IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^' ^< ^o M 11.25 Ui|2£ Hi lit 12,2 112.2 ■It 2.0 -^ ; , HiotogFaphic Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STMiT WnSTtR,N.Y. USSO (716)S72-4S03 V^> '■. tenrmtable order having of late years been expended. Outside the enclosure are about tvv(>niy cabins, occupied by servants, Kanakas, and Indians. These cabins are, with few exc(.'ptions, built of slabs. Most of them are untenanted and left to decay. TIh; lands in cultivation about Fort Vancouver, at the dnte of the treaty, :lid not exceed two hundred and fifty acres. Since that time many of the inclosurcs have been broken up, and lands ibrmerly culti- vated have become a waste. Besides their broad claim to the whole territory, the Hudson's Bay Company mnke a particular claim to several tracts in the; vicinity of Fort Vancouver: fust, the plain on which the fort and the United States barracks are situated, with a small plain behind it, making in all a tract of about f()ur miles square. Adjoniing this, above Fori Van- couver, 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. A new mill frame was erected at this place in 1847, but has been never 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 cul- tivated 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 im- provements of the company in the vicinity of Fort Vancouver, if wt 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 mercantile and carried on with the settlers. Comparatively a small amount of Indian goods is now imported, that description of merchandize 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 considerable portion ot" these were sold on commission at Portland, Oregon City, and other places in the Willamette Valley. The next post above Vancouver is Fort Wallah Wallah on the Co- .1 WASHINGTON TERKITORY. »V< I H lumbia river, ImIow the cntriincc of tlio Sniikc Tlirrc uro licrc tlinr or four onf-story ndobc Ixiilditigs, with oHiccs, niclosrd hy a wall ot' tlio same tualrnal, somo thirty-live yards on each side, having a h.is- tion nl oiK^ an^lf. It is ahiiost wliolly valueless rxeepl as a station whert! horses eati he kept lt)r tlu; trains, '.riiere is, indeed, notne trade with tlu! IndiiMis, chiefly in cash, but not enough to \varr;nit the main- tenance of" the post l()r that j)urj)ose alone. The f(>rt is in very indifll'r- ent repair, and the country in the immediate nc-i^dihorliood a desi-rt ot" drifting sand. The l()rce at this post consists of a chief clerk, one in- terpreter, two traders, and six men, Canadians and Indians. Home eighteen or twenty miles up the Widlidi Wallnh rivt-r is a so- called fin'm, (tn which are two small hovels, eiich consisting of a singh; room occupied by a servant and an Indian employed as herdsman. There was formerly a dam at this ])lai-e li)r irrigation, but it is b'-oken down. Fi\'e thousand dollars I consider a large." estimate fl)r the value of these two establishments. Fort Colville, upf)n the Columbia above Kettle Falls, is next in im- portance to Fort Vajicouver, though far inferior to it in ext«Mit. 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 buihl- ings consist of a dwelling-house, three or fi)nr store-houses, and some smaller buildings used as blacksmith shops, &c., all of oik; story, and constructed of squared logs. The whole was once surrounded by a stockade, forming a square of about seventy yards on e.ich side. This has been removed, except on the north side, whert; it encloses a narrow yard containing oliices. One bastion remnins. About thirty yards in the rear of this square are the cattle yards, hay sheds, &c., enclosing a space of forty by sixty yards, roughly fenced in, and the sheds covered with bark. On the left of the front are seven huts occupied by the lower emj)loyees of the company. They are of rude construction, andiate steps for making the confirmations promised in the treaty of 1846. Commissioners should be appointed by an act of Congress, I WASHINGTON TERRITORY. 13 I having powers and duties similar to those conferred in pursuance of like treaty provisions. The practice has been to assign this duty to governors of Territories, who are presumed to be well Htted 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 effected. 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 intention to become a citiz(ni, residing within the territory on or before the first day of December, 1850, and who shall have resided upon and cultivated the land upon which he had settled ibr four consecutive years, the quantity of one-half section 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 Compnny claim as individuals under this law the very tracts claimed by the company. The tract upon which Fort Vancouver stands, to the extT?nt of six hun- dred and forty acres, is claimed by a chief clerk of the company re- siding at the fort. These claims have been made with a view of securing the lands to servants of the Hudson's Bay Company, even if the United Slates should extinguish by purchase the rights of the com- pany. It is important that the extent and boundaries of the lands of the companies should be fixed by confirmation, in order that the com- panies should be able to give a title to the United Slates which might bar the settlers' claims. The commissioners should be directed to make a fair estimate of the value of the possessions of the companies, and report the same to Congress, as a basis for its action, in case a pur- chase should be deemed expedient. It is hoped that this subject will receive the immediate atlention of Congress, and that, while all the obligations of plighted faith are re- deemed, the embarrassments which impede the settlement of this mag- nificent Territory may be speedily removed. I have the honor to be, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, ISAAC I. STEVENS, Goveinor 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 Coirnany, dated D(?cember 27, 1853, protesting agjiinst the views presented in my circular letter of Decem- ber 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 McTavish a reply to my circular letter, as afore- said, solemnly protesting against any invasion of their rights, and reler- ring my letter to the superior officers of the company tor the necessary action. I regret that this letter was left at Olympia. The accompanying report of Colonel Isaac N. Ebe3% 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 esf iniate of Fort Vancouver and its dependencies is $32,000. 14 REPORT OP GOV. STEVENS, OP Fort Nisqually, December 27, 1853. Sir : I have liad the honor to receive your communication of the 20th instant, calling my attention to certain views entertained by the general government of the United States as to the rights and privileges secured to the Hudson's Bay Company and the Puget's Sound Agricul- tural Company by the treaty ratified between Great Britain and the United States on the 5th of August, 1846. With r(\gard 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 frittering 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 America. More especially do I 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 I conceive it in the utmost degree im- probable that the high contracting parties — the framers of the treaty — ever couteinp^ted denying 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 principles of international law, subsequent restrictions and hmitations cannot justly be 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 Agricul- tural Company, the tract of country of which, as farms, lands, or other- wise as property, the said company, by its agents, was in the sole and exclusive use and occupancy at the date of said treaty, and tor a long time previously. I have claimed no land abandoned prior to the date of the treaty nor any primarily occupied subsequently. While on this subject, I beg to call your attention to sundry en- croachments on the company's rights by American citizens who, chiefly since the year 1850, despite my written notifications that they were trespassing on the company's lands, have settled on the prairies be- tween the Nisqually and the PruyalHp rivers, all which are included in the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company's claim. The evils thence arising are manifold; in some instances our inclosed lands under cultivation have been taken possession of; more frequently the rails forming our sheeptblds and other inclosures have been appro- priated by the settlers, wno 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 custom with several to shoot the company's cat- tle and even riding horses, when feeding near their houses and enclos- ures. Another mischievous custom, pretty generally adopted, has been to hunt the company's cattle into the woods with dogs whenever herds grazing used to aj>proach a settler's fields. In a considerable degree owing to the practices, our cattle have been •I \ I 1 WASHINGTON TERRITORY. 15 the 4 rendered much wilder than they were in 1846, when we were in the habit of driving with ease cattle from the remotest corners of the pas- ture grounds into parks at this place. In tlius showing that the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, have, for some years back, sustained great and increasing loss in consequence of the various encroachments above mentioned, I must in justice odd, that severrl persons settled on the company's lands have exhibited a consideration and forbearance highly creditable. Doubtless the settlers have complaints to make of pastures eaten bare and fields invaded by the company's hve 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 cop}-- of the company's articles of agreement, and can produce, whenever re- quired, proof of all the ibregoing statements relative to its aflairs. Submitting said statements to your impartial consideration, 1 have the honor to remain, sir your very obedient servant, WILLIAM FRAZER TOLMIE, C F. Hudson's Bay Company, a^cnl Pngel's Sound AgH Company, Nis(jually, Wash'wgton Territory. To his Excellency Isaac I. Stevens, Governor of Washington Territory and SujjU. of Indian Affairs. been ^ Olympia, Washington Territory, January 7, 1854. Sir: In accordance with your request \.o me, dated December J 2, 1853, I proceeded to Fort Vancouver to enquire into the nature and extent of the Hudson's Bay Company's possessions 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 Fori Vancouver, at the date of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, were certainly not greater than was claimed (ox them by Mr. Ballenden, chief factor of the Hudson'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 posses- sory right to the land could be claimed. Within that boundary the Hudson's Bay Company have a stockade fort, on the inside of which are ten»houses, eight of which were erected before the treaty of boun- dary between the United States and Great Britain, and two have been erected since. There are about twenty cabins built outside the en- closure, and a large ware-house near the bank of the river. The build- ings on the inside the enclosure are so old, and the timbers and mate- rials of which they are constructed so decayed, as 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 16 REPORT OF GOV. STEVENS, OF |i I company for tlifir own convenience ; they are mostly old, dilapidated huts, most of which are 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 over cultivated now all a waste. Above Fort Vancouver, and near the Columbia river, the Hudson's Bay 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 xnore than old machinery. There was a new fnill frame erected at this place in 1847, that has never been com- pleted or put in operation. At this mill are some other improvements ; there is a store house and miller's house ; these houses arc log houses with shingle roofs. The saw- 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 1 can ascer- tain, embrace the whole of the Hudson's Bay Company's improve- ments in the vicinity of Fort Vancouver, if we except a few sheep- pens that were at one lime 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, dwell- ing-houses, storehouses, farms, barns, &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 snice the date of the treaty. To the third inquiry I would state, that 1 think a very considerable portion of the Hudson's Bay Company at Fort Vancouver, held by them at the date of the treaty, have become obsolete by abandonment. At the date of the treaty and prior 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 their shepherds and herdsmen. This section of country has been abandoned for this use or any other by the company tor years past. Their possessions in the vicinity of the mills and mill plain have also to a great extent been abandoned. They have now a few head of cattle in that vicinity, driven down from Fort Wallah Wallah last summer. To the fourth inquiry, as " to the nature and extent of claims of set- tlers under the donation act of the United States, approved September 27, 1850, upon lands claimed by said companies," 1 would state, that most of the lands that are valuable tor agricultural operations within the boundaries claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company are claimed and held by settlers under said act. The claim of land upon which Fort Vancouver stands is at this time J i V f. * 'P WASHINGTON TERRITORY. 17 f set- mbcr that imed time i I i claimed by Bishop Blancheltc, bisliop of Nisqually, ns a Catholic mission, by virtue of a provision in the act of Congress organizing Washington Territory, approved March 3, 1853. The bishop has no- tified the surveyor genernl of Oregon of his claim, embracing six hun- dred and forty acres. The same tract of land is claimed by James Graham, chief clerk to the Hudson's Bay Company at Fort Vancou- ver, to the amount of six hundred and tbrty acres. Mr. Graham is a naturalized 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 Clark has ti)r a number of years claimed the right of pre-emption to on(; hundred and sixty acres of this tract of land, under authority of nn 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 government. The nnthorities of Clark county, I believe, have made sales of lots to individuals, on this tract of land, and re- ceived considerable sums of money ior the sjime. Neither the authori- ties of the county nor individuals have made improvements on the same. Over all these claims, the United Slates have made a military re- scivation of six hundred and ii^rty acres, embracing most of the land claimed by the conflicting claimants. The land claim immediately fd)ove, and joining the above tract, is claimed by Forbes Barchiy, 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 tiir several years past, and now resides at Oregon city, Oregon Territory. I be- lieve he made some improvements on this tract of land. The Hud- son'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. This same tract of land is claimed by a Mr. Ryan, a citizen of the United States, under the authority of the donation law. Mr. Ryan claims six hundred and forty acres ; has a good farm house, and out- houses, &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 servant of the Hudson's Bay Company for himself. He sold the claijn to Peter Skeen Ogden, governor of the Hudson's Bay Company, who transferred the claim to Mr. Switsler. Switsler transferred the claim to Nye. Nye has made some improvements. On this claim there are some ten or twelve acres of land enclosed and cultivated ; also, a house and barn. Daniel Harvy claims, (a British subject,) under the treaty of bound- ary between the United States and Great Britain, a tract of land about four miles S()uare, 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 ff>r some time, in the employ of the Hudson's Bay Companjs is a naturahzed citizen, and claims six hundred and forty acres of land, including the grist-mill, under the donation law. He has made no improvements. I believe, however, Ex. Doc. 37 2 18 REPORT OP GOV. STEVENS, OP there are a house and barn, and about fifty acres in cultivation. Ga- briel Barktroth 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 hundred and forty acres of land. His dwelling-house is on the saw-mill claim. The balance of Mr. Maxon's claim is on the Camas plain, on which the Hudson's Bay Company has had no improvements. On this plain a number of Americans have settled, among whom are Sam. Predstel, Thomas Fletcher, Levi Dothit, Mr. Shaw, John Predstel, Valentine Predstel, Jacob Predstel, and Daniel OUis. These persons have very little improvements ex- cept 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. John Stringer's claim, on which are a house and barn, and about fifty acres in cultivation. The widow and heirs of Daniel V. Short claim six hundred and forty acres. On this claim there is a good farm house and about fifty acres in culiivation. This clai;n was taken in 1847. George Maleek, an American citi.ien, claims six hundred and forty acres under the donation law. His improvements consist of a dwelling house and about thirty acres in cultivation. 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 clain) 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 Laframboise, a naturalized citizen, claims six hundred and forty acres under the donation law. His improvements consist of a house and barn, and about fifty acres of land in cultivation. Mr. La- framboise also holds as a lessee of the Hudson's Bay Company. Abraham Roby claims six hundred and forty acres under the dona- tion 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 Hud- son'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 filty acres of land in cultivation. Mr. Petram also holds as a lessee of the Hudson's Bay Company. Seepleawa claims three hundred and twenty acres as an American citizen. His improvements consist of a dwelling house and five acres of land in cultivation. Isaac E. Bell claims six hundred and forty acres of land under the donation law. His improvements consist of a dwelling house and five acres of land in cultivation. Mr. Bell is an American citizen. » s WASHINGTON TERRITORY. 19 M It K i John C. AUman cltiims six hundred and forty acres of land under the donation law. His improvements consist of a house and about twenty-five acres of land in cultivation. This claim is also claimed by Etiward Spencer, as a British subject. Mr. Spencer has no improvements, except the square of a log cabin without roof. Mr. S. has never res-ided 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 cultivation. The above claim is claimed by the heirs of Foster, who claims as a British subject. William H. Dillon claims six hundred and forty acres under the do- nation law. He is an American citizen, and his improvements consist of a house and about sixty acres in cultivation. The same land is claimed by a Canadian half-breed as a British subject. David Sturgess claims six hundred and f()rty acres of land under the donation law. His improvements consist of a house aiitl lliirty-five acres of land in cultivation. This land is also claimed by George Harvey, a British subject, residing at Vancouver's island. He super- intended the salmon operations at this place for the Hudson's I3ay 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 improvements consist of a house and ten acres of land in cultivation. James Bovvers 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 under the donation law. His improvements consist of a house and five acres of land in cultivation. Ira Patterson's claim is a part on the Hudson's Bay Company'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 an^ 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 sixty acres of land under the donation law. His improvemepts consists of a house. 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. 20 REPORT OP GOV. STEVENS, OF It J. L. Myers claims three liuiuircd 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 liundred and twenty acres of land under the donation law. His 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. kSimmons claims six hundred and \hny acres of hmd under tlie donation law. His improvements consist of a house and ibrty jicres of land under cultivation. Alexander Davis claims one liundred and sixty acres of land under the donation law. His improvements consist of a iiouse and thirty acres of land in cultivation. Mr. Pembrun is living on Ryan's chiim, ns the lessee of Dr. Barclay, who claims as a British subject. The improvements of the Hudson's Bay Com[)any at the mouth of the Cowlitz consist of two large warehouses. These buildings were erected betbre the treaty, on the bond claim of Seabault, who granted to the Hudson's Bay Company live acres of land of his claim. Since that time Seabault has sold out his claim to other parties. The build- ings are of little value, as they stand on the bank of the Cowlitz river, where annual iieshels arc wearing the bank so much that the houses will tumble in the water. 1 do not think the buildings are worth ex- ceeding one thousand dolhus. The Puget's J^ound Agricultural Company claims a tract of land at what is called the Cowlilz Fnrms, embracing about three thousand acres. The description of the claim has been filed in the office ol' the surveyor general of Oregon Territory, and described by "rietes and bounds within three limits. Tiie 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 becoming old and dilapid.iled. The is of but little real vnlue. These improvements and lands I would not value at above twiMity-five thousand dolhus. All of which is resjiectfuUv submitted. ISAAC N. EBEY. Governor Stevens. t I Executive Office, Ohjminiii Jfinuarij 9, 1854. Sir : 1 have the honor U) acknowledge the receipt of your letter of December 20, setting fl)rth the views of the general government of the United Slates in reii-rence to the rights guarantied by the treaty of WASHINGTON TERRITORY. 21 * i I August 5, 1846, to the Hudson's Bay Company and the Puget's tSound Agricultural Company. Without intcn(iing to (question at all your right to protest against these views as frittering away the very ample rights secured to said compnny hy the treaty of* 184(5, I iiave to state that a course based upon these views, as indicated hy my letter of December 20, will be strictly and firmly pursued. 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 slate further, (to quote your own words:) "1 conceive it in the utmost degree improbable tliat the high contracting parties, the frameis of the treaty, ever contemplated denying the com- pany one of the most important rights it possessed." I conceive it to be very clear that the high contracting parties in- tended that no such right should continue in the Hudson's Bay Com- pany, from the simple fact that they have nf)t guarantied it in the treaty, but art; totally silent upon the subject. This is more apparent, since you state it to bt; one of ihe most important rights it possessed. The plenipotentiaries on the j)arl of (jreat 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 appropriatlo/is (if the territory, i^t., the jfosscssory rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, and of all British subjects who may be in the occupotion of land or other iiropertij, lawfully acquired within the said territory, shall be respected. The Hudson's Bay Company, 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 2>os'>(^ssori/ rightu of the Hudson's Bay Company, and of all British subjects who may be in the occupation of hvid, that are to be respected in the future appropriations of the territory. Tiie Hudson's Bay Company stand upon the same l()oting as all British subjects in the occupation of land. The rights and privilege's secured to each are the same. It surely will not be claimed that the right to trade is a possessory right. These arc terms of plain and technical significatior. Mr. Rose, (jueen's counsel, of Montreal, dcfuies this right to be ".?«c/i a fixed right in the soil as would in law prevent its alienation to others." To attempt to embrace the right to trade, as implied in the expression, "possessory rights," would be to negative the plain terms of the; treaty, to admit all the other rights of the Hudson's Bay Comp.niy under its charter, the right to make laws and to have civil ami criminal juris- diction; 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 guarantied to a fijrcign corporation a right which the}' 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 l)chalf of the I'uget'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 ex- clusive use and occupancy at the date of the treaty, and lor a long 22 REPOTIT OF r.OV. STEVKNS. OP WASIIINT.TON TEHRITORV. tiiin- pn'vioiisly. My letter, I <'(m<'t'iv(', wiis sii(!i(i(iifly explicit in this tuiitter, nor do I iliink any (toiiht e.'iii iirise iVoiii the treiity. The tic'ity does nut ediirirm whiiiever ynii m.iy h;ive elaiined trotn the time the treaty Iteeaiiie ktinwii, hill eniiliinis \\u' fnrms and /nm/siA' the I'liLTl's Sninid Ai^iienhiiial Cninpaiiy. '* Kartns and lands" are well iinderstiMid term-;, and all siieli as have heen in the s(»|e and exelnsivo use and oecnpan. /nl'tlie Pii^'et's Sonnd ALnieiillnral ('iini[>any will he (uinlirnied. The tres|ias>es and (»tl'(( i wrontrs nl" uliieli yun enmplain are matters li»r the e()inf-= of jn-iiu'/', The ireaty is. and lias all the lixce of ;i l.iw of IJic I'nitfd ,*»ales, and i> sneh is lo he respected and oheyed. As alien liiends onr i ./nrts are iluouti open lo yon, and there yoin" remedy is to he soiiLdit l()r the viohitioii of your ri;/hts. In conclusion, I takr the liherty of airain calliiitf yonr attention to ijio niiitters reti'rrcd to in my letter of DcccMnher 'JO, as to the natnre and valne of the possessions of the llndson" Day Company, and will statc^ that I am desirons of prornriiiLr inliirmation as to ilii'ir value, and will he ulad to reccisc anv conuniuiic'ition trom you nu tliat suliject. I am, very respectfully, your (»l)e(licnl servant, William V. Tol.mik, Ks(|. ISAAC I. STKNKNS. ChU'f Tradrr Hudson'' s lltn/ ('onijifitn/. .-lirnit l'iiirr/\'< Sditiiil A'^ricult llfdl Co)ui>(nii/.