Hall, Description of, (continued.)

William Gilpin, witness, p. 3ol, ans. 9.

B. F. Dowell, p. 360, ans. 11.

Gordon Granger, witness, p. 380, ans. 11.
Country around.

Thomas Adams, witness, p. 114, ans. 11.
Cattle and Horses at, in 1853-54.

Thomas Adams, p. IIG, ans. 2.

Geo. B. Simpson, witness, p. 261, ans. 7.
' Gordon Granger, witness, p. 380, ans. 12, 13.

Land at.

William Gilpin, witness, p. 331, ans. 7.

B. F. Dowell, witness, p. 360, ans. 12, 13.

Gordon Granger, witness, p. 380, ans. 9, 10.
Employees at.

William Gilpin, witness, p. 331, ans*. 8.

Grass at.

Gordon Granger witness, p. 380, ans. 12; p.
382, ans. 11.

Hudson's Bay Company.

Effect of Policy of on Settlement of Country.

James W. Nesmith, p. 33, ans. 34.
Their posts ample for defence against Indians.

James W. Nesmith, p. 47, ans. 84.
No improvement of roads, &c., by Company.

James W. Nesmith, p. 549, ans. 2.

Geo. Gibbs, witness, p. 413, ans. 32.
Wanted to sell their rights in gross.

Thomas Nelson, p. 89, ans. 12.
Cheap Labor of.

11. McFeely, witness, p. 126, ans. 22.
Trade of, in 1841.

Charles Wilkes, witness, p. 288, ans. 60,
In 1843.

William Gilpin, witness, p. 333, ans. 15.
Company's Officers kind to Commodore Wilkes.
'• • ' Charles Wilkes, witness, p. 299, ans. 63; p. 303,

'!♦

h'\

ans.

Hudson's Bay Company, (continued.)

Estimate, in 1840, of value uf Company's posts and
trade south of 40th'^.

Charles Wilke><, witncs.«, p. oOl, ans. o; p. 302,
ans. 3, 4.
Importation of goods at I'uget's Sound by.

Simpson P. Moses, witness, p. 327, ans. 2, 5; p.
328, ans. 8.
Ballenden, (Company's Factor,) said Navigation Col-
umbia useless to Company under United States Rev-
enue System.

Simpson P. Moses, witness, p. 328, ans. 1).
Extent of Company's Claim.

William Gilpin, witness, p. 335, ans. 21.
Cattle and Sheep of.

William Gilpin, witness, p. 335, ans. 23.
Policy to settlers.

William Gilpin, witness, p. 330, ans. 27.
Company wished large Reservation at Vancouver,

Benj. Alvord, witness, p. 352, ans. 9.
Company's Transportation to Colvile.

Geo. Gibbs, witness, p. 415, ans. 34.
Effect of discovery of gold on Company's business.

George Gibbs, witness, p. 415, ans. 35.
Wished to transfer their transportation to Fraser river.
Geo. Gibbs, witness, p. 443, ans. 152; p. 444,
ans. 153.
Company's posts in American Territory unprofitable.

Geo. Gibbs, p. 448, ans. 188.
Governor Ogden's statement that American Oregon
not fur country.

Geo. Gibbs, p. 494, ans. 409.

-,•■■;■' ^-- ;.-- I. ''■ ■

Indians.

Policy of Hudson's Bay Company to.

Rufus Ingalls, p. 9, ans. 37; p. 10, ans. 39.
James W. Nesmith, p. 32, ans. 33.

Indiana, Policy of Hudson's IJay Company to, (continued.)

Geo. Gil)l)s, p. 417, aiis. .30.
Company's trailc witli.

James \V. Ncsiiiitli, p. 80, ans. 21>.
EfTeLt of intercourse wiili Hudson's Bay Company.

.Tames \V. Xosmitli, witness, p. 551, ans. 33.
War witli.

.James W. Ncsmitli, p. 40, ans. 80, 83.

George Gib'us, p. 410, ans. 38.
Depopulation of.

Charles Wilkes, p. 287, ans. 57.

Geo. Gibhs, p. 471, ans. .•'>3r>.

Kootenay Post, Description of.

G. C. Gardner, witness, p. 192, ans. 5, 0, 8; p.

193, ans. 11, 12; p. 195, ans. 1; p. 196,

ans. 2.
Charles I, Gardner, witness, p. 322, ans. 20; p.

323, ans. 22, 23; p. 324, ans. 9; p. 323, ans.

24 ; p. 324, ans. 9, 10, 11 ; p. 325, ans. 1.

F. Hudson, witness, p. 33!), ans. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ; p. 341, ans. 3, 8, 9, 10.

Geo. Gibbs, witness, p. 407, ans. 19 ; p. 454,

ans. 219, 220.
J. M. Alden, p. 552, ans. 4, 5, 0, 8, 9, 10; p.
553, ans. 11, 12 ; p. 554, ans. 18, 14, 15, 17,
19; p. 5.50, ans. 22, 23, 24, 25, 20; p. 557,
ans. 29 ; p. 558, ans. 37, 38, 1 ; p. 559, ans.
3, 4, 5, 0, 7, 8 ; p. 500, ans. 9, 12, 13 ; p. 501,
ans. 14, 15, 18, 19 ; p. 554, ans. 18.
Photograph of Catholic Mission at.

G. Clinton Gardner, witness, p. 193, ans. 9.
F. Hudson, p. 340, ans. 8.

Geo. Gibbs, p. 407, ans. 20.
Kootenay River.

.J. M. Alden, p. 551, ans. 3; p. 555, ans. 20, 21.

''Ml

I!'

t ■■

'"»,

rt'' '

Kootenay Post, Description of, (continued.)
Photograph of building ut.

J. M. Alden, p. 6r>3, ans. 11; p. 556, ans. 28;
p. 557, ans. 20, 31, 33, 84, 35.

Military Authorities.

Wished to protect Hudson's Bay Company's rights.

Kufus Ingalis, p. 15, ans. 22.
Their views as to c.xpinition of Coin[iany'8 Charter.

llufus Ingalis, p. 15, ans. 22,
Who in command at Astoria.

Justus Steinberger, p. 58, ana. 12.
Miscellaneous. ,

St. Helen's.

Justus Steinberger, p. 67, ans. 9.
Ranier.

Justus Steinberger, p. 67, ans. 9.
Report as to value of buildings bv dilitary Board at
Vancouver.

Chancey McKee, p. 78, ans. 5.

Andrew J. Smith, p. 84, ans. 4.

C. C. Augur, p. 101, ans. 4.
Mr. Daniel Webster called attention to value of Hud-
son's Bay Company's Claims.

Thomas i^elson witness, p. 87, ans. 4.
Information thereon sought from Dr. John McLaughlin,

p. 87, ans. 6; p. 98.
Courts of Oregon open to Hudson's Bay Company.

Thomas Nelson, p. 90, ans. 2.
Price of sea-otter skins.

J. W. P. Huntington, p. 162, ans. 1.
Value of lumber in Umpqua Valley.

J. W. P. Huntington, p. 153, ans. 11.
Davis farm.

J. H. P. Huntington, p. 157, ans. 46,47, 48; p.
163, ans. 21, 22.

ITi

MiHCcIliinoous, (continued.)

StatemcMit of Mr. Ogdcn.

W. K. Ginsori, p. 1(J!», iuis. L'8, 2!», 80, 31 ; p.

170, aiis. 33; p. 174, ans. 31, 32, 33, 34; p.

17r>. ans. 37, 38, 31), 40.

Account of Hudson's Buy Company vs. United States.

11. J. Atkinson, p. 183, ans. U, 7, 8; p. 184, ans.

12; p. 185, ans. 13; p. 180, an*. 14.

Trails, cost of.

G. C. Gartlner, p. 204, ans. 8.

Adobes.

Marcus A. Reno, p. 210, ans. 8, !♦, 10 ; p. 21G,
•in a 90 o;> 01 •-)-,

(IMS. M~, *•*>, -i^, .>''•

Geo. W. Shoemaker, p. 257, ans. 25.

Gordon Granger, p. 380, ans. 14, 15; p. 381,
ans. 10; p. 385, ans. 9; p. 380, ans. 10.
Thompson's farm ner.r Umpqua.

Lewis S. Thompson, p. 221, ans. 12.
Cain, A. J., in real estate business in Oregon.
• A. J. Cain, p. 222, ans. 1.

Clap-board houses.

, A. J. Cain, p. 232, ans. 4.
Proportion of land in Washington Territory in private
ownership.

A. J. Cain, p. 233, ans. 10.
Population of Washington Territory.

A. J. Cain, p. 233, ans. 11.
, . Gold excitement.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 235, ans. 27.

Geo. W. Shoemaker, p. 256, ans. 11.
Umatilla.

A. J. Cain, p. 237, ans. 38.
Speculative value of Town Sites in Washington.

A. J. Cain, p. 237, ans. 40.
Difference between perfect title and squatter's title.

A. J. Cain, d. 241, ans. 15.
Palouze Landing.

A. J. Cain, p. 242, ans. 24, 2.5, 26, 27.

'"^wWl^^^

Miscellaneous, (continued.)

Bitter Hoot Mountains.

A. J. Cain, p. 244, ans. 4; p. 245, ans. 5, 6,

,;■ 8, 9.

Railroad at Cascade Portasrc.

A. J. Cain, p. 247, ans. 4, 5, 6; p. 248, ans. 1,
2, 3, 5; p. 241), ans. G; p. 250, ans. 7, 8, 1,
2, 3; p. 251, ans. 4, 1.
Wagon Roads at Cascades and Dalles.

A. J. Cain, p. 248, ans. 2.
Shoemaker's farm sold.

Geo. W. Shoemaker, p. 255, ans. 4; p. 256, ans.
6,7,8.
Pillar Rock, Hudson's Bay Company, no station there
in 1841.

Charles Wilkes, p. 277, ans. 15, 16.
Cattle in Country in 1841.

Charles Wilkes, p. 297, ans. 50.
Dr. McLaughlin kind to settlers.

Charles Wilkes, p. 299, ans. 62.
Price of Cattle in Willamette Valley in 1841.

Charles Wilkes, p. 301, ans. 3.
Map of Mouth of Columbia River.

A. M. Harrison, p. 312, ans. 5; p. 313, ans. 8.
Chapman's Claim at Umpqua.

C. T. Gardner, p. 321, ans. 9. .
Coweeman, or Monticello.

C. J. Gardner, p. 325, ans. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Ciiscade Range, climate of country east and west of it.

Benj. Alvord, p. 357, ans. 9, 10, 11.
Price of lumber at Dalles in 18551.

Benj. Alvord, p. 354, ans. 13. '

Severe winter in 1852.

Benj. Alvord, p. 355, ans. 1.
Cost of expedition across continent.

Wm. Gilpin, p. 338, ans. 5.
Where timber to build post at Vancouver came from.

Geo. Gibbs, p. 411, ans. 26.

Miscellaneous, (continued.)

Photograph of Vancouver.

Geo. Gibbs, p. 412, ans. 27.
How Pacific Railroad Survey and Northwestern Boun-
dary Commission got their supplies.
Geo. Gibbs, p. 414, ans. 33.
Kettle Falls.

Geo. Gibbs, p. 417, ans. 41.
Indebtedness of settlers to Dr. McLaughlin.

Geo. Gibbs, p. 418, ans. 42.
Explanation of Geo. Gibbs in relation to his corres-
pondence with Governor Ogden.
Geo. Gibbs, p. 418, ans. 43.
Further explanatiou by, p. 418, ans. 43.
Published statements of Geo. Gibbs about Hudson's
Bay Company's Post, never controverti^d.
Geo. Gibbs, p. 4G1, ans. 201.
Why some interrogatories prepared by Geo. Gibbs, p.

481, ans. 402.
Water power near Colvile not claimed by Hudson's
Bay Company.

Geo. Gibbs, p. 508, ans. 576, 577, 578.
Buildings erected at Vancouver by Ingalls.

Rufus Ingalls, p. 525, ans. 2.
Hudson's Bay Company's Buildings at Vancouver, at
what cost they could have been erected.

Rufus Ingalls, p. 525, ans. 5 ; p. 520, ans. : p.
5e35, ans. 39, 42 ; p. 530, ans. 47.
Pillar Rock, Description of.

Geo. Gibbs, witness, p. 402, ans. 11.
Portland.

James W. Nesmith, witness, p. 26, ans. 13 ; p.

38, ans. 25.
Justus Steinberger, witness, p. 63, ans. 9.
Thomas Nelson, witness, p. 89, ans. 13.
Justus Steinberger, witness, p. 50, ans. 8.
A. Pleasanton, witness, p. 141, ans. 21.

J. W. P. Huntington, witness, p. 152, ans. 3.

Vol. II, At.— 3.

i!';

It,

"crs"

Miscellaneous, (continued.)

Settlement of the country.

James W. Nesmith, p. 38, ans. 3r>.
Geo. Gibbs, witness, p. 415, ans. 36; p. 416,
ans. 37.

N.
Nez Percd, (old Fort.)

Farm at.

J. W. P. Huntington, witness, p. 149, ans. 32,

33.

W. R. Gibson, witness, p. 166, ans. 7.

Enclosures at.

J. W. P. Huntington, witness, p. 151, ans 41.

Land around.

J. W. P. Huntington, p. 1.51, ans. 42 ; p. 164,

ans. 29, 30 ; p. 165, ans. 32, 33, 1.

Uses of.

W. R. Gibson, witness, p. 168, ans. 22, 23.

Nisqually.

Buildings at.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 15, ans. 20.

Okanagan, Description of.

G. Clinton Gardner, witness, p. 195, ans. 24,

25, 26.
Charles Wilkes, witness, p. 284, ans. 48, 49, 50,

51.
Sylvester Mowry, witness, p. 385, ans. 6, 7 ; p.

388, ans. 15, 16, 17 ; p. 389, ans. 21.
George jibbs, witness, p. 407, ans. 19; p. 447,

ans. 181 ; p. 449, ans. 189 ; p. 542, ans. 8, 9.
George Suckley, p. 542, ans. 8, 9 ; p. 546, ans.

22, 23.
Fur-bearing Animals scarce in country around.

Geo. Gibbs, witness, p. 460, ans. 195, 196.
Trade at.

Geo. Suckley, witness, p. 543, ans. 16.

Umpqua, Description of.

J. W. P. Huntington, witness, p. 146, ans. 6, 10,

11, 12, 13, 14, 15; p. 147, ans. IG, 17.
L. S. Thompson, witness, p. 218, ans. 3, 4, 5.
William Gilpin, witness, p. 336, ans. 20.
J. H. P. Huntington, witness, p. 148, ans. 20;

p. 154, ans. 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 ; p.

160, ans. 1 ; p. 161, ans. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ;

p. 162, ans. 14.
J. S. Thompson, witness, p. 218, ans. 3.
Charles T. Gardner, witness, p. 323, ans. 2, 3.
B. F. Dowell, witness, p. 358, ans. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;

p. 359, ans. 7.
Charles Wilkes, witness, p. 286, ans. 55, 56.
Charles T. Gardner, witness, p. 322, ans. 14.

B. F. Dowell, witness, p. 363, ans. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,
11 ; p. 364, ans. 12, 13, 14.

W. J. Terry, witness, p. 391, ans. 9, 10, 11 ; C.
T. Gardner, witness, p. 322, ans. 14.
Buildings at, burned in 1853.

J. W. P. Huntington, p. 148, ans. 21.
Trail from.

J. W. P. Huntington, witness, p. 152, ans. 2.
Price of labor at.

J. W. P. Huntington, witness, p. 154, ans. 18;
p. 162, ans. 12, 13.
Land at. Value of.

J. W. P. Huntington, witness, p. 155, ans. 27,

32 ; p. 162, ans. 16, 17, 18 ; p. 162, ans. 15.
L. S. Thompson, witness, p. 218, ans. 4.

C. T. Gardner, witness, p. 323, ans. 2, 3.
B, F. Dowell, witness, p. 359, ans. 8, 9.

Grasshoppers at.

J. W. P. Huntington, witness, p. 163, ans. 20.
Cattle at.

L. S. Thompson, witness, p. 218, ans. 7; p. 220,
ans. 7, 8, 9.

Umpqua, Description of, (continued.)
Chapman's Farm at.

L. S. Thompson, p. 219, ans. 10.
C. T. Gardner, witness, p. 323, ans. 1 ; p. 324,
ans. 5.
. Umpqua River.

L. S. Thompson, witness, p. 219, ans. 4 ; p. 220,
ans. 5.
Trade at.

L. S. Thompson, witness, p. 222, ans. 7.

Vancouver, Description of.

Bufus Ingalls, witness, p. 2, ans. G, 7 ; p. 3,
:/ ans. 10, 11.
^j;* James W. Nesmith, witness, p. 37, ans. 19, 20.
Thomas Nelson, witness, p. 88, ans. 9.
Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 4, ans. 12, 13, 14, 15,

16; p. 5, ans. 20; p. 6, ans. 23, 24, 25; p.

11, ans. 46.
U. S. Grant, witness, p. 20, ans. 10.
James W. Nesmith, witness, p. 23, ans. 2; p.

24, ans. 7; p. 23, ans. 4.
Justus Steinberger, witness, p. 59, ans. 3, 4.
Charles B. Wagner, witness, p. 60, ans. 5; p.

63, ans. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
W. A. Howard, witness, p. 67, ans. 4.
Chancey McKeever, witness, p. 78, ans. 78; p.

81, ans. 1.
General Andrew J. Smith, witness, p. 84, ans.

6,7.
Thomas Nelson, witness, p. 89, ans. 10; p. 90,

ans. 2, 3.
General Jas. A. Hardie, witness, p. 107, ans. 3;

p. Ill, ans. 1.
Major R. McFeely, witness, p. 119, ans 4.
Jas. A. Hardie, witness, p. 11.

Vancouver, Description of, (continued.)

Major R. McFeely, witness, p. 120, ans. 6, 7 ;

p. 127, ans. 3 ; p. 128, ans. 4.
General A. Fleasanton, witness, p. 135, ans. 4,

5,6.
General P. H. 'Sheridan, witness, p. 267, ans. 3,

4 ; p. 269, ans. 5.
Charles Wilkes, witness, p. 278, ans. 25; p. 279,

ans. 26, 27, 29, 31; p. 280, ans. 33; p. 281,

ans. 39 ; p. 291, ans. 10.
William Gilpin, witness, p. 333, ans. 16, 17, 18,

19, 20.
T. R, Peale, witness, p. 345, ans. 9, 10, 11; p.

346, ans. 12 ; p. 347, ans. 11 ; p. 348, ans. 13.
Benj. Alvord, witness, p. 350, ans. 3 ; p. 351,

ans. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ; p. 352, ans. 1, 2, 3 ; p. 353,

ans. 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12 ; p. 354, ans. 19, 20 ;

p. 355, ans. 21.
Geo. Gibbs, witness, p. 408, ans. 21.
Rufus Ingalls, p. 524, ans. 1; p. 525, ans. 3; p.

526, ans. 7, 8.

Fur Trade of.

J. R. Peale, witness, p. 348, ans. 13, 14, 15.

Claim of Hudson's Bay Company at.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 2, ans. 5.
General U. S. Grant, witness, p. 19, ans. 7.
Chas. B. Wagner, witness, p. 61, ans. 8.

Lands of Hudson's Bay Company occupied by United
States and citizens.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 3, ans. 9.
Change in Occupation of Hudson's Bay Company at.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 3, ans. 10.
Horses and Cattle at.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 4, ans. 16.

C. Wilkes, witness, p. 281, ans. 40.

Geo. Gibbs, witness, p. 411, ans. 24.

"Vancouver, Description of, (continued.)

Relation between Hudson's Bay Company and United
States troops.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 5, ans. 17 ; p. 10, ans.

4'''.
General U. S. Grant, witness, p. 21, ans. 11.
Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 5, ans. 19 ; p. 12, ans.

6, 7, 8, 9; p. 16, ans. 23, 24.
U. S. Grant, p. 22, ans. 10.
TJ. S. Military Post at.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 5, ans. 18, 20; p.
525, ans. 4; p. 528, ans. 2, 3, 4, 5; p. 529,
ans. 6, 7, 8, 9 ; p. 530, ans. 10, 11, 16; p.
531, ans. 17, 19, 20, 21, 22; p. 532, ans. 24,
25, 26, 28 ; p. 533, ans. 29, 30.
Land at.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 6, ans. 26, 27 ; p. 7,

ans. 28; p. 8, ans. ^'^s P* 10, ans. 41; p. 11,

ans. 45, 46 ; p. 12, ans. 3 ; p. 14, ans. 13, 14,

15, 16.

General U. S. Grant, witness, p. 21, ans. 2, 3,

4; p. 19, ans. 8, 9; p. 22, ans. 8.
Justus Steinbcrger, witness, p. 52, ans. 6.
J. A. Hardie, witness, p. 108, ans. 6.
R. McFeely, wimess, p. 120, ans. 8, 9, 10, 11.
Relations between Hudson's Bay Company at and
Settlers.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 7, ans. 29; p. 12, ans.
4; p. 17, ans. 1.

Injury to Town of, from policy of Company.
Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 8, ans. 30.

Town of.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 8, ans. 31.
Justus Steinberger, witness, p. 53, ans. 8.
Chauncey McKeever, p. 79, ans. 7.
James W. Nesmith, witness, p. 25, ans. 9, 10;
p. 26, ans. 12 ; p. 30, aus. 30 ; p. 31, ans. 31.

BSSB

Vancouver, Description of, (continued.)
Town of.

Justus Steinberger, witness, p. 51, ans. 4 ; p. 52,
ans. 7.

C. B. Wagner, witness, p. 61, ans. 10, 11; p.
62, ans. 12, 14, 15, 16; p. 65, ans. 10; p. 66,
ans. 16, 17, 18; p. 67, ans. 4.

W. A. Howard, witness, p. 67, ans. 5 ; p. 69,
ans. 3, 4.

Thos. Nelson, witness, p. 89, ans. 13.
J. A. Hardie, witness, p. 109, ans. 7.
A. Pleasanton, witness, p. 137, ans. 10.
C. Wilkes, witness, p. 295, ans. 40, 41 ; p. 296,
ans. 42.

Geo. Gibbs, witness, p. 411, ans. 25.
How Company paid their employees.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 8, ans. 24.
Price of wages and materials at.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 9, ans. 35, 36.

Benj. Alvord, witness, p. 354, ans. 18.
Hudson's Bay Company's vessels at.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 11, ans. 46.

James W. Nesmith, witness, p. 31, ans. 31.
Hay raised at.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 11, ans. 2.

Geo. Gibbs, witness, p. 463, ans. 275.
People sought shelter at during Indian War.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 13, ans. 10, 11.

Description of country around.

C. B. Wagner, witness, p. 60, ans. 7; p. 61,
ans. 9.

C. C. Augur, witness, p. 102, ans. 10; p. 103,
ans. 1.

Jas. A. Hardie, witness, p. 108, ans. 5.
C. Wilkes, p. 296, ans. 46.

Yanoouver, Description of, (continued.)

Improvements by Hudson's Bay Company in country
around.

C. B. Wagner, witness, p. 63, ans. 17.
Bufus Ingalls, witness, p. 527, ans. 14 ; p. 538,
ans. 65, 66.

Forests near, deadened by fire.

Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 528, ans. 15.
Report of Military Board on Hudson's Bay Company's
buildings at.

J. K. Barnes, witness, p. 70, ans. 5 ; p. 71, ans.

6; p. 75, ans. 5.
Chauncey McKee, witness, p. 81.

C. C. Augur, witness, p. 104.

D. H. Vinton, witness, p. 129, anf. 4,5; p. 130,
ans. 1, 7; p. 131, ans. 5 ; p. 133, A.

Merchandizing at, principal business of Company in
1852.

Thos. Nelson, witness, p. 89, ans. 11.

Land at.

A. Pleasanton, witness, p. 136, ans. 8.
C. Wilkes, witness, p. 282, ans. 42 ; p. 295, ans.
39 ; p. 280, ans. 34, 35 ; p. 300, ans. 1.
Mills at.

C. Wilkes, witness, p. 280, ans. 37, 38 ; p. 292,

ans. 17 ; p. 293, ans. 18.
Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 527, ans. 10, 11, 12,
13.

Inundation at.

C. Wilkes, p. 282, ans. 43; p. 283, ans. 44; p.
296, ans. 49.

- Photograph of.

Benj. Alvord, p. 352.

When Hudson's Bay Company left.

Benj. Alvord, witness, p. 355, ans. 22 ; p. 356,
ans. 4, 6.

'■ •>* .'• •■

*mm

Vancouver, Description of, (continued.)
Sauvie's Island.

Geo. Gibbs, witness, p. 410, ans. 23; p. 461,
ans. 263, 264.
Orchard at.

Geo. Gibbs, witness, p. 412, ans. 28.
Donation Claims, near taken by Company's employees,
Rufus Ingalls, witness, p. 526, ans. 9.

W.
Walla-Walla, Description of.

James W, Nesmith, witness, p. 28, ans. 19 ; p.

41, ans. 50; p. 42, ans. 51 ; p. 28, ans. 20, 21 ;

p. 42, ans. 53.
Justus Steinberger, witness, p. 54, ans. 10; p.

58, ans. 13.
R. McFeely, witness, p. 121, ans. 12, 13, 14.
S. Mowry, witness, p. 385, ans. 8.
W. J. Terry, witness, p. 390, ans. 7.
R. McFeely, p. 124, ans. 14, 15 ; p. 125, ans.

17.
J. W. P. Huntington, witness, .p. 163, ans. ^3.
W. R. Gibson, p. 167, ans. 11, 13, 14, 15.
M. A. Reno, witness, p. 212, ans. 16.
A. J. Cain, witness, p. 223, ans. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 ;

p. 238, ans. 46.
J. G. Noble, witness, p. 395, ans. 13 ; p. 396,

ans. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.
Geo. Gibbs, witness, p. 403, ans. 13.
Geo. Suckley, witness, p. 542, ans. 11 ; p. 546,

ans. 24, 25, 26 ; p. 547, ans. 28, 29.

Indians of.

James W, Nesmith, witness, p. 42, ans. 56, 57.

Valley of.

James W. Nesmith, witness, p. 48, ans. 63 ; p.

158, ans. 56.
G. W. Shoemaker, witness, p. 258, ans. 82.
Vol. II, A».— 4.

Walia-Walla, Description of, (continued.)
Valley of.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 231, ans. 48, 49 ; p. 288,
ans. 15, 16, 17; p. 241, ans. 17, 18; p. 242,
ans. 80.
Gi W. Shoemaker, witness, p. 2.55, ans. 21, 22.
United States forces at.

J. W. P. Huntington, witness, p. 158, ans. 52.
G. W. Shoemaker, witness, p. 259, ans. 41.
Lands at.

W. R. Gibson, witness, p. 168, ans. 24, 25, 26.
M. A. Reno, witness, p. 212, ans. 17, 18, 20.
A. J. Gain, p. 224, ans. 10 ; p. 237, ans. 41, 44,

45.
Geo. W. Shoemaker, witness, p. 254, ans. 17, 18.
M. A. Reno, witness, p. 211, ans. 13, 14.
A. J. Cain, witness, p. 225, ans.^ 5 ; p. 227, ansi

14 ; p. 238, ans. 54.
William Gilpin, witness, p. 288, ans. 6, 7.
• B. F. Dowell, p. 362, ans. 20.

W. J. Terry, witness, p. 390, ans. 6.
Description of.

William Gilpin, witness, p. 338, ans. 8<
Roads at.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 224, ana. 11.
Grazing at.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 227, ans. 13.
G. Shoemaker, p. 259, ans. 36, 38.
Rent of store at.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 227, ans. 15 ; p. 238, anSi
47, 48, 49, 60.

Town of.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 233, ans. 19.
J. W. P. Huntington, witness, p. 157, ans. 50,
51.

• United States Post of.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 234, ans. 20.

Walla Walla, Description of, (continued.)
River of.

A. J. Cain) witness^ p. 234, ans. 2l.
Description of.

G. W. Shoemaker, witness, p. 254, ans. 19, 20i
C. Wilkes, witness, p. 283, ans. 46, 47.
W. Gilpin, witness, p. 332, ans. 14.

B. F. Dowell, witness, p. 360, ans. 14, 15, 16, 17.
W. J. Terry, witness, p. 390, ans. 2, 3, 4, 6; p.

891, ans. 8.

Buildings at, repaired by Van Sycle.

G. W. Shoemaker, witness, p. 256, ans. 10, Bt
Mills in valley of.

G. W. Shoemaker, witness, p. 259, ans. 40t
Why Hudson's Bay Company left.

B. F. Dowell, witness, p. 861, ans. 18.
Trade at.

Geo. Suckley, witness, p. 548, ans. 16.
Wallula, Description of.

J. W. P. Huntington, witness, p. 150, ans. 86,
87, 88, 39, 40 ; p. 168, ans. 54, 65, 57, 58j 59,
60, 63, 64, 66.
W. R. Gil^son, witness, p. 178, ans. 16.
A. J. Cain, p. 226, ans. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
G. W. Shoemaker, witness, p. 252, ans. 5, 6 ; p.

258, ans. 27.
A. J. Cain, witness, p. 226, ans. 7 ; p. 234, ans.

28, 24, 25, 26 ; p. 236, ans. 85.
G. W. Shoemaker, witness, p. 252, ans. 4, 7; p.
258, ans. 8, 9, 11, 12; p. 257, ans. 19.
llotels at.

J. W. P. Huntington, witness, p. 164, ans. 24,
25, 26, 27, 28.
Landings above.

A. J. Cain, witness, p. 286, ans. 36, 37.
Trade at.

G. W. Shoemaker, witness, p. 253, ans. 13; p,
254, ans. 14, 15, 16 ; p. 256, ans. 22.