IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 1.1 
 
 U£|2B 12.5 
 ■tt Ui2 122 
 lAo 12.0 
 
 III 
 
 I 
 
 nnii 
 
 m 
 
 IL25 III 1.4 
 
 1^1 
 
 1.6 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sdences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 ?3 M<ST MAIN STRUT 
 
 WnSTIR.N.Y. 14510 
 
 (7t6)t72-4S03 
 
 ■1>^ 
 
 V 
 
 ^Q 
 
 ,V 
 
 S> 
 
 <^ 
 
 
 m^ 
 
 i\ 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHIVI/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notas tachniquat at bibliographiquas 
 
 Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast 
 original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of this 
 copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua, 
 which may altar any of tha imagas in tha 
 raproduction. or which may significantly changa 
 tha usual mathod of filming, ara chackad balow. 
 
 Colourad covars/ 
 ^ ' Couvartura da coulaur 
 
 I I Covars damagad/ 
 
 D 
 
 □ 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Couvartura andommagte 
 
 Covars rastorad and/or laminatad/ 
 Couvartura rastaurte at/ou palliculAa 
 
 I I Covar titia missing/ 
 
 La titra da couvartura manqua 
 
 I I Colourad maps/ 
 
 Cartas gtegraphiquas an coulaur 
 
 Colourad ink (i.a. othar than biua or black)/ 
 Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) 
 
 I I Colourad platas and/or illustrations/ 
 
 D 
 
 Planchas at/ou illustrations an coulaur 
 
 Bound with othar matarial/ 
 RaliA avac d'autras documants 
 
 Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion 
 along Intorior margin/ 
 
 La re liur« sarria paut causar da I'ombra ou da la 
 distortion la long da la marga intAriaura 
 
 Blank laavas addad during rastoration may 
 appaar within tha ti>>xt. Whanavar possibia, thasa 
 hava baan omitted from filming/ 
 II sa paut qua cartainas pagas blanches ajouttes 
 lors d'una restauration apparaissant dans la texte. 
 mais. lorsqua ceia Atait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 4t4 filmtes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentairas supplimantairas; 
 
 L'Institut a microf ilmA la maillaur axemplaira 
 qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details 
 da cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vue bibiiographiqua, qui pauvent modifier 
 une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m6thoda normale de filmage 
 sont indiqute ci-dessous. 
 
 r~n Coloured pages/ 
 
 D 
 
 Pagas da couleur 
 
 Pagas damaged/ 
 Pagas andommagtes 
 
 Pagas restored and/oi 
 
 Pages restaur^as at/ou pallicuiies 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxei 
 Pages dicoior^es, tacheties ou piqudes 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages ditachies 
 
 Showthroughy 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prin 
 
 Quality inigaia de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materii 
 Comprend du material suppl^mantaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Mition disponible 
 
 I — I Pages damaged/ 
 
 I I Pagas restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 r~7l Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 I I Pages detached/ 
 
 r~~| Showthrough/ 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 I I Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 I — I Only edition available/ 
 
 T 
 
 si 
 T 
 
 M 
 
 : 
 
 bi 
 
 rll 
 rs 
 m 
 
 Pagas wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiallemant 
 obscurcies par un fauillet d'errata, una pelure, 
 etc., ont M filmAes A nouveau de faqon A 
 obtenir la mailieure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at tha reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film* au taux da reduction indiqui ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X ItX 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 J 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
Th« copy filmed h«r« ha* b—n r«produc«d thanks 
 to th« o^naroaity of: 
 
 Library Division 
 
 Pro fincial Archives of British Columbia 
 
 L'axamplaira filmA f ut raproduit grica A la 
 gAnArosit* da: 
 
 Library Division 
 
 Provincial Archives of British Columbia 
 
 Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast quality 
 possibia conaidaring tha condition and lagibility 
 of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha 
 filming contract spacifications. 
 
 Las images suivantaa ont 4tA raproduitas avac ia 
 plus grand soin, compta tanu da la condition at 
 da ia nattat* da Taxampiaira film*, at an 
 conformity avac las conditions du contrat da 
 filmaga. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are 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 ere 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. 
 
 Les exemplairas originaux dont la couvarture en 
 papier est imprimie sent filmte en commen^ent 
 par la premier plat at mn terminent soit par la 
 darniire page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration. soit par la second 
 plat, salon la cas. Tous las autres exemplairas 
 originaux sent f iimis en commenpent par la 
 pramiire page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration at en terminent par 
 la darniAre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shell contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur ia 
 derniAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: la symbols — »> signifie "A SUIVRE ". le 
 symbols ▼ signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, 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 cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre 
 fiimis A des tsux de reduction diff Arents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre 
 reproduit en un seul ciich*. il est f iimA A partir 
 de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite. 
 et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nAcesssire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mAthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 » k * 
 
i \ 
 
/ 
 

 
 *' 
 
 ; \ 
 
 No. 
 
 LEGISLATIVE 
 
 UBRARY. 
 
 vaiucb at $ ^ 
 
 cli iv^ cfadM^icb in tAe (Eal:aEo<jue ai 
 
 »• 
 
 I'rovincialLibrarvJuWJ^CI/VlClJl'. 
 Victoria, B. G., January Ist, 189^.. 
 
 I. 
 
 -iiiMfnuilii 
 
 ■■(,■ 
 
 'j — i..,:jk ■- .'.. .-•vwMBirji 
 
T 
 
 mmmmm 
 
 EVIDElSrOE 
 
 lOB 
 
 THE UNITED STATES 
 
 IN TBB If ATrSB OF TBS ChAtMB OV THK 
 
 HUDSON'S BAT AND PFGET'S SOUND 
 AGRICULTURAL COMPANIES, 
 
 PBRDINO BKFOBB THB 
 
 BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION, 
 
 FOB TBB 
 
 FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE SAME. 
 
 s-" 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 ■•■ ((^it AUG31 1894 *J) 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C: 
 
 K'OILL « WITBBBOW, PBIMnmS AND BTEBBOmBBS. 
 1867. 
 
 "3>!w?*'j'v~ '■-■■■r^mtnit mrn- " 
 
 
 .. 4- 
 
 irWIilWW mttmummtM 
 

 
 ' 
 
V«9 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Motion, CorreRpon(]ence, and Agreement as to Evidence in Utrnl Britain... 1 
 
 Kobertu, Edward, Deposition of 13 
 
 Armit. Edward, " 17 
 
 Jnternationnl Financial Society, (ProKpectus) « !.. 20 
 
 Hpecimen of Acccnnt* V>2 
 
 Mactavt»li, Dngald, Sapplemental examination of 41 
 
 Farm 1, William H. " " 133 
 
 Lftt'/i' annexed to snppleraental examination of Mr. Mactavish 137 
 
 Mr, Tolmie'» Exhibit of Books and Accounts 180 
 
 I,ii»t» of Doenmentary Evidence 205 
 
 List of Maps and Tlates 30r» 
 
 List of rhotographs 397 
 
 - ^?a^j»>>B.«!»R:.^*?ww^-'^"^^'»fy^^r-a«^ 1 1 IIIIIIJil j^|Jj^||^;,,||py^||y^^5^.f>^,, 
 
i. 
 
T-r 
 
 BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 
 
 OSTHa 
 
 HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
 TURAL OOltfPANIES' CLAIMS. 
 
 <■> 
 
 In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson* s Bay Company vs. the 
 United States of America. 
 
 It is moved by the undersigned Counsel that an order or 
 commission be issued fof taking evidence, as well on the 
 part of the Hudson's Bay Company, as of the United States 
 of America, in London, or elsawhere in Great Britain ; that 
 such order or commission be addressed to any judge or clerk 
 of a court of record, barrister, solicitor, or attorney, court 
 commissioner, justice of the peace, or notary public, or to 
 such other officers or persons as the Honorable the Commis- 
 sioners may be pleased to designate; that the witnesses pro- 
 duced by either party be examined and cross-examined viva 
 voce, after reasonable notice to the other party ; that all ob- 
 jections to evidence and other questions of law or practice 
 be reserved, and that the evidence, with all the documents 
 and papers, together with a report of all such objections, be 
 returned before the Honorable the Commissioners with all 
 convenient diligence. 
 
 Chas. D. Day, 
 For the Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 24th July, 1866. 
 
 I assent to the above, 
 
 C. CusHiNa. 
 
 1 B 
 
 • mm n 
 
 
 ■•.a!|'J!«3«!J«<*:rS!!«!<Kt?1 
 
 tiism 
 
^fm^f^p^f "'\pi#'""'f*''^*P"tWP^*'''^ 
 
 -^^K^nm 
 
 a 
 
 BBITI8H AND AmBRIOAN JoINT OOMMIISTON, 
 
 ON Hudson's Bat and Pugbt's Sound 
 
 AORIOULTUBAL COMPANIES' OlAIMS. 
 
 In the matter of the Claim of the Pnget'e Sound Agrtonltural Company 
 against the United States of America. 
 
 It is moved by the undersigned Counsel that an order, or 
 commission be issued for taking evidence, as well on the 
 part of the Puget's Sound Ai^ricultnral Company, as of the 
 United States of America, in London, or elsewhere in Great 
 Britain ; that such order or commission be addressed to any 
 judge .or clerk of a court of record, barrister, solicitor, or 
 attorney, court commissioner, justice of the peace, or notary 
 public, or to such other officers or persons as the Honorable 
 the Commissioners may be pleased to designate; that the 
 witnesses produced by either party be examined and cross- 
 examined viva voce, after reasonable notice to the other 
 party ; that all objections to evidence and other questions 
 of law or practice be reserved, and that the evidence and all 
 the documents and papers, together with the report of all 
 such objections, be returned before the Honorable the Com- 
 missioners with all convenient speed. 
 
 Chas. D. Day, 
 For the Piufet's Sound Agricultural Company. 
 
 24th My, 1866. 
 
 I assent to the a' ove. 
 
 C. Gushing. 
 
 Mr. Cushing to Mr. C. A. Seioard. 
 
 855 H' Street, Washington, July 18, 1866. 
 Sir : Herewith you will receive the following documents, 
 namely : 
 
 1. The authority of the Secretary of State, empowering 
 you to act for the United States in the taking of evidence 
 in England, whether for or against the United States, in the 
 matter of the claims of the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Companies. 
 
 mummm^pmiy-mmmfm'fmv 
 
r 
 
 e 
 e 
 kt 
 
 y 
 
 »r 
 
 y 
 
 Br 
 
 18 
 
 ill 
 ill 
 n- 
 
 2. Daly certified copies of agreements between the Hon. 
 Charles D. Day and myself, the official counsel of those 
 Companies here, and of the United States, relative to the 
 manner of taking evidence in England. 
 
 8. Copy of the memorial of the Hudson's Bay Company, 
 and of that of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, 
 now pending before the International Commission At Wash- 
 ington. 
 
 4. A memoir on the subject of the claims of those two 
 Companies, according to the view thereof taken by the 
 United States. 
 
 6. A memorandum of certain specific points of inquiry 
 which, in the interest of the United States, it is deemed de- 
 sirable to investigatie at London, lilher by calling for papers 
 or entries in the archives of those Oompanies, or by exami- 
 nation of the proper officers thereof. 
 
 I have to beg you, in tfa rst place, to possess yourself 
 fully of the contents of these accompanying documents, and 
 then to exercise your own best jadgment and discretion for 
 thti protection of the rights of tho United States, as well in 
 the cross-examination of witnesses, or the scrutiny of docu- 
 ments produced by either of said Companies, as in the pro- 
 duction and examination of witnesses, and the procurement 
 of documents in behalf of the United States. 
 
 You will observe that the agreement between Mr. Day 
 and myself, while it names Mr. Thomas Maynard as the 
 Solicitor of the Companies, yet contemplates the possibility 
 of some other person being employed to the transaction of 
 the present business; while the same agreement contem- 
 plates that the Solicitor appearing for the United States shall, 
 in person, communicate his authority to the Solicitor of the 
 Companies. To prevent all misapprehension in this respect, 
 I suggest to you, in concurrence with Mr. Day, that you 
 communicate in the first instance with Thomas Fraser, Esq., 
 Secretary, Hudson's Bay House, London. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, 
 
 C. CUSHINO. 
 
 Oounsd of the United States. 
 Clabbnob A. Sbw/bd, Esq. 
 
 ^.^.r^w. 
 
 -:-.w^..-— ..rfl-- 
 
 ^.«^i«.?r"'-'Tww<r'-*-'^»*--*i»«s«*-^''««^ -j^' 
 
r 
 
 1 
 
 British and American Joint Commission, 
 
 ON Hud8©n'8 Bay and Puget's Sound 
 
 Agricultural Companies' Claims. 
 
 In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the 
 
 United States. 
 
 It is hereby stipulated and agreed between the undersigned^ 
 Counsel for said parties, respectively, that any and all evi- 
 dence which either party may desire to take, whether in 
 London, or -elsewhere in Great Britain, may, and shall be 
 taken under the following conditions, namely : 
 
 First. Such evidence shall be taken before any judge, 
 clerk of court, barrister, solicitor, attorney, court commis- 
 sioner, justice of the peace, notary public, or such other offi 
 cer or person, authorized by the law of the place and country 
 to take depositions, who shall be mutually agreed upon by 
 the parties or selected by the party in whose behalf the 
 evidence is taken. 
 
 Second. The Hudson's Bay Company shall be represented 
 in this behalf by Thomas Maynard, of London, in England, 
 Esquire, solicitor, or by such other person as they may ap- 
 point, with due notice to the Solicitor of the United States 
 as well to attend to and conduct the taking of evidence in 
 their behalf, and to give notice thereof, as to receive notice 
 of evidence to be produced by the United States, and to 
 cross-examine witnesses, and to do all other acts in the prem- 
 ises needful and proper to be done for the protection of the 
 rights and interests of the said Company. 
 
 Third. The Secretary of State of the United States will, 
 by proper authority under his hand, appoint a suitable per- 
 son as solicitor to represent the United States in this behalf, 
 to attend to and conduct the taking of evidence for them, to 
 receive notice of evidence to be produced by the Hudson's 
 Bay Company,, and cross-examine witnesses, and to do all 
 other acts in the premises needful and proper to be done for 
 the protection of the interests of the United States. Such 
 solicitor so appointed to act for the United States will, as 
 soon as ii,ay be, in person communicate his authority to the 
 
 ^«*i1 
 
 » 
 
 •^m- 
 
Solicitor of the Hudson's Bay Company, and be prepared to 
 act with him in the premises. 
 
 Fourth. Reasonable notice shall be given by either party 
 to the other of the time and place of taking evidence, with 
 name or names of the witness to be examined. 
 
 Fifth. The witnesses produced by either party shall be ex- 
 amined viva voce. 
 
 Sixth. All objections to evidence or other questions of law 
 or practice arising in the course of taking such evidence 
 shall be reserved. 
 
 Seventh. The evidence with all the documents and papers 
 or certified copies of them, together with the report of all 
 such objections, shall be returned with all convenient dili- 
 gence, addressed to the Honorable the Joint Commissioners, 
 at Washington, in the United States. 
 
 C. CUSHINO, 
 
 ' Counsel for the United States. 
 
 Chas. D. Day, 
 Counsel for the H. B. Co. 
 nth July, 1866. 
 
 ^ British and American Joint Commission, 
 
 ON Hudson'? Bay and Pugbt's Sound 
 
 A GFJCULTURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 
 
 No. 356 H Street North, Washington, July 16, 1866. 
 I certify that the within is a true copy of the original on 
 file in this office. 
 
 George Gibbs, 
 Clerk to the Commissioner on the part of the United States. 
 
 United States OP America, 1 • 
 
 Department of State. ' j '. 
 
 To ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING : 
 
 I certify that George Gibbs, whose name is subscribed to 
 the paper hereunto annexed, is now, and was at the time of 
 
 K 
 
 4-'sv-v **^ 
 
 liummmmi 
 
 mtttm/tm 
 
 ■MUMl't^'' 
 
.iiffli4''"^*i'**.^^W,»^!' 
 
 6 
 
 subscribing the same, clerk to the Commissioner on the part 
 the United States to the British and American Joint Com- 
 mission on Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Companies' Claims duly commissioned ; and that full faith 
 and confidence are due to his acts as such. 
 In testimony whereof, I, William H. Seward, Secretary of 
 State of the United States, have hereunto sub- 
 [SEAL.] scribed my name and caused the seal of the De- 
 partment of State to be afiixed. 
 Done at the City of Washington this seventeenth day of 
 July, A. D. 1866, and of the Independence of the United 
 States of America the ninety-first. 
 
 William H. Seward. 
 
 Au' 
 
 British and American Joint Commission, 
 
 ON Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Companies' Claims. 
 
 In the matter of the Claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company 
 against the United States. 
 
 It is hereby stipulated and agreed between the under- 
 sighed, Counsel for said parties, respectively, that any and 
 all evidence which either party may desire to take, whether 
 in London, or elsewhere in Great Britain, may, and shall be 
 taken under the following conditions, namely : 
 
 First. Such evidence shall be taken before any judge, 
 clerk of court, barrister, solicitor, attorney, court commis- 
 sioner, justice of the peace, notary public, or such other offi- 
 cer or person authorized by the law of the place and country 
 to take depositions, who shall be mutually agreed upon by 
 the parties or selected by the party in whose behalf the evi- 
 dence is taken. 
 
 Second. The Puget's Sound Agricultural Company shall 
 be represented in this behalf by Thomas Maynard, of Lon- 
 don, Esquire, solicitor, or by such other person as may be 
 appointed by the Company, with due notice to the Solicitor 
 of the United States, as well to attend to and conduct the 
 
taking of evidence in their behalf, and to give notice thereof, 
 as to receive notice of evidence to be produced by the Uni- 
 ted States, and to cross-examine witnesses, and to do all 
 other acts in the premises needful and proper to be done for 
 the protection of the rights and interests of the said Com- 
 pany. 
 
 Third. The Secretary of State of the United States will, 
 by proper authority under his hand, appoint a suitable per- 
 son as solicitor to represent the United States in this behalf, 
 to attend to and conduct the taking of evidence for them, to 
 receive notice of evidence to be produced by the Puget's 
 Sound Agricultural Company, and cross-examine witnesses, 
 and to do all other acts in the premises needful and proper 
 to be done for the protection of the interests of the United 
 States. Such solicitor so appointed to act for the United 
 States will, as soon as may be, in person communicate his 
 authorily to the Solicitor of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Company, and be prepared to act with him in the premises. 
 
 Fourth. Reasonable notice shall be given by either party 
 to the other of the time and place of taking evidence, with 
 the name or names of the witness to be examined. 
 
 Fifth. The witnesses produced by either party shall be ex- 
 amined viva voce. 
 
 Sixth. All objections to evidence or other questions of law 
 or practice arising in the course of taking such evidence 
 shall be reserved. 
 
 Seventh. The evidence, with all the documents and papers, 
 or certified copies of them, together with the report of such 
 objections, shall be returned with all convenient diligence, 
 addressed to the Honorable the Joint Commissioners, at 
 Washington, in the United States. 
 
 ^ C. CUSHINQ, 
 
 Counsel for the United States. 
 Ohas. D. Day, 
 ; ' Counsel for the P. S. A. Co. 
 
 Ju/yll, 1866. 
 
 MP 
 
 laMMiHiaiaM«|M«W 
 
 MMtMMa 
 
 ■>■— i vmi i n a f'*" 
 
8 
 
 Bbitish and Aubrioan Joint Oohuission, 
 
 ON Hudson's Bat and Pugbt's Sound 
 
 Agricultural Companibs' Claims. 
 
 No. 856 H Street North, "Washington, July 16, 1866. 
 I certify that the within is a true copy of the original on 
 file in this office. 
 
 George Gibbs, 
 Clerk to (he Commissioner on the part of the United States. 
 
 United States op America, \ 
 Department of State. j 
 
 To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting : 
 
 I certify that George Gibbs, whose name is subscribed to 
 the paper hereunto annexed, is now, and was at the time of 
 subscribing the same, clerk to the Commissioner on the 
 part of the United States to the British and American Joint 
 Commission on Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Agricul- 
 tural Companies' claims, duly commissioned ; and that full 
 faith and confidence are due to his acts as such. 
 In testimony whereof, I, William H. Seward, Secretary of 
 State of the United States, have hereunto sub- 
 , [seal.] scribed my name and caused the seal of the De- 
 partment of State to be affixed. 
 Done at the City of Washington, this seventeenth day of 
 July, A. D. 1866, and of the Independence of the United 
 States of America, the ninety-first. 
 
 William H. Seward. 
 
 Mr, C. A, Seward to Hon W. H. Seward. 
 
 New York, September 29, 1866. 
 The Hon. William H. Seward, y 
 
 Secretary of State, Washington D. C. 
 Sir: I have the honor to report in the above entitled 
 matter, that on the 23d of July last, I was notified at Baden 
 Baden, by Mr. Moran, Secretary of Legation at London, 
 
that the instructions and papers promised by Mr. Gushing 
 had arrived at the Legation, and were there awaiting my 
 attention. I immediately repaired to London, procured the 
 papers, and after acquainting myself with their contents, 
 placed myself in communication with Sir Edmund Head, 
 Governor of the Hudson's Bay Company. He promised me 
 every facility in making the investigation desired by Mr. 
 Gushing, but before allowing any examination to be made, 
 he referred the whole matter, together with myself, to Mr. 
 Denton, the Solicitor of the Gompany. I called upon him, 
 and he promised equal facilities with Sir Edmund Head, but, 
 in turn, requested me to await the return of one of the 
 counsel for the Gompany, who was professionally engaged 
 in some provincial town. In the meantime, Mr. Denton re- 
 quested me to furnish a statement of the points as to which 
 the two Companies were desired to give information. I did 
 80 at once, and finally prevailed upon Mr. Denton to forego 
 the attendance of the counsel of the Gompany, and himself 
 to attend the examination on their behalf. He finally con- 
 sented to do this, and upon the agreed day he produced two 
 witnesses, who he said were the only two persons in the 
 employ of the Companies in London who could furnish any 
 information upon any of the points named in the furnished 
 statement. The examination of those two witnesses is here- ' 
 with submitted. Mr. Denton marked several points for cross- 
 examination, but after consultation with the officers of the 
 Gompany, he informed me that all cross-examination was 
 waived. He desired, however, to submit two schedules on 
 behalf of the Companies, and said he forward them to me at 
 Paris. He did so, and they will be found among the papers. 
 I, of course, had no opportunity to cross-examine upon the 
 contents of these papers. 
 
 I return, herewith, all the papers forwarded to me at 
 London. * * * * * 
 
 I have the honor to be, with great respect your obedient 
 servant, ' ^^!^v 
 
 / G. A. Seward. 
 
 5 
 J 
 
10 
 
 Mr. C. A. Seward to Mr. Cashing. 
 
 New York, September 29, 1866. 
 The Hon. Caleb Oushino, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Mt Dear Sir : I duly received in London the papers in 
 the matter of the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Com- 
 panies, sent by you to me, and I have to-day forwarded to 
 the Secretary of State the result of my labors in London, 
 including in the package all the papers sent to me. I en- 
 deavored, as faithfully as I could, to elucidate all the infor- 
 mation requested in your statement of points. Of course I 
 had some difficulty in procuring any information. Although 
 the Company and their counsel asseverated entire willing- 
 ness to furnish every thing desired, yet you know how hope- 
 less a task it would have been for me to sit down in iront of 
 the books of a company which claims to have been incorpo- 
 rated since 1670, and to find out from personal examination 
 of the books anything which would have been of use to you. 
 I, therefore, furnished the Solicitor of the Companies with a 
 statement in writing of the points on which I desired infor- 
 mation, and requested him to furnish me with witnesses who 
 could answer the questions springing from those points. 
 
 After much delay, owing to the fact that an English solici- 
 tor hesitates to invade the domain of the barrister, and to 
 cross-examine orally a witness in a legal proceeding, two 
 witnesses were produced to me— one the aged book-keeper 
 of the Company, and the other a sort of sub-accountant. 
 The examination will best advise you how successful I was, 
 but I could not elucidate, as I desired, some of the points 
 mentioned in your written instructions. 
 
 1. The prospectus annexed shows that the value of the 
 property of the Hudson's Bay Company was £1,023,669, but 
 of what this was made up, I could not procure any informa- 
 tion. The examination extended over much more time than 
 appears from the report, for only such answers were put 
 
 
 '^^tm*mm 
 
11 
 
 down as tended to throw light upon the points suggested by 
 you. At any rate that valuation, as stated in your instruc- 
 tions, was verified by the production of the prospectus. 
 
 2. The change in the organization of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company was fully explained by the witnesses. It was 
 in brief, this: The London Financial Society agreed to 
 purchase up the stock, water it, and then reissue it at an 
 advanced value, and sell if they could. This was done to a 
 great extent, but no actual change was made in the organi- 
 zation of the Company. * * * * 
 
 3. The acquisition by the Puget's Sound Company of their 
 lands is fully explained, and the amount of purchase money 
 paid therefor, and the amount of money paid for improve- 
 ments thereon, is given. 
 
 4. I could not ascertain anything about the amount of 
 money paid on the purchase of Fort Hall. 
 
 5. ^or could I ascertain anything as to the amount paid 
 by the Hudson's Bay Company for original purchases, or for 
 permanent improvements thereon. 
 
 6. The laborer question I have explained. As the witness 
 suggests that the books of the Company would show how 
 much profit the Company made upon the materials with 
 which the laborers were paid their wages, I left it for your 
 discretion to demand the extracts from the books. 
 
 7. Upon the question of profits, the abstract which the 
 claimants annex is the best information that they could give. 
 The aged accountant would only show me how the accounts 
 were kept in general. 
 
 Trusting you will rest assured that I did the best I could 
 in the premises, 
 
 I have the honor to be, with great respect, 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 C. A. Seward. 
 
 
 M 
 
 w 
 
f 
 
 
 L 
 
 ■ji'iTBTfUl 
 
 m 
 
 msi. m m tmu k #ir>t« ii itt- . 
 
 iiti >i i I ii im iiiii 1 ^ 
 
BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 
 
 Oir TBI 
 
 HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
 TURAL COMPANIES CLAIMS. 
 
 i 
 
 In the matter of the Clam of the Hudson's Bay Company and 
 Puget's Sound Agricultural Company vs. the United States 
 of America. 
 
 Hudson's Bay House, September 3, 1866. 
 Depoftitions of witnesses taken on behalf of the United 
 States under and pursuant to the annexed stipulation. 
 
 Tss'iiMONT OF Edward Roberts. 
 
 i, Edward Hoberts, accountant of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany in London, do depose and say : 
 
 I have been such accountant for forty or fifty years, and 
 as such accountant, have a knowledge of the books and ac- 
 counts of the Hudson's Bay Company. There is no one in 
 this country that knows more of the accounts of the Com- 
 pany than I do. 
 
 The two Companies above named have mutual transac- 
 tions. If the Puget's Sound Company wish goods, they ap- 
 ply to our Company for them. 
 
 None of the profits of the Puget's Sound Company come 
 to the possession of the Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 The Puget's Sound Company are considerable debtors to 
 the Hudson's Bay Company ; I think about twenty-five thou- 
 sand pounds. This arose from supplying the Puget's Sound 
 Company with goods. 
 
14 
 
 ' 
 
 I know of no arrangement whereby the Puget's Sonnd 
 Company, if they recover anything against the United States, 
 are to discharge therefrom their indebtedness to the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company. 
 
 The accounts of the Puget's Sound Company are kept in 
 London by Mr. Armit. Mr. Armit is not compensated by 
 the Hudson's Bay Company for the work done for the Pu- 
 get's Sound Company. He is also employed by the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company. The accounts of the two Companies 
 are distinct. I do not know if the Puget's Sound Company 
 is in the receipt of an annual income. 
 
 It is a long time since the Puget's Sound Company made 
 any payment to the Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 The Hudson's Bay Company have an interest as purchaser 
 of shares in the Puget's Sound Company to one thousand 
 three hundred and eighty-six shares, at par one hundred 
 pounds each, upon which was paid ten pounds each. 
 
 The Hudson's Bay Company has derived no dividend or 
 income from these one thousand three hundred and eighty- 
 six shares. These one thousand three hundred and eighty-six 
 shares were purchased at different dates, from September, 1 863. 
 ^ I think the Hudson's Bay Company's charter is dated 1670. 
 
 I know, generally, the names of the posts owned by the 
 Hudson's Bay Company, and mentioned in cheir memorial 
 in this matter. 
 
 I do not know of any conveyance by the Crown of Great 
 Britain to the Hudson's Bay Company of any of the posts 
 mentioned in the memorial. 
 
 I do not know of any conveyance or deed from the Crown 
 to the Hudson's Bay Company of any of these posts. 
 
 I have read the printed memorial of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company. 
 
 I do not know by whom that memorial was prepared. 
 
 I do not know by whom the table of values, stated in the 
 memorial, was prepared. 
 
 The books of the Company do not show the original cost 
 of the realty or of the improvements therein specified in the 
 memorial. No account was kept here of the amounts paid 
 
 mmum 
 
 uBta* 
 
 mmrimtltitt 
 
 — UK . ! ! ■• <fc'^ MO " < » KM K«»et .. t m t f i 
 
.1 
 
 16 
 
 out for improvement in America npon the property of the 
 Company. 
 
 If, for illustration, six thoasand pounds had been paid for 
 improvements at Fort Vancouver, no entry of that sum 
 would appear in the books of the Company here. 
 
 An account might have been kept at the post of the ex- 
 pense. 
 
 There were no books of account kept anywhere showing 
 the details of the expenses at the various posts. 
 
 Prior to 1846, no accounts were rendered to the Company 
 shewing the details of the expenditure for improvements at 
 the various posts mentioned in the memorial. 
 
 All the accounts of the various posts were aggregated at 
 Fort Vancouver. 
 
 The business was divided into departments ; the posts men- 
 tioned in the memorial were in the Columbia department. 
 
 There are no accounts with the Company here shewing 
 the amount paid out in that Department for permanent im- 
 provements at any of the posts therein. 
 
 I do not know from what source the values of the posts 
 stated in the memorial were arrived at. We have nothing 
 in this country to verify the accuracy or truthfulness of the 
 alleged values. I do not know where one could go to find 
 out if the values are real or fictitious. 
 
 I think Mr. Dugald MacTavish, of Victoria, and William 
 Frazer Tolmie, also of Victoria, could give information as 
 to the actual value of the improvements at the various posts. 
 I think so because these gentlemen have been the longest 
 connected with the Company, and have been upon the spot. 
 
 The Hudson's Bay Company, prior to 1846, procured their 
 laborers from the York Factory, Hudson's Bay ; they were 
 sent across the mountains. A number of the laborers were 
 Canadians, and in some instances. Sandwich Islanders. 
 
 The wages that were paid laborers varied from seventeen 
 pounds to thirty pounds per annum, excluding rations. The 
 wages were paid part in money, and part in goods. The 
 amount of money and of goods paid varied. 
 
 I should say the goods were transferred in the payment of 
 
 i vf^r^^-^Mipf.ym^'' 
 
 
I 
 
 te 
 
 the wages at an advance upon their actual cost to the Com- 
 pany. 
 
 The books do not show how much profit was made by the 
 Company upon goods issued in payment of wages. 
 
 Indirectly, through the York Factory, the Company pro- 
 cured laborers from Scotland ; they were procured upon con- 
 tracted wages ; I cannot tell how many were so procured. I 
 think the laborers were engaged for five years, with option 
 of renewal. 
 
 The books would show the number of Scottish emigrants 
 employed from time to time, and at the posts mentioned in 
 the memorial, and also the wages paid such emigrants. 
 
 After 1846, the Company employed such emigrants till 
 1861 in the Territory. 
 
 The accounts do not show whether the improvements at 
 the posts were paid for in money or in goods. 
 
 I think the seven thousand pounds mentioned in the me- 
 morial of the Hudson's Bay Company, prior to 1846, is con- 
 siderably less than the amount actually received, as the ac- 
 counts show. 
 
 I have no personal knowledge from the b^ oks of what the 
 Company paid for Fort Hall. A search t :;ht disclose the 
 fact. 
 
 From 1839 to 1848, summary accounts of each of the 
 posts were rendered to the Company here. From 1848 to 
 1861, account-books showing each of the posts were re- 
 ceived here, with the exception of the years 1847 and 1848. 
 The entire accounts were rendered to York Factory. 
 
 I produce the account book rendered for the Columbia de- 
 partment for the year 1848. I have similar ones for the sub- 
 sequent years. These accounts are from the various posts 
 mentioned in the memorial, and they show the debit and 
 credit account for the year of each of the said posts for which 
 the account is rendered. They do not show the amount ex- 
 pended for the original cost of either the real estate or the 
 improvements thereon. 
 
 The first debit entry being under date June, 1843, " Fort 
 Vancouver depot, to Columbia district, for Inventory, 
 
 
 usuimmmm 
 
 mtmm 
 
 MMU 
 
 .i'Va» 
 
IT 
 
 £45,859 8 6 ; to Oatfit, 1848, prodaoe and bo forth trans- 
 ferred, i'5,566 15 11 ;" those entries mean th& halance of 
 goods remaining on hand, at the given date from the outfit, 
 made to the post the preceding years. Each account against 
 the various posts commences with similar entries. 
 
 A search has been made in the be jks for the cost of Fort 
 Hall, but no entry of the same can be found. 
 
 I annex a copy from the entry of the books in relation to 
 Fort Colvile ; similar entries are to be found in relation to 
 the other posts mentioned in the memorial. 
 
 Edward Roberta. 
 
 Sworn by the above-named Edward Koberts, before me, 
 this third day of September, 1866. 
 
 Before me, Salem C. Harris, 
 Notary IhibliCy 24 Hoyal Exchange^ London. 
 
 (Notartal) 
 1 Seal. ; 
 
 C. A. Seward for the United States, J. Denton for the 
 Companies, waive a Crocid-examination. 
 
 Testimony of Mr. William Armit. 
 
 Mr. William Armit, registrar of shares of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company, and accountant of the Puget's Sound Com- 
 pany deposed, as follows : 
 
 I have been connected with the Hudson's Bay Company 
 five years, and better than four years with the Puget's Sound 
 Company. 
 
 I know of no change in the organization of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company. 
 
 There has been a change in the amount of the capital 
 stock of the Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 The original amount of stock, when I first hecame con- 
 nected with the Company, was ^6500,000. This was not 
 divided into shares, but into stock, which sold for so much 
 per cent, above the original capital. 
 2B 
 
 '■ y-^Mmretu^tif^^ 
 
18 
 
 In July, 1868, the change in stock took place to which I 
 alluded. It was this : 
 
 A number of gentlemen agreed to purchase the stock at 
 a higher price from the stockholders than it stood in the 
 market. 
 
 They purchased £497,625 stock of the original £500,000, 
 at jCSOO per cent., making £1,500,000 upon the original 
 capital, which was then, at a meeting of stockholders, con- 
 verted into shares of £20 each, and the capital extended 
 from half a million sterling to two millions ; the new stock 
 was then sold in the open market. A change took place in 
 the direction of the Company at that time. 
 
 I do not know that any special inventory of the value of 
 the property of the Company was made by its direction at 
 the time of the increase of the stock. 
 
 The gentlemen to whom I have alluded had access to the 
 books, and conferred with the directors. 
 
 There was a prospectus issued at the time of change 
 alluded to. I produce and annex a copy to my deposition. 
 
 I do not know what assets were included in the paragraph 
 numbered one in the prospectus. Such paragraph was sup- 
 posed to include all the property of the Company, except as 
 therein excepted. This prospectus was issued about the 
 8th or 9th July, 1863, being about three weeks before the 
 knowledge of the convention came to the Company, which 
 was on the 27th day of July, 1863, 
 
 The gentlemen to whom I have alluded were connected 
 with the International Finance Society named in the pros- 
 pectus, and acted in its behalf. 
 
 I do not know how the sum mentioned in paragraph one 
 was arrived at, nor any of the details of which it is composed. 
 
 There has been no change in the legal constitution of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company to my knowledge. 
 
 The relationship of mutual traders exists between the 
 Hudson's Bay Company and the Puget's Sound Company. 
 
 This was an interchange of goods and produce between 
 the posts in America, the accounts for which were ultimately 
 adjusted in London. 
 
 vir 
 
 jh**i 
 
19 
 
 In such accounts the Puget's Sound Company became the 
 debtor of the Hudson's Bay Company to the amount of 
 about £25,000, as stated by Mr. Roberts. This indebtedness 
 commenced in 1849, and has been from that time increasing. 
 The capital of the Puget's Sound Company is £18,160, as at 
 present paid up, there being 1,816 shares, upon which £10 
 has been paid ; but shares have been sold at £20 each. The 
 shares are nominally £100 each. The present market value 
 is £10 per share. 
 
 I annex a prospectus of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Company. 
 
 The highest amount of dividend paid in one year by the 
 Company was £10 pc cent. This was in 1848, 1850, 1851, 
 1862, and 1853. The last dividend was in 1854, and it was 
 £6 per cent. 
 
 I produce and annex a copy and minute from the books 
 of the Company, showing the manner in which the Com- 
 pany acquired possession of the land mentioned in the 
 memorial from the Hudson's Bay Company. There is in 
 the books of the Company an entry of £750 paid to the 
 Hudson's Bay Company for the property at Cowlitz, but 
 whether this was for the real estate or improvements or 
 stock in hand, the books do not state. There is no entry 
 of any sum paid for the land at Nisqually. 
 
 I annex to my deposition an extract, showing the entries 
 on the books of the Company for expenditures at the two 
 stations I have just mentioned. 
 
 The amount of inventory at Cowlitz Farm on the 31st 
 May, 1846, was £3,614 14 6, and at Nisqually, at the same 
 date, £5,116 2 7, both of which consisted of live-stock and 
 country produce. 
 
 There are no books here that will show the cost of im- 
 provements upon those two tracts of land. 
 
 I annex statements of profit and loss of the business at 
 Nisqually and Cowlitz Farms, from 1846 to 1854, as shown 
 by the books kept in London. 
 
 W. Armit. 
 
20 
 
 Sworn by the above-named "William Armit, this third of 
 September, 1866. 
 
 /Notarial) Before me, Salem C. Harris 
 
 t Seal. J Notary Public, 24 Boyal Exchange, London. 
 
 C. A. Seward, 
 
 For the United States. 
 J. Denton, 
 
 For the Companies. 
 
 Cross •Examined. 
 
 Prospectus. 
 
 THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SOCIETY, 
 
 (limited) 
 
 Are prepared to receive subscriptions for the issue at par of 
 Capital Stock in the Hudson's Bay Company, incorporated 
 by Royal Charter, 1670. 
 
 The stock will be issued in certificates of £20 each, and 
 the installments will be payable as follows : 
 
 £1 being 5 per cent, on application, to be returned in the 
 event of no allotment being made. 
 
 4 being 20 per cent, on allotment, 
 
 5 « 25 " « ♦* Ist. Sept. 1863, 
 5 " 25 « " « 2d Nov. 1863, 
 5 u 25 " " " Ist. Jan. 1864. 
 
 £20 
 
 with an option of pre-payment in full on allotment, or on 
 either of the dayp fixed for payment ' f the installments, un- 
 der discount, at the rate of four per cent, per annum. 
 
 The capital of the Hudson's Bay Company has been duly 
 fixed at £2,000,000, of which amount the International Fi- 
 nancial Society, limited, have obtained, and are prepared to 
 offer to the public, £1,930,000. The subscribers will be en- 
 
 yi 
 
21 
 
 titled to an interest corresponding to the amount of their 
 subscription in 
 
 1. The assets (exclusive of Nos. 2 and 8) of the Hudson's 
 
 Bay Company recently and specially valued by com- 
 petent valuers at £1,023,569. 
 
 2. The landed territory of the Company, held under 
 
 their Charter, and which extends over an estimated 
 area of more than 1,400,000 square miles, or up- 
 wards of 896,000,000 acres. 
 
 3. A cash balance of £370,000. 
 
 The present net income, available for dividend amongst 
 stockholders of the Company, secures a minimum interest, 
 exceeding four per cent., on the above £2,000,000. 
 
 The Directors of the Hudson's Bay Company are as under : 
 The Right Honorable Sir EdmundUead, Bart., K. C. B. 
 
 (late Governor General of Canada) Governor. 
 Curtis Miranda Lampson, Esq., (C. M. Lampson & Co.) 
 
 Deputy Governor. 
 Eden Colvile, Esq., Hudson's Bay House, Fenchurch 
 
 street. 
 George Lyall, Esq., (M. P., Headley Park,) Surrey. 
 Daniel Meinertzhagen,E8q.,'(F. Huth & Co.) 
 James Stewart Hodgson, Esq., (Finlay, Hodgson & Co.) 
 John Henry William Schroder, Esq., (J. H. Schroder & 
 
 Co.) 
 Richard Potter, Esq, Standish House, Gloucestershire. 
 
 The Hudson's Bay Company were incorporated under a 
 Royal Charter, by King Charles H., in 1670, by the name of 
 " The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England, 
 trading into Hudson's Bay;" and by the Charter, a vast tract 
 of territory was vested in the Company, together with the 
 sole right of trade and commerce, and all '* mines royal," as 
 well then discovered as not discovered, within the said Ter- 
 ritory. 
 
 The operations of the Company, which, with slight excep- 
 tion, have been hitherto exclusively of a trading character, 
 have been prosecuted from the date of the Charter to the 
 present day. 
 
 : W'"'*^ 
 
22 
 
 It has become evident that the time has arrived when those 
 operations must be extended, and the immense resources of 
 the Company's territory, lying as it does between Canada 
 and British Columbia, should be developed, in accordance 
 with the industrial spirit of the age and the rapid advance- 
 ment which colonization has made in the countries acljacent 
 to the Hudson's Bay territories. 
 
 The average net annual profits of the Company, after set- 
 ting aside 40 per cent, of them as remuneration to the factors 
 and servants at the Company's posts and stations, for the ten 
 years, ending the Slst of May, 1862, amount to ^£81,000, or 
 upwards of four per cent, on the present nominal capital of 
 £2,000,000. A portion only of this income has been distrib- 
 uted as dividend, while the remainder is represented in the 
 assets and balances. The assets of the Company in which 
 these subscribers will' be entitled to an interest correspond- 
 ing to the amount of their subscription will consist of goods 
 in the interior, on shipboard, and other stock in trade, 
 including shipping, business premises, and other buildings 
 necessary for carrying on the fur trade, in addition to 
 which there will be funds immediately available for the pro- 
 posed extended operations of the Company, derived partly 
 from the cash balance of the' Hudson's Bay Company, and 
 partly from the new issue of stock, amounting in the whole 
 to a sum of not less than £370,000. 
 
 The Company's territory embraces an estimated area of 
 more than 1,400,000 square miles, or 896,000,000 acres, of 
 which a large area, on the southern frontier, is well 
 adapted for European colonization. The soil of this por- 
 tion of the territory is fertile, producing, in abundance, 
 wheat, and other cereal crops, and is capable of sustain- 
 ing a numerous population. It contains 1,400 miles of nav- 
 igable lakes and rivers, running, for the greater part, east 
 and west, which constitute an important feature in plans 
 for establishing the means of communication between the 
 Atlantic and Pacific oceans, across the continent of British 
 North America, as well as for immediate settlement in the 
 intervening country. The territory is, moreover, rich in 
 mineral wealth, including coal, lead, and iron. 
 
 »ii 
 
 •«Mi 
 
23 
 
 In addition to its chartered territory, the Company pos- 
 sesses the following valuable landed property : several plots 
 of land in British Columbia, occupying most favorable sites 
 at the months of rivers, the titles to which have been con- 
 firmed by her Majesty's Government, farms, building-sites 
 in Vancouver Island, and in Canada, ten square miles at 
 Lacloche, on Lake Huron, and tracts of land at fourteen 
 other places. 
 
 The trading operations of the Company are chiefly carried 
 on in the fur-bearing, and northern portion of the territory, 
 where the climate is too severe for European colonization. 
 These trading operations will be actively continued, and as 
 far as possible, extended, whilst the management will be ju- 
 diciously economized. 
 
 Consistently with these objects, the outlying estates and 
 valuable farms will be realized where the land is not re- 
 quired for the use of the Company. The southern district 
 will be opened to European colonization, under a liberal and 
 systematic scheme of land settlement. Possessing a staff of 
 factors and officers, who are distributed in small centres of 
 civilization over the territory, the Company can, without 
 creating new and costly establishments, inaugurate the new 
 policy of colonization, and at the same time dispose of mining 
 grants. 
 
 "With the view of providing the means of telegraphic and 
 postal communication between Canada and British Colum- 
 bia, across the Company's territory, and thereby of connect- 
 ing the Atlantic and Pacific oceans by an exclusively British 
 route, negotiations have been pending for some time past 
 between certain parties and her Majesty's Government and 
 the representatives of the Government of Canada, and pre- 
 liminary arrangements for the accomplishment of these ob- 
 jects have been made through Her Majesty's Government, 
 (subject to the final sanction of the Colonies) based upon a 
 five per cent, guarantee from the Government of Canada, 
 British Columbia, and Vancouver Island. In further aid 
 of these imperial objects, her Majesty's Government have 
 signified their intention to make grants of laud to the extent 
 
 -— *s.*^^»*^^»^*^ 
 
 
 It'itK^ 
 
24 
 
 of about 1,000,000 acres, in portions of the Crown territory, 
 traversed by the proposed telegraphic line. 
 
 One of the first objects of* the Company will be to exam- 
 ine the facilities and consider the best means for carrying 
 out this most important work, and there can be little doubt 
 that it will be duccessfuUy executed either by the Hudson's 
 Bay Company itself, or with their aid and sanction. 
 
 For this, as well as for the other proposed objects, Mr. 
 Edward Watkin, who is now in Canada, will be commis- 
 sioned, with other gentlemen specially qualified for the duty, 
 to visit the Red river and southern districts, to consult the 
 officers of the Company there, and to report as to the best 
 and safest means of giving eft'ect to the contemplated oper- 
 ations. 
 
 Applications for allotments of certificates of Stock of £20 
 each, to be made to the International Financial Society, lim- 
 ited, at their offices, 54, Old Broad Street, E. C. 
 
 A preference in allotment will be given to parties hitherto 
 holders of stock in the Hudson's Bay Company, and to the 
 shareholders in the International F^^ancial Society, limited. 
 
 No applications will be received after Wednesday, 8th 
 July, at 12 o'clock. 
 
 ">}' 
 
 No. HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY. 
 
 FORM OF APPLICATCON FOR ALLOTMENTS OF STOCK. 
 
 To the Directors of the International Financial Society, limited: 
 
 Gentlemen : I request yon to allot me 
 
 certificates of £20 each of the stock in the " Company of 
 Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay;" and I 
 hereby agree to become a member of that Company, subject 
 to its rules and regulations, and to accept such stock, or any 
 less amounts that may be allotted to me. 
 
 I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant. 
 
 Name in full, 
 
 Address in full, 
 
 Date, ' .. 
 
 -■•«.«i,*,»W»'***»*"-"^*-*V»«» ■*- ♦»' 
 
26 
 
 N. B.— If the applicant has hitherto been a holder of 
 Hudson's Bay stock, or is a proprietor of shares in the Inter- 
 national Financial Society, limited, the fact should be stated, 
 together with memorandum of the amount of the holding. 
 
 HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY. 
 
 No. 
 
 Bankers' receipt for deposit on Application for Allotments of 
 
 Stock. 
 
 Received the day of 1863, of 
 
 on account of the Directors of the International Financial 
 
 Society, limited, the sum of £ , being the first 
 
 instalment made in accordance with the terms of the pro- 
 spectus on an application for an allotment of -..- cer- 
 tificates of $20 each in the above undertaking. 
 
 For Messrs. Glyn, Mills & Co. 
 £ 
 
 The soil and climate of the country on the Columbia 
 river, particularly the district situated between the head- 
 waters of the Cowlitz river, which falls into the Columbia 
 river, about fifty miles from the Pacific and Puget's Sound, 
 being considered highly favorable for the rearing of flocks 
 and herds, with a view to the production of wool, hides, and 
 tallow, and also for the cultivation of other agricultural pro- 
 duce. 
 
 It is proposed — 
 
 1. That an association be formed, under the protection 
 and auspices of the Governor and Company of Adventurers 
 of England trading into Hudson's Bay, for the purposes of 
 rearing flocks and herds, with a view to the production of 
 wool, hides, and tallow, and for the cultivation of other agri- 
 cultural produce on the west side of the Rocky Mountains. 
 
 2. That the said association be styled "The Puget's 
 
 
 -.:u^i^.^ 
 
 ukitt 
 
r 
 
 V 
 
 Sound Agricultural Company," and shall consist of persons 
 who shall become shareholders, as hereinafter mentioned. 
 
 8. That the capital stock of the said Association shall be 
 je200,000, which shall be divided in 2,000 shares of £100 
 each v' - 
 
 4: That a deposit of £10 per share be paid on sub- 
 scription, and that the calls for the residue to be hereafter 
 made shall not exceed the sum of £5 per share at any one 
 time, and that at intervale of not less than three months. 
 
 6. That the non-payment of any call shall incur a for- 
 feiture of the shares and all previous deposits, to be declared 
 at a general meeting of shareholders. 
 
 6. That until the sovereignty of the tract of country, 
 which in the first instance is proposed to be the seat of the 
 Company's operations, be determined, and in order to guard 
 against any legal difficulties in England, the manogement 
 of the business, including all purchases and sal^s on account 
 of the Company, and the contracting on behalf of the Com- 
 pany with clerks and servants, and all correspondence, may 
 be exclusively conducted by, and shall be confided to, agents 
 in England to carry on the same in their names, and gener- 
 ally in all matters, to act as agents of the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company; and for such services be allowed 
 the usual mercantile commission. 
 
 7. That no person shall be qualified to be such agent, 
 unlebs he shall at the time of his appointment bona fide hold, 
 and continue to hold, and be possessed of at least twenty 
 shares. 
 
 8. That John Henry Pelly, Andrew Colvile, and George 
 Simpson, Esquires, be the agents; and that in all questions 
 relating to the conducting of the business of the said Associ- 
 ation, the majority of the said agents shall be conclusive. 
 
 ■ 9. That in case of the death, resignation, or disqualifi- 
 cation of any one or more of the said Agents, a meeting of 
 the proprietors shall be called in London in manner herein- 
 after mentioned, for the purpose of appointing one or more 
 agent or agents, qualified as aforesaid, to fill such vacancy or 
 vacancies, and with the like powers and authorities as the 
 
 >n 
 
 •I -i . 
 
 
 fc-.fc.*^******!.*.***"^**'-*'*' 
 
 mSm 
 
27 
 
 person or persons so dying, having resigned, or become dis- 
 qualified as hereinbefore mentioned. 
 
 10. That a general meeting of the proprietor* ''of the 
 Pugot'H Sound Agricultural Company be held in London, in 
 the montli of December, in the year 1840, and also within 
 the Haid month ot December in every succeeding year, of 
 which meetings, fourteen days' notice at least shall be given 
 by iidvcrtisement in two or more of the public daily news- 
 papers, published in the city of London or county of Mid- 
 dlcHCX, at which meeting the said agents shall produce their 
 accounts, and report their transactions on behalf of the Com- 
 pany for the past year, and the state of the aifairs of the 
 Company generally ; and at such meetings, the agents shall 
 bo an inially elected, (the existing agents being eligible for 
 reelection) the proprietors to vote at such meetings in per- 
 ion, or by proxy to another proprietor, in the proportion of 
 one vote for every share, respectively. 
 
 11. That no proprietor shall be allowed to vote, or to re- 
 ceive any dividend, profit, or bonus, or exercise any other 
 right in respect of any share he may hold, until he shall have 
 paid the amount of any call made on him in respect of his 
 said share, and shall have executed the deed of settlement, 
 or other instrument which shall be executed by the proprie- 
 tors in respect of these presents. 
 
 12. That in the event of any proprietor being at any time 
 desirous of selling or disposing of his or her share or shares, 
 the name shall, in such case, be oft'ered to the agents of the 
 said'Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, for the said 
 Company, and in case the said agents shall decline to pur- 
 chase the same, then such proprietor shall be at liberty to 
 80li and transfer such share to such other person or persons 
 as shall be approved by the said agents, or any two of them. 
 
 18. That no sale, transfer, or disposal of any share shall 
 bo made, so long as any sum of money shall be due or un- 
 paid to the said Company' for, or on account of any call or 
 otherwise, in respect of such share. 
 
 14. That the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company shall 
 purchase from the said governor and Company, at a fair 
 
 i ,.-. 
 
' 
 
 I 
 
 28 
 
 valuation, to be made in the usual way, or on such other 
 terms as may be agreed upon, sach portion of their stock of 
 sheep, cattle, and horses, and such implements of husbandry 
 and other articles as the said Governor and Company can 
 dispense with. 
 
 15. That the said agents be ^empowered to appoint man- 
 agers, agents, or attorneys, for the purpose of transacting 
 the business of the said Company in the district in North 
 America aforesaid, or wherever else may be necessary, and 
 to enter into engagements with such managers, agents, or 
 attorneys, as may be necessary for carrying on the business, 
 and to allow them such salaries or other consideration for 
 their services as may be necessary or proper, and to revoke 
 such appointments or engagements, and likewise to make 
 agreements with, and advances to persons desirous of be- 
 coming agriculturists : Provided, always, that the principal 
 direction or management of the affairs of the said Company 
 in the said district, be under the superintendence of an offi- 
 cer attached to, and interested in the Fur Trade of the said 
 Governor and Company. 
 
 16. That the Chief Factor, or other officer who may be 
 appointed to the direction or chief management of their 
 afiairs in the district aforesaid shall, in all things relating to 
 the management of their affairs, be subject to instructions, 
 from time to time, to be issued by the said agents in London. 
 
 17. That the agents shall, on behalf of the Company, give 
 
 a bond of & to the said Governor and Company of 
 
 Hudsons' Bay, that neither the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Company, nor any person in their employ, nor by them 
 taken into the district aforesaid, shall in any way, either 
 directly or indirectly, trade in furs or peltries while in 
 the employ or under agreement with the said Puget's 
 Sound Agl-icultural Company ; and also that they, the said 
 agents, shall make it a condition in every agreement to 
 be entered into by them, with any person or persons to 
 be employed by them in the district aforesaid, that the 
 said agents shall be at liberty at any time to dismiss 
 them from the service of the said Company, and remove 
 
 ■» ^. 
 
 if 
 
 ■■:ii-i;.v^.«J:;:-v.« 
 
 K 
 
^ 
 
 fl9 
 
 them from the said district to wherever such persons may 
 have been originally engaged ; and that such persons shall, 
 in every respect, be subject to the like conditions, restric- 
 tions, and regulations as the servants of the Governor and 
 Company now are under, and particularly to the conditions 
 contained in the grant from the Crown under which the said 
 Governor and Company are entitled to the exclusive trade 
 within the said district. 
 
 18. That whenever the Crown of Great Britain may be- 
 come possessed of the sovereignty of any part of the district 
 in which the operations of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Company may be carried on, application shall be made to 
 the Crown for a grant of land, and to incorporate said Pu- 
 get's Sound Agricultural Company. 
 
 19. That a proper deed of settlement shall be prepared 
 under the superintendence of the said agents in such form, 
 and containing all such clauses, covenants, powers and stip- 
 ulations, as counsel shall advise, for properly and eftectually 
 carrying on the business of the said Company, and for in- 
 demnifying and saving harmless the agents in respect of 
 their acting in the management and conducting of the said 
 trade as aforesaid, and relating thereto ; and that the same, 
 or a counterpart thereof, shall be executed by the several 
 proprietors for the time being. 
 
 20. That an absolute and entire dissolution of the said 
 Company may lawfully take place and be made with the 
 consent and approbation of three-fourths at least of the pro- 
 prietors, to be testified by some writing signed by them or 
 their attorneys or proxies, and thereupon the affairs of the 
 said Company shall, with all convenient speed be wound up, 
 and after payment of all claims on the said Company, the 
 balance shall be divided among the persons who shall be then 
 proprietors, in proportion to the amount of their respective 
 shares. 
 
 We approve the above proposals and regulations, and 
 mutually agree, upon request, to execute such deed or deeds 
 
80 
 
 for carrying the same into effect as therein mentioned; and 
 in tho meantime to perform and abide by the same on our 
 respective parts. 
 
 V 
 
 •I 
 
 Extract from Minute Book of the Piiget^a Sound Agricultural 
 Company, dated London, Friilay, Ist March, 1839. ' 
 
 At a meeting : Present, J. H. Pelly, Andrew Colvile, and 
 Qeorgo Simpson, Esquires. 
 
 Mr. Pelly reported that he had, on the 27th «lt» >, sub- 
 mitted the prospectus to the committee of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company, who considered favorably of it aitentions, 
 and had passed the following resolutions wif regard to the 
 same: 
 
 " A prospectus for the formation of an association to be 
 styled the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, having for 
 its object the rearing of flocks and herds on an extensive 
 scale, with a view to the production of wool, hides, and 
 tallow, for the British market, from a district of country 
 situated to the northward of the Columbia river, having 
 been submitted for our consideration, and being favorably 
 considered and entertained by us. 
 
 " And being of opinion that a valuable branch of business 
 may arise from the exertions of this association, and that it 
 may become instrumental in improving the condition of the 
 native Indians and other persons inhabiting that remote 
 country, and in bringing them into habits of industry and 
 civilization, and likewise advantageous to the Fur Trade. 
 
 "And the Governor and Committee not considering it 
 advisable or expedient to make this new branch of business 
 a branch of Fur 'Irade, yet being anxious to promote the 
 objects contetiiplated in forming the said association, and to 
 afford it their coi Ji -i support, it is — 
 
 " Resolved, Ist. That the said association shall have permis- 
 sion to carry on their contemplated operations as detailed in 
 the said prospectus in the country therein referred to, and 
 
 ^^Sii-J: 
 
91 
 
 that the assiBtanco and support required from the Hudson's 
 Bay Company towards carrying into effect the measures set 
 forth in the said prospectus be attbrded. 
 
 " Resolved, 2d. That the services of Chief Factor Mc- 
 Laughlin be afforded from the Fur Trade to the said Com- 
 pany, for the purpose of superintending its affairs in North 
 America, as set forth in the 11th article of the prospectus. 
 
 " Bt'solved, 8d. That such portions ot the stock of sheep 
 and cattle, and of agricultural implements, &c., as can be 
 conveniently disposed with by the fur trade of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company, as sot forth in the 10th article of the said 
 prospectus, be sold to the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
 pany as may be determined on by the Governor and Council 
 of the northern department of Rupert's Land." 
 
 » ( 
 
 • ■> 
 
 ii 
 

 , 
 
 82 
 
 Bbitish and Amebioak Joiitt Coumissioh, on the Hud 
 This 18 the exhibit rc.'r-.dd to in the deposition of Edward Boberts, sworn on 
 
 'M, BOTAL EZOBAMOI, ItONDOIT. 
 
 Example of a District Account of the 
 Dr. Fort Colvtlb 
 
 1843 £. ». d 
 
 June 1, To Columbia District — 
 
 Inventory this date 489 1 10 
 
 To Outfit 1842— 
 
 Country produce &c., transferred 29 18 
 
 1844 
 Hay 31, To Sundry Accounts : 
 
 For supplies &c., viz : 
 
 Fort Vancouver Depot £716 19 6 
 
 Fort Wancouver Sale Shop ^ 9 1 
 
 Snake Party 
 
 Fort Nez Peroes 31 10 11 
 
 748 19 6 
 
 To Columbia District — 
 
 Servants' Wages £602 14 5 
 
 Sundry Credits 5 15 11 
 
 C03 10 4 
 
 To Profit and Loss — 
 
 Gain 2.344 7 
 
 \ 
 
 r. 
 
 E 
 
 i 
 
 ^W-i. 
 
 (Example of a District Account of the 
 Columbia Department,) 
 
 £4,220 16 8 
 
33 
 
 sob's Bat and Pcget's Sourd Agkicultueal Compahieb. 
 this 3d day of September, 1866. Before me, 
 
 Salem C. IIakub, /.l-.'.—y Fublie. 
 
 Columbia Department^ Outfit 1843. 
 Outfit, 1843. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 1844 £ «. d. 
 
 May 31, By Columbia Di.strict — 
 
 Sales to Servants 135 18 7 
 
 By Sundry Accounts : 
 
 Sundries for Transfer Book — 
 
 New Caledonia £81 11 2 
 
 Thompson s River 63 6 6 
 
 General charges 115 13 4 
 
 Snake Party 12 7 3 
 
 262 17 3 
 
 By Columbia District — 
 
 Inventory this date 402 9 11 
 
 By Outfit, 1844— 
 
 Country produce (&c., transferred 68 6 9 
 
 By Columbia District — 
 Returns of Outfit, viz : 
 
 132 Badger, at 1«. 7<i 10 9 
 
 183 black Bear, at 25«. 3rf 231 9 
 
 102 brown " "71s 362 2 
 
 107 grizzly " " 358. M 189 18 6 
 
 712 large parchment Beaver, 32s 1139 4 
 
 333 small " " 15s. M. . 260 17 
 
 10 lbs. coating " 13s ...... 6 10 
 
 51 " Castorum " 22s. 3d. . 56 14 9 
 
 229 Fisher, 10s. 6d 120 4 6 
 
 13 Foxes, cross, 19s 12 7 
 
 79 " Red, 58. 64 2114 6 
 
 2 " Silver, 98s 9 16 
 
 45 Lynx, 9s. 64. 21 7 6 
 
 796 Marten, 10s. 44 411 5 4 
 
 288 Mink, 2s. 34. 32 8 
 
 7401 Muskrats, 64 187 5 6 ' 
 
 "'* , 186 Land Otter, 208 186 
 
 22 Racoon, 28. 44 2 114 
 
 48 Wolvenine, 5s.94.r 13 16 
 
 275 Wolves, 58. 64..". 75 12 6 
 
 3,351 [1]4 f 
 £4,220 16 8 
 
 8 B 
 
i 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 
 84 
 
 Extracts from Ledger of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
 pany. 
 
 (Ledger settlements abroad page 4.) 
 
 1842, 
 March 14, To amount invested in bringing the 
 Cowlitz and NisquaL^ Farms into 
 a state of cultivation, erection of 
 buildings &c., - - £1,322 6 
 
 1843, 
 March 31, To amount further invested in 
 bringing the Cowlitz and Nis- 
 qually Farms into a state of 
 cultivation, erection of build- 
 ings, &c., .... 1,285 2 10 
 
 \ 
 
 i I 
 
 'I 
 
85 
 
 2 10 
 
 r 
 
 'i 
 1 
 
 Statement of Profit and Loss on the tramactions at the Paget' s 
 
 Sound Agricultural Company's Farm at Cowlitz, Oreaon 
 
 Territory, as shown by their books of Accounts, confirmed at 
 
 meetings of the Shareholders. 
 
 (Iiedger aettlemeut abroad Page 9.) 
 
 1844, ^■'>"'- 
 
 May 31. Profiton the year 1843-44, £179 8 1 
 1846, Profit on the year 1844-45 - 797 7 7 
 
 1846, Profit on the year 1845-46 - 351 411 
 
 1847, Profit on the year 1846-47 - 129 16 3 
 
 1848, Loss on the year 1847-48, p. 10 
 
 1849, Loss on the year 1848-49 - 
 
 1850, Profit on the year 1849^50 - 738 12 9 
 
 1851, Loss on the year 1850-51 - 
 
 1852, Loss on the year 1851-52 - 
 
 1853, Profit on the year 1852-53 - 392 H l 
 
 1854, Loss on the year 1853-54, p. 37 
 
 1855, Loss on the year 1854-55 - 
 
 1856, Loss on the year 1855-66 - 
 
 Lou. 
 
 ^850 3 
 594 19 
 
 397 17 
 842 3 
 
 233 18 
 504 12 
 867 1 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 9 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 ^.tf 
 
36 
 
 Statement of Profit and Loss on the transactions at the Puget's 
 Sound Agricultural Company's Farm of Nisqually, Oregon 
 Territory, as shown by their books of accounts, confirmed at 
 the meeting of Shareholders. . 
 
 (lic'dger anttlement abroad Page 11.) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PBoriT. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 s, d. 
 
 
 May 31, 
 
 1844, Profit 
 
 on 
 
 the 
 
 yearl843-44, - - 
 
 596 
 
 6 
 
 % 
 
 (( 
 
 1845, 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 
 " 1844-45, - - 
 
 1,181 
 
 17 1 
 
 4 
 
 ^i 
 
 1846, 
 
 i( 
 
 « 
 
 
 « 1845-46,p.l2, - 
 
 1,300 
 
 8 2 
 
 
 « 
 
 1847, 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 
 " 1846-47, - - 
 
 1,944 
 
 1 8 
 
 
 {( 
 
 1848, 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 
 " 1847-48, - - 
 
 644 
 
 5 6 
 
 
 (( 
 
 1849, 
 
 (t 
 
 (( 
 
 
 " 1848-49, - - 
 
 1,858 
 
 14 9 
 
 
 (( 
 
 1850 
 
 « 
 
 « 
 
 
 " 1849-50, - - 
 
 1,065 
 
 5 11 
 
 t 
 
 « 
 
 185 i. 
 
 (( 
 
 « 
 
 
 " 1850-51, p. 24, - 
 
 2,021 
 
 18 9 
 
 1 
 
 (( 
 
 1852, 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 
 " 1851-52, - - 
 
 2,476 
 
 18 6 
 
 
 « 
 
 1853, 
 
 « 
 
 (( 
 
 
 " 1852-53, - - 
 
 3,274 
 
 3 10 
 
 ■ 
 
 « 
 
 1854, 
 
 (( 
 
 « 
 
 <( 
 
 " 1853-54, - - 
 
 903 
 
 3 4 
 
 
 (( 
 
 1855, 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 " 1854-55, - - 
 
 1,315 
 
 19 11 
 
 
 (( 
 
 1856, 
 
 Loss 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 « 1855-56, p. 25,- 
 
 1,876 15 6 
 
 \ 
 
 British and American Joint Commission, on the H. B. and 
 P. S. A. Co. 's Claims. 
 This and the foregoing five exhibits initiated by me are ex- 
 "hibits referred to in the «Ieposition of William Armit, sworn 
 before me this third day of September, 1866. 
 
 Salem C, Harris, Notary Public, 
 
 24 Royal Exchange, London. 
 
 57, Coleman Street, London, E. C, 
 
 Ath September, 1866. 
 Dear Sir : We have the pleasure to hand you enclosed 
 the two papers which Mr. Roberts of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company has made out since you left yesterday, and which 
 we beg may accompany the more formal documents which 
 were handed to you by the notary yesterday. ^ 
 
 We are, dear sir, yours faithfully, 
 A. M. Maynard, Son & Co. 
 
 M. Clarence A. Seward. 
 
87 
 
 17 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 14 
 
 9 
 
 5 
 
 11 
 
 18 
 
 9 
 
 18 
 
 5 
 
 3 10 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 19 11 
 
 15 
 
 6 
 
 66. 
 osed 
 Bay 
 'hich 
 
 ;0. 
 
 Os 
 
 'Ji, 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 e 
 
 e 
 
 g 
 
 a 
 
 •8 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 i6 
 
 
 ^. i-(C0<S)C0«0(N03 
 
 o> 
 
 
 %5. 
 
 
 ■«*< rH in O O lO 05 
 
 CO 
 
 
 a-S 
 
 i. 
 
 10 f— ( T— t I— t T— ( 1— 1 
 
 •-t 
 
 
 S| 
 
 M 
 
 Tt* t~ OO 05 ■* Tt< 01 
 
 —4 
 
 
 
 
 CO lO O OT ^ (M CO 
 
 o 
 
 
 Ma 
 
 '^ r-._ t> -^ eo_ 00 ^_ tT 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 •* o' ctT -St*" lo' eo" ■*" 
 
 (M" 
 
 
 ^ 5) 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 2i 
 
 
 
 r-t 
 
 
 H® 
 
 
 
 
 
 «l 
 
 
 . eo CO CO lo i> CO 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 
 i^ lO Ol l> iH (N Ttl 
 
 00 
 
 
 t-1 o 
 
 i 
 
 (O rH I-H rH 
 
 eo lO 05 -^ O CD O 
 
 O 
 
 
 lO CO lO »C IC CD 05 
 
 •«)< 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 c+j 03 CD CO ic >n lO CO 
 
 in 
 
 
 Is 
 
 
 co' co" co" co' oi CO m" 
 
 ^' 
 
 
 i . 
 
 
 ^. TjtCOC^Ir-lt-r-lO 
 
 <N 
 
 
 Ie? 
 
 
 TS 1-H T— I 
 
 
 
 S2 
 
 
 lO Tt( CD O CO •* •>*< 
 
 IN 
 
 
 11 
 
 h" 
 
 CO rH 1— ( rH rH 
 
 t^ <M 00 CD t^ rH t- 
 
 
 
 7.^ 
 
 Tt< Tt< t~ lO IM in l- 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 C(J 00 CD 00 o in O M 
 
 1-* 
 
 
 
 
 V —" o" o' o" o" im" 
 
 rH rH rH rH rH t-H T-H 
 
 of 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 ^ 1> rHOO rH rH -^f 
 ^ rH rH 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 CO w rH eo 00 00 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 CQ r^ r^ T^ 
 
 rH 
 
 
 o1 
 
 hi 
 
 03 in i^ CO in CO 
 
 t> 
 
 
 " « 
 
 CJ t^ 03 rH Q lO 
 C^^ inrH (mS CD 
 
 !>. 
 
 
 is 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 rHr-T <N 
 
 in 
 
 
 <^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .(MOT*<t^rHC0l0rHrH03 
 
 t-rH 
 
 00 
 
 fc" 
 
 
 'e ^ 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 .COCOt~OOt-rHOi>OCO 
 
 00 in 
 
 (N 
 
 o 
 
 is 
 
 *> rH rH rH rH 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 OOt~eOOC030300r-lCOO 
 
 CO 03 
 
 '^ 
 
 i2 
 
 0-H0303in(N-H-rt<t^rH 
 
 in CO 
 
 CO 
 
 t4jTPCOCOTj<OOOincOrHl>. 
 
 t-CO 
 
 o 
 
 ** 
 
 
 •^" — " o" '*<■ oo" co" «> cc -^ ^ 
 
 t~"iC 
 
 o* 
 
 s . 
 
 
 <N(MC^IC^rH(MrH(NlM<N 
 
 IM r-t 
 
 t-l 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 (N 
 
 (N 
 
 
 ,>; * . ' ■<*< t^ O 
 
 rH • 
 
 , 
 
 r 
 
 
 ^ * 
 
 <-l 
 
 
 
 O <N CO 
 
 lO 
 
 
 "2 
 
 i 
 
 «o 
 
 
 
 § 
 
 CD CO t^ 
 
 03 • 
 
 1 
 
 
 s 
 
 in CO ■* 
 
 CO 
 
 
 <a 
 
 1(1 in in in 
 
 CO 
 
 
 fi 
 
 
 eo'cc'in" 
 
 !> 
 
 
 
 
 I-H 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 i 
 
 1 
 t 
 t 
 
 
 § 
 
 t»00a3OrH(NC0->!t(inC0 
 
 
 
 
 CO CO CO ^ ^ "'^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 citi.o6*>OrHcJieo4iin 
 
 00 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 J3 
 
 cococoeO"*<Tt<Tt<Tti'*<Tri 
 
 -4J 
 
 
 S 
 
 oooocooooooooooocooo 
 
 vi 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 -M 
 
 o 
 
 
 >^ 
 
 
 
 PL, 
 
 u & 
 
 aeo I 00 rH 
 
 
 «3 
 
 PhA 
 
 I- 
 
 . ««-<».-il**;*tlV W« V«*<-'dU>i*K-«^ #»*-»ii*-^''**»«*' »•-***«*«»« - 
 
 • •4-»» •>«*''>''.0«'.'MM- " 
 
^ 
 
 r 
 
 «0 
 
 -« 
 
 ■§> 
 
 o 
 
 qa 
 
 t ^ 
 
 60 
 
 
 « 
 
 M 
 
 «fi 
 
 
 m 
 
 s w 
 
 WP 
 
 ^^ 
 
 o o 
 
 2-3 
 
 o ," 
 
 a s 
 
 '3 'H B 
 
 rr! o 
 
 flo 
 
 5 -S 
 
 3-fl 
 
 60 
 
 -" . o 
 <u J o 
 
 a 
 
 ^.2 a p. 
 
 H « O ^ 
 
 o ':2 K 
 
 » 0) ea f.. 
 
 ^-c-^ 
 
 4) a:::: >h 
 
 6C 
 
 a d ' 
 
 38 
 
 0»N0 i-lt~^ 00 r-tCO 05 rH O O 00 O O 
 »-t i-H 
 
 lC-«*<0 t-«0 lO O05 O W Ot)< lOIOr~(MO 
 
 rHrH rHi-Hl— trHl-Hi— t r~* 
 
 OC0'*<'*<i-l03lM'MC000.-ll(5 OOOIOCOO 
 
 1-H (M_i-<_C<0 lO Oi <» CO '0_l--0_"<)< 00^.'"'. t^ 
 
 eO(N"lO'M" I-H M I-H i-TrHr-i' 
 
 
 ;h 
 
 °'2 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 S S-o 
 
 "3 S 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 : : : : m 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 : : : : a 
 
 
 
 
 ! : • : o 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; • • ' u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; : : i? " 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 iiill 
 
 
 • 
 * 
 
 
 
 ll 
 
 > 
 
 C3 1) > 
 
 ^(ii 
 
 c3 d 
 
 rt c3 
 
 
 oSJSJ.i^^lls 
 
 §t>6o|-!2;^3^;MS 
 
 &■ 
 
 a 
 
 ■t^ -iJt .t^ .^^ -L^ w^ '■ 
 
 & 0.2 
 
 j3 t< <u ' 
 
 fe 5 2 B 2 
 
 E o i 
 
 >-. *- t =3 3 a 
 
 3 « =5 o o^ 
 
 ■^ PI <51 P^ H 
 
 «0«o— COOOOhoiS''^*ju=' 
 P»Pnt?ifnH|iH(i<pMpM[J^C0taCC!OPHC«Mpq 
 
 21 c« . 
 
 
 ■* 
 
 Oi 
 
 iH 
 
 oo <r> !-!•<*< 
 
 i-H 1-1 
 
 o 
 
 50 
 iH 
 
 rH 
 
 in i^oo'^f 
 
 Q 05 00 CO 
 
 
 
 I-H 
 
 I-H I-H 
 
 CO 
 
 §3 , 
 
 •41 
 
 to 
 
 
 i 
 
 S S c^ £P 
 g =-i: 2 
 
 PI'S 
 
 -u cr^i 2 
 f-t 1-, h^ a 
 
 o e4 o 4( 
 
 O o o o 
 HHHH 
 
 >, 
 
 §3 
 
 
3 
 
 tH 
 
 Z> 
 
 00 
 
 3 
 
 ■^ 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 CO 
 <M 
 
 BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 
 
 ON THE 
 
 HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
 TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 
 
 Jn the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company vs. 
 the United States of America. 
 
 355 H street, Washington, March 5, 1857. 
 It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the 
 Hudson's Bay Company, claimant, and the United States, 
 respondent, as follows: 
 
 1. The re-examination of Dugald MacTavish, Esq., shall 
 be resumed and completed as to all matters of competent 
 and lawful evidence, aftecting the claim of said Company or 
 the defence of the United States. 
 
 2. It is insisted by the United States that such re-examina- 
 tion is to be regarded as continuation of the cross-examina- 
 tion of said MacTavish by the United States; and in view 
 thereof, the United States are to propound all such inter- 
 rogatories as would be competent on cross-examination, 
 either in substance or in form; and the testimony to be thus 
 given shall, if otherwise competent, be received as lawful 
 evidence, subject only to the determination of the Commis- 
 sioners, at the final hearing, whether such testimony shall 
 be regarded as cross-examination of the claimant's witness, 
 or whether the witness shall be regarded pro hac vice as the 
 witness of the United States. 
 
 3. It is insisted, on the part of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany, that, at the present stage of the case, the United 
 States have no right to resume the cross-examination of said 
 MacTavish, and that, in the contemplated re-examination, 
 he ought to be regarded as pro hac vice a witness produced 
 by the United States; in which point of view the Hudson's 
 Bay Company shall have the right to propound any inter- 
 
 ■^■aiKWO m i* ' ■ ' H » ■» O t« r ii rt« » • 
 
40 
 
 rogatories to said MacTavish which would be competent, 
 either in form or substance, to be propounded to any wit- 
 ness on cross-examination. 
 
 4. The United States further insist that they have the 
 right to treat the said MacTavish as in effect the adverse 
 party in the case, and to propound to him all interrogato- 
 ries which it would be competent, either in form or sub- 
 stance, to propound to a party; but the Hudson's Bay 
 Company do not admit this; and the question of the relation 
 of said MacTavish to the claim', and the effect of that, if any, 
 on the manner of examination, shall remain for the deter- 
 mination of the Commissioners. 
 
 6. It is understood that the Commissioners shall have the 
 power to determine, either that the whole of this re-exam- 
 ination is cross-examination, or that the whole of it is 
 examination-in-chief, or that it is part one and part the 
 other, or that it is or is not the interrogation of a party, as 
 they, in their judgment, shall deem conformable to law. 
 
 6. Of course, it is understood that the Hudson's Bay 
 Company will not object to any question propounded by the 
 United States, for matter or form; as, for example, whether 
 leading or otherwise, or whether new matter or not; and, 
 on the other hand, no such objection will be made by the 
 United States to any question propounded by the Hudson's 
 Bay Company; but each party reserves to itself the right 
 to take all such points of form at the final hearing, as aft'ect- 
 ing only the question whether, in this matter, said MacTavish 
 is to be regarded as a witness of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany. 
 
 C. CUSHINO, 
 
 For the United States. 
 Edward Lander, 
 For the Hudson's Bay Company. 
 It is further agreed that Mr. MacTavish shall be re-sworn 
 without prejudice to the above agreement. 
 
 Chas. C. Beaman, Jr., 
 
 For the United States. 
 Edward Lander. 
 March 12, 1867. 
 
BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 
 
 ON THE 
 
 HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL 
 TURAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 
 
 In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company vs. the 
 United States of America. 
 
 The examination or cross-examination of Dugald Mac- 
 Tavlnh resumed according to stipulation entered into bj' Mr. 
 C. Cusliing, counsel for the United States, and Mr. Edward 
 Lander, counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company, this 8th of 
 March, 1867, at Washington City, D. C. 
 
 Int. 1. — What offices have you held at various times under 
 the Hudson's Bay Company ? 
 
 Ans. — I was first a clerk, from 1833 until 1846; then I was 
 promoted to a chief tradership, and in 1851 to a chief factor- 
 ship, which is my present position. ' 
 
 Int. 2. — What were your duties as clerk ? 
 
 Ans. — As a general thing I was employed in office busi- 
 ness ; as senior clei'k I kept the books. I held a subordinate 
 position from 1833 to 1838, in the different offices of the 
 Company I was in at that time. In the years 1839 and 
 1840, 1 was a clerk of the second class, and from 1841, on 
 to 1846, I was a clerk of the first class, du-ing the three 
 first years of which period I was the book-keeper and 
 accountant at Fort Vancouver. During the winter of 1844 
 and 1845, I assisted Mr. Thomas Lowe, then book-keeper 
 there. In the winter of 1845-46, 1 went down to San Fran- 
 cisco for the purpose of closing out the Company's business, 
 and while down there I became a chief trader. 
 
 Int. 8. — What were your duties as chief trader? 
 
 4 
 
': 
 
 ■( 
 
 42 
 
 Ans. — I was at Fort Vancouver for some months after my 
 promotion to that position, assisting in the office there, and 
 in other departments of the business. Early in January, 
 1847, 1 left Fort Vancouver, proceeding to Honolulu, Sand- 
 wich Islands, where I remained until August, 185-, at which 
 time I was a factor. For nearly four years after arriving at 
 Honolulu, I was in connection with a Mr. Pelly, managing 
 a general business establishment for the Company there. 
 When Mr. Pelly left the Islands, I ^ya^ alone in the manage- 
 ment for about twelve months, when a Mr. Clouston came 
 there, when we managed the business jointly, until I left, as 
 before stated. 
 
 Int. 4. — What were your duties as chief factor ? 
 
 Aifs. — In September, 1853, 1 returned to Fort Vancouver, 
 and I became a member of a board consisting of the late 
 Mr. Ogden and myself. On his death, in 1854, I formed 
 the board alone, until 1857, when Mr. Tolmie became the 
 other member of the board. From 1853, until June, 1858, 
 when I finally left Fort Vancouver, the duties of the board 
 were the general management of the posts of the Company, 
 wliich were situated in Oregon and Washington Territory. 
 From Fort Vancouver I went to Victoria, Vancouver's 
 Island. I remained there until February, 1859, not having 
 done much in the mean time. I then left on sick leave, and 
 was absent until June, 1860, when i teturned and became a 
 member of the board for the management of the Company's 
 posts, in what is now known as British Columbia. I left Vic- 
 toria for England in November, 1863, remaining there until 
 the end of October, 1864, when I came out to Washington 
 City, D. C. ; thence proceeding to Canada, where I passed the 
 winter. In May, 1865, I left there for Vancouver Island, 
 landing there at the end of June. On the Ist of November 
 following, I left Vancouver Island and proceeded to Mon- 
 treal, Canada, where I arrived before Christmas, remaining 
 there for about two months. I then came to Washington 
 City, where I stayed about a month. I again went to Mon- 
 treal, and in about another month I came back to Washing- 
 
48 
 
 ton city, arnl between there and New York I remnined until 
 the middle of July, when I went to Montreal. I returned 
 to Wasliiiiijton City the day after Christmas, and from that 
 time oil, until now, I have been moving about in North 
 Carolina, New York, and Washington city. 
 
 Int. 5. — What are the official names of the officers of the 
 Hudson's Buy Company ? 
 
 Ans. — In London the stockholders of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company are represented by the Governor, Deputy Gov- 
 ernor, and Committee, who have a general control of the 
 entire business, both there and in North America, where 
 their trade is carried on. In North America the business 
 is conducted by the Governor of Rupert's Land, and the 
 chief factors and chief traders. The two latter grades of 
 officers being interested in the trade by agreement with the 
 the Governor, Deputy Governor, and Committee. By this 
 arrangement the entire profits of the fur trade in each year 
 are divided into one hundred shares, sixty of which are 
 divided among the stockholders, and forty among the chief 
 factors and chief traders, in the proportion of two eighty- 
 fifths to each chief factor, and half that sum to each chief 
 trader. I believe there are about sixteen chief factors on 
 the active list now, but I am unable to say what number of 
 chief traders there are, for the reason that a great number 
 of these eighty-fifth shares are now divided among the chief 
 factors and chief traders who are retired. Sir Edmund Head, 
 baronet, is the Governor of the Company in London, and 
 Sir Curtis Miranda Lampson, baronet, is the Deputy Gov- 
 ernor. The Committee consists of five or six members, 
 whose names I cannot give. The present Governor of Ru- 
 pert's Land is William MacTavish, Esq. The general busi- 
 ness in Rupert's Land, North America, and what is known 
 to the Company's people as the Northern and Southern De- 
 partments, is managed by the Governor and Council which 
 meets annually either at Red River or Norway House, on 
 Lake Winepeg. This Council consists O' i' Governor and 
 such chief factors and chief traders as can be conveniently 
 collected each season at the place that may be appointed for 
 
44 
 
 
 ) 
 
 I 
 
 the meeting. At this Council the appointments of the 
 difl'erent grades of officers, consisting of chief factors and 
 chief traders, with the clerks and postmasters of all grades 
 to the various posts and stniiotis whore they are to pass the 
 next winter are decided on, and any other regulations that 
 may bo necessary for the conduct ofthe business. After 
 the Council has adjourned, a copy of the minutes are trans- 
 mitted to the Governor, Deputy Governor, and Committee 
 for their approval. On their doing so, the resolutions passed 
 in this way at this Council become binding on all parties 
 interested. And should any of the proceedings not meet 
 the sanction of the Governor and Committee, the points in 
 question, whatever they may be, remain open for discussion 
 at the next meeting of the Council at Rupert's Land. 
 
 Int. 6. — Is the organization you have just described as 
 now existing, the same that existed in 1846 ? 
 
 Ans. — So far as I know, it it is the same. 
 
 Int. 7. — Did this same organization extend to the posts 
 south of the 49th parallel ot latitude ? 
 
 Ans. — Yes, I believe so. 
 
 Int. 8. — When^was the annual return of the various posts 
 made, and to whom were they made ? 
 
 Ana. — Speaking of the Company's posts on est side 
 
 ' of the Rocky Mountains, I believe that, up to tliv. ^ oar 1853, 
 the books and accounts generally of all the posts came to 
 Vancouver sufficiently early to permit of closing them by 
 the middle of March annually; and copies of the full 
 accounts, as they came from each post, were sent to York 
 Factory, Hudson's Bay, where they were amalgamated with 
 the general accounts of the Northern Department, for the 
 purpose of transmission to London of such portions of them 
 as might be required, in order to arrive at the profits of the 
 trade in each year, for division among the parties intei'ested. 
 In 1854, the only accounts closed at Fort Vancouver were 
 those of the Company's posts which were in American 
 territory; the accounts for that year of the posts north of 
 the 49th paiallel having been closed at Vancouver's Island, 
 the books from both places were again forwarded by express 
 
 li 
 
 ;;*(•/— *Af»—#. 
 
 •^' i-f- '. .,, ;■-•> *"*•*' '--y^ ■•- V*V*<i»^*««iC''-"'<W»f.»W*. ■A'*.. . 
 
 M^^^ 
 
45 
 
 to York Factory for the last time, as afterwards in each year 
 the books, on being closed at each depot, were sent direct 
 by express to the Hudson's Bay House, London, until the 
 Company finally left Fort Vancouver, in 18G0. At Fort 
 Victoria, the same routine is followed to the present day. 
 Some years must necessarily pass before one can arrive at 
 the actual profits of the trade in each season. 
 
 Int. 9. — What did the returns from each .post to Van- 
 couver each year show? 
 
 Ana. — The books from each post showed the inventory of 
 goods and property on hand at the commencement and end 
 of each year, the supplies, the sales, and the returns, in furs 
 and money, or bills, as the case might be. There might 
 have been other details given, which may have escaped my 
 memory. At each of the posts, I believe, there were 
 books, of which copies might not have been sent to the 
 depot. 
 
 Int. 10. — Did not the books at Vancouver show the num- 
 ber of persons employed at each post in each year, and the 
 wages that were paid to them ? 
 
 Ans. — The books at Vancouver would show the number 
 of men at each post who were under written agreement 
 with the Company; likewise the amount of wages paid 
 them. But the books at Vancouver would not show the 
 number or the wages paid to parties employed temporarily 
 at the Company's posts, that being adjusted and arranged 
 by the ofHcers in charge of these posts, without reference to 
 Fort Vancouver. 
 
 Int. 11. — Would not the returns from each post show how 
 much money had been paid to persons employed at the 
 posts in addition to those employed under a particular 
 contract? 
 
 A71S. — They might, or they might not. There is no doubt 
 but that the books of detail kept at the difterent posts to 
 which I have already made reference ought to have such 
 entries in them, but it would not necessarily follow that 
 copies of such entries should be sent to Fort Vancouver. 
 
 Int. 12. — Was not the amount of money spent at each 
 
46 
 
 post during each jeer shor^n by the returns made to Van- 
 couver? . 
 
 Ans. — "Without seeing the hooks, I cannot answer from 
 memory. They may have done so, or they may not. Pre- 
 vious to 1846, there was very little money came in at any of 
 the posts. 
 
 Int. I'd. — How were the laborers at the posts, not serving 
 under particular contracts, paid? 
 
 Ans. — The parties temporarily employed were paid accord- 
 ing to the agreement they may have made with the officers 
 in charge ; generally, no doubt, in goods. 
 
 Int. 14. — Would not the books at Vancouver show hov 
 much was paid in goods for temporary laborers? 
 
 Ans. — They might, or they might not. The books at the 
 posts ought to do so. 
 
 Int. 15. — Were the books at these various posts never 
 sent to Vancouver ? 
 
 Ans. — They may or may not have been ; I can't be sure of it. 
 
 Int. 16. — Do I understand you to say that all the xnoneys 
 and goods expended for labor and other purposes at each 
 post during each year were shown by the books at Van- 
 couver? 
 
 Ans. — There were disbursements, both in money and 
 goods, at the different posts, which the general accounts at 
 Vancouver would not show. 
 
 Int. 17. — What were these disbursements? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot tell, without seeing the books. N^o disburse- 
 ments for buildings would appear in the generfil accounts. 
 
 Int. 18. — Why did not disbursements for buildings appear 
 in the books? 
 
 Exomination Resumed March 12, 1867. 
 Ans. — Such di3bur8ements did not appear in the general 
 accounts of the Company, owing to a regulation to that 
 effect, of old date when I came to the country. The x-easona 
 for such a regulation are probably not well known at the 
 present day; but I have understood that one cau.se in the 
 matter wrs, that, long previous to the year 1821, there were 
 two companies — one the Hudson's Bay, and the other the 
 
47 
 
 !N"orthwe8t, of Canada — competing in opposition in the 
 Indian countries of North America, for the trade with t le 
 natives. At many places the two concerns had posts, and 
 estahlishments contiguous to oie another. At other places 
 the Hudson's Baj Company was left pretty much alone, as 
 in the country around Hudson's Bay. Again, the i^orth- 
 west Company was alone at different points, as the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company had not followed them across the Rocky 
 Mountains. In 1821, the two companies joined and hccarae 
 the Hudson's Bay Company, when the agreement was first 
 made wivh the chief factors and chief traders, and the 
 new concv-irn became proprietors free of charge of all the 
 lands, buildings and improvements that the two companies 
 had in use, throughout the Indian country generally, previous 
 to the junction. 
 
 Starting on this footing, it was then arranged that such 
 property should not be valued on the books from year to 
 year. And, moreover, in order to simplify the accounts 
 during the period of the agreement, it was also arranged 
 that all outlay at the different posts referred to, in the shape 
 of repairs or renewals of the buildings, should be a charge 
 on the business of the year in which such operations might 
 be carried on; and that, therefore, no entry for such outlay 
 would appear in the general accounts at all. This regula- 
 tion, I believe, is in force to the present day, when the 
 Hudson's Bay Company is in possession of posts and trading 
 establishments all through the Indian countries of British 
 North America, where they have improvements of various 
 kinds, but of which, I believe, there is no valuation in the 
 London accounts, and of which the accountant there can 
 have no knowledge whatever. 
 
 Int. 19. — Was the regulation you speak of in the begin- 
 ning of your answer to the last interrogatory, given to all 
 the book-keepers of the lIviJ:on's Bay Company, and did it 
 apply to all the posts? 
 
 Ans. — -To the book-keei'oni or accountants serving in the 
 Indian country, I believe the rule was general, and so far as 
 I know, it applied to all the posts in the Indian country. 
 
48 
 
 I' 
 
 Int. 20. — "Did it apply to you while you were book-keeper 
 at Vancouver ? 
 
 An«. — It did. 
 
 Int. 21. — Were not the books of the Company kept under 
 certain other regulations, which were prescribed by the offi- 
 cers of the Company at London? 
 
 Ans. — During my term of service as a book-keeper, the 
 books were kept according to a certain method; but I was 
 under the impression then that the regulations for keeping 
 the books emanated from the Governor and Council in the 
 country, and were acted on when approved of by the 
 Governor and Committee in London. There was a long 
 string of rules and regulations for keeping the Company's 
 books in the country; but at this distance of time, I have 
 really very little recollection about Ihem. I think I have 
 seen them both written and printed. 
 
 Int. 22. — Are not now substantially the same regulations 
 prescribed to the book-keepers of the Company ? 
 
 Ans. — ^Probably they are ; I hardly know. ' 
 
 Int. 23. — When did you last see a copy of the regulations 
 under which the books of the Company were kept? 
 
 Ans. — It is almost impossible for me to say. I do not 
 think my attention has been called to the matter for years. 
 
 Int. 24. — Was the agreement you have spoken of in 
 answer to interrogatory 18, between the Hudson's Bay 
 Company and the Northwest Company, in writing? 
 
 An8. — I believe it was in writing, although I can have no 
 personal knowledge of the matter. 
 
 Int. 25. — Have you ever seen this agreement ? 
 
 Ana. — I may have seen a copy of it. 
 
 Int. 26. — You say that it v/as " also arranged that all out- 
 lay at the diftorent posts referred to in the shape of repairs 
 or renewal of the buildings should bo a charge on the busi- 
 ness of the year in which such operations might be carried 
 on." Where was the first time this change would appear 
 on the Company's books? 
 
 Ans. — It ought to appear, of course, in the local books of 
 each post where such repairs were made in each year. 
 
 'i' 
 
49 
 
 Int. 27. — Where was the last time it appeared? 
 
 An%. — The entry I have referred to in my last answer 
 would be the first and the last of it. 
 
 Int. 28. — Would not it afterwards appear in some shape 
 on some other books of the Company? 
 
 Ans. — ^Not that I know of. 
 
 Int. 29. — It is stated in the testimony of Sir James Doug- 
 las, a witness on the part of the Company, (in answer to in- 
 terrogatory 6,) that the outlay on buildings and other per- 
 manent improvements at the difl'erent establishments at the 
 close of each year, was written off the books, or in other 
 words, carried to profit and loss account, and now I under- 
 stand you to say that these same charges appeared in no 
 form on any book, except the books at the separate posts. 
 Is your statement consistent or not with the statement of Sir 
 James Douglas? 
 
 Am. — Sir James' views of the matter and mine coincide 
 exactly. Supposing at one of the posts $100 of outlay had 
 been made in the shape of repairs, in almost any other busi- 
 ness this sum would have appeared to the credit of the post 
 as a necessary outlay. By the Company's regulation this 
 sum of $100 is lost to the post in making up the accounts of 
 the year, so that it goes to profit and loss. 
 
 Int. 30. — Would not the outlay of $100 appear on the 
 general books of the Cor pany, not as outlay, but as profit 
 and loss ? 
 
 Ans. — It would not appear as a distinct entry; but liad 
 the outlay not been made at the post, the amount of profit 
 in the general balance sheet of the year would have boeu 
 increased by exactly that sum $100. In that way the profit 
 and loss account is affected by it, certainly. 
 
 Int. 31. — Did the general books show a separate account 
 with each post ? 
 
 Ana. — As the books were. kept at Vancouver, some of the 
 posts were separate, and others were combined into districts. 
 Thus, Fort Colvile combined the accounts of that post itself 
 with the posts at the Kootenay and Flathead. Fort Okana- 
 gan was a post attached to Thompson's river district. The 
 
60 
 
 Snake country included the posts at Fort Hall and Bois6* 
 Fort Nez Percys or Walla- Walla was ? district of itself. The 
 Fort Vancouver Indian trade combined the Indian trade of 
 that post with that of the Umpqua, Fort George or Astoria, 
 and the Pillar Rock. There were other districts and posts 
 which I don't now remember. 
 
 Int. 32. — What else appeared in the profit and loss account 
 besides the outlay on buildings? 
 
 Ans. — I hardly know without seeing the books. 
 
 Int. 33. — If you saw the books, could you tell how much 
 of the profit and loss account was made up of the cost of 
 buildings, and how much from other things ? 
 
 Ans. — If the details of such accounts were shown to me I 
 could tell the amount. The general accounts as they were 
 kept in my time would give no information as to the outlay 
 for buildings. 
 
 Jnt. 34. — Give the names of all the books that were kept 
 by you at Vancouver, and tell what each contained. 
 
 Ans. — There were a great many books kept by me at Van- 
 couver ; I hardly am prepared now to give their names or 
 say what their contents were. 
 
 Int. 35. — Will you make a detailed statement of the ac- 
 countability of the officers of the separate posts, to the post 
 at Vancouver, for all goods and moneys sent to them, or re- 
 ceived by them, or all furs or other goods received by them, 
 also the accountability of the officers at Vancouver to each 
 other, and of the post at Vancouver to the Governor and 
 Committee at London. 
 
 Ans. — During my connection with Fort Vancouver, be- 
 tween the years 1839 and 1845, the late Dr. MiLoughlin, as 
 senior chief factor, had control of the Company's business on 
 the west side of the Rocky Mountains, during which time, 
 Vancouver was the centre and headquarters of the trade. 
 In each year, the supplies of goods for the interior posts up 
 the Columbia were sent up from there, and the furs traded 
 for and collected in each year were also brought down to 
 Vancouver. In the same way supplies for the trade on the 
 northwest coast, and the furs from there were brought back 
 
 u. 
 
 m 
 
61 
 
 in ships. The supplies for the trade and equipment of the 
 posts consisted, generally, of the trading goods and pro- 
 visions. I do not think there was much cash or ready 
 moncj used. I am not aware that it was customary for the 
 officers in charge of districts and posts to give vc-jhers 
 when they received goods from the depot at Fort Var < ouver, 
 nor were receipts given to them for the furs that were sent to 
 the depot; further than this — acknowledgments made by let- 
 ter. Sometimes, when the gentlemen would accompany the 
 brigades from the interior to the depot, I am not certain that 
 even that form of acknowledgment was followed. The goods 
 for the supply of the trade required from England were 
 furnished from time to time on requisition of the late Dr. 
 McLoughlin. The furs collected in each year were packed 
 and sent to England. The officers in charge of the posts, 
 as well as at Fort Vancouver itself, were all accountable to 
 Dr. McLoughlin, as having a general superintendence of the 
 business ; and he, himself, though in communication with 
 the Governor and Committee in London, was in reality ac- 
 countable to the Governor and Council of Eupert's Land. 
 
 Int. 36. — Would not the books at Vancouver show the 
 number of hinges, nails, axes, and goods of all kinds sent 
 to each post in any one year, and the amount of furs received 
 from each post or district ? 
 
 Ans. — The accounts in my time would show these entries 
 not to each post, probably, but in the collective form of dis- 
 tricts. 
 
 Int. 37. — What would prevent the officer at each post from 
 erecting as many buildings as he pleased ? 
 
 Am. — In such case, before doing so, he would have to 
 communicate with his senior officer. In the case of neces- 
 sary repairs, he would have to do it on his own authority. 
 
 Int. 38. — Would the books at Vancouver show what was 
 the cost of the erection of the various buildings at that 
 post ? 
 
 Ans. — The general accounts would not show it. 
 
 Int. 39. — ^What accounts would show it? 
 
 Ans. — There was a considerable portion of Fort Vancou- 
 

 'h /t 
 
 52 
 
 ver built before I went there ; a great deal of money had 
 been laid out upon it, and upon improvements generally. 
 During my connection with the place then, I suppose the 
 outlay could be found in the local books of the place, that 
 is to say the wages and material used for the buildings. 
 
 Int. 40. — What buildings were built at Vancouver after 
 you went there in 1839, for which the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany now claim compensation ? 
 
 Ans. — ^Within the fort itself, the picketing or stockade 
 fence was entirely renewed, all the large warehouses, four, I 
 think, in number, the office, the bakehouse, the prison, and 
 the forge. Outside the foi't pretty much all the dwelling- 
 houses, and everything in the shape of stores, the church, 
 the school-houses, farms, and various dwelling-houses. On 
 the Mill Plain, six miles from the fort, the farm of a thousand 
 acres was put under fence, the necessary farm buildings 
 thereon, stables, barns, dwelling-houses, &c. At the saw 
 and grist-mills new mills were put up ; also at the dairies, on 
 Sauvies' Island, and below Fort Vancouver, new buildings 
 were put up. 
 
 Int. 41. — Was there not, about the year 1864, a controver- 
 sey between the Hudson's Bay Company and the Catholic 
 Church about certain buildings at Vancouver, and was not 
 the cost of construction and material furnished by the Com- 
 pany, shown from the books of the Company by Mr. Grahame, 
 an officer of the Company ? 
 
 , Ans. — I am not aware there was ever any controversy be- 
 tween the Catholic Mission and the Company, neither was I 
 aware that Mr. Grahame had acted as stated in the question. 
 Int. 42. — When did you last see the books of the Com- 
 pany, which you say you suppose might show the " wages 
 and materials" used for the buildings at Vancouver ? 
 
 Ana. — I could hardly say. I have already stated that there 
 had been a great deal of outlay incurred on the improve- 
 ments of Fort Vancouver before I went there, of which I 
 had a very imperfect knowledge. Of the outlay during my 
 connection with the place, I really do not know when I saw 
 the books. 
 
 ;? 
 
53 
 
 Int. 43. — Have you seen them since 1850 ? 
 
 Ans. — I may have seen them ; I do not know. 
 
 lilt. 44. — Do you remember to have seen them since 1860? 
 
 Ans. — I may have seen some of them ; I dare say I have. 
 
 I7it. 45. — "When, since 1850, have you seen some of them ? 
 
 Ans. — ^I may have seen some of them at Vancouver's 
 Island. 
 
 Int. 46. — Do you remember to have seen any of them at 
 Vancouver's Island since 1850 ? 
 
 • Ans. — I think I have seen the books of wages paid to ser- 
 vants, under agreement at the different posts, for some of the 
 years I was at Fort Vancouver. 
 
 Int. 47. — In whose possession were these books ? 
 
 Ans. — In the Company's oflBce, at Victoria. 
 
 Int. 48. — When do you last remember to have seen any of 
 these other books, referred to in your answer to interrogatory 
 39, as local books ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know when I saw them last. 
 . Int. 49. — Do you remember to have seen them since 1846? 
 
 Ans. — I may have seen them in 1846 ; but I have no recol- 
 lection of seeing them since. 
 
 Int. 50. — Were these local books at Vancouver when you 
 left there in 1844 ? 
 
 Ans. — Yes, so far as I know. 
 
 Int. 51. — Who succeeded you as book-keeper of the Com- 
 pany? 
 
 Ans. — Thqmas Lowe. , i 
 
 March 13, 1867, Resumed. 
 
 Int. 52. — When did you last see any of the Company's 
 books at Vancouver ? 
 
 Ans. — In the year 1858. 
 
 Int. 53. — What books did you see? 
 
 -4w».-^There was quite a number of books ; I can't detail 
 them. 
 
 Int. 54. — Can't you give a more detailed answer to the last 
 question? 
 
 ^ ♦•►^ ..*>. 
 
54 
 
 Am. — For some years previous to 1958, 1 had charge of 
 Fort Vancouver, where in the oflSce of the establishment there 
 were a great number of account books of various kinds, of 
 which I had very little personal knowledge. In the summer 
 of 1858, I transferred the charge to Mr. Grahame, books and 
 all, and left the place. 
 
 Int. 55. — How many books were there when you trans- 
 ferred them to Mr. Grahame? 
 
 Ans. — There were a great many books on the shelves, and 
 packed away in cases; I could hardly estimate the numbers J 
 there must have been some hundreds of books, I should think. 
 
 Int. 56. — Were these the general or local books of the 
 Company ? 
 
 Ans. — So far as I know, they were all the books of the 
 Company, for many years previous. 
 
 Int. 57. — Was it not the custom and duty of the Company's 
 officers to preserve carefully all the books of the Company ? 
 
 Ans. — Yes ; I believe so. 
 
 Int. 58. — When the Hudson's Bay Company left Vancou- 
 ver, what was done with their books ? 
 
 Ana. — I was not at Fort Vancouver when the Company left 
 there. I have understood, however, that when they did leave 
 there, they were turned out of house and home by General 
 Harney ; and who, as I understood, was then a general officer 
 in the regular army of the United States. The Company's 
 establishment, which they had long occupied there, being thus 
 broken up, they had to go where they could best get a footing, 
 and then went to Vancouver Island. What they took or 
 what they left at Vancouver, I cannot, of my own knowledge, 
 say ; and if anything has happened to any of the Company's 
 books and accounts, which I left in very perfect order, in 1858, 
 and which I suppose would have been there to this day but for 
 this act, then General Harney is to blame for it. 
 
 Int. 59. — Do you not, as an officer of the Company, know, 
 from information derived from other officers of the Company, 
 what was done with the Company's books when they left Fort 
 Vancouver ? 
 
 Ana. — I have understood they were taken to Victoria. 
 
56 
 
 Int. 60. — Did you not nnderstand they were all taken to 
 Victoria? 
 
 Ant. — I may have so understood; I am not positive. 
 
 Int. 60J. — What oflBcer of the Company was entrusted with 
 the duty of removing the Company's books and other prop- 
 erty from Vancouver to Victoria? 
 
 Ant. — I believe it was Mr. Grahamc. 
 
 Int. 61. — Have you not seen some of these books at Victo- 
 ria since 1858? 
 
 An$. — Yes. 
 
 Int. 62. — What ones, and how many have you so seen ? 
 
 Ant. — I could not answer exactly. Those I did see were 
 merely books of general accounts that were in use at Fort 
 Vancouver, when I was first connected with the place. 
 
 Int. 63. — Do you know whether those books are still there ? 
 
 Ana. — So far as I know, they are still there. 
 
 Int. 64. — Have you known of any books of the Company 
 which have been destroyed within the last ten years ? 
 
 Am. — I cannot say that I remember any being destroyed 
 within ten years ; I cannot say, however, what became of the 
 books at Fort Nez Perces, Fort Boise, Fort Hall, when they 
 wore abandoned during the Indian war of 1855-6. 
 
 Int. 65. — Have you not been the senior officer of the Hud- 
 Bon's Bay Company, on the Pacific coast, since 1861 ? 
 
 Ant. — While out there, I have been ; I was out there for 
 gomething over three years, since 1861. 
 
 Int. 66. — Have you ever given ai\ order of any kind that 
 any books of the Company should be destroyed? 
 
 Ana. — I never have in any shape o? way. 
 
 Int. 67. — Have you ever learned frjm any officers of the 
 Company, by official report or oihervisc, that any books of 
 the Company have been in any way destroyed? ' 
 
 Ana. — Not that I remember of. 
 
 Int. 68. — Do you not believe that all the general books of 
 the Company, which were originally kept at Vancouver, are 
 now at Victoria? 
 
 Ana. — They may be there. I have no personal knowledge 
 that they are all there, not having seen them all 
 
 .« « — . ,. —. 
 
56 
 
 Int. 69. — Do you not believe that the local books of tbe 
 post at Vancouver and other posts are there? 
 
 Ans. — They may bo there. I myself, however, saw none of 
 them, unless it miiy have been the books containing the list of 
 wages of the engaged servants at the different posts. 
 
 Int. 70. — Were not these books of wages part of the general 
 books, as well as of the local books? 
 
 Ans. — They were part oS the general accounts, by which 
 you saw the wages paid to the engaged servants at each dis- 
 trict every year, but this book did not show how those servants 
 were employed at the different stations so as to know in what 
 way they had been employed throughout the whole year. 
 
 Int. 71. — Did the books of the post at Vancouver, which 
 you kept, show in what particular labor the servants at that 
 post were employed? 
 
 An%. — I think not. 
 
 Int. 72. — Do you not believe that accurate copies of the 
 general books kept at Vancouver are now in the Company's 
 office in London? 
 
 Ans. — Until 1854 copies of the general accounts were sent 
 out in each year to York Factory in Hudson's Bay, but what 
 became of them afterwards I am unable to say. Some of them 
 may have gone to England. Since 1854 up to 1860, when the 
 Company left Vancouver, copies of the general accounts were 
 sent to the Hudson's Bay House, London, annually by express. 
 
 Int. 73, — Where were you when Mr. Grahame and the 
 .Hudson's Bay Company left Vancouver? 
 
 Ans. — I mui?t have been on the voyage from England to 
 Vancouver Island. When I got to Victoria the officers of the 
 Company were all there except Mr. Grahame, who had remained 
 in Oregon for some purpose, and came to Victoria about a 
 month afterwards. 
 
 Int. 74. — Have you not stated in answer to interrogatory 
 73, of the previous cross-examination, that "Mr. Grahame 
 on withdrawing from Fort Vancouver transferred all the pa- 
 pers and documents of the place to me at Vancouver Island?" 
 
 Awi. — When Mr. Grahame came to Victoria, as already 
 mentioned, a month after my arrival there, he delivered to me 
 
 A 
 
 m- 
 
 y 
 
57 
 
 certain papers and documents relating to the troubles whi-;b 
 had taken place between him and the military authorities <i.t 
 Fort Vancover, which are the papers and documents I referred 
 to in my reply to the cross-interrogatory 78. I took charge 
 of these papers by order of Mr. Dallas, who was then the 
 Company's representative at Victoria. 
 
 Int. 76. — Did you not answer to interrogatory 94, of your 
 previous cross-examination: "Do the books of the Company, 
 now at Victoria, show all the business operations of the Com- 
 pany in all its branches between 1842 and 1863, at the sev- 
 eral posts south of 49°?" give this answer: "Up to 1860, 
 all the accounts were at Fort Vancouver. So far as I know 
 they extended to all the matters mentioned in the question. 
 They were removed to Victoria, and so far as I know there 
 were none lost." 
 
 An%. — I made that answer, as I do now, from hearsay, with- 
 out a personal knowledge, Ljing away at the time the Company 
 left Fort Vancouver. 
 
 Int. 76. — Who told you that all the accounts were at Fort 
 Vancouver up to 1860? 
 
 An». — I suppose it must have come from Mr. Grahame, from 
 the time I left Vancouver in 1858. 
 
 Int. 77. — When did you first receive as a part of your sal- 
 ary a share of the profits of the Hudson's Bay Company? 
 
 Ans. — My interest as a chief trader commenced on June 1, 
 1846. 
 
 Int. 78. — What was your share of the profits the first year ? 
 
 Ant. — It was one eighty-fifth of forty hundredths of the 
 profits of the trade. I am unable to state the amount in 
 money as my papers are not here. 
 
 Int. 79. — How long time usually elapsed after the annual 
 accounts were closed at Vancouver before you received your 
 share of the profits? 
 
 Ana. — My first dividend for the year already mentioned, 
 and closing on the 31st of May, 1847, was made to me in Lon- 
 don, as on the 1st of June, 1848. Then again I had another, 
 December 1 following ; each consecutive year afterwards be- 
 gan the dividends on the 1st of June following ; then again 
 
 A4M.*l #■•■■•• 
 
58 
 
 December Ist ; and so they ran on year after year, half yearly. 
 
 Int. 80. — You have said in answer to interrogatory 10, in 
 your principal examination, that the profits of that trade, 
 meaning the fur trade at the posts in Oregon south of the 
 forty-ninth parallel in the year 1840, and for years previously, 
 averaged more than i;7,000 per annum ; on what knowledge 
 did you make that statement? 
 
 Ana. — On my knowledge and recollection of the books I 
 used to keep, and afterwards kept by Mr. Lowe. 
 
 Int. 81. — Did the books kept by you show the profits of the 
 fur trade? 
 
 Ans. — The books showed the profits, besides which, each post 
 every year paid its outlay for the buildings and repairs which 
 the books, of course, did not show. 
 
 Int. 82. — Did the books show the profits of each post or 
 district ? 
 
 Ans. — The books showed the profits of each post in their 
 combined form of posts or districts. 
 
 Int. 83. — Did the copies of the books sent to York Factory 
 show the profits of each post or district ? 
 
 Ana. — So far as I remember they did. 
 
 Int. 84. — Can you make any more definite statement of the 
 amount of the profits of the Company than you have aire dy 
 made? 
 
 An8. — I could not very well do so from memory. If I could 
 see the books I could. 
 
 Int. 85. — During what year previous to 1846 was the fur 
 trade south of the forty-ninth parallel the most profitable, and 
 what year was it least profitable ? , 
 
 Ana. — I could not answer that from memory without seeing 
 the books. 
 
 Int. 86. — When was it more than .£7,000, and when less ? 
 
 Ana. — I could not say without looking at the books. 
 
 Int. 87. — What were the profits in 1846? 
 . Ana. — I could not answer from memory. 
 
 Int. 88. — Was there a profit on the trade of the posts south 
 of the forty-ninth parallel in 1846 ? 
 
 Ana. — Yes, there was a profit in 1846. 
 
69 
 
 Int. 89. Was there not some year previous to 1846 when 
 there were no profits from these posts ? 
 
 Ans. — There was no year between 1889 and 1846 on which 
 there was not a profit. 
 
 Int. 90. — Did not the profits of the Company from these 
 posts decrease annually from 1889 to 1846 ? 
 
 Ans. — There may have been a decrease, but the average 
 profit on the whole will amount to more than jB7,000 per 
 annum. 
 
 Int. 91. — Did not these profits gradually decrease after 1846 ? 
 
 Ana. — The profits after 1846 kept up pretty well for some 
 years. I left the country in January, 1847, and returned in 
 September, 1858, by which time the annual profits had got to 
 be very low. There was trouble with the Indians of the Wal- 
 la-Walla country in the winter of 1847-8, when the late Dr. 
 Whitman and his amiable wife were murdered by the Indians 
 and their mission at Waiiletpu was destroyed. An Indian war 
 followed, and spread trouble all over that country, making its 
 influence felt as far up as Fort Bois6 and Fort Hall. Some 
 two or three years afterwards Dr. Dart made his appearance 
 in Oregon as Superintendent of Indian Affairs, with instruc- 
 tions from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs at Washington 
 city not to allow the Hudson's Bay Company to trade with 
 Indians in his superiptendency. After that, in December, 
 1853, the late Isaac I. Stevens, then Governor of Washington 
 Territory and Superintendent of Indian Affairs, directed Mr. 
 Ogden, as representing the Hudson's Bay Company, to stop 
 trading with the Indians six months from January 1, 1864, in 
 any portion of Washington Territory. This was followed, in 
 the year 1855-6, by a war with the Indians, known as the 
 Yakama Indian war, during which the Company had to aban- 
 don their posts at Walla-Walla or Nez Perces, Fort Hall, and 
 Fort Boise, and finally the Indians in different parts of Wash- 
 ington Territory, some time in 1856, were removed to reserva- 
 tions, leaving the Company no Indians to trade with, except 
 at their stations at Fort Colvile, the Kootenay and Flatheads. 
 This statement will at once account for the falling off of the 
 Company's fur trade at the posts mentioned, which occurred 
 
 
 ^J. 
 
 >^-^ **-**♦ .^..,^,^.«^, 
 
 ♦ r, .**Vm 
 
I 
 
 i 
 
 k 
 
 • m 
 
 h 
 
 60 
 
 not in consequence of any fault of the Company, but owing to 
 the want of that protection from the United States Govern- 
 ment which they had a right to look for under the treaty of 
 1846. 
 
 Int. 92. — Wou'u it not appear from the books when each 
 post ceased tc be profitable, or how profitable it was when the 
 business c /nnection of the Company with each post ceased ? 
 
 Ana.- —The books ought to show it. 
 
 Int. 93. — Have you any knowledge in regard to the profits 
 of the Company in various years since 1839 other than you 
 obtained from the books ? 
 
 Ans. — So far as regards the years between 1839 and 1846, 
 I have been talking about the annual average profits from my 
 memory of the books. As to the profits after 1846, I have 
 been talking generally, having been absent from the country 
 until 1853. 
 
 Int. 94. Did you not make your answer to interrogatory 91 
 from information derived from others? i 
 
 An8. — The information regarding the Indian war of 1847-8, 
 and of Dr. Dart's instructions, I had from others. I was in 
 the country when the late Governor Stevens sent his orders, 
 in writing, to the late Mr. P. S. Ogden, and also during the 
 Yakama Indian war, and the removal of the Indians to reser- 
 vations. ^ 
 
 ,' March 18, 1867, Resumed. 
 
 Int. 95. — Were the orders of Dart and Governor Stevens 
 ever enforced ? - 
 
 Ans. — So far as the orders of Governor Stevens were con- 
 cerned, I always considered them as in force, never having 
 been rescinded. In the case of Dr. Dart I am unable to say 
 whether they were enforced or not. 
 
 Int. 96. — Were the orders of Governor Stevens ever en- 
 forced ? 
 
 Ans. — Of course tbey must have been enforced, by removal 
 of the Indians to the reservations which was eventually done 
 by his orders, preventing, as I have already said, from that 
 
 li ! 
 
m. 
 
 ever en- 
 
 date, any trade with the Indians in Washington Territory, 
 except at the posts of Colville, Kootenay and Flatheads. 
 Int. 97. — Were the orders enforced in any other way ? 
 An8. — I dt. not know that they were ; but the effect of such 
 standing orders on the Company's trade was, I conceive, most 
 disastrous, as they never knew from one day to another what 
 was going to come next. 
 
 Int. 98. — Could not the Company have re-occupied Forts 
 Walla- Walla, Boisfe, and Hall after the close of the war in 
 1855-6 ? 
 
 Ans. — The war with the Indians did not close until late in 
 the summer of 1858, when General Wright, with a large com- 
 mand of regulars, crossed Snake river and had quite a fight 
 with the Indians in the Spokane country. This closing battle 
 had not taken place when I left Fort Vancouver in June, 1858. 
 I am, therefore, positive that the Company c-ald not have 
 reoccupied any of the stations at Walla- Walla, jioise, and Fort 
 Hall with anything like safety of life and property. After 
 that, between 1858 and 1860, it is probable that the same 
 difficulties existed still, though I cannot say so of my own 
 knowledge. It would have been of no use, even if the Com- 
 pany could have gone back to those posts, after the Indians 
 had been removed from their hunting grounds to reservations, 
 as there would have been no Indians to trade with. 
 
 Int. 99. — Did not the Hudson's Bay Company occupy and 
 trade at the posts of Walla-Walla, Boisfe, and Hall for six 
 months or a year after the order of Governor Stevens should 
 have taken effect, if enforced? 
 
 Ans. — I think the Company did so. 
 
 Int. 100. — Did they not occupy them and trade with the 
 Indians until they were obliged to flee from fear of the Indians ? 
 
 At. -I believe so. 
 
 mt. 101. — Did the Company ever intend to abandon those 
 posts, or stop trading with the Indians on account of Governor 
 Stevens' order ? 
 
 Ans.—l think not. 
 
 Int. 102. — How far was the scene of the battle in the Spo- 
 kane country from Walla- Walla, Boisfe, and Hall ? 
 
62 
 
 Ans. — The battle-field was at a distance from either of those 
 establishments, but the whole section of country had continued 
 in a very disturbed state from the commencement of the war 
 in 1855, and it was not safe for small and detached parties to 
 travel among the natives for probably hundreds of miles in cer- 
 tain directions, taking the Company's post at Walla-Walla as 
 the centre ? 
 
 Int. 103. — Do you not know that the reservations of land 
 were set off to the Indians to afford them permanent homes, 
 and that they not only could hunt on these lands but in other 
 parts of the country, and wer* as free to sell their furs as 
 ever, to whom they pleased ? 
 
 Ans. — I have no doubt the removal of the Indians to the 
 reservations was done with the best intentions, but so far as I 
 know the Indians once on the reservations are not allowed to 
 trade and traflSc with everybody that comes along, being under 
 the control of oflScers at the different reservations, who pre- 
 vent as much as possible anything like a general intercourse 
 between the Indians and the Avhites. 
 
 Int. 104. — In what particular service are you now employed 
 as an officer of the Hudson's Bay Company ? 
 
 ^Ans. — My principal duty at present is in Washington, look- 
 ing after the proceedings going on before the Commissioners 
 in this case. 
 
 Int. 105. — Were you not telegraphed for at Montreal to 
 come to Washington and go to Charlotte, North Carolina, to 
 attend the examination of Admiral Wilkes? 
 
 Ans. — I am not aware that I was telegraphed for to come 
 to Washington from Montreal to attend the examination of 
 Admiral Wilkes, at Charlotte, in Nox-th Carolina. But I did 
 go from Montreal to that place and was present when Admiral 
 Wilkes was examined. 
 
 Int. lOG. — Did you not at Montreal receive a telegram from 
 one of the counsel of the Hudson's Bay Company that Ad- 
 miral Wilkes was ready to be examined, or would be examined 
 on a certain day ? » 
 
 Am. — I did receive such telegram. 
 
63 
 
 Int. 107. — How long did you remain at Montreal after 
 receiving this telegram ? 
 
 Ana. — About three full days. 
 
 Int. 108. — Did you not telegraph back to the counsel of 
 the Hudson's Bay Company at Washington, to the effect that 
 you would come to the United States to be present at the 
 examination of Admiral Wilkes ? 
 
 Ans. — I did telegraph back in reply to the counsel men- 
 tioned, from which he might have inferred that I wished to be 
 present, but in the telegram itself I am not aware that I either 
 talked of the admiral or his examination either. 
 
 Int. 109.^Did you not at Charlotte, during the examina- 
 tion of Admiral Wilkes, both in the room during the examina- 
 tion and in and out of the room at other times, consult with 
 the counsel of the Hudson's Bay Company in regard to the 
 cross-examination of the admiral ? 
 
 Ana. — I believe I did so, out of the room, certainly ; but in 
 the room, while the cross-examination was going on, I have 
 no recollection to have said much, if anything. 
 
 Int. 110. — Have you not been present, and have you not 
 desired to be present, at the examination of various other wit- 
 nesses of the United States in this case since January last ? 
 
 Ana. — I have been present of my own desire. 
 
 Int. 111. — Have you not consulted with the counsel of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company, during these examinations, in regard 
 to the examination and cross-examination of the United States 
 witnesses ? 
 
 Ana. — Well, I am not aware that I asked any questions 
 myself, but the counsel for the Company has occasionally 
 asked me for information while such proceedings were going 
 on. 
 
 Int. 112. — Has not the counsel of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany desired that you should be present at these examina- 
 tions ? 
 
 Ana. — There were times when he has asked mo to bo pres- 
 ent, but not always. 
 
 Int. 113. — Did not he (the counsel of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company) on last Wednesday, when the examination for that 
 
'64 
 
 r<^ 
 
 I. 
 
 day was finished, consult with you as to whether it was better 
 or not to send copies of your testimony of each day to Judge 
 Day, senior counsel of the Hudson's Bay Company ? 
 
 An9. — I remember he said something to me about it, but I 
 don't recollect what he proposed to do. 
 
 Int. 114. — Are you not really here acting as client in this 
 case? 
 
 Ans. — I am here not as client, but as a chief factor of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 Int. 115. — Are you not here as an agent of that Company, 
 to look out after their interests in this case ? 
 
 Ans. — I suppose I am. 
 
 Int. 116. — Under whose direction or orders are you here ? 
 
 An». — My orders come from the Hudson's Bay House in 
 London. 
 
 Int. 117. — When did you receive these orders ? 
 
 An%. — I left London on the 28th of October, 1864, previous 
 to which I received my orders. Since that I have occasion- 
 ally had communications with the House. 
 
 Int. 118. — Have you not a distinct pecuniary interest in 
 whatever money or moneys the Commissioners may award in 
 this case ? 
 
 Ans. — Nothing more than my chief factor's interest gives 
 me. 
 
 Int. 119. — What part of the amount awarded will this in- 
 terest give you ? 
 
 An%. — I am unable to say. I am entitled, no doubt, to the 
 two eighty-fifths of forty hundredths of anything that may be 
 divided. 
 
 Int. 120. — Do you mean from this to intimate that this 
 award will be divided among all the officers of the Company 
 at the time of division, in the same way as the ordinary profits 
 of the trade? 
 
 Ans. — I believe so. 
 
 Int. 121. — Do you know how this disposition will be made ? 
 
 An%. — I know nothing further than what I have already 
 stated as my belief. 
 
 Int. 122. — On what knowledge is this belief founded ? 
 
 fli- K 
 
65 
 
 Ans. — I have no particular knowledge about it. 
 
 Int. 123. — Did you not assist the counsel of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company to prepare the memorial which was presented 
 April 17, 1865, a printed copy of which is now shown you ? 
 
 An8. — I believe I did so. 
 
 Int. 124. — Where was this memorial prepared ? 
 
 Ans. — In Canada, I think. 
 
 Int. 125. — Do you not know ? 
 
 Ans. — Yes ; it was there. 
 
 Int. 126. — On what authority or information was this part 
 of the memorial made, quoting from page 10 : 
 
 "The post at Vancouver, so-called, consisting of a stock- 
 aded fort, with dwelling-houses, store-houses, school-houses, 
 houses for servants, shops, barns, and other out-buildings, with 
 a stockade and bastions, erected at great cost, and of the value 
 of fifty-five thousand pounds, (^£55,000"?) 
 
 Ans. — I may have had something to do with it. 
 
 Int. 127. — Have you not, since your answer to interroga- 
 tory 125, consulted with the counsel of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company in regard to your answer to interrogatory 126, or 
 other matters connected with this examination? 
 
 Ans. — I did speak to the counsel. The answer is entirely 
 my own. 
 
 Int. 128. — Did you not speak to the counsel in a whisper, 
 and did he not reply so? 
 
 Ans. — Yes. 
 
 Int. 129. — Do you not know that you had something to do 
 with the preparation of tlie memorial? 
 
 Ans. — I had something to do with it, of course. 
 
 Int. 130. — Was it not on your information, and with your 
 advice and consent, that the passage quoted in the interroga- 
 tory 126 formed part of the memorial? 
 
 Ans. — I don't know how far my advice went in the matter. 
 Of course I have no doubt the information given by me had 
 much to do with it. I consented, of course. 
 
 Int. 131. — Did you not yourself fix a value on the property 
 described in interrogatory 126, and,ofi"er this estimate to the 
 counsel ? 
 
 5 
 
66 
 
 Ans. — I may have done so. 
 
 Int. 132. — Do you not know that you did so? 
 
 Ans. — I can't be positive about it, though I believe I did 
 figure it out. 
 
 Int. ] 33. — Was your estimate higher or lower than j£55,000 ? 
 
 A .<s. — Something higher, I think. 
 
 Int. 134. — Why was your estimate cut down? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know. 
 
 Int. 135. — How much was it cut down ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not remember. 
 
 Int. 136. — Do you distinctly remember that it was cut down ? 
 
 Ans. — That is the impression on my mind. 
 
 Int. 137. — Was it against your desire that it was cut down? 
 
 Ans. — I made no objections about it. 
 
 Int. 138. — Who else was consulted as to the value which 
 should be put on this property ? 
 
 Ans. — There may have been others besides me consulted ; I 
 don't remember of any. 
 
 Int. 139. — From what books did you figure out the value of 
 this property ? 
 
 Ans. — My figuring out was made pretty much from mem- 
 ory, and from knowledge of the place. 
 
 Int. 140. — What do you mean by knowledge of the place ? 
 
 Ans. — Personal knowledge of Fort Vancouver and its im- 
 provements, when I was there or thereabouts, at the time 
 when this valuation was put upon the place. 
 
 Int. 141. — When you speak of knowledge, do you mean 
 knowledge of the cost, or knowledge of what the buildings 
 would sell for? 
 
 Ans. — I speak of knowledge of its value to the Company's 
 business. 
 
 Int. 142. — Can you tell us by what arithmetical process you 
 arrived at vour estimate? 
 
 V 
 
 Ans. — The fort was a very large establishment. The en- 
 closure of 750 feet front, containing a great many buildings 
 inside. Outside, at hand, there were other buildings, stores 
 and dwelling-houses, a chiyrch and school-houses, &c. There 
 was a farm there, adjoining, of 500 acres, under fence ; 
 through all of which roads were made, and barns and stables 
 
67 
 
 erected. The place itself was of great importance as the cen- 
 tre of trade, and was in very thorough order. My own esti- 
 mate of its value would be all of j£60,000. 
 
 Int. 143. — Has this estimate of £60,000 no regard to the 
 cost of the post? 
 
 Ans. — I have said nothing about the cost of the post ; I talk 
 of its value to the business. 
 
 Int. 143J. — Do you mean to say, that in your estimate novr, 
 and in your estimate for the Counsel, which was afterwards 
 cut down and put in the memorial, you did not at all consider 
 the cost of the post at Vancouver ? 
 
 An8. — I may, or may not have thought of the cast ; I am 
 talking now to the business. 
 
 Int. 144. — Did your pi-esent estimate and the estimate in 
 the memorial have no regard to the saleable value of the post? 
 
 Ans. — In 1846, at which time I put this valuation, there 
 was no party or parties in that country who had the means of 
 buying such a place had it been for sale, therefore I cannot 
 speak of its saleable value, and I have not so spoken. 
 
 Int. 145. — What do you estimate to have been the cost of 
 the property, described in the passage of the memorial, 
 quoted in interrogatory 126 ? 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to divic the premises at Fort Vancou- 
 ver. That is to say, if I attempted to give an estimate, it 
 would be for the whole establishment at Fort Vancouver, in- 
 . eluding mills and all other improvements, dairies, &c. More- 
 over, any estimate that I now make would be a very incomplete 
 one, and would refer only to the outlay which I believe was 
 incurred while I was about Fort Vancouver, between the years 
 1839 and 1846, in all seven years. My estimate of such out- 
 lay is as follows : 
 
 Wages for 150 men at $100 per annum, - - $15,000 
 Rations for 150 men at 20 cents per diem, for one 
 
 year. 
 
 For seven years. 
 
 10,950 
 
 25,950 
 7 
 
 $181,650 
 
68 
 
 The 150 men referred to were nearly all brought from 
 abroad, some from England, via Cape Horn, others from the 
 Orkney Islands, who came by Hudson's Bay and crossed the 
 Rocky Mountains, others again from Canada and Red River, 
 and from the Sandwich Islands, who were brought at great 
 expense, averaging $100 each man, say - - - $15,000 
 The amount brought forward, ... - 181,650 
 
 Value of material us'ed in the different structures 
 about the place, machinery 'i the mills, &c., 
 &c., say 
 
 196,650 
 
 There Avere also employed two clerks as overseers, 
 whose Avagcs and board would amount to $1,250 
 each — $2,500 per annum for seven years, - 
 
 75,000 
 $271,650 
 
 17,500 
 
 $289,150 
 
 Examination resumed March 19, 1867. 
 
 Int. 146 — Do you mean to say that $289,150 is your esti- 
 mate of the cost of all the buildings and improvements at and 
 around Vancouver, including the farm-houses, fencing, and 
 mills? 
 
 Ans. — My estimate of that sum has only reference, as near 
 as I can judge, to the outlay incurred upon the fort and sur- 
 rounding improvements between the years 1839 and 1846. 
 Previous to 1839 there had been a large expenditure of money 
 upon the fort and the improvements round, of which I have 
 no personal knowledge, neither am I able to give any estimate 
 of the same. 
 
 Int. 147. — Do you mean to say that between the years 1839 
 and 1846, $289,150 was spent by the company upon the fort 
 and surrounding improvements ? 
 
 Ans. — To the best of my knowledge and belief that outlay 
 had been made. 
 
69 
 
 Int. 148. — If this outlay had been made during that time, 
 will not the books of the company show that such an amount 
 has been put down to profit and loss in the accounts kept at 
 Fort Vancouver? 
 
 Ann. — The balance of the profit and loss account has been 
 affected no doubt by the effect of this outlay, whatever it may 
 have been, in each year. But the account itself will not show 
 how the money has been expended. 
 
 Int. 149. — Does not the balance sheet or profit and loss ac- 
 count of each post show on the debtor side, as expenses or 
 losses, these items among others: "Goods sent to the post, 
 food and supplies sent to the post, and wages paid to the 
 engaged people at the post?" 
 
 An«. — So far as my recollection goes of the accounts, the 
 balance sheet of the different posts does show these entries on 
 the debit side. 
 
 Int. 150. — Do you mean to say that 150 engaged servants 
 of the company were employed for seven full years, beginning 
 with the autumn of the year 1839, in making permanent 
 improvements at and around the post at Vancouver? 
 
 Ans, — There may have been a greater number sometimes 
 and fewer at others, but, to the best of my knowledge and 
 belief, I think that number was so employed on an average 
 one year to another. 
 
 Int. 151. — Were not many, if not all of the answers to your 
 examination in chief, at the city of Montreal, written out be- 
 fore the examination, on consultation with counsel of the 
 JIudson's Bay Company? 
 
 Ans. — Some time in the second week of March, 1866, or 
 thereabouts, Judge Day, then in Washington city, told me 
 that he had proposed to Mr. Cushing's representative that my 
 deposition should be taken before him, when he replied some- 
 thing to the effect that he could not cross-examine me, for the 
 reason that Mr. Choate, of New York, had been retained to 
 attend to it. Judge Day shortly afterwards left for Montreal, 
 where I followed him, as he was anxious to be within reach 
 when my testimony was taken. As far as I remember, Judge 
 Day gave me the questions in my deposition, when I wrote off 
 
 ••M 
 
 4 
 
 •Mu 
 
 "•Dm 
 
TO 
 
 H 
 
 the answers, returning both questions and answers to Judge 
 Day, and I may have consulted him about njy answers, but I 
 have no recollection about it. The deposition, questions, and 
 answers, were then copied, and Mr. Choate sent for, who, on 
 his arrival, proceeded to cross-examine me. (The United States 
 object to the first members of Mr. Mactavish's answer to the 
 151st interrogatory, beginning "Some time," &c., and ending, 
 "to it," as being hearsay, irresponsive to the interrogatory, 
 and impertinent in law.) 
 
 Int. 152. — Were all the questions given to you at once by 
 Judge Day ? 
 
 Ans, — Probably nearly all of them were. They were, I 
 think, either copied by a young man employed for the purpose, 
 or written at the judge's dictation, and then brought to me; 
 they may have been brought in two or three instalments. 
 
 Jnt. 153 — Were your answers all sent to Judge Day at one 
 time? 
 
 Ans. — I think they were. 
 
 Int. 154. — Did you not, at some time after your answers 
 were sent to Judge Day, alter them in consultation with him, 
 either by leaving out certain parts of them, or by adding to 
 them? 
 
 Ans. — I may have done so, but I have no recollection of it 
 now. 
 
 Int. 155. — Do you not believe that you did so? 
 
 Ans. — I have no particular belief about it. I have no 
 recollection. 
 
 Int. 156. — Do you recollect whether Judge Day was pres- 
 ent at your cross-examination? 
 
 Ans, — So far as I remember, Mr. Choate had mc all to him- 
 self while cross-examining me, and Judge Day came into the 
 room and re-commenced my examination in chief, and I think 
 remained there until Mr. Choate closed his final cross-exam- 
 ination. 
 
 Int. 157. — How long and how many men did it take to 
 build each of the buildings, which in your answer to the 40th 
 interrogatory of this cross-examination you say were built 
 while you were at Vancouver? 
 
 I 
 
 lg,^,^^llgllllllllg^ 
 
71 
 
 Ana. — I can't answer the question. I don't remember. 
 Int. 158. — In what year was the stockade fence renewed? 
 Arts. — Some of it was renewed in the autumn of 1842, and 
 by the spring of 1845 the remainder of the entire enclosure 
 had been renewed. 
 
 Int. 150. — How long a time would it take 150 men to renew 
 this stockade? 
 
 Ans. — I hardly know. It would depend very much on 
 their ability to do such work, and on the proximity of the 
 timber suitable for pickets. 
 
 Int. 160. — Considering the ability of the servants of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company, and the proximity of the timber for 
 the pickets, how long do you believe it would have taken 150 
 men to have renewed the pickets? 
 
 Ans. — The Company had a great many hands employed at 
 Vancouver and its surroundings, but there were very few of 
 them who could be called skilled hands with the axe or tools 
 of any kind. The labor was of the very cheapest kind, and 
 the hands changed very often; men going away and others 
 coming in their place. I never saw anything like 150 men 
 working at one job. They were scattered about, working here, 
 there, and everywhere, so that it is impossible for me to say 
 how long they would have taken to ron w this picket fence. 
 The timber for the pickets was not by any means found close 
 at hand, and if I remember right many of the logs, which were 
 very choice, were cut at a great distance from the f. it, and 
 had then to be dragged out by oxen to the river-side and rafted 
 down the river, and hauled by oxen up to the fort. 
 
 Int. 161. — What was the average number of men per day 
 that were employed in renewing the pickets? 
 
 Ans. — I could not answer that question. 
 
 Int. 162. — When were the pickets first erected ? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 163. — Why were they renewed? 
 
 Ans. — I presume they had decayed. 
 
 Int. 164. — Of what kind of wood were the old pickets? 
 
 Ans. — Principally pine, probably with some cedar among 
 them. 
 
 I'm 
 
 i 
 
 >., 
 
 i*,..,.*u>^*i*rji.'iri-i>;-i\»^;i-t»ifc".l''*"w*'**'W £ .*-'•*'- . • -"-*~ »' 
 
 .^ 
 
72 
 
 Int. 165. — Of what timber were the new pickets? 
 
 Ans. — I think they were much the same. 
 
 Int. 166. — Were not the old pickets all renewed before they 
 had been standing twenty years? 
 
 An». — It iH probable they had. 
 
 Int. 167, — Of .what particular value was the picket to the 
 Company? 
 
 Ana. — Defence and protection from the Indians, who" were 
 numerous and troublesome enough, as I understood, when Fort 
 Vancouver was first established. 
 
 Int. 168. — Was there ever any attack of the Indians made 
 on Fort Vancouver? 
 
 Ans. — The nearest to an attack by the Indiana took place 
 in the spring of 1856, when the Indians, during the Yakama 
 war, watched their opportunity when General Wright, then in 
 command of the 9th regiment of infantry, had marched with 
 his troops from the Dalles on his way to Walla- Walla, or, as 
 it is now called, Wallula. The Indians, observing that the 
 troops were gone, maue their appearance at the Cascade port- 
 age, where they murdered eighteen people, men, women, and 
 children, and set fire to nearly all the buildings of the settlers 
 on the portage, which was four or five miles in length. The 
 people, young and old, were sacrificed at the upper end of the 
 portage. The settlers at the lower end were warned of what 
 was before them, and they made their escape as they best 
 could down the river with boats or canoes, or anything that 
 could float, coming on to Fort Vancouver, a distance of forty 
 miles from the Cascades. The garrison at Vancouver was 
 then in command of Colonel Morris, of the 4th infantry. That 
 oflScer, on getting the information of what had happened at 
 the Cascades, acted with great promptitude, and dispatched 
 another oflScer, with all the soldiers he could muster, by steamer 
 to the Cascades, where he had a fight with the Indians, but 
 was unable to drive them out of the position they held there. 
 The news of this outbreak at the Cascades, when known 
 through the country on the north side of the Columbia, 
 alarmed all the settlers very much, who with their families all 
 flocked into Vancouver. At the garrison were many ladies 
 
 f ■'■*\,^ .* . 
 
73 
 
 whose husbands were officers in the field, and many of them, 
 with much anxiety about the safety of the garrison, came 
 down for safety and protection to the Company's fort, which 
 was secure from any Indian attack. For months afterwards 
 women and children from the town of Vancouver slept every 
 night in the fort for protection ; all which shows that so late 
 as the year 185G the Hudson's Bay Company's fort at Van- 
 couver, with its pickets, was not so much out of place, i*^ 
 
 Int. 1G9. — What do you estimate to have been the cost of 
 this picket? 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to answer that question. 
 
 Int. 170. — What do you estimate to have been its value to 
 the Company? 
 
 Ans. — I have put a valuation some time or other, but I for- 
 get now what it was. 
 
 Int. 171. — Was not in 1846 the improvements outside of the 
 pickets at Vancouver of more value than those within ? 
 
 Ana. — I dare say they were. 
 
 Int. 172. — What was the value of those within? 
 
 Ans. — I really cannot say now. 
 
 Int. 173. — What was the value of those without? 
 
 Ans. — I am equally unable to answer that question. 
 
 Int. 174. — What was the cost of those within? 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to say. 
 
 Int. 175. — What was the cost of those without? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 176. — Can you estimate how many men were employed 
 and how long they were employed in erecting the buildings 
 within the picket? . - 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to make that estimate. 
 
 Int. 177. — Were not most of the buildings within the fort 
 made of hewn timber? 
 
 Ans. — I think not. 
 
 Int. 178. — What ones were not made of hewn timber? 
 
 Ans. — The factor's house, the office, the four large ware- 
 houses, the long dwell! r.g-house, the kitchen, the magazine, 
 and there may have been more, but I do not remember. 
 
 I 
 
 . .T^umtm.H^»tt/e^ai- -O. ■■f--'-!:. 
 
 .•. j<«>»«*./»-j!«Ti~»'»c;; »*• - ?A •»•-• 
 
 / 
 
r 
 
 Int. 179. Of what were these buildings enumerated in your 
 last answer built ? 
 
 Ans. — They were built up between the uprights of sawn 
 plank, either two or three inches thick, except the kitchen, 
 whi<. I was a frame building, and the powder magazine, which 
 was of brick, with a copper door. 
 
 March 20, Examination Resumed. 
 
 Int. 180. — In reply to interrogatory 151, as to whether 
 many, if not all, of the answers to your examination-in-chief, 
 at Montreal, were written out before the examination, on con- 
 sultation with counsel of the Hudson's Bay Company, you 
 proceed to state in substance that in March, 186G, or there- 
 abouts, Mr. Day proposed to Mr. Cushing's representative 
 (? Mr. Stone) that your deposition should be taken before him, 
 &c. Had not your deposition, in so far as examination-in- 
 chief, been taken already long before that, say in the previous 
 month of January ? 
 
 Ans. — No; I think not. 
 
 (Mr. Lander objects to so much of this question as refers to 
 Mr. Stone, as no mention has been made of Mr. Stone ?) 
 
 Int. 181. — Do you remember in what month your examina- 
 tion-in-chief was taken ? 
 
 Ans. — It must have been after I loft here. I got to Montreal 
 29th March. I think it must have been between that hue and 
 when Mr. Choate ci'oss-examiaed me. 
 
 Int. 182. — Had you never, previous to your return to 
 Montreal, about the last of March, 1806, prepared any an- 
 swers to any interrogations as a witness in behalf of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company ? 
 
 Ans. — I think it is likely I did, in Washington, in the Niiape 
 of notes, in preparation of my expected examination i)efore 
 Mr. Cushing's representative, when I was ready to give my 
 testimony in any way that they pleased. 
 
 Int. 183. — Who prepared these (juestions that you an- 
 swered ? 
 
 ..■^. 
 
75 
 
 Ans. — I don't know that it amounted to questioning; it 
 was more in the shape of consultation with Judge Day than 
 anything else. 
 
 Int. 184. — Was Judge Day in Washington at the time ? 
 
 Ans. — He was. 
 
 Int. 185. — Were these notes and answers which you say 
 were made in consultation with Judge Day written out here 
 in Washington ? 
 
 Ans. — If I did write notes or answers at the time, they must 
 have been written in Washington. 
 
 Int. 186. — Did Judge Day carry these notes and answers 
 home with Jiicri ? 
 
 Ans. — He may have done so ; I dare say he did. 
 
 Int. 187. — Did you carry them home with you ? 
 
 Ans. — I have no doubt I did so, if the judge did not. 
 
 Int. 188. — Do you not know what was done with these notes? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say ; probably they were torn up. 
 
 Int. 189. — Have you never seen them since you gave them 
 to Judge Day ? 
 
 'Ans. — I do n'-'^ know now whether he took them or I took 
 them. If I took them, I must have torn them up. I have not 
 got them now. If Judge Day took them, I presume they have 
 been torn up. I have no recollection of having seen them 
 since. 
 
 Int. 190. — Wl.en do you last remember to have seen them ? 
 
 Ans. — In Washington, I suppose. I have forgotten all 
 about it. 
 
 Int. 191. — Do yon not remember and know that Judge Day 
 hi! \ these notes in his possession when he wrote questions to 
 •■vhich you afterwards gave him written answers? 
 
 Ans, — I am not at all positive about that. 
 
 Int. 192. — Did nut Mr. Day, under date of January 3, 1866, 
 notify Mr. Gushing by formal notice to attend the examination 
 of witnesses January 13, 1866, at Montreal ? 
 
 (Mr. Lander objects to this question, as the notices are the 
 proper evidence.') 
 
 An.^. — I have no knowledge whatever of what Mr. Day 
 wrote^ or even if he wrote at all. 
 
 Nl 
 
 ,»»»U-ici^ -»■--.** 
 
 <'.. 
 ^ 
 
iH I'i 
 
 i 'I 
 
 L 
 
 U' 
 
 
 ! . 
 
 76 
 
 Int. 193. — Did not Mr. Choate, in consequence of this 
 notice, go to Montreal, expressly as special counsel, to exam- 
 ine you, and find that your dcposition-in-chief had already 
 been completed ? 
 
 (Mr. Lander objects to so much of this interrogatory as as- 
 sumes that the witness knew of notice being sent.) 
 
 An%. — The first time I had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Choate 
 in Montreal was about the middle of January, 1866, when, I 
 think, he said that he came there to cross-examine any wit- 
 nesses that might be there. There was nothing in readiness 
 for him to do, although I, as a witness, was quite ready then 
 and there to give my testimony ; but at that luoment Judge 
 Day had gone to Boston to see Mr. Gushing, and could not 
 get back in less than a week. I could not very well be ex- 
 amined orally, or otherwise, except by Judge Day, and Mr. 
 Choate, not caring to lose so much time, went oif to New York. 
 The next time I saw Mr. Choate in Montreal was on the after- 
 noon of the 5th or 6th of April, 1866, after my return from 
 Washington, when my deposition, as already stated, was placed 
 in his hands. I do not know vho sent Mi ^hoate to 
 Montreal. 
 
 Examination Resumed, March 21. 
 
 Int. 104. — With reference to Mr. Lander's exception ro the 
 introduction of Mr. Stone's name, by way of query, i'lto the 
 180th interrogatory, please to state whether you did not mean 
 Mr. Stone by the phrase "Mr. Cushing's representative," in 
 your answer to the 151st interrogatory; and, if not, whom you 
 did intend or understand by that phrase? 
 
 (Mr. Lander states that the objection was not to tlie intro- 
 duction of Mr. Stone's ; .e in particular, but to the assump- 
 tion that the witness had stated that it was Mr. Stone.) 
 
 Ans. — I meant no one in particular. I did not see the 
 gentleman, neither have I any recollection of asking Judge 
 Day his name. 
 
 Int. 195. — Do you not know who this representative was? 
 
 Ans — Not at that time. I do not know more now than I 
 
 I, 
 
 >.«>»** 
 
77 
 
 ,'e was 
 
 did then of who it was. My first acquaintance with Mr. Stone, 
 as representing Mr. Gushing, must have taken phice after my 
 return to Washington city from Montreal, which was on the 
 21st of April, 18G6, or thereabouts. 
 
 Int. 196. — Whom do you mean hy the same phrase in your 
 answer to interrogatory 182? 
 
 Ans. — I ought to have said Mr. Gushing, or whoever repre- 
 sented him for the United States. 
 
 Int. 197. — Who was his representative in the early part of 
 1806, when you were in Washington ? 
 
 Ans. — I am wholly unable to say. 
 
 Int. 198. — Please to look at the paper to be annexed hereto 
 und marked "A," and state whether the signature affixed is or 
 is not the signature of Judge Day ? 
 
 Ans. — I believe it to be the signature of Judge D.-iy. 
 
 Int. 199. — Who were the witnesses intended to be examined 
 under this notice shown to you marked "A"? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say, probably I was one of thorn. 
 
 Int. 200. — You say in answer to the 19.'Jd interrogatory, 
 that on the arrival of Mr. Ghoate at Montreal. April r)th or 6th, 
 my depiisition, as already stated, "was pla'jod in' bis hands." 
 In response to which interrogatory had you previously made 
 this statement? 
 
 Ans. — By my deposition, I mean my examiiiation-in-chicf, 
 the queries and answers to wliicb, on the arrival of Mr. Clioate 
 at Montreal, in April, were placed in his hands, and next 
 morning he commenced my cross-examination. What 1 meant 
 by placing the deposition in Mr. Glioate's hands, was that he 
 had it one night before cross-examining nie. 1 tlo not know 
 that I detailed this in my reply to the Ifilst intcMTogalory. 
 
 Lit. 2Ul. — At what time was your dep(tsiti();i placed in Mr. 
 Glioate's bamls, April ."jth or 6th — acitually written? 
 
 Ans. — So far as 1 remember, between I lie 29lh of March, 
 1866, and the 5th of Ajtril lullowing. Mr. (Jli(>at(! arrived on 
 'he afleriKxin of the r)tli oi Otli. 
 
 Int. 202. — Was not Mr. Day absent from Montreal when 
 Mr. Ciioate eanie there to examino you in January? 
 
 Ans. — 1 beli4've he was. 
 
H i\ 
 
 ]■ 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 .5 
 
 78 
 
 Int. 203. — T)irl not Mr. Ritchie, on this account, decline to 
 allow youi- cro^s-exaoiination to proceed, so that Mr. Choate 
 was oMigcd to ret'jrn to New York without accomplishing the 
 obioct of his journey to Montreal? 
 
 An8. — I certainly met Mr. Choate for the first time at Mr. 
 Ritchie's office, but I never was aware that Mr. Ritchie had 
 anything to do, cither Avith bringing Mr. Choate to Montreal 
 or with my cross-examination or cxamination-in-chicf cither. 
 Int. 204.— Why Jid Mr. Choate return to New York? 
 
 Ans. — So far as I remember, on the arrival of Mr. Choate 
 at Montreal, on that occasion, Mr. Ritchie telegraphed the 
 fact to Judge Day, then at Boston ; when the judge replied 
 also by telegraph that he could not very well return for iiome 
 days, probably a week ; on learning which, as riotjiiug could 
 be done during Mr. Day's absence, Mr. Choate, to the best 
 of my recollection, being unwilling to lose so much time in 
 Montreal, made up his mind to return to New York at once, 
 which he accordingly did. 
 
 Int. 205. — Had not your examination-in-chief been already 
 taken at this time, and was it not shown to Mr. Choate? 
 
 Ans. — My examination-in-chief was certainly not taken 
 then, and could not have been shown to Mr. Choate on his ar- 
 rival in Montreal, in January, 1866. 
 
 Int. 206. — Wore you ready to be examined on the 13th of 
 January, 1866, at Montreal ? 
 
 Ans. — I was in Montreal then, and prepared to appear as a 
 witness when called. 
 
 Int. 207. — Was Judge Day in Montreal on the 13th day of 
 January, 1866 ? 
 
 Ans. — 1 am unable to say. 
 
 Int. 208. — ^Were there any other witnesses of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company there besides yourself, ready to be examined? 
 
 Ans. — I have no recollection of any. 
 
 Int. 209. — Have any other witnesses than yourself ever 
 been examined on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company at 
 Montreal ? 
 
 Ans. — I am not aware of any. 
 
 Int. 210. — Do you, as agent for the Hudson's Bay Company, 
 
79 
 
 know of any other witnesses wliom it was proposed to oxam- 
 ine at Montreal? 
 
 Ans. — I have no recollection of any. . 
 
 Int. 211. — Did not what Mr. Day told you he had said to 
 Mr. Cushing's representative, in March, refer to your cross- 
 examination only ? 
 
 Ans. — On the contrary, it had reference to my cxamina- 
 tion-in-chief, my cross-examination and anything else that 
 might be required. 
 
 Int. 212 — Did not Mr. Choate, in March, desire to cross- 
 examine you at New York, which was prevented by Mr. Day's 
 concluding to have it done at Montreal? 
 
 Ana. — I am not aware of any such desire on the part of Mr. 
 Choate. 
 
 Int. 213. — When you were in Washington, in March, 1866, 
 did Mr. Day tell you that he had proposed to Mr. Gushing 
 himself, at tliat time or any other time, that your deposition 
 should be taken before him or Mr. Stone in Washington? 
 
 Ans. — I am not aware that Judge Day mentioned the names 
 of either of these gentlemen in connection with the matter, 
 except in f<o far as Mr. Cushing's name might have been men- 
 tioned in connection with his representative at W^ashington. 
 
 Int. 214. — Do you mean to say that Judge Day and your- 
 self desired that your deposition should bo taken in Wash- 
 ington in March, 1866, and that Judge Day expressed this 
 desire to Mr. Cushing or his representative? 
 
 Ans. — I myself was quite desirous that my deposition should 
 be taken in Washington in March, 1866, and Judge Day was, 
 I believe, equally desirous. At least he so expressed himself 
 to me, and that he had so stated to Mr. Cushing's representa- 
 tive. 
 
 Int. 215. — Was Mr. Choate sent for to cross-examine you 
 at Montreal, in April? 
 
 Ans, — I tliink I have already stated that he was. I sup- 
 pose ho was. 
 
 Int. 216. — In part answer to interrogatory 151, which 
 inquired whether your answers were written out uii consulta- 
 tion with counsel of the Hudson's Uay Company, you say, "I 
 
 Ml 
 
80 
 
 f 
 
 I > 
 7 
 
 :) 
 
 may have (Mr. consulted him Day) about my answers, but I 
 have no recollection of it." Did you take counsel or advice 
 from any other person or persons as to those answers? 
 
 Ans. — I am not aware of having done so. 
 
 Int. 217. — In the memorial presented to the Commissioners 
 on page 10, certain buildings and mills, &c., are valued at 
 i£46,000. Did you make an estimate of these buildings and 
 give it to the counsel of the Hudson's Bay Company? 
 
 Ans. — I believe I did figure the thing out. 
 
 Int. 218, — Was your estimate higher or lower than £45,000? 
 
 Ans. — I believe it was somewhat higher. I don't remem- 
 ber how much. 
 
 Int. 219. — Why was it cut down ? 
 
 Ans. — I really don't remember. 
 
 Int. 220. — W ere you any better able to figure up the value 
 of those buildings then than you are now? 
 
 Ans. — If I had my notes by me I might possibly arrive at 
 the same results as then. It is never very safe to deal with 
 figures in speaking. 
 
 Int. 221. — What notes do you refer to? \ 
 
 Ans. — Notes that I had among my papers. 
 
 Int. 222. — What did these notes show ? 
 
 Ans, — I hardly know. They show a great many things. 
 
 Int. 223. — Was this value of £45,000 referable to the sale- 
 able viiluo? 
 
 Ans. — That depends upon what the memorial says. In my 
 testimony I dealt with its value to the Company's business. 
 
 Int. 224. — In the estimate which you gave to the counsel of 
 the Hudson's Bay Company, what value did you refer to? 
 
 Avs. — Any estimates that I have made were based on the 
 value of the property to tho Company's business. 
 
 Int. i^o, — Are you able now to give any particular reasons 
 why these buildings were of more value to the Company than 
 £45,000, giving an estimate for each building what you con- 
 sider it worth to the Company. 
 
 Ans. — Standing in this room where we now are it is impog- 
 sible for me to go into such details. My estimate ol the ral»e 
 of the place is based on my knowledge of it, as the whole 
 
 y ^ 
 
81 
 
 thing stood in 1846. Were it my own property at that period, 
 I should not have sold it for £45,000 or for .£75,000 either, 
 had the money been offered to me, which is one reason, no 
 doubt, why Hook on the first-named sum as an under-estimate 
 of the value of the property. 
 
 Int. 226. — How did the counsel for the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany arrive at the value of £45,000, which they have presented. 
 Ann. — I really do not remember. 
 
 Int. 227. — Did any other officer of the Company help them 
 to make their estimate ? 
 
 Ans. — Probably not ; I think not. 
 
 Int. 228. — Did they have any papers, other than those fur- • 
 nished by you, from which they could make their estimate ? 
 Ans. — I have no doubt they had. 
 Int. 229. — What were these papers ? 
 Ans. — I really could not say. 
 Int. 230. — Do you know that they had any ? 
 Ans. — 1 think they had. 
 
 Int. 231. — What ones do you know that they had? 
 Ans. — I have no recollection of any. 
 
 Int. 232. — Did they have the books of the Company from 
 which they could judge of the cost of the buildings, or of 
 their value to the Company ? 
 Ans. They had no such books. 
 
 Int. 233. — Did you give them an estimate of the cost of the 
 buildings ? 
 
 Ans. — I did not. 
 
 Int. 2.34. — Can you give an estimate of the cost of the 
 buildings ? 
 
 Ans. — I am quite unable to give such an estimate, further 
 than V hat was stated in my reply to the interrogatory in re- 
 gard to the cost of all the buildings. 
 
 Int. 235. — Do you know when the mills were built ? 
 
 Ans. — There were mills, saw and grist, at work when I 
 
 went to Vancouver first in 1839, which, of course, were built 
 
 previous to m;> arrival ; but I could not say when. There 
 
 were additional structures put up both at the grist and the 
 
 6 
 
 '"it 
 
82 
 
 Baw-tnills, in the sliapc of new mills, some time between 1844 
 anil 1846. 
 
 Int. 236. — Why were the new saw and grist-mills built ? 
 
 Ana. — The new grist-mill was of a much larger size than 
 the other, and the other saw-mill was, I think, in addition to 
 the one that was working — that is, so far as I remember. 
 
 Int. 23T. — Describe the two saw-mills particularly in refer- 
 ence to the number of their saws ? 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to describe them. 
 
 Int. 238. — Describe them in reference to their cost. 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to do that. 
 
 Int. 239. — Was any part of them brought from England ? 
 
 Ans. — Yes ; there were very heavy wrought-iron cranks 
 brought from England, also the saws and a lot of other gear- 
 ing, blocks, &c., which I cannot very well describe. 
 
 Int. 240. — What books of the Company would show the 
 cost of this machinery bi'ought from England ? 
 
 Ans. — It would be found in the invoice books of the Com- 
 pany the year they were imported. 
 
 Int. 241. — Did they use the old saw-mill after the new one 
 was built? 
 
 Ans. — So far as I know, they did. 
 
 Jnt. 242. — Do you know whether they did or not ? 
 
 An». — I have no personal knowledge about it. 
 
 Int. 243. — Was not the old mill often stopped on account of 
 back water ? 
 
 Ans. — In the summer months, when the Columbia river was 
 very high, the back water would occasionally stop the work- 
 ing of the mill for a short period ; but this did not happen 
 every year, as the water had to be very high indeed before 
 the working of the mill could be affected by it. 
 
 Int. 244. — Can you tell how many feet each of these mills. 
 was capable of cutting in a day ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not remember ; a large quantity, no doubt. 
 
 Int. 245. — Were these mills run night and day and Sun- 
 days, and all the year ? 
 
 Ans. — Not on Sundays nor on holidays ; but when running. 
 
 / ,7 
 
88 
 
 they ran day and night, having the regular watches of men 
 to change. 
 
 Int. 246. — Do you mean to say in your answer to interrog- 
 atory 7, of your direct examination, that these saw-mills, pre- 
 vious to the year 1846, cut a million of feet annually ? 
 
 Anfi, — I believe I so stated. 
 
 Int. 247. — What books of the Company would show how 
 much lumber these mills cut ? 
 
 Ans. — There was a book or books at the mill which showed 
 the amount of the lumber cut. 
 
 Int. 248. — What books would show how much lumber was 
 nhipped each year, and at Avhat prices ? 
 
 Ans, — There are different books would show this; I hardly 
 renufmber what they were. 
 
 hif. 240. — When did the Company cease using these mills ? 
 
 AnH. — I have no recollection of the mill working after my 
 return in the autumn of 1853. Some lumber may, however, 
 have been cut in the winter of 1853-'o4, without my remem- 
 brance. 
 
 Int. 250. — Why did the Company cease to use these mills 
 at or about 1853? 
 
 Ana. — I really have forgotten ; probably some trouble with 
 the settlers about. ' . - " 
 
 Int. 251. — Had not the working of these mills ceased to be 
 profitable previous to 1853? 
 
 Aw. — I never looked into the question, and not having 
 been there myself, I don't know whether to say yes or no to 
 the question. 
 
 Int. 252, — Do you know that the Company had any trouble 
 with the settlers about the mill previous to 1853 ? 
 
 Ans. — I have no personal knowledge about it. 
 
 Int. 253. — Were not you in charge of Vancouver after 1853? 
 
 Am, — I had charge of Fort Vancouver after the 30th Sep- 
 tember, 1854. 
 
 Int. 254. — Why did you not run the mills after that date? 
 
 An». — I have forgotten why. 
 
 Int. 255.^ — Would it not have been a loss to have run them? 
 
 Ana. — Not having run the mills, I do not know that it would 
 
84 
 
 have been a loss or not. There was difficulty in getting logs, 
 in consequence of the lands where the Company's logs ought 
 to have been cut being occupied by people who claimed the 
 land, and would not allow the trees to be cut. No doubt this 
 was one reason why the mills were not working. 
 
 Int. 256. — What particular difficulties of this kind do you 
 remember, and in your answer give names, dates, and location 
 of these lands? 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to enter into these particulars now, and 
 would simply state the circumstance or fact which occurred to 
 my own knowledge. 
 
 Int. 257. — In what year were the Company prevented from 
 cutting trees by the settlers ? 
 
 Ana. — I do not know when the settlers first began to stop 
 the cutting of lumber, but from the time I went there in 1853 
 until 1858, when I left, they would not allow anything of the 
 kind to be done. 
 
 Int. 258. — Was there not abundance of woodland in the 
 neighborhood of the mill, where the Company could have cut 
 timber? 
 
 Ans. — In the immediate vicinity of the mill there was no 
 timber left. In order to get logs, the Company had to go quite 
 a distance off on the lands claimed by them, which being in the 
 hands of other people who had settled upon them, and who 
 looked upon them as their own, caused all the difficulty about 
 getting logs. 
 
 Resumed 3Iarch 22. 
 
 Int. 259. — How far was the nearest woodland claimed by 
 the Company from the mill ? 
 
 Ans. — A couple of miles. 
 
 Int. 260. — How large a tract of land had been cut over in 
 1853 to supply the Company's mill? 
 
 Ans. — A tract of some miles square back from the river, 
 and down the river and up the river. 
 
 Int. 261. — Did not the distance which logs had to be carried 
 
85 
 
 before they could reach the river add much to the expense of 
 the lumber ? 
 
 A718. — Unquestionably. 
 
 Int. 262. — When was the price of lumber the highest at the 
 mills ? 
 
 Ans. — I was not in the country at the time, but I believe it 
 was in the years 1849 and 1850, when lumber for many 
 months was worth from $70 to $100 per thousand feet. 
 
 Int. 263. — What was lumber worth in 1846 ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not remember what lumber was worth at the mill 
 in 1846, but at the Sandwich Islands, which was our principal 
 market for that article, it was then worth $50 a thousand. 
 
 Int. 264. — When did the price of lumber begin to rise in 
 Oregon? 
 
 Ans. — In 1848 the price of lumber at the mills began to 
 rise. 
 
 Int. 265. — What had been done with the lumber cut at the 
 mills previous to 1848 ? 
 
 Ans. — A large quantity of it in my time was used for the 
 purposes of building and improvements generally about Fort 
 Vancouver and its surroundings. Some was sold in the 
 country, and from time to time shipments were made to the 
 Sandwich Islands, and perhaps to other places. 
 
 Int. 266. — Was it not cheaper for the Company to use the 
 plank sawed at these mills for the buildings at Vancouver, 
 which you have said were made of plank, than to use hewn 
 logs? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot make the comparison, for I have no knowl- 
 edge of the cost of handling hewn logs. 
 
 Int. 267. — Was not the site of the fort a forest when the 
 Company went there ? 
 
 Ans. — I hardly know. I suppose there must have been 
 some of the timber standing at the time, because there was 
 the remains of stumps here and there. Not far below the 
 fort a belt or grove of tree^ went down all the way to what 
 was called the Lower Plain. 
 
 Int. 268. — How did the Company occupy their saw-milla 
 after 1854? 
 
 i 
 
 iKMh-li IMM—iHn'iT'il> ■«(■„'■ v.. tiVjj,; 
 
 u- 
 
r- 
 
 
 > 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 b£|M 125 
 
 150 ■^~ n^H 
 
 
 ■ 2.2 
 
 us 
 
 u 
 
 2.0 
 
 IL25 i 1.4 
 
 I 
 III 1.6 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 33 Wi(S I MAIN STRUT 
 WHSTM.N.Y. t4SI0 
 
 (716) STausoa 
 
 ^^' 
 
 ^ 
 
If 
 
 c^ 
 
 
i 
 
 t, f 
 
 86 
 
 Ana. — The saw and grist-mills were in charge of the mill- 
 wright, who had a house situated somewhere between them. 
 He had assistants, of course, and labor, as he might require 
 it. 
 
 Int. 269. — For what did this mill-wright ever require aid? 
 
 Ans. — When the grist-mill was running, of course he re- 
 quired assistance. 
 
 Int. 270. — Do you' know of any repairs or improvements 
 the Company ever made on these saw-mills after 1854 't 
 
 Ans. — I don't remember of any. 
 
 Int. 271. — In answer to interrogatory 6th of your direct- 
 examination, you say "the saAV-mills, in 1858, were virtually 
 in possession of a man named Taylor." What do you mean by 
 virtually ? 
 
 Ans. — He had taken possession of them, claiming the 
 place as being on what he called his land-claim. 
 
 Int. 272.— -Did Taylor run these mills after 1858? 
 
 Ans. — I left the country in 1858, and know nothing farther 
 about them since. \ 
 
 Int. 273. — Have these mills ever been run since 1858 ? 
 
 Ans.^I am unable to say. 
 
 Int. 274. — Were not a superior class of mills built by set- 
 tlers in the country previous to 1858, so that the Company's 
 mills were unable to compete with them ? 
 
 Ans. — There were a great many saw-mills through the coun- 
 try ; whether they were superior or inferior, I am quite un- 
 able to say. The running of those other mills had nothing 
 whatever to do with the stopping of the Company's mill. The 
 situation was a very good one, as in the immediate neighborhood 
 there was population suiBcient to consume all the lumber that 
 could be cut from time to time, selling the same at the ordi- 
 nary market rates. 
 
 Int. 275. — When did the Company ship their last load of 
 lumber from Vancouver ? 
 
 Ans. — I don't think there was much sent after 1849 ? 
 
 Int. 276. — Did the Company ever try to use their mills after 
 "Taylor took possession of the land about them? 
 
 Ans. — The Company brought an action against Taylor to 
 
 J !■■ 
 
87 
 
 remove him, but all the court would grant was an injunction 
 forbidding Taylor to run the mills; and, if I remember right, 
 the Company were equally bound in the same manner. This 
 action against Taylor took place early in the year 1857. 
 
 Int. 277. — Describe t'le grist-mill. 
 
 Ana. — I don't know that I am able to describe it particu- 
 larly ; it was a very complete mill, with French burrs in it, and 
 bolting-machine, elevators, &c., smut-machine also, and other 
 conveniences for making good flour ; and outside there was the 
 necessary apparatus for receiving wheat from the river, and 
 shipping flour when necessary. It was well situated for busi- 
 ness, being close to the river, so that people comfng that way 
 with wheat to grind had every facility. On the shore-side 
 there were good roads made up to the saw-mill, back from the 
 grist-mill to the Mill Plain, and also down to Fort Vancouver. 
 I am unable to give the cost of the mill ; but the price of such 
 portions of it as came from England, such as the burr-stones, 
 bolting-machines, and other parts of the machinery, which I 
 cannot detail, will no doubt be found in the invoice book of 
 the year in which the articles were imported ; a copy of such 
 invoices is no doubt in England. I have forgotten how much 
 flour the mill could or did grind in a year. So far as I re- 
 member, the Company kept the flour-mill running all the 
 time. 
 
 Int. 278. — Would not the books of the Company show how 
 much grain this mill ground each year, and how much profit it 
 was to the Company? 
 
 Ans. — I do not remember whether the books would show 
 how much the mill did grind in the course of a year, or what 
 the profit was. I have no recollection in my time of any 
 special account being kept to show what profit was made on 
 the mill each year. 
 
 Int. 279. — When did the Company cease to run this mill ? 
 
 Ans. — The grist-mill was running and in good working 
 order when I left Fort Vancouver in 1858. Since that I know 
 nothing about it. 
 
 Int. 280. — What was the average number of men employed 
 by the Company at Vancouver from 1839 to 1846 ? 
 
r 1 
 
 I 
 
 Am. — To the best of my recollection all of 200 engaged 
 men, one time with another. Besides which, there were a 
 great many Indians employed there, the number of which I 
 don't recollect, probably averaging over 100. 
 
 Int. 281. — What was the form of engagement entered into 
 by engaged men ? ■ 
 
 Ans. — The laboring people engaged in the Orkney Islands, 
 or on the Island of Lewis, generally signed agreements ,for a 
 term of five years, a free pasoage to be found for them out to 
 Hudson's Bay; and at the expiration of the teym for which 
 they had engaged, the Company had, in like manner, to send 
 them home again. The men engaged in Canada did so, gen- 
 erally, for a term of three years, and had to be sent into the 
 northwest, by canoes specially equipped for that purpose, from 
 Montreal. The men who engaged at Red River settlement, in 
 Rupert's Land, generally did so for three years, and were sent 
 out from there to Norway House, in Lake Winnipeg, by boats, 
 from whence they were distributed where their services might 
 be required. The Sandwich Islanders were engaged at Hon- 
 olulu for terms of three years. Passages were found them by 
 ship to Fort Vancouver, and when the period for which they 
 had engaged expired they were sent home in like manner, 
 coming and going at the Company's expense. Parties who 
 engaged in England, and came from there by ship to Fort 
 Vancouver, were generally engaged for periods of five years, 
 at the end of which time they were sent home again by ship, 
 passages bejng found for them, both coming out and going 
 home, at the Company's expense. The men coming from 
 Canada, as well as from Red River, were also sent home to 
 their respective countries, when their period of service had 
 expired, in the same manner they were taken from there when 
 first employed. These engagements bound the people to go 
 into the Indian country in the manner stated, and to obey all 
 lawful orders which the Company's representatives, under whom 
 they might be serving for the time, might give. Among the 
 people would be, as a general thing, a good many tradesmen, 
 such as blacksmiths, carpenters, coopers, &c. The remainder 
 would be employed as laborers and voyageurs. The rates of 
 
 \> 
 
1 
 
 89 
 
 wages annually paid these people varied according to their 
 capacity, the tradesmen being better paid, and the scale com- 
 menced at j£16 or £11 per annum, and went up to £30 or £35. 
 Besides which, the people were always fed and lodged, and 
 when at the different establishments, quarters were found for 
 them, with medicines and medical advice. The engagements 
 were printed forms, the blanks being filled up when parties 
 engaged, according to the agreement. 
 
 Int. 282. — Is not the form of agreement now shown you on 
 the 536th pagp of the 4th vol. of Wilkes' Exploring Expedition, 
 entitled " Articles of Agreement between the Hudson's Bay 
 Company and their Servants," a correct copy of which is here- 
 after to be annexed to this deposition and marked "B," a 
 correct copy of the blank articles of agreement between the 
 Hudson's Bay Company and their servants ? 
 
 Ana. — The printed articles of agreement between the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company and their servants, now shown to me, is 
 probably genuine, but it is a form of agreement with which I 
 am quite unacquainted during all the yeai;s I have been in 
 the service. 
 
 Int. 283. — Have you now in your possession forms of the 
 various agreements between the Hudson's Bay Company and 
 .their officers and servants? 
 
 An8. — I have not. 
 
 Jnt. 284. — Have these forma changed since 1846 ? 
 
 Ans. — They may have changed, though where I was serving 
 on the northwest coast, I don't remember any change in 
 them. 
 
 Int. 285. — Where can copies of the present forms of engage- 
 ments be found ? 
 
 Ana. — I should think they would be found at the Hudson's 
 Bay House in London, if any where. The old forms, previous 
 to 1846, are to be found at Vancouver Island. 
 
 Int. 286. — Where will any books of the Company be found, 
 which will show the number, the time of service, and the num- 
 ber sent home, of the engaged servants of the Company, from 
 1839 to 1846? 
 
 Ana. — There ought to be such a record among the accounts 
 
 
 
 i 
 
li^^ 
 
 90 
 
 which were kept at that period at Fort Vancouver, and which, 
 I suppose, are now at Victoria. 
 
 Int. 287. — Did not these servants, when sent home, work 
 their own passage ? 
 
 Ana. — Of those sent in boats, most of them worked ; but a 
 great part of the way in going out from Fort Vancouver there 
 were craft especially fitted out for them, in which there was 
 no cargo of any kind. So in the same way, where there was 
 land transport, horses were found. In the same way the men 
 returning to Canada had canoes fitted out for them, in which 
 no cargo was carried. With regard to those going home in 
 the ships, they would no doubt have to stand watch ; but this 
 was not necessary to the navigation of the ship, as the Com- 
 pany's vessels were always more than fully manned. The 
 reason why these passengers kept watuli was more a police 
 regulation than anything else, as by this arrangement they 
 were put under the control of the captain of the vessel, who 
 would keep up order and discipline amongst them, oti erwise 
 they might get unmanagable on board and give trouble. 
 
 Int. 288. — Did not a great majority of the Company's ser- 
 vants either continue in the Company's service after their 
 first term of service had expired, or else locate somewhere in 
 the country ? 
 
 Examination Resumed, March 23. 
 
 Ans. — A good many of the old hands, principally Cana- 
 dians, had already settled down as farmers in the Willamette 
 valley and on the Cowlitz prairie. When I first went to Fort 
 Vancouver, and afterwards occasionally, some of the servants 
 whose term of service had expired, obtained permission from 
 time to time to settle in the country in like manner. But 
 between the years 1839 and 1846 a certain number of the ser- 
 vants claimed the right to be sent home as by agreement, 
 probably averaging in each year, including the Sandwich 
 Islanders, something over thirty men. When I left Fort Van- 
 couver, in January, 1847, the full complement of engaged men 
 was there. What became of them afterwards I am unable to 
 say. 
 
 /'/ 
 
91 
 
 Int. 289. — Did not some of the servants of the Company 
 settle in the immediate neighborhood of Fort Vancouver even 
 previous to 1846, and have not many of them settled in that 
 neighborhood since 1846 ? 
 
 An%. — There were no settlers in the neighborhood of Fort 
 Vancouver previous to 1846, that I have any recollection of. 
 When I returned to the country in 1853, I remember some 
 three or four, probably of the old hands, who were settled in 
 that neighborhood. 
 
 Int. 290. — iWhat were the various duties of the men em- 
 ployed by the Company at Port Vancouver ? 
 
 Ans. — There were blacksmiths, carpenters, coopers, joiners, 
 among the tradesmen ; there were ox-drivers, Ic^^-cutters, men 
 working at the saw and grist-mills. Thei'e were on the farms 
 seedsmen, ploughmen, and harrowmen, reapers of grain, and 
 harvest men generally for hay and other crops. Shepherds 
 looking after the sheep. There were stock men looking after 
 the cattle and the horses ; and some seasons of the year there 
 was a great deal of boating done, bringing wheat from the 
 Willamette river and from the mouth of the Cowlitz river to 
 Fort Vancouver. There was a tannery at Fort Vancouver, 
 and a harness-maker also. Of course, besides these, there 
 were the hands employed under the carpenters, &c., going on 
 with the buildings and other improvements. There were hands 
 also employed from time to time in loading and discharging 
 the ships, including the necessary number of those who were 
 carting the cargoes to and from the ships to the fort. There 
 were men employed in the building and repairing of boats, 
 and I remember on one occasion a very good-sized schooner 
 was built and equipped there, known as the Prince of Wales, 
 which plied on the Columbia river as far down as Cape Dis- 
 appointment, and up the Willamette river as far as Oregon 
 City. 
 
 Int. 291. — Were there not more than one quarter of the 
 Company's engaged servants employed in the various occupa- 
 tions named in your last answer other than in repairing and 
 erecting the buildings. 
 
 Ans. — The erection and repair of buildings required not 
 
 ■ \ 
 
 
 X 
 
 \ 
 
 ^! 
 
1 
 
 92 
 
 only the labor for such a purpose, but there must necessarily 
 have been employed the men who were employed in cutting 
 the logs, sawing the lumber, and bringing it down the river 
 by boats, and then carting it to the place where it was to be 
 used from the beach. On the Mill Plain, where there was 
 1,000 acres of land under fence, the cutting and carting the 
 rails required a great deal of labor. The cutting, sawing, 
 and carting the lumber from the saw-mills back to the plain, 
 with the making of the necessary roads, also required a great 
 many hands) from time to time. The dairies, of which there 
 were three on Sauvie's Island, in different places, were at a 
 distance of Humething over twelve miles from the saw-mill ; 
 from whence, all the lamber required in their construction or 
 repairs, as the case might be, were brought by boats, calling 
 for much labor in that way. There were blacksmiths em- 
 ployed at the saw-mill, in the case of anything breaking about 
 the mill, from time to time. There were also at Vancouver 
 a great deal of blacksmith's work required in the construction 
 and repair of the different buildings. Taking the whole 
 thing together, to the best of my recollection, one time with 
 another, there were not fewer than 150 of the engaged hands 
 at Fort Vancouver while I was there, between 1839 and 1846, 
 employed in the construction and repair of buildings and on 
 tKe permanent improvements of the place. 
 
 Int. 292. — Do you mean to say that an average number of 
 160 men, or three-fourths of what you have stated to have 
 been the average number of the engaged servants of the Con:- 
 pany at Vancouver, were continually employed, from 1839 to 
 1846, in erecting and repairing the Company's buildings and 
 fences, and other permanent improvements, not including 
 roads ? 
 
 Ans, — I am unable to separate the roads from Fort Van- 
 couver to the farms and mills, as I look upon them as perma- 
 nent improvements, without which it was impossible for the 
 Company to occupy or to do anything with the farms back 
 from the Fort, at least a distance of six miles, and the other 
 farms around the fort and down the river. Including the 
 roads as part of the proper permanent improvements, I believe 
 
93 
 
 that the number of men, say 150, were employed, aa stated in 
 the question. 
 
 Int. 293. — In your answer to interrogatories 145, 146, 147, 
 150, and 291, have you, in your estimates of the cost of the' 
 number of men employed in the permanent improvements of 
 the Company, always included the roads in the permanent 
 improvements ? 
 
 Am. — Always. 
 
 Int. 294. — Are you now able to give an estimate of the cost 
 of erecting or repairing the Company's buildings or fences, as 
 distinct from the roads ? 
 
 Arts. — I cannot give the estimate in any other way than I 
 have already done, in which the roads in the neighborhood of 
 Vancouver, on the Company's claim there, are considered as 
 part of the permanent improvements. 
 
 Int. 295. — Can you tell which cost the most, the roads or 
 the buildings, and in what proportion were their costs ? 
 
 Ans. — The roads cost the least, no doubt ; but I can't tell 
 anything about their proportion. 
 
 Int. 296. — Can you estimate the number of men employed 
 on the buildings, and the length of time they were employed ; 
 and can you do the same with the roads ? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot. 
 
 Int. 297. — Can you refer to any officer of the Company, now 
 living, who knows anything more about this matter than you 
 do? 
 
 Ans. — I don't remember of any. 
 
 Int. 298. — Can you refer to any books of the Company, that 
 will show anything about the cost of the buildings and the 
 roads ? 
 
 Ans. — I don't know of any. 
 
 Int. 299. — How did the Company pay the Indians employed 
 in their service? 
 
 Ans. — They paid them in goods, generally. 
 
 Int. 300. — Can you mention any article that the Company 
 were accustomed to pay the Indians for a day's work ? 
 
 Ans, — I have no recollection of how, or what they were 
 paid. 
 
f 
 
 »--■ 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 , i 
 
 II 
 
 • 
 
 Int. 801. — Did any books of the Company, kept at Van- 
 couver and the other posts, show what amount of goods were 
 paid the Indians, annually, for labor ? 
 
 An%. — I cannot speak about the other posts ; but I believe 
 that at Vancouver, such accounts were kept. 
 
 Int. 302. — Were the Indian laborers fed by the Company ? 
 
 Ana. — Invariably. 
 
 Int. 303. — Did they give them the same rations as the en- 
 gaged laborers ? 
 
 Ana. — I believe so. 
 
 Int. 304. — What was a ration of the Company's servants ? 
 
 Ans. — A day's ration consisted of four pounds of salt sal- 
 mon, one pound of biscuit, with potatoes or other vegetables, 
 as the case might be. There were days during the year, such 
 as Christmas and New Year's, and some others, extending in 
 all to perhaps half a dozen, when there was on extra ration 
 served out, consisting of pork and beef, with flour and bread 
 and tea, and sugar and molasses. When sick or in the hos- 
 pital, whatever the doctor required for them as medical com- 
 forts, were allowed to them free of charge. 
 
 Int. 305. — Were not salmon caught in immense quantities 
 in the Columbia and other rivers of Oregon ! 
 
 Ans. — My own knowledge is confined to the lower Colun"- 
 bla and the Willamette I'ivers, at Oregon City. In some years 
 the salmon did make their appearance therein large numbers; 
 but they were not caught in all directions in the river, but 
 were only caught at a few spots, or a few localities, at a con- 
 siderable distance from one another. 
 
 Int. 306. — Were there not always enough caught to supply 
 the Company's servants ? 
 
 Ana. — The Company never caught any fish; whatever they 
 got were traded from the Indians, who were the only fishers of 
 salmon in my day in the Columbia river. 
 
 Int. 307. — Were there salmon brought and sold to the Com- 
 pany, at Vancouver, by the Indians ? 
 
 Ana. — There were very few fish brought to Vancouver by 
 the Indians. In the spring of the year the best fishery on the 
 Columbia was at the Cascades, which lasted for some months. 
 
95 
 
 The Company sent a trader with goods, and barrels, and salt, 
 &c., and traded the goods for the salmon, and, with the assist- 
 ance of hands sent, cured and put them up. In the autumn, 
 again, there was a fishery about six miles below Fort Van- 
 couver, where more of the fish were traded and cured. In the 
 mme manner, up at Oregon city, fish were traded and cured 
 also. At Fort George, Astoria, the Indians brought tlieir 
 salmon in from the fishery at Chinook, immediately across the 
 river. At Pillar Rock, some twenty-five miles above Fort 
 George, on the opposite side of the Columbia, there was another 
 fishery, where the Company had a place for the trading and 
 curing of fish. 
 
 Int. 308. — What was the average cost of salmon delivered 
 at Vancouver? 
 
 An». — It is difficult to arrive at the exact cost of the salmon, 
 as most of the time while I was there, there was more or less 
 opposition in the salmon trade, when the Indians of course 
 made the best bargain they could for themselves, and fre- 
 quently retained their fish and sold them after they were 
 spoiled or tainted. It, therefore, frequently happened, in my 
 experience, that, after the salmon had been brought to the 
 fort and stowed away, upon afterwards inspecting them, large 
 quantities would be found that were spoiled and useless ; so 
 that, although one might fancy their costing little or nothing, 
 they were in reality costing a great deal. One year with 
 another, I believe that the barrel of good salt salmon, when 
 cured and properly put up, cost six dollars, or three cents per 
 pound. The price of salt salmon in the Columbia river was 
 regulated by the prices at the Sandwich Islands, where it sold 
 readily in those days at from eight to ten dollars per barrel. 
 
 Int. 309. — Why did the Company buy spoiled and tainted 
 salmon ? 
 
 Am. — For the simple reason that it is very difficult to tell 
 when a fresh salmon is tainted or not. The fish may b^eatable 
 and fresh, and yet not sound enough to keep, wheil tried by 
 the process of curing. 
 
 Int. 310. — Was one-tenth of the salmon brought to Van- 
 couver each year destroyed because it was spoiled ? 
 
 ^ 
 
96 
 
 '/ 1 
 
 Ana. — Thcro may have boon more than that, so far aa I 
 know. I cannot say what proportion might have been found 
 in a bad condition from time to time. All I am positive of is, 
 that one was liable at any time, at Fort Vancouver, to find 
 himself with a lot of bad salmon, when he calculated on having 
 a good, marketable article. 
 
 Int. 311. — Did not the Company buy salmon at the same 
 rates, or a little lower, than other people? 
 
 Ans. — I do nrt know what other people paid. 
 
 Int. 812. — V'ill not the Company's books show what they 
 paid? 
 
 Avs. — I believe they do. 
 
 Int. 813. — Were the same rations given at other posts as at 
 Vancouver ? 
 
 Ans. — I have no knowledge of the rations at the other posts. 
 
 Jnt. 314. — Did not the Company at one time import tallow 
 from California, and issue it as part of their servants' rations? 
 
 Ans. — They did import tallow from California while I was 
 there, I think, but I never knew of its being served out i^s 
 
 rations. \ 
 
 Int. 315. — Were not many of the Company's servants, at the 
 interior posts, fed on horse meat ? 
 
 An8. — I really do not know ; I hoard of such things, but I 
 hove no knowledge of it myself. 
 
 Int. 316. — Did you assist the counsel of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company in their estimate of " the tract of land occupied, 
 possessed, and used by the Company for its post at Vancou- 
 ver?" (Memorial, pa ^e 10.) 
 
 Ans. — I don't know how far I assisted the counsel ; I have 
 no doubt I was spoken to about it ; I hardly know whether I 
 gave an estimate to them or not. 
 
 Int. 317. — In your answer to interrogatory 5, on your 
 direct examination, you say " the land used by the Company 
 at Fort Vancouver in 1846, say containing a frontage of 
 twenty-five miles on the Columbia, by ten miles in depth, in 
 all two hundred and fifty square miles, or about one hundred 
 and sixty thousand acres, I should calculate as being worth 
 then on an average of from twoand a-half to three dollars per 
 
97 
 
 acre." On what authority or evidence did you make this 
 eatimato of the amount of land used by the Company ? 
 
 Ans. — From my own personal knowledge. 
 
 Int. 818. — What has been your personal knowledge in this 
 matter ? 
 
 Ans. — I was aware that the land was used by them for the 
 purposes mentioned, and I have been over largo portions of it 
 on foot and on horseback. 
 
 Int. 819. — When did the Company first take possession of 
 this tract of land ? 
 
 Ans. — While at Vancouver, between 1889 and 1846, I was 
 in a subordinate position ; I really do not know when the 
 Company did take possession of it. 
 
 Int. 320. — When did you first know they had taken posses- 
 sion of it ? 
 
 Ans. — They were in the use of this land when I was there ; 
 I supposed they were in possession of it then. 
 
 Int. 321. — When did the Company first, claim to be in 
 possession of this particular tract of la^ \'{ 
 
 Ans. — I really do not know. 
 
 Int. 822. — Did they in 1846 claim to be in possession of this 
 land? 
 
 Ana. — I cannot say what the Company did in the matter in 
 1846, I had no charge of their business there then. 
 
 Examination Resumed, March 25t7u 
 
 Int. 323. — When did you first know that the Hudson's Bay 
 Company claimed this distinct tract of land ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know that I ever knew anything in partic- 
 ular about the Company's claiming this tract of land ; as I al- 
 ways supposed they claimed it, I never inquired anything 
 more about it. 
 
 Int. 324. — Did you ever see any map of the Company's 
 claim at Vancouver ? 
 
 Ans. — I have no recoUectipn of having seen any. 
 
 Int. 325. — Did any of your superior officers, before 1846, 
 7B 
 

 98 
 
 ever tell you that the Company claimed this particular tract 
 of land? 
 
 Ans. — I have no recollection now that anything was said to 
 me on the subject. 
 
 Int. 326. — On what authority then do you state that the 
 Company did claim this land ? 
 
 An». — I don't, now, remember any use of the term " claim- 
 ing the land" in my testimony. 
 
 Int. 327. — Did the Company ever claim this tract of land ? 
 
 Ans. — I have always supposed they did 80< 
 
 Int. 328.— When did they first claim it ? 
 ' Ans. — I cannot answer the question, as previous to 1846, 
 when at Vancouver, I was not in a position to know what the 
 Company did in such matters. 
 
 Int. 329. — When were you first in position to know what 
 the Company did in such matters ? 
 
 Ans. — I don't know that I ever was in a position to know. 
 When I returned to Fort Vancouver in 1853, it was a matter 
 of old date. I never remember asking the Company what 
 had been done about it ? 
 
 Int. 330. — Do you mean to say that you are not now in po- 
 sition to know about this matter ? 
 
 Ans: — Not of my own knowledge, certainly. 
 , Int. 331. — Do you know of any map that has ever been 
 made by the Hudson's Bay Company of their claim at Van- 
 couver ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not remember of any. 
 
 Int. 332. — On what authority was the claim to lands at 
 Vancouver in the memorial made ? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 333. — Did you not represent to the counsel of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company that the Company's claim for land at 
 Vancouver was as stated in the memorial ? 
 
 Ank. — Not that I know of. 
 
 Int. 334. — Can you refer to any records that will show that 
 the Company claimed this land previous to 1860 ? 
 
 Ans. — I don't remember of any ; there may be some, but I 
 don't recollect them. 
 
99 
 
 Int. 335. — Can you refer to any livinjj witneimeR who know 
 anything more about this claim than you do? 
 
 Ans. — Sir James Douglas is still alive ; there may bo others ; 
 I don't remember. 
 
 Int. 336. — Do you mean to say that you know the Company 
 claimed this tract of land previous to 1846 ? 
 
 Ans. — Only by supposition. 
 
 Int. 837. — Do you mean to say that you know that they 
 claimed it before 1860 ? 
 
 An». — Only by supposition. 
 
 Int. 338. — Why do you suppose they claimed it before 1846? 
 
 Ans. — Because the Company used and occupied the land. 
 
 Int. 339. — Have you any other reason for tuppoMlng they 
 claimed i* before 1860 ? 
 
 Ans. — Not that I remember of. 
 
 Int. 340. — Was the Company's claim definitely marked ? 
 
 An^. — No ; I don't think it was ; it may have been in places. 
 
 Int. 341. — Will you bound it as you understand it ? 
 
 Ans. — It commenced at a point on the Columbia river, a 
 mile or two above the Company's saw^milU, followed the Co- 
 lumbia river down some twenty -five or thirty miloH to its junc- 
 tion with a small stream called the Cathlapootl. From each 
 of these points the boundaries would run in a northerly direc- 
 tion for ten miles distance. These were about the lines of the 
 claim. The line crossed the Cathlapootl river not far from 
 its junction with Columbia, if I remember right. 
 
 Int. 342. — From what knowledge have you given this de- 
 scription of the Company's claim? 
 
 Ans. — From the boundaries of the lands mod and occupied 
 of my own knowledge. I simply call it a claim, m it is the 
 custom of the country to name such property, so that the 
 claim of one party might be known from another. 
 
 Int. 343. — How many square miles do you understand there 
 are in the Company's claim? 
 
 Ans. — I look upon it as two hundred and fifty square miles 
 or thereabouts. 
 
 Int. 344.— How do you know the line crossed the Cathla- 
 pootl ? 
 
100 
 
 Ans. — That is to the best of my recollection. 
 
 Int. 345. — How do you know it extended ten miles north 
 from each of the points named? 
 
 Ans. — I have been over large portions of it myself, where 
 the Company had bands of cattle and horses, pasturing from 
 time to time. In this way I got my knowledge of it. 
 
 Int. 346. — Do you mean to say the Company had cattle 
 and horses pasturing ten miles from Columbia river m a 
 northern direction from the points which you have mentioned? 
 
 Ana. — Perhaps not to the extent of ten miles, as there the 
 land became hilly and mountainous. But it was nothing un- 
 common at certain seasons of the year to see bands of horses 
 feeding at distances of six and eight miles back from Fort 
 Vancouver, which must have been in a northerly direction. 
 
 Int. 347. — Have you any other knowledge that the line ex- 
 tended ten miles back? 
 
 Ana, — I do not remember now. I have had the impression 
 on my mind all along that it did. 
 
 Int. 347 J. — What do you mean by "recollection " of a line, 
 in your answer to the 344th interrogatory ? 
 
 Ans. — That is my belief about it. 
 
 Int. 348. — Can you not answer the last interrogatory more 
 definitely ? 
 
 , Ans. — I looked upon the mouth of the Cathlapootl as the 
 natural boundary. I have no recollection of the line running 
 inland being blazed or marked any way by the Company. 
 
 Int. 349. — Do you not now see from looking at a map, that 
 a line running ten miles north from the Cathlapootl would not 
 ■ run inland, but would run nearly parallel with the Columbia 
 river ? 
 
 Ana. — In giving my answer to interrogatory 341, I did so 
 without looking at a map, and ought to have said that the 
 lines should run inland for ten miles from each of the two 
 points indicated, in place of saying in a northerly direction. 
 As on looking at the map I would have said that the line from 
 the point above the saw-mill will run inland in a northerly 
 direction, and from the mouth of the Cathlapootl in an east- 
 erly direction. 
 
101 
 
 Int. 350. — Do you mean to say, then, that when you an- 
 swered "Interrogatory 341" you did not know enough about 
 the Company's claim to say whether the line run north or east? 
 
 Am. — I have seen very few maps of the Company's claim. 
 All my knowledge of it is of a personal nature, and, without 
 some aid to memory like a map, I am not very clear but that 
 I might make a mistake when asked about the compass lines 
 of the claim. 
 
 Int. 351. — In your answer to interrogatory 324, you say 
 "I have no recollection of having seen any" (meaning a map 
 of the Company's claim.) What do you mean in your last 
 answer by saying "I have seen very few maps of the Com- 
 pany's claim," when the map that has been since shown you 
 is not a map of the Company's claim, but a general map of 
 the country ? 
 
 Ans. — In making the reply to the last interrogatory I ought 
 to have said maps on which the Company's claim could be 
 traced, in place of saying maps of the Company's claim. 
 
 Int. 352. — How do you know now that the Company's claim 
 ran east for ten miles ? 
 
 Ans. — I know from looking at the map. 
 
 Int. 353. — How does the map show that? 
 
 Ans. — The boundary-line ran in at right angles from the 
 Columbia river for about ten miles, and the map shows me 
 that that line runs in an easterly direction. 
 
 Int. 354. — Were you not also mistaken when you thought 
 this line crossed the Cathlapootl river? 
 
 Ans. — I am under the impression that the line crossed the 
 Cathlapootl river. I am still of that impression. 
 
 Int. 355. — How do you know it ran inland for ten miles — 
 so far and no further ? 
 
 Ans. — By remembrance of the boundary. 
 
 Int. 356. — From the remembrance of what facts do you give 
 this as the boundary? 
 
 Ans. — I don't know that I have anything to state further 
 about it. That is my recollection of the line. 
 
 Int. 357. — Did the Company's claim stop inland ten miles 
 from the mouth of the Cathlapootl river ? 
 
 *'•*•*■!«-• ♦•*-». •*■« - 
 
 -•♦•*■**. W*i*«k_....j4 ., 
 
102 
 
 fc! ■ ' 
 
 Ans. — My knowledge of it certainly stopped there. 
 
 Int. 358. — Did your knowledge extend inland to ten miles? 
 
 Ans. — I have heen round and about there, but I do not think 
 I got out the distance of ten miles inland from the mouth of 
 the Cathlapootl. 
 
 Int. 359.— Was your knowledge of the Company's claim so 
 slight that you could not tell whether it ran for ten miles uorth 
 of the Cathlapootl river, and thus embraced the large tract 
 of land north of that river, which, since you have looked at 
 the map, you say it did not embrace ? 
 
 Ans. — In all my rides over that country, and they were 
 many, I never carried a compass about me, so that L knew but 
 little as to how the Company's lands at Fort Vancouver would 
 show when traced upon the map. 
 
 Int. 360. — How did you know when you were riding on the 
 Company's lands ? 
 
 Ans. — I knew that by seeing the Company's cattle and 
 horses feeding on the land. 
 
 Int. 361. — Could you not tell whether the cattle were feed- 
 ing on the north or south side of the Cathlapootl river ; and 
 if so, how do you explain your answer to the 345th interroga- 
 tory? 
 
 Ans. — The difference of course has arisen from a mistake I 
 made in the compass-bearings of the line. 
 
 Int. 362. — Have you any particular knowledge of the 
 boundary of the Company's claim on the east ? 
 
 Ans. — The same as I had of the other, probably I remem- 
 ber it better. 
 
 Int. 363. — Did it extend ten miles north, and no farther ? 
 
 Ans. — My knowledge of it certainly stopped there. 
 
 Int. 364. — How did the line run from the point ten miles 
 north of a point a mile or two beyond the saw mill, to the 
 point ten miles east of the Cathlapootl? 
 
 Ans. — I never was along that line myself, I know nothing 
 about that line, except that it was rocky and poor and hilly. 
 
 Int. 365. — How did you make the Company's claim certain 
 250 square miles ? 
 
 Ans. — I calculated the front, twenty -five miles by ten miles 
 
103 
 
 in depth, which will give the quantity stated or thereahouts. 
 
 Int. 366.— Did you multiply 10 by 25? 
 
 An». — Yes. 
 ' Int. 867. — Did you not then think when you made this cal- 
 culation that the Company's claim was in the shape of a 
 parallelogram ? 
 
 An». — I am not very clear that I know what shape it would 
 take on paper. 
 
 Int. 368. — How, then, did you estimate that a tract of land, 
 twenty-five miles front, with a depth of ten miles, would con- 
 tain 250 square miles? 
 
 An%. — My way of calculating it was a v.ery simple one ; 
 I multiplied the length by the depth, and brought out the re- 
 sult. 
 
 Int. 369. — Have you not just said that the claim, as laid 
 down, is a little over 250 square miles ? 
 
 An%. — So I have been informed. 
 
 Int. 370. — Have you ever seen the Company's claim laid 
 down? 
 
 An%. — ^Not that I remember of. 
 
 Int. 371. — Does not the Columbia river, just below Fort 
 Vancouver, where it runs west, change its course, and run 
 nearly north ? 
 
 Am. — Judging from the map, I should say it does. 
 
 Int. 372. — Do not the two inland limits of the claim, as 
 given by you, come within a few miles of each other ? 
 
 An». — I scarcely know, without looking at a map of the 
 claim. 
 
 Int. 373. — Look at this map, now shown you, marked "Map 
 of Public Survey in the Territory of Washington, to accom- 
 pany report of Surveyor General, 1855," and which you be- 
 fore looked at upon giving your answers to interrogatories 
 349, 351, and 371, and answer the previous question. 
 
 Ans. — Judging from the map now shown to me, I should say 
 they came within a few miles of one another. 
 
 Int. 374. — Is not, then, the Company's claim, as you have 
 described it, in general shape a square, with one corner cut 
 off? 
 
 «,'^ 
 
104 
 
 Ans. — I nhould say so. 
 
 Int. 375. — How, then, can a portion of a square, which is 
 not more than twelve miles on a side, contain more than lt50 
 square miles ? 
 
 Ana. — I hardly know. 
 
 Examination Resumed, March 26fA. 
 
 Int. 376. — In your answer to interrogatory 842, yott speak 
 of the boundaries of the lands "used and occupied;" what 
 do you mean by the words '* used and occupied," as distinct 
 from each other ? 
 
 Ana — I don't know that there is much distinction between 
 them. 
 
 Int. 377. — How, then, do you mean to say you know what 
 were the boundaries of the Company's claim ? 
 
 Ans. — My knowledge of them stopped at these boundaries 
 I have given ; I did not know anything further. 
 
 Int. 378. — Why did it extend to these boundaries ? 
 
 Ans. — Well, I knew that the land within the limits was used 
 and occupied for the Company's business. 
 
 Int. 379. — Will you give a particular description of the 
 land within these boundaries ? 
 
 ' Ana. — The land back of the fort is heavily timbered ; the 
 timber probably commencing a mile from the river. You went 
 through that timber for some distance until you crossed the 
 creek. Some little distance beyond this creek you came upon 
 a succession of plains, one following the other, known as the 
 First, Second, Third, and Fourth Plains. Between each of 
 those plains there were short belts of timber. Tho Fourth 
 Plain was the only one of those plains of any size ; but the 
 Fourth Plain itself was very large. The soil of all those 
 plains was light. The Company cultivated, previous to my 
 time, the three first plains, and did not find them very produc- 
 tive ; but with the use of sheep for the purposes of manuring 
 the land, good crops of grain could be raised. On the Fourth 
 Plain the Company used to pasture the cattle and horses, and 
 also on the intervening plains, and at certain seasons of the 
 
106 
 
 year there was good grass to be had on them. The Fourth 
 Plain was at a distance of about six miles from Fort Vancou- 
 ver, and about six miles in circumference, by something over 
 three miles in breadth. Beyond that plain, some miles, the 
 country was heavily timbered, with occasional glades or open- 
 ings here and there. From this point, in an eastern direction, 
 to where it would strike the Company's eastern line, the land 
 is of the same character, heavily timbered. Following that 
 eastern line to the Columbia river to a point about two miles 
 above the saw-mill, it was more or less heavilv timbered. Two 
 miles below this point you come to the Company's saw-mills, 
 and a mile below that again, you come to the grist-mill ; and 
 four miles further down you reached the Fort Plain. From 
 the point two miles above the saw-mill, down to this point at 
 Fort Plain, it is densely timbered. Behind the saw and grist- 
 mills, about a mile distant, you come on what is called the 
 Mill Plain, where the Company had a farm of about a thous- 
 and acres under fence. Beyond this is another prairie, known 
 as the Camass. The mills are supplied by water issuing out 
 of the bench of land behind. The land generally described 
 in the last sentence is of a very fair quality ; on the Mill 
 Plain requiring the use of sheep for the purposes of manure. 
 The Fort Plain is probably about three miles in length, and 
 about one in breadth, and contained a great deal of good land; 
 some portions of it subject to overflow in seasons of high water 
 from the Columbia river. The back part of this plain was of 
 considerable elevation. 
 
 On this plain the Company's establishment of Fort Van- 
 couver was erected, and its out-buildings, farm, et cetera. I 
 have already described the nature of the country and timber, 
 going out to the Fourth Plain, which is in a northeasterly 
 direction from Fort Vancouver. In a northerly direction from 
 the fort, several miles, the land is heavily timbered, but is of 
 a fair quality when cleared, and there are a good many patches 
 of bottom-land which are valuable and productive. Below the 
 Fort Plain we come to what was known as the Lower Plain, 
 where the Company had another farm, with dairies, and so- 
 forth. The frontage on the river of this plain was about five 
 
'I 
 
 ; 
 
 106 
 
 miles — very valuable land, having been thoi'oughly cultivated 
 and kept in order by the Company. It is, however, in years 
 of high water, subject to inundation. 
 
 From the end of the Lower Plain, going down a distance of 
 ten miles, or, as one may say, almost to the Cathlapootl river, 
 the alluvial bottom land of the Columbia runs almost the whole 
 length, and is of great extent and value for purposes of pas- 
 turage. 
 
 The width of this tract is probably from three to four" miles 
 in the average, and in seasons of high water is inundated. 
 
 At such periods, one wishing to go to the Cathlapootl by 
 land from Fort Vancouver, must follow the ridge or elevated 
 land to the eastward of this tract of alluvial land which I 
 have just described. The road runs over rolling hills, tim- 
 bered, with a good deal of dead wood amongst it. The land 
 along this road is of fair quality. In seasons of low water 
 you can ride along through the slough all the way to the Cathla- 
 pootl. The neighborhood of the Cathlapootl, some distance 
 from its mouth, the land is generally of a fair quality, and 
 partly timbered and partly not. 
 
 Int. 380. — You speak of the Fourth Plain as six miles in 
 circumference and three miles in breadth ; do you not know 
 that these two measurements are inconsistent ? 
 
 ^n«. — I suppose that I mean by that, that the longest part 
 of the plain is three miles, or thereabouts. 
 
 Int. 881. — Will you give an estimate of the quantity of 
 cleared land on the Company's claim ? 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to say at this distance of time. . 
 
 Int. 882. Did the Company use all the cleared land on 
 
 this claim ? 
 
 Awi. — There were seasons of high water, when the river 
 bottoms were not available for pasture, and the stock had to 
 be driven wherever grass could be found. In that way. no 
 doubt, all the plains were made use of, and also the timbered 
 portions of the land, in order to find pasturage. Again, in 
 the winter months, when there was pastm*age in the river bot- 
 toms, the wooded portions of the land sheltered the stock in 
 bad weather. ' > 
 
107 
 
 Int. 883. — With what care were the Company's cattle at- 
 tended ? 
 
 Ana. — They were watched and guarded by men appointed 
 for the purpose. 
 
 Int. 384. — How many men did the Company appoint for 
 this purpose? 
 
 Ana. — There was generally a head-man, a herder, a white 
 man, with a sufficient number of Indians as assistants. 
 
 Int. 385. — What was the duty of this herdsman and his as- 
 sistants? 
 
 Ans. — They camped out with the different bands of cattle, 
 and watched that they had wherewith to eat and that they 
 did not go. astray. 
 
 Int. 386. — What was the character of the cattle? 
 
 Ans. — I think they were principally of the California stock, 
 those that were herded out in this way. There was, however, 
 at the diflFerent dairies a number of cows of improved breeds, 
 which were kept and guarded in the neighborhood of the 
 dairies. 
 
 Int. 387. — Were not most of the herded cattle of the Span- 
 ish breed and very wild ? 
 
 Ana. — In this country they would probably be considered 
 wild, but there they were not so considered, as the cattle keep- 
 ers had no difficulty in managing them. 
 
 Int. 388. — What had the keeping of these cattle to do with 
 the fur trade of the Company ? 
 
 Ans. — The Company's ships or vessels required beef to 
 feed the seamen, and I have understood, so soon as they could 
 manage it, it was in view to issue a meat ration to the Com- 
 pany's servants in place of fish. 
 
 Int. 389. — How were these cattle killed ? 
 
 Ans. — I have no personal knowledge of it. I was away 
 from the country when they disappeared. 
 
 Int. 390. — Did not the Company shoot the cattle when they 
 wanted beef? 
 
 Ans. — ^Not in my day. 
 
 Int. 391.— In your answer to cross-interrogatory 19, of the 
 previous examination, you estimate the numbe^r of cattle, 
 
108 
 
 !'., 
 
 I 
 
 sheep, and horses at Vancouver; did the Company keep any 
 record of the number of these cattle, sheep, and horses? 
 
 Arts, — I believe they did. 
 
 Int. 392. — In what accounts will this record be found? 
 
 An$. — I hardly remember what books it will be found in, 
 but there must be a record somewhere. 
 
 Int. 893. — ^What proportion of the Company's cattle were 
 protected and fed during the winter? 
 
 An%. — It depended very much on the weather. If the win- 
 ter was a fine one, the cattle required but little assistance. 
 On other occasions, when there was snow on the ground, the 
 cattle would be driven along to the neighborhood of the barns 
 of the fort, the Lower and Mill Plains, where there was gen- 
 erally lots of straw and other fodder, which was given to them 
 to eat. Thus they would get through the periods of bad 
 weather without suffering much. 
 
 Int. 894. — Were not a great many cattle lost in the winter 
 from time to time ? 
 
 Ans. — I don't know that there were absolutely many. In 
 very severe winters some of the cattle might perish, but such 
 winters were the exceptions, not the rule, as regarded the 
 climate in that locality. 
 
 Int. 895. — Did you not, in answer to cross-interrogatory 20, 
 of the previous cross-examination, say " there must have been 
 a good many cattle lost in the winter from time to time ? " 
 
 Ana. — I said so, no doubt. 
 
 Int. 396. — ^Were the herdsmen allowed to drive the cattle 
 where they pleased ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know what instructions were given to the 
 herdsmen. 
 
 Int. 397. — How far below Fort Vancouver did you ever see 
 the herdsmen camping with their cattle ? 
 
 An%. — I don't remember how far I have seen them ; it was 
 a long way down. 
 
 Int. 398. — Did you ever see them herding the cattle within 
 three miles of the Cathlapootl river ? 
 
 Ana. — The cattle were down at the Cathlapootl river, but 
 
109 
 
 I don't remember seeing the herdsmen with them, but they 
 might have been. 
 
 Int. 899. — Did the Company's herdsmen ever receive any 
 instructions as to what was the boundary of the Company's 
 claim ? 
 
 Am. — I can't say what instructions the Company's herds- 
 men received ; I had no control of them myself. 
 
 Int. 400. — Did you, previous to 1846, ever know that the 
 Company's claim had any particular boundaries ? 
 
 Ans. — I don't know that I knew of it in any other shape 
 than as I have already said, that the Company used such and 
 such lands. 
 
 Int. 401. — Do you not know that the Company's herdsmen 
 herded their cattle wherever there was grass, without any re- 
 gard to who owned the lands ? 
 
 Ans. — They may have done so, but I certainly knew noth- 
 ing about it. 
 
 Int. 402. — How then did you know that the Company used 
 the land within the boundaries you have given ? 
 
 Ans. — I knew it from seeing the cattle about, and from 
 other operations, farming, &c., going on upon the Company'« 
 lands. 
 
 Int. 403. — Do you mean to say that you know that the 
 Company used all the tract you have described for pasturage 
 and farming operations ? 
 
 Ans. — To the best of my knowledge and belief, the Com- 
 pany did use the tract of land for the purposes mentioned, 
 and for other purposes. 
 
 Int. 404. — Did they use this tract and no more ? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say that ; I can only speak as to my own 
 recollection of things. The Company may have used more or 
 they may have used less. While I was there I did not repre- 
 sent the Company in any way. 
 
 Int. 405. — Do you recollect that the Company used all this 
 tract, and no more ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not. 
 
 Int. 406. — Do you recollect that they used all this tract ? 
 
 Ans. — I believe they used all the tract, but I cannot say 
 
 [i 
 
no 
 
 that they did so, because I did not represent the Oompany 
 there at the time. 
 
 Int. 407. — Why then in your answer to "interrogatory 404" 
 did you say they may hav« used less? 
 
 Ans. — I did so for the same reason, that I did not represent 
 the Company at the time, and could not say what the Com- 
 pany did in the matter. 
 
 Int. 408. — Do you mean to say that you do not know whether 
 the Company used this tract of land or not? 
 
 Ana. — I believe they did use it. 
 
 Int. 409. — Why do you believe that they used a tract of 
 land, when in your answer to interrogatory 404 you say they 
 may have used less? 
 
 Ans. — I have not said that the Company used loss of the 
 tract of land in question, and I therefore believe that the Com- 
 pany did use it. 
 
 Int. 410. — Have you not delayed answering this previous 
 question for more than half an hour, during which time you 
 have been holding the manuscript in your hands and consid- 
 ering the question, while the counsel have been waiting for 
 you? 
 
 (Mr. Lander objects to this interrogatory immaterial, 
 irrelevant, and impertinent to the present inqu /.) 
 
 Examination Beaumedy March 27. 
 
 AvM. — I believe that such is the case. 
 
 Int. 411. — Have you not defined the Company's claim as 
 contained within certain boundaries, because, as you said, you 
 knew the land within those boundaries was used and occupied 
 by the Company? 
 
 Ans. — I did so, to the best of my knowledge and belief. 
 • Int. 412. — Why do you believe the Company used and occu- 
 pied this tract of land? 
 
 An». — I never professed to have been all over this tract of 
 land. But I knew that the Company was carrying on a large 
 business of various kinds at Fort Vancouver, and that, besides 
 agricultural operations, they had large bands of cattle, stock. 
 
T 
 
 111 
 
 and horses, requiring much land for their sustenance, for 
 which purpose the lands in question were used. 
 
 Int. 418. — Can you not answer the last question more defi- 
 nitely ? 
 
 Ans. — With the knowledge of the fact stated, I believe that 
 the lands were so occupied. 
 
 Int. 414. — Why do you believe that the line Troin the mouth 
 of the Cattlapootl ran eastward? 
 
 ^«».-My ide^ or impression of the line was that it ran in- 
 ward from that ;-»oint. My belief as to its running easterly is 
 in consequence of studying the map shown to mo a day or 
 two ago. 
 
 Int. 415. — Where did you get the impression that it ran 
 inland ? 
 
 Ans. — I suppose I must have picked it up somewhere. 
 
 Int. 416. — Do you distinctly remember to have had this im- 
 pression before 1846 ? 
 
 An%. — I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 417. — Do you distinctly rciicmber to have had this im- 
 pression before 1860? 
 
 Ann. — Y'-s. 
 
 Int. 4l8. — State when and where you first remember to have 
 had it previous to 1860 ? 
 
 An%. — It must have been while residing at Fort Vancouver, 
 from 1853. Probably my informant was the late Mr. Peter 
 Ogden, deceased, who, while alive, was the chief factor of the 
 CoTipany at Vancouver. 
 
 Int. 419. — Who succeeded Mr. Ogden as chief factor ? 
 
 An%. — I did. 
 
 Int. 420. — Is your knowledge that the line ran inland noth- 
 ing more than an impression, which, you say, was "probably" 
 derived from Mr. Ogden ? 
 
 Ans. — I may have been aware of it in 1846 ; but Mr. Ogden 
 was good authority on the subject, as he was one of the Com- 
 pany's chief factors, stationed at Fort Vancouver. 
 
 Int. 421. — Do you distinctly remember that Mr. Ogden told 
 you that the line ran inland ? 
 
112 
 
 Ans. — No ; I do not distinctly remember, but I think it very 
 likely that he did. 
 
 Int. 422. — W*" J do you think it very likely that he did ? 
 
 An8. — I cannot give any particular reason about it. 
 
 Int. 423. — Why do you say the line ran inland for ten miles, 
 so far and no farther ? 
 
 Ana. — So far as my kno'srledge went, the line ran that dis- 
 tance, or thereabout. 
 
 Int. 424. — What do you mean by "so far as my knowledge 
 went?" 
 
 Ans. — That is my recollection of the distance. 
 
 Int. 425. — How do you recollect this was the distance ? 
 
 Ans. — That is the impression on my mind. 
 
 Int. 426. — How do you account for this impression on your 
 mind? 
 
 Ans. — I don't know that I can account for it. I presume 
 my memory has something to do with it. 
 
 Int. 427. — What do you remember in regard to it ? 
 
 Ans. — So far as I remember, that was the distance, or there- 
 abouts, the line ran inland. 
 
 Int. 428. — Have you any distinct remembrance in regard 
 to it? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know that I remember anything very dis- 
 tinctly about It. That is the impression on my mind. 
 
 Int. 429. — Can you account for the impression that the line 
 extended for ten miles any more satisfactorily than for the 
 impression that it extended inland? 
 
 Ans. — Nothing more than a matter of memory. 
 
 Int. 430. — Has your knowledge of this line, which you hare 
 an impression extended inland for ten miles, anything to do 
 with a distinct recollection that the Company used the lands 
 up to thic line, and no farther, and for the distance of ten 
 miles from the river, and no farther? 
 
 Ans. — Previous to 1846, the period of time of which I am 
 now speaking, my position as a subordinate at Fort Vancouver 
 was such that I really could not state distinctly what the Com- 
 pany did do in the matter. 
 
 Int. 431. — What do you mean by "did do in the matter?" 
 
 i 'I 
 
 i\' 
 
118 
 
 Ans. — I ret'ei to the words in the previous iritorrogatorj, 
 as follows: "o. distinct recollection that the Conipatiy used 
 the lands up to this line, and no farther, and for the dintance 
 of ten miles from the river, and no farther." 
 
 Int. 432. — Do you mean to say that you arc unable to state 
 distinctly 'what lands the Company used prcviou» to 1840? 
 
 Ans. — No farther than my knowledge and belief of the 
 same goes. 
 
 Int. 433. — State, then, in reference to this lino, how near it, 
 and how far along it, you know of your own knowledge that 
 the Company used the land previous to 184.0. 
 
 Ans. — I have certainly not been along all the line. I have 
 been down to the Cathlapootl, and along it for Honic distance, 
 where I saw the Company's cattle about. I do not remember 
 how far I wept there, or the number of cattle I Haw. 
 
 Int. 434. — Did you see cat'Jo more than a mile distant from 
 the Columbia ? 
 
 Ans. — My impression is that it was a greater di«tan«ie than 
 that from the Columbia. 
 
 Int. 435. — In what year and what season of the year did 
 you see these cattle? 
 
 Ans. — I think it was as far back as 1844, and I think it was 
 sometime in the spring. 
 
 Int. 436. — Do you know anything more of this occupation 
 previous to 1846? 
 
 Ans. — I believe I was down there another time. 1 think it 
 was sometime in the spring of 184.'j. I may have been down 
 there at other times previous to 1840, I do not r«!mcmber 
 about "t. 
 
 Int. 437. — Do you know any thing raoro of the occupation 
 of this line previous to 1846? 
 
 Ans. — Not of my own personal knowledge. 
 
 Int. 438. — State all that you know of the occupation of 
 the land along this line by the Company since 1H40? 
 
 Ans. — I left the country in January, 1847, and have no 
 personal knowledge of what the Company did there after 1846. 
 
 Int. 439. — Why do you say that the lino of tho Company's 
 8B 
 
 i] 
 

 k 
 
 k i 
 
 
 114 
 
 claim on the cast began at a point about two miles cast of the 
 saw-mill and extended north for ten miles ? 
 
 Ans. — That is my recollection of it. 
 
 Int. 440. — When does your recollection of this line begin ? 
 
 Ans. — Previous to 1846. 
 
 Int. 441. — What do you first recollect of this line? 
 
 Ans. — My impression is there was some blazing or cutting 
 the trees some distance from the river. 
 
 Int. 442. — Do you distinctly remember to have had this im- 
 pression previous to 1860? 
 
 Ans. — I think so. 
 
 Int. 443. — Did you ever sec these blazes? 
 
 Ans. — I have some recollection of seeing them. 
 
 Int. 444. — State all that you distinctly recollect about these 
 blazes ? 
 
 Ans. — I recollect the trees blazed there about a mile in- 
 ii.,nd; the trees were blazed here and there. 
 
 Int. 445. — When do you recollect to have seen these blazed 
 trees ? 
 
 Ans. — It was a long time ago. I can't say the time. '\ 
 
 Int. 446.— Was it previous to 1846 ? ' 
 
 Ans. — I think so. 
 
 Int. 447. — Why did you, a subordinate oflScer of the Com- 
 pany, go to this eastern boundary and see these blazed trees ? 
 
 Ans. — Previous to 1846, I had to go up the Columbia river 
 in boats, when we always passed by the mill and so on above. 
 On such occasions the boats were close in-shore, and I believe 
 my attention was drawn to some of these blazed trees, and I 
 went on shore and looked at them. 
 
 Int. 448. — Do you know any thing more about theso blazed 
 trees ? 
 
 Ans. — I don't know that I remember much more about them. 
 
 Int. 449. — How do you know that this line extended ten 
 miles and no farther? 
 
 Ans. — My recollection of the line is that it went inland ten 
 miles or thereabouts. 
 
 Int. 450. — How long a distance do you think that you re- 
 member that you saw that the trees were blazed? 
 
115 
 
 Ans. — From a quarter to half a mile. 
 
 Int. 451. — How do you remember any thing about the line 
 beyond that? 
 
 Ans. — The line was an imaginary line, but as far as a person 
 going along could guess the line, it was pretty much in timber, 
 all the way the ten miles through. 
 
 Int. 452. — Please to state how you remember the length and 
 direction of an imaginary line. 
 
 Ans. — I do not mean that the line was an air-line, or with- 
 out reality, in making use of the word imaginary. I meant 
 simply by that, that the distance of ten miles, not being blazed 
 throughout, a man like me, in trying to follow it out through 
 timber, could not be always certain of moving in a straight 
 line, though it might be in a northern direction. 
 
 Int. 453. — Please answer "interrogatory 451" more defi- 
 nitely? 
 
 Ans. — The line is in timber; I don't know that I have been 
 out the exact distance of it; I have been a greater distance 
 out than ten miles from the point of its commencement; but 
 I could not say that I followed the line throughout, though 
 I must have been close to it. 
 
 Int. 454. — Why do you say this line was ten miles long or 
 thereabouts ? 
 
 Ans. — That is my recollection of the length of it. 
 
 Int. 455. — Did you ever see it represented on a map ? 
 
 Ans. — I have no recollection to have done so. 
 
 Int. 456. — Did you ever see it marked on the land, except 
 by the blazes which you think you remember to have snen for 
 a quarter to half a mile ? 
 
 Ans. — Not that I recollect of. 
 
 Int. 457. — How then do you recollect that the line extended 
 ten miles ? 
 
 Ans. — My recollection of that line is of an old date. I be- 
 lieve its length to have been ten miles or thereabouts. 
 
 Int. 458. — How can you recollect the length of a line m hich 
 you never saw in fact, or represented on a map? 
 
 Ans. — Somebody who knew, no doubt, told me of it. 
 
116 
 
 Int. 459. — You mean, then, to be understood as saying that 
 your knowledge of the length of this line is derived from what 
 somebody may have told you ? 
 
 Ans. — My knowledge may have come to me in that way. 
 
 Int. 460. — Do you remember any other way it came to you? 
 
 Ana. — I do not remember now. 
 
 Int. 461. — Do you distinctly remember any particular per- 
 son that told you the line extended ten miles? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot distinctly state; I think it not improbable 
 that I had the information from the late Mr. Ogden. 
 
 Int. 462. — Are you able to state of your own knowledge 
 whether the land was used by the Company up to this line 
 and.no farther, and along it for ten miles and no farther? 
 
 Ans. — I am unable of my own knowledge to say. 
 
 Int. 463. — What can you state from your own knowledge 
 of the use by the Company of the land along this lino? 
 
 Ans. — A good deal of timber for logs was cut along it in 
 places. 
 
 Int. 464. — Was the timber cut close up to this line and no 
 farther? 
 
 Ans. — There may have been timber cut on both sides of the 
 line. 
 
 Int. 465. — Do you know of any other reason why the Com- 
 pany cut timber in one place more than another, except that 
 it was convenient and suitable? 
 
 Ans. — I suppose such reason had something to do with the 
 cutting of the timber,, though I know nothing of such myself. 
 
 Int. 466. — Was there not timber along the whole length of 
 this line, so far as you could guess, (see answer to "interrog- 
 atory, 451 ?" 
 
 Ans. — So far as I could judge, the line ran through timber 
 the whole way. 
 
 Int. 467. — How far from the river along this line did the 
 Company cut timber? 
 
 Ans. — Previous to 1846 there was a good deal of timber 
 cut, but I scarcely remember how far back they had cut from 
 the river. 
 
 
 RJ 
 
117 
 
 Examination Resumed, March 28th. 
 
 Int. 468. — How much land had the Company cut over about 
 the mill previous to 1846? 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to say. 
 
 Int. 469. — How much land has now been cut over by the 
 Company? 
 
 Ans. — I can't say. 
 
 Int. 470. — Do you know what was the line of the Company's 
 claim on the back, joining the two points you have described 
 as ten miles from the river? 
 
 Ans. — I never went along the line. I know, however, there 
 is a dense growth of timber there and unfit for pasturage, 
 owing to the thick undergrowth of bushes. 
 
 Int. 471. — Do you know how this line ran? 
 
 Ans. — I was not aware of it until looking at the general 
 map shown me the other day. 
 
 Int. 472. — How did that map show you how the line ran? 
 
 Ans. — According to the map now before me, which appears 
 to be a copy on a reduced scale of the map referred to in 
 the testimony of Edward Giddings, taking ten square miles 
 inland at either end, at the Cathlapootl river, and at a point 
 on the Columbia river two miles above the saw-mill, the dis- 
 tance between the two points was not apparently a long one, 
 which I presume would form the back line of the Company's 
 lands. 
 
 Int. 473. — Have you no other knowledge of this line than 
 what you get from this map? 
 
 Ans. — I have no knowledge how the line would run on the 
 land itself, never having followed it out. 
 
 Int. 474. — Do you know that previous to 1846 the Company 
 claimed the land back to this line and no farther. 
 
 Ans. — Holding, as I did, a subordinate position while at 
 Fort Vancouver, previous to 1846, 1 had no means of knowing 
 what the Company did in the matter. 
 
 Int. 475. — Do you know that, previous to 1860, the Com- 
 pany claimed the land back to this line, and no farther ? 
 
 ii .. 
 
 « 
 
118 
 
 Ans. — I have no knowledge as to what the Company actu- 
 ally claimed. 
 
 Int. 476. — Have you not as much knowledge of what the 
 Company claimed in this direction as in any other? 
 
 Ans. — My knowledge of the Company's lands in the neigh- 
 borhood of Fort Van' ouver is a belief as to what the Com- 
 pany had used and occupied for the purposes of their business 
 there previous to 1846. My knoAvledge as to what lands the 
 Company actually claimed at Fort Vancouver and its neighbor- 
 hood previous to 1846 is a mere matter of supposition on my 
 part. 
 
 Int. 477. — Can you not answer the last inteiTOgatory more 
 definitely ? 
 
 Ans. — Referring to my answer to the last interrogatory, it 
 will be at once seen that I have no personal knowledge as to 
 what land the Company actually claimed on that line or on 
 any other, as regards the lands in the neighborhood of Fort 
 Vancouver. This answer embraces even the present time. 
 
 Int. 478. — Do you know that the Company at any time used 
 and occupied the lands up to this back line and no farther? 
 
 Ans. — Previous to 1846, while I was ut Fort Vancouver, in 
 a subordinate position, I really could not say what the Com- 
 pany did in reference to this back line of their lands at that 
 po¥it. While I had charge of the place, between the years 
 1S54 and 1858, I am not aware that the Company occupied or 
 used the lands up to this line. 
 
 Int. 479. — Is not the answer you have given to the last ques- 
 tion equally true in regard to the '.ands up to the other lines 
 which you have given as the Company's claim? 
 
 Ans. — With respect to the line at the mouth of the Cathla- 
 pootl river, running inland, the same answer will apply, and 
 also on the line running inland from a point two miles above 
 the saw-mills, save and except between the years 1854 and 
 1858, while I was at Fort Vancouver, in charge, when the farm 
 on the Mill Plain was still in the occupation of the Company. 
 The eastern end of that farm would probably come close to the 
 Company's line. 
 
 ! 'i 
 
119 
 
 Int. 480. — When was Mr. Ballenden chief factor in charge 
 at Vancouver? 
 
 Am. — While the late Mr. Ballenden was in charge of Fort 
 .Vancouver I was not there, but to the best of my recollection 
 he was in charge of the place from December, 1851, until 
 sometime in March, 1853. 
 
 Int. 481. — Did not Mr. Ballenden designate certain lands 
 as claimed by the Company at that time ? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say what Mr. Ballenden did. 
 
 Int. 482. — Do you not know that at that time he designated 
 certain lands as claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company, the 
 record of which was made at the Surveyor General's Office of 
 Washington Territory? 
 
 Ans. — He may have done so, but I have no recollection of 
 what he did in the matter. ^ 
 
 Int. 483. — What part of the land contained in the Com- 
 pany's claim about Fort Vancouver, as you have given it, was 
 ever to your knowledge used and occupied by the Company? 
 
 Ans. — Previous to 1846, and commencing on the Columbia 
 river at a point two miles above the saw-mill, there was first 
 the saw-mill itself, with its dam, race, &c., with conveniences 
 for loading ships. There were a great many houses about the 
 mill, occupied by the Company's people, with stables for oxen 
 and horses, and shqds for the lumber ; also a good deal of land 
 used for gardens, in which potatoes and other produce were 
 raised. Connected with the saw-mill, and about a mile below 
 it, was the grist-mill, with its run of water, &c. About a mile 
 back from the saw-mill there was a plain of great extent, on 
 which the Company had a farm of about a thousand acres 
 under fence, and all very thoroughly cultivated, with farm 
 buildings, barns, stables, and such like necessary appendages 
 to the proper working of an operation of the kind. Outside 
 of the Company's fence on this plain there was a good deal of 
 open land, which was not fenced, for the reason that it was 
 broken up in such a way by the surrounding woods that it 
 was inconvenient to fence it. ■ The eastern end of that plain 
 came very near what I consider the boundary to the east of 
 the Company's land. Passing from this plain in a northern 
 
t'I^*"WW 
 
 i 1 
 
 120 • '. 
 
 direction, you came through beii»"of timber interspersed with 
 plains, until reaching the Fourth Plain, which I have already 
 described. The Company's line would pass considerably to 
 the eastward of this plain, and would run out to its extent of 
 ton miles, or thereabouts, with a country more or less densely 
 timbered, with openings hero and there, and a good deal of 
 grass at times to be picked up there. The land to the west- 
 ward, from that point five or six miles, is of much the same 
 nature, with timber and openings hero and there, from which 
 point, coming back to the Columbia river in a southerly direc- 
 tion, we find ourselves at Fort Vancouver, between which and 
 the grist-mill there is a distance of about five miles. On the 
 Fort Plain, which is about three miles in length by one in 
 breadth, stood the Company's establishment at Fort Vancou- 
 ver, consisting, as already described, of a stockaded enclosure, 
 with its surrounding improvements and gardens, farms, &c. 
 
 ExamirMtion Resumed, March 29. - ' 
 
 Every portion of this plain, high or low land, where a plough 
 could be used, had been cultivated. At the upper end of the 
 plain, on the elevated plateau close to the timber, there was a 
 residence known as Dundas Castle, and close to the river there 
 was a large field under fence, where barns and other agricul- 
 tural buildings stood. Further down and still close to the 
 river theic were one or two more dwelling-houses, with a long 
 range of stables. The fort itself stood back from the river 
 from a half to three-quarters of a mile, and covering with i*8 
 surroundings and cemetery a large space of ground. There 
 were two or three landings on the river as connected with the 
 fort, at the lower one of which there was a jetty or Avharf, with 
 a large warehouse known as the salmon store. Proceeding 
 down the river a distance of five miles from the lower end of 
 the Fort Plain, this tract includes the Company's farm on the 
 Lower Plain, at which there were farm buildings of various 
 kinds, such as barns, dairies, piggeries, &c. Below this point 
 commenced what I call the alluvial lands of the Columbia river, 
 running down that stream close to the Cathlapootl river, ac- 
 
 I. 
 
r 
 
 121 
 
 oording to my estimate, a distance of ten miles in length, or 
 thereabouts, with a breadth of from three to four miles. On 
 these alluvial lands, when the state of the water would permit 
 of it, the great bulk of the Company's cattle and horses were 
 pastured and herded; and I have often seen them there at a 
 distance below Fort Vancouver of certainly not less than ten 
 miles. At a point on the rivfr about six miles below Van- 
 couver there was the salmon fishery, to which I have already 
 made reference, and about two miles farther down the river 
 was the point where people travelling through the country 
 took ferry to cross the Columbia by Sauvie's Island. On the 
 Lower Plain farm were pastured all the dairy cattle, together 
 with the horses working there, with a great number of hogs 
 that used to keep fat there rooting in the soft ground after 
 the waters had receded. On the Fort Plain also cattle and 
 horses and hogs in the same manner were sustained, and on the 
 more elevated parts of the plain there were sheep pastured. In 
 the summer months of the year, when the water was high in the 
 Columbia, it was necessary to remove all the cattle and horses 
 from the alluvial bottoms of the Columbia river, and pastur- 
 age found for them on the high lands. In this way I have 
 seen all the country back of Fort Vancouver, for the distance 
 of probably eight miles, occupied by stock-feeding and pas- 
 turing, under the care of men looking after them. On the 
 Mill Plain outside of the fenced land there Avere cattle and 
 horses and sheep that fed and pastured there, and back 
 through belts of timber and openings to the Fourth Plain. 
 Besides which I have seen cattle at the Cathlapootl river, but 
 do not remember to have seen herdsmen with them. From 
 the Mill Plain there was a road cut down to the saw-mill, one 
 to the grist-mill, and also one of some length cut through the 
 timber, coming out at the upper end of the Fort Plain, and 
 placing Fort Vancouver in connection with the Mill Plain — 
 all three wagon roads. There was also cut through the tim- 
 ber a road from the saw-mill to the grist-mill, and from the 
 grist-mill to the upper end of. the Fort Plain ; this road from 
 the saw-mill to the Fort Plain being close to the river front. 
 From Fort Vancouver to the Fourth Plain there was a wagon 
 
 ! 
 
 i t 
 
 ?m 
 
 I 
 
I 
 
 122 
 
 road made, and the creek behind Fort Vancouver was bridged. 
 From *he fort to the Lower Plain farm there was a wagon 
 road, and to the different landings on the river connected with 
 the fort there were wagon roads made. 
 
 Int. 484. — Docs all your last answer refer to lands occupied 
 by the Company previous to 1846? 
 
 Ans. — It does. ^ 
 
 Int. 485. — Will you estimate the number of acres ever cul- 
 tivated by the Company around Vancouver ? 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to do so. 
 
 Int. 486. — Will you estimate the number of acres used as 
 pasture land by the Company ? 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to do that. ' ' / 
 
 Int. 487. — Will you estimate the number of acres or square 
 miles which your answer to " interrogatory 483" embraces ? 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to do that. 
 
 Int. 488. — Does your answer to " interrogatory 483" refer 
 to what lands you know to have boon used, or to what lands 
 you believe to have been used by the Company? 
 
 Ans. — My reply to that interrogatory refers to the lands I 
 knew to have been occupied previous to 1846. 
 
 Int. 489. — Do you believe there were any lands occupied 
 that you did not know of? 
 
 Ans. — I think there were other parts of the land within the 
 boundaries occupied by the Company which I did not go to. 
 
 Int. 490. — What makes you think so? 
 
 Ans. — My acquaintance with the lands used by the Com- 
 pany arose simply from riding about at times. I had no 
 charge whatever of the farming operations of the Company, 
 so that I knew but little as to what was going on upon the 
 lands, in comparison with the officer or officers who had that 
 special duty in charge. 
 
 Int. 491. — Referring to your answer to " interrogatory 
 489," what parts of the land do you refer to ? 
 
 Ans. — These were parts of the land I never visited, or it 
 might have happened that at the time of my visit to certain 
 portions of this land there might have been nothing doing, 
 where afterwards they might have been improved or occupied 
 
128 
 
 in some mannor. My rides about Vancouver and its sur- 
 roundings wore at very irregular intervals. 
 
 Int. 402. — Do you believe that there were any lands on 
 this claim which were occupied for agricultural purposes that 
 you did not know of? If so, state where they were. 
 
 Ans. — I have heard of operations on other parts of the 
 land, but at this distance of time I am quite unable to say 
 what they were. 
 
 Int. 493. — Please answer the last question directly, yes or no ? 
 
 Ana, — From hearsay information, I believe there were. 
 
 Int. 494. — Where were they ? 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to say now. 
 
 Int. 495. — Who told you that any other lands were occu- 
 pied ? 
 
 An%. — Somebody probably connected with the work going 
 on at the time. 
 
 /«<. 496. — For what purposes were they occupied? 
 
 Ans. — I could not say now. 
 
 Int. 497. — When were they occupied ? 
 
 Ans. — Sometime, no doubt, previous to 1846. 
 
 Int. 498. — IIow large was the tract of land you have spoken 
 of as alluvial land ? 
 
 An%. — My estimate of it is ten miles in length, or there- 
 abouts, by three to four miles in breadth. 
 
 Int. 499. — About how long did this alluvial land remain 
 overflowed in each year? 
 
 Ans. — It varied very much, one year with another ; but I 
 suppose in the summer freshets of the Columbia in each year, 
 from the time the inundation commenced until the waters re- 
 ceded again and the grass sprung up, it would be all of four 
 months. Then, again, in the winters, when the weather was 
 very rainy, but not cold, these lands would be more or less 
 under water in consequence of a rise in the Columbia ; not 
 that the Columbia river of itself, so far as I knew, ever got 
 very high in the winter months ; but the Willamette river, 
 which takes its rise far south, is subject to tremendous win- 
 ter freshets, and this, with some other tributaries of a like 
 class, would cause a rise in the waters of the Columbia river, 
 
 W 
 
 ] 
 
 vi I 
 
^ 
 
 1 
 
 \ 
 
 I 
 
 124 
 
 which a stranger would not be prepared for at that season of 
 the year. 
 
 Int. 500. — What were the four months of the year that these 
 lands were overflowed? 
 
 Ana. — May, June, July, and August, by which period the 
 waters would have risen and receded, and new feed for ani- 
 mals would have sprung up ^ ' 
 
 Int. r)01. — During what months were they sometimes over- 
 flowed in the winter 'i 
 
 An». — I have seen freshets there in various months during 
 the winter, but there never was the same regularity about 
 them as in the summer months, which latter were caused by 
 the melting of the snows in the Rocky Mountains, while *' 
 winter freshets depend on the rain-fall for the season, n" at 
 which there is great irregularity. 
 
 Int. 502. — Was not a great part, say one-third o'' Half, of 
 these lands covered with water — I mean by lakes or sloughs — 
 for all the year ? 
 
 Ans. — There was certainly more or less water upon them 
 all the year round, but I would hardly suppose that on the 
 average the amount of water would be equal to a third of the 
 average of the alluvial lands. 
 
 Int. 503. — In your answer to interrogatory 5 of your direct- 
 exAmination you say, "Below that, again, to the Cathlepootl, 
 a distance, probably, of ten miles, with a depth of two miles, 
 or 12,800 acres, is worth $25 per acre." Is this an estimate of 
 what the land would sell for ; if so, to what time does it refer? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say what the land would have sold for. My 
 estimate of the value of the land is based upon my thorough 
 knowledge of it, and $25 per acre I considered its money value 
 when I left Fort Vancouver in 1858, to any person with a clear 
 title, to deal with it as his own. 
 
 Int. 504. — Was this land worth more than it would sell for? 
 
 Ans. — I think it not uuTkely that it was. Had it been my 
 own land, I have no foar I'iit that I would have got that money 
 for it. 
 
 Int. 505. — Did you ever know any sales of parts of this land ? 
 
 Ans. — I have heard, no doubt, of the sales of lands some- 
 
125 
 
 whoro on tlio tract claimctl by the Company ; but whether any 
 of such sales took phicc on the alluvial bottoms I am unable 
 to Hay. 
 
 Int. t)0(]. — For what purposes was this land worth ^25 per 
 acre ? 
 
 Ant. — It is very gooil for stock and for garden produce — 
 such years, of course, as it is not inundated. The tract is 
 pretty much all settled by what they call donation claimants 
 in that country, who, I know, are doing well there. 
 
 Int. 507. — Did you have anything to do with agricultural 
 matters at Fort Vancouver ? 
 
 Ans. — The Company never planted these alluvial lands, so 
 far as I know of. I did carry on some little farming while I 
 was in charge of the place, between 1854 and 1858. 
 
 Int. 508. — Have you any other knowledge which would en- 
 able you to put a correct value on these lands ? 
 
 Ans. — I don't know that I recollect anything more now. 
 
 Int. 500. — What was the saleable value of these lands pre- 
 vious to 184G? 
 
 Ana. — There was no party in the country previous to 1846 
 to whom iiieso lands could be sold. I, therefore, cannot say 
 what their sale^ible value at that time was. 
 
 Int. 510. — When did these lands fir!:t have a saleable value? 
 
 An9. — I am unable to say ; I never inquired. 
 
 Int. 511. — Have they a saleable value now ? 
 
 Ang. — I presume they have ; I really know very little 
 about it. 
 
 Int. 512. — How far back of the river did the timber lands 
 begin ? 
 
 An». — The moment you get on the ridge, by which I mean 
 the main bank of the river back of the alluvial lands, you have 
 timber more or less the whole way. 
 
 Int. 513. — W^hat is the value of this alluvial land not in- 
 cluded in your answer to interrogatory 5 of the direct-exami- 
 nation, as quoted in cross-interrogatory 503 ? 
 
 Ans. — I should vain? the rest of the alluvial lands at ^3 
 per acre. 
 
 f 
 
 ii 
 
t\ 
 
 126 
 
 Int. 514. — Why do you value it two miles back at $25 per 
 acre, and the rest at only $3 per acre ? 
 
 Ans. — The two miles vahn^d at $25 per acre has a frontage 
 on the Columbia river, which, of itself, makes the land worth 
 the money. The two miles back, valued at $3 the acre, has a 
 frontage upon nothing in particular, which detracts from its 
 value very much, in my opinion. 
 
 Int. 515. — Is the tract two miles back any less valuable for 
 grazing than the other, when they both happen to be out of 
 water ? 
 
 Ans. — For grazing purposes, I presume one portion is as 
 good as the other ; but when it comes to a question of settling 
 the country and building houses and farming locations, there is 
 all the difference in favor of the land fronting on the river as 
 compared with the land behind. 
 
 Int. 516. — Is your estimate of this back alluvial land 
 founded on any better knowledge than that of the land on the 
 front ? 
 
 A71S. — I have heard of no sales ; I have no doubt it is worth 
 $3 per acre. This estimate refers to 1858. [ 
 
 Int. 517. — Docs not this estimate refer only to those allu- 
 vial lands that are not continually covered by water? 
 
 Ans. — My calculation as to the quantity of these lands is 
 bafsed oa the custom of the Government surveyors, as to what 
 they considered land or what they considered water. I do 
 not include the large Vancouver Lako, and the lako called 
 Charlofoux Lake. 
 
 Examination Resumed, April 1. 
 
 Int. 518. — In your answer to interrogatoi'y 5 of your direct- 
 examii'rtion you say, "With respect to the value of the land 
 at Vancouver. I am clearly of the opinion that had the Com- 
 pany had entire control, to deal with it as their own, with- 
 out any question as to their title, from the year 1846 to 1858, 
 Avhen I left there, taking the fort as a central point, the land 
 above and below it, to *^he extent of three square miles, or 1,920 
 acres, with frontage on the Columbia river, could have been 
 
 Ift 
 
 % 
 
127 
 
 direct- 
 
 ic laud 
 
 Com- 
 
 with- 
 
 1858, 
 
 e laud 
 
 1,920 
 
 I been 
 
 easily disponed of for $250 per acre," plcaso Htatc! on what 
 knowledge you made that statement, 
 
 Ans. — I am supposing the land in <iuestion, after the date 
 of the treaty, had been turned into a town Kite* and nieasured 
 out in lots, and sold as opportunity oft'crcd, wht-ii, 1 J.-jlicve, 
 that the money would have been ubtained for it. My knowledge 
 of this fact, of course, was obtained from othcrH, 1 was not 
 there myself. The late Mr. Ogden was my pritK^ipul inform- 
 ant, who was good authority on the subject. 
 
 Int. 519. — Have you any personal knowledf^t' of the value 
 of this land? ^ 
 
 Ans. — I know the lands very well. My owti idea of them 
 while I was there Avas that they were very cheap at $250 the 
 acre. It is impossible for any one to say wliat they eoiild be 
 sold for, inasmuch as 640 acres in (quantity wa» covered by 
 the military reservation there, which could not be Hohl, and 
 on which the military authorities set a very high value. The 
 inability to sell this portion of the land would interfere much 
 with the sale of the remainder. 
 
 Int. 520. — What reason was there for you valuing this land 
 at $250 per acre? 
 
 Ans. — There was a town site on the land in which lots were 
 sold at very high figures, and there were other reaMons which 
 have escaped my memory. 
 
 Int. 521. — Is the town site above or below the military res- 
 ervation ? 
 
 Ans. — The town site I refer to was below the military res- 
 ervation. 
 
 Int. 522. — Who first took possession of thiH town site ? 
 Ans. — I cannot say. I was absent from Vancouver when 
 that e v-nt took place. f 
 
 Inf. 523. — IIow largo Avas this town site as hiid out? 
 Ans. — I uo not know. There has been (juite a towti there 
 for yoars. 
 
 Int. 524. — Exphiin what you mean by "quite a town for 
 years." 
 
 Ans. — Previous to leaving Fort Vancouver in 18,58, 1 remem- 
 ber s».'eing a number of streets there graded and laid out, and a 
 
 ). \ 
 
 r; 
 
 M I 
 
 I 
 
 It 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
t li 
 
 128 
 
 number of houses up close to one another. But as to the 
 number of houses and the population, I am unable to state 
 what they were. Of course, now the place is very much in- 
 creased, and the population also. The town, so far as I re- 
 member, took a start in the year 1854, and has gone on increas- 
 ing until now. It is a matter of twelve or thirteen years that 
 I know the place to have been a town. 
 
 Int. 525.— Did it have 300 inhabitants in '^858? 
 
 Aiu. — I am really unable to say what the population of it 
 was. 
 
 Int. 526.— Did it have 300 in 1860 ? 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to say what the population was in 1860. 
 
 Int. 527. — Did it have 300 when you last saw it ? 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to say what population it had when I 
 last saw it. 
 
 Int. 528. — What was the average value of land in this town 
 in 1854 ? 
 
 Ans. — I don't know. 
 
 Int. 520. — What was its value in 1858 ? 
 
 Ans. — I don't think that I know. 
 
 Int. 530. — What was it when you last saw it ? 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to say. 
 
 Int. 531. — What particular knowledge have you of the 
 vi^lue of the land in this loun at any time? 
 
 Ans. — I knew what lots were selling for when I was there ; 
 the particulars, however, have escaped my memory. 
 
 Int. 532. — Do you remember any particulars with regard to 
 this land ? 
 
 Ans. — It has all pretty much escaped my memory. 
 
 Int. 533. — Do you remember any particulars of the value 
 of the land aboVc the military reservation 'i 
 
 Ans. — I have only my own personal knowledge of the land 
 and of its value ; it is good and fertile land ; it will produce 
 anything in the shape of crops that will grow in that country. 
 
 Int. 534. — Do you know at what prices any of this land has 
 been bought or sold V 
 
 Ans. — I don't remember of any of it being sold. 
 
 
 A. 
 
,'alue 
 
 129 
 
 Int. 535. — What pai-t of these three square miles had ever 
 been cultivated by the Company ? 
 
 Ans. — Wherever you could get a plough into the land on 
 the plain, it had been cultivated. There was very little of 
 that claim that had not been ploughed up at some time or 
 other. 
 
 Int. 536. — Had a quarter part of this land ever been culti- 
 vated ? 
 
 Ans. — I should say about a half of it ? 
 
 Int. 537. — Why could not a plough be gotten into the re- 
 maining part of it ? 
 
 Ans. — A certain portion below the fort was timbered land, 
 and a certain portion of the land is subject to inundation iu 
 the summer months. 
 
 Int. 538. — Why do you estimate that the portion which 
 was timbered was worth $250 per acre ? 
 
 Ans. — The quantity of the land below the Fort included in 
 this valuation did not amount to much, but its value was 
 much enhanced by the manner in which it lay on the river, as 
 it never overflowed in the highest water, and was therefore 
 well suited for town property in the erection of buildings. 
 
 Int. 539. — How much did this timbered land " amount to ?" 
 
 Ans. — From a quarter to half a mile front, running back 
 probably about half a mile. 
 
 Int. 540. — Why do you estimate the lands that were subject 
 to overflow in the summer, and therefore not suited for town 
 lots, at $250 per acre ? 
 
 Ans. — The Fort Plain was more or less subject to overflow, 
 but not to a very serious extent. The plain itself was on a 
 high level, and the river had to be very high before there 
 was much of an overflow. Befory a person can judge with 
 respect to the land which may or may not be suitable for town 
 lots, my own experience is that it requires the land to be 
 laid out by a surveyor. I know the land well, and if the 
 money could not have been obtained for the lots subject to 
 overflow, it would simply havcenhanced.thc price of fsuch lots 
 as were free from such a drawback. But there are few townp 
 in that western country with which I am acquainted that are 
 9B 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 \\ 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 J 
 
 > 
 
130 
 
 not subject to overflow more or less, but more particularly the 
 city of Portland, at which certain portions of the town are 
 under water for longer or shorter periods of time annually. 
 But nobody supposes on that account that town property in 
 Portland is at all depreciated in value in consequence of such 
 flooding. 
 
 Int. 541. — Are, then, lots that are annually under the water 
 as valuable as those which are not ? 
 
 Ana. — It depends very much upon where the lots are. • This 
 annual flooding is of short duration^ 
 
 Int. 542. — How much of this tract is subject to overflow? 
 
 Ans. — I could not say from memory. 
 
 Int. 543. — Does it f .tend at least two miles along the river ? 
 
 Ants. — There ma;* be that length along the plain, but the 
 T'iiHh of it is limited. 
 
 / '■ 14. — What was the average width of this tract two 
 milfcr length? 
 
 Ann. — I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 545. — Have you not in substance stated that one-half 
 of these three square miles were either timbered or subject to 
 overflow ? 
 
 Ans. — I believe I did say so. 
 
 Int. 546. — Had the military reserve ever been laid out in 
 town lo^s by a surveyor ? 
 
 An9. — I was not at Fort Vancouver at the time, but I have 
 been told that the county commissioners of Clarke county dis- 
 posed of a number of town lots at Fort Vancouver, inside of 
 the reservation, as I have understood ; so that I should say, 
 from that, that the commissioners had laid out a town there. 
 
 Int. 547. — Did you ever see a plan of this reservation, as 
 laid out in town lots ? 
 
 Ans. — Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Int. 548. — Did you ever see a plan of the land above the 
 military reservation, as laid out in town lots'? 
 
 Ans. — Not that I remember of. 
 
 Int. 549. — Was the military reservation or the land above 
 it laid out in town iSts so that you could see them upon the 
 land ? 
 
181 
 
 Ana.—l^ot that I know of. 
 
 Int. 550. — Does your estimate of $250 per acre refer to the 
 value of these lands for agricultural purposes, or to their value 
 as town lots ? 
 
 Ana. — I am supposing the land turned into town property, 
 and the lots selling to bring that price, on the average, per 
 acre. 
 
 Int. 551. — In part answer to your interrogatory 540, you 
 have, in substance, stated that, from your experience, you 
 cannot judge of the value of land for town purposes until you 
 have seen it laid out by a surveyor ; will you now please state, 
 referring to your answers to the interrogatories since 547, 
 how you are able to estimate the value of these lands for town 
 purposes ? 
 
 Am. — In my reply to interrogatory 540, when referring 
 to a person who required the assistance of the surveyor to as- 
 certain the land that might be suitable or might not be suit- 
 able for town lots, I did not refer to myself, but to a person 
 or party who had nO knowledge or acquaintance with the lands 
 at Fort Vancouver. 
 
 Int. 552. — What particular knowledge have you that enables 
 you to value town lots before you have ever seen them laid 
 out? 
 
 Ana. — I knew the land well, and I saw how other towns 
 were built up, and what lots sold for. 
 
 Int. 553. — When did you first make this estimate of $250 
 per acre? 
 
 Ana. — Some time ago, no doubt. 
 
 Int. 554. — When did you cease to remember what town lots 
 were selling for ? 
 
 Ana. — I can hardly say. 
 
 Int. 555. — Do you distinctly remember that you remembered 
 what town lots were selling for, at any time when you gave 
 the valuation of $250 per acre to these lands ? 
 
 Ana. — I have no recollection about it. 
 
 Int. 556. — To what particular year does your valuation refer ? 
 
 Ana. — It refers to a period between 1846 and 1858. I have 
 reference to no particular year. 
 
 I? 
 
 n 
 
182 
 
 Int. 657.— Was it worth that in 1846 ? 
 
 -4n«.— It may have been worth it ; but as there was nobody 
 there, to my knowledge, to buy the land, I am unable to say. 
 
 Int. 558. — Is your ability to say what this land was worth 
 dependent on the fact whether there was any one there to buy 
 it or not? 
 
 Ans. — It is the only safe way to arrive at the saleable 
 value. 
 
 Int. 559. — How are you able to tell the value of this land 
 between the years 1847 and 1853, inclusive, wuv.^ ^ou were 
 not at Vancouver ? 
 
 An%. — I had no personal knowledge of it ; I had it on in- ' 
 formation from others. 
 
 Int. 560. — Were there persons there during that time who 
 would have bought this land for that price 1 
 
 Ans. — A great deal of wealth had flowed into the country, 
 and I have understood there would have been no trouble in 
 disposing of the land for the money in the manner stated. 
 
 Int. 561. — When was this land most valuable ? 
 
 Ans. — As far as my information went, this land waF proba- 
 bly most valuable from the year 1849 on until 1853 ; I do not 
 think it was so valuable from 1853 on to 1858. 
 
 Int. 562. — What was its value when you last saw it ? 
 
 Ans. — I don't think I know. 
 
 Int. 563. — At what latest time are you able to estimate its 
 value ? 
 
 Ans. — I could not estimate its value otherwise than in the 
 manner I have do"e in my direct-examination. 
 
 Int. 564. — What part of this land was cultivated in the 
 year 1846 ? 
 
 Ans. — About a couple of hundred acres. 
 
 Int. 565. — Had not the Company ceased to cultivate this 
 land because it was unprofitable to do so ? 
 
 An%. — Not that I am aware of. The back portion of the 
 plain, the elevated portion, was used almost entirely for the 
 pasturage of sheep, for which it was very suitable. The 
 plain itself had been ploughed and cultivated in all directions, 
 and the Company had sown the lands in all directions with 
 
 I \ 
 
 V 
 
188 
 
 timothy and clover seeds, which had come up well. The land 
 which was under cultivation, 200 acres, was under wheat or 
 other grain. But there was very little of this timothy or 
 clover under fence, it being used for pasturing horses and cat- 
 tle, so that the plain itself, at the period mentioned, must have 
 been, in my opinion, most productive. 
 
 Int. 566. — In your answer to interrogatory 5, of your di- 
 rect-examination, you say " I consider the land on the Lower 
 Plain, having frontage on the river for a distance of five miles, 
 or 8,200 acres, as worth $100 per acre." State on what knowl- 
 edge you made that estimate. 
 
 Ans. — It is an estimate made from my own knowledge of 
 the land. I consider that this land on the Lower Plain, for 
 agricultural purposes, cannot be surpassed. Like the land in 
 the neighborhood of Fort Vancouver, it had been thoroughly 
 seeded with timothy and clover, yielding annual ha -vests of 
 those grasses of great value to the parties who were in posses- 
 sion of the lands previous and up to 1858. With some of 
 those people I had much conversation as to the annual yield 
 of the lands occupied by them, which assisted me in arriving 
 at the estimate of their value given by me. 
 
 Examination Resumedf April 2. 
 
 f 
 
 i' 
 
 its 
 the 
 the 
 
 this 
 
 the 
 
 the 
 
 The 
 
 ions, 
 
 with 
 
 Int. 567. — When were these lands sown ? 
 
 Ana. — They must have been sown by the Company while 
 they were in possession of them. 
 
 Int. 568. — Do you know that they were sown previous to 
 1846? 
 
 Ans. — I believe they were. 
 
 Int. 569. — Why did the Company sow these lands ? 
 
 Ans. — I presume they sowed them with a view to improving 
 the pasturage. 
 
 J>'f. 570. — Did they ever cultivate them for the crops? 
 
 Ans. — There is no doubt they cultivated all over. I sup- 
 pose they had about three hundred acres under fence, sown 
 with wheat and other grains, in 1846. There were two dairy 
 establishments there, where a great many cows were milked, 
 
 I 
 
 F* 
 
 /V- 
 
 I \ 
 
 •^i 
 
 "m 
 
 .^.- 
 
184 
 
 using corrals and parks for that purpose, and for keeping the 
 cattle together. 
 
 Int. 571. — How much of this tract, fronting on the river, 
 was overflowed yearly ? 
 
 Ans. — In the summer months, in some years, there was a 
 good deal of it inundated ; in other years again, not so much. 
 
 Int. 572. — Was not half of it inundated some years ? 
 
 Ans. — There may have been in some years ; I never saW so 
 much as that. « 
 
 Int. 573. — Was timothy and clover sown in the land that 
 was annually inundated ? 
 
 An%. — I presume it had been sown all over. 
 
 Int. 574. — Do you know that it had been ? 
 
 Ana. — I do not know ; I presume it had. 
 
 Int. 5>lit. — Do you know that it was growing there ? 
 
 Ans. — I believe it was growing all over the bottom, on the 
 land that was and was not inundated. 
 
 Int. 576. — At what season of the year do they cut hay at 
 Vancouver ? 
 
 Am. — When I was there I cut it in June, some years, and 
 in July and August, in other years. 
 
 Int. 511. — What time do they sow grass seed there ? 
 
 Ans. — I never sowed any ; the grasses I had, clover and 
 timothy, grew every year from seeding, before my time. 
 
 Int. 578, — Did you ever cut any grass on the part of this 
 tract that was annually inundated ? 
 
 An8. — I never cut any grass on the Lower Plain. 
 
 Int. 579. — Did you ever see any timothy or clover growing 
 on the part which was annually inundated ? 
 
 Ans. — I have done so when it was not inundated. 
 
 Int. 580. — When and where did you see this clover grow- 
 ing? 
 
 Ans. — I may have seen it all over the plain, for what I 
 remember now, when it was not under water. 
 
 Int. 581. — What part of this tract was woodland ? 
 
 Ans. — There was a certain quantity of timber below the 
 fort to the commencement or upper end of the plain, pro- 
 bably half a mile or so. The Lower Plain then opened and 
 
185 
 
 stretched pretty nearly all the distance down the river, with 
 occasional belts of timber, and with a little timber on the 
 river bank. The back part of the plain had more or less tim- 
 ber on it ; not more, however, than would be suflBcient for 
 the use of the different farms, in the way of fencing, fire- 
 wood, &c. 
 
 Int. 582. — Is not at least one-fourth part of this tract cov- 
 ered with timber ? 
 
 An^s. — It may be, but my estimate would not be so great 
 as that. I would say from an eighth to a fourth. 
 
 Int. 583. — Is not a great portion of the tract covered with 
 lakes ? 
 
 Ans. — There are lakes a long way down ; but according to 
 my estimate, the land would be found there independent of 
 the lakes. 
 
 Int. 584. — Do you mean by your last answer to say that 
 the land you have estimated at ^100 per acre did not run 
 down to, nor back of the lakes ? 
 
 Ans. — It came round the Vancouver Lake, on the southern 
 and western shores, for half or two-thirds of its length. 
 
 Int. 585. — Why do you value the part that was annually 
 inundated at $100 per acre? 
 
 Ans. — To the parties who were in possession of those lands 
 the whole were equally valuable. Though subject to inunda- 
 tion, there were some years that it did not amount to much, and 
 hurt nothing, so that in that way good crops would occasion- 
 ally be obtained, making up the loss caused in other years. 
 These people also make no distinction between the value of 
 their lands subject to inundation, and those which are not, 
 looking upon them all as being equally useful. From my 
 knowledge of the lands, and the uses they can be pu+. to, in 
 this tract, I should make no distinction as to value botween 
 those portions subject to overflow and those that are not. 
 My estimate of the value of the lands is based on the annual 
 returns made to the parties in possession of them, from which 
 information I came to the conclusion that the land was worth 
 that money to a person with a clear title to deal with it as he 
 pleased. 
 
 I 
 
 
 ; 
 
 #,, -^».«,^. 
 
186 
 
 Int. 586. — Did you ever buy or sell any of these lands ? 
 
 An%. — No ; I think not. 
 
 Int. 587. — Do you know the price at which any of thein 
 were ever sold ? 
 
 Ana. — I have no such knowledge. 
 
 Int. 588. — Do you know what were the returns of the inun- 
 dated lands for any year ? 
 
 An%. — I can not say. 
 
 Int. 589. — Were not the waters of the Columbia at the time 
 of the annual flood very cold ? 
 
 Ans. — Yes ; they were, I believe. 
 
 Int. 590. — Is it not characteristic of the floods of the Co- 
 lumbia river that they leave no deposit behind ; or, if any, 
 only sand ? 
 
 Ans. — "Where I have noticed, I have no recollection of any 
 deposit being left, not even sand. 
 
 Int. 591. — For what reason did you value the woodland on 
 
 this tract at 
 
 per acre 
 
 Ans. — The woodland is of a fair quality, and I look upon 
 it as equally valuable with the open land, for the reason that 
 the timber is required in a variety of ways by parties having 
 claims on the plains, as without this woodland they would be 
 under the necessity of buying fire-wood, fencing, &c., which, 
 as I now estimate it, would be found on the respective claims 
 of each settler. 
 
 Int. 592. — Did you ever know any sales of this woodland ? 
 
 An». — I have heard of sales of woodland ; but I have for- 
 gotten really the details. 
 
 Int. 593. — Why do you value the rest of this tract at $100 
 per acre? 
 
 Ans. — From information T received from parties on the 
 land, I considered that its value. 
 
 Int. 594. — Do you know of the prices for which any of it 
 was sold ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not now remember. 
 
 Int. 595. — At what time do you estimate the whole tract, 
 embraced in your answer as quoted in cross-interrogatory 
 566, to have been worth $100 per acre ? 
 
187 
 
 Ans. — About the time I left Fort Vancouver, in 1858. 
 
 Int. 596. — Were they worth more at that time than now, or 
 at any time since or before ? 
 
 Ans. — I know nothing of their value since, and am not 
 aware that the land was worth more than $100 per acre pre- 
 vious to 1858. 
 
 Int. 697. — Are you aware that it was worth $25 per acre 
 at any time previous to 1858 ? 
 
 Ana. — I have no recollection of what it was worth previous 
 to 1858. 
 
 Int. 598. — Are you aware that it was worth more than $25 
 in 1858? 
 
 Ane. — According to my estimate, it was worth $100 in 1858. 
 
 Int. 599. — Please answer my last question directly, yes or no. 
 
 Ans. — Yes, I am ..ware of it. 
 
 Int. 600. — What particular recollection have you of the 
 value of this land in 1858 more than at any previous time?. 
 
 An8. — My recollection of it is this : that if anybody had 
 then offered me that tract of land with a clear title, I would 
 have given $30 an acre for it readily. 
 
 Mt. 601. — Did you ever try to buy any of this land? 
 
 An8. — Not that I remember of. 
 
 Int. 602. — Why would you have given $30 an acre for these 
 lands ? 
 
 Ans. — Because I thought I was getting them cheap. i ; 
 
 Int. 60S. — How much more would you have given ? 
 
 Ans. — That I can't say. 
 
 Int. 604. — Would you have given $35 an acre? 
 
 Ans. — That I don't know. 
 
 Int. 605. — Why don't you know whether you would have 
 given $35 an acre for land you estimate at the time was worth 
 $100 per acre? 
 
 Ans. — For the simple reason that, although I might have 
 been prepared to pay $30 an acre for land, it does not neces- 
 sarily follow that I would be disposed to pay any more for the 
 land, even allowing it was worth 'more than $100 per acr^'. 
 
 Int. 606. — Can't you answer the last question more aufi- 
 nitely ? 
 
 
188 
 
 Anj. — Not as I understand it. 
 
 Int. 607. — Why do you estimate the lands to have been 
 worth $100 per acre, when you don't know whether you would 
 have given $35 an acre for them ? 
 
 An8. — The basis on which I estimated the value I have al- 
 ready given. What I might be disposed to give for the lands 
 has nothing to do with that estimate. 
 
 Int. 608. — Had what you were disposed to give for the land, 
 anything to do with what they were worth ? 
 
 Ans. — It had, no doubt. 
 
 Int. 609. — Had what the lands were worth anything to do 
 with your estimate ? 
 
 Ans. — My estimate as to what the lands were worth was 
 their value to the Company — not to outside people — based on 
 the information I had of my own and from other parties. 
 
 /»/, ♦JIO. — Why was this land worth three times as much to 
 tlie Company as you would have been willing to give for it? 
 
 Ans. — The Company had many advartages over private in- 
 dividuals. They had plenty of means and resources, and 
 could turn their lands round, and work them to much more 
 advantage than private individuals could do. 
 
 Int. 611. — How much additional value would this give tc 
 the lan^ds in the Company's possession ? 
 
 Ans. — It gave almost everything to them. There are trac 
 of land of indifferent quality, which, in the Company's hands, 
 with the use of sheep and other manures, could be rendered 
 fertile and productive. With private individuals, who had not 
 the means to carry on this system of farming, land that was 
 originally indifferent would keep getting poorer. 
 
 Int. 612. — Does the last answer refer to the tract of land 
 you now estimate to have been worth $100 to the Company^ 
 for the Company's purpo?es ? ' 
 
 Ans. — That tract of land, in many places, had been ren- 
 dered fertile and productive by the Company. A year or two 
 after the treaty of 1846 this land was occupied by squatters, 
 who from that time on reaped the benefit of the Company's 
 labors and outlay. 
 
 Int. 613. — Have your various estimates of the value of this 
 
 h 
 ii 
 
 a 
 d 
 
 e 
 
 1 
 
189 
 
 land at $100 per acre all had reference to what it wub worth 
 in 1858 to the Company, for the Company's uses ? 
 
 Ans. — The Company, in '•858, was not in the occupation of 
 any of this land, it being then in possession of squatters, or 
 donation claimants ; but my estimate of $100 per acre was 
 what I considered it was worth to the Company at that date, 
 even though the squatters had possession of it. 
 
 Int. 614. — Why do you recollect what it was worth to the 
 Company in 1858, when the Company had not been in possess- 
 ion of it for ten years, better than at any previous time "i 
 
 Ana. — That is my recollection of it. 
 
 Int. 615. — What would this land have been worth to a pri- 
 vate individual with a clear title, to deal with it as he pleased? 
 
 Ana. — That I hardly know. 
 
 Int. 616. — Would it have been worth $20 per acre ? 
 
 Ana. — I do not know what it would have been worth ; it de- 
 pended entirely on what people thought of it. 
 
 Int. 617.— What do you think of it ? 
 
 Ans. — I think a good deal of it. 
 
 Int. 618. — Do you think this land was worth $20 an acre 
 to a person with a clear title, to do with it as he pleased ? 
 
 Ana. — I think so. 
 
 Int. 619. — Do you think it was worth $30 an acre ? 
 
 Ana. — I do. 
 
 Int. 620. — Do you think it was worth $35 an acre ' 
 
 Ana. — I think it was. I think it was worth $40 an acre. 
 
 Int. 621. — Do you think it was worth $45 an acre ? 
 
 Ana. — Yes. 
 
 Int. 622. — Do you think it was worth any more? 
 
 Ana. — Yes, I think it was worth more than that, even. 
 
 Int. 623. — How much more ? 
 
 Ans. — I hardly know how much more ; something between 
 that and a hundred dollars. 
 
 Int. 624. — Was it worth more than $65 ? 
 
 Ana. — I don't know that to a private individual it was worth 
 more than that. 
 
 Int. 625. — Why were these lands worth $65 an acre to a 
 
 !■ > 
 
140 
 
 private in dividual, when you don't know that you would have 
 given $35 for them ? 
 
 Ans. — What I would have done was no rule in the matter. 
 Thp parties whom I knew on the land, and were making money 
 out of it, were those who were best acquainted with its value, 
 and prepared to pay the highest price for it. - 
 
 Examination Resumed^ April 3. ! "> 
 
 Int. 626. — Did you ever know any of this land to be sold 
 as high as $20 per acre ? 
 
 Ans. — There were sales of some of the land, but I cannot 
 tell what the lands sold for. 
 
 Int. 627. — Why did you estimate these lands to be worth 
 $100 per acre to a private citizen, in your answ ^r to interrog- 
 atory 585, when you now say that they were worth only 
 $100 to the Company, and about $65 to a private individual, 
 while you do not know that you would give $35 for them ? 
 
 Ans. — In my reply to interrogt.tory 585, I referred to 
 a party who had capital like the Company, to tuvn these lands 
 to advantage, and to whom they would be of the value of 
 $100 per acre. On the other hand, in referring to a private 
 individual, where the land niight be worth $65 an acre, I meant 
 a party who had not the means to turn the land to advantage, 
 and to whon of course, it would be of less value. With 
 respect to wht 1 1 was disposed to offer for the land myself, I 
 don't see that that affects the value at all. 
 
 Int. 628. — What capital was needed to turn these lands to 
 advantage ? 
 
 Ans. — I could not say. 
 
 Int. 629. — How must capital be expended before this land 
 could be turned to advantage ? 
 
 Ans. — That I could not say. 
 
 Int. 630. — What was this land worth to the Company in 
 1846? 
 
 Ans. — It was worth a great deal of money to the Company 
 in 1846, but I cannot say how much. 
 
 Int. 631. — What better knowledge have you of its value to 
 
 . y 
 
 .,^^«*.,,OT*<■^^,. 
 
 , ■") 
 
141 
 
 and 
 
 the Company in 1858, when the Company ha:l not hcon in 
 possession of it for ten years, than in 1846, when the Com- 
 pany was still in possession of it ? 
 
 Ans. — I knew that the Company were in podseBHJoii of the 
 Innds in 1846, and I made an estimate of their vitlije in 1868, 
 which I did not do in 1846. 
 
 Int. 632. — Are you not as able to make an eHtimato of the 
 value of the lands to the Company in 1846 as of th© huildings? 
 Ans. — I am unable to give an estimate of the value of the 
 lands used by the Company in 1846, at Fort Varufonvcr and 
 its neighborhood, in detached pieces. I can only deal with 
 such lands as a whole. The entire quantity of tho land thus 
 used, I estimate to have been about 160,000 acrcH, and of the 
 average value of from $2 50 to $3 per acre. 
 
 Int. 633. — In part answer to interrogatory 5, o^' tho di- 
 direct-examination, you say "going above the Fort Plain, and 
 so on to the commencement of the claim, two miloK above tho 
 saw-mill on the Columbia river, say a distance of mx or Bcvon 
 miles, and back three miles, or about 13,500 acres, Hhould be 
 worth from $10 to $15 per acre." What was thiK land worth 
 in 1858 ? 
 
 Ans. — That was my estimate of its value in 1858. ^ 
 Int. 634. — To whom was it worth this ? 
 Ans. — My particular estimate of value referred to tho Com- 
 pany. I have no recollection of hearing of any Htihrn of the 
 land. 
 
 Inf. 635. — Why was it worth this amount to tho Company 
 in 1858 ? 
 
 Ans. — The Company, of course, had their enoloKTiro8 on the 
 Mill Plain farm. They had also the grint-mill at work. The 
 saw-mill was there also, but not ruTiiiing in 1H5H. I looked 
 upon this amount, of from $10 to $15 an acre, an tlu( value of 
 the land. 
 
 Int. 636. — Was not at least three-fourth'' >f this land tim- 
 ber-land ? 
 
 Ans. — There was a great deal of timbc- [ hardly know to 
 what»exteiit ; but I do not cons^idcr that a drawback to tho 
 land there, as the woods are rapidly disappearing, and the par- 
 
 
 . /. 
 
142 
 
 ties settled on these lands require all the wood they have got 
 for their own consumption in a variety of ways. 
 
 Int. 637. — Do you mean that this land in 1858 would have 
 been worth $10 per acre to the Company, for the Company's 
 uses? 
 
 Ans. — This land in 1846 was used and occupied by the 
 Company ; but previous to 1858 pretty much the whole of it 
 had been taken possession of by squatters or donation claim- 
 ants, so that at that period there was nothing left for the Com- 
 pany to use, with the exception of the land enclosed on the 
 Mill Plain Farm, with the grist and saw-mills. Under these 
 circumstances, so far as the use of land was concerned, it was 
 of little or no value to the Company in 1858. Had the Com- 
 pany had entire control of the land, to use it as they pleased, 
 I should think $10 per acre would be a low value for such use 
 or purpose. 
 
 Int. 638. — What was this land worth in 1858 to a private 
 individual? ' ' * 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say what value the settlers or farmers on 
 these lands placed upon them in 1858. 
 
 Int. 639. — What part of this land was then in cultivation ? 
 
 Ans. — I scarcely know myself. Around all the settlers' 
 houses on the river-front tnere was more or less land under 
 cultivation. In like manner the settlers back on the Mill 
 Plain had generally a good deal of land under cultivation ; 
 so that altogether there must have been a considerable area 
 of land used in this tract for agricultural purposes, that is, 
 between what was actually cultivated and what was used for 
 the pasturage of horses and other stock. 
 
 Int. 640. — In part answer to interrogatory 5 of your di- 
 rect examination, you say "the remainder of the claim is 
 worth from $1 50 to $3 per acre." When was it worth that, 
 and to whom was it worth it ? 
 
 Ans. — I refer to the year 1858, I believe, and that would 
 have been its value to the Company, if the Company had been 
 in possession of it then. 
 
 Int. 641. — Was not all this tract timber-laud, and ^veral 
 miles from the water? 
 
 
ftjcveral 
 
 148 
 
 Ans. — It could not be all timber-land, because, according 
 to my estimate, the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Plains 
 were included in this tract. Of course, as compared to the 
 whole, the plain country is a small proportion of these lands. 
 The line behind Fort Vancouver would come within nearly a 
 mile of the river, and the line would go down the river some 
 distance, at a like parallel. After that, the line of this tract 
 would be at a distance of some miles from the river. 
 
 Int. 642. — Did you ever know of any sales that had been 
 made of parts of this land ? . 
 
 Ans, — I do not remember of any. 
 
 Int. 643. — Did the Company make any use of it, except of 
 those parts which were riot timbered ? 
 
 Ans. — Previous to 1846, they had horses and cattle pastur- 
 ing in the woods, and everywhere else, where they could get 
 grass. In 1858, when I was at Vancouver, I don't think they 
 used any of it in any way. 
 
 Int. 644. — Do you know that the Company used a hundredth 
 part of this timbered land for pasturage ? 
 
 Ans. — Of ray own knowledge, I can't say how much they 
 used. To the best of my knowledge and belief, they used the 
 whole of it for pasturage and other purposes. 
 
 l7it. 645. — Was not nearly all of this tract outside of the 
 limit put to the Company's claim by Mr. Ballenden? 
 
 Ans. — Without knowing more of what Mr. Ballenden did 
 in the matter than I do now, I am qii'te unable to answer the 
 question. 
 
 Int. 646. — What do you know of what Mr. Ballonden did 
 in the matter ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not recollect now, what Mr. Ballenden did, ex- 
 cept that when in charge of Fort Vancouver he had some 
 communication with the Surveyor General of Oregon Terri- 
 tory, regarding the company's lands at Fort Vancouver, the 
 substance of which has escaped my memory. 
 
 Int. 647. — Look at this letter, marked D, which is to be nr- 
 nexed to your deposition, and say whether it is a correct copy 
 of a letter you wrote and sent to that James Tilton, Sur- 
 veyor General of Washington Territory, May 9, 1865 ? 
 
 ■ 
 
 . 
 
 .lJ 
 
(If 
 
 144 
 
 (The introduction of the letter spoken of objected to as 
 incompetent.) 
 
 Ans. — I believe it is a true copy, so far as I remember. 
 
 Int. 648. — From what record did you make this extract 
 from Mr. Ballenden's letter ? 
 
 An». — I suppose it must have been from some copy of Mr. 
 Ballenden's letter to Mr. Preston. 
 
 Int. 649. — Was it the custom of the oflBcers of the Co n-' 
 pany to keep copies of their official letters at Vancouver ? 
 
 Ans. — It was the custom. 
 
 Int. 650. — In what shape were these copies kept ? 
 
 Ans. — As far as I remember, they were kept in books. 
 
 Int. 651. — Were copies of the official letters sent to them 
 preserved in books at Vancouver ? 
 
 Ans. — I think not ; the letters themselves were kept ; that 
 was all. 
 
 Int. 652. — Were these copies and letters left at Vancouver 
 when the officer was transferred to another place, or left the 
 Company's service ? 
 
 Ans. — That is as it might be. Some letters he might leave, 
 and some he might take with him. 
 
 Int. 653. — Are not many of these letter-books and letters 
 now at 'Victoria? 
 
 Ana. — Probably they are. I can't say so from my own 
 knowledge. . , 
 
 Examination Resumed, April 4. 
 
 Int. 654. — Did you, at the time you wrote the letter re- 
 ferred to in "interrogatory 647," know the claim or claiirs 
 to land on the Columbia river, near Vancouver, made by the 
 Hudson's Bay Company ? 
 
 Ans. — I was not aware what the claim was. 
 
 Int. 655. — Were you not then in charge of the Company's 
 post at Vancouver? , \ 
 
 Ans. — I believe I was. 
 
 Int. 656. — Was not Mr. Ogden at that time dead ? 
 
 Ans. — He was. 
 
 1 
 
145 
 
 as 
 
 bCt 
 
 Ir. 
 
 em 
 
 hat 
 
 ver 
 the 
 
 ive, 
 
 ters 
 
 >wn 
 
 re- 
 the 
 
 ^r^ 
 
 Int. 657. — When did you first know what lands the Com- 
 pany claimed at Vancouver? 
 
 An8. — I don't think I ever knew the claim there. 
 . Int. 658. — Did you not, at or about the time of your writ- 
 ing this letter to Mr. Tilton, write to the oflBcers of Company 
 at London, in regard to the matter of their claim ? 
 
 Ana. — I believe I did so. 
 
 Int. 659. — Did they not reply to you in regard to their 
 claim ? 
 ^ Am. — I believe they did. 
 
 Int. 660. — Did you write to them more than once in regard 
 to the matter? 
 
 Ans. — I may have done so. I do not remember now. 
 
 Int. 661. — Have you not received from them at that time, 
 and at other times, various communications in regard to this 
 claim ? 
 
 Ans. — I may have done so. 
 
 Int. 662. — Are not copies of your letters to them and their 
 replies on this matter probably with other letters at Victoria? 
 
 Aus. — They may be there, but I have no knowledge of them 
 myself, it is so long since I have seen them. 
 
 Jnt. 663. — Did the officers at London never put a particu- 
 ular limit to their claim at Vancouver in these letters to you? 
 
 Ans. — I have no recollection of their having done so. 
 
 Int. 664. — Do you now know what lands the Company 
 claimed at Vancouver? 
 
 Ans. — Referring to the lands in the occupation of the Com- 
 pany prior to and in the year 1846, at Fort Vancouver and its 
 neighborhood, I do not know what the Company actually 
 claimed then. 
 
 Int. 665. — When did you first know what lands the Com- 
 pany now claim at Vancouver? 
 
 Ans. — I don't know now what the Company's actual land 
 claim there is. 
 
 Int. 666. — Under what circumstances did Mr. Ballonden 
 write the letter quoted in your letter to Mr. Tilton ? 
 
 Ans. — I have no recollection about it. 
 
 Int. 667. — At the time you wrote your letter to Mr. Tilton, 
 10 B 
 
 i Mi 
 \ I I 
 
146 
 
 Sit* 
 
 did you know of any other limit to the Company's claim than 
 that given by Mr. Ballenden in 1862 ? 
 
 (Objected to by Mr. Lander, as argumentative and assuming 
 what has not been stated in evidence.) 
 
 Ans. — According to my idea of the claim, it was something 
 very different from the lines given by Mr. Ballenden. 
 
 Int. 668. — Will you answer the last question directly ? 
 
 Ans. — Before answering the question more fully, I should 
 like to see Mr. Ballenden's letter, without, which I cannot say 
 whether he put limits to the claim or not. * 
 
 Int. 669. — Will you answer the following question directly : 
 Did you ever know any officer of the Company to put any 
 limits to the Company's claim other than those contained in 
 the letter of Mr. Ballenden ? 
 
 Ans. — I did myself; Sir James Douglas also. There may 
 be others who did so, but I do not remember about them now. 
 
 Int. 670. — Did either you or Sir James Douglas have any 
 authority to put limits to the Company's claim ? 
 
 Aps. — Sir James Douglas had authority, no doubt, to put 
 limits to the Company's land claim, in 1846, for the reason 
 that he was then in charge of the Company's business there 
 as chief factor. He had, moreover, been attached to that es- 
 tablishment for many years previously, also, as a factor, in 
 connection with the late Dr. McLaughlin, now deceased. For 
 myself, I had no authority from the Company to put a limit 
 to the land claim. 
 
 I)it. 671. — Do you know that Sir James Douglas, in 1846, 
 had autliority from the Company to put a limit to their claim 
 at Vancouver? 
 
 Afis. — I believe that Sir James Douglas had authority to 
 do so. 
 
 InL 072.— Did he do so? v / 
 
 Ans. — I believe he did so. 
 
 Int. 073. — Why did he do so at that time ? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 074. — In your answers to various questions you have 
 said "I believe that," &c. ; do you mean by this expression 
 that you know, or that you only think that, &c. ? 
 
L846, 
 claim 
 
 have 
 bssion 
 
 147 
 
 Ans. — Referring to my reply to "interrogatory 6Y2," I 
 mean that Sir James Douglas did so, to the best of my know- 
 ledge and belief. 
 
 Int. 675. — State all that you know about Sir James Doug- 
 las making a limit to the Company's claim in 1846. 
 
 Ans. — I know very little about it myself; probably I was 
 told of it by Mr. Ogden. I could not say what limit he made. 
 I have some idea of it ; I could not say exactly what it was ; 
 I do not know to whom he made it, or why he made it. I 
 knew that he was in charge of the business, and presume that 
 he had authority. 
 
 Int. 676. — Did you know what his limit was when you wrote 
 your letter to Mr. Tilton ? 
 
 Ans. — What knowledge I had of it I was possessed of at 
 that time. 
 
 Int. 677. — -Did it embrace more or less than the limit, as 
 given by Mr. Ballenden ? 
 
 (The portion of the question referring to the limit set by 
 Mr. Ballenden objected to by Mr. Landor, as assuming what 
 is not in evidence.) 
 
 An%. — I am so uncertain as to what Mr. Ballenden's limits 
 were, that I cannot draw any comparison between the two. ' 
 
 Int. 678. — Can't you understand what Mr. Ballenden's lim- 
 its were, as quoted by you in your letter to Mr. Tilton ? 
 
 Ans. — Writing to Mr. Tilton on the 9th of May, 1855, in 
 reply to a communication from him, who was then Surveyor 
 General of Washington Territory, I find that I called his at- 
 tention to an extract from a letter of the late Mr. Ballenden, 
 of 30th July, 1852, to the then Surveyor General of the Ter- 
 ritory of Oregon, and in which Mr. Ballenden requests that 
 within certain lines or limits that no surveys be made or claims 
 granted without the approbation of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany. The lines and limits, as given in the copy of my letter 
 to Mr. Tilton, are those of the late Mr. Ballenden, and not 
 mine ; so that I really do not know how they run, or what ex- 
 tent of land they enclose. 
 
 Int. 679. — Is your knowledge of the country so slight that, 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 . 4r*^ ■ 
 
148 
 
 on reading the limit given by Mr. Ballenden, you cannot tell 
 how the lines run, or what extent of land they enclose ? 
 
 Ans. — I have a certain knowledge of that country, but I 
 have no knowledge of surveying, and as I read the lines and 
 limits in the quotation from the late Mr. Ballenden 's letter, I 
 shouiu say that it would require a surveyor of some ability ' 
 to follow those lines and calculate the area of land enclosed 
 by them. 
 
 Int. 680. — Did you not know, when you wrote the letter to 
 Mr. Tilton, and don't you know now about how these lines 
 run, and how much land they enclose? 
 
 Ans. — On receiving the letter from Mr. Tilton, to which 
 mine of tbe 9th of May, 1855, was in reply, I was informed 
 that the late Mr. Ballenden had been in communication 
 with the then Surveyor General of Oregon Territory, and 
 found that the late Mr. Ballenden had written, on the 30th of 
 July, 1852, to Surveyor General Preston, and among other 
 matters had requested Mr. Preston not to survey or make 
 claims within certain limits then detailed. In writing to Sur- 
 veyor General Tilton, on the 9th of May, 1855, nearly three 
 years after the date of Mr. Ballenden's letter, and as the 
 Surveyor General's office for Washington Territory was then 
 first established at Olympia, having previous to that period 
 been at Salem, in Oregon, I deemed it my duty, as a matter 
 that was already on record, to send him, as I did in the letter 
 mentioned, the extract from Mr. Ballenden's letter of July 
 30, 1852, to Mr. Preston, requesting, as Mr. Ballenden had 
 done, that as surveys be made, or claims granted within the 
 limits mentioned, I have had nothing more to do with those 
 lines or limits since, and I have no knowledge, or a very im- 
 perfect one, as to how the lines run, or the quantity of land 
 bounded by them. I knew nothing more then than now as to 
 how the lines run and the quantity of land they included. 
 
 Int. 681. — Have you not been engaged in answering and 
 considering how you should answer the interrogatories since 
 ''654" for at least three and a half hours, the usual time 
 occupied by your examination each day, while there has been 
 but little delay in preparing the questions for you ? 
 
 7TTir:''7^'''ZZ''Z 
 
149 
 
 (The counsel asked the last question in order that he may 
 show as well as he can the hesitancy of the witness, which he 
 considers to have been unusual, and even on this day than on 
 previous days. Any such interpolation protested against, 
 and the fact stated not admitted.) 
 
 Ana. — The sort of work I had to do has taken time. I had 
 to have reference to letters and copies of letters, which have 
 taken up much time. I have not stopped to smoke or to eat, 
 or to gad about. I have all the time been in the room, and 
 however long I may have been in niaking my answers, I have 
 certainly been fully occupied the whole time I have been in 
 the room, whether three and a half or four hours ; I don't 
 know how long it has been. 
 
 Examination Resumed^ April 5. 
 
 Int. 682. — When you wrote your letter to Mr. Tilton, did 
 you not know more about the Company's claim at Vancouver 
 than you know now ? 
 
 Ans. — I did not then know the exact quantity of land 
 claimed by the Company about Fort Vancouver, nor do I 
 know now ; otherwise, I am not aware that I knew more of 
 the claim than I do now. 
 
 Int. 683. — When did you set limits to the Company's claim, 
 when in your answer to interrogatory 670, you say " you had 
 no authority?" 
 
 Ans. — My own idea of the limits is of a very old date ; I 
 set limits as far back as 1846. 
 
 Int. 684. — Have you any records of the limits you put to 
 the Company's claim in 1846 ? 
 
 Ans. — I don't know that I have anything of that kind. If 
 I have such, it would be of a private nature, and I don't know 
 now where I would look for it. I have no recollection of 
 making any limits after 1846. 
 
 Int. 685. — Had Mr. Ballendeu any authority to fix limits to 
 the Company's claim ? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say whether he had or not. 
 
 '1 
 
 
-■ iij-.jMmiw".'*-. 
 
 150 
 
 Int. 686. — Were not the limits he set afterwards approved 
 by the officers of the Hudson's Bay Company at London ? 
 
 Ana. — I hardly know whether they were approved of or 
 not. 
 
 Int. 687. — Did you not, when you found Mr. Ballenden's 
 letter on file at Vancouver, find letters approving of his 
 course from the officers at London ? 
 
 Ans. — I never found such letters. 
 , Int. 688. — Where were the assistants of Mr. Tilton survey- 
 ing at the time you wrote this letter to him ? 
 
 Ans. — I don't remember. 
 
 Int. 689. — Besides the limits of Sir James Douglas, Mr. 
 Ballenden, and yourself, has any officer of the Company, 
 whom you knew had authority to do so, ever defined the limits 
 of the Company's claim at Vancouver ? 
 
 Ans. — I have no personal knowledge of such myself, as far 
 as I remember. 
 
 Int. 690. — Is not all your knowledge of Sir James Douglas's 
 limits derived from what you think Mr. Ogden told you ? 
 
 Ana. — That is my recollection. 
 
 Int. 691. — Was not Mr. Ogden dead when you wrote the 
 letter to, Mr. Tilton? 
 
 Ans. — I believe he was. 
 
 Int. 692. — Why did you not in the letter set forth the limits 
 you thought Mr. Ogden told you had been put to the Com- 
 pany's claim by Sir James Douglas, whom you presumed had 
 authority to do so ? 
 
 Ans. — I had no authority from the Company in London to 
 define the limits of the claim at Vancouver. I sent Mr. 
 Ballenden's limit in as a matter of necessity, for the simple 
 reason that, nearly three years previously, Mr. Ballenden 
 had requested that no surveys should be made within certain 
 limits. Had I written to the Surveyor General of Washing- 
 ton Territory to alter the lines and limits given by Mr. Bal- 
 lenden, up to which surveys had already been made, it would 
 have been too late for that officer to pay any attention to my 
 wishes. 
 
 Int. 693. — Did you not understand that Mr. Tilton requested 
 
 
 :'U. 
 
161 
 
 of jon that a. map or authoritative statement of the claim or 
 claims to land of the Hudson's Bay Company on the Columbia 
 river near Fort Vancouver should be handed to him? 
 
 Ans. — Judging from the copy of my letter of 9th of May, 
 1855, and already referred to, I should say that such a request 
 was made by Mr. Tilton. 
 
 Int. 694. — Why, then, did you not give him an " authoritative 
 statement of the claim," as you understood it to have been 
 made by Sir James Douglas ? 
 
 Ana. — I had no authority to do so from the Company in 
 London. 
 
 Int. 695. — Why did you give him the "statement of the 
 claim" as made by Mr. Ballenden? 
 
 ^w«.— The late Mr. Ballenden's letter of 80th of July, 1852, 
 to Mr. Preston, was then on file at the Surveyor General's 
 office at Salem, in Oregon. In writing to Mr. Tilton, in reply 
 to his communication, I sent the extract from Mr. Ballenden's 
 letter, and the following is quoted from the copy of my letter 
 of 9th of May, 1855, to Mr. Tilton: "I take the liberty of 
 calling your attention to the following extract ♦ * from 
 Chief Factor Ballenden's letter of 30th of July, 1852, to Sur- 
 veyor General Preston, of Oregon Territory, and I have to 
 request that no surveys be made or claims granted within the 
 limits stated by Mr. Ballenden. The reasons for sending the 
 extract from Mr. Ballenden's letter are given in the above 
 quotation." 
 
 Int. 696. — Why did you request that no surveys be made 
 or claims granted within the limits stated by Mr. Ballenden, 
 and not within the limits given by Sir James Douglas? 
 
 Ana. — I had no choice in the matter. Mr. Ballenden's lines 
 and limits had been acted on by the Surveyor General of 
 Oregon for nearly three years, when it would have been too 
 late for me to have altered them. When I wrote to Mr. Tilton 
 I had, however, no authority from the Company to give any 
 lines or limits to their claim, and of which I informed Mr. 
 Tilton. 
 
 Int. 697. — Did you know at the time you wrote to Mr. Til- 
 ton whether the limits as given by Mr. Ballenden were made 
 
 
 ■ -i 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 i I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -, ■■■" 
 
 '*.¥Vv;i''itf"^<i«»» *-5aw^**»»-«<»«'«-«-fc^--*t,-«-— .t^v^M^^.^^ 
 
152 
 
 by authority, or had been approved by the ofRcers of the Com- 
 pany at London? 
 
 Ana. — I dill not know, when I wrote Mr. Tilton, whether 
 the Company had authorized Mr. Ballenden to fix limits to 
 the Company's claim, nor whether the officers (jf the Company 
 in London had approved of the limits arranged by him. 
 
 Int. 698. — Why, then, did you set forth what to you was an. 
 unauthorized claim, rather than the limits of Sir James Doug- 
 las, which you presumed to have been authorized? 
 
 An». — I cannot see from the copy of my letter to Mr. Til- 
 ton of 9th of May, 1855, that I set forth any claims either 
 authorized or unauthorized. I simply asked Mr. Tilton, so 
 far as I understand the letter, not to make surveys or grant 
 claims within certain limits as stated by the late Mr. Ballen- 
 den. 
 
 Int. 699. — Why did you request Mr. Tilton not to make 
 surveys or grant claims within certain limits, as stated by the 
 late Mr. Ballenden, and which to you were unauthorized, 
 rather than within certain limits which you thought had been 
 made by Sir James Douglas with authority ? 
 
 Am. — I have not said anywhere that the acts of the late 
 Mr. Ballenden were unauthorized. I have said, however, 
 somewhere, that without his letter to Surveyor General Pres- 
 ton, I could not say what he had done with regard to the Com- 
 pany's lands at Vancouver. I am unable to give any other 
 reason for the limits given to Mr. Tilton, in my letter to him 
 of 9th of May, 1855, than those already stated, namely : that 
 too long a period had elapsed since Mr. Ballenden had written 
 to Mr. Preston, in July, 1852 ; and moreover, that I had no 
 authority from the Company to give limits or lines of any 
 kind to their claim. 
 
 Examination Resumed, April 6. 
 
 Int. 700. — How much land is claimed by the Company at 
 their post at the mouth of the Cowlitz river ? 
 
 An8. — I do not know what quantity of land the Company 
 claims there. 
 
158 
 
 Int. 701. — Do you know how much they used there ? 
 
 Ana. — So far as I know, it must have been a small quantity 
 of land. 
 
 Int. 702. — What was its value in 1846, and now ? 
 
 Ana. — I could not say. 
 
 Int. 703. — Were not the Company's buildings at the Cow- 
 litz sold by you to a Mr. Huntington, in the spring of 1857 'i 
 
 Ans. — I believe they were sold by me to him, for the reason 
 that the freshets in the Cowlitz river had washed away the 
 ground from under one of them, and the other would soon be 
 in the same condition ; I considered them untenable. 
 
 Int. 704. — How much land does the Company claim at Fort 
 George ? 
 
 Ans. — Two acres, I think. 
 
 Int. 705. — To whom do you estimate this land to have been 
 worth $500, in 1846 ? 
 
 Ans. — My estimate of its value refers of course to the Com- 
 pany. 
 
 Int. 706. — What was it worth to any one else ? 
 
 Ans. — I could not say what it was worth to anybody else ; 
 there was no party down there to buy such property. 
 
 Int. 707. — Was not this site always looked upon as United 
 States property; and as such, given up to Major Hathe- 
 way ? 
 
 Ans. — I know nothing about it myself; I was not aware of 
 that. 
 
 Int. 708. — What was the cost of the buildings at Astoria ? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say what they cost. 
 
 Int. 709. — Why do you estimate the value of the buildings 
 in 1846 at $4,000 'i 
 
 Ans. — That is my estimate of the value to the Company. 
 
 Int. 710. — What were they worth to private individuals in 
 1846? 
 
 Ans. — I had no means of ascertaining their saleable value 
 in 1846. 
 
 Int. 711. — Has your estimate anything to do with their cost? 
 
 Ans. — My estimate refers to their value to the business, and 
 not to their cost. 
 
 i 
 
 *}. 
 
 I 
 
 .mi^^ 
 
^™.. 
 
 154 
 
 Int. 712. — To whom were they worth more than $4,000, 
 when they were turned over to Major Hatheway ? 
 
 Ans. — I should think to almost anybody then, for this rea- 
 son : I believe I have seen a lette'* Trom the late Major Hath- 
 eway, dated some time in tbe voar 1850, to the late Mr. Ogden, 
 requesting that the Compf.iy's buildings at Astoria might be 
 turned over to him for t'le use of his command. At that date, 
 lumber was very hign priced in Oregon, and the wages of 
 tradesmen were at extreme rates, so that, at that time, four or 
 five thousand dollars would not go very far in building houses. 
 For this reason, I consider these buildings that the Company 
 had at Astoria to be worth more in 1850 to anybody than they 
 were to the Company in 1846. 
 
 Int. 713. — Have you Major Hatheway 's letter, which you 
 believe you saAv, or a copy of it? 
 
 Ans. — My impression is, that the letter in question is already 
 in evidence in this case by the Company. I have no copy 
 of it. ' . 
 
 Int. 714. — Would it have cost more to have erected build- 
 ings in Washington Territory about the year 1850 than at any 
 previous time? 
 
 Ans. — That I do not know about ; but there was no ques- 
 tion but that lumber and mechanics' wages were extremely 
 high that year. I do not know much about the cost. 
 
 Int. 715. — In 1850, were not the Indians in tlie neighbor- 
 hood of Fort George nearly extinct, and had not the fur trade 
 entirely ceased to be prohtable at that post ? 
 
 Ans. — I was not in the country then, and cannot say whether 
 the trade at the post was profitable or not. With respect to 
 the Indians, there were never, in my time, many at the post 
 itself, or in its neighborhood ; but still the trade carried on 
 with them was always more or less profitable. 
 
 Int. 716. — Do you not know as much about the value of the 
 Company's trade in 1850 as you do about the value of build- 
 ings at that time? 
 
 Ans. — I know nothing of the vali.e of the trade in 1850. 
 My estimate of the value of the buildings that year is based 
 
155 
 
 on the information I had with respect to the price of lumber 
 and the wages of the tradesmen. 
 
 Int. 717. — Do you not know or believe that E'ort George 
 had been virtually abandoned by the Company in lH/50? 
 
 Ans. — I have no knowledge or belief about it, I Maw tlnB 
 letter fvom Major Hatheway, from which I infi-rrfd that the 
 place was turned over to him, at his request. 
 
 Int. 718. — Had not Mr. Birnie left, and had not Mr. Lattic, 
 who had remained tor a time in charge, been drowned the year 
 before ? 
 
 Ans. — To the best of my recollection, Mr. Birnie left the 
 service of the Company in the spring of 1846, and Mr. Lattie 
 also, some time in the summer of that year. 
 
 Int. 719. — Who was in charge of Fort Ger>rge in ISriO? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say. When I left the Columbia river, in 
 January, 1847, Mr. Charles Forrest, now deceased, had charge 
 of the place. That is the last I know of it. 
 
 Int. 720. — Were not the buildings at Astoria noon pulhd 
 down by the troops, ac utterly worthless? 
 
 Anfi. — I have no knowledge of what the troopH did with the 
 buildings. 
 
 Int. 721. — ^When did you last see the buildingM? 
 
 Ans. — So far as I remember, in January, 1847. 
 
 Int. 722. — When did you sail up the river again? 
 
 Ans. — In September, 1853. 
 
 Int. 723. — Do you know that these buildingn were ever 
 used after 1850? 
 
 Ans. — I have no knowledge about it at all. 
 
 Int. 724. — Was the Company ever disturbed in its occupn- 
 » on of its post at the mouth of the Cowlitz river exeept by 
 the water which washed away the bluff on which their build- 
 ings stood? 
 
 Ans. — I am not aware of the Company being dixturbed in 
 the occupation of the post at the mouth of the Cowlitz, except 
 as stated in the question. 
 
 Int. 725. — Where was the fishing station at Chinook or 
 Pillar Rock? 
 
 Ans. — It was 20 or 25 miles above Fort George, on the 
 
156 
 
 ^ 
 
 right bank of the Columbia, on the main shore, close to a well- 
 known rock there, called Pillar |lock, which stands out in the 
 river alone. 
 
 Int. 726. — What lands do the Company claim there? 
 
 An%. — I do not know. 
 
 Int. 727. — What lands did they use there ? ' 
 
 Ana. — I do not know. •., 
 
 Int. 728. — What buildings did they have there? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know. 
 
 Int. 729. — When did the Company cease to occupy this fish- 
 ing post? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know. 
 
 Int. 730. — Were the Company ever disturbed in the occu- 
 pation of this post? 
 
 An%. — Not that I know of. 
 
 Int. 731. — Do you know that they ever used it after 1847 ? 
 
 An%. — I really cannot say. I left the river that year, and 
 I have no farther knowledge of it. 
 
 Int. 732. — How much land do the Company claim at Cape 
 Disappointment? 
 
 Ans. — I believe the Company claim there 640 acres." 
 
 Int. 733. — State all the knowledge you have in regard to 
 this daim. 
 
 Ans. — I was down at the Cape in 1842, in the autumn, and 
 the next time was in January, 1846. I was then on board 
 of a ship on my way to California. The ship was detained in 
 Baker's Bay for something like six weeks, before we got to 
 sea, during which period I was a good deal on shore and picked 
 up some knowledge of the locality. At this time the Company 
 had a place there in charge of a man of the name of Kipling. 
 Some time in the commencement of February, the late Mr. 
 Lewes, with a party of hands, came there from Fort Vancouver 
 to survey the claim. And from him I had the information as to 
 its extent. I returned to the river in the month of July, 1846, 
 and found a party of people putting up a large building on 
 the land at the Cape, which, on inquiry, I found a man by the 
 name of Spence, now deceased, was putting up for the Com- 
 pany, under a contract that he had made, some time previously. 
 
 
 *•<<«#/•••%' kr »H- 
 
 -^..«-^ <>■< 
 
 .'VlK' 
 
i' 
 
 
 157 ^ 
 
 to that eflFect, with the Company. When I left the river, in 
 January, 1847, I was detained in Baker's Bay several days. 
 Spence had by this time got the large building well advanced 
 outwardly, but not much done with the inside of it. Mr. 
 Kipling had a comfortable house, in which he was living, not 
 far from this building. He had also a small piece of land in 
 cultivation back of his house, on which he had raised potatoes 
 and other vegetables, the previous summer. There was nothing 
 doing there by the Company in 1842, that I remember of. 
 
 Int. 734. — Did the Company do anything there before 1846'!' 
 
 Arts. — I am unable to say. I found Mr. Kipling there in 
 January, 1846; he must have been there some months pre- 
 viously. 
 
 Int. 735. — What buildings were there in January, 1846 ? 
 
 Arts. — They did not amount to much — a sort of log-cabin. 
 
 Int. 736. — At what time was this contract made with Mr. 
 Spence ? 
 
 Arts. — It must have been some time previous to when I saw 
 him at the Cape. I can't say exactly as to the date. 
 
 Int. 737. — Did you ever see the contract ? 
 
 Ans. — I have no recollection of having done so. 
 
 Int. 738.— What did he contract to build ? 
 
 Ans. — I could'not say ; a large building. 
 
 Int. 739. — Did he build anything else? 
 
 Ans. — I can't say whether he did or not. 
 
 Int. 740. — What was the contract price ? 
 
 Ans. — I have forgotten ; it was a considerable sum, though. 
 
 Int. 741. — Did the Company ever pay him ? 
 
 Ans. — I presume they did. 
 
 Int. 742. — Should not the books show when they paid him, 
 and how much they paid him ? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say what the books show, as I have no recol- 
 lection of having seen the entries ; but I suppose that a record 
 of such payments has been kept. 
 
 Int. 743. — Did the Company ever erect any other building 
 there than this ? 
 
 Ans. — I don't rememoer of any. 
 
 Int. 744. — About how large was this building V 
 
 i 
 
158 
 
 ' 
 
 Ans. — I could not give the size of it now. My recollection 
 of it, however, was that it was large and substantial. 
 
 Int. 745. — What do you mean by large ? 
 
 Am. — It would be a good-sized building anywhere. 
 
 Int. 746. — How large a building is "a good-sized building 
 anywhere?" 
 
 Ans. — Well, I suppose this building was about 60 feet in 
 length by 40 in breadth. It was a story and a half high. 
 
 Int. 747. — Why did the Company erect such a large build- 
 ing, in 1846, at Cape Disappointment? 
 
 Ana. — That I do not know. 
 
 Int. 748. — What did they ever use this building for? 
 
 An9. — I can't say; I presume it was occupied by the people 
 down there for trading and traflScking in. 
 
 Int. 749. — How long did the Company occupy it ? 
 
 Ans. — I hardly know myself. 
 
 Int. 750.— Did they occupy it in 1854? 
 
 Ana. — Yes ; I believe Mr. Kipling was down there in 1854 ? 
 
 Int. 751. — Was Mr. Kipling at that time an employe of the 
 Company? 
 
 Ans. — Yes ; he was employed by the Company. 
 
 Int. 752. — What were his duties, and where was he stationed? 
 
 An». — He was down there at this place, tile Cape, trading. 
 
 Int. 753. — What was the amount of furs procured at Cape 
 Disappointment each year? 
 
 Ans. — I could not say without looking at the books. 
 
 Int. 754. — When did you know that this building was last 
 used by the Company ? 
 
 Ans. — Up to 1858 was the last I know of it. ' 
 
 Int. 755. — Have you seen this building since 1854? 
 
 Ay^s. — I am not very sure that I have. / 
 
 Int. 756. — Did the Company use any land at Cape Disap- 
 pointment previous to 1846 ? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say that they did so. 
 
 Int. 757.— Did the Company ever use ten acres of land at 
 Cape Disappointment ? ., 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say what they did in this respect. 
 
 Int. 758. — Have you ever been there since 1847 ? 
 
 r-y T '" *M '> n »"*' ' '— w *" '* " ^<^^* iiii n wiwii I 
 
169 
 
 tion 
 
 ling 
 t in 
 likl- 
 
 jple 
 
 Ana. — I was down there once; I hardly recollect when. It 
 was some time after 1854. 
 
 Int. 759. — How much did they use then ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know what they used then. 
 
 Int. 760. — Do you know whether the building was standing 
 then? 
 
 Ans. — I believe it was standing then; I saw it from a 
 distance. 
 
 Int. 761. — Were the Hudson's Bay Company ever interfered 
 with in the use of this building? 
 
 An8. — Not that I know of. 
 
 Int. 762. — Were they ever interfered with in the use of any 
 land they had ever used at Cape Disappointment ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know that they were. „, 
 
 54? 
 
 the \ 
 
 ed? 
 Sng. 
 ape 
 
 last 
 
 ap- 
 
 at 
 
 Examination Resumed, April Sth. 
 
 Int. <63. — What is the character of the land at Cape Dis- 
 appointment? 
 
 Ans. — The land — what was level of it — was timbered. The 
 remainder of it was rocky and precipitous. 
 
 Int. 764. — Will you locate, as exactly as you can, the build- 
 ing you have described as situated at Cape Disappointment? 
 
 Ans. — All I can say is it was in Baker's Bay, some little 
 distance from the inner end of the Cape. 
 
 Int. 765. — Did the Company ever keep any cattle there? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know. i 
 
 Int. 766. — Did they ever make any roads there? 
 
 Ans. — There was a road from Baker's Bay up to the top of 
 the Cape, but who made it I do not know. 
 
 Int. 767. — Was this road not there in 1842, when you were 
 there ? 
 
 Ans. — It may have been there, but I do not remember. 
 
 Itit. 768. — Did the Company ever carry on any agricultural 
 operations at Cape Disappointment? 
 
 -4w8.— iVot that I know of. 
 
 Int. 769. — Where were the furs obtained that were bought 
 by Mr. Kipling? , 
 
 
 \ 
 
160 
 
 Ans. — Plenty of furs came from Shoal Water Bay. The 
 Clatsop Indians also brought furs there. There was quite a 
 fur country north of Cape Disappointment, on the shore line 
 — celebrated, in fact, for sea otters particularly. 
 
 Int. 770. — What oflSce did Mr. Lewes hold in the Company 
 when you saw him there ? 
 
 Ans. — At the time I refer to Mr. Lewes was not in the Com- 
 pany's service, having left it about a year previously. 
 
 Int. 771. — How do you know that the Company's claim at 
 Umpqua is a mile square in extent? 
 
 Ana. — That is my recollection of it. I think I have seen 
 the notes, or something, of a survey of it. 
 
 Int. 772. — Was this survey made before 1846 ? 
 
 Ans. — I could not give the date of the survey, but I think 
 the notes I saw were of a later date than that. 
 
 Int. 773. — Who had authority to determine the Company's 
 claim there after 1846 ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know. 
 
 Int. 774. — Was it ever determined before 1846 ? 
 
 Ans. — I suppose it was. 
 
 Int. 775. — Why, then, was this survey made after 1846 ? 
 
 Ans. — That I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 776. —Do you know that the Company used this square 
 mile at Umpqua — so much and no more ? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say what the Company did in that respect. 
 
 Int. 777. — When was the fort at Umpqua burned down? 
 
 Ans. — I do not remember. I was not in the country when it 
 was burned down. 
 
 Int.'llS. — Did the Company ever rebuild it? 
 
 Ans. — Not that I know of. 
 
 Int. 779.— Why didn't they rebuild it? , 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say? 
 
 Int. 780. — When did they first lease their claim ? 
 
 Ans, — When I returned to the country, in September, 1853; 
 it was then leased to Mr. Chapman. 
 
 Int. 781. — When did the Company cease to lease it? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know; so far as I remember, it remained 
 leased up to 1858, when I left Vancouver. 
 
 a 
 
 i] 
 
 r( 
 
 tl 
 
 fo 
 
 ex 
 
 th 
 
 CI 
 
 po< 
 
 to 
 the 
 
161 
 
 Int. 782. — At what rent was it leased? 
 
 Arts. — I really don't remember. 
 
 Int. 783. — Will not the Company's books show ? 
 
 An%. — There must be a record of the lease somewhere. 
 
 Int. 784. — Was the post occupied by the Company at the 
 time it was burned? 
 
 Ans. — So far as I know, it was. 
 
 Int. 785. — Will the books kept at Vancouver show the 
 annual returns from this post iip to the time it was burned? 
 
 An%. — I suppose they will, though I do not know anything 
 about it myself. The books of the post may have been burnt 
 in the fire for all that I know. 
 
 Int. 786. — Was not this post a distance of 20 or 30 miles 
 from the road from Oregon to California. 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say what distance it was from the direct 
 road; I do not know. 
 
 Int. 787. — How many employes did the Company keep at 
 the post? 
 
 Ans. — I have forgotten now. 
 
 Int. 788. — Did the Company raise any produce at the post 
 for sale ? 
 
 Ans. — As far as I know, they had always farm produce in 
 excess of what was required for the wants of the post. 
 
 Int. 789. — Has the Company ever been interfered with in 
 the occupation of their claim at Umpqua? 
 
 Ans. — Not that I know of. 
 
 Int. 790. — How many buildings did the Company have at 
 Champoeg, in 1846? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say. 
 
 /n<. 791. — Did they have any? 
 
 Ans. — They had buildings there. 
 , 7n<. 792.— Did they build any after 1846? 
 
 Ans. — Not that I know of. 
 
 Int. 793. — Were not all the Company's buildings at Cham- 
 poeg washed away by a high flood *of the Willamette river? 
 
 Ans. — I have heard something about it, but I have not been 
 to Champoeg for many years, so that I do not know whether 
 they were all washed off or not. 
 11 B 
 
 \ 
 
 1 
 
 ^i 
 
 .90^-' 
 
162 
 
 Int. 794. — How much land did the Company have enclosed 
 there ? 
 
 An$. — I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 796. — What was it worth ? 
 
 An». — I do not know. 
 
 Int. 796. — Was it not swept away by the flood? 
 
 Ant. — Not that I know of. 
 
 Int. 797. — Did the Company ever purchase any town-lots 
 of American settlers at Champoeg? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot be very positive about it. The impression 
 on my mind is that the Company did buy some land or lots 
 from a settler or settlers there. 
 
 Int. 798. — Had the Company's officers authority to buy land 
 for the Company? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know whether they had authority or not. 
 
 Int. 799. — Did you ever consider that you had any such 
 authority, while at Vancouver? 
 
 Ans. — I do not remember that the question of buying lands, 
 for the Company ever arose while I was at Vancouver. 
 
 Int. 800. — Did you ever have authority to sell lands for the 
 Company? 
 
 Ans. — Not that I remember of. 
 
 Int. 801. — Must not these lands at Champoeg, if bought at 
 all for the Company, have been bought after 1846, and for 
 other purposes than for the use of the Company's business? 
 
 Ann. — The lands or lots at Champoeg were bought previous 
 to 1846, for the reason that the settlers in Willamette valley 
 were indebted to the Company for advances made them, for 
 which they had agreed to pay in wheat. The object of having 
 these lands and the buildings there was because Champoeg was 
 a shipping point on the Willamette river, from whence the 
 wheat collected from the settlers was sent down to Fort Van- 
 couver in boats. 
 
 Int. 802. — Have the Company ever been interfered with 
 in the occupation of their land at Champoeg ? 
 
 Ans. — Not that I know of. 
 
 Int. 808.— When was Fort Walla Walla built? 
 
 Ans. — I really do not know. 
 
163 
 
 A 
 
 a 
 
 Int. 804. — Was it not built by the Northwest Company pre- 
 vious to 1818 ? 
 
 Ans. — The Northwest Company first built thero in 1818. 
 
 Int. 805. — Did the Hudson's Bay Company ever erect any 
 buildings there? 
 
 Ans. — So far as I recollect, the Company must have built 
 there, because the place had been burned down. 
 
 Int. 806. — Do you know that the Company ever built any- 
 thing there after 1839 ? 
 
 Ans. — Yes; I know it in this way; that I was at Fort Walla- 
 Walla in 1839 and 1840, and again in 1844, and there was 
 quite a different establishment therein 1844 to what there had 
 been in 1839 and 1840. 
 
 Int. 807. — Do you know what the buildings at this post 
 cost? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know. 
 
 Int. 808. — Did you ever estimate the cost of the Company's 
 buildings at Forts George, Pillar Rock, Umpqua, and Walla- 
 Walla? 
 
 Ans. — Not that I know of. 
 
 Int. 809. — From whence did the Company's counsel arrive 
 at the cost of these posts? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 810. — Could they have had any other authority than 
 the books (>f the Company? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know that the books of the Company had 
 anything to do with it. I presume they had other authority. 
 
 Int. 811. — What do you presume it was? 
 
 Ans. — It is a general idea on my part, presuming that they 
 had other authority. 
 
 Int. 812. — What is your general idea that it was? 
 
 Ans. — They may have had notes, &c. 
 
 Int. 813. — Where could they have got these notes, &c. 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 814. — Was any oflicer of the Company able to give such 
 to them better than you ? 
 
 Ans. — It is likely enough, though I cannot say with whom, 
 they had communication. 
 
 i „i 
 
 ' 
 
 i 
 
164 
 
 Int. 815. — How much land did the Company claim at Walla- 
 Walla ? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 816. — Was not the land about Walla- Walla generally 
 very poor and sandy ? \ 
 
 Ans. — That is my recollection of it. 
 
 Int. 817. — Did the Company over have any definite claim 
 there other than the land actually enclosed? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know what they claimed there. 
 
 Int. 818. — How much land did they have enclosed? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 819. — Do you know that they had a j much as ten acres ? 
 
 Ans. — I know nothing about it. 
 
 Int. 820. — What was the enclosed land worth per acre to 
 the Company in 1846 ? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 821. — How extensive a tract of land "surrounding the 
 fort " would have been worth $10,000 to the Company in 1846? 
 
 Ans. — I am unable to say. 
 
 Int. 822. — How much was paid for Fort Hall, in 1846 or 
 1847, when, as you say, in your answer to interrogatory 8 
 of the direct examination, it was purchased of an American 
 trading company ? 
 
 Ans. — I was not in the country at the time, and, if I ever 
 knew, have forgotten how much was paid for the establishment. 
 The American company, who built the place, traded and traf- 
 ficked there until they had lost more money than they could 
 afford, and made up their minds to leave. They made an offer 
 of the post, with some goods which they had on hand, to the 
 Hudson's Bay Company, at a certain figure, which was agreed 
 upon. But it does not follow that the sum paid by the Com- 
 pany for the fort repaid the original proprietors what it cost 
 to build it, nor would be anything like the value of the fort. 
 Had that company of traders been carrying on a profitable 
 business, the chances are they would not have sold the place 
 at all. 
 
 Int. 823. — Will not the Company's books show what the fort 
 cost? 
 
165 
 
 fort 
 
 Ans. — They may do so ; I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 824. — Do you know how much land was enclosed and 
 cultivated there, or occupied for pasturage ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know ; I have no knowledge on these points. 
 
 Int. 825. — Do you know how much the Company claimed 
 there ? 
 
 Ans. —I do not know. 
 
 Int. 826. — Do you know how much the post at Boise cost 
 the Company? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know what it cost to build the place. 
 
 Int. 827. — As this place was built by the Company about 
 the year 1835, will not the books of the Company show what 
 money was spent there that year ? '' 
 
 Ans. — The general accounts of the Company will not show 
 it. The profits of the post at Boise for that year would be, 
 of course, affected by this outlay. 
 
 Int. 828. — Do you know how much land the Company 
 claimed or claim about Boise ? 
 
 Ana. — I do not. 
 
 Int. 829. — Do you know how much they used and occupied? 
 
 Ans. — I do not. 
 
 Int. 830. — Was not Fort Okanagan one of the ] jsts which 
 was transferred to tho- Hudson's Bay Company by the North- 
 west Company, for which no money was paid ? 
 
 Ans. — It was one of those establishments that came into 
 the business that way ; but when I first saw Okanagan, in 
 1839, the fort was a new one, the old establishment having 
 served its time. 
 
 Int. 831. — When was it rebuilt ? 
 
 Ans. — Probably about 1839. 
 
 Int. 832. — Will not the Company's books show the cost of 
 this building in the same way that you say they will show the 
 cost of Fort Boise ? 
 
 Ans. — The general accounts of -the Company will not show 
 it ; but the profits and loss account of the post at Okanagan 
 will be affected by the outlay. 
 
 Int. 833. — How much land does the Company claim there. ? 
 Ans. — I do not know. 
 
 : i' 
 
166 
 
 Int. 834. — How much was used, occupied, and cultivated by 
 the Company ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know. 
 
 Int. 835. — What was land that could bo cultivated there 
 worth per acre in 1846 ? \ 
 
 Ans. — I could not say. 
 
 Int. 836.— What is it worth now ? * -. 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 837. — IIow many buildings were at the fort when you 
 were there last? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say ; it was a fort enclosed witl» pickets. 
 
 Int. 838. — Has the Company ever been disturbed in their 
 occupation of Okanagan ? 
 
 An». — Not that I know of. 
 
 Int. 839. — How far distant from this post'is the nearest set- 
 tlement ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know of any settlement within a considera- 
 ble distance. 
 
 Examination Resumed, April 9th. 
 
 Int, 840. — When did the Company cease to occupy Okan- 
 agan ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know. 
 . Int. 841. — Did the Company occupy it in 1854? 
 
 Ans. — I believe so. 
 • Int. 842. — Why did they cease to occupy it? 
 
 Ans. — Up to the time I left Fort Vancouver, in 1858, the 
 place was occupied. I have little or no knowledge of what 
 took place at the post since. 
 
 Int. 843. — How many men did the Company employ at the 
 post in 1858, or at any other time ? 
 
 Ans. — I could not say now. 
 
 Int. 844. — Where were the returns of Fort Okanagan made 
 up to 1858, or were there returns? 
 
 Ans. — Between the years of 1839 and 1846, Fort Okana- 
 gan was a post in what was known as the Thomson river 
 district, and the returns were made to Fort Vancouver. When 
 
 U 
 
167 
 
 ir 
 
 t- 
 
 a- 
 
 in- 
 
 he 
 
 at 
 
 he 
 
 de 
 
 la- 
 rer 
 en 
 
 I returned to Fort Vancouver, in 18/58, Fort Okunagan was a 
 post in the district of Colvile, and continued so until 1858, 
 when I left. The accounts of the post would be included with 
 the accounts of Fort CoW ilc. During the years of 1856, 1857, 
 and 1858, the furs from Okanagan, with those of Kootaiiay, 
 Flat-Heads and Fort Colvile, were taken out overland to Fra- 
 zer river, at Fort Hope, and thence sent on to Fort Victo- 
 ria, on Vancouver's Island. 
 
 Int. 845. — How were the supplies sent to these posts during 
 the same years? 
 
 Arts. — I sent two boat loads of goods up to Fort Colvile in 
 the summer of 1856, from Fort Vancouver. But the bulk of 
 the supplies for that year, as also for the following ones of 
 1857 and 1858, wore sent in to Fort Colvile from Victoria, 
 Vancouver Island, by the way of Fort Hope, on Frazer's 
 river, and from Colvile were distributed to the other posts. 
 
 Int. 846. — Is Fort Okanagan still in possession of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company? 
 
 Ana. — I cannot say of my own knowledge whether it is or 
 not. 
 
 Int. 847.— Has Fort Colvile been rebuilt since 1825? 
 
 Ans. — Yes, I should say it had been. 
 
 Int. 848.— When ? 
 
 An8. — That I do not know. My visits to Colvile generally 
 were up to the year 1845, and then again in the autumn of 
 1861, at which time the establishment was quite dififerent to 
 what it was at my previous visits there. 
 
 Int. 849. — What was the value of the post, including land 
 and buildings, in 1846? 
 
 Ans. — I could not say. 
 
 Int. 850.— What was its value in 1861 ? 
 
 Ana. — I could not say. 
 
 Int. 851. — What was the cost of the buildings there in 1846 
 and 1861? 
 
 Ana. — I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 852. — How much land was cultivated there in 1846 or 
 in 1861 ? 
 
 Ana. — I cannot say. 
 
168 
 
 Int. 853. — How much was used and occupied for pasturage 
 in 1846 or 1861? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know. 
 
 Int. 854. — State all you know about the extent and value 
 of the White Mv'' farm, with its buildings. 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say what he extent of the White Mud farm 
 was, nor do I know the value of the buildings there. 
 
 Int. 855. — Have the Company ever been disturbed in the 
 occupation of their post at Colvile? 
 
 Ans. — Not that I know of. 
 
 Int. 856. — Have the Company any distinct land claim 
 there ? 
 
 Ans. — I supposf thpy have; but I have no knowledge of its 
 extent. 
 
 Int. 857. — How near is thr post to any settlements? 
 
 Ans. — When I was there, in the autumn of 1861, there was 
 quite a settlement in the Colvile valley, which commenced less 
 than three miles from the fort. This settlement ran back for 
 a considerable distance, and about twenty miles from Colvile 
 there was a fort garrisoned by United States troops, under 
 the command of Major Iiugenbeel, then of the 9th infantry. 
 In the neighborhood of the garrison I think there was a sort 
 of town' known as Pinkneyville. At that time, on the Columbia 
 river itself, there was much excitement about gold on the upper 
 waters of the river, and a great many miners were passing up 
 the river from Colvile. 
 
 Int. 858. — Was the Company's post at Colvile worth more 
 to thorn in 1846 or in 1861 ? 
 
 Ans. — I really could not say. 
 
 Int. 859. — What made it more valuable in i846 than in 
 1861? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know that it was more valuable then than in 
 1861. 
 
 Int. 860. — What made it more valuable in 1861 than in 
 1846? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know that it was more valuable then. 
 
 Int. 861. — Have you ever been at Kootanay or the Flat- 
 Heads ? 
 
169 
 
 Ans. — I have never been at either place. 
 
 Int. 862. — Do you know what the cost of tho Company's 
 buildings at those places wa», or when thuy wore bnilt, or 
 what they were worth in 1846, or what thc;y arc worth now, 
 or how much land the Company claimed or occupied there in 
 1846, or claim there now ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know when the buildings at Kootanny and 
 the Flat-Heads were erected, nor what they co»t ; neither do 
 I know their value in 1846, or at the present moment ; neither 
 do I know the extent of land claimed at those posts, either 
 in 1846 nor just now. 
 
 Int. 863. — Have th*^ Comp ii'v I'ver been disturbed in ihe 
 occupation of these posts ? 
 
 Ans. — Not that I know of. 
 
 Int. 864. — Do the Company still occupy these posts? 
 
 Ans. — The post at tlio Flat-Heads is occupied ; I do not 
 know whether that at Kootanay is or not. 
 
 Int. 865. — Did you ever give an estirnute to the routiscl of 
 the Hudson's Bay Company in this case of tlie <!Ost iiiid value, 
 or of either the cost or value, of tlie (Jompany's post at Fort 
 George, Chinook, Umpqua, Walla-Walla, IJoisfe, Colvile, and 
 Kootanay ? 
 
 Ans. — Not that I remember of. 
 
 Int. 866. — Can you give such an estimate now? 
 
 Ans. — I could not. 
 
 Int. 867. — Do you, as agent of the Hudson's l»!iy Com- 
 pany in this case, or in any other capacity, k^ow from what 
 sources counsel of that Company arrived at the cost and value 
 of thi pof s enumerated in the last question, which cost and 
 valuy they have set forth in their memorial ? 
 
 Ans. — I really cannot say how they arrived at it. 
 
 Int. 868. — Do you know of any sources from which they 
 could ariive at the cost of these posts, other than from the 
 books of the Company ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not remember the books of the ('ompany at all 
 in the matter, and the books would not show the cost, I do 
 not know what sources thev drew their information from. I 
 
 11 
 

 170 
 
 recollect, also, that they had notes and memoranda; where 
 they came from I never asked. 
 
 Int. 869. — Did not you yourBelf furnish them with notes 
 and memoranda? 
 
 Ans. — Not on these points, certainly. 
 
 Int. 870. — On what points did you furnish them? 
 
 Ans. — I have really forgotten now ; something about Fort 
 Vancouver, I think. 
 
 Int. 871. — Will you now state, as exactly as you can, what 
 bookp of the Company, and what accounts kept by the Com- 
 pany will show, directly or indirectly, the cost of the buildings 
 at the Company's posts? 
 
 Ans. — At this distance of time, I really do not remember 
 what the books were. As I understand it, the general accounts 
 do not show such details. As to the other books, Avhich I have 
 referred to in my testimony as being formerly at Fort Van- 
 couver, showing such disbursements, it is so long since I have 
 seen them that I scarcely remember anything about them, 
 except that there were such books at one time ; therefore I 
 cannot give any details about them. 
 
 Ini. 872. — State exactly what you mean by general ac- 
 counts. 
 
 Ans.^—T\\e general accounts were those which were kept in 
 accordance with the regulations of the Company, in order to 
 .arrive at the result of the trade in the country each year, 
 copies of which were sent to York Factory or to London. 
 Everything was detailed in the general accounts in accord- 
 ance with the regulations of the Company. The details formed 
 quite a lot of books, copies of which were sent away every 
 year. 
 
 Int. 873. — Did the profit and loss of'-ount form a part of 
 this general account ? 
 
 Ans. — So far as I remember, there was a general profit 
 and loss account each year, as well as one of each district or 
 post, as the case might be, which formed part of the general 
 accounts. If I recollect right, there was a book called the 
 account current book, in which were entered the accounts of 
 each post or district, showing the result of the business for 
 
 h hmt'i kJ'-' 
 
 
 i[ nil .i li i iW W 
 
'^m 
 
 171 
 
 the year at each, with the profit and loss account, which 
 showed the result on the trade for the year, according as the 
 Company's books were kept. There wag generally a book for 
 this purpose each year ; but I have some recollection of a 
 book in which, for two or three years in succession, the 
 accounts current were kept or entered. 
 
 Int. 874. — Will these books show the amount of furs taken 
 or bought by the Company at their various posts, ai.d their 
 value ? 
 
 Arts. — My recollection is that the books show such entries 
 in detail. 
 
 Int. 875. — Did not the number of furs taken at various 
 posts diminish after the year 1846? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know that they did so immediately, but they 
 eventually Jind gradually did so. 
 
 Int. 876. — Has not the price of the various furs, partic- 
 ularly of beaver, very much diminished since 1846, and even 
 before ? 
 
 Ans. — My recollection is, that beaver fell very much in 
 price about that time, and continued very low ; but J. now con- 
 sider it to be on the rise again, as of late years it has been 
 selling wholesale at from ^2 to ^3 a skin, according to size. 
 Beaver, in 1840 and 1841, was worth ^8 a skin. With respect 
 to the other kinds of furs, whatever their value may have been 
 in 1846, they are all very high priced now, although I cannot 
 give quotations. 
 
 Int. 877. — Wao not the country south of 49° peculiarly a 
 beaver country ? 
 
 Ans. — Yes ; I should say so. It was a good country for 
 land otters, also beai's ; and, so far as I recollect, there was 
 quite a variety of other furs, which always sold well. 
 
 Inf. 87M. — Had not, previous to the treaty of 1846, the In- 
 dian population of the Lower Columbi.i been swept away by 
 epidenii-? disease, and had not the Indian population of other 
 parts of the country south of 49° sensibly diminished? 
 
 Ans. — I ha;ve no personal knowledge of such details. At 
 Fort Vancouver, where I was principally resiling, I did not 
 perceive any falling off of the nu^aber of Indians between 
 
 ) i 
 
 '!'..*! 
 
 i-\ 
 
 t 
 
 ^ J 
 
172 
 
 1839 and 1846. Lower down, towards the mouth of the river, 
 whatever decrease had iaken nlacy among them must have 
 happened lonjT before ray time, as I never saw many Indians 
 in that locality. With respect to the Indians of the interior 
 of the Columbia, I never heard of any mortality amongst 
 them, neither do I think there was any falling off in their 
 number, up to 184C, more than what could have been expected 
 among such a population. 
 
 Examination Resumed, April 10. 
 
 Int. 879. — Prior to the order of Gov. Stevens, issued about 
 the 1st of Ja.nuary, 1854, did not the Hudson's Bay Company 
 have the same opportunities for trade with the Indians south 
 of the forty-ninth parallel, and east of the Cascade Moun- 
 tains, as in 1846? 
 
 Ans. — They may have had, but there was more or less in- 
 terference with their trade with the Indians previous to 1854. 
 Thus, j-tfter the war with the Indians, who murdered the late 
 Dr. Whitman and destroyed his mission at Waiilatpu, trade 
 in the neighborhood of Walla-Walla was pretty much at a 
 f,tand-still for a long period afterwards. In like manner the 
 order to Dr. Dart from Washington was known in the coun- 
 try. I do not now remember of any other interference with 
 the Company's trade with the Indians, to the date of Governor 
 Stevens' order. 
 
 Int. 880. — Had not the fur trade with these Ind ans ceased 
 to be profitable in 1854 ? 
 
 Ans. — I hardly remember; I have not the books here. 
 Certainly, at some places it was profitable. I could not say 
 more without seeing the books. 
 
 Int. 881. — Had not the Company, before 1854, begun to 
 transfer the principal seat of their business from Vancouver 
 to Victoria ? 
 
 Ans. — I believe they had. 
 
 Int. 882. — When did the Company first explore the cmiuiry 
 north of the 49th parallel to find a route from Vancouver 
 Island and the lower Eraser river into the interior ? 
 
 
 ... Mm -A' **:^ .v.* >Mkv (Itk- 
 
 'j^'Uim^-ii^ r-* ) t m ^ <»*' 
 
173 
 
 Ans. — I scarcely remember ; I think I must have been at 
 the Sandwich Islands when I first heard of this, probably 
 some time in the year 1847. 
 
 Int. 883. — In what year did the Company abandon the Co- 
 lumbia river as a means of communication? 
 
 Ana. — With respect to the Company posts and establish- 
 ments north of the 49th parallel, and now in British Columbia, 
 I am unable to say in what year the Company stopped sending 
 in supplies for their trade by the way of the Columbia river, 
 as I was then at the Sandwich Islands. When I returned to 
 Fort Vancouver, in the autumn of 1853, the Company made 
 use of the Columbia river for the supply of their posts south 
 of the 49th parallel, in the interior of the country. This 
 finally ceased, as far as I know, in 18oG, in consequence of 
 the war then going on among the Indians. I did not consider 
 the route safe for life or property, and therefore had recourse 
 to Fort Victoria, as a depot for the supply of the posts still 
 left to the Company, as already stated in my testimony. 
 
 Int. 884. — Was the Columbia river ever again used as a 
 means of communication with the Compaiiy's posts south of 
 the 49th parallel ? 
 
 An8. — I left Fort Vancouver in 1858, and am unable to say 
 whether the Company made use of it or not, after that year. 
 Int. 885. — Had the Company ever been deprived of, ^r 
 abridged in the use of, the portages of the Coluniltia river ? 
 Ans. — Not that I remember of. 
 Int. 880. — Are they not free to the Company now ? 
 Ans. — I really do not know whether they are or not. 
 Int. 887. — lias the Company ever used or attempted to use 
 the Columbia river above Fort Vancouver for any purposes 
 since 1854? 
 
 Ans. — 1 sent boats up there in 185G myself. 
 Int. 888. — Do you know that the Compiuiy sent any other 
 boats up the river, or used it in any otlior Avay, or attempted ti) 
 use it ill any other way after 1'854? 
 Ans. — I do not now remember. 
 Int. 889. — Dill not the Company, subsetiuent to 1853, erect 
 
 I 
 
 ;^ 
 
T 
 
 'I 
 
 i! 
 
 174 
 
 a new post on the Columbia river, just above the forty-ninth 
 parallel, called Fort Shepherd ? 
 
 (Objected to by Mr. Lander, for irrelevancy.) 
 
 Aiis. — I believe the Company did so. 
 
 Int. 890. — Were yoa ever at the post, and when? 
 
 Ans. — I was at the post in the autumn of 1861. 
 
 Int. 891. — What was its cost ? 
 
 Ana. — I do not know its cost or value. 
 
 Int. 892. — Were not the Company's buildings at this post 
 better than those at Col vile? 
 
 Ans. — The/ may be ; I do not know that they are. y 
 
 Int. 893.— ■^llave the Company ever used Fort Shepherd a^ 
 a trading-post: . / 
 
 Ans. — There Avas somebody in charge of it when I/was 
 there ; what was doing there I do not remember ; some nfiiners 
 were about tiiere. 
 
 Int. 894. — Wi s there more than one man there, in tne Com- 
 pany's service, in 1801, Avhen jou were thefe? 
 
 Ajis. — I do not know; I never inquired ; there were people 
 about; wliethor they were in the Company's .service I do not 
 know. 
 
 Int. !^9r). — Why was this post not used as a trading-post for 
 furs with th" I.idians? 
 
 Ann. — I do T'ot know, that they did not trade with the 
 Indians at Fort Shopliord. I saw no Indians there while I 
 was tliorr. I was tluTo brt a short time. 
 
 Int. H\H). — Toll all you know about the value of Fort Lang- 
 ley, a |H)st north of the forty-ninth parallel, in itself and as a 
 trading-post V 
 
 Ann. — My own personal knowledge is something very lim- 
 ited indoetl. I was tluM'e some time in the autumn of 1801, for 
 about a couple of days. It rained so heavily wliile I was 
 there, 1 scarcely ever got out, so that I scarcely remember 
 what the place looks like, either inside or out, except that it 
 had pickets round it. I know nothing of the value of the 
 binMinus, hut i believe tho trade with the Indians is consider- 
 able, *lihough I really know but little about it. The gentlc- 
 
 \i 
 
175 
 
 man in charge was Mr. Newton ; I do not remember whether 
 he had an assistant or not. 
 
 Int. 897. — Had not the trade of nearly all the Company's 
 posts in British Columbia greatly fallen off previous to the 
 discovery of gold at Frazer's river, in 1858? 
 
 Ans. — The impression on my mind is quite contrary. I 
 have no memoranda to refer to here. My recollection of the 
 trade is that it was very good that year and for some time 
 previous. 
 
 (All questions from 890 to 897, inclusive, objected to as 
 'irrelevant.) ♦ 
 * Int. 898. — In'; your answer to "interrogator.y 16" of your 
 direct-examination, you speak of roads made bythe Company; 
 was^lie road from Cowlitz to Nisqually opened by the Com- 
 pany '»s a wagon-road or a pack-road ? 
 
 Ans*^—1 supposQ it was more of a pack-trail than a road. 
 
 Int. 899. — Did the Company do anything more than im- 
 prove the travelleU Indian trail between these places? 
 
 An». — Yes; they did between the Cowlitz and the Skoo- 
 kum Chuck, as they tried a variety of trails before tlicv finally 
 decided upon the trail or road they use<l and bridged it. 
 
 Int. 900. — How many bridges did the Company mako be- 
 tween these two places ? 
 
 Ans. — I could not say; there was a good deal of it done on 
 the road. 
 
 Int. 901. — Could not all the work on this road have been 
 done for $2,000 or less ? 
 
 Aii.^. — I should say not ; it is a very hard piece of road in 
 the winter months. 
 
 liil. 902. — How much did it cost? 
 
 AuH. — I really could not say. 
 
 ////. 908. — Was not tlie land route between Oregon and 
 Calitornia also an establislied Indian route? 
 
 >l/'v. — I think not. The Indians, in tho.se early days, could 
 not tvavel about for fear of each .other. 
 
 Iiii. 904. — Did not all the other routes or roads made by 
 the (Company, except those at Vancouver, follow Indian 
 trails ? 
 
 /.« 
 
176 
 
 Ans. — I do not know that they did. 
 
 Int. 905, — Were any of the Company's roads, except those 
 at Vancouver, and immediately around 8on.e other posts, any- 
 thing but pack-trails ? 
 
 Ans. — The clearing of the road at the Cascade portage was 
 something very unlike an Indian trail ; in fact, it was a sort 
 of wagon road. The others were probably pack-trails. 
 
 Int. 906. — Were any of the bridges made by the Company 
 on these pack-trails anything more than temporary structures, 
 which were liable to be washed away every year ? 
 
 Ans. — The bridges were more useful than ornamental, sub- 
 ject, no doubt, to be washed away at times, and they had to 
 be replaced by others. 
 
 Int. 907. — After the Company ceased to have the exclusive 
 control of the Indian trade in the Oregon country, did they 
 not use all the means in their power to break down the Ameri- 
 can traders and free trappers ? ' 
 
 Ans. — Not that I know of. 
 
 Int. 908. — Did they not seek to drive them out of the fur 
 trade? 
 
 Alls. — Not to my knowledge, certainly. 
 
 Int. 909. — Were not these American traders and free trap- 
 pers injurious to the Company's business? 
 
 Ans. — Not as I knew of. 
 
 Int. 910. — Did thoy help the Company's business? 
 
 Ans, — 1 sup|)ose they neither helped it or injured it, so far 
 as I knew. When such parties had furs to sell, they invaria- 
 bly niiiile an oft'er of them to the Company, and I think in 
 almost every instance the Company got their furs at prices 
 agreed upon. 
 
 Int. 911. — Were not these prices much higher than those 
 at which tlusy bought similar furs from the Indians ? 
 
 Ans. — I really could not say. In purchasing furs thus, 
 there was always a margin left for profit. 
 
 Int. 912. — Was it not the object, and was it not a desire 
 of the Company's officers at London, that the settlement of 
 the country, in which their posts were established, should be 
 discouraged ? 
 
177 
 
 Am. — I was not aware of it. 
 
 Int. 913. — Was not Dr. McLaughlin censured by the Cor > 
 pany's directors for his kindness to American immigrants? 
 
 Ans. — He never said so to me. 
 
 Int. 914. — Do you not know that he was ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not. 
 
 Int. 915. — What do you know about this matter ? 
 
 A.n%. — I know nothing about it further than I have said. 
 I do not know that I know anything about it. 
 
 Int. 916. — Did you ever own any of the stock of the Pu- 
 get's Sound Agricultural Company ? 
 
 Ana. — I believe I had two shares. 
 
 Int. 917. — When did you come in possession of them ? 
 
 (All questions in reference to the Puget's Sound Agricul- 
 tural Company objected to as irrelevant. Counsel for United 
 States claims the right to ask the above questions, and others 
 hereafter, in order to show the relations between the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company and the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
 pany.) 
 
 Ans. — Some time, I think, in the year 1839 or 1840. 
 
 Int. 918. — Do you own them now ? 
 
 Ans. — I think so. 
 
 Int. 919. — What is their par value ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not know. I have no papers here to refer to. 
 I recollect nothing about them, except the fact that I have 
 the two shares. 
 
 Int. 920. — How much have you ever paid on them? 
 
 Ans. — I think I paid .£10 a share. 
 
 Int. 921. — Did you pay that in the beginning ? " ■ 
 
 Ans. — I think so. I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 922. — Have you paid anything on them since ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not remember to have done so. 
 
 Int. 923. — Have you been paid any dividends upon them ? 
 
 Ans. — I think so. 
 
 Int. 924. — When was your first dividend, and what was it ? 
 
 Ans. — I do not recollect. It was some time ago. 
 
 Int. 925. — When was your last dividend, and what was it ? 
 
 Ans. — That I cannot answer, neither as to time or amount. 
 12B 
 
 / 
 
 1 
 
 -I 
 
 1 11 
 
 : (li 
 
 ■!' 
 
178 
 
 Int. 926. — Do you remember when you had any dividend, 
 and what it was ? 
 
 Ans. — I had a dividend, but I do not remember anything 
 more about it than I have said. 
 
 Int. 927. — What was the capital stock of the Company? 
 
 Am. — I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 928. — Did not the Hudson's Bay Company give the 
 Puget's Sound Agricultural Company permission to carry on 
 their operations, and promise to support them in carrying into 
 effect their measures ? 
 
 Ans. — I have no knowledge of any such arrangements. 
 
 Int. 929. — Was not Chief Factor McLaughlin authorized 
 by the Hudson's Bay Company to superintend the affairs of 
 the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, and did he not 
 do so? 
 
 Ans. — I have some recollection of the late Mr. McLaugh- 
 lin superintending the affairs of the Puget's Sound Company 
 while at Fort Vancouver, but who authorized him to do so I 
 cannot say. 
 
 Examination Hemmed, April 11. 
 
 Inty 930. — Of whom did you buy your shares in the Puget's 
 Sound Agricultural Company ? 
 
 Ans. — My recollection of the transaction is that they were 
 not bought from any body, but were two shares of the original 
 stock of the Company, subscribed for by me. 
 
 Int. 931. — Was not opportunity given to all the Hudson's 
 Bay Company's officers, at Vancouver, to subscribe for this 
 stock ? 
 
 Ans. — I think there was some arrangement of the kind ; but, 
 if I remember right, there was some limit as to the number of 
 shares which the different grades of officers might take. 
 
 Int. 932. — Did not Mr. McLaughlin receive the subscription 
 to this stock ? 
 
 Ans. — He may have done so, but I am not aware of it. ' 
 
 Int. 933. — Were not J. H. Pelly, Andrew Colvile, and 
 George Simpson, officers and stockholders in the Hudson's 
 Bay Company in 1839 ? 
 
 
d 
 
 s 
 
 179 
 
 Ans. — The late Sir John Henry Pelly, and the late Andrew 
 Golvile, Esq., deceased, were probably directors of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company in London, in 1839, but I had no personal 
 knowledge of that fact, or whether they owned stock in the 
 Oompany or not. The late Sir George Simpson I knew in 
 1889 as Governor of Rupert's Land, but cannot say whether 
 he was a proprietor of Hudson's Bay Company's stock or not. 
 
 Int. 934. — Were not the accounts of the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company kept at Vancouver? 
 
 A718. — I believe they were kept there up to the year 1846. 
 I do not know what was done with them afterwards. 
 
 Int. 935. — Were particular clerks assigned to the keeping 
 of these books, or were they kept by the same persons who 
 kept the books of the Hudson's Bay Company? 
 
 An8. — I do not remember the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Company having any clerks at Vancouver. The books were 
 kept by the clerks in the Hudson's Bay Company's office. 
 This is according to my recollection of it. 
 
 Int. 936. — Did not all the moneys payable to the officers 
 and employ&s of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company 
 pass through the office at Vancouver? 
 
 Ans. — Probably such was the case ; but I could not be pos- 
 itive of it from memory. 
 
 Int. 937. — Were not nearly, if not all of the officers of the 
 Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, formerly officers of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company? 
 
 Ans. — It is likely they were. 
 
 Int. 938. — Were not nearly all the employes of the Puget's 
 Sound Agricultural Company formerly employes of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company? 
 
 Ans. — Probably they had been. I have a recollection of 
 shepherds coming out from England for the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company. 
 
 Int. 939. — Who was the senior officer of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company at Vancouver, in 1840? 
 
 Ans. — It must have been the late Mr. McLaughlin. 
 
 Int. 940. — ^Who was senior officer of the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company the same year? 
 
 #•' 
 
 # 
 

 
 > 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 'ks 
 
 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 U;|2£ |25 
 
 ago 1^^" HiiH 
 
 Ui m 12.2 
 
 u US 
 
 lit 
 
 IM 
 
 11.25 i 1.4 
 
 - 6" 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.6 
 
 .Ife 
 
 <^ A 
 
 
 ■^^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 as WEi • MA'X ST3l!IT 
 
 WnSTIR.N.Y. I4SI0 
 
 (716) 173-4903 
 
4r 
 
 ,% 
 
 i? 
 
 s\ 
 
 
i^l^^m^m^mrrw 
 
 m 
 
 Ana. — I believe the same gentleman, the late Mr. McLaugh- 
 lin. 
 
 Int. 941 — Please answer the last two questions with refer- 
 ence to the year 1846. 
 
 ^w«.— Things had changed in 1846. The Hudson's Bay 
 Company's affairs were then controlled by a board, of which 
 the late Mr. Ogden was the senior officer; Mr. Douglas was 
 the next, and there was a third member, whose name escapes 
 me. The late Mr. Ogden and Mr. Douglas were both at Van- 
 couver ; which of them represented the interests of the Puget's 
 Sound Company I am unable to say. 
 
 Int. 942. — Did not the Hudson's Bay Company sell sheep, 
 cattle, and agricultural implements to the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company? 
 
 Ans. — I believe there was some such transactions between 
 the two Companies. 
 
 Int. 943. — Do you own any stock in the Hudson's Bay 
 Company? 
 
 Ans. — I do not. 
 
 Int. 944. — Did you ever own any? 
 
 Ans. — Never to my knowledge. 
 
 Int. 945. — ^What was the original amount of stock of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company? 
 
 Ans. — I cannot say. 
 
 Int. 946. — What is the present capital stock? 
 
 Ans. — I have heard, but the sum has escaped my memory. 
 
 Int. 947. — Has not the amount of capital stock been in- 
 creased? 
 
 Ans. — I have been informed that some change took place 
 in the increase of the stock during the year 1863, but the de- 
 tails of such change I remember very little about. 
 
 Int. 948. — Who now are the principal owners of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company's stock? 
 
 Ans. — I have been informed that the stock is in a great 
 many hands, but I believe the largest amount of stock in otie 
 name is in the shape of a trust fund for the sum of £100,000, 
 endowed by that noble, generous, and philanthropic gentle- 
 
181 
 
 man, George Peabody, Esq., for the benefit of the poor of the 
 city of London. 
 
 Int. 949. — Is not Sir Curtis Lamson a large stockholder? 
 
 Ans. — Sir Curtis Lamson is the Deputy Governor of the 
 Company ; I cannot say w^at stock he holds. 
 
 Int. 950. — Is not Sir Curtis Lamson a native of the United 
 States, and has he not received his title for his services in lay- 
 ing the Atlantic Cable? 
 
 Ans. — I have so read in the public prints. 
 
 Int. 9.51. — Is not Mr. Morgan, successor to Mr. Peabody, 
 also an American, and a large owner in the stock of the Com- 
 pany? 
 
 Ans. — I have no personal acquaintance with Mr. Morgan, 
 neither do I know whether he is a proprietor of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company stock or not. 
 
 (The counsel for the United States requires Mr. Mactavish, 
 who, as appears from his evidence, is a chief factor of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company, and its agent in the prosecution of this 
 claim, to produce here, for examination by the United States or 
 their Counsel, all accounts, account-books, and letter-books of 
 said Company, together with the regulations under which these 
 books were kept, and the various forms of contracts with ser- 
 vants of the Company, all of which books, rules, and forms 
 contain evidence pertinent to the issue in this case, as appears 
 from the cross-examination of Mr. Mactavish, and suspends 
 the further cross-examination of this witness until he shall 
 produce such books, accounts, rules, and forms.) 
 
 (The Counsel for the Company protest against any such in- 
 terpolations as above set out in this deposition.) 
 
 V) 
 
 ■i 
 
 
 
 ■I ■ 
 
 4 
 
 Examination Beaumed, May 1. 
 
 Int. 952. — Will you please produce here for examination 
 by the United States or their counsel, all accounts, account- 
 books, and letter-books of the Hudson's Bay Company which 
 were kept at the various posts of that Company south of the 
 49th parallel of north latitude during their occupation by the 
 Company, together with the regulations under which their 
 
 111 
 
 \. 
 
 /'■ 
 
f^ 
 
 t 
 
 162^ 
 
 books were kept, and the regular forms of contracts with the 
 Company's servants. 
 
 Ana. — I cannot say whether I will produce them or not. 
 
 (The above question objected to as incompetent, and as ask- 
 ing the witness not as to what he knows of the subject, but as 
 to what his future course of action will be, over which, as 
 witness, he can have no control.) 
 
 88: 
 
 District of Columbia, \ 
 City of Washington, J 
 
 I, Samuel H. Huntington, Clerk of the United States Court of 
 Claims, do hereby certify that the foregoing deposition, hereto 
 attached, of Dugald Mactavish, a witness examined under and 
 in accordance with the stipulation prefixed to the same, in the 
 matter of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States 
 now pending before the British and American Joint Commission 
 for the final adjustment thereof, was taken at the city of Wash- 
 ington, in the District aforesaid, and reduced to writing, 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 said Company, beginning on the 8th day of 
 March and ending the 1st day of May, 1867. I further cer- 
 tify th^t, before his said re-examination, I administered to said 
 witness 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 Uni- 
 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 wifiting, the deposition 
 of said witness was carefully read to and then signed by him. 
 I further certify that Charles C. Beaman, jr., and Edward 
 Lander, Esquires, were personally present during such re- 
 examination of said witness, and the reading and signing of 
 his deposition. 
 
 Witness my hand and official seal. \ 
 
 [seal.] Sam'l H. Huntington, 
 
 Olerk of the Court of Claims. 
 
 City op Washinoton, June 26, 1867. 
 
188 
 
 In the matter of the Claim of the Eudaon's Bay Company 
 against the United States. 
 
 Examination or cross-examination of William H. Farrar re- 
 sumed, by agreement between G. Gushing, for the United 
 States, and E. Lander, for the Hudson's Bay Gompanj, 
 on the same terms and conditions provided for the re- 
 examination of Dugald Mactavish, as expressed in Articles 
 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, under date of March 6, 1867, taken this, 
 July 31, 1867, at Washington city, D. G. 
 
 Int. 1. — In your answer to Cross-Interrogatory No. 6, you 
 say, among other things, as follows: "Negotiations are now 
 in progress which I believe will settle the title to the Mission 
 lauds, and re^^ult in the location there (at Vancouver) of the 
 Golumbia ri^er terminus of the Northern Pacific Railroad." 
 Have not the negotiations of which you spoke terminated 
 since that time ; and, if so, how, and with what effect upon 
 the actual value of those lands ? 
 
 Ans. — Those negotiations have terminated, and the title to 
 the Mission lands has not yet been determined. The nego- 
 tiations for the terminus of the Northern Pacific Railroad there 
 have been abandoned ; nothing could be accomplished in that 
 respect. At the time of my previous examination I intended 
 to have been understood as saying that if certain negotiations 
 then in progress had resulted as I then anticipated, that that 
 land would have been worth $1,000,000 to the persons having 
 a clear title to it, allowing, of course, after the procurement 
 of the evidence of title and the location there of the railroad, 
 a reasonable time for the owners of the land to have made their 
 money. Without a good title to that land, and without that 
 being made the terminus of the railroad, those lands would 
 not then command the same price in market. 
 
 Int. 2. — When you previously testified, how soon did you 
 expect or believe that the work of construction would be com- 
 menced? 
 
 Am. — In the autumn of the same year. 
 
 V! 
 
 \ 
 
 MU 
 
484 
 
 I 
 
 h 
 
 
 Int. 8. — When you previously testified, how soon did you 
 believe or hope that the War Department might relinquish the 
 lands and a patent issued to the Catholic Mission ? 
 
 Am. — I was very confident of obtaining it the same summer. 
 
 Int. 4. — Has or not the Department since then positively 
 refused to relinquish the military reservation at Vancouver? 
 
 Ans. — Yes, sir; I am so informed. 
 
 (The answer objected to as being hearsay.) 
 
 Tnt.5. — Were you counsel for the Mission; and, if so, did 
 you acquire the above information as counsel, and from whom? 
 
 Ans. — I was counsel, and obtained the information from my 
 client. 
 
 Int. 6. — Have you knowledge of any company or persons 
 in Oregon having interest in the establishment of a shipping 
 and landing port and railroad terminus at some point on the 
 Columbia river, below Fort Vancouver ; and, if so, what com- 
 pany or persons, and at what place? 
 
 (Objected to as irrelevant.) 
 
 AnB. — No; I have none as to any company intending to 
 make any railroad terminus below Portland, or the mouth of 
 the Willamette river. Since I testified last year, the Oregon, 
 or a portion of the stockholders of the Oregon Steam Naviga- 
 tion Company, have transferred their interest to a party or 
 parties residing in San Francisco. From general reputation 
 and newspaper report, it was the intention of the new pur- 
 chaser or purchasers to abandon Portland as their headquar- 
 ters and make St. Helen's, on the Columbia river, the head- 
 quarters of that Company, and of an ocean line of steamers 
 plying between San Francisco and Oregon. 
 
 Int. 7. — What effect on the prospects of Vancouver, as a 
 landing or shipping port, would be produced by the Steam 
 Navigation Company establishing its terminus at or below St. 
 Helen's, on the Columbia river? 
 
 ^n«.— 'Should that contemplated change take place, and 
 prove successful, it would be injurious to Vancouver; but I 
 don't think it will be a success. 
 
 Int. 8. — In the explanation appended to re-examination 
 Interrogatory No. 3, on your previous examination, you say, 
 
 It 
 
 n 
 
Vi5 
 
 "About a month ago I did contract in writing for a deed to be 
 made to me and my associate of one-half of 590 acres of the 
 Mission land claim." Has not that contract been abandoned 
 or rescinded by you and your associate? 
 
 Atu. — ^It has. 
 
 Int. 9. — In your answer to said third Interrogatory of re- 
 examination. "Whether you have or have not any interest in 
 this matter against the Hudson's Bay Oompany," you say, " I 
 have a very large and direct one." Are you at the present 
 time interested in any way? 
 
 Atu. — I have no interest in the lands there at the present 
 time, having given up my claim or interest. 
 
 Int. 10. — Have you any belief or expectation of the estab- 
 lishment, within any definite approaching time, of the terminus 
 and workshops of the Northern Pacific Railroad at Fort Van- 
 couver? 
 
 Ans. — ^No, sir, I have none; although I have now no means 
 of information what that Company intends to do ; but, at the 
 time I relinquished my interest in the land at Vancouver, I 
 had been led to believe that if the Northern Pacific Riulroad 
 should be built, that Vancouver would not be designated as its 
 western terminus. 
 
 Int. 11. — Have you visited or seen the saw-mills of the Com- 
 pany near Vancouver ; if so, when did you first see them ? 
 
 Am. — In 1857, or early in 1858, I was the attorney for a 
 man by the name of Taylor, who had been enjoined by the 
 Hudson's Bay Company from moving a parcel of old iron from 
 the saw-mill on Taylor's land claim. Therefore I had occa- 
 sion to visit the remains of that mill. The mill had evidently 
 been abandoned; it was disused; there was no perfect ma- 
 chinery there; the building was open and exposed to the ingress 
 and egress of cattle. As to any other mill or mills I have no 
 definite knowledge or information, but, during the pendency of 
 that suit on the part of the Hudson's Bay Company against 
 Taylor, I neither saw nor heard anything whatsoever that made 
 any impression on my mind that there was any mill or mills, 
 other than the one I have already mentioned, in its immediate 
 vicinity of any value whatever. 
 13 B 
 
 / 
 
mmm 
 
 186 
 
 Jnt. 12. — ^Did you see or hear anything of a gang saw-mill 
 elaimed by the Company? 
 Ant. — ^According to my recdUection, not a word. 
 
 W. H. FabbarI 
 
 District of Columbia, \ 
 County of Waahington. J 
 
 I, Nicholas Callan, a notary public in and for the county 
 and District aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing 
 deposition, hereto attached, of William H. Farrar, a witness 
 previously examined in the matter of the Claims of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company against the United States, now pending 
 before the British and American Joint Commission for the 
 final adjustment thereof, was taken and reduced to writing in 
 the said city of Washington, under my direction, by a person 
 agreed upon by Caleb Cushing, Esq., attorney for the United 
 States, and Edward Lander, Esq., attorney for the said Com- 
 pany, on the 31st day of July, 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 Uni- 
 ted States of America shall be the truth, the whole truth, and 
 nothing but the truth : so help you God." 
 
 And that, after the same was reduced to writing, the depo- 
 sition of said witness was carefully read to and then signed 
 by him in the presence of the aforesaid counsel. 
 
 In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and 
 [seal.] oflScial seal this 24th day of August, 1867. 
 
 N. Callan, 
 Notary Public. 
 
 tEiiSiiii~iWaiirii 
 
 i 
 
 :•-».*«•"*>**»•• 
 
187 
 
 -i > 
 
 Letter marked "D" referred to in Interrogatory 647, p. 148, 
 printed evidence. {Supra.) 
 
 Fort Vancouver, W. T., May 9, 1866. 
 The Hon. Jameb Tilton, 
 
 Surveyor General of Wathington Territory, Olympia. 
 
 Sir: I have to aoknowlodge receipt on the 4th inst. of 
 your letter of the 28th April, requesting that a map or author- 
 itative statement of the claim or claims to land of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company on the Columbia river, near Fort Van- 
 couver, should be handed to you, and further stating that you 
 had been instructed to cause the lines of public surveys to be 
 extended up to the actual settlements of the British claimants, 
 according to the limiti of the same at the date of the treaty 
 of 1846. 
 
 In reply, I beg most respectfully to mention that I am una- 
 ble to furnish you with the statement you require, as I do not 
 consider myself at liberty to define any precise limits to the 
 claims of the Company, not having authority to that effect 
 from the Governor and committee of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany in London, without which any opinion of mine would not 
 be binding on the Company. 
 
 I take the liberty of calling your attention to the following 
 extract from Chief Factor Ballenden's letter of 30th July, 
 1862, to Surveyor General Preston, of Oregon Territory, and 
 I have to request that no surveys be made or claims granted 
 within the limits granted by Mr. Ballenden : 
 
 " There is, however, a certain tract of country in the neigh- 
 borhood of Vancouver, which was for a long period {and if our 
 rights were respected ttilt ought to he) in the sole possession and 
 occupation of the Hudson's Bay Company, within those limits 
 I must respectfully request that no surveys be made, or claims 
 granted to any person whatever, without the approbation of 
 the Hudson's Bay Company. That tract to which I refer com- 
 mences at a stake and tree, marked, on the north bank of the 
 Colup") ia river, about two miles west of Willow Point; thence 
 running northerly along the slough until it meets the outlet 
 14 B 
 
 MKlKinoww*"' 
 
188 
 
 of the Lake Biver ; thenoe following the meanderi (easterly) 
 of the said river to the large lake, 19^ milei, paising on the 
 north hank, until it strikes a small stream entering the lake 
 on northeast side ; thence running E. 1&*> S., 0^ miles, to a stake 
 marked between the Third and Fourth Plains in a swamp ; 
 thenoe E. 22° S., 4} miles, to the Oamas Plain, to a stake 
 marked; thence south 8| miles to the Columbia river; thenje 
 following the meanders of said river to the place of beginning. 
 Also, one small island south of Vancouver on the Columbia 
 river." 
 Most respectfully, I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 DUOALD MAOTAVISn, 
 
 Chi^ Factor Hudton't Bay Company. 
 
BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION 
 
 OS TBS 
 
 L7DS0N'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRICUL- 
 TUBAL COMPANIES' CLAIMS. 
 
 In the meUter of the Claims of the Hudson's Bay Company 
 and Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 
 
 It is agreed by and between Dr. Wm. F. Tolmie, agent of 
 the Hudson's Bay Company, and W. Carey Johnson, attor- 
 ney and agent of the United States, that upon an examination 
 and inspection of the archives and books of the Company re- 
 maining at Victoria, Vancouver Island, the present head- 
 quarters of the Columbia district, made between the 9th and 
 18th days of April, A. D., 1867, with reference to the points 
 suggested in the memorandum of Judge Day, senior counsel 
 of the Hudson's Bay Company, a copy of which is hereto 
 annexed, marked <<A," the following results were arrived at: 
 
 1. As to subdivision " 1 " of said memorandum, no such de- 
 tailed inventory and valuation is within the knowledge of the 
 Company's agents at Victoria, nor can any such be found after 
 due and diligent search. 
 
 2. No statement with reference to the lands at Cowlitz 
 and Nisqually has been found in the books of either Com- 
 pany at Victoria, after diligent search; the only item charged 
 against the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company which can 
 be found, aside from the wages of servants furnished, and the 
 usual supplies of merchandise, &;c., being .£258 for sheep at 
 the Cowlitz grazing farm in 1840. 
 
 8. Nothing casting any light upon the subject named in this 
 subdivision has been found after diligent search. 
 
 4. It is evident from an examination of the books that no 
 account was kept of the cost of erecting and repairing posts, 
 the only accounts returned from the districts and posts being 
 
 1 
 
 nmf t mi m v m'^ 
 
190 
 
 iervants' wages, and the goods expended for labor and trade, 
 which were set off against the furs returned, and the profit for 
 the year thus arrived at. 
 
 6. Statement "B," hereto annexed, shows the net gain of 
 the Hudson's Lay Company at the posts named in the memo- 
 rial during the years mentioned in this subdivision. It has 
 been impossible to classify the trade, except at Vancouver; 
 but, as throwing some ligh* on this subject, statement marked 
 "0" is hereto annexed, showing the amount and value of furs 
 traded at these posts during the years nam:)d. It is necessary 
 and proper to state in this connection that the post at Okana- 
 gan was, until about 1848, included in the district of Thomp- 
 son's river, which lay principally north of the 49th parallel 
 of north latitude. After that time it was included in the Col- 
 vile district. The value of furs traded in Thompson's River 
 district for the years 1840 to 1847, inclusive, was as follows: 
 For 1840, ^1,182 6«. Sd.; for 1841, £1,154 4«. lid.; for 
 1842, £1,419 0«. Id.; for 1848, £1,167 18». 6d.; for 1844, 
 £1,458 8». Od.; for 1855, £1,581 6(r. 5d.; for 1856, £1,878 
 59. Gd.; for 1847, £1,502 9». Od. The separate trade of 
 Okanagan cannot be determined from the books found. 
 
 The statement under the head of Vancouver includes the 
 posts of ,Caweenian, at the mouth of the Cowlitz river, Fort 
 George or Astoria, Cape Disappointment, Pillar Rock, Cham- 
 poeg, and Umpqna. The Willamette Falls, appearing in 
 the accounts, was a trading-pos* at Oregon City, principally 
 for settlers in the Willamette Vi> .ey, the goods for which were 
 ordered and supplied from Vancouver as they were needed. 
 The statement under the head of Colvile includes the posts at 
 Kootenais, and Flat-Heads, and Okanagan, after 1847 ; and 
 that under the head of the "Snake Country" includes Forts 
 Hall and Bois^, this being the mode in which the Company's 
 accounts were kept from year to year, by districts. The 
 "Southern Party" was fitted out at Vancouver to trap on the 
 shores, south and east of Umpqua, but was discontinued after 
 1848. Goods on hand at all these posts were valued at a uni- 
 form advance of 38^ per cent, over first cost in Europe. No 
 accounts current of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company 
 
191 
 
 have been found from vhich to determine the annual profits of 
 its business during the years mentioned. 
 
 W. F. TOLMIB, 
 
 Agent for the Sudton's Bay and Puget's Sound Agr'l Co. 
 
 W. Caret Johnson, 
 Attorney and Agent of the United 8tate». 
 Victoria, B. C, April 18, 1867. 
 
 [A.] 
 
 Memorandum of points, on which the hooks of account and docu- 
 ments at Victoria may, by consent, be examined by the counsel 
 of the United States. 
 
 1. Detailed inventory and valuation of the several proper- 
 ties of the Hudson's Bay and Puget's °ound Agricultural 
 Companies. 
 
 9. Inventory cost at which the lands at Nisqually and Cow- 
 litz were transferred by tho Hudson's Bay Company to the 
 Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 
 
 3. Actual purchase money paid by the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany for Fort Hall. 
 
 4. Actual cost of the several posts of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company and of the establishments of the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company, and of the structures which they com- 
 prehend. 
 
 5. Annual trading profits of each of the Companies in 
 Oregon, classified according to their nature, for the ten years 
 concluding with 1850. 
 
 .i. 
 
192 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 •«*s*a-s la 
 
 -nil's II 
 
 «^g|is IE- 
 
 •rf-ss*"-" r Is 
 ••ass-*'" •• 
 
 •tK.I'T.*"!. **\ 
 
 nj^rt^lg 
 
 Ct> ;m 
 
 
 a ; 
 
 •pi« ii 
 
 iiaHMO* 
 
 ••aaa^-a 1 1 
 
 ••a-a-a*" I 
 
 •<'»"s»-saa I 
 
 ••aas'ssa j 
 
 
 AaffJfA ^^ I 
 
 I 
 
 i! ! I h 
 
 ifl ■Sll 
 
 I 
 
 9 
 
 f 
 
p^ 
 
 198 
 
 o 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 o 
 
 if 
 
 CO 
 H 
 
 I*' 
 
 
 e 
 S 
 
 tiuoHxo 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 ■saoqaivq^ 
 
 li 
 
 : : 
 : : 
 
 • 
 
 lepiHxo 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 
 •moinx 
 
 il 
 
 : 
 
 : 
 
 1 
 
 •WAlOAl 
 
 s'S^sj 
 
 ■raoooiMiH 
 
 sas" j 
 
 ■je)io«e8 
 
 a 
 
 : : 
 
 ; i 
 1 
 
 ■■'•MOP""! 
 
 igss.S : 
 
 
 •»«niiiiji 
 
 176 
 3,990 
 1,105 
 
 493 
 
 
 •VIK 
 
 iR^m 1 
 
 •n9M»K 
 
 
 ■znii 
 
 
 ■H«iSa|ii 
 
 4^ 
 
 11 
 
 j 
 
 ■WSOJI 
 
 : 
 
 •uaqqa 
 
 Q|8,« ; 
 
 ■miuotnf) 
 
 ^i 
 
 :^ : 
 3"^ i 
 
 -uatnaa 
 
 1,912 
 
 1,523 
 
 444 
 
 2,680 
 1,892 
 
 insa 
 
 9^n& \ 
 
 ■u»39p«S 
 
 :' 
 
 sss 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 : : 
 
 ; : 
 
 i 
 
 : i 
 
 SB'S 
 
 : 
 ! 
 
 ! 
 
 1 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 s 
 
 ss^a 
 
 S2S< 
 
 
 {:|SS 
 
 a§sg^ 
 
 ■^ 
 
 S33S 
 
 S9 
 
 S 
 
 «*§§•" 
 
 M 
 
 S O 9 _ 
 
194 
 
 -2 
 
 g 
 
 
 ■s 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 •e 
 
 « 
 
 c 
 
 i» 
 
 ^ 
 
 00 
 
 *&> 
 
 H 
 
 I 
 
 ■loioH xo 
 
 ■aaoqa|«ui 
 
 ••opiH xo 
 
 •AO||«I 
 
 •■84)0^ 
 
 ■aooosBH 
 
 •aeMO »08 
 
 •»»10 pnwi 
 
 ttu^anjc 
 
 'vm 
 
 ■nannji 
 
 -za<i 
 
 ■miSoiBi 
 
 •aoxoi 
 
 ■usqiM 
 
 •miuotno 
 
 •jsAVsg 
 
 traaa 
 
 ■usSpvg 
 
 •jfinoee 
 
 
 Ss|3 
 
 iS2BB 
 
 "e*"s 
 
 sss? 
 
 2|S* 
 
 
 =51528 
 
 
 lllll 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 rl 
 
 CSMOtMX 
 
 mm 
 
 gas* 
 
 iigia 
 
 
 V W A SS 
 
 3:S$S 
 
 93^ 
 
 S88' 
 
 :^ 
 
 
 ! I 
 
 I ' i 
 
 00 
 H 
 
 
 glag 
 
 
 rs 
 
 
 t. 00 Si 5. 
 
 ^is* 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 H 
 
T 
 
 mm. 
 
 196 
 
 
 R. 
 
 00 
 H 
 
 
 
 S!*S& 
 
 (• 14 lira 
 
 SISS 
 
 2*^" 
 "G"!? 
 
 ;3?S 
 
 ssss 
 
 SiziSS 
 
 Si§§ 
 
 -ssa 
 
 5 : 
 ! I 
 
 9 ei" 
 S = ^ S 
 
 ^5 
 
 Kco 
 
 til TOt» W ^^ 
 
 (0 
 
 00 
 H 
 
 5f 
 
 gS8S 
 
 ^ 
 
 §§li 
 
 
 ef 
 
 SnnS 
 
 '§??- 
 
 3 ?1 h.<t 
 
 g„gg 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 if 
 
 00 
 H 
 
 
 s 
 
 &s&« 
 
 > O to 4 
 
 a to — -^ 
 
 sssg 
 
 ;i9S 
 
 SICiS 
 
 'a IS 
 
 ^00^ 9 
 
 
 •S"' 
 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 H 
 
 QD O 00 QO 
 
 
 : ! \ 
 i ! ! 
 
 'IS^ 
 
 II5§ 
 
 s§§2 
 
 
 «|S2 
 
 SS^U 
 
 
 X A C^ ^* 
 
 -|S| 
 
 '3- 
 
 ; I 
 
 «3 « 3 
 
 \i^ 
 
 :>>. 
 
 V 
 
 
 'I 
 
 /I 
 
 '■, ! 
 
 ,1 
 
fi^jiiim''- 
 
 196 
 
 I, 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 I 
 
 
 > 
 
 645 7 10 
 
 8,475 8 U 
 
 252 5 6 
 
 681 8 7 
 
 s 
 s 
 
 
 ■lajoH XQ 
 
 
 : : 
 
 1 1 
 
 1 : 
 
 
 •»Boq(»i»qM 
 
 : : ! ! 
 
 : : : : 
 : : : : 
 
 
 •WPIH »0 
 
 : : : : 
 : : : : 
 
 i 1 1 i 
 
 
 •moii»i 
 
 1 : . :' 
 : : : : 
 : : : : 
 : : : : 
 : : : : 
 
 
 ••OAIO^ 
 
 -•sgi 
 
 
 'aooaa«H 
 
 |38- 
 
 
 •JB»JO "98 
 
 n \ 
 
 ' 
 
 
 •J9JJ0 puwi 
 
 S5SS 
 
 GO 
 H 
 
 •laHTOM 
 
 4,237 
 167 
 607 
 
 iniK 
 
 oOffSS 
 
 •na^HK 
 
 ii"B 
 
 
 •xaii 
 
 Ȥsa 
 
 
 ■«8»|8a|ai 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 •9X0^ 
 
 S|S| 
 
 
 ■uaqsij 
 
 lllH'tfOO 
 
 9 
 
 
 'miuotmo 
 
 : 
 
 M 
 
 
 ■jSAVsg 
 
 
 
 ■UBsa 
 
 S|^S 
 
 
 -us8p«Q 
 
 IS"* 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 1 
 
 ii 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 10 
 00 
 H 
 
 
 5|««§ 
 
 SSS" 
 
 iS^s 
 
 
 !I§SS 
 
 S3SS9 
 
 9iF3$ 
 
 sisl 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 a ' 
 
 r 
 
 g 
 
 a 
 ■s 
 
 •a 
 
 B 
 e> 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 i 
 
 s 
 
 I 
 
 e 
 
 5 
 
 a 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 •S 
 
 I 
 •3 
 
 S 
 
 •9 
 
mff^m 
 
 197 
 
 \<.- 
 
 ■\ 
 
 S 
 
 8 
 
 e 
 
 o 
 
 l-HN r-li-t 
 
 Nr-t 
 
 s 
 
 eo 
 
 
 M 
 H 
 
 P4 
 
 H 
 H 
 H 
 
 CO 
 
 s 
 
 lO 
 
 eo 
 
 <<N 
 
 g 
 
 (Ml> 
 
 (N 
 
 S 
 
 
 S!S 
 
 iHrieOiH 
 
 i-iffiMcoevi-^eooo 
 
 
 OOOrH 
 
 S 
 
 MO 
 
 CO 
 
 (N 
 
 <e 
 
 S§ 
 
 o 
 
 M 
 
 ?3 
 
 lO 
 
 ©««»-■*« 
 
 
 »* 
 
 CO 
 
 eo 
 
 (N 
 
 eo 
 
 to 
 
 S 
 
 eo 
 eo 
 
 CO 
 
 to 
 
 CO 
 
 a 
 
 o bbSP 
 
 »» S o i_ 
 
 a o * M - r >■ 
 
 
 S^ ?t3Ph S ei O pa 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 o 
 a 
 1 
 
 S 
 ea 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 eoeo 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 '-.1 
 
 
,/ 
 
 198 
 
 I 
 
 CLASSIFICATION OF THE FOREGOING. 
 
 Chief factors 3 
 
 Chief traders 3 
 
 Clerks and surgeons 2 
 
 Clerks 9 
 
 Apprenticed clerks 3 
 
 Postmasters and apprentices 6 
 
 Farmers and gardeners 3 
 
 Dairymen 4 
 
 BlacKsmiths 6 
 
 Coopers 6 
 
 Carpenters and apprentices 7 
 
 Sawyers 2 
 
 Steward 1 
 
 Seedsmen 2 
 
 Indian traders 5 
 
 Shepherds 2 
 
 Horsekeeper 1 
 
 Baker 1 
 
 Cook 1 
 
 Ship carpenters 2 
 
 Millers and millrights 3 
 
 Guides and interpreters 7 
 
 Boatbuilders 2 
 
 Laborers 232 
 
 Teacher r... 1 
 
 2 
 
 315 
 
199 
 
 5 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 7 
 2 
 232 
 1 
 2 
 
 315 
 
 [ Copy No. 2. ] 
 
 British and American Joint Commission on Hudson's Bat 
 AND Pdqet's Sound Agricultural Company's Claims. 
 
 In the matter of the Olaims of the Hudton'a Bay Company. 
 
 Victoria, V. I., April 11, 1867. 
 Dear Sir: In addition to the points noted for examination 
 in the memorandum of Judge Day, enclosed in the letter of 
 Dr. H. A. Tuzo, of date of January 11, 1867,* I am instructed 
 by Gen. Gushing, senior counsel for the United States, respect- 
 fully to request as follows : 
 
 1. That you submit for my examination all the documents 
 and correspondence, printed or otherwise, now in possession 
 of the Company at Victoria, relating to the sale and transfer 
 of either the stock or property of the Hudson's Bay Company 
 in 1863. At or about that time it is allegef" that the holders 
 of the oi'iginal stock, as it has existed for many years, sold 
 the entire property of the Company in Europe and America, 
 including the claim against the United States now under ex- 
 amination, to a new association of individuals, through the 
 agency of the "International Credit Association;" and that 
 at that time the capital stock of the Hudson's Bay Company 
 was increased from half a million to two millions pounds ster- 
 ling. All documents and correspondence you have relating to 
 or throwing light upon that transaction, or to any sale of the 
 Company's property or stock, I desire to examine. 
 
 2. That you submit for my examination all the documents, 
 correspondence, and papers in the possession of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company at Victoria, relating to the claims of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company to lands on Vancouver's Island and iu British 
 Columbia, as dealt with by the Government of Great Britain. 
 This is supposed to include grants of lands and posts in fee, 
 and also a grant or grants in trust for the repayment of moneys 
 expended at an early day by the -Company in the government 
 of the colonies referred to above. 
 
 3. I have further respectfully to request that the inquiry 
 
 * Vide Supra A. 
 
 ; 
 
 W 
 
i 
 
 A 
 
 I 
 
 (4 
 
 4 
 
 200 
 
 relating to the annual profits of the Hadson's Bay Company's 
 posts, referred to in subdivision five of Judge Day's memoran- 
 dum, be extended also over the years from 1850 to and in- 
 cluding 1862, or to such time as each particular post was aban- 
 doned by the Company or ceased to be used by them for the 
 purposes of trade. If any result pertinent to the subject of 
 the Company's claim is to be reached by an examination under 
 this head after 1846, it would not present a fair view to the 
 Commissioners unless extended to the time of the treaty of 
 1868, under which they are acting. 
 
 Hoping at an early day to receive a favorable reply to these 
 requests, I am, dear sir, very respectfully, your obedient ser- 
 vant, ^ 
 
 W. Carey Johnson, 
 
 Attomei/, ^e. 
 
 Dr. W. F. ToLMiE, 
 
 Agent, ^c: 
 
 w 
 
 / 
 
 [ Copy No. 3. ] 
 
 British and American Joint Commission on Hudson's Bay 
 AND Pugbt's Sound Agricultural Company's Claims. 
 
 In the matter of the Claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 
 Compani/. 
 
 Victoria, V. I., April 11, 1867. 
 Dear Sir: Referring to the memorandum of Judge Day, a 
 copy of which was enclosed to me in letter of Dr. H. A. Tuzo, 
 of January 11, 1867, 1 have the honor respectfully to request 
 that the examination of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
 pany's books upon the point referred to in subdivision five of 
 Judge Day's memorandum be extended over the years after 
 1850, to and including the year 1862, for the reasons given in 
 
 I 
 
 t 
 t 
 a 
 t 
 I 
 s 
 n 
 
 P 
 
201 
 
 my letter of thia date relating to the claim of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company. 
 
 Hoping for favorable answer, I am, dear sir, your obedient 
 servant, 
 
 W. Carey Johnson, 
 
 Attomei/f ^c. 
 Dr. W. F. ToLMiB, 
 
 Agent, ^o. 
 
 British and American Joint Commission on Hudson's Bay 
 AND PuaET's Sound Aorioultural Company's Claims, 
 
 In the matter of the Olaimt of the Hudson's Bay and Puget's 
 Sound Agricultural Companies. 
 
 Victoria, B. C, April 15, 1867. 
 
 Dear Sir: I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter 
 dated Victoria, April 11, 1867, applying, as you therein state, 
 by direction of Mr. Cushing, foi' access to books, and informa- 
 tion on various points, far beyond what, under my only instruc- 
 tions on the subject from Mr. Day — of which you have received 
 a copy — I conceive myself authorized to furnish. I regret, 
 therefore, that I cannot now comply with your request; but 
 I shall immediately apply to Mr. Day for instructions on the 
 subject of your application. Very likely much of the infor- 
 mation you desire will appear in documentary evidence to be 
 presented by the counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 I harve the honor to be, dear sir, very respectfully, yours, &c., 
 
 W. F. TOLMIB, 
 
 Agent for the H, B. and P. 8. A. Companies. 
 
 Wm. Carey Johnson, Esq., 
 
 Attorney and Agent for the United States. 
 
 r 
 
 I 
 
«ff 
 
 ^•wvt 
 
 .// 
 
 / 
 
 ^1 ^ 
 
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 
 
 I 
 
 15 B 
 
wmmmmmmi'miimmm 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 
 
 BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOINT COMMISSION ON 
 HUDSON'S BAY AND PUGET'S SOUND AGRI- 
 CULTURAL COMPANIES* CLAIMS, 
 
 The Unitkd States produce in defence the documents and 
 printed and written papers specified in the following lists : 
 
 -r. 
 
 List A. 
 Documents affecting the claims of both Companies. 
 
 List B. 
 
 Documents affecting the case of the Puget's Sound Agricul- 
 tural Company. 
 
 List C. 
 
 Documents affecting the case of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany. 
 
T 
 
 [A.J 
 
 MIXED. 
 
 1. — Report of Governor Stevens, of Washington Territory^ 
 relative to the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company 
 and Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, in Oregon 
 and Washington, dated Juno 21, 1854. Donts., 33d 
 Cong., 2d Sess., Senate, Ex., No. 37. 
 
 2. — Letter of Sir George Simpson concerning the claims of 
 the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Companies, dated January 14, 1848. Docts., 31st 
 Coi:^., 2d Sess., Senate, Ex., No. 20, p. 4. 
 
 3. — Letter of Sir John H. Pelly to Mr. Clayton, dated June 
 29, 1849. Docts., 81st Cong., 2d Sess., Senate, Ex., 
 No. 20, p. 20. 
 
 4. — Memorandum of Sir George Simpson with reference to 
 the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Companies' pos- 
 sessory rights in Oregon, dated December 3, 1852. 
 
 MS. 
 
 5. — Correspondence relative to surveying the land claimed 
 by the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 - Companies, dated January 24^ 1856. Docts., Council 
 Washington Territory. 
 
 6. — Report of the Commissioner of Public Lands of the Uni- 
 ted States on the claims of the Hudson's Bay and Pu- 
 get's Sound Agricultural Companies, dated January 2, 
 1865. MS. 
 
 7. — Letter of Lord Napier to Mr. Cass, dated May 16, 1858. \ 
 MS. 
 
 8. — Letter of Mr. Cass to Lord Lyons, dated June 7, 1860. 
 
 MS. 
 
207 
 
 9. — Letter of Lord Lyons to Mr. Cass, dateu June 8, 1860. 
 MS. 
 
 10. — Letter of Mr. Cass to Lord Lyons, dated November 26, 
 1860. MS. 
 
 11. — Letter of Lord Lyons to Mr. Cass, dated December 10, 
 1860. MS. 
 
 12. — Despatches of Sir E. B. Lytion to Governor Douglas, 
 ' dated July 16, 1858, (two,) July 31, 1858, and August 
 14, 1858, (two.) Parliamentary Papers, in British Co- 
 lumbia, Pt. 1, pp. 42, 43, 44, 4T, 49. 
 
 X A 
 
 [B.] 
 
 CASE OF THE PUGET'S SOUND COMPANY. 
 
 1. — Report of James Tilton, Surveyor General of Washington 
 Territory, on the Claims of the Puget's Sound Agri- 
 cultural Company, dated December 8, 1857. MS. 
 
 2. — Land Claims of Pierre Lagace, and others, in Washington 
 Territory. MS. 
 
 3. — Report of Lt. E. J. Harvie respecting Claims of Puget's 
 Sound Agricultural Company, dated July 26, 1859. 
 
 MS. , 
 
 4. — The Puget's Sound Agricultural Company against the 
 county of Pierce, Transcript, Supreme Court of the 
 United States. 
 
 CASE OF THE HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY. 
 
 1. — Mr. Brown's Report to the Governor General of Canada, 
 dated January 26, 1865. 
 

 208 
 
 2. — Extract from << Report of the Delegates to England," 
 dated July 12, 1865. 
 
 « 
 
 3. — ^Extract from Captain Palliser's Exploration in British 
 North America. Parliamentary Papers, 1863, p. 155. 
 
 4. — Despatch of Governor Douglas to Sir E. B. Lytton, dated 
 February 4, 1849. Parliamentary Papers on British 
 Columbia, Pt. 2, pp. 44 and 45 ; and reply of Sir E. B. 
 Lytton, dated February 8, 1859. Ibid, p. 79. 
 
 5. — Report of Captain Ingalls on Military Reservation in 
 Oregon, dated July 16, 1852. MS. .\ 
 
 6. — Extra ts from Major Cross's Report of March to Oregon, 
 contained in Annual Report of the Quartermaster 
 General of the United States of June 30, 1850. 
 
 7. — Extract from Decisions of the Commissioner of Claims 
 under the Convention of February 8, 1853, between the 
 United States and Great Britain, p. 164. 
 
 8. — Extract from Report of Captain M. E. Van Buren con- 
 cerning Cape Disappointment, dated May 30, 1850. 
 
 MS.,' 
 
 9. — Correspondence of Colonel W. W. Loring, and others, 
 respecting the Military Reservation at Fort Vancouver, 
 1850-1853. MS. , . 
 
 10. — Land Claims of James Douglas, and others, in the vicinity 
 of Vancouver. MS. 
 
 11. — Claim of Hudson's Bay Company, growing out of Indian 
 Hostilities, filed in the Third Auditor's Office, Treasury 
 Department of the United States. MS. 
 
209 
 
 33d Congress, \ 
 2d Session. } 
 
 A— 1. 
 
 SENATE. 
 
 Ex. Doc. 
 No. 37. 
 
 V J 
 
 LETTER 
 
 FROM 
 
 THE SECRETARY OF STATE, 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Belations, communicating 
 the report of Governor Stevens, of Washington Territory, to 
 the Department of State, of June 21, 1854, relative to the 
 property of the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Company 
 in that Territory. 
 
 Febbuakt 1, 1856. — Read and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Department of State, 
 
 Washington, February 7, 1855. 
 Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
 letter of yesterday; and, in compliance with the request therein 
 contained, transmit a copy for the printer of the report of Gov- 
 ernor Stevens, of Washington Territory, to this department, 
 of the 21st June last, relative to the property of the Hudson's 
 Bay and Puget's Sound Company in that Territory. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient 
 servant, W. L. MARCY. 
 
 Hon. James M. Mason, 
 
 Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate^ 
 
 Governor Stevens to Mr. Marcy. 
 
 Washington, June 21, 1854. 
 Sir : In pursuance of your instructions of June 3, 1853, 
 directing me to furnish a statement of the property of all 
 
 »«»««»>♦.*. -»ti4ai4**SaiV; 
 
 >" fc.fc-.«?^-.ji.:,*i =^;, 
 
210 
 
 descriptions within the Territory of Washington, as well as in 
 Oregon, claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company and the Puget's 
 Sound Agricultural Company, and to present a fair estimate 
 of its value, I have the honor to submit the following report : 
 
 Upon examining the subject committed to me for ny views, 
 I at once perceived that a broad difference would exist between 
 the Government of the United States and the Companies in 
 question, as to the value and extent of their rights and pos- 
 sessions. Claims of a most extravagant character have been 
 set up by these Companies, in view of propositions which have 
 been made to the Government of the United States to acquire 
 by purchase and extinguish all the rights and claims of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company and the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Company within the territory of the United States, whether 
 secured by treaty or otherwise, legally acquired and held by 
 these Companies. 
 
 The claims of these Companies are presented in a pamphlet 
 entitled "Extent and value of the possessory rights of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company in Oregon,southof the forty-ninth degree,"- 
 containing opinions of American and Canadian counsel. 
 
 In this pamphlet it is assumed that the possessory rights of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company extend over the whole territory north 
 of the Columbia river, and that in this territory, south of the 
 forty-nintli degree of latitude, the United States have merely 
 the sovereignty with a naked fee, encumbered with a right of 
 occupation by the Hudson's Bay Company, which is valid until 
 extinguished by transfer, and would bar ejectment. It is also 
 assumed that the farms, lands, and other property of the 
 Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, to the full extent of 
 their claims, are fully confirmed by the 3d article of the treaty 
 of 1846. The Hudson's Bay Company further maintain that 
 the right of trading with the Indians is included among the 
 possessory rights which are to bo respected by the terms of 
 treaty, and they declare that " it is in the utmost degree im- 
 probable that the high cantracting parties, the framers of the 
 treaty, ever contemplated denying the Company one of the 
 most important rights it possessed." — (See letter of Mr. Tol- 
 mie, chief trader of Hudson's Bay Company.) 
 
mmm 
 
 ,\ 
 
 211 
 
 • 
 The first point of inquiry is as to the validity of the claims 
 thus asserted. 
 
 By the treaty of 1846, the territory south of the 49th degree 
 of latitude was ceded to the United States, or rather it was 
 determined that the right of sovereignty of this territory which 
 had been claimed by both governments was in the United States. 
 It will be acknowledged that if a territory is ceded by treaty, 
 the right of the State ceding such territory, and the rights of 
 individuals and corporations derived from such State, are wholly 
 extinguished. The rights of individuals depend upon the State 
 to which the cession is made. The obligation of the State 
 receiving the cession does not extend beyond the express terms 
 of the treaty. By the treaty of 1846 the Government of the 
 United States pledged itself in future appropriations of the 
 territory to respect the possessory rights of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company, and of all tjie British subjects who may have been 
 at the date of the treaty in the occupation of land or other 
 property lawfully acquired within said territory, and also to 
 confirm the farms, lands, and other property of every descrip- 
 tion belonging to the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 
 
 It is apparent that the Government of the United States 
 .simply pledged itself to continue the policy which it had inva- 
 riably pursued, in its successive acquisitions of territory, 
 towards the actual occupants of the soil. In the 9th article 
 of the treaty of 1794 with Great Britain, it wa? agreed " that 
 British subjects who now hold lands in territories of the United 
 States shall continue to hold them according to the nature and 
 tenures of their respective estates." In the treaty of cession 
 by Spain to the United States, of East and West Florida, it 
 was stipulated that previous grants of land by the Spanish 
 government should be confirmed to the persons in possess io7i. 
 In the treaty for the cession of Louisiana by France, it was 
 agreed by the United States that the private rights and inter- 
 ests of land should be secure, and the inhabitants protected in 
 their property. By these treaties, and the acts of Congress 
 founded upon them, the United States has acknowledged that 
 certain rights of property were acquired by the actual occu- 
 
 
212 
 
 // 
 
 /. 
 
 pation and improvement of land before unappropriated from 
 the public domain. 
 
 The terms of the treaty of 1846 clearly show that the Uni- 
 ted States had simply in view the continuance of its estab- 
 plishcd policy towards thn occupants of the soil. The rights 
 to be respected were onh territorial rights, for the treaty de- 
 clares that in future appropriations of the territory the pos- 
 sessory rights, &c., are to be respected. These rights have 
 relation only to the '^'■appropriation" of territory. The occa- 
 sion for respecting them does not arise until such appropriation 
 is made. 
 
 Again, it ia \\\e possessory rights relating to our interfering* 
 with the appropriation of territory which are to be respected. 
 The term "possessory" is either one of surplusage or limita- 
 tion. If the former, which seems to be the view assumed by 
 the Hudson's Bay Company and the counsel whose opinions 
 are given in the pamphlet alluded to, the meaning of the pro- 
 vision is that all the rights which the Hudson's Bay Company 
 possessed at the date of the treaty are to be respected. The 
 effect of this construction would be to admit the right of the 
 company to make laws, to have civil and criminal jurisdiction, 
 and to have the exclusive right of trade; all which rights the 
 company possessed under their charter at the date of the 
 treaty. This provision, then, would invest the actual sov- 
 ereignty of the country ceded, not in the United States, but 
 ill a foreign corporation. 
 
 As this construction is manifestly inconsistent with the pur- 
 pose of the treaty, the term "possessory" must be one of lim- 
 itation. The effect of this limitation is clearly determined by 
 the context. The treaty provides in the same terms for re- 
 specting the possessory rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, 
 and of all British subjects who may be in the occupation of 
 land lawfully acquired. The precise language is — " In future 
 appropriations of the territory south of the 49th parallel of 
 north latitude, as provided in the first article of this treaty, 
 the possessory rights of the Hudson's Bay Company and of 
 all British subjects who may be already in the occupation of 
 
 \ 
 
218 
 
 by 
 re- 
 
 >^, 
 
 land or other property lawfully acquired within the said terri- 
 tory shall be respected." 
 
 The Hudson's Bay Company stand on the same footing as 
 all British subjects already in the occupation of land. The 
 possessory rights of all are such as are derived from the occu- 
 pation of the land, and are limited to them. If other corpo- 
 rations established by law, having similar possessory rights, 
 had existed in the territory, the language of the treaty would 
 obviously have been "the possessory rights of all British cor- 
 porations and subjects who may be already in the occupation, 
 &c., are to be respected." The express mention of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company cannot be considered as establishing a 
 distinction between its possessory rights and those of British 
 subjects, derived from occupation in the absence of any lan- 
 guage defining such a distinction. The plenipotentiaries on 
 the part of Great Britain could not have been regardless of 
 ibo interests or ignorant of the nature of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company, and would not have failed to secure the vast rights 
 now claimed by terms admitting of no doubtful interpretation, 
 if such had been their purpose. •• > 
 
 The circumstance that express provision is made in another 
 article for spcuring the interests of the Puget's Sound Agri- 
 cultural Company, cannot be regarded as indicating a distinc- 
 tion between the rights of these Companies, or between these 
 Companies and individuals. As there is reason to believe that 
 the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company is an informal asso- 
 ciation, and has no legal corporate existence, it seems to have 
 been specially mentioned in the treaty for the purpose of 
 securing its future recognition, notwithstanding the want of 
 legal formality in its original institution. 
 
 In defining the possessory rights of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany, the United States are to regard them in the same light 
 as those of individuals who have actually occupied lands. It 
 is clear that the possessory rights of such individuals would 
 be limited to actual erections, enclosures, and lands cultivated 
 and improved. These rights are held by mere occupancy. 
 They vest no interest in the soil, and are lost the moment such 
 occupancy is abandoned. It is admitted that an entry into 
 
 K' 
 
 \\ 
 
214 
 
 /^ 
 
 -x^ 
 
 >■ * 
 
 possession of a tract of land, under a deed containing specific 
 metea and bounds, gives a constructive possession of the whole 
 tract, if not in adverse possession, although there may be no 
 fence or enclosure around the ambit of the tract, and an actual 
 residence on only a part of it. But it is conceived that the 
 term occupation has a more restricted meaning, and is applied 
 to lands and property actually used and improved. It is in 
 this sense that Blaokstone and Locke use the term in treating 
 of the mode in which titles to land were originally acquired. 
 
 When the established policy and nature of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company are considered, it is apparent that to allow them 
 to claim possessory rights over the whole country north of the 
 Columbia river, and below the 49th parallel of latitude, would 
 be inconsistent with the right recugnized by the United States 
 and all civilized nations to appropriate for purposes of settle- 
 ment and agriculture territory occupied by unsettled and 
 sparsely scattered hunters and fishermen. The profits of this 
 Company have been derived principally from trading with the 
 Indians and scattered voyagers and hunters, who have ex- 
 changed the products of the forests for their goods. It has 
 been the policy of the Company to discourage agricultural 
 emigrants, and to keep the greater portion of the territory a 
 mere wilderness, or a vast preserve for game. Vattcl has ob- 
 sdrved that the cultivation of the soil is an obl'gationimpoaed 
 by nature upon mankind, and he and other writers upon nat- 
 ural law place but little value upon the territorial rights of 
 •people sparsely inhabiting vast regions, and drawing their 
 subsistence chiefly from the forest; In this view it would be 
 difficult to distinguish the territorial rights of this Company 
 from those of the people fast disappearing before the steps of 
 civilization on this continent. 
 
 In estimating the value of the possessory rights of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company, it must be borne in mind that these rights, 
 being simply those of occupancy and incapable of being trans- 
 ferred to purchasers, must terminate at the expiration of the 
 term during which their privileges in the territory exist by 
 their charters. The rights which the Hudson's Bay Company 
 had in the territory lying between the Columbia river and the 
 
 A. 
 
 Tr 
 
mmm 
 
 ie Hud- 
 
 1 rights, 
 ti'ans- 
 of the 
 nst by 
 impany 
 Ind the 
 
 216 
 
 forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, were not derived from 
 their original charter, which gave thorn a perpetual grant of 
 the following named territories, viz : "All those seas, straits, 
 bays, rivers, lakes, crook», ond sounds, in whatever latitude 
 they shall be, that lie within the entrance of the straits com- 
 monly called IIudBon's Straits, together with all the lands, 
 countries, and torritoriofl, upon the coasts and confines of the 
 seas, straits, bays, lakofi, rivors, creeks, and sounds aforesaid, 
 which are not now actually possessed by any of our subjects, 
 or by the subjects of any other Christian prince or State." 
 
 They occupied the land in the territory south of the forty- 
 ninth parallel of latitude and north of the Columbia river, 
 under the authority of » grant bearing date December 5, 1821, 
 giving the Company " an exclusive right of trading in all such 
 parts of North America to the northward and westward of 
 lands and territories of the United States as do not form any 
 part of our provinces of North America or the United States. 
 This grant was given for a period of twenty-one years, at the 
 end of which time it was renewed for a further period of twenty- 
 one years. As the Crown has no power to renew the charter 
 of a Company in the territory of the United States, and the 
 Company cannot transfer rights of occupation, all the pos- 
 sessory rights of the Hudson's Bay Company will be extin- 
 guished irt the year 18051. The question addresses itself to 
 the liberality of the United States, whether a broad view of 
 the spirit of the tj'cttty maynot render it expedient to disre- 
 gard the limitations of the grant, and to concede to the Com- 
 pany the same perpetual rights as to individuals. 
 
 It is pretended that by the fourth article of the treaty of 
 184G, the lands and farms of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Company are confirmed to them to the full extent of their 
 claims, and that this provision vests the absolute fee of such 
 farms and land in the Company, subject only to the right of 
 purchase by the United States. This view I conceive to be 
 wholly inconsistent witli the terms of the treaty. 
 
 The fourth article of the treaty is as follows : " The farms, 
 lands, and other property of every description belonging to 
 the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, on the north side 
 of the Columbia river, shall be confirmed to the said Com- 
 
 ■\' 
 
/... 
 
 )' J 
 
 i! 
 
 f 
 
 (/• 
 
 !i 
 
 210 
 
 pany. In oaso, however, the vituation of those farms and lands 
 should be considered by the United States Oovernment to be of 
 public and political importanoo, and the United States Govern- 
 ment should signify a desire to obtain possession of the whole or 
 any part thereof, the property so required shall be transferred 
 to the said Government at a proper valuation to be agreed upon 
 by the parties." 
 
 In the case of Foster k Elam vt. Neilson, (2 Peters, 314,) 
 the SuprcDie Court of the United, t^tates carefully considered 
 the ciToct of a provision in the eighth article of the treaty with 
 Spain of 1819, containing terms similar to those of the fourth 
 article of the treaty of 1840. In this case, the Court say, 
 ** Whatever difference may exist respecting the effect of the 
 ratification, in whatever sense it may be understood, we think 
 that the sound construction of the eighth article will not enable 
 this Court to apply its provisions to the present case. The 
 words of the article are: 'All the grants of land made before 
 January 24, 1818, by his Catholio majesty, &c., shall be rati- 
 fied and confirmed to the persons in possession of the lands to 
 the same extent that the same grants would be valid if the 
 territories had remained under the dominion of his Catholic 
 majesty.' Do these words act directly on the grants, so as to 
 give validity to those not otherwise valid, or do they pledge 
 the faith of the United States to pass acts which shall ratify 
 and confirm them. 
 
 ''A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations. 
 It does not generally effect, of itself, the object to be accom- 
 plished, especially so far as its operation is infra-territorial; 
 but it is carried into execution by the sovereign power of the 
 respective parties to the instrument. 
 
 *'In the United States a different principle is established. 
 Our Constitution declares a treaty to bo the law of the land. 
 It is consequently to be regarded in courts of justice as equiv- 
 alent to an act of the legislature whenever it operates of itself 
 without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the 
 terms of the stipulation import a contract, when either of the 
 parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty ad- 
 dresses itself to the political, not to the Judicial, department, 
 
217 
 
 and the legislature must execute the contract before it can be« 
 come a rule for the Court. 
 
 " The article under consideration does not declare that all the 
 grants made by his Catholic majesty before the 24th of Janu- 
 ary, 1818, shall be valid to the same extent as if the ceded 
 territories had remained under his dominion. It does not say 
 that these grants are hereby confirmed. Had such been its 
 language, it would- have acted directly upon the subject, and 
 would have repealed those acts of Congress which are repug- 
 nant to it; but its language is, that those grunts shall be rati- 
 fied and confirmed to the person in possession. This seems to 
 be the language of contract, and, if it is, the ratification and 
 confirmation which are promised must be the act of the legis- 
 lature. Until such act is passed, the Court is not at liberty 
 to disregard the existing laws on the subject." The Court 
 then proceed to refer to various acts of Congress, showing that 
 Congress appear to have understood this article as understood 
 by the Court. 
 
 Afterwards, in the case of the United States vs. Perchman, 
 (7 Peters, p. 86,) in reviewing these words of the 8th article 
 of the treaty of 1819, the Court held that the words used were 
 words of present confirmation by the treaty whore the land 
 had been rightfully granted before the cession. In the case 
 of Garcia vs. Lee, (12 Peters, 520,) the Court reviewed their 
 opinion in the case of the United States vs. Perchman, and 
 say: "This language was, however, applied by the Court, and 
 intended to apply to grants made in a territory which belonged 
 to Spain at the time of the grant. It was in relation to a 
 grant of land in Florida which unquestionably belonged to 
 Spain at the time the grant was made, and where the Spanish 
 authorities had an undoubted right to grant until the cession 
 of 1819. It is of such grants that the Court speak when they 
 declare them to be confirmed and protected by the true con- 
 struction of the treaty, and that they do not need the aid of 
 an act of Congress to ratify apd confirm the title of the pur- 
 chaser. 
 
 "But they do not, in part of the last-mentioned case, apply 
 this principle to grants made by Spain within the limits of 
 
 s\ 
 
I 
 
 u 
 
 T 
 
 218 
 
 Louisiana in the territory which belonged to the United States 
 according to the true boundary." 
 
 This case is conclusive as to the point in question. The 
 territory north of the Columbia river, beyond the forty-ninth 
 parallel of latitude, had always been claimed by the United 
 States. The treaty of 1846 determined that the true bound- 
 ary was the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, and that 
 the territory south of that parallel belonged to the United 
 States. The British authorities had no right to grant in that 
 territory. The farms and lands of the Puget's Sound, Agri- 
 cultural Company, by the principle of those decisions, are not 
 confirmed, and tho "confirmation promised must bo the act of 
 the legislature." 
 
 Both of the Companies referred to claim certain rights f' - 
 tinct from the lands actually occupied ond improved by icm, 
 such as the right of felling timber in the forests, and the right 
 of grazing large tracts of unenclosed pasture and prairie lands 
 with immense herds of cattle and flocks of sheep. 
 
 The right of felling timber would seem to be limited to the 
 right of estovers, as known in the common law, which would 
 give them simply the right to use tim.berfor fuel, for building, 
 and farm purposes, on the lands actually improved or enclosed 
 by them, and would give them no right to appropriate timber 
 for sale or exportation. 
 
 Vast herds of cattle and flocks of sheep, claimed to belong 
 to these Companies, which have become totally wild and unre- 
 claimed, and are now as truly /crop natures as the native buffalo 
 and deor, are suffered to roam over the territory, eating bare 
 the pastures, sftid invading the fields of the settlers. It is 
 clear that in using unappropriated lands for pasturage, these^ 
 Companies should not have the exclusive use of such lands, 
 and should be restricted to the right of common pasture known 
 in the English common law, which would give them no exclu- 
 sive privileges, and would rosti ,ct their cattle and sheep to the 
 number actually levant ef .1 lehant upon the farms which they 
 have enclosed and improved. 
 
 I have been guided by the views above presented in seeking 
 information relative to the property of these Companies within 
 
 ^ jwX ftit i a v^ ixjluvy m' m \ - v 
 
219 
 
 \. ^, 
 
 « ■ > 
 
 ang 
 lin 
 
 the Torritoriefl of Washington and Oregon, and in making an 
 estimate of its value, and now proceed to give the statements 
 and estimates demanded by your instructions. 
 
 These statements are mostly founded upon personal observa- 
 tion, as I have visited, myself, Fort Colvile, Fort Walla- Walla, 
 Fort Vancouver, the granary at the mouth of the Cowlitz, the 
 Cowlitz Farms, and Fort Nisqually. The gentlemen connected 
 with mo in the recent exploration visited Fort IlaU, the Flat- 
 head Post, and Fort Okanagiin. The remaining posts and 
 property, it will be observed, are inconsiderable in character 
 and extent. I am indebted to Colonel Isaac N. Ebey and 
 George Oibbs, Esq., for valuable notes, descriptive of these 
 possessions. 
 
 The principal establishment of the Hudson's Bay Company, 
 within the territory of the United States, is Fort Vancouver, 
 on the Columbia river. This is the parent establishment whence 
 the others are supplied with goods. 
 
 The post is enclosed by a stockade of 200 by 175 yards, 
 twelve fee', in height, and is defended by bastions on the north- 
 west and southeast angles, mounted with cannon. Within are 
 the governor's house, two smaller buildings used by clerks, a 
 range of dwellings for families, and five two-story warehouses, 
 besides offices. Without there is a large warehouse, at present 
 hired by the United States. These are all built of square logs, 
 framed together. The buildings within the enclosure are old 
 and considerably decayed, only the repairs necessary to keep 
 them in tenantable order having of late years been expended. 
 Outside the enclosure are about twenty cabins, occupied by 
 servants, Kanakas, and Indians. These cabins are, with few 
 exceptions, built of slabs. Most of them are untenanted and 
 left to decay. 
 
 The lands in cultivation about Fort Vancouver, at the date 
 of the treaty, did not exceed two hundred and fifty acres. 
 Since that time many of the inclosures have been broken up, 
 and lands formerly cultivated have become a waste. 
 
 Besides their broad claim to the whole territory, the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company make a particular claim to sevoral tracts 
 B 
 
 
220 
 
 in the vicinity of Fort Vancouver : first, the plain on which 
 the fort and the United States barracks are situated, vrith a 
 small plain behind it, making in all a tract of about four miles 
 square. Adjoining this, above Fort Vancouver, they claim 
 another tract, known as the " Mill claim," two and a half by 
 three-quarter miles square. On this claim is a saw-mill, now 
 in operation, which has been built since the treaty. A grist- 
 mill was erected in 1836, but is now nearly worthless. Anew 
 mill frame was erected at this place in 1847, but has never been 
 completed. At this mill there is a storehouse and miller's 
 house, both built of logs with shingle roofs. 
 
 In the vicinity of these mills, at the date of the treaty, the 
 Hudson's Bay Company had about two thousand acres of land 
 under cultivation, with farm houses, barns, and outbuildings. 
 Since that period the cultivated land and inclosures have been 
 reduced to about a thousand acres, and the buildings have been 
 left to decay. 
 
 These, as far as I could ascertain, embrace the whole of the 
 improvements of the Company in the vicinity of Fort Van- 
 couver, if we except a few sheep-pens, long since abandoned, 
 which were at one time on the possessions below the fort. 
 
 I estimate the value of the erections and improvements, in 
 and about Fort Vancouver, and those about the saw and grist- 
 mill, including the mills, dwelling-houses, storehouses, farms, 
 barns, &c., at the sum of fifty thousand dollars. 
 
 The business at this post has changed with the condition of 
 the country since the treaty, and is now almost entirely mer- 
 cantile and carried on with the settlers. Comparatively a small 
 amount of Indian goods is now imported, that description of 
 merchandise being sent to the posts in the British territory by 
 way of Victoria. What trade with the Indians is carried on 
 here is the ordinary retail trade of country stores, and for 
 cash. The amount of the general business of the Company in 
 this territory may be gathered from their imports during 1853. 
 
 These consisted of one cargo of assorted American goods 
 from New York, and another, valued at about .£19,000, from 
 London, paying duties to the amount of nearly $24,000. A 
 
 I 
 
221 
 
 considerable portion of these were sold on commission at Port- 
 land, Oregon City, and other places in the Willamette Valley. 
 
 The next post above Vancouver is Fort Walla-W«».l!a, on the 
 Columbia river, below the en^.rance of the Snake. There are 
 here three or four one-story adobe buildings, with offices, en- 
 closed by a wall of the same material, some thirty-five yards 
 on each side, having a bastion at one angle. It is almost 
 wholly valueless, except as a station, where horses can be kept 
 for the trains. There is, indeed, some trade with the Indians, 
 chiefly in cash, but not enough to warrant the maintenance of 
 the post for that purpose alone. The fort is in very indifier- 
 ent repair, and the country in the immediate neighborhood a 
 desert of drifting sand. The force at this post consists of a 
 chief clerk, one interpreter, two traders, and six men, Cana- 
 dians and Indians. 
 
 Some eighteen or twenty miles up the Walla-Walla river is 
 a so-called farm, on which are two small hovels, each consist- 
 ing of a single room, occupied by a servant and an Indian 
 employed as herdsman. There was formerly a dam at this 
 place for irrigation, but it is broken down. Five thousand 
 dollars I consider a large estimate for the value of these two 
 establishments. 
 
 Fort Colvile, upon ihe Columbia, above Kettle Falls, is next 
 in importance to Fort Vancouver, though far inferior to it in 
 extent. It is situated on the second terrace at some distance 
 back from the river, the lower terrace being in part flooded 
 during the freshets. The buildings consist of a dwelling-house, 
 three or four storehouses, and some smaller buildings, used as 
 blackamith shops, &c., all of one story, and constructed of 
 squared logs. The whole was once surrounded by a stockade, 
 forming a -tpare of about seventy yards on each side. This 
 has leen rr uoved, except on the north side, where it encloses 
 a narrow yard containing offices. One bastion remains. About 
 thirty yards in the rear of this square are the cattle yards, 
 hay fihedfl, ^c, enclosing a space of forty by sixty yards, 
 roughly fenced in, and the sheds covered with bark. On the 
 left jf the front are seven huts, occupied by the lower em- 
 ^Ic/es of the company. They are of rude construction, and 
 
222 
 
 \i 
 
 much decayed. On the right of the square, in the roar, at a 
 distance of a few hundred yards, are three more buildings, 
 used for storing produce. At this post the barges used by the 
 Company for the navigation of the Columbia river are built. 
 
 Besides the principal establishment, there is a cattle-post 
 about nine miles distant, on the stream laid down as the Slaun- 
 te-us, and a grist-mill of one pair of stones, three "Mies off on 
 the same stream. The latter is in good order. Here formerly 
 the flour for the northern posts was ground from wheat raised 
 on the Company's farms. The mill is still used by the farniers 
 of the Colvile Valley, and by the Spokane Indians, who bring 
 here their wheat from a distance of seventy miles. The farm 
 at this point was once pretty extensive, but only a small por- 
 tion is cultivated at present. ^ 
 
 Fort Colvile was orice the post of a chief factor, the highest 
 officer in charge of a station, and here the annual accounts of 
 the whole country were consolidated previous to transmipsi n 
 across the mountains. The present force consists only of ;>. 
 chief clerk, a trader, and about twenty Canadians and Iroquois 
 Indians. 
 
 I estimate the value of Fort Colvile and the mill, with the 
 improvements, at twenty-five thousand dollars. 
 
 Belo,w Fort Colvilo is Fort Okanagan, situated on a level 
 plain on the right bahk of the Columbia, a little above the 
 mouth of the Okinakane river, and not far from the site of 
 one of Mr. Astor's posts. The fort consists of three small 
 houses, with a stockade. There were formerly some out-build- 
 ings, but they have been suffered to decay. There is no 
 appearance here of trade, and no goods are on hand. A few 
 furs only are taken, and the post does not probably pay its 
 expenses. 
 
 Fort Kootonay, upon the great bend of the Flatbow river, 
 and not far from the Flathead lake, is an inferior post, in 
 charge of a Canadian as trader and postmaster, and one Cana- 
 dian and a half-breed under him. There is also a post called 
 the Flathead post, east of the Flathead* lake, on one of its 
 small tributaries. The three last named posts, in connection 
 with the right of pasturage on Clarke's Fork, enjoyed by the 
 
223 
 
 U 
 
 d 
 
 ts 
 
 Company in common with the Indians, I estimate at five thou- 
 sand dollars. 
 
 The above constitute all the posts of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company, situated in Washington Territory, east of the Cas- 
 cades, and north of the 46th degree. 
 
 There are in Oregon Territory and east of the mountains 
 only two posts. Fort Hall, at the head of the Snake river, 
 Boise, upon the same, nearly opposite the mouth of the Owy- 
 hee. The latter is merely a stopping place, occupied by a 
 trader and a few Kanakas. The former is a more important 
 one, from its opportunities for trade with the emigrants and 
 with the Salt Lake. Lieutenant MuUan, who visited this post 
 in the winter, found a chief clerk in charge, and the supplies 
 limited ; it is only a third rate post. Considering the favor- 
 able position of these two posts, I estimate them at fifteen 
 thousand dollars. 
 
 West of the Cascades, in Oregon Territory, the principal 
 post is Fort Umpqua, on the Umpqua river. This was de- 
 stroyed by fire two or three years since. 
 
 The other possessions consist of a house and granary at 
 Champoeg, on the Willamette ; one acre of ground below the 
 falls at Oregon city, purchased from an American ; a farm of 
 six hundred and forty acres, on Sauvie's island, at the mouth 
 of the Willamette, with a house, dairy, and garden; the build- 
 ings about six years old. The old buildings at Astoria are of 
 no value whatever. 
 
 I estimate the value of the last posts, lands, and improve- 
 ments, at fifteen thousand dollars. 
 
 In Washington Territory, west of the Cascades, the only 
 post of the Company of any importance is Fort Nisqually, on 
 land claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. It 
 is situated at some distance from the water, on high, undulat- 
 ing prairie, and is a cluster of small buildings, of no great 
 value, within a stockade. The trade here is principally with 
 the settlers. Besides this, there is a granary and about five 
 acres of land two miles above the mouth of the Cowlitz river 
 — a tract of land on Cape Disappointment, occupied by an old 
 servant, and a small store and lot of ground near Chinook. 
 
 
 .»»,i;kJBiMriMMiMan«wk.'«Mw4 .£.»>«.* i.«v :»•* -^'' 
 
224 
 
 Fort Nisqually will be estimated in connection with the property 
 of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. The property 
 at the mouth of the Cowlitz, on Cape Disappointment and 
 near Chinook, I estimate at five thousand dollars. 
 
 With the exception of Fort Vancouver, it is believed that 
 none of the posts above mentioned are worth maintaining for 
 any other purpose than that of holding the property until a 
 sale can be eflfected. The condition of the whole country is 
 completely changed since they were established, the Company 
 being now little else than general merchants. At all points of 
 general importance, they meet with competition from our own 
 citizens; and, whenever it wil' :cpay the enterprise, the same 
 competition will follow ther . elsewhere. 
 
 I do not deem it important that the rights of the Company 
 in the fjy.r'^^-orv should be extinguished, on account of their 
 undue or u rable influence upon the Indians. The rela- 
 
 tions of the ompany with the Indians, though not less 
 friendly, are far less intimate than they have been. Even the 
 more distant tribes now frequent the towns; attracted partly 
 by novelty and partly by the opportunities afforded for earn- 
 ing money by labor. Most of them comprehend that the in- 
 fluence of the Company has departed. 
 
 Although the Company, as traders, have endeavored to 
 secure themsel/es every advantage, and although their action, 
 in some cases has borne heavily upon the settlers, in every mat- 
 ter between a white man and an Indian, they have sustained 
 the white, of whatever nation. 
 
 In this connection I deem it due to the Company to refer to 
 an incident reflecting the highest credit upon an ofiicer of the 
 Company, which occurred during the winters of 1846-'47, and 
 the particulars of which I have from Mr. Stanley, who was a 
 personal witness of the transaction. The Cayuse Indians 
 made an incursion upon the mission of Dr. Whitman on the 
 Walla-Walla river; killed Dr. Whitman and his wife, and cap- 
 tured several women and children. A factor, one or two Cath- 
 olic priests, and Mr. Stanley, since artist of the expedition 
 which I commanded, were confined at Fort Walla- Walla by 
 the hostility of the Indians. As soon as this event was known 
 
 l\ 
 
 i.\ 
 
 it 
 
225 
 
 at Fort Vancouver, Governor Ogden, the chief factor of the Com- 
 pany, immediately proceeded to Walla-Walla, and a^ the risk 
 of his own life redeemed the captives with goods which he had 
 carried with him for that purpose. For the expenditure on 
 this occasion, it may he mentioned, the Company have never 
 requested or received payment. 
 
 The Puget's Sound Agricultural Company claim a tract of 
 land at what is called the Cowlitz Farms. The quantity of 
 land claimed is eight thousand acres, more or less. According 
 to the plat deposited at the Surveyor General's office, their 
 tract contains only about three thousand acres. Some years 
 back about fifteen hundred acres of land were under cultiva- 
 tion ; but of late years the cultivation of land has been almost 
 entirely abandoned. The fences have been allowed to go to 
 decay; much of the hay even has not been cut. The land, 
 however, is of excellent character, not being surpassed by any 
 in the Territory. The improvements and land I estimate at 
 twenty-five thousand dollars. 
 
 The Puget's Sound Agricultural Company claim from near 
 the Nisqually to the Puyallup rivers, and from the shores of 
 Puget's Sound to the dividing line of the Cascades, a tract of 
 land some sixteen miles by fifty miles, containing some eight 
 hundred square miles, much of which has never even been 
 penetrated by a white man. This tract is claimed in conse- 
 quence of being used as a range for cattle and sheep belong- 
 ing to the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. It is asserted 
 that some five thousand cattle and sixteen thousand sheep roam 
 at large on this tract. The number is not exactly known, and 
 is probably much over-estimated. The sheep are said to be 
 mostly under the charge of shepherds, but the great propor- 
 tion of the cattle are now in a state of nature. These cattle 
 and sheep have furnished important supplies to the settlements 
 on Puget's Sound. The post is frequently visited by steamers 
 belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company, which carry away 
 supplies of cattle and sheep for Vancouver Island. The soil 
 of this tract in the vicinity of Puget's Sound is inferior, but, 
 judging from the developments made in other portions of the 
 territory, much good laud will be found near the mountain 
 
 ^« •vtWuMa^^ 
 
 j.*fciejs:£X«»>i^*M-i^'>»"' 
 
 ] 
 
I 
 
 226 
 
 slopes. Estimating the quantity of pasturage required for 
 the nunAer of sheep and cattle said to range on this tract, 
 and throwing in favor of the Compan j the grave doubt whether 
 they have not lost the ownership of the greater number of the 
 cattle, I estimate this property at one hundred and fifty thou- 
 sand dollars. 
 
 Recapitulation of .poaaessions of the Hudson's Bay Company^ 
 and the PugeV% Sound Agricultural Qomj < ■^, x /'■':, t,ne 
 Territories of Washington and Oregon, and estimates of value. 
 
 Possessions of Hudson's Bay Comp. ny: 
 
 Fort Vancouver and mill $50,000 00 
 
 Walla-Walla and vicinity, .... 6,000 00 
 Fort Colvile, mill, and improvements, . 26,000 00 
 Posts on Flatbow and Flathead rivers, and 
 
 Fort Okanagan, 6,000 00 
 
 Fort Hall and Fort Bois^, in Oregon, east of 
 
 the Cascades, 15,000 00 
 
 Fort Umpqua, and other property in Oregon, 
 
 east of the Cascades, .... 16,000 00 
 Property at the mouth of the Cowlitz, on 
 
 Cape Disappointment, and near Chinook, 6,000 00 
 
 Property of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
 pany in Washington Territory: 
 
 Fort Ni;.qually, 150,000 00 
 
 Cowlitz farms, 30,000 00 
 
 V 
 
 300,000 00 
 
 I have given the above valuation as the most which, in my 
 opinion, the United States should pay for the purpose of ex- 
 tinguishing all the rights of these Companies within their ter- 
 ritory. I have given in all cases a liberal estimate, and some- 
 what above that of the most experienced gentlemen I have 
 consulted. No obligation or imperative necessity is imposed 
 upon the United States to extinguish these rights or purchase 
 
227 
 
 this property. But the United States are bound to take im- 
 mediate steps for making the confirmations promised in tho 
 treaty of 1846. Commissioners should be appointed by an act 
 of Congress, having powers and duties similar to those con- 
 ferred in pursuance of like treaty provisions. The practice 
 has been to assign this duty to Governors of Territories, who 
 are presumed to be well fitted by their public position and 
 their local knowledge and experience, or to appoint special 
 commissioners. It is indispensable that confirmations should 
 be made before a purchase is efi'ected. The act known as the 
 Donation Law of September 27, 1850, granted to every white 
 settler or occupant of the public lands within the Territory of 
 Oregon, being an American citizen, or having declared his in- 
 tention to become a citizen, residing within the Territory on 
 or before the first day of December, 1850, and who shr '1 have 
 resided upon and cultivated the land upon which he had set- 
 tled for four consecutive years, the quantity of one-half sec- 
 tion of three hundred and twenty acres of land, and if married 
 within one year from the first day of December, 1850, one 
 section of six hundred and forty acres, one-half to himself and 
 the other half to his wife. 
 
 Many of the chief servants of the Hudson's Bay Company 
 claim as individuals under this law the very tracts claimed by 
 the Company. The tract upon which Fort Vancouver stands, 
 to the extent of six hundred and forty acres, is claimed by a 
 chief clerk of the Company residing at the fort. These claims 
 have been made with a view of securing the lauds to servants 
 of the Hudson's Bay Company, even if the United States 
 should extinguish by purchase the rights of the Company. It 
 is important that the extent and boundaries of the lands of 
 the Companies should be fixed by confirmation, in order that 
 the Companies should be able to give a title to the United 
 State which might bar the settlers' claims. The commission- 
 ers should be directed to make a fair estimate of the value of 
 the possessions of the Companies, and report the same to Con- 
 gress, as a basis for its action, in case a purchase should be 
 deemed expedient. 
 
 It is hoped that this subject will receive the immediate atten- 
 
 \ 
 
 ) 
 
 1^ 
 
 \\ 
 
'/■ 
 
 /, 
 
 ) 228 
 
 tion of Congress, and that, while all the obligations of plighted 
 faith are redeemed, the embarrassments which impede the set- 
 tlement of this magnificent Territory may be speedily removed. 
 I have the honor to be, sir, respectfully, your obedient ser- 
 vant, 
 
 Isaac I. Stevens, 
 
 Governor of the Territory of Washington. 
 
 N. B. — I enclose copies of a letter from W. F. Tolmie, Esq., 
 agent of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, dated De- 
 cember 27, 1853, protesting against the views presented in my 
 circular letter of December 20, 1853, and of my answer thereto, 
 dated January 9, 1854, in which those views are maintained. 
 I have also received from Chief Factors Ogden and Mactavish 
 a reply to my circular letter, as aforesaid, solemnly protesting 
 against any invasion of their rights, and referring my letter 
 to the superior ofiicers of the Company for the necessary ac- 
 tion. I regret that this letter was left at Olympia. 
 
 The accompanying report of Colonel Isaad N. Ebey, as to 
 the value of Fort Vancouver and the Cowlitz farms, gives a 
 lively picture of the conflicting character of claims to land at 
 Fort Vancouver. His estimate of Fort Vancouver and its de- 
 pendencies is $32,000. 
 
 Fort Nisqually, December 27, 1853. 
 
 Sir: I have had the honor to receive your communication 
 of the 20th instant, calling my attention to certain views en- 
 tertained by the General Government of the United States as 
 to the rights and privileges secured to the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany and the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company by the 
 treaty ratified between Great Britain and the United States on 
 the 5th of August, 1846. 
 
 With regard to what is set forth in your letter as to the 
 possessory rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, I hereby 
 solemnly protest against such views as almost entirely fritter- 
 ing away the very ample rights secured to said Company by 
 the treaty of 1846, as understood by several of the highest 
 legal authorities in the United States and British North 
 
229 
 
 America. More oipocially do I protest against that view of 
 the case which would go to deprive the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany of the right of trading with the Indians, and I conceive 
 it in the utmost degree improbable that the high contracting 
 parties — the framora of the treaty — ever contemplated deny- 
 ing the Company one of the most important rights it possessed. 
 Had such been the intention of the distinguished men who 
 settled the terms of the treaty, an exception would have been 
 made as to trade with Indians in the article granting to the 
 Hudson's Bay Company all the rights they possessed at the 
 date of the treaty, and inasmuch as no such exception was 
 then made, I contend that, according to acknowledged princi- 
 ples of international law, subsequent rastrictions and limita- 
 tions cannot justly bo sustained. 
 
 Ever since the terms of the treaty between Great Britain 
 and the United States, ratified August 5, 1846, became known 
 in this part of the world, I have claimed, on behalf of the 
 Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, the tract of country of 
 which, as farms, lands, or otherwise as property, the said Com- 
 pany, by its agents, was in the sole and exclusive use and oc- 
 cupancy at the date of said treaty, and for a long time previ- 
 ously. I have claimed no land abandoned prior to the date of 
 the treaty nor any primarily occupied subsequently. 
 
 While on this subject, I bog to call your attention to sundry 
 encroachments on the Company's rights by American citizens 
 who, chiefly since the year 1850, despite my written notifica- 
 tions that they wore trespassing on the Company's lands, have 
 settled on the prairies between the Nisqually and the Puyallup 
 rivers, all which are included in the Puget's Sound Agricul- 
 tural Company's claim. 
 
 The evils thence arising are manifold; in some instances our 
 enclosed lands under cultivation have been taken possession 
 of; more frequently the rails forming our sheep-folds and 
 other enclosures have been appropriated by the settlers, who 
 have enclosed and ploughed up all the best spots of pasture 
 lands. 
 
 They prevent our shepherds from pasturing sheep near their 
 farms, and it has long been a oustora with several to shoot the 
 
 1 
 
 \] 
 
 :\ 
 
J 
 
 
 II 
 
 280 
 
 Company's cattle and even rilling horses, when feeding near 
 their houses and enclosures. 
 
 Another mischievous custom, pretty generally adopted, has 
 been to hunt the Company's cattle into the woods with dogs 
 whenever herds grazing used to approach a settler's fields. 
 
 In a considerable degree, owing to practices, our cattle have 
 been rendered much wilder than they wore in 1846, when we 
 were in the habit of driving with ease cattle from the romotest 
 corners of the pasture grounds into parks at this place. 
 
 In thus showing that the Fugct's Sound Agricultural Com- 
 pany, have, for some years back, sustained grout and increasing 
 loss in consequence of the various encroachments above men- 
 tioned, I must in justice add, that several persons settled on 
 the Company's lands have exhibited a consideration and for- 
 bearance highly creditable. 
 
 Doubtless the settlers have complaints to make of pastures 
 eaten bare and fields invaded by the Company's live stock, but 
 it must be borne in mind that the Company, by the stipulations 
 of the Oregon boundary treaty, as well as by provisions of the 
 land donation act in force in Washington Territory, has the 
 prior and sole right still to the lands it has, by its agents, so 
 long occupied. 
 
 I will endeavor, as soon as possible, to furnish you with a 
 copy of the Company's articles of agreement, and can produce, 
 whenever required, proof of all the foregoing statements rela- 
 tive to its affairs. 
 
 Submitting said statements to your impartial consideration, 
 I have the honor to remain, sir, your very obedient servant, 
 
 William Frasser Tolmib, 
 C. F. ffudson's Bay Co., agent Pugct'a Sound Ag'l Go.y 
 
 Nitqually, Washington Territory. 
 
 To his Excellency IsAAO I. STKVmNt), 
 
 Qovemor of W. T. and Sup't of Indian Affairs. 
 
 Olympia, Washington Territory, 
 January 7, 1854. 
 Sir : In accordance with your request to me, dated Decem- 
 ber 12, 1853, I proceeded to Fort Yanoouvor, to inquire into 
 
281 
 
 the nature and extent of the Hudson's Bay Company's pos- 
 sessions at Fort Vancouver, and the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Company's possessions at the Cowlitz, and make the following 
 report, to wit: 
 
 The extent of the Hudson's Bay Company's possessions at 
 Fort Vancouver, at the date of the treaty between the United 
 States and Great Britain, were certainly not greater than was 
 claimed for them by Mr. Ballenden, chief factor of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company at Fort Vancouver, in a communication 
 addressed by that gentleman to the surveyor general of Oregon 
 Territory, on July 30, 1852. This tract of country certainly 
 embraces every acre of land upon which a possessory right to 
 the land could be claimed. Within that boundary the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company have a stockade fort, on the inside of 
 which are ten houses, eight of which were erected before the 
 treaty of boundary between the United States and Great Bri- 
 tain, and two have been erected since. There are about twenty 
 cabins built outside the enclosure, and a large warehouse near 
 the bank of the river. The buildings on the inside the enclo- 
 sure are so old, and the timbers and materials of which they 
 are constructed so decayed, as to render them almost wholly 
 valueless. The cabins on the outside the enclosures are, with 
 few exceptions, built of slabs, and were erected by the servants 
 of the Company for their own convenience; they are mostly 
 old, dilapidated huts, most of them untenanted, and are left 
 to decay. 
 
 The lands in cultivation about Fort Vancouver at the date 
 of the treaty did not exceed two hundred and fifty acres ; since 
 that time many of the enclosures have been broken up, and 
 lands once cultivated now all a waste. Above Fort Vancou- 
 ver, and near the Columbia river, the Hudson's Bsiy Company 
 have a grist and saw-mill. The grist-mill was erected in 1836, 
 and is now worthless, or nearly so, the value of which is little 
 if any more than old machinery. There was a new mill frame 
 erected at this place in 1847, that has never been coi :r 'ded 
 or put in operation. At this mill are soole other improvements ; 
 there is a store house and miller's house ; these houses are log 
 houses with shingle roofs. 
 
 \\ 
 
282 
 
 li 
 
 1 hesaw-mill that is now in operation was built since the treaty. 
 
 In the vicinity of those mills, at the date of the treaty, the 
 Hudson's Bay Company had about two thousand acres of land 
 in cultivation, with farm-houses, barns, &c. Since that time 
 the cultivating land and enclosures have been reduced to about 
 one thousand acres, and the buildings left to dilapidature and 
 decay. These, as far as I can ascertain, embrace the whole 
 of the Hudson's Bay Company's improvements in the vicinity 
 of Fort Vancouver, if we except a few sheep-pens that were 
 at one time on the possessions below the fort. These have long 
 since been abandoned. 
 
 I cannot estimate the value of the improvements in and 
 about Fort Vancouver at more than the sum of twenty-five 
 thousand dollars ; the improvements about the saw and grist- 
 mills, including the mills, dwelling-houses, storehouses, farms, 
 barn'', &c., at seven thousand dollars, making in all thirty-two 
 thousand dollars. 
 
 To the second inquiry I would state that in the vicinity of 
 Fort Vancouver the possessions of the Hudson's Bay Company 
 have not been increased since the date of the treaty. 
 
 To the third inquiry I would state, that I think a very consid- 
 erable portion of the Hudson's Bay Company's [claims] at Fo "^ 
 Vancouver, held by them at the date of the treaty, have bec( 
 obsdlete by abandonment. At the date of the treaty and p. 
 to that time all the country below Fort Vancouver was used 
 by the Hudson's Bay Company as grazing grounds for their 
 herds of cattle, sheep, horses, and hogs, with the necessary 
 huts to Shelter then* shepherds and herdsmen. This section of 
 country has been abandoned for this use or any other by the 
 Company for years past. 
 
 Their possessions in the vicinity of the mill and Mill Plain 
 have also, to a great extent, been abandoned. They have now 
 a few head of cattle in that vicinity, driven from Fort Walla- 
 Walla last summer. 
 
 To the fourth inquivy, as " to the nature and extent of claims 
 of settlers under the donation act of the United States, approved 
 September 27, 1850, upon lands claimed by said Companies," 
 I would state that most of the lands that are valuable for 
 agricultural operations, within the boundaries claimed ]by the 
 
m 
 
 288 
 
 Hudson's Bay Company, are claimed and held by settlers under 
 said act. 
 
 The claim of land upon ^rhich Fort Vancouver stands is at 
 this time claimed by Bishop Blanchette, bishop of Nisqually, 
 as a Catholic mission, by virtue of a provision in the act of 
 Congress organizing Washington Territory, approved March 
 8, 1858. The Liishop has notified the surveyor general of Ore- 
 gon of his claim, embracing six hundred and forty acres. The 
 same tract of land is claimed by James Graham, chief clerk 
 to the Hudson's Bay Company at Fort Vancouver, to the 
 amount of six hundred and forty acres. Mr. Graham is a nat- 
 uralized citizen. There may be other claims upon this tract 
 of land by citizens under the donation law; if so, I was unable 
 to find them. 
 
 The county of Clarke has for a number of years claimed the 
 right of pre-emption to one hundred and sixty acres of this 
 tract of land, under authority of an act of Congress giving 
 county seats the right of pre-emption to one hundred and 
 sixty acres of land on lands belonging to the General Govern- 
 ment. The authorities of Clarke county I believe, have made 
 sales of lots to individuals, on this tract of land, and received 
 considerable sums of money for the same. Neither the autho- 
 rities of the county nor individuals have made improvements 
 OD the same. 
 
 Over all these claims, the United States have made a mili- 
 tary reservation of six hundred and forty acres, embracing 
 most of the land claimed by the conflicting claimants. 
 
 The land claim immediately above, and joining the above 
 tract, is claimed by Forbes Barclay, as a British subject. This 
 tract embraces six hundred and forty acres. I could not learn 
 that Mr. Barclay had ever resided on the land. Some years 
 ago he was acting physician for the Hudson's Bay Company, 
 at Fort Vancouver, but has for several years past, and now 
 resides at Oregon city, Oregon Territory. I believe he made 
 some improvements on this tract of land. The Hudson's Bay 
 Company have the principal part of the cultivating lands at 
 Fort Vancouver. On this claim they at present cultivate near 
 two hundred acres of land on the same. 
 
(i 
 
 284 
 
 ■ J 
 
 a 
 
 ii 
 
 V 
 
 •I. 
 
 This sntno tract of land is claimed by a Mr. Ryan, a citizen 
 of the United States, under the autaority of the donation law. 
 Mr. Ryan claims eix hundred and forty acres; has a good farm 
 house, anu outhouses, &c. He has about thirty acres of land 
 in cultivation. 
 
 The claim above this is a tract of six hundred and forty 
 acres, claimed by Mr. Nye, who is an American citizen. The 
 most of the improvements on this claim were made by a ser- 
 vant of the Hudson's Bay Company for himself. He sold the 
 claim to Peter Skcon Ogden, Governor of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company, who transferred the claim to Mr. Switzler. Switzler 
 transferred the claim to Nye. Nye has made some improve- 
 ments. On this claim there are some ten or twelve acres of 
 land enclosed and cultivated: also, a house and barn. 
 
 Daniel Harvey claims, (a British subject,) under the treaty 
 of boundary between the United States and Great Britain, a 
 tract of land about fonr miles square, including the grist and 
 saw-mills and the Mill Plain upon which is located the Hudson's 
 Bay Company's farms. William F. Crate, who is now, and 
 has been for some time, in the employ of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company, is a naturalized citizen, and claims six hundred and 
 forty acres of land, including the grist-mill, under the dona- 
 tion law. Ho has made no improvements. I believe, however, 
 there are iv house atid barn, and about fifty acres in cultivation. 
 Gabrioi Burktroth claims six hundred and forty acres of land, 
 under the donation law, including the Hudson's Bay Company's 
 saw-mill. He is a citizen. A part of this claim is claimed 
 by Mr. Maxon, who is an American citizen, and claims six hun- 
 dred and forty acres of land- His dwelling-house is on the 
 saw-mill claim. The balance of Mr. Maxon's clairi) is on the 
 Camad Plain, on which the Hudson's Bay Company has had no 
 improvements. On this [lain a number of Americans have 
 settled, among whom are San). Fredstel, Thomas Fletcher, Levi 
 Dothit, Mr. Shaw, John Predstel, Valentine Predstel, Jacob 
 Prcdstcl, and Daniel OUis. These persons have very little 
 improvements except their houses.. 
 
 Peter Dunnington has the claim above Nye's on the river. 
 His improvements consist of a house and about six acres in 
 cultivation. 
 
 1l 
 
 iioiliOiUrj 
 
235 
 
 John Stringer's claim, on which are a house and barn, and 
 about fifty acres in cultivation. 
 
 The widow and heirs of Daniel V. 3hort claim six hundred 
 and forty acres. On this claiic there is a good farm-house and 
 about fifty acres in cultivation. This claim was taken in 1847. 
 
 George Maleek, an American citizen, claims six hundred 
 and forty acres under the donation law. His improvements 
 consist of a dwelling-house and about thirty acres in cultiva- 
 tion. 
 
 Charles Prew, a naturalized citizen and late servant of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company, claims the same. Prew took the claim 
 in 1849. He quit the H. B. C.'s service in the year 1848. 
 
 Maleek took his claim in 1848, and left it, and returned to it 
 again in 1851. 
 
 Mr. Prew also holds the same claim under a lease from the 
 Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 Francis Laframbcise, a naturalized citizen, claims six hun- 
 dred and forty acres under the donation law. His improvements 
 consist of a house and barn, and about fifty acres of land in 
 cultivation. Mr. Laframboise also holds as a lessee of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 Abraham Roby claims six hundred and forty acres under the 
 donation law. His improvements consist of a house and five 
 acres of land in cultivation. Mr. Roby also holds as a lessee 
 of the Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 St. Andrew claims six hundred and forty acres of land under 
 the donation law. His improvements consist of a house and 
 five acres of land in cultivation. Mr. St. Andrew also holds 
 as a lessee of the Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 James Petram claims six hundred and forty acres of land 
 under the donation law. His improvements consist of a good 
 house and barn, and about fifty acres of land in cultivation. 
 Mr. Petram also holds as a lessee of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany. 
 
 Scepleawa claims three hundred anvi twenty acres as an 
 American citizen. His improvemecri consist of a dwelling- 
 house and five acres of land in cultivation. 
 
 Isaac E. Bell claims six hundred and forty acres of land 
 17 B 
 
236 
 
 under the donation law. His improvements consist of a dwell- 
 ing-house and five acres of land in cultivation. Mr. Bell is 
 an American citizen. 
 
 John C. Allman claims six hundred and forty acres of land 
 under the donation law. Hib improvements consist of a house 
 and about twenty-five acres of land in cultivation. 
 
 This claim is also claimed by Edward Spencer, as a British 
 subject. Mr. Spencer has no improvements, except the square 
 of a log cabin without roof. Mr. S. has never resided on the 
 land. 
 
 T. P. Dean and Malky claim each one hundred and sixty 
 acres of land under the donation law. Their improvements 
 consist of two houses and about ten acres of land in cultiva- 
 tion. 
 
 The above is claimed by the heirs of Foster, who claims 
 as a British subject. 
 
 William H. Dillon claims six hundred and forty acres under 
 the donation law. He is an American citizen, and his im- 
 provements consist of a house and about sixty acres in culti- 
 vation. The same land is claimed by a Canadian half-breed 
 as a British subject. 
 
 David Sturgess claims six hundred and forty acres of land 
 under the donation law. His injprovements consist of a house 
 and thirty-five acres of land in cultivation. This land is also 
 claimed by George Harvey, a British subject, residing at Van- 
 couver Island. He superintended the salmon operations at 
 this place for the Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 The Company still continues to take and salt salmon at this 
 place. The Company have no improvements at this fishery. 
 
 George Batty claims three hundred and twenty acres of land 
 under the donation law. His improvem>.iitfc, consist of a house 
 and ten acres of land in cultivation. 
 
 James Bowers claims three hundred and twenty acres of 
 land under the donation law. His improvements consist of a 
 house and about ten acres in cultivation. 
 
 Mr. Linsey claims three hundred and twenty acres of land 
 under the donation law. His improvements consist of three 
 or four acres of land in cultivation, and a house. 
 
 John Dillon claims three hundred and twenty acres of land 
 
 i 
 
287 
 
 land 
 )U8e 
 
 of 
 )f a 
 
 [and 
 liree 
 
 land 
 
 under the donation law. His improvements consists of a house 
 and five acres of land in cultivation. 
 
 Ira Patterson's claim is a part on the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany's claim. He claims three hundred and twenty acres of 
 land under the donation law. His improvements are a house 
 and twenty acres of land in cultivation. 
 
 Samuel Matthews claims three hundred and twenty acres of 
 land under the donation law. His improvements consist of a 
 house and thirty acres of land under cultivation. 
 
 Clark Short claims three hundred and twenty acres of land 
 under the donation law. His improvements consist of a log 
 dwelling-house. 
 
 Michael Trobb claims one hundred and sixtv acres of land 
 under the donation law. His improvements consist of a houde. 
 
 John B. Lee claims one hundred and sixty acres of land 
 under the donation law. Improvement, a house. 
 
 George Morrow claims one hundred and sixty acres of land 
 under the donation law. His improvement is a house. 
 
 J. L. Myers claims three hundred and twenty acres of land 
 under the donation law. His improvements consist of a house 
 and thirty acres of land in cultivation. 
 
 George Weber claims three hundred and twenty acres of 
 land under the donation law. His improvements consist of a 
 house and eighty acres of land in cultivation. 
 
 Benjamin Olney claims three hundred and twenty acres of 
 land under the donation law. Hi improvements consist of a 
 house and thirty acres of land in cultivation. 
 
 Job Fisher claims one hundred and sixty acres of land 
 under the donation law. His improvements consist of a house 
 and twenty-five acres of land in cultivation. 
 
 William M. Simmons claims six hundred and forty acres of 
 land under the donation law. His improvements consist of a 
 house and forty acres of land under cultivation. 
 
 Alexander Davis claims one hundred and sixty acres of land 
 under the donation law. His improvements consist of a house 
 and thirty acres of land in cultivation. 
 
 Mr. Pambrun is living on Ryan's claim, as the lessee of Dr. 
 Barclay, who claims as a British subject. 
 
238 
 
 The improvements of the Hudson's Bay Company at the 
 mouth of the Cowlitz consist of two large warehouses. These 
 buildings were erected before the treaty, on the land claim of 
 Seabault, who granted to the Hudson's Bay Company five 
 acres of land of his claim. Since that time Senbault has sold 
 out his claim to other parties. The buildings are of little 
 value, as they stand on the bank of the Cowlitz river, where 
 annual freshets are wearing the bank so much that the houses 
 will tumble in the water. I do not think the buildings are 
 worth exceeding one thousand dollars. 
 
 The Puget's Sound Agricultural Company claims a tract of 
 land at what is called the Cowlitz Farms, embracing about 
 three thousand acres. The description of the claim has been 
 filed in the office of the Surveyor General of Oregon Terri- 
 tory, and described by metes and bounds within three limits. 
 The Company claims to eight thousand acres of land, less or 
 more ; of this about fifteen hundred acres are in cultivation, 
 with the usual buildings, barns, &c. The buildings are becom- 
 ing old and dilapidated. The is of but little real value. 
 
 These improvements and lands I would not value at above 
 twenty-five thousand dollars. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 ■',.■-, Isaac N. Ebey. 
 
 Governor Stevens. it 
 
 Executive Office, 
 
 Olympia, January 9, 1854, 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
 letter of December 20, setting forth the views of the General 
 Government of the United States in reference to the rights 
 guaranteed by the treaty of August 5, 1844, to the Hudson's 
 Bay Company and the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company^ 
 
 Without intending to question at all your right to protest 
 a.'5ainst these views as frittering away the very ample rights 
 secured to said Company by the treaty of 1846, 1 have to state 
 that a course based upon these views, as indicated by my letter 
 of December 20, will be strictly and firmly pursued. ' 
 
 
239 
 
 You especially protest against that view of the case which 
 would go to deprive the Hudson's Bay Company of the right 
 of trading with the Indians ; and you state further, (to quote 
 your own words,) "I conceive it in the utmost degree im- 
 probable that the high contracting parties, the framers of 
 the treaty, ever contemplated denying the Company one of 
 the most important rights it possessed." 
 
 I conceive it to be very clear that the high contracting par- 
 ties intended that no such right should continue in the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company, from the simple fact that they have not 
 guaranteed it in the treaty, but are totally silent upon the 
 subject. This is more apparent, since you state it to be one 
 of the most important rights it possessed. The plenipoten- 
 tiaries on the part of Great Britain certainly were not entirely 
 regardless of the interests or ignorant of the nature of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 The treaty declares that in future appropriations of the ter- 
 ritory, ^c, the possessory rights of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany, and of all British subjects who may be in the occupa- 
 tion of land or other property, lawfully acquired within the 
 said territory, shall be respected. The Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany, prior to the treaty, may have had a right to trade with 
 the Indians. But it is not the rights of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company, but the possessory rights of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany, and of all British .subjects who may be in the occupation 
 of land, that are to be respected in the future appropriations 
 of the territory. The Hudson's Bay Company stand upon 
 the same footing as all British subjects in the occupation of 
 land. The rights and privileges secured to each are the same. 
 It surely will not be claimed that the right to trade is a pos- 
 sessory right. These are terms of plain and technical signifi- 
 cation. Mr. Rose, Queen's counsel, of Montreal, defines this 
 right to be ^'such a fixed right in the soil as would in law pre- 
 vent its alienation to others." To attempt to embrace the 
 right to trade, as implied in the expression, "possessory 
 rights," would be to neg'ativo the plain terms of the treaty, to 
 admit all the other rights of the Hudson's Bay Company under 
 its charter, the right to make laws and to have civil and crim- 
 
240 
 
 inal jurisdiction; and the effect of the treaty would be to vest 
 the sovereignty of the soil in the Hudson's Bay Company, and 
 not in the United States. Furthermore, it would have shown 
 on the part of the United States a very great interest in the 
 welfare of the Hudson's Bay Company to have guaranteed to 
 a foreign corporation a right which they do not grant to their 
 own citizens except by special license. 
 
 You state further, that ever since the terms of the treaty 
 became known, you have claimed, on behalf of the Fuget's 
 Sound Agricultural Company, the tract of country of which, 
 as farms, lands, or otherwise as property, the said Company, 
 by its agents, was in the sole and exclusive use and occupancy 
 at the date of the treaty, and for a long time previously. My 
 letter, I conceive, was sufficiently explicit in this matter, nor 
 do I think any doubt can arise from the treaty. 
 
 The treaty does not confirm whatever you may have claimed 
 from the time the treaty became known, but confirms the 
 farms and lands of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 
 ''Farms and lands" are well-understood terms, and all such 
 as have been in the sole and exclusive use and occupancy of 
 the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company will be confirmed. 
 
 The trespasses and other wrongs of which you complain 
 are matters for the courts of justice. The treaty is, and has 
 all the force of a law of the United States, and as such is to 
 bo respected and obeyed. As alien friends our courts are 
 thrown open to you, and there your remedy is to be sought 
 for the violation of your rights. 
 
 In conclusion, I take the liberty of again calling your atten- 
 tion to the matters referred to in my letter of December 20, 
 as to the nature and value of the possessions of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company, and will state that I am desirous of procuring 
 information as to their value, and will be glad to receive any 
 communication from you on that subject. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Isaac I. Stevens. • 
 
 William F. Tolmie, Esq., 
 
 Chief Trader Hudson's Bay Company, -' . 
 
 ■ '- ■ Agent PugeV 8 Sound Agricultural Company. 
 
 i 
 
241 
 
 3n- 
 
 >g 
 
 A— 2. 
 
 [confidential.] 
 
 Hudson's Bay House, 
 
 La Chine, January 14, 1848. 
 
 My Dear Sir: With reference to our conversation, when I 
 had the pleasure of seeing you in Montreal, about two months 
 ago, on the subject of a sale of the Hudson's Bay Company's 
 and Puget's Sound Company's possessions, &c., west of the 
 Rocky mountains, south of latitude 49", either to the United 
 States Government or to a joint stock company, I should be 
 glad to know, as early as possible, if there is any probability 
 of your being in a condition to make a proposition in time to 
 enable me to commlinicate thereon with the governor and com- 
 mittee in England, before taking my departure for the interior, 
 soon after the opening of the navigation. 
 
 The Hudson's Bay Company have, south of 49°, thirteen 
 trading establishments or villages, situated on the most eligible 
 sites, as regards commerce, water-power, agriculture, and deal- 
 ings with the natives, while their flocks and herds pasture on 
 large districts of country; such occupation of itself forming 
 a good title to the districts in question. Our possessions move- 
 over embrace the very best situations in the whole country for 
 offensive and defensive operations, towns, and villages, while 
 our right of navigating the Columbia — which we hold in per- 
 petuity, inasmuch as our charter is interminable — is saleable 
 and transferable. 
 
 According to my construction of the term "possessory 
 rights," in the treaty, it secures to us the right to cultivate the 
 soil, to cut down and export the timber, to carry on the fish- 
 eries, to trade for furs with the natives, and all other rights 
 we enjoyed at the time of passing the treaty; but the term is 
 so comprehensive as not to be easily defined. As regards the 
 Hudson's Bay Company's interests, there is a feeling among the 
 residents in the country that our business is likely to benefit 
 rather than be injured by the sovereignty of the country being 
 vested in the United States. 
 
 The Company in England, h wever, are apprehensive that 
 
242 
 
 our possession of the country might lead to endless disputes, 
 which might be productive of difficulties between the two na- 
 tions, and would, therefore, feel disposed to submit to a very 
 great sacrifice in order to avert dangers of so grave a nature, 
 by selling their establishments, lands, flocks, herds, rights of 
 tra'^'^ and navigation, &c., and withdraw within the British 
 territory north of 49th degree, if they could obtain but a mod- 
 erate consideration for the same. Such consideration would 
 indeed bo moderate at one million of dollars, payable within a 
 reasonable period, but, for the reasons stated above, I should 
 feel myself authorized to conclude an arrangement at that 
 amount, which, on a rough estimate, is little more than the out- 
 lay incurred in the erection of buildings, fencing, bringing 
 land into cultivation, and other improvements, and importing 
 stock, since our first occupation of the country. 
 
 If your Government were to look at the importance of get- 
 ting a powerful trading association belonging to a formidable 
 neighboring nation out of its territory, and to the great 
 value of the real pi'operty that would be acquired, besides 
 securing to the United States the exclusive navigation of the 
 Columbia river and a valuable trade in furs, with other branches 
 of commerce now carried on by the Hudson's Bay Company, 
 I should think it would readily avail itself of so favorable an 
 opportunity for accomplishing those desirable ends. 
 
 In speaking of the possessions of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany, I include those of a large pastoral and agricultural 
 association formed under their auspices, styled the Puget's 
 Sound Company, who, as well as the Hudson's Bay Company, 
 have incurred very heavy outlay in the introduction of the 
 most approved breeds of sheep and cattle from Europe and 
 other parts of the world. Their flocks and herds are now ex- 
 ceedingly numerous, roaming over hundreds of miles of the finest 
 country for agricultural operations west of the Rocky moun- 
 tains, including fine water-power for machinery, and several 
 of the best sites for towns and villages on the shores of Puget's 
 Sound. This association was formed in 1839, with a capital 
 of J100,000 sterling, and so promising and productive is it 
 that it has this season divided ten per cent, on the paid up 
 
 .V- • *** **■■ *^ • '^** * ' 
 
248 
 
 capital, while tho itook on hand is valued at loss that one-third 
 the original cost. 
 
 As a oommoroial operation, an arrangement on the terms I 
 have proposed would be highly advantageous to the purchasers, 
 .by tho re-salo of tho real property and the large flocks, herds, 
 and bands of liorAos, aside altogether the national advantages 
 arising from scouring the exclusive navigation of the Colum- 
 bia, and of portions of tho territory and trade now enjoyed 
 by British subjects ; and I cannot help thinking that if you 
 got this subject brought fairly before your Government, or 
 leading capitalists, it could not fail to receive the most prompt 
 and favorable consideration. 
 
 I remain, my dear sir, very faithfully yours, 
 
 G. SIMPSON. 
 
 GflORaB N. Saundbrb, Esq., x • 
 
 New York. 
 
 \ 
 
 V 
 
 inest 
 loun- 
 
 get's 
 
 Ipital 
 
 is it 
 
 Id up 
 
 ' A— 3. 
 
 Mr John It. Pelhj to Mr. Clayton. 
 
 Hudson's Bay House, 
 London, June 29, 1849. 
 
 Sir: It was not until the 22d instant that I received through 
 Mr. G. N. Saunders, of Now York, your letter of the 23d 
 April, in answer to that of Sir George Simpson, dated the 
 15th March. 
 
 This delay in tho delivery of your letter is explained in the 
 enclosed copy of a letter from Mr. Hennegan to i friend in 
 London, and will, I trust, bo deemed a suiBcicat reason for its 
 not having hitherto received an answer. 
 
 It would bo a superfluous task to recapitulate the weighty 
 reasons which Sir George Simpson has stated for the transfer 
 of the rights and possessions of the Hudson's Bay Company 
 and Pugot's Sound Agricultural Company to the United States. 
 I would observe, however, that this is not altogether, or even 
 principally, a question of price, the main object of those Com- 
 
v> 
 
 244 
 
 panies being the lettlement of a quoition out of which, if left 
 long unsettled, serious difBoultios might arise. 
 
 As Mr. Saunders informs mo that you are ready to execute, 
 on the part of the United States Government, the conditional 
 agreement, a copy of which is onolosod herewith, subject to 
 confirmation by your Oovornmont, I beg to state that I am 
 ready, as Governor of tho Hudson's Boy Company, and prin- 
 cipal agent for the Pugot's Sound Agricultural Company, to 
 oxoouto a counterpart of tito agrooment, and to exchange the 
 same with tho United States minister in London. 
 
 I have the honor to bo, sir, your most obedient, humble ser- 
 vant, 
 
 J. H. Pellt. 
 
 Hon. John M. Clayton, 
 
 Secretary of Stato^ Washington, 
 
 I ^1 
 
 Whereas it was provided in tho second article of tho treaty 
 between the United States of America and her Majesty, the 
 Queen of tho United Kingdom of Groat Britain and Ireland, 
 concluded at Washington on tho 15th day of June, ISIG, as 
 follows, viz: 
 
 " Prom tho point at which tho forty-ninth parallel of latitude 
 shafl bo found to intersect tho great northern branch of the 
 Columbia river, the navigation of tho said branch shall be free 
 and open to the Hudson's Bay Company and to all British 
 subjects trading with tho same, to tho point whore the said 
 branch meets tho main stream to tho ocoan, with free access 
 into and through tho said rivor or rivers, it being understood 
 that all tho usual portages along tho lino thus described shall 
 in liko manner be free and opou. In navigating the said river 
 or rivers, British subjects, with their goods and produce, shall 
 bo treated on the same footing with citizens of the United 
 States, it being, howovor, always understood that nothing in 
 this article shall bo so construed as preventing, or intended to 
 prevent, the Government of tho United States from making 
 any regulations respecting tho navigation of the said river or 
 rivers not inconsistent with tho prosont treaty." 
 
 (..»>■»; 
 
246 
 
 And whereas it was further provided by the third article of 
 the treaty as follows : 
 
 "Art. 8. In the future appropriation of the territory south 
 of the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, as provided in 
 the first article of this treaty, the ' possessory rights ' of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company, and of all British subjects who 
 may be already in the occupation of land or other property, 
 lawfully acquired, within the said territory, shall be re- 
 spected." 
 
 And whereas it was further provided by the fourth article 
 of the treaty as follows, viz : 
 
 "The farms, lands, and other property of every description, 
 belonging to the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, on the 
 north side of the Columbia river, shall be confirmed to the 
 said Company. In case, however, the situation of those farms 
 and lands should be considered by the United States Govern- 
 ment to be of public and political importance, and the United 
 States Government should signify a desire to obtain possession 
 of the whole or any part thereof, the property so required 
 shall be transferred to the said Government at a proper valu- 
 ation, to be agreed upon by the parties." 
 
 And whereas divers weighty considerations evince the pro- 
 priety and expediency of extinguishing by agreement all the 
 rights, interests, reservations, and privileges contained in said 
 articles to the Hudson's Bay Company and to the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company. 
 
 And whereas it is understood that the British Government 
 consents to said extinguishment, surrender, and transfer by 
 said Companies. 
 
 And whereas it is now proposed by the said Companies, by 
 their agents thereunto lawfully authorized, to consent to such 
 extinction of all their rights and privileges as aforesaid, and 
 to the ciurrenders and transfer to the United States of all their 
 property and privileges of whatever description, to wit: 
 
 The right to navigate the Columbia river and its tributa- 
 ries as set forth in said treaty ; as also the right to cultivate 
 the soil, to trade with the Indians, to mine, to hunt, to fish, 
 and to cut timber or lumber within said teritory of the United 
 
 'K 
 
 ' .,. 
 
246 
 
 t 
 
 
 If, 
 
 States, together with the Forts Disappointment, Qoorge, Van- 
 couver, Umpqua, Walla-Walla, Boisb, Okanagan, Colvile, 
 Kootonay, 1 lat-heads, Nisqually, Cowlitz, and all other forts 
 belonging to said Companies, including as much of the enclosed 
 lands belonging to said Companies as may bo wanted by the 
 United States for military or naval purposes, which lands arc 
 to be designated and conveyed by any officers of the Govern- 
 ment that may be appointed for that purpose, together with 
 all the unenclosed and wild lands within said territories be- 
 longing to said Companies, or either of them, and all other 
 property and rights, except such as is hereafter specially enu- 
 merated, their shipping, merchandise, provisions, and stores 
 of every dofjcription, live stock, mills, and enclosed grounds, 
 except such as may be wanted for Government purposes, as 
 before mentioned, for the sum of seven hundred thousand 
 dollars. 
 
 The Secretary of State of the United States hereby agrees 
 that he will favorably lay before Congress, at its next session, 
 this offer or proposition of the said Companies, to the end that 
 Congress may exercise all proper power and discretion thereon, 
 and pass such act or acts as may appear* to them to be suit- 
 able and proper; and that, should Congress authorize him to 
 do, so, he will pay to the said Companies the sum of seven 
 hundred thousand dollars, upon the proper surrender of the 
 property and privileges before enumerated. 
 
 And the said Companies, by their agent, agree that on the 
 passage of an act or acts of Congress sanctioning the terms 
 above mentiouMl, they will agree thereto, and execute all 
 proper conveyances and transfers for carrying the same into 
 effect. 
 
 And the said Companies further agree and bind themselves 
 that in the event any contract shall be entered into under the 
 authority of Congress they will, with all reasonable dispatch, 
 withdraw from the territories of the United States, and cease 
 all operations therein, leaving, for a limited time only, such 
 agents as may be necessary for the care of their reserved 
 stock, and enclosed land and mills. And they further agree, 
 and bind themselves, to sell and convey to the United States, 
 
 1 
 
247 
 
 for the sum of ono hundred and fifty thousand dollars, all 
 their farms and real property not before conveyed, if the 
 United States shall elect, within one year after the execution 
 
 of said to purchase at that price; and if the United 
 
 States do not so elect, then said Companies agree to bind 
 themselves to sell and dispose of, within two years from the 
 execution of any such contract, to citizens of the United 
 States, all of said farms, mills, and live stock, so that at the 
 end of that period they will have no property rights, ease- 
 ments, or privileges, of any description whatever, within the 
 territories of the United States. 
 
 .\ 
 
 of the 
 
 Memorandum ivith reference to the Hudson's Bay Company and 
 I*U(/et's Sound Company's possessory rights in Oregon. 
 
 The number of establishments in Oregon belonging to Hud- 
 son's Bay Company is fifteen, and to the Puget's Sound Com- 
 pany, two; besides which, those Companies claim the posses- 
 sion of extensive districts in various parts of the territory, 
 which, prior to the date of the Oregon treaty, were occupied 
 by their flocks and herds. 
 
 The Hudson's Bay Company (and all British subjects trading 
 with them) also possess the right of navigating the Columbia 
 river on the same footing as American citizens. 
 
 The Hudson's Bay Company's trading posts were erected 
 many years previous to the Oregon treaty, at a time when they 
 were the sole occupants of the country, the sites being care- 
 fully selected as the most desirable for carrying on trade and 
 for maintaining their communications. The good judgment 
 which was manifested in such selections is apparent from the 
 fact that, now that the territory is becoming closely settled, 
 
 I ' 
 
. 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 
 248 
 
 those stations are considered the most desirable sites for towns, 
 while the main highways of commerce are those which were 
 established by the Company. 
 
 As regards the military occupation of the country, the Com- 
 pany's posts would be excellent ':ites for constructing military 
 stations, but are not themselves adapted for anything more 
 than defense against the Indian tribes. 
 
 Fort Vancouver is the most valuable of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company's stations, and has always been the depot or centre 
 of operations, in consequence of its admirable position', being 
 at the head cf the ship navigation of the Columbia river, and 
 the point from whence communication is most conveniently 
 maintained with all parts of the country, by way of the north- 
 ern branch of the Columbia to the foot of the Rocky mount- 
 ains, and thence across to Hudson's Bay ; of Fort Nez Percys 
 and the Snake country to the head-waters of the Missouri, and 
 of the Willamette river towards the Umpqua and California 
 in the south ; while there are easy means of access, by land 
 and water, to Puget's Sound and the country lying north of the 
 Columbia. In addition to these advantages of position, the 
 site of Fort Vancouver is well adapted for a town, the river 
 being navigable by suips of larje tonnage, which can discharge 
 at the wharves, while the country around consists of prairies, 
 intersected by excellent timber, which, when brought into cul- 
 tivation, would meet the wants of a large town population. 
 These natural advantages of Fort Vancouver are well under- 
 stood in Oregon, and were the Company's claim extinguished, 
 it would immediately bo occupied as a town, and no doubt 
 become the great commercial emporium of the country. 
 
 It may be well to explain the conection that exists between 
 the Hudson's Bay Company and Puget's Sound Company. Sev- 
 eral years before the Oregon treaty, (in 1838-9,) the Hudson's 
 Bay Company, finding their operations in the Pacific too mul- 
 tifarious to be efficiently managed by one concern, it was 
 thought advisable to separate their agricultural business from 
 their more legitimate commerce. It was accordingly trans- 
 ferred to an association formed for the purpose, called the 
 
249 
 
 jtween 
 
 Sev- 
 
 [dson's 
 
 |o mul- 
 
 |it waa 
 
 IS from 
 
 trads- 
 
 jd the 
 
 "Puget's Sound Agricultural Company," shares in which were 
 taken by the stockholders of the Hudson's Bay Company and 
 persons in their service, as well as by strangers. Upwards of 
 eleven hundred shares, of ^£100 each, were subscribed for, on 
 which ten per cent, was paid, and for the first seven or eight 
 years the whole of the profits were added to th? capital, which 
 has been invested in the farms and live stock cf that Associa- 
 tion in Oregon. The connexion between the two Companies 
 consists in the fact of the Hudson's Bay Company being 
 large purchasers of the agricultural produce of the Puget's 
 Sound Company, and the Governor-in-Chief of their Territo- 
 ries are the agents of the Puget's Sound Company, the business 
 of which is carried on under a "deed of settlement." 
 
 With reference to the value of the establishments of the two 
 Companies, it is found that the actual cost of the buildings 
 and bringing the land into cultivation was, of itself, upwardr 
 of .f 75,000, estimating at the moderate price of labor pad 
 material prior to the settlement of Oregon by American;, and 
 the discovery of gold in California. At the present value of 
 labor and material in Oregon the buildings could not be erected 
 for double that amount. 
 
 The business conducted by the Hudson's Bay Company in 
 Oregon since the date of the treaty has been very remune- 
 rative. The profit on the transactions of Fort Vancouver alone, 
 in the year 1849, exceed £17,000. The sum of £200,000, set 
 down in the annexed estimate, is barely adequate compensation 
 for abandoning so valuable a trade. 
 
 The extent of the Hudson's Bay Company and Puget's 
 Sound Company's rights in Oregon has never been defined, 
 but as those Companies conceive they are entitled to far \^ore 
 than the United States Government or their ofiicials are likely 
 readily to admit, it is beyond a doubt that the clashing oT 
 interests which must arise from the efforts of the Companies 
 to secure their treaty rights, and of the United States author- 
 ities and settlers to restrict thenp, will become a fruitful source 
 of strife, injurious to the peace and go J order of the country, 
 which might eventually involve national interests also. It is 
 to avoid these evils that the Companies are willing to cede 
 
t 
 
 (I 
 
 
 .J 
 
 l.i 
 
 t • 
 
 250 
 
 their rights and possessions to the United States Government 
 for the sum of $1,000,000 — less than one-half their value — as 
 per the annexed estimate. 
 
 (Signed) G. Simpson. 
 
 Washington, December 3, 1852. 
 
 Rough Sketch of the Hudson's Bay Company and Puget's 
 Sound Company's possessory right in the Oregon Territory, 
 tvhich it is proposed to sell to the United States Gfovernment. 
 
 Hudson's bay company. , 
 
 Fort Vancouver, including the fort, mills, farms, 
 
 and land claim of upwards of ten miles square, 
 
 considered the best situation for a town in the 
 
 Territory, being at the head of ship navigation 
 
 on the Columbia river. 
 
 . 
 
 £100,000 
 
 Sauvid's island, farms and dairy, . 
 
 1,000 
 
 Champooick, on the Willamette river, . 
 
 3,400 
 
 Receiving store, at the mouth of the Cowlitz river, 
 
 500 
 
 Fort George or Astoria, 
 
 700 
 
 Chinook Point, . 
 
 
 300 
 
 Cape Disappointment, . 
 
 
 3,000 
 
 Fort Umpqua, 
 
 
 5,000 
 
 Fort Nez Perc<?s, . 
 
 
 3,200 
 
 Fort Hall, . . . . 
 
 
 3,000 
 
 Fort Boh6, . 
 
 
 1,500 
 
 Okanagan, . 
 
 
 2,000 
 
 Fort Colville, including the farms, mill and fort, 
 
 10,000 
 
 Kootonais' post, 
 
 500 
 
 Flatheads' post, . 
 
 ... 
 
 500 
 
 PUGET S SOUND COMPANY. 
 
 Cowlitz farm, 
 
 Nisqually, including the fort, farms, sheep ranges, 
 and land claim of upwards of ten miles square, 
 
 £1^,600 
 
 15,000 
 17,000 
 
100,000 
 
 1,000 
 
 3,400 
 
 500 
 
 700 
 
 251 
 
 Value of the "good-will" of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company s business in Oregon, (including trade 
 with Indians,) conducted by virtue of the treaty ^200 000 
 
 Cattle ranges in various parts of the Territory 7n ' 
 
 which the Hudson's Bay Company were accus^ 
 tomed to place their flocks and herds previous 
 to the date of the Oregon treaty, . . 
 
 Or $2,330,000. 
 
 100,000 
 ^466,600 
 
 Right of navigation of the Columbia river and 
 other rights, political and possessory, .' 
 
 Washington, siKL, 1852. ^' ^'''^'''''' 
 
 A--5. 
 
 'fYmE^'SomfAyZV' '^^^™« ^^N^S CLAIMED 
 COMPANIES^''' ^^"^ ^""'^ ^"^^^'« «OUND AGRICULTURAL 
 
 3,000 
 5,000 
 3,200 
 3,000 
 1,500 
 2,000 
 10,000 
 500 
 
 Bead in Committee of the whole Council. Tannary 24th, 1856. and 500 copies 
 
 ordered to be printed. ^ 
 
 January 24th, 1856. 
 
 Council Chamber, Olympia, W. T., 
 To Hon. James Tilton, ^^'^'''''^ ^^' ^^k 
 
 Surveyor Qeneral of Washington Territory: 
 
 John J. Lowell, 
 X8B ^^^«t(*ryqftheCoumil,W.T. 
 
252 
 
 Beeolved, That the Surveyor General, Register and Receiver 
 of the Territory of Washington, be, and they are hereby 
 respectfully requested to furnish the Council with such evi- 
 dence of title and possessory rights on file in their respective 
 offices, to lands claimed by the Hudson's Bay and Puget's 
 Sound Agricultural Companies; the amount thereof, whether 
 improved or otherwise; and if not deemed incompatible with 
 the public interest, to communicate the instructions of the 
 General Land Office in relation to the claims or possessory 
 rights of said Companies, and also such evidence of the exist- 
 ence of a company styled the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Company, and the name of the person acting as agent for said 
 Company, and his authority for acting as such. 
 
 Office Surveyor General, W. T., 
 Olympia, January 2-ith, 1856. 
 Mr. John J. Lowell, 
 
 Secretary of Council: 
 
 Sir: Your communication of January 17th, 1856, is re- 
 ceived. With regard to that portion of your letter requesting 
 the office ''to furnish the Council with such evidence of title 
 and possessory rights on file in this office relative to the lands 
 claimed by the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Companies," I would respectfully state: 
 
 With the exception of a clause in the treaty, dated August 
 15, 1846, between Great Britain and the United States, refer- 
 ring to the Hudson's Bay Company's possessory rights, and 
 another clause in the same treaty confirming the lands of the 
 Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, there is no evidence of 
 title upon record in this office to lands claimed by either of 
 the above Companies. 
 
 Herewith I have the honor to transmit copies of all the cor- 
 respondence between this office and the General Land Office 
 upon the subject ; also copies of my instructions to Mr. Deputy 
 Surveyor Chenowith, relative to surveys upon the lands of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company ; also copies of letters to Chief Fac- 
 
263 
 
 tors Mactavish and Dr. Tolmie, and from those officers, and a 
 protest from Chief Factor Mactavish ; a copy of instructions 
 from General Land Office to Surveyor General Preston, of 
 Oregon Territory, dated March 10, 1851, and an extract from 
 my annual report to Commissioner General Land Office, dated 
 September 20, 1855, and three maps of the claims. In answer 
 to the last clause of your letter, viz : ''and also such evidence 
 of the existence of a Company styled the Puget's Sound Agri- 
 cultural Company, and the name of the acting agent and his 
 authority for acting as such," 1 would respectfully answer that 
 no evidence, except the treaty, is on file. The name of the 
 person acting as agent is William F. Tolmie. Of his authority 
 for his acting as such, there is no evidence on file in this office. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 James Tilton, 
 Surveyor (General of W. T. 
 
 Instructions from General Land Office to Surveyor Cf-eneral of 
 Oregon, dated March 10th, 1851. 
 
 Section 11. — By the treaty at Washington, on the 5th Au- 
 gust, 1846, between the United States and Great Britain, it is 
 stipulated as follows: 
 
 Article 3. — In the future appropriation of the lands south 
 of the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, as provided in the 
 first article of this treaty, the possessory rights of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company, and of all British subjects who may be 
 already in the occupancy of land or other property lawfully 
 acquired within the said Territory, shall be respected. 
 
 Article 4. — The farms, lands, and other property of every 
 description belonging to the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
 pany, on the north side of the Columbia river, shall be con- 
 firmed to the said Company. "In case, however, the situation 
 of those farms and lands should be considered by the United 
 States to be of public and political importance, and the United 
 States should signify a desire to obtain possession of the whole 
 
{ t\l 
 
 254 
 
 or any part thereof, the property so required shall be trans- 
 ferred to the said Government, at a proper valuation, to be 
 agreed upon between the parties. 
 
 No steps, so far as we are informed, have been taken by our 
 Government to avail itself of the right of purchase, recognized 
 in the second paragraph of the 4th article, nor have any meas- 
 ures been prescribed by act of Congress for ascertaining and 
 separating from the public domain the particular land which 
 the treaty makes it incumbent upon us to respect. 
 
 In prosecuting the public survey, however, it is proper we 
 should guard against any act which might lead to conflict and 
 difficulty in title in surveying and donating the public lands 
 of the United States. 
 
 Whenever, therefore, in the extension of the public surveys, 
 you approach the vicinity of the claims alluded to in the treaty, 
 you are instructed to call upon the claimants, or their agents, 
 to present to you the evidence of the rights they may claim to 
 be protected by the treaty, and to show you the original locali- 
 ties and boundaries of the same, which they may have held at 
 the date of the treaty, and to point out the original locations 
 and boundaries thereof. In every case in which this may be 
 done^to your satisfaction you are instructed, in executing the 
 public surveys, to avoid any sectional or other minute sub- 
 division of the lands covered by such claims, but you must 
 necessarily extend the township lines over them, so as to indi- 
 cate in your return of surveys and on the plats their relative 
 positions and connection in the public domain of the United 
 States. 
 
 You will, of course, transmit to this office all such evidence 
 as may be furnished you, and will report the result of your 
 actions thereon and proceedings in regard to the survey. It 
 will then remain for Congress to vl^termine, by legislation, 
 what further steps shall be taken to carry out the provisions 
 of the treaty in such a manner that, whilst all claims clearly 
 within its purview shall be recognized, the United States may 
 be protected from any which may not come within its stipula- 
 tions. ' ' 
 
 [Signed by Commissioner of General Land Office.] 
 
 
255 
 
 Surveyor General's Office, 
 
 Olympia, W. T., April 2ith, 1855. 
 Messrs. David Phillips and W. A. Strickler, 
 
 Deputy Surveyors, ^c: 
 Gentlemen: In the prosecution of surveys embraced in 
 your contract, No. 2, you will comply strictly with the printed 
 instructions to the Surveyor General of Oregon, being a 
 ^* manual for field operations," as far as applicable, not incon- 
 sistent with the following special instructions. 
 
 When your lines intersect the claims of the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company, you will only extend township lines 
 across the claims subdividing to their lines, but not meander- 
 ing them unless such boundaries be coast or rivers of sufficient 
 width to occupy 25 acres to the mile. * * * * 
 
 Jas. Tilton, 
 Surveyor (general W. T. 
 
 Surveyor General's Office, 
 
 Olympia, W. T., April 2Sth, 1855. 
 Mr. Justin Chenoweth, 
 
 Deputy Surveyor: 
 Sir: Where your lines intersect the claims of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company, you will extend township lines across the claims 
 subdividing to their lines, but not meandering them unless 
 rivers of sufficient width to occupy 25 acres to the mile. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 James Tilton, 
 ' . ^ Surveyor General. 
 
 Office Surveyor General W. T., 
 
 • . Olympia, April 28, 1855. 
 To the Chief Factor of the Hudson's Bay Company: 
 
 Sir: As I am about to extend the surveys of the public 
 lands over that part of this Territory in which the settlements 
 
 y' 
 
256 
 
 of your honorable Cqinpany is, in the vicinity of Fort Van- 
 couver, I write to respectfully request of you a map or author- 
 itative statement of your claim or claims on the Columbia 
 river, near Fort Vancouver. 
 
 I am ordered by the Land Office at Wasb ington City to cause 
 the lines of public surveys in sectional subdivisions to be ex- 
 tended up to the actual settlements of the British claimants, 
 according to the lawful and proper limits of the same at the 
 date of the treaty of 1846. 
 
 What are those limits, is the present inquiry. 
 
 I ap, sir, most respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Jas. Tilton, 
 Surveyor General W. T. 
 
 If 
 
 
 \\\ 
 
 Fort Vancouver, W. T., May 9, 1855. 
 The Hon. Jambs Tilton, 
 
 Surveyor Q-eneral of Washington Territory, Olympia : 
 
 Sir: I have to acknowledge receipt on the 4th instant of 
 your letter of the 28th April, requesting that a map or author- 
 itative statement of the claim or claims to land of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company, on the Columbia river, near Fort Vancouver, 
 should be handed you; and further stating that you had been 
 instructed to cause the lines of public surveys to be extended 
 up to the actual settlements of the British claimants, accord- 
 ing to the limits of the same at the date of the treaty of 1846. 
 
 In reply, I beg most respectfully to mention that I am 
 unable to furnish you with the statement you require, as I do 
 not consider myself at liberty to define any precise limits to ' 
 the claims of the Company, not having authority to that effect 
 from the Governor and committee of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany in London, without which any opinion of mine would not 
 be binding on the Company. 
 
 I take the liberty of calling your attention to the following 
 extract from Chief Factor Ballenden's letter of 30th July, 
 1852, to Surveyor General Preston, of Oregon Territory, and 
 
 I 
 
267 
 
 I have to roquost that no surveys be made or claims granted 
 within the limits stated by Mr. Ballenden. 
 
 "There is however a certain tract of country in the neigh- 
 borhood of Vanoouvor, which was for a long period {and if 
 our rightt were retpeoted ttill ought to he) in the sole possession 
 and occupation of the Hudson's Bay Oompany ; within those 
 limits I must respectfully request that no surveys be made or 
 claims granted to any person whatsoever without the approba- 
 tion of the Hudson's Bay Oompany. That tract to which I 
 refer commences at a stake and tree marked, on the north 
 bank 'of the Oolumbia river, about two miles west of Willow 
 Point; thence running northerly along the slough, until it 
 meets the outlet of the Lake river; thence following the 
 meanders (easterly) of the large lake 19\* miles, passing on 
 the north bank until it strikes a small stream entering the 
 lake on the northeast side 15° S. 6| miles, to a stake marked 
 between the Third and Fourth Plains, in a swamp ; thence east 
 22° S. 4^ miles, to the Camas Plain to a stake marked; thence 
 south 8^ miles to the Oolumbia river ; thence following the 
 meanders of said river to the place of beginning; also one 
 small island «outh of Vancouver, on the Oolumbia river. 
 
 Most respectfully, I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 DUGALD MaCTAVISH, 
 
 Chief Factor Hudson* % Bay Company, 
 
 U. S. Surveyor General's Office, 
 
 Olympia, W. T., April 27, 1855. 
 To Dr. Toj-Mii! : 
 
 .Sir: Having contracts on the part of the United States 
 with Messrs. Phillips and Strickler to survey that portion of 
 the public lands lying southeast and north of the claim of 
 the Pugot's Sound Agricultural Oompany, and giving them 
 instructions to respect your limits and define the points of 
 intersection of the public surveys with your lines, I now 
 
 * Copy accompanyiog Purveyor Qeneral's Annual Bepoit, 23d October, 1852, 
 Bays Si\ milo8, 
 
 <* re-*it #*fc . 
 
268 
 
 have the honor to request, at your earliest convenience, a map 
 or diagram showing the boundaries, with the usual features of 
 the country traversed by your lines whore they are not natural 
 boundaries, as shore or river, &o. 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Jab. Tilton, 
 Surveyor General W. T. 
 To Dr. ToLMiB, 
 
 Chifjf Factor Paget' » Sound Agricultural Company. 
 
 Fort Nisquallv, Pieiicb County, W. T., 
 
 iHfay 7, 1855. 
 To James Tilton, Esq., 
 Surveyor General of Wathington Territory, Olympia, W. T.: 
 
 Sir: In compliance with the request conveyed in your letter 
 of the 27th April, which I had the honor to receive en the 5th 
 inst., I now forward a diagram or map of the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company's land claim hero, the outline or bound- 
 ary lines of which have been carefully surveyed and blazed. 
 The> filling up of the map has been made, in part, only by 
 measurement, but it faithfully exhibits the natural features of 
 the country, although their relative position is doubtless set 
 down more or less incorrectly. 
 
 There is also forwarded a copy of a statement of the bound- 
 ary lines of said claim as forwarded, with affidavits as to its 
 accuracy, in April, 1858, to Mr. J. B. Preston, of Oregon City, 
 then surveyor general of Oregon Territory. 
 
 The bearer, Mr. Huggins, having assisted in surveying the 
 boundary lines of the Company's lands, may, perhaps, afford 
 you information which may bo useful to the gentlemen ap- 
 pointed to survey the public lands in the immediate neighbor- 
 hood of the claim. 
 
 I have the honor to bo, your very obedient servant, t 
 
 (Signed) WiLLiAM Fuaser Tolmie, 
 
 Agent Puget't Sound Agricultural Company. 
 
259 
 
 ; Office Surveyor General, W. T., 
 
 Olympia, W. T., May 24, 1855. 
 Mr. Justin Chenoweth, Deputy Surveyor^ 
 
 Sir: The Chief Factor of the Hudson's Bay Company at 
 Fort Vancouver, having written to me in answer to a request 
 that he would point out the actual settlements or enclosures 
 of the Honorable Hudson's Bay Company, from a want of 
 authority from the Hudson's Bay Governor and Committee in 
 London, declines to point out said enclosures. 
 
 I hereby instruct you to ascertain, from the best information 
 in your power, the limits of the same, and fully sft them forth 
 upon your field notes and plats, specifying your sources of in- 
 formation. 
 
 In the meanwhile, if you can conveniently, commence your 
 surveys at a point of your contract remote from the tracts 
 claimed, and keep it or them for the last, as I may, in a month 
 or two, receive more specific instructions informing me of the 
 proper amounts of pasturage, if any, to confirm and set apart 
 to said Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 Report your actions to me immediately, and also your place 
 of survey. 
 
 If possible, procure from the chief factor or some other agent 
 information relative to the farms and enclosures of 1846. 
 I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 James Tilton, 
 Surveyor General W. T. 
 
 General Land Office, 
 March 12, 1855. 
 Sir : The attention of this office has been drawn by the 
 Hon. C. Lancaster, delegate, to the subject of the British 
 claims in Washington Territory, under the treaty of 1846, and 
 also to the importance of pressing forward the surveying ope- 
 rations in that territory. 
 
 In the instructions to you from this office, of the Slst August, 
 1854, as printed with the commissioner's last annual report, 
 
'i I 
 
 260 
 
 pages 40 to 44, it is stated that " there was furnished to the 
 late surveyor general a set of instructions in duplicate, in ref- 
 erence to his duties under the surveying and donation act of 
 Septembf>r 27, 1850, and you were desired to request of Mr. 
 Gardner one set for your o£Bce." 
 
 You are therefore doubtless in possession of these instruo* 
 tions, which are dated 10th March, 1851, and in which you will 
 find directions as to the course to be pursued by the surveying 
 department, in regard to the British claims above mentioned. 
 
 The advancing settlement of the territory, and its growing 
 interests, demand that all should now be done that we can law> 
 fully do, in order to make a proper discrimination between our 
 public lands and such foreign rights as may be recognised by 
 the treaty, so tliat our people may advance, in security, their 
 settlements and improvements upon the public domain. 
 
 I have, therefore, in connection with the instructions above 
 mentioned, to direct that you will cause the lines of the public 
 surveys, in sectional subdivisions, to be extended up to the 
 actual settlements of the British claimants, according to the 
 lawful and proper limits of the same at the date of treaty, and 
 in this way mark the discrimination, so as to show what may 
 be treated as public lands, a measure which the treaty, justice 
 to our people, and sound policy require. ♦ * * 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 John Wilson, 
 Commiasioner. 
 
 James Tilton, Esq., 
 
 Surveyor Q-eiieral, Olympia, W. T. 
 
 Office Surveyor General W. T., 
 Oltmpia, May 8, 1855. 
 Mr. Justin Chenoweth, • 
 
 Deputy Surveyor, 
 Sir: In pursuance of orders from the Commissioner of the 
 Land Office, dated March 12th, 1855, directing me to " extend 
 the public surveys by sectional subdivisions up to the actual 
 
261 
 
 settlements of British claimants," I hereby request that 70a 
 subdivide, upon your contract No. 1, the lands claimed by the 
 Hudson's Bay Company up to their enelo$ure$y as they existed 
 at the date of the treaty with Great Britain in 1846. All 
 former instructions contrary to this are hereby withdrawn. 
 
 You will confer with the chief factor, or agent in charge at 
 Fort Vancouver, and request him to designate such actual set- 
 tlements, construed to mean enclosures, and in your plats and 
 field notes make ample description thereof, defining your source 
 of information. 
 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, yours, 
 
 Jas. Tilton, 
 Surveyor General W- T. 
 
 Office Surveyor General, W. T., 
 Olympia, May 8, 1865. 
 To Chief Factor or Agent Hudson's Bay Company at Fort 
 Vancouver : 
 Sir : I have received from the Hon. Commissioner of the 
 General Land Office, at Washington city, orders dated March 
 12th, 1855, of which the following is an extract: 
 
 " You will cause the lines of the public surveys in sectional 
 subdivisions to be extended up to the actual settlements of the 
 British claimants." 
 
 In furtherance of the above order, I have directed Mr. Jus- 
 tin Chenoweth, U. S. deputy surveyor, to confer with you in 
 the prosecution of the surveys entrusted to his charge in the 
 vicinity of Fort Vancouver, and I respectfully request you to 
 point out and define to him the limits of your enclosures at the 
 date of the treaty in 1846. 
 
 Also, I would be glad to receive a map or plat of your actual 
 settlements, meaning enclosed lands, for record at this office. 
 If such map can be made, showing the relative position of 
 the Columbia river, any lakes or other prominent natural ob- 
 jects, it would be very acceptable to your obedient servant, 
 
 James Tilton, 
 Surveyor General W. T. 
 
 
 ' 
 
262 
 
 5t 
 
 Oppicb Surveyor General W, T., 
 Olympia, May 10, 1855. 
 
 Sir: Your letter of the 12th March, 1855, directing me to 
 " extend the lines of public surveys in sectional subdivisions 
 up to the actu"' settlements of the British claimants, accord- 
 ing to the lawful and pro^ t limits of the same, at date of the 
 treaty," (1846,) has been x<ceived. 
 
 In answer, I would respectfully state, first, I have already 
 contracted for the survey of lands surrounding the two prin- 
 cipal claims, viz, at Fort Vancouver, the largest of Hudson's 
 Bay Company claim, and at Fort Nisqually, the largest of the 
 Puget's Sound Agricultural Company claim, and in my instruc- 
 tions had required the deputy surveyors to run township lines 
 only over said claims. 
 
 Under your instructions of the 12th March, I have no hesi- 
 tation in issuing further inp.tructions to the deputy surveyor 
 of the Hudson's Bay Company lands to subdivide to the actual 
 enclosures as they existed in 1846, but I submit the question 
 if such construction of the then actual settlement is equally 
 applicable to the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company's claim. 
 
 I send a map of the Nisqually claim, and in the meanwhile 
 the deputy surveyor will continue his work outside of the 
 cldim till I receive different orders from yourself as to the 
 construction I shall place upon the term "actual settlement," 
 as appliRii to the Puget's Sound Agricultural claim. What I 
 would inquire is, shall I subdivide up to the eneloaures as they 
 existed in 1846, upon the lands claimed by the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company, or am I empowered to send for " per- 
 sons and papers" and discriminate as a commissioner between 
 our public lands and such foreign rights as maybe recognized 
 by the treaty ? 
 
 If the latter, what general principles should govern such 
 discrimination? Am I to allow pasturage for the cattle and 
 sheep said to be in possession of the Puget's Sound Agricul- 
 tural Company in 1846; if so, how much, &c.? 
 
 I conceive a material difference exists between the Hudson's 
 Bay Company and the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company's 
 
263 
 
 claim, one being "possessory rights," and the other "farms 
 lands and other property of every description shall be con- 
 firmed to them." 
 
 I would, sir, ask how I am to set off from the public lands 
 those indefinitely described tracts ? 
 
 In the meantime, whilst awaiting your further instructions, 
 I beg to observe the public service will not be retarded, as the 
 deputy has sufficient to occupy him, outside the alleged limits 
 of the Nipqually claim, till I can hear from you. * * * * 
 
 By this mail I forward copies of the contracts embracing 
 the lands of the Hudson's Bay Company claim at Fort Van- 
 couver, and the Puget's Sound Vgricultural Company's claim 
 at Fort Nisqually, Avith iistrucii ons to deputy surveyors, con- 
 tractors thereof, and copies of letters from agent of Puget's 
 Sound Agricultural Company and to chief factor Hudson's 
 Bay Company, at Fort Vancouver. 
 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 James Tilton, 
 > Surveyor General W. T. 
 
 To John Wilson, Esq., ; , 
 
 Com. Gen' I Land Office, Washington, D. C. 
 
 [ccpv.] 
 
 Vancouver, Washington Territory, 
 
 ./mZ^ 23, 1855. 
 Justin Chenoweth: « 
 
 Sir: I L .ve to notify you that the lands which you are now 
 surveying ai o claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company. I 
 therefore request that you discontinue such operations, and 
 have further, in the name of the Company, to protest most 
 solemnly a'jainst any surveys being carried on by the United 
 States Government or other parties over the lands in question. 
 Trusting that you will acknoAvledge receipt of this communi- 
 cation, I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 (Signed) D. Mactavish. 
 
 Chief Factor Hudions Bay Co. 
 
 
264 
 
 f: V J 
 
 [copy.] 
 
 Vancouver, July 23, 1855. 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
 note of the 23d inst., and would state in reply that I am in- 
 structed by the surveyor general of Washington Territory, 
 in the execution of my contract for the survey of certain lands 
 in said territory, to survey up to the actual enclosures or set- 
 tlements belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company in existence 
 in the year 1846. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 (Signed) Justin Chenoweth, 
 
 U. S. Deputy Surveyor. 
 Gov. D. Mactavish, 
 
 Chief Factor of the Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 D 
 
 Office Surveyor General W. T., 
 , Olympia, W. T., August 14, 1855. 
 
 D. Mactavish, Esq., i 
 
 Chief Factor Hudson's Bay Company, ^ 
 
 Fort Vancouver, Washington Territory: 
 Sir: Your letter dated July 24, 1855, protesting against 
 surveys on lands claimed by the Hudson's iiay Company, has 
 just been forwarded to me by Dr. Tolmie, chi^f factor Puget's 
 Sound Agricultural Company. 
 
 In answer, T state that Mr. Chenoweth is acting in obedi- 
 ence to my orders, see letter dated May 24, of which the fol- 
 lowing is a copy : 
 
 3(5 *|» ^ ^F ^r '1^ t* n* 'T^ n* 'I* 
 
 The above orders were in pursuance of instructions to me 
 dated March 12, 1855, from the Commissioner General Land 
 Office, " to cause the lines of public rveys in sectional sub- 
 divisions to be extended up to the actual settlements of the 
 British claimants, according to the lawful and proper limits 
 of the same at the date of the treaty of 1846." 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 James Tilton, 
 Surveyor Qeneral W. T. 
 
265 
 
 r. T. 
 
 General Land Office, 
 Juli/ 19, 1855. 
 James Tilton, Esq., 
 
 Surveyor Greneral of Washington Territory, 
 
 Olympia, Washington Territory: 
 
 Sir: Your letter of 24th May last was received by the last 
 mail, on 12th inst. Having solicited the chief factor of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company, Dugald Mactavish, Esq., to furnish 
 you with a map or statement, duly authenticated, of the claim 
 or claims of that Company on the Columbia river, near Fort 
 Vancouver, after having informed him that you had been in- 
 structed to extend the lines of the public surveys up to the 
 actual settlements, of the British claimants according to the 
 limits of the same at the dato of the treaty of 1846, he states 
 in his letter of reply, (of which you furnish a copy,) as follows : 
 
 "I beg most respectfully to mention that I am unable to 
 furnish you with the statement you require, as I do not con- 
 sider myself at liberty to define any precise limits to the claims 
 of the Company, not having authority to that efiFect from the 
 Governor and Committee of the Hudson's Bay Coupany in 
 London, without which any opinion of mine would not be bind- 
 ing on the Company." 
 
 Mr. Mactavish, although professing to have no authority 
 himself to define the limits alluded to, nevertheless sees proper 
 to advert to a definition of such limits in a communication from 
 the Chief Factor Ballenden to Surveyor General Preston, in 
 1852. He states as follows: 
 
 "I take the liberty of calling your attention to the follow- 
 ing extract from the Chief Factor Ballenden's letter of 30th 
 July, 1852, to Surveyor General Preston, of Oregon Territory, 
 aoid I have to request that no surveys be made or claims granted 
 within the limits stated by Mr. Ballenden, viz : ' there is, how- 
 ever, a certain tract of country in the neighborhood of Fort 
 Vancouver, which was {and if otir rights ivere respected still 
 ought to k') in the sole possession and occupation of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company; within those limits I most respectfully 
 request that no surveys be made or claims granted to any 
 person whatsoever, witliout the approbation of vae Hudson's 
 Bay Company. 
 
 
 1 rn 
 
266 
 
 " * That tract of land to which I refer commences at a stake 
 and tree marked on the north bank of the Columbia river, about 
 two miles west of Willow Point; thence following the mean- 
 ders (easterly) of the said liver to the large Lake, 9^ miles, 
 passing on the north bank until it strikes a small stream enter- 
 ing the lake on the northeast side; thence running east 15° 
 south Q} miles, to a stake marked X, between the Third and 
 Fourth Plains, in a swamp; thence east 22° south 4^ miles to 
 the Camas Plains, to a stake mavk ; thence south 3| miles to 
 the Columbia river; thence following the meanders of said 
 river to the place of beginning ; also a small island south of 
 Vancouver, in the Columbia river.' " 
 
 Mr. Mactavish, who in 1855 disavows any knowledge or au- 
 thority in regard to the true definition of the limits referred 
 to, nevertheless refei's to the definition of the same given by 
 the Chief Factor Ballendon, in 1852, and it yet remains to be 
 shown what authority the latter agent had to settle the ques- 
 tion. You state that within the limits designated by Mr. Bal- 
 lenden at least eighty American settlers are found, and some of 
 them have valuable improvements. You further state that ' 
 you await orders upon the subject as to what constitutes the 
 "actual settlements," and the principles to be acted upon in 
 defining claims under the treaty of 5th August, 1846, the 
 article of which is in the following words : 
 
 " In the future appropriation of the territory south of forty- 
 ninth parallel of north latitude, as provided in the first article 
 of this treaty, the possessory rights of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany, and of all the British subjects who may be already in 
 the occupation of land or other property lawfully acquired 
 within the said territory shall be respected." 
 
 The ^^ possessory rights" of said Company and the claims of 
 individuals who were in the occupation of lUnds at the date of 
 the treaty, are to be respected, and while the American agents 
 are anxious to respect such claims in good faith, it remains 
 for the British claimants to prove what were their localities 
 and outlines of claims at the time of the treaty; and, in the 
 absence of other and more reliable evidence, the public sur- 
 veys can respect nothing that lies ovUide of what were enr 
 closed claims in 1846. Such oourBo of proceeding is deemed 
 
 IV 
 
267 
 
 valid in respect to the claims of individuals, and Mr. Mactav- 
 ish is to be expressly notified by you that such will also be the 
 proceeding in regard to the claim of the Company he repre- 
 sents, in case evidence from the Hudson's Bay Company in 
 London, duly authenticated, is not forthcoming. Meanwhile, 
 however, you will cause no other than township lines to be 
 extended over the claims, and the sectional lines and corners 
 are to be stopped' short of the outlines cited by Mr. Ballenden, 
 (thereby making all such corners to lie outside of his alleged 
 limits,) with the understanding that such procedure is but a 
 mere act of courtesy for the present, and that the final recog- 
 nition as to the extent of the "possessory rights" of the Com- 
 pany at Fort Vancouver awaits determination on future evi- 
 dence to be adduced; or in default of the production to you of 
 such evidence, within a reasonable time, upon the fact being 
 reported here, the department may feel authorized to direct 
 the surveys to be made up to the enclosed claims as they ex- 
 isted at the date of the treaty in 1846. 
 
 You are requested to communicate to Mr. Mactavish that 
 further delays in determining the limits of such claims are in- 
 compatible with the interests of the public service, and that 
 it will remain for him so to suggest to the authority of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 In regard to th • claims of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Company you will hereafter be advised. 
 
 I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Geo. C. Whitney, 
 
 Acting Commissioner. 
 
 P. S. I have to remark that the instructions which accom- 
 pany your contract with Phillips and Strickler authorize them 
 to extend the exterior lines of townships over the Puget's 
 Sound Agricultural claim, and to close their subdivisional 
 lines, is not approved ; the sectional lines and corners must 
 stop short of the outlines of the claim, so that the sectional 
 cornersmW be outside of the limits claimed, leaving unsuroi'i/ed, 
 for the present, the space between the sectiomxl corners and the 
 outlines of the claim. 
 19 B 
 
I 
 
 (1 
 
 li r ! 
 
 E I 
 
 2e8 
 
 Fort Vancouveh, W. T., 
 
 July 21«e, 1855. 
 The Hon. James Tilton, 
 
 Surveyor Oeneralof Washington Territory, Olympia: 
 Sir : Having been informed that Mr. Ohenoweth was sur- 
 veying in the neighborhood of the Company's farm, on Mill 
 Plain, about six or seven miles from this place, I, yesterday, 
 addressed a note to that gentleman, a copy of which, together 
 with his reply, I now beg leave to hand you. 
 
 Mr. Chenoweth states that ho is acting by your authority; 
 and as such may be the case, it becomes my duty, in the name 
 of the Hudson's Bay Company, to protest most solemnly against 
 any surveys being carried on by the United States Govern- 
 ment or other parties over lands in this Territory, claimed by 
 the Company, under the treaty of 1846, between Great Britain 
 and the United States. 
 
 I have ti\e honor to be, your most obedient servant, 
 
 DUGALD MaCTAVISH, 
 
 Chief Factor, Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 Office Surveyor General W. T., 
 
 Olympia, Sept. lat, 1855. 
 Mr. Justin Chenoweth, 
 
 U. S. Deputy Surveyor: 
 
 Sir: I have received orders from Washington City to survey 
 in township lines only, all that part of the Hudson's Bay claim 
 near Fort Vancouver, which is oomprieed within limits of the 
 lines designated by Mr. Ballenden to Surveyor General Pres- 
 ton in 1852, and which are as follows: 
 
 "That tract to which I refer commences at a stake and tree, 
 marked, on the north bank of the Columbia river, about two 
 miles west of Willow Point; thence running northerly along 
 the slough until it meets the outlet of Lake river; thence fol- 
 lowing the meanders (easterly) of the said river to the large 
 lake, {91) miles, passing on the north bank until it strikse a 
 small stream entering the lal'e on the notheast side; thcace 
 
lur- 
 
 m\ 
 
 lay, 
 ther 
 
 :ity; 
 
 lame 
 
 ftinst 
 
 vern- 
 
 jdby 
 
 ritain 
 
 269 
 
 running about 15° S. 6| miles, to a stake marked X, between 
 the Third and Fourth Plains in a swamp; thence east 22" 
 S. 4| miles, to the Camas Plain to a stake marked; thence 
 S. 3^ miles, to the Columbia river; thence following the mean- 
 ders of said river to the place of beginning; also a small island 
 south of Vancouver, in the Columbia river." 
 
 You will, therefore, extend town lines over the above men- 
 tioned tract, and your sectional lines will stop short of the 
 outlines cited by Mr. Ballenden, thereby making all such 
 corners lie outside of the alleged limits. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Jas. Tilton, 
 ■ ' ", Survei/or General TT. T. 
 
 I, 
 my. 
 
 survey 
 
 claim 
 
 of the 
 il Pres- 
 
 d tree, 
 lut two 
 f along 
 
 Iice fol- • 
 e large 
 Lrikse a 
 
 Office Surveyor General W. T., 
 Olympia, W. T,. Sept. 1««, 1855. 
 DuoALD Mactavish, Chief Factor Hudson's Bay Company, at 
 Fort Vancouver, W. T.: 
 
 Sir : I have received orders from the acting Commissioner 
 of the General Land Office at Washington City, of which the 
 following is an extract: 
 
 "You further state that you await orders upon the subject 
 of what constitutes the 'actual settlements,' and the principles 
 to be acted on in defining claims under the treaty of 5th 
 August, 1846, the 3d article of which is in the following [words] : 
 
 "'In the future appropriation of the Territory south of the 
 49th parallel north latitude, as provided in the first article of 
 this treaty, the possessory rights of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany and of all British subjects who may be already in the 
 occupation of land or other property lawfully acquired within 
 the said Territory shall be respected.' 
 
 " The possessory rights of the said Company, and the claims 
 of individuals who were ' m the occupation' of land at the date 
 of the treaty, are to be respected; and while the American 
 agents are anxious to respect such claims in good faith, it 
 remains for the British claimants to prove what were their 
 
7 
 
 ;|ti 
 
 M 
 
 i ■' 
 
 1 
 
 h 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 t 
 
 f 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 270 
 
 localities and outlines of claims at the time of the treatj, and 
 in the absence of other and more reliable evidence, the public 
 surveys can respect nothing that lies outside of what were 
 enclosed olaima in 1846. Such course of proceeding is deemed 
 valid in respect to the claims of individuals, and Mr. Mactav- 
 ish is to be expressly notified by you that such will also be 
 the proceedings in regard to the claim of the Company he 
 represents, in case evidence from the Hudson's Bay authori- 
 ties in London, duly authenticated, is not forthcoming; mean- 
 while, however, you will cause no other than township lines 
 to be extended over the claims, and the sectional lines and 
 corners to be stopped short of the outlines cited by Mr. Bal- 
 Icnden, (thereby making all such corners to be outside of his 
 alleged limits,) with the understanding that such proceedings 
 is a mere act of courtesy for the present, and that final recog- 
 nition of the extent of the possessory rights of the Company 
 at Fort Vancouver, awaits determination on future evidence 
 to be adduced, or in default of production to you of such evi- 
 dence within a reasonable time, upon the fact being reported 
 here, the department may feel authorized to direct the survey 
 to be made to the enclosed claims as they existed at the date 
 of the treaty of 1846. 
 
 ''You are requested to communicate to Mr. Mactavish that 
 further delays in determining the limits of such claims are 
 incompatible with the interests of the public service, and that 
 it will remain for him so to suggest to the authorities of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 "In regard to the claim of the Puget's Sound Agricul- 
 tural Company you will hereafter be advised." 
 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 James Tilton, 
 , Surveyor General IF. T- 
 
 
i^^ 
 
 271 
 
 FoET Vancouver, W. T., 
 
 September 12, 1855. 
 The Hon. James Tilton, 
 
 Surveyor General, Washington Territory, Olympia: 
 Sir : I bavo to acknowledge receipt of your communications 
 of 14th August and Ist September, copies of which have been 
 transmitted to London, for the information of the Governor 
 and Oommitteo of the Hudson's Bay Company. 
 Very rospoctfully, I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 ((Signed) Dugald Mactavish, 
 
 Chief Factor Hudson's Bay Co. 
 
 Extract of Annual Report to General Land Office. 
 
 September 20, 1855. 
 * * ♦ ♦ I ^ould respectfully urge upon you a necessity 
 for the speedy settlement of the claims of the Hudson's Bay 
 and Pugct's Sound Agricultural Companies to lands in Wash- 
 ington Territory. One of these claims is for about six town- 
 ships and the other for about two townships, of the best lands 
 in the Territory, and have now more than two hundred Ameri- 
 can settlers upon them, opening farms. The public interest 
 imperatively demands a speedy adjustment of the boundaries 
 of the above claims. ******* 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 James Tilton, 
 Surveyor General W. T. 
 
 This correspondence was read in Committee of the whole 
 Council on the 24th day of January, 1856, and after some ex- 
 planatory remarks, made by the honorable surveyor general, 
 the Council ordered five hundred copies to be printed in 
 pamphlet form. 
 
 After which the Council ' passed the following resolution 
 unanimously: 
 
 Resolved by the Council, That the surveyor general, James 
 
172 
 
 Tilton, is entitled to the thanks of this body for his prompt 
 and satisfactory reply to Council resolution requesting infor- 
 mation relative to the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Agri- 
 cultural Companies. 
 
 John J. Lowbll, 
 Seoretary of the Cowncil of W. T. 
 
 A— 6. 
 
 Department or the Interior, 
 General Land Office, January 28, 1865. 
 
 Sir: Understanding that claims are pending before a Com- 
 mission in session in this city, under the stipulations of the 
 treaty of Ist July, 1868, between the United States and Great 
 Britain, for the final settlement of the claims of the Hudson's 
 Bay and Puget's Sound Agricultural Companies, I have the 
 honor herewith to lay before you a copy of a communication 
 dated February 4, 1860, to the Secretary of the Interior, with 
 accompanying papers ''a," ''b," having an important bearing 
 upon the claims in question, and which is accordingly respect- 
 fully submitted for consideration. 
 
 With great respect, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. M. Edmunds, 
 
 Commisaioner. 
 
 The Hon. Wm. H. Seward, 
 
 Secretary of 8tatf, 
 
 'if, 
 
 I COPY.] , . . 
 
 I General Land Office, 
 
 February 4, 1860. 
 Sir : I have the honor to return herewith the communication 
 of 80th ultimo, from the Hon. Secretary of State, and accom- 
 panying papers, in relation to the rights of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company and Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, under the 
 treaty with Great Britain of 1840, which were referred to this 
 
278 
 
 Uion 
 3om- 
 
 the 
 this 
 
 office for report on 81st ultimo. In reply to the inquiry in that 
 communication, as to the views entertained hy the Department 
 of the Interior in respect to the alleged claims of these Com- 
 panies, and the measures which have been taken, or are in con> 
 templation, in regard to them, I beg leave to submit the following, 
 as indicating the action of the General Land Office in the matter. 
 
 In view of the treaty stipulations, as fully set forth by the 
 Secretary of State in the enclosed, this office, up to a recent 
 date, carefully abstained from exercising any control over the 
 lands covered by these alleged claims, for the want of precise 
 and authoritative data in regard to their validity. Our sur- 
 veyors general for years past were accordingly forbidden to 
 survey the localities thus claimed, or to do any act by which 
 the rights of these Companies might be called in question. 
 This course was pursued up to a recent period, when the autho- 
 rities of the Roman Catholic Church in Washington Territory 
 applied for a survey and recognition by the Department, of the 
 missionary stations in said territory, as confirmed by the Act 
 of Congress of 14th August, 1848, establishing the territorial 
 government of Oregon. One of these missions, to wit, " St. 
 James' Catholic Mission," being located in a tract of country 
 understood to be claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company under 
 the 3d article of the aforesaid treaty of 1846, it was held, 
 on behalf of the Mission, that the " possessory rights " of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company had become extinct by reason of the 
 expiration of their charter, in May, 1859. This averment was 
 supported by a reference to proceedings in the British Parlia- 
 ment in 1B57, and by despatches from the British Minister, Sir 
 E. B. Lytton, to the Governor of British Columbia in 1858. 
 
 Upon a further examination of the subject wo become sat- 
 isfied that the possessory rights of said Hudson's Bay Company 
 had expired, as claimed, in May, 1869, and the title of the 
 United States had become absolute in the premises. The im- 
 pediment to the survey and subdivision of the lands claimed 
 by the Company being thus, in the opinion of this office, re- 
 moved, the surveyor general of Washington Territory was, on 
 the 29th of September, 1859, instructed to extend his surveys 
 
,%. ^Oc- 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 11.25 
 
 ^IM 12.5 
 
 2.2 
 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 i 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 33 WIST MAIK ^ TRKT 
 
 WMSTIR.N.Y. UStO 
 
 (716)«7«.4503 
 
it 
 
 
 (\ 
 
274 
 
 oyer them accordingly, in the same manner as over other public 
 lands of the United States. 
 
 These instructions, containing the views of the General Land 
 Office more at large, will be found in the enclosed copy ''a" 
 {infra.) 
 
 In relation to the property of the "Puget's S"ound Agricul- 
 tural Company " this office, on the 1st of October, 1859, with 
 a view of eliciting all the information possible on the subject, 
 issued instructions to the surveyor general of Washington 
 Territory, directing him to call upon the claimants, under the 
 treaty, to furnish authentic evidence of their claims, and to 
 report the result, with his decisions. (Copy *'b.") 
 
 His report is now before us, dated December 8, 1859. It is ac- 
 companied by letters from William F. Tolmie, styling himself 
 "Agent Puget's Sound Agricultural Company," and anumbe; 
 of other papers in relation to the claims of said Company. 
 
 After describing the nature, extent, and character of the 
 claims of this Company, which appears to be an offshoot from 
 and similar in character to the Hudson's Bay Company, ex- 
 hibiting no original derivation of title, never having had, or 
 claiming to have, received a grant from the British Govern- 
 ment, and examining the question of title under the treaty, 
 the surveyor general expresses the opinion that the Puget's 
 Sound Agricultural Company have shown no color of title to 
 the lands claimed by them, other than occupancy for au in- 
 definite period. The question as to whether the Company may 
 be entitled to any consideration, in view of the increased value 
 of the land incident to their occupation and improvement, he 
 does not feel called upon to decide. 
 
 We find the surveyor general of the Territory made a 
 thorough examination of the whole matter on the spot, after 
 notice to all claimants, and the result is that he finds no sub- 
 sisting legal claims in any British subjects under the treaty, 
 and that whatever possessions were had by claimants under 
 color of said treaty, such claims had ripened by the transition 
 of such British subjects to American citizenship under form 
 of proceedings known to our laws, and as such will be respected 
 under our enactments. 
 
275 
 
 er public 
 
 )ral Land 
 iopy"a" 
 
 Agricul- 
 859, with. 
 B subject, 
 Ei&hington 
 under the 
 18, and to 
 
 I. Itisac- 
 ig himself 
 anumbe* 
 npany. 
 ter of the 
 hoot from 
 ipany, ex- 
 ig had, or 
 1 Govern- 
 ;he treaty, 
 le Puget's 
 of title to 
 for au in- 
 apany may 
 lased value 
 iremeut, he 
 
 'y made a 
 spot, after 
 ids no sub- 
 the treaty, 
 ants under 
 } transition 
 under form 
 e respected 
 
 It will not be maintained that the treaty of 1846 recognized 
 any other rights than those subsisting at the date of its ratifi- 
 cation. It of course contemplated nothing additional to the 
 9tatU8 of the parties claiming at that time. These rights we 
 stipulated with Great Britain to protect, confirm, and main- 
 tain. We have done so for fourteen years, and as long as they 
 were rights; but when, by limitations imposed upon their 
 duration by the Crown, they have ceased to exist, there are 
 no longer any rights left for us to recognize. It may be proper 
 to add that, under the well-settled principles of public law as 
 expounded by our courts, and never denied by Great Britain, 
 our Government has held and still holds it to be its exclusive 
 privilege to deal with the adjustment of all matters infra-terri- 
 torial relating to the segregation from the public lands of any 
 individual foreign claims confirmed by treaty or act of Con- 
 gress, and in the present case the purpose of a commission, a 
 mode of proceeding familiar under our system, has been sub- 
 served by the action of the Interior Department in delegating 
 authority to the surveyor general aforesaid, who, as stated, 
 has given notice to all parties claiming an interest under the 
 treaty of 1846, and finds that there are no legal subsisting 
 claims under that .eaty. This unimpeached proceeding, in 
 the opinion of this office, terminates the necessity for any 
 further action, and leaves the title in the Government of the 
 United States, and the parties holding in full possession of 
 their legal rights. 
 
 At any time prior to the expiration and extinction of these 
 claims, the United States had, under the treaty, the privilege 
 or not of buying out the claimants; and for this purpose a 
 commission, had the project been determined upon, would have 
 been necessary; but this is not now the case, as by the expi- 
 ration of the British charter to these Companies the matter 
 is concluded. 
 
 Sovereignty changes, but private property is unafi'ected by 
 the change. This is a unive):sal and well established principle 
 of public law, therefore, in any eventuality, parties claiming 
 any species of the property in question, whether real or per- 
 sonal, in no way can be prejudiced by the realization of the 
 
 .<fj..s«i.n»«ijw»«iy^^jjj(.(,5i,jjifji55,j^5 t fmy' m '^ r ^.im 
 
mmmmmmW'fmm 
 
 pHiHi,yHI!ijM,i.),lij«yiii . 
 
 276 
 
 views presented in the foregoing, for the reason that oar courts 
 are open to them with all the legal remedies possessed by our 
 own citizens in controversies respecting real or personal estate, 
 and that, too, under our system of jurisprudence resting upon 
 the same basis as that of Great Britain. 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 S. A. Smith, Oommmioner. 
 Hon. Jacob Thompson, 
 
 Secretary of the Interior. 
 
 ^ \ 
 
 General Land Office, 
 
 September 29, 1859. 
 
 Sir: Application has been made to the Department by the 
 Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet for instructions to the Surveyor Gen- 
 eral in Washington Territory to survey and set apart what is 
 known as the "St. James' Catholic Mission" claim, in virtue 
 of the confirmation of such claims by the first section of the 
 act of Congress approved March 14, 1848, establishing the 
 "territorial government of Oregon," in which it is declared 
 "that, the title to the land not exceeding" 640 acres, then 
 occupied as missionary stations among the Indian tribes in said 
 territory, together with the improvements thereon, be con- 
 firmed and established in the several religious societies to 
 which said missionary stations respectively belong." 
 
 The location of this mission places it on a tract of country 
 which it is understood has been claimed under the third article 
 of the treaty concluded in 1846, between the United States 
 and Great Britain, in which it is agreed that "the possessory 
 rights of the Hudson's Bay Company and of all British sub- 
 jects who may be already in the occupation of land or other 
 property lawfully acquired within the said territory shall be 
 respected." We gather from a connected plat of the territory 
 that the country on which these possessory rights existed is 
 on the north side of the Columbia river, extending from town- 
 ship 2 to 4 north, range 1 west, and township 2 north, ranges 
 2 and 3 east, embracing some 60,000 acres. 
 
277 
 
 Bub- 
 other 
 ill be 
 ritory 
 ted is 
 Itown- 
 langes 
 
 It is claimed on the part of the mission that these possessory 
 rights are no7 extinct, by the expiration of the charter, on the 
 30th of May last, of the Hudson's Bay Company, and in sup- 
 port of this averment reference is^ made to the report of the 
 Select Committee on the Hudson's Bay Company, communi- 
 cated from the Commons to the Lords in the year 1857, and 
 dispatches of the 16th July and 14th August, 1858, from the 
 British Minister, Sir Edward B. Ly tton, to Governor Douglas, 
 of British Columbia. 
 
 The report distinctly shows the possessory right was merely 
 a license to the Company to trade — did not convey title to the 
 soil ; and one of the dispatches of 16th July, 1858, according 
 to the transcript furnished by Fev. Mr. Brouillet, explicitly 
 declares that the legal connection of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany with Vancouver Island will shortly be severed by the 
 resumption of the crown of the grant of the soil, and adds that 
 " the legal rights on the continent opposite terminates in May 
 next," (1859.) 
 
 The possessory privileges thus shown to be extinct, the title 
 of the United States is disencumbered and becomes absolute 
 in the premises, and consequently they are no longer an im- 
 pediment to the survey of the lands formerly covered thereby. 
 
 Tou will therefore proceed to extend the lines of the public 
 surveys over the tract of country in question, where the afore- 
 said possessory privileges have become extinct, will make 
 regular returns of survey, and transmit approved township 
 plats thereof, laying off the Mission on the principles laid down 
 in the 6th section of the act of Congress, approved 27th Sep- 
 tember, 1850, U. S. Statutes, vol. 9, page 498, and appropri- 
 ately representing it on the plat of the township in which the 
 same may be situated, and will, of course, properly designate 
 on the official plats the tracts reserved by the United States 
 for military or other purposes. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Jos. S. Wilson, 
 
 Acting Commissioner. 
 
 James Tilton, Esq., 
 
 Surveyor General, Olympia, W. T. 
 

 f ^ 
 
 [copy.] 
 
 278 
 «b." 
 
 General Land Office, October 1, 1859. 
 
 Sir : In the 4th article of the treaty of 1846, between the 
 United States and Great Britain, it is declared that the *< farms, 
 lands, and other property of every description belonging to 
 the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company on the north side of 
 the Columbia river shall be confirmed to the said Company." 
 The locality claimed under this article it appears, from a con- 
 nected map of the territory, covers a tract of prairie country 
 about 8 miles east of Olympia, somewhat of a quadrangle 
 shape, and embracing about 150,000 acres, in townships 17, 
 18, 19, 20 north, ranges 1, 2, 3, and 4 east. 
 
 The purpose of this communication is to direct you to call 
 upon the parties claiming under this article of the treaty for — 
 
 1. A verified copy of their contract. 
 
 2. A list of the names of all the individuals constituting 
 said Company, discriminating between those resident and 
 those non-resident, and showing whether they are the same 
 persons composing the Company at date of treaty. 
 
 3. For an authentic showing of the extent and exact locality 
 of the farms, lands, and other property at the date of treaty. 
 
 This information is indispensable to separate, understand- 
 in'gly, any valid claim under treaty from the public lands, and 
 this proceeding is designed as preliminary to efi'ecting that 
 object. You are instructed to call upon the claimants for the 
 data to aid you in making a full report on the subject, which 
 you will do so as to reach here by the 15th or 20th of January 
 next. You will accompany your report with the evidences of 
 claims, which may be filed with you, and transmit a sketch plat 
 indicating the localities of the several rights which may be 
 advanced under this article of the treaty, and showing your 
 decision in each case. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Jos. S. Wilson, 
 
 Acting Comnmmner. 
 James Tilton, Esq., 
 
 Surveyor General^ Olympia, 
 
 Wa%Mngton Territory. 
 
279 
 
 A— 7. 
 
 Her Britannic Majesty's Legation, 
 
 Washington, May 16, 1858. 
 Honorable Lewis Cass, 
 
 &c., &c., &c. : . 
 
 Sir : With reference to my note of the 5th instant, respect- 
 ing the alleged encroachments of the military authorities of the 
 United States on the property of the Hudson's Bay Company at 
 Fort Vancouver, by the contemplated erection of a building 
 designed for the purpose of an arsenal, I have now the jonor 
 to transmit to you herewith copy of a letter from Mr. Theo- 
 dore J. Eckerson to Mr. Dugald Muctavish, chief factor of 
 the Company, stating that his proceedings in this affair have 
 been sanctioned by the Department of War at Washington. 
 
 The questions involving the possessory rights of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company to the south of the 49th parallel, have 
 been repeatedly brought under your consideration by order 
 of her Majesty's Government, in a verbal or written form, 
 during the past year. My representations have embraced 
 proposals for the valuation of these rights by arbitrators, and 
 their purchase by the United States Government. As for 
 the definition of the possessions of the Company, and their 
 protection against usurpation by the federal authorities, or 
 for the summary acquisition of the said possessions by the 
 Federal Government, for the sum of six hundred and fifty 
 thousand dollars, I have, moreover, had the advantage of in- 
 formally discussing these matters with Mr. Lane, of Oregon, 
 and Mr. Stevens, late Governor of Washington Territory, 
 who stated their intention of communicating their views to 
 the Department of State. You will not be surprised, j;here- 
 fore, if I again recommend this subject to your attention, in 
 the hope that the Government of the United States will se- 
 cure to the Company the enjoym; nt of those rights which it 
 possesses under the treaty of 1846, or make commensurate 
 
280 
 
 compensation to the Company for the surrender of its prop- 
 erty. 
 I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, 
 
 your most obedient humble servant, 
 
 Napier. 
 
 A— 8. 
 
 Department of State, 
 
 Washington, June 7, 1860. 
 Lord Lyons, 
 
 &c., &c., &c.: 
 
 My Lord : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of 
 your Lordship's letter of the 25th May, in which you inform 
 me that ''it is your duty, in obedience to the orders of her 
 Majesty's Government, once more to call my attention to the 
 question of the rights secured to the Hudson's Bay and Puget's 
 Sound Company by the treaty signed at Washington upon 
 the 15th June, 1846," and in which you refer to certain acts 
 of the military authorities in the Department of Oregon, affect- 
 ing, in your opinion, the rights and interests of the Company. 
 
 The President has learned with regret the occurrence of 
 any circumstances which, in the opinion of her Majesty's 
 Government, would seem to impair the faithful execution of 
 any provisions of treaty of 1846. But, without attempting 
 at present, to estimate the extent of the rights to which your 
 Lordship refers, it is sufficient to say that the President does 
 not recognize the right of any subordinate of any service to 
 decide upon questions affecting the diplomatic engagements 
 of this Government. I trust, therefore, that it will be satis- 
 factory to you to learn that orders have been immediately 
 despatched ta the commander of the military division of Ore- 
 gon, which will prevent effectually any interference with the 
 servantp of the Hudson's Bay Company, until their rights 
 under the treaty shall be amicably adjusted between the two 
 Governments. 
 
281 
 
 The commander of the military division of Oregon has also 
 been instructed to reinstate upon their lands, any of the ser- 
 vants of the Hudson's Bay Company, who may have been dis- 
 possessed by his action ; and, should any loss have been sus- 
 tained in consequence of the military orders issued by him, 
 this Government will cheerfully make reasonable compensa- 
 tion upon proper proof. The President shares the anxiety 
 of her Majesty's Government to see these questions settled, 
 and your Lordship may rest assured that you will find at this 
 Department every facility for their prompt, just, and amica- 
 ble solution. 
 
 I have the honor to be, my Lord, with high consideration, 
 your Lordship's obedient servant. 
 
 Lewis Cass. 
 
 A— 9. 
 
 Washington, June 8, 1860. 
 The Honorable Lewis Cass, 
 
 &c., &c., &c. : 
 
 Sir : I have learned with great satisfaction, from the note 
 which you did me the honor to address to me yesterday, that 
 orders have been despatched to the commander of the mili- 
 tary division of Oregon, which will effectually prevent any 
 interference with the condition of the servants of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company, until the question of the rights of the Company 
 under the treaty of 1846 shall be amicably adjusted between 
 our respective Governments. 
 
 I shall eagerly avail myself of the facilities which you are 
 so obliging as to assure me that I shall find at the State De- 
 partment for the prompt, just, and amicable solution of this 
 question. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, 
 your most obedient humble servant, 
 
 Lyons. 
 

 <f 
 
 I ^ 
 
 f'i 
 
 282 
 
 A— 10. 
 
 Department of State, 
 Washington, 26th November, 1860. 
 Lord Lyons, &c., &c., &c. : 
 
 Mt Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of 
 your note of the 15th instant, referring to certain conversa- 
 tions at this department, in relation to the suspension, by army 
 order, of the rent hitherto paid the Puget's Sound Company 
 for the use of land upon which are erected the present United 
 States barracks at Fort Steilacoom. 
 
 In reply, I enclose a copy of a letter from the War Depart- 
 ment, which will explain itself; and in doing so, I must urge 
 upon your lordship the advantage which would result from an 
 early settlement of all the questions relating to the rights and 
 interests of British subjects under the treaty. It has become 
 absolutely necessary to extend the laws and regulations of the 
 United States touching public lands over this Territory, and 
 the particular question arising out of the rent of Fort Steila- 
 coom is only one illustration out of many of the difficulty 
 which belongs to the existing condition of uncertainty with 
 regard to settlers. 
 
 Hoping that you will soon be enabled by instructions from 
 yotfr Government to make such propositions as will terminate 
 this last open question between our respective Governments, 
 
 I am, my lord, with high consideration, your lordship's 
 obedient servant, 
 
 Lewis Cass. 
 
 A— 11. 
 
 Washington, December 10th, 1860. 
 Honorable General Lewis Cass, 
 
 Secretary of State, ^c, ^c, ^c. : \ 
 
 Sir: In the note which you did me the honor to address 
 me, on the 25th June last, you informed me that the Presi- 
 
 I .?■ 
 
 ""'wwiwuffwr 
 
288 
 
 160. 
 
 eipt of 
 iversa- 
 jrarwy 
 mpany 
 United 
 
 Depart- 
 i8t urge 
 From an 
 ;ht8 and 
 become 
 IS of the 
 ory, and 
 t Steila- 
 difficulty 
 nty ^ith 
 
 ons from 
 erminate 
 rnments, 
 ordship's 
 
 Cass. 
 
 , 1860. 
 
 to address 
 the Presi- 
 
 dent \ras equally solicitous with the Government of her 
 Majesty for the amicable and satisfactory adjustment of the 
 questions at issue between the two countries respecting the 
 execution of the treaty signe.d at Washington, on the 15th of 
 Juk % 1846. You added that the Government of the United 
 Statt. would be ready to receive and fairly to consider any 
 proposition which her Majesty's Government might be dis- 
 posed to make for a mutually acceptable adjustment, with an 
 earnest hope that a satisfactory arrangement would speedily 
 put an end to all danger of the recurrence of those grave ques- 
 tions which have more than once threatened to interrupt that 
 good understanding'which both countries have so many power- 
 ful motives to maintain. 
 
 The absence from England of her Majesty's Secretary of 
 State for the Colonies prevented her Majesty's Government 
 from enabling me to make an earlier reply to this communi- 
 cation. But her Majesty's Government have not relaxed in 
 their desire to close the controversy with regard to the com- 
 plete execution of the treaty; and in the confident hope of 
 settling the whole matter in a manner satisfactory and honor- 
 able to both parties, they have directed me to lay before you 
 the proposals, which I shall proceed to state in this note. 
 
 The two points which have been in discussion are, first, the 
 fulfillment of the obligation undertaken by the United States 
 in respect to the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Companies, 
 and, secondly, the determination of the line of water boundary 
 intended by the first article of the treaty. With regard to the 
 first point, the President said to me, in the course of a con- 
 versation which I had the honor of holding with him on the 
 11th of July last, that the best and most expeditious mode of 
 settling the question would be for the Companies to state at 
 once the lowest sum for which they would sell their rights to 
 the United States. 
 
 Upon receiving from me a report of this conversation, Lord 
 John Russell, her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for 
 Foreign Afi'airs, sent for the Governor of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company, and explained to him what the President had said 
 to me on the subject of the Companies' claims. 
 20 B 
 
284 
 
 The Governor informed Lord John Russell in reply, that if 
 the Company irere called upon to fix the amount which they 
 should ask for the extinction of their claims, they should name 
 a sum of six hundred and fifty thousand dollars, (9060,000.) 
 He observed that they had been assessed at seven hundred 
 thousand dollars, and that in the United States, as in England, 
 the assessment is always below the real value. The Governor 
 added that this sum of six hundred and fifty thousand dollars 
 would be an assessmo tt on land and buildings alone, and 
 would not include any compensation for nrivileges. 
 
 Considering all the circumstances, Lord John Russell re- 
 commended the Company to reduce their claim to five hundred 
 thousand dollars, and this sum the Company have stated their 
 readiness to accept. 
 
 I am accordingly instructed to state to you, sir, that if the 
 United States Government will agree to pay to the Hudson's 
 Bay and Puget's Sound Companies a sum of five hundred 
 thousand dollars ($500,000), in extinction of all their claims 
 against the United States, under the treaty of Juno 15, 1846, 
 her Majesty's Government will be prepared to accept that < 
 amount in behalf of the two Companies, and to release the 
 United States Government from all further liability so far as 
 regards their engagements to Great Britain under the third 
 and fourth articles of that treaty in behalf of the Hudson's 
 Bay and Puget's Sound Companies in Oregon, whether on ac- 
 count of land and buildings or on account of privileges men- 
 tioned in the aforesaid articK . 
 
 In reference to the line of the water boundary intended by 
 the treaty, with respect to which, also, her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment have been invited by the United States Government to 
 make a proposition for its adjustment, I am instructed to in- 
 form you that her Majesty's Government are glad to recipro- 
 cate the friendly sentiments expressed in your note of the 
 25th of June, and will not hesitate to respond to the invitation 
 which has been made to them. 
 
 It appears to her Majesty's Government that the arguments ' 
 on both sides being nearly exhausted, and neither party hay- 
 
285 
 
 ndcd by 
 
 iGovern- 
 
 tment to 
 
 led to in- 
 
 recipro- 
 {q of the 
 
 kvitation 
 
 Igutnents 
 Irty hav- 
 
 ing succeeded in producing conviction on the other, the ques- 
 tion can only be settled by arbitration. 
 
 Three questions would arise thereupon : 
 
 Ist. What is to be the subject-matter of arbitration? 
 
 2d. Who is to be the arbiter? 
 
 8d. What is to be the result of the decision of the arbiter? 
 
 With regard to the first point her Majesty's Government 
 are of the opinion that the question or questions to be referred 
 should be what is the meaning of the words relating to the 
 water boundary contained in article Ist of the treaty of June 
 16, 1846; or, if the precise line intended cannot bo ascer- 
 tained, is there any lino which will furnish equitable solution 
 of the difficulty and is the nearest approximation that can be 
 made to an accurate construction of the treaty. 
 
 In considering these questions the arbiter migiii fairly con- 
 sult all the correspondence on the subject, and weigh the tes- 
 timony of the British and American negotiators of the treaty 
 as to their intentions in framing the articl ; but he should 
 not depart from the true meaning of the article as it stands 
 if hr "-"n deduce it from the words agreed to by both parties, 
 and consigned in a, treaty ratified by both Governments. 
 
 2dly. Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that a 
 reigning prince or sovereign state should be the arbiter. Her 
 Majesty's Government propose, with this view, that the King 
 of theNethei'lands or the King of Sweden and Norway, or the 
 President of the Federal Council of Switzerland should be in- 
 vited to be the arbiter. 
 
 With regard to the third point, her Majesty's Government 
 are desirous that this long controversy should not be again 
 thrown loose for dispute. They, therefore, propose that both 
 Governments shall bind themselves to accept the decision of 
 the arbiter, whether he shall give a positive decision, or 
 whether he shall declare that he cannot fix the precise mean- 
 ing of the article in question, but that he has laid down oh 
 the chart a line which will furnish an equitable solution of the 
 difiiculty, and the nearest approximation he can make to an 
 accurate construction of the words of the treaty. 
 
 Should these proposals be accepted, her Majesty's Govern- 
 
RHP 
 
 ■«■■■ 
 
 ^86 
 
 ment flatter themselves that an eqaitable decision may be ar- 
 rived at, :>nd a long and dangerous controversy terminated in 
 a manner consistent with the honor and the interest of both 
 Governments. 
 
 I have the honor to be, sir, with the highest consideration, 
 your most obedient, humble servant, 
 
 Lyons. 
 
 A— 12. 
 
 British Columbia — No. 2. 
 
 Go'py of Diipatch from the Right Hon. Sir E. B. Lytton, Bart., 
 to Governor Douglas. 
 
 (No. 4.) 
 
 Downing Street, July 16, 1858. 
 
 Sir: I have to acknowledge your dispatch No. 23, of the 
 19th May last,* enclosing a proclamation which you had issued 
 on ^e subject of boats and vessels entering Frazer's river for 
 trade, and reporting further on the state of the Couteau gold 
 diggings. 
 
 The accounts which have reached her Majesty's Government 
 from other quarters, as well as your own, afford abundant evi- 
 dence of the critical nature of the circumstances in which you 
 are placed. They have much satisfaction in reflecting that 
 the maintenance of public order and of the rights of the Crown 
 in that quarter is placed in the hands of an officer so vigilant, 
 and so well acquainted with the country and the people as 
 yourself; and you may rely on their support in the perform- 
 ance of this arduous duty, under the very peculiar difficulties 
 of your position. 
 
 They are now engaged in conducting through Parliament a 
 
 * Vide page 11. 
 
287 
 
 3 ar- 
 id in 
 both 
 
 btion, 
 
 NS. 
 
 , Bart., 
 
 1858. \ 
 ;, of the 
 id issued 
 river for 
 eau gold 
 
 ernment 
 dant evi- 
 hich you 
 ing that 
 le Crown 
 vigilant, 
 )eople as 
 perform- 
 iificulties 
 
 lliaiaent a 
 
 measure for the purpose of giving sanction of law to the iteps 
 which the Crown will be advised to take for the establishment 
 of regular government and protection, both of the immigrants 
 and the natives, as far as practicable, and they are also devis- 
 ing the means for affording you the support of a military force 
 as soon as this can be effected. 
 
 In the meantime I must lay down a few rules for your guid- 
 ance in the administration of the authority which has thus 
 devolved on you. 
 
 In strict law your commission extends to Vancouver Island 
 only; but you are authorized, under the necessity of the case, 
 to take such measures, not inconsistent with the general rights 
 of British subjects and others within her Majesty's dominions, 
 as that necessity may justify. 
 
 I approve, therefore, of your having detached an officer of 
 the customs from Vancouver Island (if the intention announced 
 in your despatch was carried into execution,) for the purpose 
 of preventing the landing in Frazer's river of articles pro- 
 hibited under the customs laws to which you refer. 
 
 Subject to these restrictions, her Majesty's Government wish 
 no obstacle to be interposed to the disembarkation of passen- 
 gers and goods at the mouth of Frazer's river by foreign 
 vessels. 
 
 But it is necessary to maintain the principle that the navi- 
 gation of Frazer's river itself, above the mouth, is open in 
 law to British vessels only. American or other foreign vessels, 
 therefore, if admitted to navigate that river, (to which it is 
 the desire of her Majesty's Government that no unnecessary 
 obstacles should be interposed,) should be required to take a 
 license from yourself, or such oflScer as you may delegate for 
 the purpose. 
 
 But I must distinctly warn you against using the powers 
 hereby entrusted to you in maintenance of the interests of 
 the Hudson's Bay Company in the territory. 
 
 The Company is entitled, under its existing license, to the 
 exclusive trade with the Indians, and possesses no other right 
 or privilege whatever. 
 
mm 
 
 mm 
 
 288 
 
 It is, therefore, contrary to law, and equally contrary to the 
 distinct instructions which I have to convey to you, to exclude 
 any class of persons from the territory, or to prevent any 
 importation of goods into it, on the ground of apprehended 
 interference with this monopoly ; still more to make any gov- 
 ernmental regulations subservient to the revenues or interests 
 of the Company. 
 
 I am compelled, therefore, to disapprove and to disallow, if 
 still in force, the proclamation of which your despatch trans- 
 mitted a copy. To fit out boats and vessels to enter Ffazer's 
 river for trade is no "infringement of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company," as that proclamation terms it. Such infringement 
 only commences when any trading with the Indians is attempted, 
 and no steps can rightfully be taken to put a stop to legal acts 
 of this description, on the ground that they may be intended 
 for ulterior purposes, infringing on private rights. For the 
 same reason, to require a "license from the Hudson's Bay 
 Company " of persons landing in the territory, is altogether 
 unjustifiable. 
 
 I am obliged, for the same reason, to disapprove of the terms 
 which you have proposed to the Pacific Mail Company. They 
 ought not to be put under terms to "carry the Company's 
 goods and no other;" nor ought they to be prevented from 
 carrying persons not furnished with a gold-miner's license. 
 Such license can be properly required of intending diggers on 
 the ground, but not of persons merely seeking to land on the 
 territory. Still less have the Hudson's Bay Company any 
 right whatever to exact from passengers any fee or head-money, 
 by way, as you term it, of "compensation." 
 
 Should, therefore, the Pacific Mail Company have assented 
 to these terms, I must nevertheless require their being altered 
 according to the tenor of these instructions for the future. 
 
 I am fully aware that before this despatch can reach you 
 the state of things may have materially altered, and that some 
 of these directions may have become inapplicable. Even in 
 that case, however, they will serve as an indication of the gen- 
 eral policy which it is the intention of her Majesty's Govern- 
 
 ■/ : 
 
289 
 
 m«nt to pursue, and their wish that you should execute in this 
 emergency. I hope by the next mail to be able to add to 
 these directions. 
 
 I have, &c., 
 
 (Signed) E. B. Lytton. 
 
 Governor Douolas, 
 
 ^seated 
 iltered 
 lire. 
 
 jh you 
 it some 
 fven in 
 le gen- 
 iovern- 
 
 British Columbia— No. 3. 
 
 Copy of Diipatch from the Bight Hon. Sir.H. B. Lytton, Bart., 
 
 to Governor Douglas. 
 [confidential.] 
 
 Downing Stkbbt, July 16, 1858. 
 
 Sir : My public dispatch of this date will have shown you 
 the high value which her Majesty's Government attach to your 
 services, and at the same time will guard you against some of 
 the errors into which you may be led by your position as an 
 Agent of the Hudson's Bay Company, while at the same time 
 an officer of her Majesty's Government. 
 
 I wish to inform you, confidentially, in addition, that a bill 
 is in progress through Parliament to get rid of certain obsta- 
 cles which interpose to prevent the Crown from constituting 
 a government suited to the exigencies of so peculiar a case, 
 over the territory now resorted to, according to report, by the 
 multitudes whom the gold diggings on Frazer's river have 
 attracted. 
 
 It proposes to appoint a governor, with a salary of- at 
 least .£1,000 per annum, to be paid for the present out of a 
 Parliamentary vote. And it is the desire of her Majesty's 
 Government to appoint you at once to that office, on the usual 
 terms of a governor's appointment ; namely, for six years at 
 least, your administration of that office continuing to merit 
 the approval of her Majesty's Government ; this government 
 to be held for the present in conjunction with your separate 
 commission as Governor of Vancouver's Island. 
 
 With regard to the latter, I am not at this moment able to 
 
mw^^ 
 
 290 
 
 specify the terms, as to salary, on which it may ultimately be 
 held, but your just interests would of course not be overlooked. 
 
 The legal conection of the Hudson's Bay Company with 
 Vancouver's Island, will shortly be severed by the resump- 
 tion by the Crown of the grant of the soil. And their legal 
 rights on the continent opposite terminates in May next, at 
 all events by the expiry of her licence, if her Majesty should 
 not be advised to terminate it sooner on the establishment of 
 the new colony. 
 
 It is absolutely necessary, in their view, that the adminis- 
 tration of the government, both of Vancouver's Island and of 
 the main land opposite, should be intrusted to an officer or 
 officers entirely unconnected with the Company. 
 
 I wish, therefore, for your distinct statement, as early as 
 you can afford it, whether you are willing on receiving the ap- 
 pointment which is thus offered you, to give up within as short 
 a time as may be practicable, all connection which you may 
 have with that Company, either as its servant or a shareholder, 
 or in any other capacity. 
 
 I make this proposal witho&t discussing at present the nature 
 and extent of your actual connections with that company, but 
 with the acquiescence of the Governor of the Company, who 
 has'seen this despatch. 
 
 In the meantime, and awaiting your answer, it is my present 
 intention, (liable only to be altered by what may transpire in 
 future advices from yourself,) to issue a commission to you as 
 governor ; but yon will fully understand that unless you are 
 prepared to assure me that all connection between yourself 
 and the Company is terminated, or in course of speedy termi- 
 nation, you will be relieved by the appointment of a suc- 
 
 cessor. 
 
 I make this proposal briefly, and without unnecessary pre- 
 face, being fully assured that you will understand, on the one 
 hand that her Majesty's Oovernmeut are very anxious to secure 
 your services, if practicable, but, on the other, that it is quite 
 impossible that you should continue to serve at once the Crown 
 and the Company, when their respective rights and interests 
 
ely te 
 ooked. 
 J with 
 Bsump- 
 f legal 
 ext, at 
 should 
 nent of 
 
 dminis- 
 
 and of 
 
 Beer or 
 
 early as 
 ; the ap- 
 as short 
 ou may 
 eholder, 
 
 ,e nature 
 •any, but 
 kny, who 
 
 r present 
 spire in 
 you as 
 rou are 
 rourself 
 
 y termi- 
 a suc- 
 
 jary pre- 
 the one 
 
 to secure 
 is quite 
 
 le Crown 
 
 interests 
 
 291 
 
 may possibly diverge, and when at all events public opinion 
 will not allow of such a connection. 
 I have, &o., 
 
 (Signed) E. B. Lytton. 
 
 Governor Douglas, 
 
 &c., &c. 
 
 
 ■f 
 
 British Columbia — ^No. 6. 
 
 Copy of Liipatchfrom the Bight Hon. Sir E. B. Lytton, Bart., 
 
 to Q-ovemor Douglas. 
 [confidential.] 
 
 Downing Street, July 81, 1858. 
 
 Sir : As it is a matter of considerable importance, both to 
 her Majesty's Government and yourself, that there should 
 be a perfect understanding as to the terms on which, if you 
 should so decide, you would assume office under imperial au- 
 thority, I think it right to state, as it was omitted on the last 
 occasion, that besides relinquishing directly or indirectly all 
 connection with the Hudson's Bay Company, it will be indis- 
 pensable to apply that condition equally to any interest you 
 may possess in the Fuget's Sound Company. 
 
 It is most probable that you have understood the offer con- 
 tained in my confidential despatch of the 16th instant, in that 
 sense ; but I think it better now to guard against any possible 
 misconception on the subject by this additional explanation. 
 
 It is due to you to add, that if, after reflection, you should 
 entertain the persuasion that it will either not conduce to the 
 public interests or your own to exchange your present position 
 for that of Governor of British Columbia, the ability you 
 ..ave displayed whilst holding the office of Vancouver's Island, 
 will not escape the recollection of her Majesty's Government, 
 should it be your wish, on the expiration of tho Hudson's Bay 
 
 : i 
 
 I 
 
11^ 
 
 292 
 
 Company license next year, to enter into service of the Crown 
 in the colonies. 
 
 I have, &c., 
 
 (Signed) E. B. Lytton. 
 
 Governor Douglas, 
 
 &c., &o. 
 
 British Columbia — No. 8. 
 
 Copy of Di»patch from the Right Hon. SirE. B. Lytton, Bart., 
 to C^overnor Douglas. 
 
 Downing Street, August 14, 1858. 
 
 Sir : 1. I have to acknowledge the very important series 
 of despatches of which the numbers and dates are specified in 
 the margin, showing the manner in which you have continued 
 to administer the government of the territory in which the 
 recent discoveries of gold have taken place, and detailing the 
 extraordinary course of events in that quarter. 
 
 2. Her Majesty's Government feel that the difficulties of 
 your position are such as courage, judgment, and familiarity 
 with the resources of the country and character of the people 
 can alone overcome. They feel also that minute directions 
 conveyed from this distance, and founded on an imperfect 
 knowledge, are very liable to error and misunderstanding. 
 On some points, however, you have yourself asked for ap- 
 proval and instructions; on others, it is absolutely necessary 
 that the views of her Majesty's Government should be mado 
 clear to you. 
 
 8. As to the steps which you have already taken, I approve 
 of the appointments which you have made and leported, of rev- 
 enue officers, Mr. Hicks and Mr. Travaillot, of Mr. Perrier, 
 as justice of the peace, and Mr. Young as gold commissioner. 
 I approve also, as a temporary measure, of the steps which 
 you have taken in regard to the surveying department ; but 
 I have it in contemplation to send to the colony a head of 
 that department from England. 
 
 ■ / 
 
r-- 
 
 293 
 
 4. I propose selecting in this country some person for the 
 office of collector of customs ; and shall send you also, at the 
 earliest moment, an officer authorized to act as judge, and 
 who, I trust, as the colony increases in importance, may be 
 found competent to fill with credit and weight the situation 
 of chief justice. I await your intimations as to the wants 
 and means of the colony in this sudden rise of social institu- 
 tions in a country hitherto so wild, in order to select such 
 law advisers as you may deem the condition and progress of 
 immigration more immediately require. And it is my wish, 
 that all legal authorities connected with the government should 
 be sent from home, and thus freed from every suspicion of 
 local partialities, prejudices, and interests. 
 
 5. I highly approve of the steps which you ha've taken, as 
 reported by yourself, with regard to the Indians. It is in the 
 execution of this very delicate and important position of your 
 duties that her Majesty's Government especially rely on your 
 knowledge and experience, obtained in your long service under 
 the Hudson's Bay Company. You may in ttirn rely on their 
 support in the execution of such reasonable measures as you 
 may devise for the protection of the natives, the regulation of 
 their intercourse with the whites, and whenever such a work 
 may be commenced, their civilization. In what way the fur- 
 trade with the Indians may be henceforth carried on with the 
 most safety, and with due care to save them from the demor- 
 alizing bribes of ardent spirits, I desire to know your views 
 before you make any fixed regulations. No regulations giving 
 the slightest preference to the Hudson's Bay Company will 
 be in future admissible ; but possibly, with the assent of the 
 whole community, licenses for Indian trade, impartially given 
 to all who would embark in it, might be a prudent and not 
 unpopular precaution. 
 
 6. I approve of the measu.'es which you have taken for 
 raising a revenue by customs, and authorize their continu- 
 ance. 
 
 7. I approve also of your continuing to levy license fees for 
 mining purposes, request' - you, however, to adapt the scale 
 of these fees to the general acquiescence of adventurers, and 
 
 ;!^ 
 
t. 
 
 294 
 
 leaving it to your judgment to change this mode of taxation, 
 (as, for instance, into an export duty,) if it shall appear, on 
 experience, to be unadvisable to continue it. But on this 
 head I must give you certain cautions. In the first place, no 
 distinction must be made between foreigners and British sub- 
 jects, as to the amount per head of the license-fee required, (nor 
 am I aware that you have proposed to do so.) In the second 
 place, it must be made perfectly clear to every one that this 
 license fee is levied, not in regard to any supposed rights of 
 the Hudson's Bay Company, but simply in virtue of the pre- 
 rogative of the Crown, (now confirmed by the act of Parlia- 
 ment transmitted to you, if this was necessary,) to raise such 
 revenue as it thinks proper, in return for the permission to 
 derive profits from the minerals on crown lands. 
 
 8. Farther, with regard to these supposed rights of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company, I must refer you, in even stronger 
 terms, to the cautions already conveyed to you by my former 
 despatches. The Hudson's Bay Company have hitherto had 
 an exclusive right to trade with Indians in the Frazer's River 
 territory, but they have had no other right whatever. They 
 have had no right to exclude strangers. They have had no 
 rights of government, or of occupation of the soil. They have 
 bad no right to prevent or interfere with any kind of trading, 
 except with Indians alone. ***** But 
 to render all misconceptions impossible, her Majesty's Gov- 
 ernment have determined on revoking the Company's license, 
 (which would itself have expired in next May,) as regards Brit- 
 ish Columbia, being fully authorized to do so by the terms of 
 the license itself, whenever a new Colony is constituted. 
 
 The Company's private property will be protected, in com- 
 mon with that of all her Majesty's subjects ; but they have no 
 claim whatever for compensation for the loss of their exclu- 
 sive trade, which they only possessed, subject to this right of 
 revocation. The instrument formally revoking the license 
 will shortly be forwarded to you. 
 
 9. With regard to the revenue received from licenses and 
 customs, you will hold it for the present, to be expended on 
 necessary expenses of the colony. 
 
295 
 
 10. Thb immense resources which the information which 
 reaches England every day, and is confirmed with such au- 
 thority by your last despatch, assure me the colony possesses, 
 and the facility for immediate use of those resources for the 
 purpose of revenue, will at once free the mother country from 
 those expenses which are adverse to the policy of all health- 
 ful colonization. *****♦♦ 
 
 You will bear the principle I have thus laid down perpetu- 
 ally in mind, so as to apportion the expenditure to the revenue, 
 and not to allow the former to exceed the latter. 
 
 11. The most important objects to which the local revenue 
 can be applied would seem to be, police, public works to facil- 
 itate landing and traveling, payment of the absolutely neces- 
 sary oflScers, and above all surveying. But your own local 
 judgment must mainly decide. You will render accurate ac- 
 counts, to be both of receipts and expenditures, and you will 
 probably find it necessary shortly to appoint a treasurer, which 
 will be a provisional appointment. 
 
 You are authorized, if you think proper, to give, for the 
 present. Government receipts in lieu of deposits of gold. 
 
 As to this point, I wish to have a more definite account of 
 your proposal. 
 
 12. You are fully authorized to take such measures as you 
 can for the transmission of letters and levying postage. 
 
 13. It appears by your despatch that the staff of surveyors 
 you have engaged are at present employed on Vancouver's Is- 
 land, the soil of which is as yet held under the expiring license 
 of the Hudson's Bay Company ; but it is British Columbia 
 which now demands, and indeed may almost absorb the imme- 
 diate cares of its Governor, and your surveyor may at once 
 prepare the way for the arrival of the surveyor general 
 appointed from hence, and of the sappers and miners who will 
 be under his orders. 
 
 14. I now come to the important subject of future govern- 
 ment. It is possible (although on this point I am singularly 
 without information,) that the operations of the gold diggers 
 will be, to a considerable extent, suspended during the winter, 
 and that you will, therefore, have some amount of leisure to 
 
pp—rp. 
 
 f ? 
 
 t ) 
 
 \n 
 
 fl96 
 
 consider the permanent prospects of the colony, and the best 
 mode of administering its affairs. 
 
 You will be empovrered both to govern and to legislate of 
 your own authority ; but you will distinctly understand that 
 this is a temporary measure only. It is the anxious wish of 
 her Majesty's Government that popular institutions, without 
 which, they are convinced, peace and order cannot long pre- 
 vail, should be established with as little delay as practicable, 
 and until an Assembly can be organized, (which may be wlien- 
 cver a permanent population, however small, is ostabjished on 
 the soil,) I think, as I have already stated in a former despatch, 
 that your best course will probably be to form some kind of 
 temporary council, calling in this manner to your aid such 
 persons as the miners themselves may place confidence in. 
 
 15. You will receive additional directions along with your 
 commission, when forwarded to you, and I have embodied in a 
 separate despatch those regarding the very important ques- 
 tion of the disposal of land. 
 
 16. Aware of the immediate demand on your time and 
 thought connected with the pressing question of the immigra- 
 tion to the gold mines, I do not wish to add unnecessarily to 
 the burden of duties so onerous, but as yet our Department 
 has been left singularly in ignorance of much that should 
 enter into considerations of general policy, and on which non- 
 official opinions are constantly volunteered. Probably amongst 
 the persons you are now employing, and in whose knowledge 
 and exactitude you can confide, you might find some one capa- 
 ble of assisting, under your superintendence, in furnishing 
 me, as early as possible, with a report of the general capacities 
 of the harbors of Vancouver, of their advantages and defects, 
 of the mouth of the Frazer's river as the site of the entry into 
 British Columbia, apart from the island, and of the probabil- 
 ities of a coal superior for steam purposes to that of island, 
 which may be found in the mainland of British Columbia, and 
 such other information as may guide the British Government 
 to the best and readiest means of developing the various and 
 the differing resources, both of the island and the mainland; 
 resources which have so strangely been concealed for ages, 
 
 •'ir 
 
SOT 
 
 which are now so suddenly brought to light, and which may 
 be destined to effect, at no very distant period, a marked and 
 permanent change in the commerce and navigation of the 
 known world. 
 
 The officers now engaged in the maritime survey will, proba- 
 bly, render great assistance to yourself and to her Majesty's 
 Government in this particular. 
 
 17. I will only conclude with the general caution that inas- 
 much as your legal powers are as yet incomplete, it will be 
 well that you should therein confine yourself as much as pos- 
 sible to the mere issue of regulations absolutely required, and 
 not seek to carry into effect the Crown's general power of 
 legislation until fuly authorized thereto. 
 I have, &c., 
 
 (Signed) E B. Lytton. 
 
 Governor Douglas, 
 
 &c., &c. 
 
 British Columbia — No. 9. 
 
 Ccpy of Despatch from the Right Hon. Sir E. Lytton, Bart., 
 to G-overnor Douglas. 
 
 Downing Street, August 14, 1858. 
 Sir: Frequent inquiries are addressed to this office on the 
 subject of the disposal of land in British Columbia to com- 
 panies or private individuals in this country. In consequence 
 of the ignorance in which, from the peculiar circumstances of 
 the case, I am placed as to your views on a subject of such 
 great importance to the future welfare of this new colony, I 
 have forborne answering these inquiries or encouraging expec- 
 tations which might not be realized. It is therefore very 
 necessary that you should, at your earliest convenience, com- 
 municate to me the impressions which you entertain on this 
 subject, accompanied by all the information which you can 
 collect. 
 
 i 
 
I 
 
 ^/ 
 
 a 
 
 208 
 
 In the meantime you will take the following provisional 
 rules to guide you. 
 
 1. With regard to the very important lubjeot of the disposal 
 of land, you are authorized to sell land merely wanted for 
 agricultural purposes, (whenever a demand for it shall arise,) 
 at such upset price as you may think advisable. I believe 
 that a relatively high upset price has many advantages; but 
 your course must, in some degree, be guided by the price at 
 which such land is selling in neighboring American territories. 
 But with regard to land wanted for town purposes, (to which 
 speculation is almost certain to direct itself in the first in- 
 stance,) I cannot caution you too strongly against allowing it 
 to be disposed of at too low a sum. An upset price of at least 
 £1 per acre is, in my opinion, absolutely required, in order 
 that the local government may, in some degree, participate in 
 the profit of the probable sale, and that mere land jobbing 
 may be in some degree checked. Whenever a free legislature 
 is assembled it will be one of its duties to make further provi- 
 sion on this head. 
 
 2. To open land for settlement gradually, not to sell beyond 
 the limits of what is either surveyed or ready for itr lodiate 
 survey, and to prevent, as far as in you lies, squ. ing on 
 unsold land. Mineral lands will require a special care and 
 forethought, and I request your views thereon. 
 
 3. To keep a separate account of all revenue to be derived 
 from the sale of land, applying it to the purposes, for the 
 present, of survey and communication, which, indeed, should 
 be the first charge on the land revenue ; and you will, of course, 
 remember that this will include the expense of the survey 
 party, (viz, sappers and miners,) now sent out. I shall be 
 anxious to receive such accounts at the earliest period at which 
 they can be furnished. ; 
 
 4. Foreigners, as such, are not entitled to grants of waste 
 land of the Crown in British colonies. But it is the strong 
 desire of her Majesty's Government to attract to this terri- 
 tory all peaceful settlers, without regard to nation. Natural- 
 ization should therefore be granted to all who desire it, and 
 
 ■i 
 
risional 
 
 lispotal 
 ted for 
 
 I arise,) 
 believe 
 ;es; bnt 
 price at 
 ritories. 
 10 vfhich 
 
 first in- 
 owing it 
 f at least 
 in order 
 cipate in 
 
 jobbing 
 gislature 
 ler provi- 
 
 II beyond 
 DT \cdiate 
 I ing on 
 
 cure and 
 
 299 
 
 are not disqualified by special causes; and with naturalisation 
 the right of acquiring Crown land should follow. 
 
 6. You will pardon me if I enjoin on you as imperative, the 
 most diligent care that in the sales of land there should not 
 be the slightest cause to impute a desire to show favor to the 
 servants of the Hudson's Bay Company. Parliament will 
 watch with jealousy every proceeding connected with such 
 sales ; and I shall rely upon you to take every precaution 
 which, not only impartial probity, but deliberate prudence can 
 suggest, that there shall be no handle given for a charge, I 
 will not say of favor, but of indifference or apathy to the va- 
 rious kinds of land jobbing, either to benefit favored individ- 
 uals or to cheat the land revenue, which are of so frequent 
 occurrence at the outset of colonization, and which it is the 
 duty of her Majesty's Government, so far as lies in them, to 
 repress. 
 
 I have, &o., 
 
 (Signed) E. B. Ltiion. 
 
 Governor Douglas, 
 
 AC, &c. 
 
 derived 
 for the 
 , should 
 of course, 
 le survey 
 shall be 
 at which 
 
 of waste 
 he strong 
 this terri- 
 
 Natural- 
 ire it, and 
 
 21 B 
 
 '"mwsmgmm'f^vr . 
 
 >,^ii^;a>ww»'-'^^f^ JUWill i «|.|U/ -3aBISgT'" 
 
mmn 
 
 CASE OF THE PFGET'S SOUND COMPANY. 
 
 B.— 1. 
 
 General Land Office, April 6, 1866. 
 I, James M. Edmunds, Commissioner of the General Land 
 Office, do hereby certify, that the annexed copy of letter and 
 report of James Tilton, late surveyor general of Washington 
 Ter .ory, as found on pages 1 to 7 inclusive, is a true and 
 literal exemplification from the files of this office. 
 
 In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my 
 P ^ -J name, and caused the seal of this office to be affixed, 
 *- '"-' at the city of Washington, on the day and year above 
 written. 
 ' J. M. Edmunds, 
 
 Commimoner of the G-eneral Land Office. 
 
 1 1 
 
 III 
 
 ! I" 
 
 Office Surveyor General W. T., 
 Olympia, W. T., Sth December, 1859, 
 
 Commissioner General Land Office, 
 
 Wa»1iington city, D. 0. : 
 
 Sir: In reply to yoi'r letter of 1st October last, directing 
 mo to call upon the agents of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Company for a verified copy of their charter., lists of the share- 
 holders, and other information respecting the lands claimed 
 by this Company in Washington Territory, and to make a 
 report and decision thereon, I have the honor to enclose you 
 the following papers: 
 
 Letters from William Eraser Tolmie, Esq., Agent Puget's 
 
 ) 1= 
 
301 
 
 ^^^i! 
 
 A.NY. 
 
 1866. 
 al Land 
 tter and 
 shington 
 true and 
 
 •ibed my 
 e affixed, 
 sav above 
 
 DS, 
 
 nd Office. 
 
 T-, 
 
 1859, 
 
 directing 
 ^ri cultural 
 
 the share- 
 is claimed 
 to make a 
 Inclose you 
 
 int Puget's 
 
 Sound Agricultural Company, dated Nisqually, W. T., 29tb 
 November and 2d December, 1859. 
 
 A. verifled Copy of the Company's "deed of scttlomont," 
 a certified copy of the lists of shareholders, plats of the 
 Company's lain! claims at Nisqually and the Cowlitz, with 
 declaration and aflBdavits certifying to their accuracy, and 
 various affidavits regarding the occupation of the same, viz: 
 
 Affidavit regarding occupancy of Simon Plomondoau, Etionno 
 Joyall, George Drew, Pierre St. Germain, George B. Roberts, 
 John R. Jackson. . 
 
 Copies of letters dated 11th April, 1853, to Surveyor Gen- 
 eral J. B. Preston, of Oregon, enclosing certificates from 
 Messrs. Edgar and Linklater, of same date, and from Mr. M. 
 T. Simmons, sworn to on the 7th D cember, 1859. 
 
 Printed correspondence of surveyor general relative to Hud- 
 son's Bay and Puget's Sound Agricultural Company's claims, 
 dated 1856, published by the Territorial Legislature. 
 
 Statement of amounts paid as taxes on their claim at Nis- 
 qually, under protest, from the year 1852 until the year 1858, 
 signed by Edward Huggins, agent Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Company. 
 
 Inventory of live stock and other property in 1846, signed 
 by Edward Iluggins, agent. 
 
 A certified copy of the description of the boundary linos of 
 the Nisqually claims, signed by William F. Tolraio, Esq., 
 agent, and also certified to by myself as a true copy of tho 
 original on file in my office, and received by me from tho office 
 of the surveyor general of Oregon, upon the erection of tho 
 separate surveying district of Washington Territory. 
 
 I respectfully beg leave to submit the following report: 
 
 There are but two claims in Washington Territory known 
 as the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company's claims, one 
 called the Nisqually, being bounded on the west by tho shore 
 of Puget's Sound, on the north by the forest lands south 
 of the Puyallup river, on thd east by the dense woods that 
 extends thence to the Cascade mountains, and on tho south 
 [by] Nisqually river. 
 
 On this claim the Company have now several thousand sheop 
 
 '•:'-^mmmmmm^-: 
 
m 
 
 t M, i 
 
 fl 
 
 I ! 
 
 in charge of shepherds, and perhaps a few hundred cattle, 
 feree naturae. 
 
 The other claim, called the Co\rlitz Farms, is near the forks 
 of the Cowlitz river, and contains about 8,600 acres of highly 
 arable lands. 
 
 The Nisqually claim consists of a very extensive plain, 
 being generally prairie, with arable lands upon the bottoms or 
 low swales of the prairie ; but its general character is not fer- 
 tile. It is considered admirably adapted to the raising of 
 cattle and sheep; much of the land is also suitable for grain. 
 The prairie is very irregular in shape, has many belts of tim- 
 ber in and through it, and a growth of small oaks of excellent 
 quality ^'or ship-building is thinly scattered over it. 
 
 The claim, as defined by the map, contains about 167,000 
 acres, of which about 80,000 acres is prairie or oak openings, 
 and the rest a dense forest of fir, cedar, and other coniferous 
 woods. The bottoms on the Nisqually and other large streams 
 are very fertile. 
 
 The large and flourishing town of Steilacoom, containing 
 about 300 inhabitants, the United States "Fort Steilacoom," 
 which is the headquarters of the Puget's Sound Military Dis- 
 trict, situated about two miles from SteilacooYu, and about 200 
 Amelrican settlers having farms in steady course of improve- 
 ment, are upon this Nisqually claim of the Company. 
 
 Many of the old servants of the Hudson's Bay Company, 
 and almost all of those of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Company, have long since become American citizens, by virtue 
 of our naturalization laws, and are now residing upon farms 
 within the alleged limits of the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Company's Nisqually claim, under the former donation and 
 present pre-emption laws. 
 
 To some extent the same is true in regard to the smaller 
 claim at the Cowlitz. None of these American settlers have 
 felt any doubt as to their rightt, as against the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company. An early settlement of the matter is 
 certainly most desirable, although practically the Company 
 have long since withdrawn from a hopeless contest with the 
 American settlers, and lately have sought to secure some of 
 
303 
 
 btle, 
 
 orks 
 ghly 
 
 lain, 
 nsor 
 t fer- 
 
 ig of 
 ;rain. 
 
 tim- 
 jUent 
 
 ,7,000 
 nings, 
 ferous 
 reams 
 
 aining i 
 !ooni, 
 :y Dis- 
 »ut200 
 iprove- 
 
 pany, 
 
 tural 
 
 virtue 
 
 farms 
 
 Itural 
 
 on and 
 
 smaller 
 8 have 
 Sound 
 latter is 
 jmpany 
 ith the 
 ome of 
 
 the most desirable tracts, such as Fort Nisqually, and some 
 cultivated farms, by causing their more trusted agents and 
 employ&s to become naturalized, and take these choice farms 
 in tracts of 160 acres each, as pre-emptors. This was appa- 
 rently to save them from being so taken by those not in the 
 confidence of the Company. 
 
 This Company does not appear to have any charter, nor do 
 they exhibit any original derivation of title to lands, either 
 from the British Crown or from the aborigines. 
 
 I consider that there is no provision by which British sub- 
 jects can derive title except through the Crown. 
 
 There is no evidence of any attempt to derive title from the 
 Crown, and I apprehend it was not competent under the joint 
 occupation of this country, under the convention known as 
 the Treaty of Joint Occupation, for either British subjects or 
 citizens of the United States to legally acquire title to land 
 from one only of three nations. 
 
 It does not appear from the "deed of settlement," or from 
 any other proceeding or papers, that the Company had even 
 taken possession of, or claimed by metes and bounds, the lands 
 claimed since, until called upon in 1853, by Surveyor General 
 Preston, of Oregon. 
 
 It appears that their occupation was like that of any other 
 settlers upon wild lands, to be used as required at the time; 
 and at the time the settlements were made by the Puget's 
 Sound Agricultural Company, the only British subjects who 
 could legally occupy the country were the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany, in its corporate capacity, and under its license. 
 
 It is in proof that at the treaty of 1846 the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company was in occupation of an indefinite range 
 of land; that it had houses and sheep-folds, cattle-pens and 
 some fencing and other improvements of use to the Company 
 during their occupation, but not of a permanent character nor 
 of particular value to the realty. 
 
 The 4th article of the treaty of 1846 certainly " confirms to 
 the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company the farms, lands, 
 and other property of every description whatsoever belonging 
 to them;" but I do not think it was possible for any land to 
 
 -•*'»«>w.>«ra'n» 
 
804 
 
 belong to the Company at that date, and I am alao unable to 
 see how the title to land could be now granted under the terms 
 of the treaty of 1846, or that this treaty could or did create a 
 right which never existed before. 
 
 Therefore, I arrive at the conclusion that the Puge'/s Sound 
 Agricultural Company have shown no color of title to the 
 lands claimed, other than occupancy of an indefinite portion 
 of them. Whether the Company are entitled to any compen- 
 sation for the artificial value incident to the improvements 
 thereon, I do not consider as within the purview of the inatruc- 
 tions of your letter of the 1st October last, and consequently 
 I have given no opinion on that subject. 
 
 But with regard to the lands claimed as belonging to the 
 Fuget's Sound Agricultural Company in Washington Terri- 
 tory, and known as the Nisqually claims and the Cowlitz 
 Farms, I decide that those lands are, and should be, treated as 
 public lands, and that the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
 pany have no legal title thereto. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 James Tilton, 
 Surveyor General W. T. 
 
 B— 2. 
 
 Pierre Lagace claims 640 acres of land in Lewis county, situ- 
 ate as follows, to wit: on the shores of Fuget's Sound, north 
 of Nisqually river, commencing from an oak tree marked, and 
 running about west one mile, to an oak tree marked; thence 
 about north one mile, to a stake in the ground ; thence about 
 east one mile, to a stake erected in Deer's lake ; thence about 
 south one mile, to an oak tree first mentioned; which he holds 
 by personal occupancy. 
 Attest : 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. . 
 
 Oreqcn City, 28«A Aprils 1846. 
 
 Endorsed acrosa the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of W. F. Tolmie in 
 
 favor of the Puget's Sound Company. (No date.) 
 
 Attest: 
 
 Theo. Maorudeb, Recorder. 
 
 t 
 
■^■1 
 
 305 
 
 John Montgomery claims 640 acres of land in Lewis county, 
 situate as follows, to wit : On the shores of Puget's Soand, 
 north of Nisqually river, commencing from a pine tree marked, 
 and running about north one mile, to a pine tree marked; 
 thence about east one mile, to a pine tree marked ; thence 
 about south one mile, to an oak tree marked ; thence about 
 west one mile to starting point; which he holds by personal 
 occupancy. 
 
 Attest : 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder, 
 
 Oregon City, 28<A April, 1846. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of W. F. Tolmie in 
 favor of the Puget's Sound Company, April 5, 1849. 
 Attest : 
 
 Theo. Magrudbr, Recorder. 
 
 T. 
 
 William H. McNeill claims 640 acres of land in Lewis county, 
 situate as follows, to wit : On the shores of Puget's Sound, 
 north of Nisqually river, commencing from a pine tree marked, 
 and running about east one mile, to another pine tree marked; 
 thence about south one mile, to a stake in the ground; thence 
 about west one mile, to an oak tree marked; and thence about 
 north one mile, to point of commencement; which he holds 
 without personal occupancy. 
 Attest: 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. 
 
 Oregon City, 2&th, April, 1846. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink -. 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of W. F. Tolmie in 
 
 favor of the Puget's Sound Company, April 5, 1849. 
 
 Attest : 
 
 Thbo. Magruder, Recorder. 
 
 der. 
 
 William Pottinger claims 640 acres of land in Lewis county, 
 situate as follows : On the shores of Puget's Sound, north of 
 
 CZi:Vi*--**^»^ 
 
 '•**'^l^^*"-C.V*.V.'*j[^t^*>w* - 
 
 ■'smps'S'w'^'''?'' 
 
806 
 
 KiRqnally river, commencing from an oak tree marked, and 
 running about north to an oak tree marked, one mile; thence 
 ahout east one mile, to an oak tree marked; thence about, 
 south one mile, to a pine tree marked ; thence about west one 
 mile, to an oak tree marke' .; which he holds without personal 
 occupancy. 
 
 Attest : 
 
 J. E. Long, Reoordvt. 
 Oregon Out, 28eA April, 1846. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of W. F. Tolmie, in 
 
 favor of the Puget's Sound Oompany, April 5, 1849. 
 
 Attest : 
 
 Theo. Magruder, Recorder. 
 
 Thomas Wade claims 640 acres of land in Lewis county, 
 situate as follows, to wit : North of Nisqually river, commenc- 
 ing from a pine tree marked, and running a^-^ut north one 
 mile, to a pine tree marked ; thence about east one mile, to a 
 pine tree marked ; thence about south one mile, to a pine tree 
 marked ; and thence about west one mile, to starting point ; 
 which he holds without personal occupancy. 
 
 Attest : 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. 
 
 Oregon City, 27<A April, 1846. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of W. F. Tolmie, in 
 favor of the Puget's Sound Oompany, April 5, 1849. 
 Attest : 
 
 Theo. Magruder, Recorder. 
 
 i n 
 
 Donald McAuIay claims 640 acres of land in Lewis county, 
 situate as follows, to wit : On the shores of Puget's Sound, 
 north of Nisqually river, commencing from an oak tree marked, 
 and running about north one mile, to a stake in the ground ; 
 
807 
 
 thence about vest one mile, to a stake in the ground ; thence 
 abeut south one mile, to a pine tree marked ; and thence about 
 east one mile, to point of commencement ; which he holds bj 
 personal occupancy. 
 Attest : 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. 
 Oregon City, 2Sth April, 1846. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of W. F. Tolmie, in 
 favor of the Puget's Sound Company, April 5, 1849. 
 Attest : 
 
 Theo. Magruder, Recorder. 
 
 Thomas Linklater claims 640 acres of land in Lewis county, 
 situate as follows, to wit : Commencing from the stake at Nis- 
 qually landing-place, forming southwestern boundary of W. 
 F. Tolmie's claim, and running about south, following the in- 
 dentation of the coast one mile, to a pine tree marked ; thence 
 about east one mile, to a pine tree marked; thence about 
 north one mile, to a stake in the ground ; and thence about 
 west one mile, to starting point : which he holds by personal 
 occupancy. 
 
 Attest : 
 
 Oregon City, 2'Ith April, 1846. 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of W. F. Tolmie, in 
 
 favor of the Puget's Sound Company, April 5, 1849. 
 
 Attest : 
 « . Theo. Magruder, Recorder. 
 
 George Blenkinsop claims 640 acres of land in Lewis county, 
 situate as follows, to wit : Commencing from a stake driven 
 into the ground, near the road from Fort Nisqually to 
 McLeod's house, and running about north one mile, to an oak 
 
 •^rmmm/mm"-- 
 
808 
 
 tree marked ; thence an easterly direction one mile, to a stake 
 in the ground ; thence about south one mile, to a stake in the 
 ground ; and finally about west one mile, to starting point ; 
 which he holds without personal occupancy. 
 Attest : 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. 
 Oregon City, 27th April, 1846. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of W. F. Tolmie, in 
 favor of the Puget's Sound Company, April 5, 1849. 
 Attest : 
 
 Theo. Magruder, Recorder. 
 
 Augustus Wellings claims 640 acres of land in Lewis county, 
 situate as follows, to wit: On the shores of Puget's Sound, 
 north of Nisqually river, commencing from a pine tree markr . , 
 and running about north one mile to an oak tree marked ; 
 thence about east one mile to a pine tree marked ; thence 
 about south one mile to a pine tree, and thence about west one 
 mile to point of commencement ; which he holds by personal 
 occupancy. 
 
 Attest: 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. 
 
 Oregon City, 28th April, 1846. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of W. F. Tolmie, in 
 favor of the Puget's Sound Company. (No date.) 
 Attest: 
 
 Theo. Magruder, Recorder. 
 
 Joseph Maurice claims 640 acres of land in Lewis county, 
 situate as follows, to wit: Commencing from a stake driven 
 into *the ground on the shores of Puget's Sound, north of Nis- 
 qually river; thence running about north one mile to a marked 
 stake; thence about east one mile to a stake; thence about 
 
809 
 
 south one mile to a marked stake; and, lastly, about west one 
 mile to starting point ; which he holds without personal occu- 
 pancy. 
 
 Attest: 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. 
 Orbgon City, 28<A April, 1846. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of W. F. Tolmie, in 
 favor of the Puget's Sound Company, April 5, 1849. 
 Attest : 
 
 Theo. Maqruder, Recorder. 
 
 Narcisse Fallardeans claims 640 acres of land in Lewis 
 county, situate as follows, to wit : On the shores of Puget's 
 Sound, north of Nisqually river, commencing from an oak 
 tree marked, and running about north one mile to an oak tree 
 marked; thence about east one mile to an oak tree marked; 
 thence about south to a pine tree; thence about west one mile 
 to point of commencement ; which said claim is held by per- 
 sonal occupancy. 
 Attest : 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. 
 
 Oregon City, 28<7i April, 1846. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of W. F. Tolmie, in 
 favor of the Puget's Sound Company, April 5, 1849. 
 
 Attest : 
 
 Theo. Mag RUDER, ^ecorier. 
 
 Charles Dodd claims 640 acres of land in Lewis county, 
 situate as follows, to wit: On the shores of Puget's Sound, 
 north of Nisqually river, commencing from an oak tree marked, 
 and running about north one mile to a stake in the ground ; 
 thence about west one mile to a pine tree marked; thence 
 
 il 
 
810 
 
 about south one mile to a stake in the ground; and thence 
 about cast one mile to starting point ; wL^'ch he holds without 
 personal occupancy. 
 Attest: 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. 
 Oregon City, 28th April, 1846. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of W. F. Tolmie, in 
 
 favor of the Puget's Sound Company, April 5, 1849. 
 
 Attest : 
 
 Theo. Magrudbr, Recorder. 
 
 William Fraser Tolmie claims 640 acres of land in Lewis 
 county, situate as follows, to wit: Commencing from a stake 
 marked and driven into the ground at the southern extremity 
 of the flat ground at Fort Nisqually landing-place, and run- 
 ning from thence along the line of coast half a mile in a north- 
 erly direction to a pine tree marked ; thence two miles in an 
 easterly direction to a pine stump marked; thence about half 
 a mile (across Scquallitch stream) to a pine tree marked, in a 
 southerly direction; and, lastly, about west two miles to point 
 of commencing; which he holds by personal occupancy. 
 Attest: 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. 
 
 Oregon City, 27<A April, 1846. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of the claimant, in favor 
 of the Puget's Sound Company, April 5, 1849. 
 Attest: 
 
 Theo. Magrudbr, Recorder. 
 
 Edward Alin claims 640 acres of land in Lewis county, 
 situate as follows, to wit: Commencing from the pine stump 
 forming the northeast boundary of W. F. Tolmie's claim, and 
 
 i 
 
 \ I 
 
811 
 
 running about north ono mile contiguous to John Kennedy's 
 claim to a marked stake; thence about east one mile to a stake 
 in the ground and marked; thence about south, to a pine tree 
 marked, one mile; and thence about west one mile to pine 
 stump aforesaid ; which he holds by personal occupancy. 
 Attest: 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. 
 Oregon City, 27<A April, 1846. 
 
 E. horsed across tho face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of Wm. F. Tolmie, in 
 favor of the Puget's Sound Company, April 5, 1849. 
 Attest: 
 
 Theo. Magruder, Recorder. 
 
 John Wark claims 640 acres of land in Lewis county, situate 
 as follows, to wit: Commencing from a marked stake driven 
 into the ground along southern line of William F. Tolmie's 
 claim, and running from thence about south one mile to a pine 
 tree marked ; thence about east one mile to an oak tree marked ; 
 thence about north one mile to an oak tree marked; and thence 
 about west one mile to starting point; which he holds by per- 
 sonal occupancy. 
 Attest: 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. 
 
 Oregon City, 21th April, 1846. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of Wm. F. Tolmie, in 
 
 favor of the Puget's Sound Company, April 5, 1849. 
 
 Attest : 
 
 Theo. Magruder, i2ecort?er. 
 
 John Kennedy claims 640 acres of land in Lewis county, 
 situate as follows, to wit : Commencing from a stake in the 
 ground along northern boundary of W. F. Tolmie's claim, and 
 
' 
 
 812 
 
 running about north one milo to a pino tree marked; thence 
 about cast one mile to a stnlce in the ground; thence about 
 south one mile to the pine stump forming the northeast bound- 
 ary of W. F. Tolmie's claim ; about west one mile to point of 
 commencement ; which he holds without personal occupancy. 
 
 Attest : 
 
 J. E. LONO, Recorder. 
 
 Oregon City, 21th April, 1846. 
 
 Endor!)P(] across the face in red ink : • 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of Wm. P. Tolmie, in 
 favor of the Puget's Sound Company, April 5, 1840. 
 Attest: 
 
 TnEO. Maoiiudeii, Iteeordc 
 
 Bivzil Broussoau del la Flour claims 040 acrc?j of land in 
 Lewis county, situate as follows, to wit: On tlio shores of 
 Puget's Sound, north of Nisqually river, commencing from an 
 oak tree marked, and running about north one milo to a pine 
 tree marked ; thencvD running aboiit west one milo to an oak 
 tree marked; thence about south one milo to an oak tree 
 marked; thence about cast one mile to starting point; which 
 he holds by personal occupancy. 
 
 OuEOON City, 28/7* April, 1840. 
 Attest: 
 
 J. E. LoNO, Recorder. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink: « 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of W. P. Tolmio, in favor 
 of the Puget's Sound Company, April 5, 1840. 
 Attest: 
 
 i TiiEO. Ma(JRUDKII, Uecorder. 
 
 Oride AlLrd claims 640 acres of land, situate as follows, 
 to wit: On the shores of Puget's Sound, north of Nisqually 
 river, commencing from a pine tree marked and running about 
 
 »<4^ 
 
 SSs 
 
818 
 
 ; thence 
 ce about 
 It bound- 
 I point of 
 cupancy. 
 
 corder. 
 
 rolmie, in 
 
 '•corde 
 
 of land in 
 shores of 
 VI from an 
 to a pine 
 to an oak 
 n oak tree 
 int; which 
 
 Iccorder. 
 
 
 
 io, in favor 
 Recorder. 
 
 as follows, 
 ' Nisqually 
 
 laiug about 
 
 north one milo to a pine tree marked; thence about west one 
 mile to an oak tree marked; thence about south one mile to a 
 pine tree marked, and thence about oast one milo to starting 
 point; which ho holds by personal occupancy. 
 Oreoon Citv, 2Sth April, 1846. 
 Attest: 
 
 J. E. LoNO, Recorder. 
 Endorsed ncrcss the fnco in red ink: 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of W. F. Tolmio in fovor 
 of the Puget's Sound Company, April 5, 1841). 
 Attest: 
 
 Theo. Maoruder, llecorder. 
 
 State of Oregon, Departmknt of State. 
 To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: 
 
 I, Samuel E. Ma\s Secretary of State of the State of Oregon, 
 hereby certify tlic foregoing to be a correct copy and transcript 
 of the entire orij^inal record entries of the notice of claims of 
 Pierre Lagacc, John Montgomery, Wm. H. McNeill, William 
 Pottinger, Augustus Wellinga, Joseph Maurice, Nurcisse Fal- 
 lardeans, Charles Dodd, Thomas Wade, Donald McAulay, 
 Thomas Linklater, George Blonkensop, William Frascr Tol- 
 mie, Edward Alin, John Wark, John Kennedy, Bazil Brous- 
 seau do la Fleur, and Ovide Allard, and the abandi iimcnt of 
 the same, as the same arc recorded in pages 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 
 l.'i, and IG in book No. 2 of the Land-Claim Record, kept under 
 the provisional government of Oregon, which said book and 
 original record are now in my possession as lawful custodian 
 thereof. I further certify that after dilijiient search for the 
 same I am unable to find in said records any further notice of 
 any other claim in which the Puget's Sound Company have or 
 had, or claim to have, any interest under the laws of such pro- 
 visional government. 
 
 In testimony whereof I hereunto sign my name and 
 
 P -, affixed the seal of the State of Oregon, this 19th day 
 
 '- "of December, A. D. 1866. 
 
 Samuel E. May, 
 • , ■ ' Secretary of State. 
 
 ^-«|,S!PWJ«iiV!V^^-*«mi»t- 
 
314 
 
 B— 3. 
 
 / ■' 
 
 '■■ it 
 
 Office A. A. Q. M., 
 Fort Steilacoom, W. T., Juli/ 26, 1859. 
 General : 
 
 Referring to the existing unsettled questions involved in 
 the rights of property to the large tract of land in this Ter- 
 ritory claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, 
 under the latitudinous interpretation of the fourth article 
 of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, 
 concluded 15th June, 1846, and to the reported immediate 
 adjustment and determination of those rights in question by 
 our Government, I would most respectfully call your attention 
 to Fort Steilacoom military reservations, and also to the 
 "public landing" on the beach of Puget's Sound, where con- 
 venience requires that some of the supplies for this garrison 
 should be delivered. 
 
 When this post was first established, (some ten years since,) 
 in the then great uncertainty about the extent and validity of 
 the claims of the said Company, four old log houses, occupy- 
 ing part of the ground selected for the post, were hired for 
 the public service at $600 per annum, from the agent of that 
 Company, under his general claim covering from 80,000 to 
 100,000 acres of land in this county of Pierce; a convenient 
 landing on the contiguous beach was designated by the ofiicer 
 in charge, and a good wagon road to it, about IJ miles in 
 length, was constructed by the troops of the garrison. 
 
 When it became necessary, from the large and increasing 
 importance of the post, as a military station, to erect new quar- 
 ters in 1857, these four old log houses were torn down as utterly 
 dilapidated and worthless. The agent of the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company, however, then claimed ground-rent, 
 and as no action had been taken by our Government in the 
 matter, an agreement was entered into with him, dated July 
 30, 1857, (a copy of which is in your office,) for the lease of 
 a tract of land containing 640 acres, to be used as a military 
 reservation, for the yearly rent of six hundred dollars, said 
 
 •iiH 
 
815 
 
 [creasing 
 sw quar- 
 
 [s utterly 
 s Sound 
 [nd-rent, 
 it in the 
 [ted July 
 lease of 
 military 
 iars, said 
 
 rent to be paid quarterly, unless disapproved or discontinued 
 by the Quartermaster General of the United States Armyt 
 The lease is for ten years, and has been approved and sanc- 
 tioned by General Clark, the then commanding officer of this 
 department. ' 
 
 This claim of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company is 
 now dotted over with many squatters, who, regardless of the 
 assumption of ownership by the said Company, occupy and 
 cultivate numerous tracts of land, intending, it is understood, 
 eventually to claim as pre-emptors, although our Government 
 has hitherto permitted a quasi or indirect recognition of the 
 claim of this Company, so far as to instruct the surveyor gen- 
 eral of the Territory not to have public surveys made of any 
 portion of the district of country embraced by this claim. 
 
 This military reservation, now under lease from the agent 
 of the said Company, is not free from squatters, and one of 
 them has attempted to assume ownership over the '* public 
 landing " required for the use of the post, and has prohibited 
 the landing there of Government supplies. I enclose you here- 
 with copies of my two letters to this latter individual, to 
 neither of which have I as yet received a reply. 
 
 Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, therefore, in 
 order to preclude all future disputes and controversies, I would 
 most respectfully but urgently recommend that in the dispo- 
 sition by our Government of the land claim in question, thia 
 military reservation be officially and formally declared such, by 
 its present metes and bounds, and that the said landing, near the 
 mouth of Steilacoora creek, be included in the military reserva- 
 tion, and the : jad leading thereto declared a military road ; and, 
 in view of the grave doubts and uncertainty as to whether the 
 said Pugcc's Souuu Agricultural Company have any manorial 
 rights, at le.'-st beyond those in present actual use and occu- 
 pation, I would also take tho liberty to recommend that I bo 
 directed to cease paying the agent of the said Company for 
 the present ground-rent, until further instructions may bo 
 given on tho subject. 
 
 Hoi'>ing ih\. above may meet with your approval, I have tho 
 
 :SJtii- ' 
 
816 
 
 honor to be, General, with much respect, jour most obedient 
 servant, 
 
 E. J. Harvie, 
 let Lieut. 9th Infy, A. A. Q. M. 
 Maj. Gen'l T. S. Jessup, 
 
 Q. M. Q. U. S. A., Washington city, D. C. 
 
 / 
 
 B-4. 
 
 ;i I 
 
 f r- 
 
 
 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, No. 73: 
 
 The Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, Plaintiff in Error^ 
 vs. The County of Pierce. 
 
 IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON TERRITOliY. 
 
 United States of America, ss: i 
 
 The President of th^ United States to the Honorable the Judges 
 of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington, greeting : 
 Because in the record and proceedings, as also in the rendi- 
 tion of the judgment of a plea which is in the said supreme 
 court before you, between the Puget's Sound Agricultural 
 Company and the County of Pierce, a manifest error hath 
 happened, to the great damage of the said Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company, as by their complaint appears, we being 
 willing that error, if any hath been, should be duly corrected, 
 and full and speedy justice done to the parties aforesaid in this 
 behalf, do command you, if judgment be therein given, that 
 then, under your seal, distinctly and openly, you send the re- 
 cord and proceedings aforesaid, with all things concerning the 
 same, to the Supreme Court of the United States, together 
 with this writ, so that you have the same at Washington, on the 
 second Monday of December next, in the said Supreme Court, 
 io be then and there hold, that, the record and proceedings 
 aforesaid being inspected, the said Supreme Court may cause 
 further to be done therein, to correct that error, what of right 
 
 Hi 
 
 
317 
 
 idient 
 
 M. 
 
 No. 73. 
 . Error J 
 
 RITOHT. 
 
 e Judges 
 reeling : 
 le rendi- 
 supreme 
 (cultural 
 ror hath 
 s Sound 
 we being 
 orrccted, 
 id in this 
 ven, that 
 d the re- 
 ruing the 
 together 
 on, on the 
 me Court, 
 ocecdings 
 nay cause 
 t of right 
 
 and according to the laws and customs of the United States 
 should be done. 
 
 Witness the honorable Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of 
 the said Supreme Court, the 20th day of January, in the year 
 of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two. 
 
 [seal.] Richard Lane, 
 
 Clerk of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington. 
 
 Allowed this 20th day of January, A. D. 1862, 
 (Signed) C. C. Hewitt, 
 
 Chief Justice of W. T. 
 (Signed) E. P. Oliphant, 
 
 Associate Justice of W. T. 
 
 Territouy of Washington, \ . 
 Office Clerk Supreme Court, j 
 
 I, Richard Lane, clerk of the supreme court of the Terri- 
 tory of Washington, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a 
 full, true, complete, and corect copy of the orig'nal writ of 
 error in the case of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company 
 vs. Pierce county, filed in my office on the 21st day of January, 
 A. D. 1862. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and af- 
 P^ -J fixed the seal of the supreme court of the Territory 
 of Washington, at Olympia, W. T., on this 29th day 
 of August, A. D. 1862. 
 
 Richard Lane, 
 Clerk Sup. Court of Wash. Territory. 
 
 The United States of America to the county of Pierce, greeting : 
 You are hereby cited and admonished to be and appear at a 
 Supreme Court of the United States, to be holden at Washing- 
 ton, on the second Monday of December next, pursuant to a 
 writ of error filed in the clerk's office of the supreme court of 
 the Territory of Washington, wherein the Puget's Sound Agri- 
 
 ^taJuOli 
 
 "-"- '•T*'"^-- 
 
818 
 
 
 cultural Company is plaintiflF in error and you are defendant 
 in error, to show cause, if any there be, why judgment ren- 
 dered against the said plaintiff in error, as in the said writ of 
 error mentioned, should not be corrected, and why speedy 
 justice should not be done to the parties in that behalf. 
 
 Witness the Honorable C. C. Hewitt, chief justice of the 
 supreme court of the Teritory of Washington, this 20th day 
 of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and sixty-two. 
 
 (Signed) C. Hewitt, C. J. W. T. 
 
 (Signed) ji. P. Oliphant, 
 
 Asso. Jus. S. Court W. T. 
 
 On this Z ly of January, in the year of our Lord one 
 
 thousand eig . mndred and sixty-two, personally appeared 
 Thomas Prather before me, the subscriber, a United States 
 commissioner, and makes oath that he delivered a true copy 
 of the within citation to George Gallagher, auditor of Pierce 
 county. 
 
 (Signed) Thomas Prather, 
 
 (Signed) . R. M. Walker, 
 
 . , , U. S. Com. 2d Judl. Bist., W. T. 
 
 Territory of Washington, \ . 
 
 Office Clerk Supreme Court, j ' • 
 
 I, Richard Lane, clerk of the supreme court of the Terri- 
 tory of Washington, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a 
 full, correct, and complete copy of the original citation in 
 the case of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company vs. Pierce 
 County, filed in my office on the 21st day of January A. D. 
 1862. • ^ 
 
 In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and 
 |- -| affixed the seal of the said supreme court of Wash- 
 ington Territory, at Olympia, on this 29th day of 
 August, A. D. 1862. 
 * Richard Lane, 
 
 Clerk Supreme Court of Washington Territory/. 
 
 I ;■. 
 
819 
 
 id and 
 Wash- 
 day of 
 
 Know all men by these presents, that we, John R. Fleming, 
 U. G. Warbass, Jos. Cushman, and Isaac Lightncr, are held 
 and firmly bound unto the county of Pierce in the full and 
 just sum of twelve thousand dollars, to bo paid to the said 
 county of Pierce or its certain attorney, to which payment, 
 well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, exe- 
 cutors, and administrators, jointly and severally, by these pre- 
 sents. 
 
 Sealed with our seals and dated this twentieth day of Jan- 
 uary, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
 sixty-two. 
 
 Whereas lately, at a term of the supreme court for the 
 Territory of Washington, begun and held at Olympia, on the 
 first Monday of December, 1861, in a suit depending in said 
 court between the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company and 
 the county of Pierce, a judgment was rendered against the 
 said Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, and the said Puget's 
 Sound Agricultural Company having obtained a writ oPerror 
 and filed a copy thereof in the clerk's ofiice of the said court 
 to reverse the judgment in the aforesaid suit, and a citation 
 directed to the said county of Pierce, citing and admonishing 
 to be and appear at a Supreme Court of the United States 
 to be holden at Washington, the second Monday of December 
 next : 
 
 Now, the condition of the above obligation is such, that if 
 the said Puget's Sound Agricultural Company shall prosecute 
 their said writ of error to efiect, and answer all damages and 
 costs if they fail to make their plea good, then the above ob- 
 ligation to be void ; else to remain in full force and virtue. 
 (Signed) Jno. R. Fleming, [Seal.] 
 
 U. G. Wardass, [Seal.] 
 Jos. Cushman, [Seal.] 
 
 Isaac Liohtner, [Seal.] 
 Sealed and delivered in the presence of — 
 B. F. Kendall, 
 R. M. Walker. 
 
 Examined and approved this 20th day of January, 1862. 
 (Signed) C. C. Hewitt, C. J. of W. T, 
 
820 
 
 Territory OP Washington, "I 
 Office Clerk Supreme Court, J ' 
 
 I, Richard Lane, clerk of the supreme court of Washington 
 Territory, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, 
 complete, and correct copy of the original bond filed 'n my 
 office o'n the 21st day of January, 1862, in the case of the 
 Puget's Sound Agricultural Company versus Pi j. . . v^". 
 as fully as the same remains of record and on file in my office. 
 In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and 
 / affixed the seal of the supreme court of Washington 
 [seal] Territory, at Olympia, W. T., on this 29th day of Au- 
 gust, 1862. 
 
 Richard Lane, 
 Clerk Sup. Court Washington Territory. 
 
 ■I !|i 
 
 William F. Tolmie, agent and member of the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company, comes now, at this May term, A. D. 
 1859, of the honorable commissioners' court for Pierce county, 
 Washington Territory, and moves the court to correct the 
 assessment roll, by striking therefrom so much as is assessed 
 against said Company for the year 1859 upon lands claimed 
 in Pierce County by said Company under the treaty of 1846 
 with Great Britain, and assigns for grounds the following 
 reasons : 
 
 Ist. The treaty of 1846, upon which said Company base 
 their right to hold lands in said county, does not confirm to 
 the Company lands, but contains a contract that the lands to 
 them belonging shall be confirmed, or purchased at a fair val- 
 uation, and that the United States Government has not by 
 any subsequent act confirmed to said Company the said lands. 
 
 2d. A large portion of the land claimed by said Company 
 in said county, and upon which said assessment is made, is 
 now occupied by citizens of the United Spates, claiming to 
 hold the same under the donation law * that said citizens hold 
 the said land adversely to and against the interests of said 
 
■^ 
 
 321 
 
 Company; and that said Company is not now in any wise bene- 
 fitted by the said land so held by said citizens. 
 
 3d. The levying and collection of said tax upon said lands 
 is in direct contravention of the provisions of the organic act, 
 in this, it is not equal and uniform. 
 
 (Signed) Wm. F. Tolmie, Agt, ^c, 
 
 By Frank Clauk, AW y. 
 
 Territory op Washington, 1 . 
 County of Pierce, j" * ' 
 
 Personally appeared before me, the undersigned, Wm. ¥• 
 Tolmie, who, being first duly sworn, says that the facts set 
 forth in the foregoing application for correcting of assessment 
 roll are true, to the best of his knowledge and belief. 
 
 (Signed) Wm. F. Tolmie, 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of May, 
 1859. 
 
 (Signed) Henry E. Bradley, 
 
 Auditor Pierce County, W. T. 
 
 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and cor- 
 rect copy of the original on file in this ofiice. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed 
 the adopted seal of the honorable board of county commis- 
 sioners' court of Pierce county, Washington Territory, this 
 12th day of September, A. D. 1856. 
 
 (Signed) Geo. Gallagher, 
 
 Auditor Pierce County. 
 
 Estill ited average of land under fence claimed by the Pu- 
 get's Sound Agricultural Company in Pierce county, Wash- 
 ington Territory : 
 
 At Fort Nisqually 160 acres. 
 
 Muck 200 
 
 Elk Plain 150 
 
 .«- 
 
 '.,*»««»• ■ mil m »iiii i >ii **" ' * "> 
 
P"Hi 
 
 822 
 
 Ashland 40 acres. 
 
 Cowies 60 
 
 Kulkuloh 20 
 
 Treehatchi 20 
 
 Sastuck 90 
 
 740 
 
 At Tithlow, (formerly Mr. Dean's residence,) improved by 
 the Company, but from whence they are forcibly debarred, 80. 
 Unable to say, Mrithout reference to books, vrhat extent of en- 
 closure there was at certain of the above-named places prior 
 to the date of the boundary treaty in 1846. - - 
 
 (Signed) W. F. Tolmib, 
 
 Agent Pwget's Sound Agricultural Co. 
 
 Steilacoom, p. C, W. T., 
 County Commissioners' Court-House, 
 
 Saturday, Mai/ 7, 1859. 
 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full, and cor- 
 rect copy of the original in this office. 
 
 ' In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and 
 [seal.] the adopted seal of the commissioners' court of Pierce 
 county, this 12th day of September, A. D. 1859. 
 (Signed) Geo. Gallagher, 
 
 Auditor Pierce County^ W. T. 
 
 
 William F. Tolmie, agent and member of the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company, comes now, at the May term, A. D« 
 1859, of the honorable commissioners' court of Pierce county, 
 Washington Territory, and moves the court to correct the 
 assessment roll, by striking therefrom so much as is assessed 
 against said Company for the year 1859 upon lands belonging 
 to said Company, and assigns for grounds the following rea- 
 sons: 
 
 The levying and collection of said tax on lambs is in direct 
 
323 
 
 contravention of the provisions of the organic act, in this, 
 that it is not equal and uniform, the young of no other do- 
 mestic animal save the sheep being in this county subject 
 to taxation, whilst in every other county of the Territory the 
 young of all descriptions of live stock are, until one year old, 
 exempt from taxation. 
 
 (Signed) William F. Tolmie, 
 
 Agent and Member P. S. A. Co. 
 Steilacoom, W. T., May 22, 1859. 
 
 ,1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and cor- 
 rect copy of the original on file in this office. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed 
 the adopted seal of the commissioners' court of 
 [seal.] Pierce county, Washington Territory, this 12th day 
 of September, A. D. 1859. • 
 
 (Signed) Geo. Gallagher, 
 
 Auditor Pierce County, W. T. 
 
 Motion to amend, pending motion for correction of assess- 
 ment roll so far as relates to land tax of Puget's Sound Ag- 
 ricultural Company, &c. 
 
 Said Puget's Sound Agricultural Company moves to amend 
 said motion by adding to first reason assigned, " and that said 
 Company have not now such an interest in said land as ren- 
 ders them subject to taxation." 
 Dated Mat 23, 1859. 
 
 (Signed) Frank Clark, 
 
 Attorney for Puget's Sound Agricultufal Co., ^c. 
 
 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and cor- 
 rect copy of the original motion on file in this office. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hund and affixed 
 the adopted seal of the commissioners' court of 
 [seal.] Pierce county, Washington Territory, this 12th day 
 of September, A. D.1859. 
 (Signed) Geo. Gallagher, 
 
 Auditor, Pierce County, W. T. 
 
 
824 
 
 COMMISSIONERS' COURT, MAY TERM, 1859, 
 
 Monday, June 4. 
 
 Present: Messrs. Chambers, Murry, and Downey. 
 
 Consideration of motion to correct assessment roll. Doctor 
 W. F. Tolmie, agent and member, &c., being asked what quan- 
 tity of lands were surveyed and claimed by the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company, answered that the Company surveyed 
 and claimed about 161,000 acres, as estimated by Surveyor 
 General Tilton and himself, said estimate being made from a 
 plat of the survey on file in the Surveyor General's office. 
 
 He being further asked the value of said lands, for answer 
 said he refused to place any valuation on them whatever, and 
 verbally protested against the assessing and taxing said lands. 
 
 It was thereupon ordered by the court that the lands be 
 valued at one dollar per acre, and that they be assessed at that 
 rate. 
 
 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full, and cor- 
 rect copy of the record. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and 
 [seal.] the adopted seal of the commissioners' court, this 
 ' . 15th day of September, A. D. 1859. 
 
 (Signed) Geo. Gallagher, 
 
 Auditor of Pierce County, W. T. 
 
 
 ■; I 
 
 To the Honorable the Board of Commissioners of Pierce County, 
 Washington Territory ; 
 Gentlemen: You are hereby notified that the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company appeal from the decision rendered by 
 your honorable board upon the motion filed May 5, 1859, and 
 amendment thereto filed May 23, 1859, for the correction of 
 assessment roll so far as relates to tax assessed against said 
 Company for the year 1859, upon lands claimed in said county 
 of Pierce under the treaty of 1846 with Great Britain ; and 
 that the said appeal will come on to be heard at the next Sep- 
 
le 4. 
 
 Doctor 
 t quan- 
 Sound 
 rveyed 
 irveyor 
 from a 
 
 ice. 
 
 anflvrer 
 cr, and 
 1 lands, 
 mds be 
 i at that 
 
 nd cor- 
 
 md and 
 irt, this 
 
 If. T. 
 
 County^ 
 
 's Sound 
 lered by 
 859, and 
 ection of 
 inst said 
 id county 
 ain ; and 
 lext Sep- 
 
 325 
 
 tember term of tho district court in and for said county of 
 Pierce. 
 Steilacoom, June 9, 1859. 
 
 (Signed) Wm. F. Tolmie, 
 
 Agent, jf'c, PugeVs Sound Agricultural Co. 
 
 I hereby certify that tho foregoing is a full, true, and cor- 
 rect copy of the original notice on file in this office. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed 
 the adopted seal of the board of county commission- 
 [SEAL.] ers of Pierce county, Washington Territory, this 12th 
 day of September, A. D. 1859. 
 (Signed) Geo. Gallaoiier, 
 
 Auditor Pierce County, W. T. 
 
 Know all men by these presents that we, William F. Tolmie, 
 agent and member of tho Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
 pany, as principal, and Andrew F. Byrd and 0. P. Meeker, 
 as sureties, are held and firmly bound unto the board of com- 
 missioners of the county of Pierce, Washington Territory, and 
 to their successors in office, for and in behalf of said county, 
 in the sum of two thousand eight hundred and seventeen dol- 
 lars and fifty cents, lawful money of the United States, to be 
 paid to the said commissioners or to their successors in office, 
 for the use of said county or its assigns, for which payment, 
 well and truly to be made, wo jointly and severally bind our- 
 selves, our heirs, executors, and administrators. 
 
 Sealed with our seals and dated this 9th day of June, A. D. 
 1859. 
 
 Whereas the condition of the above obligation is such, that 
 William F. Tolmie, agent and member of the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company, has appealed to the next September 
 term of the district court for Pierce county, W. T., from the 
 decision rendered by the board of commissioners of Pioi ce 
 county, W. T,, upon a motion filed May 5, 1859, and ameiiu- 
 ment thereto filed May 22, 1859, for the correction of assess- 
 ment roll so far as relates to the tax assessed against said 
 
 ■*»■ ■■■ »<» ■ » < M »iW 
 
I .(i 
 
 826 
 
 Company for tho year 185i), upon land claimod in said county 
 of Pierce under tho treaty of 1840 with Orcnt Britain: Now, 
 thoreforo, if tho said William F. Tolinie, agent and member 
 as aforesaid, shall pay, or causo to bo paid, all costs that shall 
 be adjudged against said appellant on said appeal, then this 
 obligation shall bo void; otherwise to remain in full force and 
 virtue. 
 
 William F. Tolmie, A^/ent, i^o., [seal.] 
 Andrew F. Byrd, [seal.] 
 
 0. P. Meekeii, [seal.] 
 
 In presence of — 
 
 Geo. Gallaojier, ^ * / 
 
 W. H. Wood. 
 
 I hereby certify that tho foregoing is a full, true, and cor- 
 rect copy of tho original bond on file in this office. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand pnd affixed 
 the adopted seal of tho honorable board of commis- 
 [seal.] sioners' court of Pierco county, Washington Terri- 
 tory, this 12th day of September, A. D. 1859. 
 (Signed) Gko. Oallagher, 
 
 Auditor Pierce County, W. ' 
 
 Motion to Dismim. 
 
 DISTRICT COURT FOR PIERCE COUNTY, WASIIINDTON TERRITORY, 
 
 MARCH TERM, 18C0, 
 
 Puget's Sound Ao'l Co., appellants. 
 
 v«. 
 
 .} 
 
 Commissioners of Pierce Co., W. T., respondents. 
 
 Respondents, by counsel, moved the court to dismiss the 
 appeal in the abovo case, and assign for cause thereof — 
 
 1st. That this court has no jurisdiction of the case; be- 
 cause — 
 
 1st. The parties appellant are subjects of a foreign power 
 and not citizens of the United States. 
 
2(1. That they arc non-rosidonts of the United States and ' 
 this Territory. 
 8d. They are a foreign association or joint-stock company. 
 (Signed) Garfielde, for JtigponJeiitit. 
 
 Motion overruled. Exception taken by counsel, and excep- 
 tion allowed. 
 
 (Signed) 0. B. McFadden, 
 
 C. J. and J. of I*. Cu. Court. 
 March 29, 1860. 
 
 'ERRITORY, 
 
 Appeal from the Court of County Commiaaioncra for the County 
 
 of Pierce. 
 
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TIERCE COUNTY, SErTEMBER T., 1859. 
 
 Puqet's Sound Ag'l Co. 
 
 vtt. 
 The Coujjty of Pierce. 
 
 It is admitted upon the part of the appellants as follows: 
 
 1st. That the appellants have claimed to be the owners of 
 the lands on which they aro required to pay taxes by the ap- 
 pellee, and that they have had the same surveyed and platted, 
 and the plat thereof has been by them filed in the office of the 
 surveyor general for the Territory of Washington. 
 
 2d. That the Government of the United States, in survey- 
 ing the lands adjacent lo the said claim of appellants, has 
 stopped the section lines at the boundaries of said claim, and 
 has not included the same in the public survey. 
 
 3d. That a portion of the land included within the boun- 
 daries of said claim has been occupied as a military station by 
 the Government of the United States, said Government paying 
 rent therefor to said appellants. 
 
 4th. That said appellants have attempted to eject, by pro- 
 cess of law, persons occupying a portion of said land, and 
 claiming the same under the provisions of the donation law. 
 
 It is admitted by the appellee as follows : 
 
 1st. That a large portion of the lands, for which said Com- 
 
 
P""«i 
 
 ' u 
 
 328 
 
 pany arv*^ taxed, are unenclosed lands, and a portion thereof 
 is occupiod and claimed bj citizens of the United States, 
 claiming the same adversely to the appellants and under, as 
 they allege, the provisions of the donation law. 
 
 2d. That American citizens in the county of Pierce, who 
 have li"ed over four years on their donation claims, have not 
 been ta.:ed for the same, although they are outside of the 
 claim of the appellants, nor is there any tax levied on any 
 real estate in said county other than the lands of said appel- 
 lants. 
 
 3d. The Government of the United States has not desig- 
 nated the metes and bounds of the claim of the Puget's Sound 
 Agricultural Company Cac: pt by recognizing those set out by 
 the Company in its instructions to the surveyor general. 
 
 ii\i. That the land occupied by the Government of the 
 United States as a military station, and for which rent was 
 paid to said appellants, had some old buildings situated there- 
 on which have since been torn ^*own, the said Government 
 still occupying said land and paying rent therefor. 
 
 (Signed) Wallace & Chenoweth, 
 
 AW 1/8 for Appellants. 
 (Signed) Smith & Garfielde, 
 
 ' Att'ysfor Appellee. 
 
 .?;-M 
 
 Additional Facts agreed upon hy Counsel in the above Cause, to 
 be filed and used upon the hearing. 
 
 DISTRICT COURT OF PIERCE COUNTY, WASIIiNOTON TERRITORY, 
 
 March term, iseo. 
 
 Puget's Sound Ag'l Co., appellants. 
 
 vs. 
 
 } 
 
 Pierce County, respondent. 
 
 Ist. It is agreed that the Puget Sound Agricultural Com- 
 pany was organized in Great Britain, and has remained and 
 continued a foreign association, joint-stock company, or cor- 
 poration. 
 
 ^ 
 
lERRITORY, 
 
 829 
 
 2d. That the members of said company, or a majority 
 thereof, were and still continue to be non-residents of the 
 United States and subjects of a fcreii^u government. 
 (Signed) S. Garfifi^db, 
 
 Att'y for llegpondent, 
 (Signed) W. H. Wallace, 
 
 Att'y for Appellant. 
 
 Appeal from the Decree of Taxation of the County Oommmion' 
 ersforthc County of Pierce, Washington Territory. 
 
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON TER- 
 RITORY, SEPTEMBER TERM, 1859. 
 
 Puget's Sound Aq'l Co., appellants, 
 
 vs. 
 
 Pierce County, Wash. Terr'y, appellee. 
 
 This cause came on to be heard on an agreed statement of 
 facts, and was argued by counsel. 
 
 On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and ad- 
 judged bj'' this court, that the order of taxation made by the 
 county commissioners for the county of Pierce on the lands 
 claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company bo, and 
 the same is hereby, affirmed with costs. 
 
 (Signed) 0. B. McFadden, 
 
 C. J. and Judge of the Dist. Court for the 
 County of Pierce, Washinyton Territory. 
 
 Puget's Sound Ag'l Co., appellants, ^ ' 
 
 vs. y 
 
 Pierce County, W. T., appellee. J 
 To the appellee in the above-entitled cause: 
 You are hereby notified that the appellants have this day 
 filed with me a precipe, directing me to notify you that they 
 will take an appeal to the supreme court ui Washington Ter- 
 ritory from the judgment of the district 'Mirt rendered in said 
 cause, the said cause being an appeal fiviVi the decree of tax- 
 ation of the county commissioners for the county of Pierce, 
 Washington Territory. 
 
; -v 
 
 \ i; 
 
 ^- Is 
 
 RPPHHI 
 
 330 
 
 The Supreme Court will convene on the first Monday in 
 December next. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and 
 r n affixed the seal of said district court this 30th day 
 "■ *-' of November, A. D. 1859. 
 
 (Signed) Wm. H. Wood, 
 
 Clerk District Cotirt Pierce Co., W. T. 
 
 Puget's Sound Agricultural Co., appellants. 
 
 V8. 
 
 ] 
 
 Pierce County, W. T., appellee. 
 The Clerk of the District Court of Pierce County, W. T. : 
 
 You are hereby directed to issue, under the seal of said 
 court, notice to the appellee of the filing of this precipe, that 
 the appellants will take an appeal to the supreme court of 
 Washington Territory from the judgment of the district court 
 rendered in said cause, the said cause being an appeal from 
 the decree of taxation of the county commissioners for the 
 county of Pierce, W. T. You will make the same returnable 
 to the supreme court, W. T., on the first day of the next 
 term thereof, which will be the first Monday of December 
 next. 
 
 W. H. Wallace, 
 
 Attorney for Appellant. 
 
 November 29, 1859. 
 
 DISTRICT COURT FOR PIERCE COUNTY, ^". T,, MARCH TERM, 1860. 
 Puget's Sound Agricultural Co., 
 
 vs. 
 
 ■} 
 
 Pierce County, W. T. 
 This cause coming on to bo heard upon an agreed statement 
 of facts, and after argument of counsel and due deliberation 
 it is considered and adjudged by the c6urt that the order of 
 taxation made by the county commissionei's of Pierce county 
 on the lands claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
 
831 
 
 pany be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs. And 
 it further appearing to the court that important questions of 
 law are involved in this case, it is ordered that this judgment 
 be entered in form only, and that the original papers in this 
 case be certified to the supreme court at its next December 
 term. 
 
 (Signed) 0. B. McFadden, 
 
 C. J. and J. of P. Co. Diat. Court. 
 
 88: 
 
 Territory of Washington, 1 
 County of Pierce, y 
 
 I, William H. Wood, clerk of the district court of the 
 county of Pierce, W, T., do hereby certify that the foregoing 
 are all of the original papers on file tn the district clerk's 
 office in a cause wherein Pierce County, W. T., is plaintiff, 
 and the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company is defendant. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and 
 p 1 affixed the seal of the district court aforesaid, this 
 first day of December, A. D. 1860. 
 
 (Signed) Wm. H. Wood, 
 
 ' Clerk District Court Pierce Co., W. T. 
 
 Territory of Washington, 1 , 
 Office Clerk Sup. Court, j 
 
 I, Richard Lane, clerk of the supreme court of Washing- 
 ton Territory, do hereby certify that the foregoing arc full, 
 true, correct, and complete copies of the original papers cer- 
 tified to the supreme court of Washington Territory at its 
 December term, 1860, in the case of Puget's Sound Agricul- 
 tural Company, appellants, versus Pierce County, W. T., re- 
 spondents, as fully as the same remain on file in my office. 
 
 In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand 
 [seal.] and affixed the seal of said supreme court, at Olym- 
 pia, W. T., this 29th day of August, A. D. 1862. 
 
 Richard Lane, 
 Clerk Su^). Court of Wash. Terr'y. 
 23 B . 
 
m^'i 
 
 882 
 
 Bo it remembered, that at a term of the sapreme coart of 
 the Territory of Washington, begun and held at Olympia, the 
 seat of government of said Territory, on the 3d day of De- 
 cember, 1860, it being the first Monday of said month, and 
 the day appointed by law for a session of said court, the fol- 
 lowing, amongst other business, was had and transacted, to 
 wit: 
 
 Appeal from District Court of Pierce County, W. T. 
 
 Tuesday, December 11, 1860, 8th judicial day. 
 Puget's Sound Agricultural Company "| 
 
 Pierce County, W. T. j 
 
 Comes now B. F. Kendall, Esquire, counsel for plaintiff, 
 and makes and files a motion in words following : 
 
 "Plaintiff comes now and asks that the couniy of Pierce be 
 enjoined or restrained from levying or collecting any taxes 
 upon the real property, the taxes upon which are in contest 
 in this suit, until the cause is decided. 
 
 (Signed) "Kendall & Wallace, pro Plaintiffs." 
 
 "Wednesday, December 19, 1860, 15th day. 
 Puget's Sound Ag'l Company, appellants, 
 
 V8. 
 
 Pierce County, W. T., appellee. 
 
 The argument of this case continued until next term, and 
 the court order and direct that the appellee in this case be 
 restrained from the collection of the taxes assessed against 
 the lands claimed by the Puget's Sound Agricultural Comoany 
 until further order of this court, on condition that the appel- 
 lants execute a bond to the appellee in the penal sum of thr c 
 thousiind dollars, with one or more sureties, to be approved by 
 the clerk of this court, conditioned for the payment of the 
 taxes which may be found due and owing by them to Pierce 
 county on the final determination of this cause. Bond to be 
 filed within twenty daye. 
 
 Be it remembered that we, Edward Iluggins, Giles Ford, 
 and Henry G. Williamson, are held and firmly bound unto the 
 
888 
 
 irtof 
 a, the 
 f De- 
 1, and 
 le foi- 
 led, to 
 
 T. 
 
 day. 
 
 Aaintiff, 
 
 'ierce be 
 [ly taxes 
 I contest 
 
 fch day. 
 
 ;crm, and 
 lis case be 
 Id against 
 Comoany 
 ;lie appel- 
 of thr c 
 [proved by 
 lent of the 
 to Pierce 
 ;ond to be 
 
 liles Ford, 
 id unto the 
 
 county of Pierce in the full sum of three thousand dollars, the 
 payment of which, well and truly to be made, we bind our 
 selves, our heirs, and executors. 
 
 Witness our hands and seals this 2l8t day of December, 1860. 
 
 The condition of the above obligation is such, that whereas 
 the county of Pierce has levied a tax against the Puget's 
 Sound Agricultural Company on land in Pierce county, the 
 same on which the tax for 1859 is in contest before the supreme 
 court, and said Company ask that said county shall be enjoined 
 from collecting said tax for 1860 or any more taxes until the 
 question now pending in said court is decided : Now, there- 
 fore, if the said Company shall well and truly pay said taxes 
 and interest thereon, if the same shall be adjudged legal by 
 the said supreme court, then this obligation shall be null 'and 
 void ; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. 
 
 (Signed) Edward Iluao INS, [Seal.] 
 
 Giles Ford, " [Seal.] 
 
 H. G. Williamson, [Seal.] 
 
 Endorsed: Approved and filed December 24, 1860. 
 
 Richard IjAnk, 
 Clerk Sup. Court for Washington County. 
 
 Be it remembered that, at a term of the supreme court of 
 the Territory of Washington, begun and held at Olympia, the 
 seat of governtaent of said Territory, on the 2d day of Decem- 
 ber, 1861, it being the first Monday of said month, and the 
 day appointed by law for a session of said supreme court, the 
 following, amongst other business, was had and transacted, 
 to wit: 
 
 Saturday, January 18, 1862. 
 Puqet's Sound Agricultural Company, Appellants, 
 
 vs. 
 
 t8,| 
 8. j 
 
 Pierce County, Washington Territory, Appellee. 
 (Contin^iod from last term.) 
 
 This day came the parties, by their attorneys, and there- 
 upon, the court having hoard the same and argument of coun- 
 
^w 
 
 ■■■■■ 
 
 884 
 
 sel, aa well upon the statement of facts agreed upon, the 
 original files and pleadings, and the transcript of the proceed- 
 ings between the parties in the district court of Pierce county, 
 as also upon all matters pertaining thereto, and tho same being 
 Been, and by the court now here fully considered, and mature 
 deliberation being thereupon had, it is therefore considered 
 by the court that the pro forma judgment in the court below 
 be made absolute, and that it stand the judgment of this court, 
 in full force and effect, and that any restraining order or orders 
 heretofore issued be removed ; that appellants be adjudged to 
 pay the costs, taxed as follows, that is to say, costs in the dis- 
 trict court of Pierce county, thirty-seven and 90-100 dollars ; 
 costs in the supreme court of Washington Territory, December 
 term, 1860, nineteen and 10-100 dollars ; and costs in supreme 
 court of Washington Territory, December term, 1861, twenty 
 and 10-100 dollars, and that execution issue therefor. 
 
 ■ 1 
 
 f^sl 
 
 Territory of Washington, 1 
 Office Cleric Supreme Court, J 
 
 I, Richard Lane, clerk of the supreme court of Washington 
 Territory, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, full, 
 and complete copy of the record of said supreme court in the 
 case of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, Appellants, 
 v%. Pierce County, Washington 'Territory, December term, 
 1860, and December term, 1861, as fully and amply as tho 
 same remains of record in my office. 
 
 In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and 
 affixed the seal of said supreme court, at Olympia, 
 [seal.] Washington Territory, this 29th day of August, A. D. 
 1862. 
 
 Richard Lane, 
 Clerk Sup. Court of Wash. Terr'y. 
 Filed February 13, 1864. 
 
CASE OF THE HUDSON'S BAT COMPANY. 
 
 c— 1. 
 
 To his Excellency 
 
 The Governor General op Canada in Council: 
 
 ■ Qdebec, 2Gth January, 1865. 
 
 My Lord: I have the honor to report that while recently in 
 England, in compliance with your Excellency's instructions, 
 I placed myself in communication with her Majesty's Secretary 
 of State for the Colonies on the subject of opening up to settle- 
 ment the northwestern territories. 
 
 In your Excellency's dispatch of 19th January, 1864, to the 
 Colonial Secretary, the anxious desire of the Canadian Gov- 
 ernment was communicated "for some speedy, inexpensive, and 
 mutually satisfactory plan" for "settling definitely the north- 
 western boundary of Canada," and the claim of Canada ^as 
 asserted to "all that portion of central British America which 
 can be shown to have been in the possession of the French at 
 the period of the cession in 1763." 
 
 In reply to this dispatch, Mr. Cardwell, on 1st July, 1864, 
 requested to be informed whether the Government of Canada 
 was prepared to assist in negotiations with the Hudson's Bay 
 Company, with the view of accepting any portion of the terri- 
 tory now claimed by that Company, and providing the means 
 of local administration therein ; and he suggested that, if so 
 prepared, it would be desirable that some person duly author- 
 ized to communicate the views of the Canadian Government 
 should be sent to England for that purpose. 
 
 On the 11th November, 1864, a minute of Council was ap- 
 proved by your Excellency, in reply to Mr. Cardwell's dispatch. 
 It set forth that the Government of Canada was ready and 
 anxious to co-operate with the iv j^erial Government in securing 
 
886 
 
 the early settlement of the northivest territories and the esiab- 
 lishment of local government in its settled portions ; but that, 
 in its opinion, the first step towards that end was the extinction 
 of all claim by the Hudson's Bay Company to proprietary rights 
 in the <^oil or exclusive rights of trade. It suggested that it 
 was for the Imperial Government, and not for the Government 
 of Canada, to assume the duty of bringing to an end a mo- 
 nopoly originating in an £|nglish charter and exercised so long 
 under imperial sanction; but that when the negotiations were 
 brought to a close, the Government of Canada would be ready 
 to arrange with the Imperial Government for the annexation 
 to Canada of such portions of the territory as might be avail- 
 able for settlement, as well as for the opening up of communi- 
 cations into the territory and providing means of local admin- 
 istration; or, should the Imperial Government prefer to erect 
 the territory into a Crown colony, the Canadian Government 
 would gladly co-operate in the opening up of communication 
 into the territory and the settlement of the country. The 
 minute finally suggested that the undersigned, while in Eng- 
 land, would communicate more fully to Mr. Cardwell the views 
 of the Canadian Government. 
 
 While in London I had the honor of several. interviews with 
 Mr. 'Cardwell, at which the whole question was fully discussed, 
 and I gratefully acknowledge the courtesy and attention ex- 
 tended to me by that gentleman. 
 
 I found that negotiations for the cession to the Crown of the 
 territorial claims of the Hudson's Bay Company had been 
 proceeding for a year past between the Colonial Minister and 
 the Company, and it may not be without advantage that I 
 should state here briefly the point to which these negotiations 
 had been brought. 
 
 1. In July, 1863, the whole interests of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company were transferred to Mr. Edward W. Watkin and 
 certain gentlemen acting with him, and Sir Edmund Head was 
 elected governor of the Company. The capital stock of the 
 old Company was ^1500,000 sterling, but at the time of the 
 sale, and for some time previous, each £100 share was worth 
 JS200 on the London Stock Exchange. The market value of 
 
837 
 
 the Company's interest was, therefore, £1,000,000 sterling. 
 The new Company agreed to pay .£1,500,000, and did pay that 
 sum for the transference to them of all the interest of the old 
 Company. 
 
 2. On the 28th of August, 1863, Sir Edmund Head, as gov- 
 ernor of the new Hudson's Bay Company, communicated to 
 his Grace the Duke of Newcastle a resolution expressive of 
 the conviction that the time had arrived for introducing into 
 the northwest territories the direct authority of the Crown. 
 
 3. On the 9th of October, 1863, Sir Frederick Rogers, by 
 instruction of the Duke of Newcastle, informed the Company 
 that his Grace was ready to consider any proposals submitted 
 to him by the Hudson's Bay Company with reference to the 
 introduction of the direct authority of her Majesty's Govern* 
 ment in Rupert's Land. 
 
 4. On 11th November, 1863, Sir Edmund Head acknowledged 
 the receipt of Sir Frederick Rogers's communication, and pro- 
 ceeded to explain the views of the Company in the following 
 terms: 
 
 "With regard to the extent of the proposed colony, of 
 which the seat of government would be Red River, (or Fort 
 Garry,) the committee presume that his Grace would wish it 
 to include the whole country from the frontier of the United 
 States to the north branch of the Saskatchewan, and to extend 
 eastward towards Lake Superior as far as the frontier of 
 Canada, wherever the precise line of that frontier may be 
 found. Perhaps the most convenient limit for the northern 
 boundary would be either the Saskatchewan itself or a line 
 running from the Rocky Mountains eastward through Edmon- 
 ton House and Fort Cumberland, and, from the lattor, follow- 
 ing the Saskatchewan down to Lake Winnipeg. Nothing 
 would be gained by going farther to the northward, nor by in- 
 cluding the eastern side of Lake Winnipeg; but from the 
 mouth of the Winnipeg river, where it enters the lake, the 
 line of demarcation might be run eastward, until it cuts the 
 Canadian frontier somewhere north of Lake Superior or Lake 
 Huron." 
 
 After hinting at the purchase by Government of the whole 
 
 •1 
 
■^■^ 
 
 mmm 
 
 8?<* 
 
 territorial olaim»of the Gompanj, for a sam of money, pay- 
 able down or by instalments, bat which he admits is probably 
 an impracticable solution. Sir Edmund Head goes on to pro- 
 pose as the condition of the Company's consent to the erection 
 of a Grown colony, that "the Company should retain the 
 ownership in fee simple of one-half of the lands in the colony, 
 and the other half should be conveyed by the Company to the 
 Crown." And this compromise, he explains, the Company 
 suggests only subject to the following stipulations: 
 
 "1. The Hudson's Bay Company should have the sole right 
 to erect, and should bind themselves to complete within five 
 years, an electric telegraph to connect British Columbia and 
 Canada. The line for this telegraph should be approved by 
 the Secretary of State, and it should be maintained by the 
 Company, who would, of course, engage to convey the mes- 
 sages of the imperial and colonial governments at a fixed and 
 moderate rate. 
 
 '*It would be necessary, as a condition precedent to the 
 erection of the telegraph — \ 
 
 "(a.) That the Governments of British Columbia and Can- 
 ada should pledge their faith respectively to the Secretary of 
 State to pay the yearly sum set forth in the enclosures to the 
 de'spatch of July 31, 1862, with all advantages as to lands to 
 be granted by her Majesty's Government, and other terms 
 therein specified. 
 
 "{b.) That a road should be laid out along the line of tele- 
 graph, but the soil upon which the telegraph stands, and the 
 space, (say) one mile in width on one side of its course, should 
 belong to the Hudson's Bay Ccmpany, to be reckoned as part 
 of the half of the land which :hey would retain. The other 
 side of the road might be included in the half belonging to 
 the Crown. 
 
 "{c.) That the Company, in constructing the telegraph, 
 should be entitled to use wood or other materials taken from 
 ungranted land. 
 
 "2. The Crown shall resume the grant of mines and dig- 
 gings of gold and silver throughout the colony, on condition 
 of paying to the Hudson's Bay Company one-third of the 
 
 ».-i-.i^' .;tA.-ifii.i-.>J, v-jr 
 
889 
 
 receipts of all dues, royalties, rents, &c., from such mines or 
 ^'ggi"g8, whether raised by way of export duty or otherwise, 
 but the Company should not be liable for expenses of collec- 
 tion or escort. 
 
 "8. Tho buildings required for military or Government 
 purposes at Fort Garry or Red River should be valued and 
 purchased of the Company. 
 
 "4. The Company should retain, as a portion of their half 
 of the lands, all lots already laid out and surveyed, as well as 
 five thousand acres round each of their forts or posts." 
 
 V. On the 11th March, 1864, Mr. Chichester Fortoscue, 
 Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, by direction of the 
 Duke of Newcastle, rejected the proposals of the Company. 
 In the course of his communication the following passages 
 occur : 
 
 "In an unsettled colony there is no effectual mode of taxa- 
 tion for purposes of government and improvement, and the 
 whole progress of the colony depends on the liberal and pru- 
 dent disposal of its land. These considerations afford decisive 
 reasons against leaving that land in the possession of a corpo- 
 ration. And I am to observe that these objections, conclusive 
 in any case, are greatly enhanced in the case of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company, as I learn from your letter that it has been 
 'the unvarying opinion' of the committee on whose behalf you 
 speak, that the Company would * lose fully as much as they 
 would gaiii by the increase of settlement in the chartered ter- 
 ritory.' It is, therefore, (to say the least) a question whether 
 the Company would not be under a direct inducement to use 
 their proprietary rights to thwart the colonizing efforts of the 
 Government. ***** fphg conclusive 
 objection to the scheme is that it would reproduce, in a gigantic 
 shape, the inconveniences which, on a far smaller scale, were 
 found intolerable in Canada. It is evident as matter of rea- 
 soning, and notorious as a matter of fact, that the interposition 
 of large blocks of property ■ between tracts or districts of 
 Crown land must obstruct the opening up of those districts, 
 unless it fortunately happens that the private proprietor is 
 ready to expend money pari passu with the Government, in 
 
 ,,tr*«»-*%j,, 
 
 ^., 
 
840 
 
 the construction of roads and other improvemente, and to con> 
 form his land policy to that of the authorities. It is also clear 
 that colonists of the Anglo-Saxon race look upon the land 
 revenue as legitimately belonging to the community, and that 
 the diversion of half, or more than half, of that revenue to the 
 purpose of increasing the dividends of a private corporation 
 would cause a continual and growing discontent which could 
 not be allayed by any abstract argument of right, and the full 
 force of which the Government would be expected by the 
 Company to sustain. His Grace cannot consent to make him- 
 self responsible for these consequences, and he is therefore 
 obliged to treat as inadmissible any proposal for the proprie- 
 tary partition of those territories which may be placed under 
 the Government of the Grown. 
 
 Mr. Fortescne then proceeds to state, "The only terms, 
 which, after very grave consideration, his Grace feels himself 
 able to propose for the acceptance of the Company," as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 **1. That within certain geographical limits, (coinciding 
 more or less with those laid down in your letter.) the terri- 
 torial rights of the Company should bo surrendered to the 
 Crown. 
 
 ''2. That the sum of one shilling per acre on every acre sold 
 by the Government should be paid to the Company, and pay- 
 ment to cease when their aggregate receipts from this source 
 should exceed .£150,000, or on the expiration of 50 years. 
 
 "8. That one-fourth of the sum received by the Government 
 as an export duty for gold, or on leases of gold mines, or 
 licenses for gold mining, shall be payable to the Company for 
 50 years, or until the aggregate receipts shall amount to 
 £100,000. 
 
 <<4. That on these conditions a Government be established 
 in the ceded territories. Great Britain undertaking the expense 
 and risk of that Government until the colony is able to sup- 
 port it, as in British Columbia and other colonies. 
 
 "It must be clearly understood, that the payments contem- 
 plated in the second and third of these articles are entirely 
 dependent on the Government receipts, and that the Govern- 
 
^m 
 
 to con* 
 10 clear 
 ko land 
 nd that 
 e to tho 
 toration 
 b could 
 the full 
 by the 
 ttke him- 
 herefore 
 proprie- 
 }d under 
 
 y terms, 
 8 himself 
 ," as fol- 
 
 oinciding 
 the terri- 
 ad to the 
 
 acre sold 
 and pay- 
 his source 
 years. 
 >vernment 
 mines, or 
 npany for 
 imount to 
 
 latablished 
 le expense 
 )le to sup- 
 
 ts contem- 
 re entirely 
 le Govern- 
 
 841 
 
 ment will not be pledged to any particular form of levying a 
 tax upon gold." 
 
 Appended to lur. Fortescue's letter was the following post- 
 script : 
 
 "P. S. — Since the above letter was drafted, his Grace has 
 received from the Governor General of Canada a dispatch, 
 from which it appears that the Canadian Government contem- 
 plate the assertion of a claim to all that portion of Central 
 America which can be shown to havu ueen in possession of the 
 French in 1763. It must of course be understood that the 
 above suggestions are made on the supposition that the cession 
 by the Company will place her Majesty's Government in pos- 
 session of an indisputable title to the territory ceded by them." 
 
 VI. On the 14th March, 1864, Sir Edmund Head replied 
 to Mr. Fortescue's letter of the 11th March, taking strong 
 exception to the postscript of that letter. Among other pass- 
 ages was the following: 
 
 "We believe the title of the Hudson's Bay Company to be 
 good, and we are prepared to defend it in any court in which 
 it may be impugned; but we are not prepared to originate any 
 inquiry of the kind, or to undertake to give any guarantee, or 
 to present to the Secretary of State any title other than that 
 which I have already said is as well known to his Grace as 
 jurselves. Such as it is, it must be taken for better for worse, 
 for we have no other to offer, and we believe that to be suffi- 
 cient. If, therefore, any such guarantee or undertaking is a 
 condition precedent to the completion of an arrangement on 
 the basis now suggested in your letter of the 11th instant, it 
 will, we fear, be wholly useless for us to enter into the con- 
 sideration of the principle of that offer, or any discussion how 
 far the details involved in it are or are not acceptable to the 
 Company, or how far the amount of compensation would be 
 sufficient. If, indeed, the question were only one of some few 
 miles, more or less, of boundary, the case would be wholly dif- 
 ferent. But in the form in whiqh the claim is presented to us 
 in your postscript, it appears to the committee to make all 
 further action impracticable." 
 
 1 
 
^ 
 
 342 
 
 ! f: 
 
 Sir Edmund Head goes on to say: 
 
 "But for this preliminary diflBculty, arising from the post- 
 script to your letter, it would now be my duty to call your 
 attention to the fact that that letter makes no allusion to a 
 substantive portion of our oSTer to which we attach great im- 
 portance, that, namely, of erecting on certain terms an electric 
 telegraph across the uudson's Bay territory. We have ceded 
 to no one the rigb'> to do this, and we are perfectly ready, on 
 fair conditions, and as a part of the arrangement, to under- 
 take to do it ourselves. Nor is anything said in 'the counter- 
 proposal made by you as to the portions of land which the 
 Company might be allowed to retain as private property, nor 
 as to the manner in which their buildings and improvements 
 would be dealt with." ' 
 
 VII. On the 5th April, 1864, Sir Frederick Rogers addressed 
 Sir Edmund Head in rejoinder to his letter of the 14th March. 
 In reference to the Company's objection to the postscript of 
 Mr. Fovtescue's letter, he said: 
 
 " It appears to the Duke of Newcastle that the committee 
 has somewhat misapprehended the intention with which that 
 postscript was vitten. It is assumed for the present purpose 
 that the grant to the Hudson's Bay Company is a valid grant. 
 But it is contended on the part of Canada that whether valid 
 or not, an instrument which only granted to the Company land 
 not in possession of a foreign power in the year 1670, could 
 not from its very terms comprehend in 1763 a territory which 
 then belonged to the French, and which it is contended must 
 therefore have then belonged and belong now to Canada. It 
 is, therefore, impossible for his Grace to make any pledge of 
 thiS kind, except as to land which is beyond the scope of the 
 Canadian claim." 
 
 Sir Frederick Rogers, however, then went on to modify 
 somewhat this position. He said: 
 
 "As regards the territories west of the Mississippi, to which 
 the present negotiation in the maiu relates, the Duke of New- 
 castle, aft'jr a careful examination, is prepared, for the pur- 
 pose of the present negotiation, to assume that the Canadian 
 claim is groundless. And he therefore authorizes me to renew 
 
 !f I 
 
 '• ' . ii»»., :i.k+,.-. ^t, ,*-»-«. ^v.-<*'-^.*.'.'.».«*»^- •■' *•'■•''■■ 
 
 ..^..'r^ Vjli^ii .^UtiiiLl^i. 
 
343 
 
 the post- 
 call your 
 ision to a 
 great im- 
 ,n electric 
 lave ceded 
 ready, on 
 to under- 
 e counter- 
 which the 
 perty, nor 
 rovements 
 
 i addressed 
 1th March, 
 stscript of 
 
 committee 
 which that 
 jnt purpose 
 ^alid grant, 
 lether valid 
 mpany land 
 1670, could 
 itory which 
 ended must 
 
 anada. It 
 y pledge of 
 icope of the 
 
 to modify 
 
 )pi, to which 
 uke of New- 
 "or the pur- 
 he Canadian 
 me to renew 
 
 the proposals contained in the body of my letter of tlic lltli, 
 subject to the following stipulation: that in case it should be 
 found advisable to cede or annex to Canada any territory 
 lying eastward of a line parsing through Lake Winnipeg, and 
 from thence to and through the Lake of the Woods, her Maj- 
 esty's Government should be at liberty to exempt the annexed 
 territory from all payments to the Hudson's Bay Ccjiipany, 
 which payments would thenceforth be ^clusively leviable 
 (without any dedu'-uon from their amount) on the territories 
 acquired by the Crown to the west of the above line of demar- 
 cation." 
 
 In regard to the second part of Sir Edmund Ilead'H letter 
 of 14th March, Sir Frederick Rogers explained that the Duke 
 of Newcastle was quite willing to recognize the transference 
 to the Hudson's Bay Company of the rights and responsibili- 
 ties of ;he Atlantic and Pacific Telegraph and Transit Com- 
 pany, ''if it is recognized by the Colonies concerned." And he 
 goes on to say that his Grace "is further willing that, on t'»c 
 completion of the road and telegraph from the frontier of 
 Canada to that of British Columbia, lands adjacent to the 
 line shall be granted to the Company at the rate of one square 
 mile for every lineal mile of road and telegraph constructed 
 on Crown lands between the line of demarcation above de- 
 scribed and the frontier of British Columbia. 
 
 VIII. On the 13th April the Company accepted the olTer of 
 Government in principle, but considoiod that the mnoimt of 
 the payments within fifty years out of the land and gold rev- 
 enues should not be limited, or, if limited, shouhl be limited 
 to ^£1,000,000 instead of ^£250,000. They asked in addition 
 to be allowed — 
 
 (1.) To retain as private property "their posts and Htations" 
 (on which buildings had been erected) "outside tlio lied lliver 
 settlement, with an area of 0,000 acres round each such post." 
 
 (2.) To retain "all lots set out and occupied by them." 
 
 (3.) To receive for every 50,000 acres of land sold by the 
 Crown "a grant of 5,000 acres of wild land" of their own 
 choice. 
 
 
 U. 
 
m 
 
 % . 
 
 344 
 
 « 
 
 They also require exemption from exceptional taxation and 
 relief from every expense of government. 
 
 As the basis of an arrangement for "through communica- 
 tion," they expressed their readiness to adopt Mr. Watkin's 
 plan, (modified, as it necessarily would be, by amalgamation 
 of the Hudson's Bay Company and the Transit and Telegraph 
 Company;) but they required five square miles of land per 
 lineal mile of toleg(|aph and road, instead of one square mile, 
 as oflfered Governniont. 
 
 IX. On the Gth of June Mr. Cardwell declined to accept 
 these proposals without considerable n odifications, but deferred 
 any counter proposal until after consultation with the Trea- 
 sury and with the Canadian Government. 
 
 This was the position of the negotiation when the under- 
 signed reached London early in December, 18G4, and when 
 Mr. Cardwell placed in his hands the papers, of which a sum- 
 mary has been given. 
 
 Mr. Cardwell, in explaining verbally the state of the nego- 
 tiations, added, that in case the Hudson's Bay Company's 
 offer of 13th April, 1864, was accepted by the Government of 
 Canada, as containing in principle a basis on which negotia- 
 'tions might bo continued with the hope of a satisfactory solu- 
 tion, he was of opinion that considerable modification of the 
 terms might be obtained. 
 
 That there might be no misunderstanding as to the offer of 
 the <!)ompany, I requested that a map might be obtained from 
 Sir Edmund Head so colored as to show clearly the territory 
 now claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company as their property, 
 and also a second map so colored as to show what portion of the 
 land claimed to be theirs they now propose to surrender to 
 the Crown. Two maps colored in this manner were accord- 
 ingly obtained from the Company, and are appended to this 
 report. 
 
 Accompanying these maps was a letter from Sir Edmund 
 Head, dated tlie 7th December, 1864, which, without abating 
 his proposal of IStli April, offered as an alternative — 
 
 1. That the Company be paid ^1,000,000 sterling. 
 
 
345 
 
 ,tion and 
 
 imunica- 
 f\ratkin'8 
 'amation 
 elegraph 
 land per 
 are mile, 
 
 accept 
 
 deferred 
 
 bo Trea- 
 
 le under- 
 md •when 
 jh a Bum- 
 
 tlie nego- 
 ompany's 
 •nment of 
 1 negotia- 
 tory solu- 
 on of the 
 
 le oiTer of 
 inod from 
 territory 
 property, 
 ion of the 
 render to 
 e accord- 
 ad to this 
 
 Edmund 
 t abating 
 
 
 2. That the Government of British North America acknow- 
 ledge the Company's right to trade, without exclusive privileges 
 of any kind, within the Territory. 
 
 3. That the Company should hold in fee simple all their 
 posts now occupied, with a reasonable area around each post. 
 All previous sales and bargains made by them at Red River 
 shall be confirmed. 
 
 4. That the Government of British North America shall 
 impose no exceptional taxes on the Company, its property, or 
 its servants. 
 
 5. That the disputed matter of the Company's lands in 
 Canada be settled by issuing grants on the footing formerly 
 agreed upon between Mr. Vankoughnett and Mr. Hopkins. 
 
 6. That the Company shall be bound to hand over to the 
 Government of British North America all the materials for 
 the construction of the telegraph on the payment of the cost 
 price and expenses already incurred. 
 
 In discussing with Mr. Cardwell those demands of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company, I pointed out what appeared to me the 
 utterly untenable characier of their pretensions. I endeavored 
 to show that they were seeking to sell to Her Majesty's Gov- 
 ernment, for an enormous sum, territory to which they had no 
 title under their charter; and I contended if the solution of 
 the question was to be sought in the purchase of a portion of 
 the Company's territorial claims, the first step was clearly to 
 ascertain what validity there was in those claims — what land 
 the Company really had to sell. 
 
 I further stated, as my personal view of the matter, that no 
 solution would be satisfactory to the people of Canada short 
 of the entire extinction of the Hudson's Bay Company's ter- 
 ritorial claims and exclusive rights of trade. I pointed out 
 that to recognize and maintain the exclusive pretensions of 
 the Company over a large portion of the continent, and to 
 give it thereby a monopoly of the lucrative fur trade, would 
 be simply erecting a barrier, in the way of the rapid settle- 
 ment of the country and laying the foundation for serious 
 difficulty when the cou.;try became settled, and for a further 
 
 ^ 
 
 ..fa 
 
346 
 
 Ki 
 
 
 demand on the part of the Hudson's Bay Company some years 
 hence for the final extinction of its claims. 
 
 I urged that, in view of the present unsettled position of the 
 American continent, it was of the highest importance to attract 
 to British America as large a share as possible of the Euro- 
 pean emigration ; that the opening up of the northwest ter- 
 ritories, with all their agricultural, mineral, and fur-trading 
 advantages, would conduce vastly to that end; and that a 
 further delay of this st«p would (from the immigration of 
 Americans now going on into the territory) render the estab- 
 lishment of British institutions in the settled portions of the 
 country much more difficult than if action were taken now. 
 
 Denying the claims set up by the Hudson's Bay Company, 
 I further contended that even were all their pretensions ad- 
 mitted for the sake of argument, the sum demanded by the 
 Company — namely, one million sterling — was much more than 
 they were entitled to receive for the entire extinction of their 
 claims from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains and from 
 the American line to the extreme north. I pointed out that 
 it was only eighteen months since the rights of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company had passed by purchase into the hands of the 
 present proprietors; that they paid £1,500,000 for those 
 rights, which was fifty per cent, above the then market value 
 of the property; and I referred to the official prospectus, on 
 w^ich the new Company was formed in July, 18G3, for proof 
 that the demand now made on Her Majesty's Government by 
 the Compaay was utterly unreasonable. I drew Mr. Card- 
 well's attention to the fact that the prospectus declared that 
 the assets of the new Hudson's Bay Company, exclusive of 
 the landed territory, had been "recently valued by competent 
 valuers at i;l, 023,509 sterling," and that these assets were 
 further explained to consist of "goods in the interior, on ship- 
 board, and other stock in trade, including shipping, business 
 premises, and other buildings necessary for carrying on the 
 fuv trade." I pointed out that, in addition to this large amount 
 of convertible property, "a cash balance," derived from the old 
 Hudson's Bay Company, was spoken of in the prospectus; and 
 that other large landed possessions, besides those to the east 
 
Mr 
 
 years 
 
 of the 
 ittract 
 Euro- 
 st ter- 
 rading 
 that a 
 tioa of 
 ! estab- 
 of the 
 now. 
 mpany, 
 ions ad- 
 by the 
 )re than 
 of their 
 iid from 
 )ut that 
 ludson's 
 Is of the 
 or those 
 :et value 
 )ctus, on 
 "or proof 
 meut by 
 Card- 
 ,rcd that 
 usive of 
 ompetent 
 ets were 
 on ship- 
 jusiuesB 
 g on the 
 c amount 
 m the old 
 tus; and 
 the east 
 
 of the Rocky Mountains and north of the American line, 'were 
 thus set forth in the prospectus as being part of the property 
 purchased by the new Company: 
 
 "/« addition to its chartered territory, the Company possess 
 the following valuable landed property: several plots of land 
 in British Columbia, occupying most favorable sites at the 
 mouths of rivers, the titles to which have been confirmed by 
 Her Majesty's Government; farms, building-sites in Van- 
 couver's Island, and in Canada ton square miles, at Lacloche, 
 on Lake Huron; and tracts of land at fourteen other places." 
 
 In addition to all this, I directed Mr. C'lrdweU's attention 
 to the fact that the Hudson's Bay Company held a claim 
 against the American Government, and which was at that mo- 
 ment under consideration by arbitrators, for the surrender of 
 their rights on the Pacific, south of the boundary esta1»lished 
 under the Oregon treaty. I stated, on information that had 
 reached me, but without personal knowledge of its correctness, 
 that the American Government had exprossed its willingness 
 to pay $1,000,000 for the extinction of that claim, but that the 
 Company rejected it, and wore in expectation of receiving a 
 much larger sum. 
 
 In view of all these facts, I contended that it was utterly 
 unreasonable on the part of the Company to claim any such 
 sum as one million sterling, even for the entire extinction of 
 their territorial and trade claims cast of the llocky Mountains. 
 But I admitted that it was for her Majesty Imperial Govern- 
 ment to settle with the Hudson's Bay Com|»any the conside- 
 ration to be paid for the extinction of their claims, as it could 
 not be expected that the people of Canada should bear the 
 burden of extinguishing a monopoly that they did not create, 
 and have never recognized, and tho advantages from the ex- 
 tinction of which they would only .sliare in common with the 
 rest of her Majesty's subjects. I urged that the Imperial 
 Government should, without delay, secure the extinction of 
 the Company's claims, and .that the Government of Canada 
 would be prepared to assume tlie duty and cost of opening up 
 communications into the country and establishing local goy- 
 ernment in the settled portions. 
 24 B 
 
848 
 
 I had the honor of interviews with several of her Majesty's 
 Ministers, who were then in London, in which I was permitted 
 to urge these views to a greater or less extent. But the Christ- 
 mas holidays liaving intervened, and being compelled to leave 
 England in time to be present at the opening of the Canadian 
 Parliament, on the 19th January, I was unable to press the 
 matter to a close. I therefore suggested to Mr. Cardwell that 
 I would report to your excellency the point to which the discuss- 
 ion had been brought, and that when the proposed deputation 
 of members of the Canadian Government visited Efigland in 
 the spring the negotiation might be resumed, and, if possible, 
 brought to a satisfactory termination. Mr. Cardwell kindly 
 consented to this arrangement. 
 
 I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, 
 
 Geo. Brown. 
 
 C— 2. 
 
 i 
 
 Extract from a Report of the Delegates, dated 12th July, 1865, 
 appointed to proceed to England, by order in Council of 24th 
 ' March, 1865. 
 
 1$ If >¥ * * * * 
 
 The important question of opening up for settlement and 
 cultivation the vast British territories on the northwest bor- 
 ders of Canada next obtained the attention of the conference. 
 
 Your excellency is aware that the desire of the Govern- 
 ment of Canada for a satisfactory and final adjustment of this 
 matter has been often formally expressed. In your excellen- 
 cy's dispatch of 19th January, 1864, to the Colonial Secretary, 
 the anxious desire of the Canadian Government was communi- 
 cated " for some speedy, inexpensive, and mutually satisfactory 
 plan" for settling definitely the northwestern boundary of 
 Canada, " and the claim of Canada was asserted to all that 
 portion of Central British America which can be shown to 
 have been in the possession of the French at the period of the 
 cession of 1763." 
 
349 
 
 esty's 
 nitted 
 Ihrist- 
 \ leave 
 ladian 
 ss the 
 ill that 
 iscuss- 
 itation 
 and in 
 )ssible, 
 kindly 
 
 lervant, 
 
 lOWN. 
 
 \ 
 
 hj, 1865, 
 ' of 24e7» 
 
 ent and 
 est bor- 
 ercnce. 
 Govern- 
 it of this 
 xccllen- 
 crctary, 
 ommuni- 
 sfactory 
 iidary of 
 all that 
 hovrn to 
 od of the 
 
 In reply to this dispatch, Mr. Cardwell, on 1st July, 1864, 
 requested to bo informed whether the Government of Canada 
 was prepared to assist in negotiations with the Hudson's Bay 
 Company, with the view of accepting any portion of the terri- 
 tory now claimed by that Company, and providing the means 
 of local administration therein, and he suggested that, if so 
 prepared, it would be desirable that some person, duly author- 
 ized to communicate the views of the Canadian Government, 
 should be sent to England for that purpose. 
 
 On the 11th November, 1864, a minute of Council was 
 approved by your excellency, in reply to Mr. Cardwell's 
 dispatch. It set forth that the Government of Canada was 
 ready and anxious to co-operate with the Imperial Government 
 in securing the early settlement of the northwest territories, 
 and the establishment of local .government in its settled 
 portions ; but that, in its opinion, the first step towards that 
 end was the extinction of all claims by the Hudson's Bay 
 Company to proprietary rights in the soil and exclusive rights 
 of trade. 
 
 It suggested that it was for the Imperial Government, and 
 not for the Government of Canada, to assume the duty of 
 bringing to an end a monopoly originating in an English 
 charter, and exercised so long under imperial sanction ; but 
 that, when the negotiations were brought to a close, the Gov- 
 ernment of Canada would be ready to arrange with the Im- 
 perial Government f the annexation to Canada of such 
 portions of the territory as might be available for settlement, 
 as well as for the opening up of communications into the 
 territory, and providing means of local administration ; or, 
 should the Imperial Government prefer to erect the territory 
 into a Crown colony, the Canadian Government would gladly 
 co-operate in the opening up of communication into the terri- 
 tory, and the settlement of the counti'y. 
 
 The minute finally suggested that the honorable President 
 of the Council, while in England, would communicate more 
 fully to Mr. Cardwell the views of the Canadian Government. 
 
 The negotiations that followed on this dispatch satisfied us 
 of the impossibility of enforcing the end sought by Canada 
 
850 
 
 without long, protracted, vexatious, and costly litigation. 
 The Hudson's Bay Company were in possession, and, if time 
 were their object, could protract the proceedings iiulefinitely, 
 and her Majesty's Government appeared unwilling to ignore 
 pretensions that had frequently received quasi recognition 
 from the imperial authorities. Calling to mind, therefore, the 
 vital importance to Canada of having that great and fertile 
 country opened up to Canadian enterprise, and the tide of 
 emigration into it directed through Canadian channels; re- 
 membering, also, the danger of large grants of land passing 
 into the hands of mere moneyed corporations, and embarrassing 
 the rapid settlement of the country ; and the risk that the 
 recent discoveries of gold on the eastern slope of the Rocky 
 Mountains, and north of the American or Canadian lines, 
 should be made over to Canada, subject to such rights as the 
 Hudson's Bay Company miglit be able to establish ; and that 
 the compensation to that Company (if any were found to be 
 due) should be met by a loan guaranteed by Great Britain ; 
 the Imperial Government consented to this, and a careful 
 investigation of the case satisfies us that the compensation to 
 the Hudson's Bay Company cannot, under any circumstances, 
 be onerous. It is but two years since the present Hudson's 
 Bay Company purchased the entire property of the old Com- 
 pany ; they paid ,£1,500,000 for the entire property and assets, 
 in which were included a large sum of cash on hand, large 
 landed properties in British Columbia and elsewhere, not 
 included in our arrangement, a very large claim against the 
 United States Government under the Oregon treaty, and ships, 
 goods, pelts, and business premises in England and Canada, 
 valued at £1,023,509. The value of the territorial rights of 
 the Company, therefore, in the estimation of the Company 
 itself, will be easily arrived at. 
 
 Certified : 
 
 Wm. II. Lee, 
 
 Clerk Execxitive Council. 
 
ition. 
 time 
 litely, 
 gnore 
 
 II ition 
 re, the 
 fertile 
 ide of 
 Is; re- 
 )assing 
 rassing 
 lat the 
 
 Rocky • 
 1 lines, 
 s as the 
 ncl that 
 (1 to be 
 Britain ; 
 
 careful 
 iation to 
 istances, 
 luilson's 
 
 III Com- 
 d assets, 
 
 d, large 
 icre, not 
 
 inst the 
 lid ships, 
 
 Canada, 
 rights of 
 
 lompany 
 
 huncih 
 
 351 
 
 C— 3. ■•, ' •, ; • ' 
 
 Extract from Captain Palliser'% Exploration of British North 
 America, Parliamentary Papers, May 19, 1863, p. 165. 
 
 (1858.) — October 7. — After going an hour this morning, we 
 crossed Elk river, close by where it joins the Kootenay. We 
 then passed through fine open forest land, growing on the shin- 
 gle terraces, which are cut up by ravines. At where I thought 
 the 49th parallel must cross the valley it is rather contracted, 
 and we passed along the slide of an abrupt slope to our left. We 
 then reached a second wide expanse of prairies, the first being 
 where we left Mitchell Camp. Crossing them, at 1.30 we 
 reached the Kootenay Post. It is merely a little log cabin, 
 and we found Mr. Linklater, the Company's clerk, who is here 
 alone, in charge of this place, being in a canvas tent. He 
 only arrived with his goods from Colvile ten days ago, having 
 taken nineteen days to make the trip, as his horses were in 
 bad condition. The goods are brought here packed on horses, 
 in the end of summer, and distributed to the Kootenay Indians, 
 who bring in their furs in return by the beginning of March ; 
 and then, before the snow melts, they are conveyed down to 
 Colvile in the manner the goods were brought. The return 
 trip at so early a season is justly considered one of the hardest 
 and most fatal to horses that is made in the country ; but, if 
 it is not effected before the floods commence, the rise of the 
 rivers and Lakes is so enormous, that the country becomes quite 
 impassable until the end of July. The furs got at this post 
 are of good quality, and generally amount to 200 bears, (prin- 
 cipally black and brown,) 600 martens, 300 beavers, &c. 
 
 Linklater was glad to see us, and very kindly supplied us 
 with a few luxuries, which I am afraid he could ill spare from 
 his slender supplies. Among these was tea, which we now 
 tasted for the first time for more than two months, during 
 which we had tried a variety of abominable substitutes for 
 that best of luxuries to the traveller. 
 
852 
 
 October 8. — The latitude of the Kootenay Post I found to 
 be 48° 55' N., or five miles south of the boundary line. Its 
 altitude above the sea is about 2,300 feet, or nearly the same 
 as the plains next Fort Edmonton. 
 
 \ 
 
 \l'. 
 
 C— 4. 
 
 No. 84. — Copy of Dispatch from Governor Douglas to the Might 
 Hon. Sir E. B. Lytton, Bart. 
 
 (No. 50.) 
 
 Victoria, Vancouvkr's Island, 
 
 December 7, 1868. 
 
 [Received January 29, 1859. Answered, No. 17, February 8, 1859, p. 79.] 
 
 Sir : 1. I have the honor of transmitting herewith copy of 
 a letter lately addressed to me by the agents of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company residing at this place, setting forth the claims 
 of the Company to certain tracts of land connected with their 
 several trading establishments in British Columbia, which they 
 have occupied for many years, and improved settlement and 
 otherwise at much expense. 
 
 2. Her Majesty's Government may probably consider that 
 the Hudson's Bay Company have acquired rights to the soil 
 through permissory occupation and improvement, as well as 
 by the public services which the Company have rendered to 
 the country, and may, therefore, meet their claims in a spirit 
 of judicious liberality, especially as the settlement of the 
 Company's possessory rights in Oregon, resting on the con- 
 struction of the third article of the treaty of the 17th of July, 
 1846, with the United States of America, will probably be 
 influenced by the decision of her Majesty's Government in 
 allowing or disallowing the possessory rights of the Company 
 in British Columbia. 
 
 I have, &c., v 
 
 (Signed) James Douglas, Governor. 
 
 The Right Hon. Sir E. B. Lytton, Bart.^ 
 
 &c., &c., &c. 
 
858 
 
 [Emolosurs im No. 34.1 
 
 Copy of a Letter from John Wark and Dugald Mactavish, 
 Chief Factors Hudson a Bay Company, to Governor DouglaSy 
 dated Victoria, Vancouver's Island, November 24, ] 858. 
 
 Sir: We beg lo call your excellency's attention to the fol- 
 lowing list of claims to land in British Columbia, which we 
 consider as belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company, and 
 trust that their title to the same will eventually be confirmed 
 by her Majesty's Government. 
 
 1. Old Fort Langloy. 
 
 2. New Fort Langley and adjacent farms. 
 8. Point at the forks of Smess river. 
 
 4. Point at the forks of Harrison's river. 
 
 5. Fort Hope, with cleared land adjoining, especially block 
 No. 1, on official map of the town, which encroaches on the 
 fort. 
 
 6. Fort Yale, portion marked "reserve," and block XVII 
 on official map of the town. 
 
 7. Fort Dallas. 
 
 8. Fort at Kamloops, known as Thompson's river, with lands 
 adjacent. 
 
 9. Fort Douglas. 
 
 10. Fort Shepherd, on the Columbia river, with adjoining 
 lands. 
 
 11. Fort in the Kootenay country, if north of the 49th 
 parallel. 
 
 12. The various posts in New Caledonia belonging to the 
 Company, and other points along the route from Fort Hope 
 to Thompson's river and New Caledonia, not permanently 
 occupied, but improved by the sowing of grass seeds. 
 
 13. Fort Simpson, with lands adjoining. 
 
 14. Fort McLoughlio. 
 
 Your excellency is no doubt aware that we are unable at 
 present more particularly to define the limits of the Com- 
 pany's claims ; but we hope the foregoing statement is suffi- 
 
 .. / 
 
 <♦ •• . k^ '> 
 
 r! 
 
864 
 
 ciently oxplicit for tho authoritiei to act upon, until accurate 
 surveys can bo made of the whole. 
 
 We have, &c., 
 (Signed) John Wark, 
 
 DUHALU MACTAVI8II, 
 
 Chief Factor* lfudiion'« Bay Company. 
 
 No. 10. — Copy of Dispatch from Sir E. B. Lytton, Bart., to 
 
 Governor Douglas^ C. B. 
 , (No. 17.) 
 / DowNixa Street, February 8, 1859. 
 
 Sir: I have to acknowledge tho receipt of your dispatch, 
 No. 50, (p. 44,) of the 7th of Duccnibur last, relative to the 
 claims of the Hudson's Bay Company to lands adjoining their 
 trading establishments in British Columbia. 
 
 I should also wish, before deciding on these chiims, to 
 receive a report through you from the Commissioner of Crown 
 Lands; and I request, therefore, that you will consult with 
 Colonel Moody in the matter. 
 
 I have, &c., 
 (Signed) E. B. Lytton. 
 
 ^ Governor Douglas, C. B., &c., &c., &c. 
 
 C— 6. 
 
 ( PICE OP Assistant Quartermaster, 
 Columbia Barracks, Okeuon, July 16, 1852. 
 
 Major: I have the honor to submit the following, in answer 
 to your letter of June 23, in relation to tho reservations of 
 lands in this territory by our military officers for military uses. 
 
 I must state, that I have been unable to find the necessary 
 record of order and letters that would allow me to base a report 
 upon written, authentic data. They should have been found 
 in the office of the late Assistant Adjutant General of this 
 Department, but they may have been transferred. 
 
.'1 
 
 jurate 
 
 any. 
 
 art. J to 
 
 [859. 
 .spatch, 
 s to the 
 ig their 
 
 liins, to 
 ; Crown 
 
 lit with 
 
 . \ 
 
 TTON. 
 
 1852. 
 
 n answer 
 
 ations of 
 
 (try uses. 
 
 ecessary 
 
 a report 
 
 on found 
 
 1 of this 
 
 Ist. In February, 1850, by order of Colonel W. W. Loring, 
 then in commaiid of this Department, I isHued due notice, 
 declaring the island known as "Miller's Island," lying in the 
 Columbia river, and from five to twelve miles above this post, 
 a "reserve for public uses," &c. This island contains, proba- 
 bly, about four square miles, though I have never had it sur- 
 veyed, for the want of proper instruments. It is something 
 more than five miles in length by three-quarters in breadth. 
 During high water, in Juno of each year, most, if not all, of 
 this island is inundated; but during the rest of the year it has 
 heretofore proved of great advantage to our Govornmctit. I 
 have hay of good quality cut there and boated to this post, 
 and in autumn all the animals not wanted for service are 
 placed there, and grazed with perfect safety, until the suc- 
 ceeding spring. When the reservation was declared, there 
 was no claimant or other person on the island. No one has a 
 shadow of claim to the premises except the United States. I 
 am told that two squatters (by the advice of u Portland law- 
 yer) have recently squat on the upper part of the island. I 
 have sent a notice for them to leave, and shall go myself on 
 the 22d instant to be sure that they are off. I would recom- 
 mend that this island be kept as a reserve so long as this point 
 is garrisoned. 
 
 2d. Soon after Major Hatbeway occupied Astoria, he de- 
 clared certain lands at that place a reserve. There are several 
 claimants for improvements, among whom are Messrs. Shively, 
 McClure, Ilensill, Ingalls, and Marlin. 
 
 Major Hatheway took some of their houses, and appraised 
 their value at some $9,000. I do not believe that any of them 
 had the slightest right to a foot of the soil; consequently, no 
 right to have erected improvements there. But, by a letter 
 from the honorable Secretary of War, I know that the place 
 is to be abandoned; and as I have recently reported on the 
 subject to General Jesup, I will pass on to the next in point 
 of time. 
 
 3d. The commanding officer at the Dalles of the Columbia 
 declared a reserve of ten miles square at that place. The 
 present public buildings are in the centre of the reservation. 
 
 i 
 
 
 i 
 
 >■/ 
 
 4 
 
 i 
 
 ! 
 
 I 
 
' . ! 
 
 
 I. 
 
 i 
 
 ■i' 
 
 7 
 
 356 
 
 There were no claimants within its limits at the time, if the 
 Methodist missionaries be excepted. One of their sect, a Mr. 
 Roberts, made some pretensions to a claim, but he evidently 
 had no good foundation. Having never visited the place, I 
 cannot state its f^sources or probable value. 
 
 4th. A reserve near Mil aukee was partially surveyed by 
 Captain J. P. Hatch, in the spring of 1850, and declared a 
 reserve by Colonel Loring, as a site for an arsenal. It has 
 recentlv hp^n confirmed bv the President, but its boundaries 
 aio not finally established. This reservation will take all the 
 land claim of one William Meek, and a part of that of Llew- 
 ellen. The former had improvements to the value of $150; 
 the latter none it all. The reservation will contain about one 
 and one-third square miles. It is highly valuable to the 
 United States. 
 
 5th. Colonel Loring, still in command of this Department, 
 declared a reserve of four miles square at this place, on the 
 31st of October, 1850. The flag-staff occupies the centre, and 
 all the jiublic buildings are near. It is the spot first selected 
 as garrison and depot on the arrival of troops here, and ia 
 still believed to be far the most eligible site in the Territory. 
 It has more resources for a military depot than any other 
 Known to any of us who have been here longest. It answers 
 well as a depot for army stores and a rendezvous for troops, 
 and a starting-point to any place in the interior. 
 
 By the terms of the declaration, the possessory rights of the 
 Hudson's Hay Company, as guarantied by treaty, are to be 
 respected. I append a copy of a letter from the Chief Factor, 
 in charge of *he Company's interest here, to the commanding 
 oflicer of this post, to give you a correct idea how the matter 
 stands between that Company and the United States. It is 
 ray duty to give it as my opinion that this is the most supe- 
 riorpoint on the river for a military reservation of small extent; 
 that the place is abundantly large both for the Hudson's Bay 
 Company and the military post and depot, and that no difference 
 of opinion will ever arise as to ownership or jurisdiction be- 
 tween the representatives of that Company and the United 
 States troops. Most of the reserve is of little value to the 
 
357 
 
 post, except it might, if confirmed, give the commantlirig officer 
 power to select his neighbors by leasing out parceln of land, 
 as contemplated by the instructions from the War Dcpartmont 
 issued January 29, 1848. 
 
 For the use of a post, simply a reservation of one mile square 
 would answer all purposes. Let the lines run as followx: from 
 the point where a meridian line one-half of a mile cast from 
 the present flag-staflf touches the bank of tho Columbia river, 
 run due north one mile; thence due west one mile; thoncc due 
 south to the Columbia river; thence by course of said river to 
 the place of beginning. Were the limits of the reserve re- 
 duced as indicated, there cou^' be no claimant, except tho 
 Hudson's Bay Company, for damages, that I am aware of. It 
 is not at all probable that the Company would ever set up 
 any claim. At the time the present reserve was declared, there 
 were Home two or three retired servants of tho HmlHon's Bay 
 Company living within its limits, but they have never been 
 disturbed, as they were not in the way of the garrison, and aa 
 they were and are living, as stated, by the permission of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company. A few American citizoiia (throe) 
 have created some improvements subsequent to the declaration 
 of the reserve. Colonel Loring did not drive thorn off", but 
 they were properly notified that the United States would never 
 consider them as entitled to any compensation for their im- 
 provements. They were r.nd are willing, in fact, to live by 
 sufi'eraace, trusting perhaps that the United Slates will not 
 finally keep the reserve. 
 
 There was but one man, aside from those named above, liv- 
 ing and cuir;vating within the limits of the reservation on the 
 31st October, 1850. He is an American citizen, called A. M. 
 Sho'-t. He had at that date improvements not to exceed ^1,500 
 in cash value, though he has kept on regularly increasing tho 
 number and value of his improvements subsequently, againHt 
 the frequent and most positive warnings of myself and the com- 
 manding officer of this post. . 
 
 It has always been contended that this man was a trcspasBor 
 upon the possessory rights of the Hudson'ti Bay Company. It 
 is certain that tke Company regard him in that light at the 
 
 I V 
 
■■} 
 
 n 
 
 ! , 
 
 I 
 
 f. 
 
 358 
 
 present moment. T have been informed that he was forcibly 
 ejected under the old provisional government of this territory, 
 consequently I have been led to look upon him as a person 
 who can acquire no title where he is. 
 
 The question will be naturally decided when it is known what 
 are to be the exact limits of the possessory rights of the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company. If it be decided that this Short had no 
 right to have been residing within the reserve at the time re- 
 ferred to, and I presume the Company will test it, then, of 
 course, he never can have any claim for damages 6x improve- 
 ments against our Government. If, on the contrary, the lands 
 upon which he has lived be decided not to have formed a part 
 of the possessory rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, and 
 they are finally confirmed as a reserve, then Short would in 
 equity bo entitled to compensation for his improvements only 
 as they were on the 31st October, 1850. 
 
 In addition to the foregoing reserves, I understand that 
 two tracts of land are confirmed near the mouth of this river : 
 one at Cape Disappointment, the other at Point Adams, on 
 Clatsop. It was done on the recommendation of the joinf 
 commission who made a reconnoisance in the propeller Mas- 
 sachusetts. I have seen no official announcement of these 
 ^•eservations. 
 
 You will not fail to observe that some two years have elapsed 
 since these tracts of land were declared reservations, under 
 what the officers supposed competent authority ; yet only in 
 one instance, that of the Milwaukee reserve, has his Excel- 
 lency the President confirmed the act of bis subordinates. 
 The citizens living near and upon the reservations have taken 
 every opportunity to oppose the confirmation — I suppose on 
 private grounds; and in many instances have put our military 
 officers to no little trouble and pei al embarrassment. It 
 has been stated that the simple declaration of a reserve by 
 a military officer is not at all binding; that it cannot stop citi- 
 zens from settling, improving, &c., within the limits so declared 
 a reserve. It certainly places officers in an improper and awk- 
 ward position towards citizens, and has a tendency to create 
 prejudices against our service. 
 
 ., ,..,v-ii.*+i''^'. 
 
359 
 
 I hope the cases may be soon brought in a true form to the 
 consideration of the President, so that his Excellency may set 
 them at rest, by confirming or disapproving these reservations. 
 So far as my knowledge extends, (and I have long been here,) 
 all of these reservations, particularly the one at this point, 
 are of importance to the Government; andin no instance has 
 any considerable real damage been suffered by any citizen in 
 consequence. 
 
 I believe that the United States will find some one to claim 
 damages, no matter tvhere the reserve may be declared. The 
 justness of such a claim is another affair. Before a settlement 
 is made witli any c'aiuiant. the nature of the claim and the 
 character of the claimant should be thoroughly understood. 
 Some of these people, by petitions and arrangements with 
 petcy politicians, frequently present a most magnified cai:e of 
 damages against tlie United States. I have heard that these 
 good people here have strongly urged that no reservation 
 should be made, and no doubt that their representations, added 
 to the ex parte statements of the late Delegate, Mr. Thurston, 
 have induced liis Excellency the President to defer acting in 
 the premises until the matter could be better comprcdicnded. 
 
 All these reservations may be considered as having been 
 declared by Brevet Colonel W. W. Lorini;;, while in command 
 of this department, upon the general direction of Brevet Major 
 General P. F. S'uith, while he was in command of this division, 
 based probalily on the letter of Secretary Murcy, dated War 
 Department, Janui'.ry 29, 1848. 
 
 I have the honor to be, major, your most obeiliont servant, 
 (Signed) . llui'is lN(iAM.s, 
 
 Capf. A. V- M. 
 
 Major 0. Cnos.s, Chief Quartcrniastrr, 
 
 I\t"ijie Jbicbion, iSan Fra)it'lsfO, Califuniia. 
 
 Oilicial: 
 
 Bknj. C. Caiid, 
 
 Col. V- ^^I' Di'pt., Bvt. Brlij. General. 
 Q. M. GENiiUAL's Office, Man 19, 18GiJ. 
 
 I 
 
 r' 
 
360 
 
 I 
 
 n 
 
 Fort Vancouver, 2l8t February, 1852. 
 To Major IIatebway, V. S. A., Commanding at Fort Van- 
 coicver.' 
 
 Dear Sir: In reference to our conversation of this morn- 
 ing, I think it well to state more fully than I may possibly 
 have done verbally the reasons upon which my opinion ia 
 founded. 
 
 I conceived, and still think, from the wording of the public 
 advertisement, that the Hudson's Bay Company are thereby 
 precluded from instituting any legal proceedings against par- 
 ties infringing upon their rights within the limits of the Gov- 
 ernment reservation, that reservation assuming only to exclude 
 intruders, while reserving the rights of the Hudson's Bay 
 Company. Beyond those limits I consider that I, as the agent 
 of the Company, am bound, for our own protection, to warn 
 off parties intruding upon our claims, though, until those 
 claims bo formally acknowledged, on the completion of the 
 official survey, I may defer to prosecute at law. I think that 
 upon reconsidering the matter you will agree with me as to 
 this distinction, and acknowledge that, in referring the settle- 
 ment of all trespasses within the limits of the Government 
 reserve to the military authorities, I comply strictly with the 
 spirit iis well as the letter of the proclamation issued by 
 Colonel Loring. 
 
 I state these views after due reflection, and conceiving them 
 to coincide accurately with those expressed by m;' predecessor, 
 Mr. Ogden. In thus throwing myself unreservedly, for the 
 protection of our rights, upon the military authorities within 
 the officially proclaimed limits, I do so without engaging the 
 Hudson's Bay Company to restrict, in any shape, the just 
 exercise of those rights, pointedly respecting always the claims 
 of the United States Government, where these claims do not 
 interfere directly with our own. 
 
 You will, I feel persuaded, appreciate the motives which lead 
 me thus to state my views frankly for your consideration, so 
 that all occasion of future misapprehension between us may 
 be avoided. In doing so, permit me a'u the same time to ac- 
 

 ', 1852. 
 Wt Van- 
 
 lis morn- 
 r possibly 
 pinion is 
 
 he public 
 3 thereby 
 ainst par- 
 
 tho Gov- 
 exclude 
 on'a Bay 
 the agent 
 I, to warn 
 itil those 
 jn of the 
 hink that 
 
 me as to 
 ;he settle- 
 vernment 
 
 with the 
 ssued by 
 
 ring them 
 jdecessor, 
 y, for the 
 ies within 
 aging the 
 the just 
 ;he claims 
 ns do not 
 
 fhich lead 
 ration, so 
 n us may 
 me to ac- 
 
 861 
 
 knowledge warmly the courteous and highly obliging conduct 
 of the military authorities at Fort Vancouver, both towards 
 my predecessor and myself. 
 
 With sentiments of esteem and high consideration, permit 
 me to subscribe myself, dear sir, your most obedient servant, 
 
 (Signed) John Ballendfx, 
 
 . ' Chief Factor Ron. Iliuhon'a Bay Company, 
 
 I certify that this is a true copy. 
 
 (^'S"ed) RuFus Inoalls, 
 
 Capt A, Q. M. 
 Official: 
 
 Benj. C. Card, 
 
 Col Q. M. I)ept, Bvt. Brig. General. 
 Q. M. General's Office, 3Iay 19, i860. 
 
 C— 6. 
 
 Annual Report of the Qmrtermaster General of the operations 
 of the Quartermaster's Department for the fine at year endina 
 on the 30th June, 1850. 
 
 A. 
 
 ^ A report in the form of a journal, to the Quartermaster 
 General, of the march of the regiment of Mounted Uiflcmen to 
 Oregon, from May 10 to October ">, 1849, by Major O. Cross, 
 Quartermaster United States Army. 
 
 Extracts. 
 
 "Oh. VI.- 
 
 -3Iarch of the two divisionH from Fort ITall to Fort 
 Boise, 303 miles. 
 
 August 8.— The morning was pleasant, and the second divis- 
 ion commenced their march at 10 a. m., and ('ticaiii|)(iil on the 
 Port-Neuf, about eiglit miles from here. 1 loft at 2 p. m., 
 
M 
 
 1. 1 
 
 1: 1 
 
 f! '■'< 
 
 m V 
 
 t 
 
 362 
 
 and passed Fort Hall, a trading establishment of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company. This place is about three miles below where 
 two companies of the rifle regiment have chosen for the site of 
 their new post. It is built of clay, and much in the form of 
 Fort Laramie, having a large sally-port, which fronts the Port- 
 Neuf, with its walls extending back towards the banks of Snake 
 river. There is a block-hoase at one of the angles, and the 
 buildings inside are built against the side of the wall, and of 
 the same matorials. The main building is occupied by the 
 proprietor, while the others are intended for store-rooms and 
 places for tlie hands who are employed in the service of the 
 Company. The rooms are all small, and by no means com- 
 fortable; being generally intended for one person, they are 
 contracted and da'k, having but a small window and one door. 
 This place is occupied by Captain Grunt, who has been 
 here about t'curtoen years. Ho informed me tiiiit he had en- 
 deavored to (.'ullivatc the soil, but to no success. As thev 
 seldom lia\ o ruin during the summer, the ground becomes very 
 hard and buked, truiispiration water from the river not being 
 suflicicnt to keep it moist. The ground presented to mo a fine, 
 dark, alluvial soil, and by proper cultivation would produce 
 well. I huvo seldom mot with uny of the trailers, however, 
 either on the Upper Mississippi or this route, who have turned 
 
 th 
 
 eir attt-ntioa to airriculturc onou. 
 
 ih t( 
 
 ence or ccrtaintv on the suitiect 
 
 ft/ <f 
 
 speak with any experi- 
 
 ib 
 
 There are along the river small quuiititios of cotton-wood, 
 
 urticuhuiv in the vicinitv of where the t 
 
 wo eoHipunies are 
 
 located. With the excei)tion of this advantage, 1 do not ad- 
 ire their location i'or the post. I presume the troops, however. 
 
 m 
 
 will not he retiuireil to occupy this post very long, as it seems 
 to be out of position, not heing able to draw jaoperly the 
 necessary supplies for it IViim either Fort licaveiiworth or 
 Vaiieouver ; for while the I'uiiner is 1,41)0 miles' land transpor- 
 tati"! . the latter is upwards id" 700 miles, huvin;^' the Cascade 
 and i*iiie mountains to j)ass over, which are \v\y formidable 
 burner- ; and the whole country is a dreary und hurren waste, 
 where iL*;re is but little or no ve;:etation. 
 
 Thtjje is good grazing on the prairie or bottom land about 
 
868 
 
 idson's 
 
 Tvhere 
 
 site of 
 'orm of 
 e Port- 
 ■ Snake 
 md the 
 , and of 
 
 by the 
 jnis and 
 e of the 
 ms com- 
 they are 
 lie door. 
 as been 
 I had eu- 
 As they 
 mes very 
 lot being 
 [lie a fine, 
 
 produce 
 
 however, 
 vu turned 
 
 y oxperi- 
 
 ou-wood, 
 
 hiiiios are 
 
 |o not ad- 
 
 liowever, 
 
 it seems 
 [porly the 
 i worth or 
 
 tiiinspor- 
 :• (Cascade 
 
 ruiidable 
 
 eu waste, 
 
 Luid about 
 
 here, and aroand in the vicinity of where the post is to be 
 established, which is four miles above, and the same point 
 where our command struck the river. Here the troops are 
 able to procure as much hay as may be required by them ; but 
 in this country it is expected that the horses will be hardy 
 enough to endure the winters by running at large and grazing 
 on the bottom lands. 
 
 The two drawings of the outer and inner side of Fort Hall, 
 
 or the trading-post of the Hudson's Bay Company, will give 
 
 • you a correct idea of their rude construction, and I find but 
 
 little difference in any of them on the route to the Columbia 
 
 river.— P. 73. 
 
 ******* 
 
 We arrived at Fort Boise about 5 p. m., and encamped 
 on a small creek called the Owyhee, about three-quarters of a 
 mile from the trading-post of Fort Boise, which is on the 
 opposite side of Snake river, and immediately on its banks. 
 This is another trading-post established by the Hudson's Bay 
 Company, for the same purpose as that of Fort Hall. The 
 walls and block-houses are placed at the corners, so as to pro- 
 tect the several sides; the sally-port or main entrance opens 
 on Snake river, and inside of the walls the buildings, are 
 arranged around the four sides, one story high, and similar 
 in formation in every respect. The material of which they are 
 formed is of clay, and in dry climates [it] makes a very excel- 
 lent building, and is found to be very durable. Some of these 
 buildings are used as store-housea, together with the block- 
 houses, to keep their peltry. They are contracted, and by no 
 means intended for any one to occupy who is used to the com- 
 forts of life. The engages, however, never having been accus- 
 tomed to better, are perfectly reconciled, and, so long as they 
 get their daily food, are perfectly happy to breathe out their 
 lives in this manner among the Indians, who to them are some- 
 what like what the peons are to the Mexicans. — P. 89. 
 ******* 
 
 Ch. IX. — Our Journey to Fort Vancouver by water. 
 ******* 
 I made inquiries relative to the cultivation of the soil at 
 25 B 
 
 
864 
 
 Forts Hall and Bois^, and learned that it would be attended 
 with much difficulty, great uncertainty, and no profit. — P. 118. 
 
 ;h 
 
 C— 7. 
 
 Extract from *^ Report of Decisions of the Commission of Claims, 
 under the Convention of February 8, 1853, between the United 
 States and Great Britain, transmitted to the Senate by the 
 President of the United States, August 11, 1856."— P. 164. 
 
 HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY. 
 
 Prior to the extension of a territorial government over 
 Oregon Territory, the settlers had voluntarily formed them- 
 selves into a temporary government. While in this situation 
 war occurred with the Indians, and various settlers were killed 
 or taken into captivity by them. Application of the then ex- 
 isting government was made to the Hudson's Bay Company 
 for assistance, which was readered, and resulted in the relief 
 and restoration of the Americans who had been captured. Held 
 that a claim for compensation against the United States under 
 such circumstances should be allowed. 
 
 Held also that a similar claim for expenditures incurred in 
 procuring, by request of United States officers on the coast, 
 the release of American ship-wrecked mariners from captivity 
 by the Indians should be allowed. 
 
 In the autumn of 1847, a number of American emigrants 
 and settlers in Oregon were attacked and captured by the 
 Cavuse Indians. In this attack Dr. Whitman, an American 
 missionary, and his wife anu eleven others, were murdered, 
 and sixty-four persons captured. These captives were ran- 
 somed through the agency of the Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 The country was not at tliattime under a government regu- 
 larly established by the United States, but the settlers had 
 formed themselves into an organization and government of 
 their own, and they immediately passed resolves authorizing 
 teh enlistment of five hundred men, and the borrowing of 
 
365 . 
 
 ten thousand dollars to repel the attacks of the Indians, and 
 appointed commissioners to negotiate a loan. 
 
 They applied for this purpose to the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany. Their agents did not feel authorized to make a loan, 
 but rendered to the volunteers, who were raised, assistance in 
 provisions and stores to the amount of $1,800, as is alleged by 
 them and is acknowledged by the officers of the said govern- 
 ment. Of this amount it appears that $599 have been paid by 
 the Oregon government, leaving a balance due of $1,201. 
 
 The Company also claim a further sum of $1,838.91 of the 
 United States Government, for goods supplied from Vancouver 
 Island, in December, 1851, on the application of American 
 officers on that coast, for the purpose of procuring the release 
 of certain American mariners, who were shipwrecked near 
 Queen Charlotte's Sound, [Islands,] and retained in captivity 
 
 by the Indians. 
 
 Hannen, 
 Agent and Counsel for Great Britain. 
 ' Thomas, 
 
 Agent and Counsel for the United States. 
 
 isvants 
 )y the 
 icrican 
 nlered, 
 re ran- 
 iiny. 
 it regu- 
 ers had 
 mcnt of 
 lorizing 
 wing of 
 
 Hornby, British Commissioner, delivered the opinion of the 
 Commission: 
 
 In this case we are fortunately relieved from any conflict 
 between the parties, as I understand it to be conceded that the 
 case is submitted to our consideration for such allowance as 
 we think is justly sustained. 
 
 It will not be denied that the settlers of the Oregon Terri- 
 tory were entitled to the protection and aid of the United 
 States Government. She had not, up to the period of the 
 calamity referred to, extended a formal territorial government 
 over the country; but her citizens, in considerable numbers, 
 had gone on, in advance of provision made for them in that 
 respect, and were occupying the country for the ultimate 
 benefit of the United States, and with the early expectation of 
 the formal extension of the powers of the Government over 
 them. 
 
 While in this situation, they had established, temporarily, a 
 
 r 
 
866 
 
 goTernment of their own, and were attacked by the Indians 
 under circumstances of much barbarity, and which were cal- 
 culated to put in jeopardy the safety of the whole colony. 
 
 The circumstances required immediate effort and asHistance, 
 and this assistance, as far as it was in their power, was 
 promptly rendered by the agents of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany. 
 
 The form of the claim, as it originally existed, was not 
 directly against the United States, but no objection is inter- 
 posed from that cause. The assistance is precisely of the 
 character the Government would have rendered, could appli- 
 cation have been made to it ; and on every consideration we 
 are quite sure we shall have its approbation in the allowance 
 of the claim, which appears to bo preferred hero for the first 
 time. 
 
 The other item of claim depends on circumstances some- 
 what similar. . - ' 
 
 Assistance rendered to shipwrecked mariners is in conform- 
 ity to the established policy of both Governments, through 
 their consuls and other officers abroad, and in this case the 
 captivity of these men by savages was superadded. 
 
 The assistance rendered through the agents of this Com- 
 ,pany, made by request of Americans on the coast, secured the 
 release of these unfortunate men ; and I am happy in having 
 the concurrence of my colleague i'l granting full remuneration 
 for the expenditures incurred in effecting so laudable an ob- 
 ject. The claims for these services ai'e therefore allowed. 
 
 
 C— 8. 
 
 Extract from Report of Captain M. E. Van Buren, Mounted 
 Riflemen, of date May 30, 1850. 
 
 ^^ ■ lit if *■ 4c if if 
 
 Cape Disappointment lies at the opposite side of the river, 
 and much farther west into the ocean. It is a high, bold bluff, 
 
367 
 
 ndians 
 re cal- 
 
 ny. 
 
 itance. 
 If, was 
 y Com- 
 mas not 
 s inter- 
 of the 
 1 appli- 
 ition we 
 lowance 
 the first 
 
 cs some- 
 
 conform- 
 
 , through 
 
 case the 
 
 his Com- 
 cured the 
 in having 
 uneration 
 le an ob- 
 llowed. 
 
 Mounted 
 
 the river, 
 IboldblufiF, 
 
 presenting to the south an almost perpendicular face of rocks, 
 of about two hundred and fifty feet in height. From the crest, 
 at its southern extremity, the ground slopes abruptly, at places, 
 at an angle of thirty degrees, to the north and east, to a small 
 marsh and a sandy ridge. A rocky wall bounds the cape on 
 all sides, interrupted on the east by the sandy ridge above 
 spoken of, which has an elevation of thirty feet above high water, 
 and by the small marsh and sandy beach on the southwest. The 
 marsh is drained by a small brook, which empties into the 
 ocean at the base of McKenzie's Head. This last is a rock-bound 
 hill, detached from the rocky wall of the cape by the marsh 
 and sandy beach. It has an elevation equal to that of the 
 point of the oape, is bare of trees, but is covered with a rich 
 soil, which is cultivated, affording good crops of potatoes, &c. 
 
 The whole surface of the cape, with the exceptions above 
 mentioned, and a narrow ridge along the crest at its most 
 southern extremity, is thickly covered with fir timber of a 
 large growth. This cape completely commands the north 
 channel, vessels being obliged to come almost within musket- 
 shot of the point marked ^'B " on the map; and, coming in or 
 going out by this channel, they would be in range of guns for 
 two or three miles. The point "B" is a small irregular 
 rocky projection, jutting out from the face of the cliff, much 
 lower than it, and affording a good site for a water battery. 
 
 On the height above, "B," would be the position for the 
 main work ; but to prepare a sufficient area it would require 
 cutting down in front and filling up in the rear, as the ridge 
 along the face is very narrow, as before remarked. 
 
 At "B" there are ttvelve fathoms water, which shoals a little 
 towards "C," where there are nine. The an(;horage is off the 
 latter point in this curve of the bay, and has from four to six 
 fathoms water. I rank Cape Disappointment as second in im- 
 portance for a military work. 
 
 The accompanying map of Cape Disappointment is from 
 a survey by Mr. A. L. LeweS, made for P. S. Ogden, Esq., 
 Chief Factor Hudson's Bay Company, and includes the claim 
 of the latter gentleman, who has a large and well-built house 
 
^ 
 
 .^^^i;^, 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 
 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 1.1 
 
 
 u 
 
 140 
 
 12.0 
 
 M 
 
 • 
 
 ll'-25ll'-ilJ4 
 
 
 < 
 
 6" 
 
 ^ 
 
 I^tographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WIST M«IM STREIT 
 
 WIUTM.N.Y. KSJO 
 
 (7I6)I73-4S03 
 
 

 1^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 V> 
 
 
868 
 
 upon it. I believe it includes all that it would be necessary 
 
 to reserve." 
 
 ******* 
 
 Adjutant General's Office, Washington. 
 Official extract: 
 
 E. D. TOWNSBND, 
 
 Aasittant Adjutant General. 
 
 C— 9. 
 
 Headquarters Eleventh Militart Department, 
 Fort Vancouver, 0. T., October 11, 1850. 
 Notice is hereby given to all whom it may concern, that » 
 military reservation for and in behalf of the Government of 
 the United States is hereby declared: as follows: Commenc- 
 ing at the point where a meridian line, two miles west from 
 the United States flag-staff, at the military post near Fort 
 Vancouver, 0. T., strikes the north bank of Columbia river ; 
 thence due north, on said meridian, four miles ; thence due 
 dast four miles ; thence due south to the bank of the Colum- 
 bia river; thence down said bank to the place of beginning. 
 Said reservation being subject only to the lawful claims of 
 the Hudson's Bay Company, as guaranteed under the treaty 
 between the United States and Great Britain, dated July sev- 
 enteenth, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. All im- 
 provements made within the above-described limits, by resident 
 •ettlers, prior to the date of this notice, will be appraised by a 
 board of officers, and payment recommended foi' the same. 
 (Signed) W. W. Lorino, 
 
 Lt. Col. M. M. R. and Brevet Col. U. 8. Army, 
 
 Commanding llth Military Department. 
 Official copy: 
 R. M. Morris, 
 ^ Acting Amttant Adjutant General. 
 Official : 
 
 E. D. Townsend, 
 
 Atmtant Ac^utant General. 
 
869 
 
 essary 
 
 c 
 
 fton. 
 
 D, 
 eral. 
 
 ST, 
 
 1850. 
 I, that » 
 ment of 
 immenc- 
 ist from 
 >ar Fort 
 a river; 
 snce due 
 J Colum- 
 iginning. 
 slaitns of 
 le treaty 
 uly sev- 
 AU im- 
 resident 
 ised by » 
 same. 
 
 0, 
 
 rmy, 
 
 riment. 
 
 Headquarters 11th Military Department, 
 Columbia Barracks, 0. T., November 20, 1850. 
 
 General: I have the honor to transmit herewith a map of 
 the military reservation as surveyed and established at this 
 point, subject to the claims of the Honorable Hudson's Bay 
 Company, as guaranteed under treaty. 
 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 W. W. LORINO, 
 
 Lt. Col. R. M. B. Brevet. Col U. S. Armi/, 
 Commanding 11th Military Department. 
 Bvt. Maj. General R. Jones, 
 
 Adjt. Genl U. S. Army^ Washington City. 
 
 Official: 
 
 E. D. TOWNSEND, 
 
 Assistant Adjutant Creneral 
 
 SEND, 
 
 hneral. 
 
 War Department, 
 Washington, Augiist 8, 1851 
 Brevet Brigadier General E. A. Hitchcock, 
 
 Commanding Pacific Division, Sonoma, California, 
 
 Sir : Petitions have been received at this Department from 
 citizens of Vancouver, Oregon, stating that the military au- 
 thorities at the fort have laid off a military reserve adjacent 
 thereto, four miles square, and including the county seat, with 
 sundry improvements belonging to an individual. 
 
 It is not known at this Department how far these repr«- 
 sentations are correct. The only information on file respect- 
 ing the reserve appears to be a map, copied by Lieutenant B. 
 S. Williamson from the original, drawn by Lieutenant James 
 Stuart, from which, having no scale attached, its extent can- 
 not be ascertained. It appears, however, to include the "Hud- 
 son's Bay Picket," and "Hudson's Bay Village," besides some 
 cleared and cultivated lands. 
 
 It is obvious, apart from any reasons stated by the peti- 
 tioners, that a reserve of the extent above mentioned is not 
 
 ■»■*!*•,- .«v..'»*»^ 
 
 .,z:t:r; 
 
/ •• . 
 
 870 
 
 needed for military uses, and it is believed that a quarter of a 
 section (one hundred and sixty acres), would be amply suffi- 
 cient for the uses of the post. 
 
 Ton are therefore directed to cause to be laid off a reserve 
 containing about a quarter section of land, and excluding, as 
 far as possible, all improvements belonging to private citizens 
 and others. Should it.be found necessary to include any such 
 improvements within the reserve, a special report will be made, 
 to enable the Department to judge of such necessity, and the 
 probable cost of the improvements will also be stated. 
 
 The boundaries of the reserve should be clearly and ac- 
 curately stated on the plat of survey, so that the same may 
 be laid down on the plats of the General Land OfSce. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Will. A. Graham, 
 Acting Secretary of War. 
 
 Official : 
 
 E. D. TOWNSBND, 
 
 Aitiitaia Ac^'utant General. 
 
 Headquarters Pacific Division, 
 
 Benicia, September 29, 1851. 
 Hon. C. M. Conrad, Secretary of War: 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
 communication of the 8th ult., in regard to certain "peti- 
 tions" from citizens of Vancouver, Oregon, touching the ex- 
 tent, &c., of a military reserve at that place, and beg to make 
 the following remarks : 
 
 By the treaty with England establishing the northern 
 boundary of Oregon, the " possessory rights of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company were to be respected." That Company had, 
 and yet has, an establishment at Vancouver, where they have 
 a picket-work with block-houses near the river, with grounds 
 enclosed by fences on all sides of the picket-work, of greater 
 or less extent, which grounds have been cultivated by the 
 Hudson's Bay Company, and within those grounds are con- 
 
s 
 
 as 
 
 871 
 
 tained also a number of buildings, store-houses, &c. Imme- 
 diately west of these enclosed grounds, along the river, and 
 extending back from the river, there is quite a village of ordi- 
 nary frontier huts, disposed in streets, and occupied by em- 
 ployes of the Company, for whose accommodation, as I sup- 
 pose, they were originally erected ; and of course this village, 
 I presume, must bo considered as falling within the ''posses- 
 sory" rights of the Oompany. Besides all this, the Company 
 has milh several miles above Vancouver, on the bank of the 
 Columbia; in addition to which the Company claims an unde- 
 fined extent of cattle range, which has been in the use of the 
 Company since its establishment in the country. 
 
 Such seems to have been the ponUion of the Company at Van- 
 couver when the United States troops reached there; and then, 
 by an amicable arrangoment between the agent of the Company 
 and the United States commander, the troops were encamped, 
 and subsequently erected quarters, upon grounds cleared by 
 the Company, immediately in rear of the picket-work and en- 
 closed grounds of the Company; a portion of said enclosed 
 grounds being relinquished by the Company for the conve- 
 nience of the troops, to be paid for on certain terms agreed 
 upon. 
 
 A military reservation was declared of four miles, including, 
 but subject to, the claims of the Company. 
 . In this state of things, a question was raised by settlers in 
 the country as to the extent of the ''possessory" rights of the 
 Company; some giving the opinion that those rights did not 
 extend beyond the actual enclosures. In this view, a settler 
 established himself and has built a house on the river bank 
 about a mile, or perhaps a mile and a quarter, below the 
 picket-work of the Company, against the remonstrances and 
 repeated efforts of the agent of the Company to prevent it. 
 
 This act is regarded by the Company as an infringement of 
 its rights under the treaty; and I take pains to state the point 
 as clearly as I am able, as the question arising under it may 
 have some international importance, and is comparatively in- 
 significant so far as the military reservation is concerned. 
 
 The county authorities^ taking the same limited view of the 
 
872 
 
 • i 
 
 rights of the Companj, have laid off a town, and have disposed 
 of lots, taking in the actual bnildings occupied by the employes 
 of the Company, and are only restrained from actual occupancy 
 by the site falling within the declared military reservation ; and 
 if now the reservation should be restricted to narrow limits it 
 could not fail to bring about a most unpleasant state of things 
 between the Hudson's Bay Company and the settlers in the 
 country, including the county authorities. 
 
 I hope the importance of the subject, as in some way con- 
 nected with a solemn treaty and affecting very large interests, 
 will excuse the length of this communication and the liberty 
 I take of suggesting that, having just returned to this place 
 from a visit to Vancouver, I am of opinion that, if the right 
 of the English to the navigation of the Columbin can be extin- 
 guished at the same time a purchase by the United States of 
 the Hudson's Bay Company's rights in Oregon, is very desi- 
 rable, and would amicably put an end to or turn aside a threat- 
 ening cause of very troublesome irritation. 
 
 In the meantime I earnestly recommend that no orders be 
 given touching the military reservation until the question of 
 purchase or non-purchase be decided ; the subject of which is, 
 I understand, now under consideration at Washington. Should 
 the purchase be made, it will be an advantage to the country 
 to relinquish the grounds to the people, reserving only a small 
 garrison site. 
 
 I do not myself know what tribunal can make a decision 
 that would be satisfactory to the parties on a question between 
 the Company and the settlers, as to the "possessory" rights 
 of the former. If the Company is to be restricted to actual 
 enclosures, what becomes of the village now filled with the 
 people of the Company, and what becomes of the cattle and 
 sheep of the Company now running at large ? A purchase by 
 the United States seems the most direct and least objection- 
 able mode of removing all difficulties, the relative value to the 
 United States being far beyond the intrinsic value of the im- 
 provements and the property of the Company ; provided, as I 
 have said, the right of navigation to the Columbia by the 
 English can be extinguished. Under all the circumstances, I 
 
 /:/ 
 
873 
 
 have decided to delay executing the instructions contained in 
 the communication of the 8th of August, respectfully request- 
 ing your approval of this step, with further instructions. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient ser- 
 vant, E. A. Hitchcock, 
 
 Colonel 2d Infantry, Brevet Brigadier Gfeneral. 
 Official: E. D. Townsbnd, 
 
 Assistant Adjutant General. 
 
 Headquarters Col. Barracks, 0. T., 
 
 February 23, 1853. 
 Major : * * * i would also urge that some 
 decision may be made respecting the confirmation of the mili- 
 tary reserve at this post. As it now stands, it appears to be 
 a constant cause for irritation with the citizens and the legis- 
 lature, as you may have seen by the slip I forwarded to you 
 by last mail. 
 
 The Hudson's Bay Company have given their consent to its 
 confirmation, and it can be done without compromising the 
 Government in the matter, by reserving their possessory rights^ 
 as Colonel Loring did in his proclamation of it. This would 
 completely exclude all other claimants, and give the courts of 
 justice some basis to throw around us the protection of the 
 law. This would settle the whole subject until after the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company shall have been purchased out, when the 
 reservation can be reduced to any limits, or removed altogether. 
 For full details, I refer you to my last letter, with the papers 
 accompanying it. 
 I am, major, very respectfully, your most obedient servant, 
 (Signed) B. L. E. Bonneville, 
 
 Lieutenant Colonel, ^th Infantry. 
 Maj. E. D. TowNSEND, Asst. Adjt. General, 
 
 Headquarters Pae. Div., San Francisco, Cal. 
 
 A true copy : 
 
 E. D. Townsbnd, Asst. Adjt. General, 
 
 Headquarters Pac. Biv:, San Francisco, March 28, 1853. 
 
 Official: E. D. Townsend, 
 
 AssistarU Acfjutant General. 
 
 \\ 
 

 874 
 
 
 Headquarters Pacific Division, 
 
 San Francisco, March 80, 1868. 
 
 Sir : I enclose herewith an extract from Lieutenant Colonel 
 Bonneville's letter of February 28, recommending that the 
 military reserve at Columbia Barracks be declared. I respect- 
 fully submit, that a compliance with the recommendation in the 
 manner suggested would at once put a stop to all difiSculties, 
 such as are referred to in my letter on this subject of Novem- 
 ber 10, 1862. 
 
 Having alluded to that letter, I will remark that the treaty 
 referred to therein as having been violated by Mr. Short's set- 
 tlement on the reserve is the one of 1846, and not the "Ash- 
 burton treaty," as inadvertently stated. 
 
 As an additional reason for making the reservation, I will 
 observe that by some recent proceedings of the legislative body 
 in Oregon, an attempt has been made, or is contemplated, to 
 take possession of a portion of the reservation for a county 
 site, in disregard of both the rights of the army and the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company, u&der the treaty. Care should be takeii 
 to make the reservation subject to the rights of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company. 
 
 A copy of the map of the reserve was forwarded from these 
 headquarters December 80, 1860, and its receipt was acknow- 
 ledged February 24, 1861 ; but as it does not appear that a 
 description of the limits was sent at the same time, I enclose 
 a copy herewith. 
 
 I ara, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 E. A. HiTOQCOCK, 
 
 Col. 2d Inf., Bvt. Brig. General, Oommanding. 
 Col. S. Cooper, 
 
 Adft Gen., U. S. Army, City of Washington, D. C. 
 
 Official: 
 
 E. D. TOWNSBND, 
 
 Asaittant Adjutan/t General. 
 
 
o 
 
 ft 
 Pi 
 o 
 o 
 
 1^ 
 
 ►—I 
 
 Hi 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 h) 
 
 O 
 
 M 
 « 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 H 
 O 
 
 w 
 
 CO 
 
 ! 
 
 % 4s|i 
 
 'nil 
 
 •111" 
 
 8 2 -'5 
 
 o r S ^ i 
 
 :£>; 
 
 
 • \ 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 » o £ 2 2 a- 
 
 in' 
 
 i- 
 
 gloria 
 
 
 ? 3 »i 
 
 2 .r?' 
 
 la 
 
 , .1'^ 
 
 a^5 
 
 s 
 
 !i.a 
 
 
 
 lia: 
 
 ral. 
 
 Q 
 ft 
 
 a? 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ft 
 
 1-^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 
 
 jj-.^^ 
 
 £. >> 
 
 -'3 §- - 
 
 S-«i=-^« 
 
 ' 
 
 J 
 

 I 
 
 876 
 
 Forbes Barclay has this daj recorded a land eUlm in Vm* 
 oouver District as follows, to wit: Oommencing at a tree on 
 the north bank of the Columbia river, being the soutbeaft of 
 James Douglas's claim, following the said river upwards abont 
 one mile; thence about north one mile to a marked troo; 
 thence about west to the northeast corner of James Douglai'f 
 claim, and from thence to the place of beginning, so at to in* 
 elude about 640 acres of land. And the claimant statei (bat 
 he holds the said claim without occupancy. 
 
 Dated at Oregon City, this 10th day of October, 1845. 
 Attest: 
 
 J. E. LoNa, Recorder, 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of Mr. Douglai in 
 favor of the Hudson's Bay Company, April 4, 1840. 
 Attest : 
 
 Thbo. Maorudbb, Recorder. 
 
 I 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : ' 
 
 June the 15th. This day the original claimant, Fofbof 
 Barclay, personally appeared and directed the Rocoi'der to 
 enter a protest against the above transfer, as Mr. Douglaii 
 was not authorized to make the transfer. 
 June 15, 1849. 
 Attest : 
 
 Theo. Maqeudbb, Recorder. 
 
 Richard Lane has this day recorded a land claim in Vanoott* 
 ver District as follows, to wit : Commencing at a tree on the 
 north bank of the Columbia river, being the southwest aorner 
 of Francis Ermatingor's claim, following the same river down- 
 wards one mile to another marked tree ; thence about north 
 one mile to a stake ; thence about east one mile to the north- 
 west corner of Francis Ermatinger's claim, and from thence to 
 the place of commencement, so as to include about 640 acrei 
 
 IM 
 
 "H^S 
 
87: 
 
 of land. And the claimant states that he holds the said claim 
 without occupancy. 
 
 Dated at Oregon Oity, this 10th day of October, 1845. 
 Attest : 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. 
 
 Endotb d acroM the face in red ink -. 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of Mr. James Douglas 
 in favor of the Hudson's Bay Company, April 4, 1849. 
 Attest: 
 
 Theo. Magruder, Recorder. 
 
 \ ' 
 
 Thomas Lowe has this day recorded a land claim in Van* 
 couver District as follows, to wit : Commencing at a marked 
 tree about one mile north of the north bank of the Columbia 
 river, being the northeast corner of James Douglas's claim ; 
 thence about east one mile to the northeast corner of the 
 claim of Forbes Barclay ; thence north one mile to a marked 
 (?) ; thence about west one mile to another tree, being the 
 northeast corner of James Graham's claim, and from thence 
 to the place of beginning, so as to include about 640 acres of 
 land. And the claimant states that he holds the said land 
 without occupancy. 
 
 Dated at Oregon City, this 10th day of October, 1845. 
 Attest : 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of Mr. James Douglas 
 in favor of the Hudson's Bay Company, April 4, 1849. 
 Attest : 
 
 Theo. Magruder, Recorder. 
 
 John McPhail has this day recorded a land claim in Van- 
 couver District as follows, to wit: Commencing at a tree on 
 
i 
 
 .f> 
 
 878 
 
 tbe north bank of the Oolambia river, being the southeast 
 Corner of Forbes Barclay's claim, following the said river 
 upwards about one mile to a marked tree; thence about north 
 one mile to another marked tree; thence about west one mile to 
 the northeast corner of Forbes Barclay's claim, and from thenoe 
 to the place of beginning, so as to include about 640 acres of 
 land. And the claimant states that he holds the said claim 
 without occupancy. 
 
 Dated at Oregon City, this 10th day of October,- 1846. 
 Attest : 
 
 J. E. LONO, Recorder. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned at the personal [request of Mr. James Douglas 
 in favor of the Hudson's Bay Company. 
 Attest : 
 
 Theo. Maoruder, Recorder. 
 
 Edward Spencer has this day recorded a land claim in Van- 
 couver District as follows, to wit : Commencing at a tree on 
 tbe north bank of the Columbia river, being the southwest 
 ^corner of the claim of Richard Lane, following the said river 
 downwards one mile to a marked tree ; thence about north one 
 mile to another marked tree ; thence about east one mile to 
 the northwest corner of Richard Lane's- claim, and thence to 
 the place of commencement, o as to include about 640 acres 
 of land. And the said claimant states that he holds the said 
 land without occupancy. 
 
 Dated at Oregon City, this 10th day of October, 1845. 
 Attest : 
 
 J. E. ho^Qi, Recorder. 
 
 Endorsed acrossTtlie face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned at the personal request of Mr. James Douglas 
 in favor of the Hudson's Bay Company, April 4, 1849. 
 Attest : 
 
 Theo. Maqruder, Recorder. 
 
 i^.. 
 
879 
 
 James Graham has tbis day recorded a land claim in Yan- 
 oouver District as follows, to wit : Oommencing at a marked 
 tree one mile north of the Columbia river, being the northwest 
 corner of James Douglas's claim; thence about east one mile 
 to a tree at the southwest corner of Thomas Lowe's claim ; 
 thence about north one mile to the northwest corner of Thomas 
 Lowe's claim : thence about west one mile to a marked tree, 
 and thence to the place of commencement, so as to include 
 about 640 acres of land. And the claimant states that he holds 
 the said claim without occupancy. 
 
 Dated at Oregon City, this 10th day of October, 1845. 
 Attest : 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder . 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of Mr. James Douglas 
 in favor of the Hudson's Bay Company, April 4, 184b). 
 Attest : 
 
 Theo. Magruf- :., Recorder. 
 
 JJudnr"^ } toroBs the face in red ink : 
 
 June 20, 1849. This day the original claimant, James 
 Graham, has entered a written protest against the above 
 transfer, stating that Mr. Douglas was not authorized to make 
 said transfer. 
 Attest : 
 
 Theo. Magruder, Recorder. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the written request of the claimant, Septem- 
 ber 1, 1849. . 
 Attest : 
 
 Theo. Magruder, Recorder. 
 
 )ougla8 
 
 nder. 
 
 William Bruce has this day recorded a land claim in Van- 
 couver District as follows, to wit : Commencing at a tree about 
 one mile north of the Columbia river, being the northwest 
 26 B 
 
/ 
 
 corner of Francis Ermatinger's claim ; thence about east one 
 mile to the northwest corner of James Douglas's claim ; thence 
 about ore mile north to the northwest corner of James Gra- 
 ham's claim ; thence about west one mile to a marked tree ; 
 and thence to the place of beginning, so as to include 640 
 acres of land. And the claimant states that he holds the said 
 claim without occupancy. 
 Dated at Oregon City, this 10th day of October, 1845. 
 Attest : 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of Mr. James Douglas 
 in favor of the Hudson's Bay Company, April 4, 1849. 
 Attest : 
 
 •, Theo. Maqruder, ^ecorc^er. 
 
 James Douglas, of Vancouver, has this day recorded a land 
 claim in Vancouver District as follows, to wit : Commencing 
 at a tree on the bank of the Columbia river, about half a mile 
 above Fort Vancouver, following the windings of said river to 
 jt tree about half a mile below the said Fort Vancouver; from 
 thence to a tree about one mib nearly north ; thence about 
 east to another tree one mile distant; and thence to the place 
 of commencement, so as to embrace 640 acres of land. And 
 the claimant states that he holds the said claim by personal 
 occupancy. 
 
 Dated at Oregon City, this 22d day of September, 1845. 
 Attest: 
 
 J. E. LoxG, Recorder. 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink : 
 
 Abandoned by the personal request of the claimant in favor 
 of the Hudson's Bay Company, April 4, 1849. . 
 
 .. , Attest : , 
 
 Theo. Maqruder, Recorder. 
 
381 
 
 EtBt one 
 thence 
 ss Gra- 
 d tree ; 
 ide 640 
 :he said 
 
 45. 
 
 order. 
 
 Douglas 
 order. 
 
 3d a land 
 imencing 
 ilf a mile 
 1 river to 
 er; from 
 ce about 
 
 le place 
 And 
 
 personal 
 
 1845. 
 
 corder. 
 
 t in favor 
 '.corder. 
 
 Francis Ermatinger has this day recorded a land claim in 
 Vancouver District as follows, to wit : Commencing at a tree 
 on the north J)ank of the Columbia river, being the southwest 
 corner of James Douglas's claim, following the said river 
 downwards to another tree marked ; thence about north one 
 mile to another tree marked ; thence to the northwest corner 
 of James Douglas's claim, and from thence to the place of 
 beginning, so as to include about 640 acres of land. And the 
 claimant states that he hol.ds the said claim without occupancy. 
 
 Dated Oregon City, 10th October, 1845. 
 Attest : 
 
 J. E. Long, Recorder. 
 
 ■» "' ' ' 
 
 Endorsed across the face in red ink: 
 
 Abandoned by A. McKinley, as agent for the claimant, 
 together with all improvements on the claim, in favor of Wil- 
 liam Sinclair, March 6, 1848. 
 
 Attest : 
 . Theo. Maorvder, liecorder. 
 
 State of Orehon, Department of State. 
 To all to whom these presents shall come, yreetlng : 
 
 I, Samuel E. May, Secretary of Stuto of the State of Oregon, 
 hereby certify the foregoing to he a correct copy and trans- 
 cript of the entire original rcconl-ontrics of the notice of 
 claims iif James Douglas, Wni. Bruce, J. Graham, T. Lowe, 
 Ed. Spencer, 11. Lane, F. Erniatinger, Forbes Barclay, and 
 •John Mt'Phail, and the abaiHlomnent of the same, as the same 
 is recorded in pages 26, 27, 28, 20, and 30, in Book No. 1 of 
 the Land Claim Reconl, kept under the riovisional Govern- 
 ment of Oregon, which said book and original record are now 
 in my possession as lawful custodian tlicroof. I furtlier cer- 
 tify that, after diligent search for the same, I am unable to 
 find in s\id record any further notice of any other claim in 
 which tl.'^ Hudson's Bay Company have, or had, or claimed to 
 have an2^ interest under the laws of Provisional Government. 
 
m 
 
 382 
 
 I further certify that the annexed diagram is an approxi- 
 mately correct representation of the relative position of the 
 several claims above described, and the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany's post at Vancouver, on the Columbia river. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I have hereunto signed my name 
 [seal.] and affixed the seal of the State of Oregon, this 19th 
 day of December, A. D. 1866. 
 
 Samuel E. May, 
 ■ ' Secretary of State. 
 
 C— 11. 
 
 Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company^ growing out of Indian 
 hostilities. {See deposition of R. J. Atkinson, Evidenc-i of 
 The United States adsm. The Hudson s Bay Company, Pt, 
 2, p. 183. 
 
 Treasury Department, 
 Third Auditor's Office, August 14, 1866. 
 
 Sir : As verbally requested by you, I enclose herewith a 
 schedule relative to the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company 
 growing out of Indian hostilities in the Territories of Oregon 
 anH Washington, in the years 1855 and 1856, which were filed 
 in this office on the 11th March, 1861. 
 
 These claims amount to the sum of $107,325 76, upon ad- 
 justment of which awardb amounting to the sum of $73,911 89 
 were made by the Third Auditor on the 2l8t September, 1861. 
 
 Of this sum the amount awarded to the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany was $71,240 38, upon claims amounting to the sum of 
 $102,426 72, which awarded sum was ordered to be paid to 
 Messrs. Maitland, Piielps & Co., attorneys, New York. 
 
 The sum of $603 12 was awarded to Dugald Mactavish, 
 upon his claims, amounting to $771 62, and ordered to bo paid 
 to !-ai(l attorneys for the Hudson's Bay Company, assignees 
 of claimant. 
 
 Tlie sum of $1,881 10 was awarded to W. F. Tolmie upon 
 his claims, amounting to $3,393 47, and ordered to be paid to 
 
383 
 
 
 |ie upon 
 paid to 
 
 claimant, in care of said Maitland, Phelps, & Co. The sum of 
 $90 62 was awarded to the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 
 pany upon the claims of said Company, amounting to 0553 95, 
 and ordered to be paid to Wm. F. Tolmie, agent, in care of Mait- 
 land, Phelps & Co. And the sum of $96 67 was awarded upon 
 the claim of James Sinclair for $180, and ordered to be paid 
 to claimant, in care of Maitland, Phelps & Co. 
 
 The Commissioners to ascertain and report upon the ex- 
 penses incurred in said war were appointed by John B. Floyd, 
 Secretary of War, under the act of 18th August, 1856, and 
 reported to him. On the 15th January, 1858, the House of 
 Representatives called for the report, which was transmitted 
 by Floyd on the 23d of the same month. (See House Doc. 
 No. 45, Ist session, 35th Congress.) From this report, dated 
 October 10, 1857, it appears that the Commissioners met at 
 Portland, Oregon, on the 20th October, 1856, and entered 
 upon the duties assigned them. This office has no further 
 knowledge relative to the presentation of the claims to the 
 Commissioners. 
 
 The House acted by ordering the Committee on Military 
 Affairs to examine the claims during the recess. This duty 
 was confided, by the chairman of the committee, to R. J. At- 
 kinson, Esq., Third Auditor, at whose office a large box con- 
 taining the papers had been previously left. 
 
 On the 10th January, 1859, Mr. Atkinson addressed the 
 result of his examination, with some suggestions, to the chair- 
 man of the committee, who reported the same to the House. 
 (House Doc. No. 51, 35th Congress, 2d session.) On the 8th 
 February, 1859, the House ordered the Third Auditor to 
 examine the claims and report the amount due, under certain 
 rules prescribed by the House. On the 7th February, 1860, 
 the Auditor made a report, (Ex. Doc. No. 11, 36th Congress, 
 1st session,) and on the 2d March, 1861, an act was passed 
 ordering that officer to audit the claims on the basis of his 
 report. 
 
 I am not able to say when the box containing the papers 
 was left at this office. It was thought at the time that the 
 papers should have gone to the Secretary of War with the 
 
884 
 
 Report of the Commissioners; but, being here, the House, 
 by its resolution of February 8, 1859, treated them as ''on 
 file" In this office. The Report of the Commissioners was 
 received through the published proceedings of Congress, as 
 before stated. 
 
 Relative to your inquiry as to whether these claims of the 
 Hudson's Bay Company for supplies, &c., furnished during 
 said war, had been examined and allowed by the Commis- 
 sioners before the presentation of the same at this' office, I 
 have to state that the Commissioners examined and reported 
 on the Territorial showing of expenses incurred. These 
 claims, being a part of said expenditure, were examined and 
 acted on by the Commissioners and reported to the Secretary 
 of War. No claims were acted on by the Third Auditor, 
 except such {is were reported by the Commissioners, although 
 the rates reported as just by the Commissioners- were disre- 
 garded by Cong^ress in the law authorizing settlement, they 
 having -been considerably reduced in the recommendations of 
 t*'** Audit*. 
 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 A. M. Gangewbr, 
 Acting Auditor, 
 Hon. C. CuSHiNG, 
 
 d55ff street, Washington,!). C. 
 
 t 
 
885 
 
 Schedule of awardt on the Oregon and Washington Indian 
 war claimt of the Hudton't Bay Company and others, filed 
 in the Third Auditor's office on the llth March, 1861, hy 
 Messrs, Maitland, Phelps ^ Co., New York. 
 
 OLAIMASTe. 
 
 CLAIMED.' 
 
 AWABDEO. 
 
 HudiOD 
 
 B Bftv CoDDanv #•.■•< 
 
 $5,543 63 
 1,000 00 
 5,683 90 
 r60 00 
 9 50 
 205 63 
 2,719 60 
 501 00 
 3,212 30 
 1,021 00 
 1,500 00 
 150 00 
 322 00 
 255 00 
 162 73 
 9,797 50 
 73 82 
 515 00 
 811 00 
 317 80 
 27 87 
 221 25 
 138 50 
 2,530 75 
 480 00 
 266 00 
 36 00 
 4,386 88 
 1,870 00 
 1,600 00 
 172 50 
 440 00 
 9,085 00 
 308 50 
 32 00 
 130 25 
 70 00 
 9 00 
 67 35 
 27 60 
 78 50 
 26 50 
 1,750 00 
 80 50 
 39 30 
 
 $3,828 20 
 800 00 
 
 <i 
 
 
 tt 
 
 
 3,852 57 
 240 00 
 
 II 
 
 
 II 
 11 
 
 
 9 50 
 135 50 
 
 •t 
 
 
 1,733 50 
 501 00 
 
 M 
 
 
 <• 
 
 
 2,150 70 
 476 20 
 
 II 
 
 
 II 
 
 
 1,365 00 
 70 00 
 
 Dacrald Maetavifih •>...... ■•••< 
 
 Huagon'a Rav r!ninna.nv 
 
 107 33 
 
 II 
 
 'i. — "^ ' 
 
 -228 67 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 1 103 60 
 
 41 
 
 II 
 
 6,431 67 
 
 60 17 
 
 479 50 
 
 <l 
 •1 
 
 II ^,, 
 
 II ... 
 
 II 
 II 
 II 
 
 II |^^_^ 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 811 00 
 
 317 80 
 
 18 39 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 139 07 
 
 II 
 
 11 ,,, ,.„ 
 
 91 33 
 
 II 
 
 •1 ^ 
 
 1,887 17 
 
 II 
 
 II ' 
 
 320 00 
 
 II 
 
 •1 
 
 177 33 
 
 II 
 
 * ...... ....«•*. ••■•■••• 
 
 II ,„., 
 
 24 00 
 
 II 
 
 11 
 
 2,909 10 
 
 II 
 
 II „, 
 
 1,240 17 
 
 II 
 II 
 
 •r , , 
 
 II ,; .' 
 
 1,066 67 
 116 50 
 
 II 
 
 II , ,. 
 
 440 00 
 
 II 
 
 II „,„ 
 
 6,056 67 
 
 • •• 
 
 II „, 
 
 146 42 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 24 00 
 
 11 
 
 M 
 
 66 03 
 
 Fuget'B 
 
 Sound Agricultoral Company 
 
 II 
 
 35 00 
 4 73 
 
 1 
 
 II 
 
 36 40 
 
 1 
 
 II 
 
 14 49" 
 
 y. F. 
 
 11 
 
 Tolmie 
 
 49 92 
 
 
 17 25 
 
 II 
 
 
 940 00 
 
 -• II 
 
 
 53 33 
 
 II 
 
 
 18 99 
 
 W%»»*-* ' « -J>. ■*!!■ 
 
nsi 
 
 886 
 
 0LAIHAHT8. 
 
 W. F. Tolmie 
 
 Paget's Sound Agricultural Company. 
 
 W. F. Tolmie , .. 
 
 Dugald Mactavish 
 
 HudBon'B Bay Company 
 
 Dugald Mactavish 
 
 fiudson's Bay Company. 
 D. MoTavish 
 
 Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 James Sinclair 
 
 Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 Total. 
 
 CLAIMED. 
 
 444 30 
 
 148 90 
 
 369 72 
 
 400 00 
 
 10 00 
 
 5 75 
 
 380 00 
 
 40 00 
 
 54 00 
 
 3,423 66 
 
 4,131 25 
 
 31 50 
 
 535 40 
 
 371 62 
 
 400 00 
 
 1,011 00] 
 
 2,615 74 J 
 
 12,735 90 
 
 04 50 
 
 2,177 40 
 
 7,975 00 
 
 1,325 00 
 
 180 00 
 
 1,968 85 
 
 1,092 50 
 
 50 00 
 
 1.552 50 
 
 5,795 60 
 
 AVABDEO. 
 
 $107,325 76 
 
 238 88 
 
 81 69 
 
 210 54 
 
 220 00 
 
 6 67 
 
 3 83 
 
 Disallowed* 
 
 40 00 
 
 36 00 
 
 '2,451 57 
 
 3,267 50 
 
 21 00 
 
 535 07 
 
 283 12 
 
 320 00 
 
 2,557 15 
 
 8,534 15 
 43 GO 
 
 1,495 90 
 . 5,410 50 
 
 1,060 OO 
 96 67 
 
 1,371 47 
 
 882 50 
 
 33 33 
 
 1,227 88 
 
 3,883 70 
 
 $73,911 89 
 
 II- 
 
 *ClBim for *'rabiUtence fomisbed families of men in eerrice during Indian War" diial- 
 lowed. The Oovement ia not compelled to pay for the rapport of fiimiliea of rolantocn. 
 
 I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct abstract 
 from the records of this office. 
 
 A. M. Ganqewer, 
 
 Acting Auditor. , 
 Treasury Department, 
 
 Third Auditor's Office, Aiigutt 14, 1866. 
 
 
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 IB 
 
 FILED BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE CASE OF 
 THE HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY. 
 
 12. Dispatch of Sir E. B. Lytton to Governor Douglas, 
 
 dated September 2, 1858, with Sign Manual enclosed, 
 and reply of Governor Douglas, dated November 6, 
 1858. Parliamentary Papers, British Columbia, Pt. 1, 
 pp. 51 and 9 ; Pt. 2, p. 24. 
 
 13. Extract from dispatch of Governor Douglas to Sir E. B. 
 
 Lytton, dated October 26, 1858, Articles 7 and 8. 
 Parliamentary Papers, British Columbia ; Pt. 2, p. 9. 
 
 14. Dispatch from Governor Douglas to Sir E. B. Lytton, 
 
 dated November 27, 1858. Parliamentary Papers, Brit- 
 ish Columbia; Pt. 2, p. 36. 
 
 t 
 
 
 • 
 
 Ebeatum, in No. 4. 
 Pago 208, line 6, for " February 4, 1859," read " December 7, 1858." 
 
 
 ■* 
 
 i«MW » *—[» 
 
888 
 
 I 
 
 y, 
 
 /( 
 
 
 C— 12. 
 
 No. 18. — Copi/ of Dispatch from the Right Honorable Sir E. 
 B. Lytton, Bart., to Governor Douglas. 
 
 [No. 8.] 
 
 Downing Strbbt, September 2, 1868. 
 Sir : Referring to my dispatch No. 8, (Vancouver's Island,) 
 of the 14th ultimo, I transmit to you, herewith, the Queen's 
 revocation of the Crown Grant of the 80th May, 1888, to the 
 Hudson's Bay Company, in so far as the said grant embraces 
 or extends to the territories comprised within the colony of 
 British Columbia. 
 
 I have, &c., 
 (Signed) E. B. Lytton. 
 
 Governor Douglas, 
 
 &c., &o. 
 
 Copy of an instrument under the Royal Sign Manual, revoking 
 so much of the Crown Grant of 30<A May, 1888, to the 
 Hudson's Bay Company, for exclusive trading with the 
 
 " Indians, as relates to the territories comprised within the 
 colony of British Columbia, dated 2d September, 1858. 
 
 Victoria, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of 
 Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, to 
 all whom these presents shall come, greeting : 
 
 Whereas by an instrument, under the hand and seal of the 
 Right Honorable Lord Glenelg, then one of our Principal Secre- 
 taries of State, and dated the 30tb day of May, 1838, we did, 
 for the reasons and considerations therein recited, grant 
 and give our license to the Governor and Company of Adven- 
 turers trading to Hudson's Bay, and their successors, for the 
 exclusive privilege of trading with the Indians in all such 
 parts of North America to the northward and to the westward 
 
889 
 
 of the lands and territories belonging to the United States of 
 America as should not form part of any of our provinces in 
 North America, or of any lands or territories belonging to the 
 said United States of America, or to any European Govern- 
 ment, State, or Power, but subject, nevertheless, as therein- 
 after mentioned ; and did give, grant, and secure to the said 
 Governor and Company, and their successors, the sole and 
 exclusive privilege, for the full period of twenty-one years from 
 the date of our said grant, of trading with the Indians in all 
 such parts of North America as aforesaid, (except as therein- 
 after mentioned :) Provided, nevertheless, and we did thereby 
 declare our pleasure to be, that nothing therein contained 
 should extend, or be construed, to prevent the establishment 
 by us, our heirs, or successors, within the territories aforesaid, 
 or any of them, of any colony or colonies, province or pro- 
 vinces, or the annexing any part of the aforesaid territories 
 to any existing colony or colonies, to us in right of our Im- 
 perial Crown belonging, or constituting any such form of 
 civil government as to us might seem meet, within any such 
 colony or colonies, province or provinces; and we did thereby 
 reserve to us, our heirs, and successors, full power and au- 
 thority to revoke our said grant, or any part thereof, in so far 
 as the same might embrace or extend to any of the territories 
 aforesaid, which might thereafter be comprised within any 
 colony or colonies province, or provinces, as aforesaid: 
 
 And whereas we have, by our commission under the great 
 seal of our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, 
 bearing date at Westminster, this second day of September, 
 1858, in the twenty-second year of our reign, and in virtue as 
 well of the powers vested in us by an act entitled, '' An act to 
 provide for the government of British Columbia," as of all 
 other powers and authorities belong to us in that behalf, estab- 
 lished within the territories aforesaid a colony, under the title 
 of British Columbia, bounded, as in the said recited act is 
 mentioned, to the south by the frontier of the United States 
 of America, to the east by th'e main chain of the Bocky Moun- 
 tains, to the north by Simpson's river and the Finlay branch 
 of the Peace river, and to the west by the Pacific ocean, and 
 
 1^ 
 
 I 
 
 u 
 
i 
 
 I. 
 
 I 
 
 I' 
 }| 
 
 890 
 
 inolading Queen Charlotte's Island, and all other islands acy*- 
 oent to said territories, except as therein-after excepted s 
 
 And whereas it has appeared to us expedient that tbo right 
 of exclusive trade with the Indians given by us in mannor 
 aforesaid to the Governor and Company of Adventurers trading 
 to Hudson's Bay, and their successors, within the territoriei 
 in the said instrument described, should no longer be exercised 
 by them within so much of those territories as is comprised 
 within the said colony of British Columbia: 
 
 Now, know ye that we do hereby revoke our said grant con* 
 tained in the hereinbefore-recited instrument of the 80th May, 
 1888, in so far as the same embraces or extends to the torri- 
 tories comprised within the said colony of British Columbia. 
 
 And we do hereby declare, that this present revocation of 
 our said grant shall take effect within the said colony m soon 
 as it shall have been proclaimed there by the officer adminif- 
 tering the government thereof. 
 
 l{ 
 
 i 
 
 .1 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 Oopi/ of Dispatch from Governor Douglaa to the Right Honora- 
 ble Sir E. B. LyttoUf Bart. 
 
 [No. 23.] 
 
 Victoria, Vancouveb'u Inland, 
 November 6, 1868, 
 
 [Received January 15, 1859.] 
 
 Sir : In acknowledging receipt of your dispatch of the 2d 
 September, 1858, No. 3, transmitting to me th& Queen'i rcvo« 
 cation of the Crown Grant of the 80th May, 183H, to the 
 Hudson's Bay Company, in so far as relates to the territoricf 
 comprised within the colony of British Columbia, I beg to 
 acquaint you that the necessary proclamation upon this Sttb* 
 ject will be made in the course of a few days. 
 
 I have, &c., 
 (Signed) James DouaLAS, Governor. 
 
 The Right Hon. Sir E. B. Lytton, Bart., 
 
 ke., ke.f ko. 
 
 i 
 
IV-I 
 
 891 
 
 C— 18. 
 
 Extract from a Dispatch from Governor Douglas to the Right 
 
 Honor able Sir E. B. Lytton, Bart. 
 (No. 6.) 
 
 Victoria, Vancouver's Island, 
 
 October 20, 1858. 
 
 ■¥ ■¥ ■if ■¥ If ■^ it^ 
 
 1. I observe your remarks as to the limit and extent of the 
 rights devised by the Crown to the Hudson's Bay Company, 
 and I have to advise Her Majesty's Government that the 
 Hudson's Bay Company no longer enjoys any exclusive rights 
 of trade whatsoever, and is placed in all respects in the same 
 position as other British subjects on this coast. 
 
 8. I will take the liborty, which I feel satisfied you will 
 under the circumstances excuse, of correcting an erroneous 
 impression which appears to pervade the public mind in Eng- 
 land. I allude to the often-asserted statement that the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company have made an unjust and oppressive use 
 of their power in this country — a statement which I can 
 assure Her Majesty's Government is altogether unfounded. 
 On the contrary, it would be an easy matter to prove that 
 they have been of signal service to their country, and that 
 the British territory on the northwest coast is an acquisition 
 won for the Crown entirely by the enterprise and energy of 
 the Hudson's Bay Company; for, on commencing business 
 operations in this quarter, the whole coast was held by for- 
 eigners, and it is only since the year 1846 that the Hudson's 
 Bay Company have derived any real protection from the 
 license of trade, as until that epoch the trade was open to all 
 citizens of the United States in common with the Hudson's 
 Bay Company. 
 
 Perhaps you will excuse my saying so much, as a sense of 
 justice leads mo to exert the little influence I possess in pro- 
 tecting from injustice men who have served their country so 
 faithfully and so well. 
 
 At this moment I am making use of the Hudson's Bay 
 
 ;* 
 
892 
 
 Company's establishments for every public office, and to their 
 servants, for want of other means, I commit in perfect confi- 
 
 dence the custody of the public money. 
 
 if nt * * * * * 
 
 I have, &c., 
 (Signed) Jamr8 DoUflLA8, Governor. 
 
 The Right Hon. Sir E. B. Lytton, Bart., * 
 
 &c., &c., &c. 
 
 C— 14. 
 
 Copy of D/npatch from Governor Doiigla$ to the lU<jht Hon- 
 arable Sir E. B. Lytton, Bart. 
 
 (No. 37.) 
 
 Victoria, Vancouver's Island, 
 
 November 27, 1858. 
 
 [Received January 29, 1859.] 
 
 Sir : 1. I have the honor to iicknowlcdge the receipt of your 
 communication No. 20, of the 16th September last. 
 
 2. It is to mo a most satisfactory and encouraging cum- 
 stance that Her Majesty's Government continues to approve 
 of my pioceediiigs in administering the'govcrnment of British 
 Columbia. I feel truly grateful for your kind support, and, 
 in consequence, more capable of encountering the difficulties 
 with which, though in a lesser degree, wo are still beset. 
 
 3. I have with much pleasure, and according to your in- 
 structions, conveyed to Captain Prevost and Captain Rich- 
 ards, the officers commanding H. M. S. "Satellite" and 
 "Plumper," your acknowledgments for the cordial assist- 
 ance which they have rendered to this government whenever 
 their services were required, and they arc gratified by the 
 compliment. 
 
 4. Her Majesty's Government may feel assured that I will 
 endeavor to dispense as much as possible with the use of mili- 
 tary assistance in administering the affairs of government; 
 
898 
 
 ent ; 
 
 and I havo no doubt that, with time, and when there is a fixed 
 population having vested rights and interests at stake in the 
 country, a military force may in a great measure become 
 unnecessary; but, until those changes take place, I would 
 strongly recommend the maintenance of a respectable mili- 
 tary or naval force, to represent the power and uphold the 
 dignity of Her Majesty's Government. 
 
 5. I would also take the liberty of suggesting the employ- 
 ment of one or two gun-boats of light draught, for the pro- 
 tection of the public revenue, and also for conveying; Govern- 
 ment stores and troops from one part of the coast to another, 
 a service that cannot bo effected in counliy ahi])^ without 
 much delay and enormous expense. 
 
 6. Those vessels will also be urgently required for the pro- 
 tection of persons who may be induced, by the revocntion of 
 the Hudson's Bay Company's license, to emljM-k in tlio trade 
 of the coast north of Frazer's river with the : nmeroiis and 
 warlike tribes of Indians inhabiting that part of llritish 
 Columbia, and who will not fail to deuian(' the protoction of 
 Government so obviously requisite in the prosecution of their 
 commercial pursuit? 
 
 7. Rear Admiral Baynes, with whom 1 have conversed on 
 the subject, is of opinion that those gun-boat;; ;iro alsn capable 
 of navigating Frazer's river, and it is certain that their pres- 
 ence M.)uld havo a powerful and salutary iitfluenco on the 
 foreign population of the country. 
 
 8. The Bear Admiral is also of opinion tliat two of those 
 vessels might be detached without inconvenience from the 
 fleet now employed on the coast of Cliina — a circumstance 
 which I submit for your consideration, ntid most earnestly 
 hoping that the suggestion may be favorably entertained. 
 
 9. It is, perhaps, unnecessary to occupy your time with 
 remarks concerning the privileges of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany, which have ceased to exist in British Columbia. 
 
 10. We have succeeded with difficulty in preventing the 
 unlawful occupation of the public domain, and I look forward 
 with anxiety for C'>lonel Moody's arrival, to commence the 
 survey and allotment of land in British Columbia. 
 
,-,^l".'"' 
 
 m^n^ 
 
 J 
 
 894 
 
 / / 
 
 11. I observe the appointment of Mr. W. Hamley to the 
 office of collector of customs for British Columbia, and that 
 he was to sail in the " Thames City" in a few days from the 
 date of your dispatch. 
 
 12. My own views entirely concur with your remarks on 
 the great importance to the general social welfare and dignity 
 of the colony that gentlemen should be encouraged to come 
 to this country by the hope of obtaining professional occupa- 
 tion as stipendiary magistrates, or in other respectable public 
 appointments; and there are really very few persons, the offi- 
 cers of the Hudson's Bay Company excepted, qualified to fill 
 offices of trust and responsibility; and I would remark, in 
 reference to the officers of the Hudson's Bay Company, that 
 they are engaged in other pursuits, and have in no instance 
 been appointed to any office under government, nor do any of 
 then appear disposed to accept of any public employment. 
 
 13. I would, for these reasons, recommend that careful 
 appointments should be made in England. There is here a 
 wide field for such situations, and the qualities requisite are, 
 integrity, sobriety, firmness, zeal, industry, implicit obedience 
 to orders, and a practical acquaintance with the nature of the 
 duties to be performed. 
 
 14. I shall most gladly attend to your wishes for any news- 
 papers containing mi;tter worthy of attention, and shall not 
 fail to inform you of every thing of importance that passes 
 in British Columbia. 
 
 I have, &c., 
 (Signed) James Douglas, Governor. 
 
 The Right Hon. Sir E. B. Lytton, 5ar«., 
 
 &c., &c., &c. 
 
 i-' 
 
^^ ■ llJJ!l''iilllilipP'>'| ■ "'fJ.il"^'l"li 
 
 
 ^ 896 
 
 LIST OF MAP^AND PLATS FILED BY THE UNITED 
 ., STATES. 
 
 1. Goast-Sarvey map of the mouth of Oolumbia river, ao 
 companying evidence of Wm. B. McMurtrie in the mdtter ot 
 the Hadson's Bay Company. 
 
 2. Land-OfSce map of Oregon, 1866. 
 
 3. Land-Office map of Washington Territory, 1865. 
 
 4. Map of the United States Government Reserve of Van- 
 couver, 1850, surveyed and drawn by Lieutenant James Stuart, 
 2d Lieut. R. M. R., B'vt Capt., U. S. A., records War Depart- 
 ment, referred to in United States Documents, C — 9. 
 
 5. Map of the mouth of the Columbia river, enlarged from 
 Wilkea' small map and other data, by M. E. Van Buren, Capt. 
 R. M. R., from Engineer Department, and certified by E. D. 
 Townsend, Assistant Adjutant General, k.-. companying extract 
 from report. United States Documents. — 8. 
 
 6. Plat of the Hudson'^s Bay Cc mpany's claim at Fort 
 Vancouver, as described in a letter from Chief Faptor John 
 Ballenden, to Mr. J. B. Preston, Surveyor General of the 
 Territory of Oregon, dated July 30, 1852, on file in General 
 Land Office. 
 
 7. Plat of the land around Fort Vancouver, from official 
 surveys in the General Land Office. 
 
 8. Map of the Military Department of Oregon, 1853, from 
 office of Explorations and Surveys, War Department. 
 
 9. Map of Military Reservation at Fort Vancouver, sur- 
 veyed under direction of Captain Geo. Thom, Topographical 
 Engineers, by Lieutenants J. B. Wheeler and J. Dixon, Corps 
 Topographical Er gineers, by order of Brigadier General W. S. 
 Harney, 1859. 
 
 10. Map of '* The Provinces of British Columbia and Van- 
 couver Island, with portions of the United States and Hud- 
 son's Bay Territories," contained in a Parliamentary Blue 
 Book, entitled "Papers Relative to the Affairs of.- British 
 Columbia." 
 
 11. Map of Steilacoom Harbor, United States Coast Sur- 
 vey, referred to in the deposition of William B. McMurtrie 
 in the matter of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. 
 
 27 B 
 
 
 J" r. 
 
 
 utMiiiiiii^ 
 
 I 
 
 WM 
 
pfl^iuwi , u«...„iii II I ipuiii I .« 
 
 <J 
 
 ** AUG 31 1894 
 
 ^-^^^ 
 
 >^ 
 
 *<-; 
 
 '•# 
 
 Jl^.. 
 
 IjHII iIT I '-' • 
 
inpjHIPPQl^iiii I i«^,<li< ■'••'mm 
 
 397 
 
 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS FILED BY THE UNITED 
 
 STATES. 
 
 .1. Photograph of Mission House at Kootenay, marked <'A," 
 accompanying dl|>ositioQa of G. C. Gardner and of J. M. Al- 
 den. 
 
 2. Photograph of Hudson's Bay Company's Post at Colvlle, 
 marked "B," accompanying deposition of G. 0. Gardner. 
 
 3. Photograph of interior of Hudson's Bay Company's Post 
 of Fort Vancouver, accompanying deposition of George Gibbs, 
 marked "C." 
 
 3|. Photograph qf Camp of British Boundary Commission, 
 Fort Vancouver, accompanying deposition of George Gibbs, 
 marked «D." 
 
 4. Photograph of exterior and interior of Fort Hall, from 
 report of Major 0. Cross, United States Army, to Quarter- 
 master General, dated June 80, 1850. 
 
 5. Photograph of interior and exterior of Fort Bois^, from 
 teport of Major 0. Cross, United States Army, to Quarter- 
 master General, dated June 30, 1850. 
 
 6. Photograph Bird's-eye View of Fort Vancouver, from 
 & lithograph in volume 12, part 1st, Pacific Railroad Reports. 
 
 7. Photograph of Fort Walla-Walla, from a lithograph in 
 volume 12, part 1st, Pacific Railroad Reports. 
 
 8. Photograph of Fort Okanagan, from a lithograph in 
 volume 12, part 1st, Pacific Railroad Reports. 
 
 9. Photograph of Hudson's Bay Company's Mill, near Fort 
 Colvile, from a lithograph in volume 12, part 1st, Pacific Rail- 
 road Reports. 
 
 10. Photographic view at Fort Colvile, looking across the 
 Columbia River, copy from photograph by English Boundary 
 Coirinnission, taken by British officers on the Northwestern 
 Boundary Survey, marked '*E," referred to in the supplement 
 tal testimony of G. C. Gardner. 
 
 I 
 
 /' 
 
 ,^g|Plpil— iii<r -^