Читать книгу A History of Oregon, 1792-1849 - Gray William Henry - Страница 11

Case of The Hudson’s Bay Company v. The United States. – Examination of Mr. McTavish. – Number of witnesses. – Their ignorance. – Amount claimed. – Original stock. – Value of land in Oregon. – Estimate of Hudson’s Bay Company’s property. – Remarks of author.

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

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

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

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

Ans.– “I can not say whether I will produce them or not.”

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

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

It would doubtless be interesting to most of our readers to see a review of the testimony, or at least a summary of the evidence presented on both sides in this case. There are now printed about one thousand pages of documents and depositions. That relating particularly to the Hudson’s Bay Company comprises about two-thirds of the whole amount. The balance relates more particularly to the Puget Sound Agricultural Company’s claim. This claim, the company have not been able, by any testimony yet presented, to separate from that of the Hudson’s Bay Company; so that there is no prospect of their receiving one dollar on that account. There have been examined on the part of the Puget Sound Company, to prove its separate existence from the Hudson’s Bay Company, thirty witnesses; on the part of the United States, twenty-one. On the part of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s claim as separate from the Puget Sound Company, nineteen witnesses; on the part of the United States, thirty. On both sides not far from forty-five witnesses have been called upon the stand to testify in this important case. The company in London have been requested to furnish evidence of the separate organization or independent existence of the two companies; and with all this evidence produced, nothing definite or certain is shown, except that the concern was gotten up to deceive the English people and rob the American government, and to counteract and oppose the American settlement of this country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1821, there was another “watering” of the stock, and a call of £100 per share on the proprietors, which raised their capital to £200,000. The Northwest Fur Company joined the Hudson’s Bay Company in this year, and the joint stock was declared to be £400,000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ans.– “Supposing both claims to belong to the same person or company, having a clear and undisputed title, and perfectly exempt from molestation in the transaction of business, I think the Cowlitz claim worth to-day thirty dollars an acre, and the Nasqualla claim five dollars an acre, for farming and grazing purposes.”

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

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

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

This witness goes into an argument stating surrounding and probable events, and concludes in these words: “I am clearly of opinion that had the company entire control to deal with it as their own, without any question as to their title, from the year 1846 and up to 1858, when I left there, taking the fort as a center point, the land above and below it, to the extent of three square miles, or 1,920 acres, with frontage on the Columbia River, could have been easily disposed of for $250 per acre ($480,000). The remainder of the land claim of the company at Vancouver is more or less valuable, according to its locality; thus, I consider the land on the lower plain, having frontage on the river for a distance of five miles, or 3,200 acres, as worth $100 per acre ($320,000). Below that, again, to the Cathlapootl, a distance of probably ten miles, with a depth of two miles, or 12,800 acres, is worth $25 an acre ($320,000). Going above the fort plain, and so on to the commencement of the claim, two miles above the saw-mill on the Columbia River, say a distance of six or seven miles and back three miles, or about 13,500 acres, should be worth from $10 to $15 per acre” ($135,000, at $10, his lowest estimate). “The remainder of the claim is worth from $1.50 to $3 per acre.” It being 128,580 acres, at $1.50 per acre, $192,580. This would make for the Vancouver property, as claimed, and several witnesses have sworn the value to amount, as per summary of a chief factor’s testimony —

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

This chief factor’s oath and estimate of the property is sustained by the estimates and oaths of three other chief factors, amounting to about the same sum. This one, after answering in writing, as appears in his cross-examination, twenty sworn questions affirming to the facts and truth of his knowledge of the claims and business of the company, etc., is cross-questioned (Interrogatory 477), by the counsel for the United States, as follows: “Can you not answer the last interrogatory more definitely?” The 476th interrogatory was: “Have you not as much knowledge of what the company claimed in this direction as any other?” The answer to the 477th interrogatory is: “Referring to my answer to the last interrogatory, it will be at once seen that I have no personal knowledge as to what land the company actually claimed on that line or any other, as regards the land in the neighborhood of Fort Vancouver. This answer embraces even the present time.”

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

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

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

There is one noticeable fact in relation to quite a number of the witnesses called, and that have testified in behalf of the company’s claim. It is their ignorance – we may add, total ignorance – of the general business, profits, and policy of the company. This remark will apply to every witness whose deposition has been taken, including their bookkeepers and clerks in London, and their chief factors in Oregon. Dr. McLaughlin seems to have been the only man upon this coast that knew, or that could give an intelligent account of its policy or its proceedings.

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

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

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

Ans.– “In my opinion, the officers of the company, being educated gentlemen, have always exerted whatever influence they might have had with the Indians to protect the whites of all nations in the early settlement of the country.”

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

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

Int. 7.– “What influence did the Hudson’s Bay Company exercise over the Indians in the section where you operated, with reference to the American trappers and traders? State such facts as occur to you in this connection.”

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

Int. 13.– “Was it not generally understood among the American trappers that the Hudson’s Bay Company got a very large quantity of Jedediah Smith’s furs, for which he and they failed to account to the company to which they belonged?” (Objected to, because it is leading, immaterial, and hearsay.)

Ans.– “It used to be said so among the trappers in the mountains,” (and admitted by the company, as no correct account was ever rendered.)

Int. 14.– “If you remember, state the quantity which was thus reported.” (Objected to as before.)

Ans.– “It was always reported as about forty packs.”

Int. 15.– “Give an estimate of the value of forty packs of beaver at that time.”

Ans.– “Forty packs of beaver at that time, in the mountains, was worth about $20,000. I do not know what they would be worth at Vancouver.”

Int. 16.– “State whether the dispute about this matter was the cause of the dissolution of the firm of Smith, Jackson & Sublet, to which you refer in your cross-examination.” (Objected to as above.)

Ans.– “I do not know; that was the report among mountain men.”

With these specimens of testimony on both sides, I will venture a general statement drawn from the whole facts developed.

About the time, or perhaps one year before, the notice that the joint occupancy of the country west of the Rocky Mountains was given by the American government to that of the British, the Hudson’s Bay Company, as such, had made extensive preparations and arrangements to hold the country west of the Rocky Mountains. This arrangement embraced a full and complete organization of the Indian tribes under the various traders and factors at the various forts in the country.

The probability of a Mexican war with the United States, and such influences as could be brought to bear upon commissioners, or the treaty-making power of the American government, would enable them to secure this object. In this they failed. The Mexican war was successfully and honorably closed. The Hudson’s Bay Company’s claims are respected, or at least mentioned as in existence, in the treaty of 1846, that the 49th parallel should be the boundary of the two national dominions.

On the strength of their supposed possessory right, they remain quietly in their old forts and French pig-pens, take a full inventory of their old Indian salmon-houses, and watch the progress of American improvement upon this coast, till 1863, when the American people are in the midst of a death struggle for its civil existence. They then for the third time “water” this monstrosity under the name of “‘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,” fixing the nominal stock of the Hudson’s Bay Company at £2,000,000; and taking from this amount £1,930,000, they offer it for sale under this new title in shares of £20 each, claiming as belonging to them [i. e., the Hudson’s Bay Company] 1,400,000 square miles, or upward of 896,000,000 acres of land, and, after paying all expenses, an income of £81,000 in ten years, up to the 31st of May – over four per cent. on the £2,000,000. This vast humbug is held up for the English public to invest in, – a colonization scheme to enrich the favored shareholders of that old English aristocratic humbug chartered by Charles II. in 1670.

In the whole history of that company there has never been any investigation of its internal policy so thorough as in the present proceedings. In fact, this is the first time they have ventured to allow a legal investigation into their system of trade and their rights of property. They have grown to such enormous proportions, and controlled so vast a country, that the government and treasury of the United States has become, in their estimation, a mere appendage to facilitate their Indian trade and financial speculations. From our recent purchases of Russian territory, it becomes an important question to every American citizen, and especially our statesmen, to make himself familiar with so vast an influence under the British flag, and extending along so great an extent of our northern frontier. Should they establish, by their own interested and ignorant testimony, their present claims, there will be no end to their unreasonable demands, for they have dotted the whole continent with their trading-posts. They claim all that is supposed to be of any value to savage and civilized man. The English nation without its Hudson’s Bay Company’s old traps and hunting-parties would have no claim west of the Rocky Mountains, yet, for the sake of these, it has almost ventured a third war with our American people in sending from its shores, instead of land pirates, under the bars and stars, the red flag of the Hudson’s Bay Company. The two flags should be folded together and laid up in the British Museum, as a lasting monument of British injustice.

I apprehend, from a careful review of all this testimony of the forty-one witnesses who were on the part of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and the forty-two on the part of the United States, that the whole policy of the company has been thoroughly developed; yet, at the same time, without a long personal acquaintance with their manner of doing business, it would be difficult to comprehend the full import of the testimony given, though I apprehend the commissioners will have no very difficult task to understand the humbuggery of the whole claim, as developed by the testimony of the clerks in London and the investigation at head-quarters. As to the amount of award, I would not risk one dollar to obtain a share in all they get from our government. On the contrary, a claim should be made against them for damages and trespass upon the American citizens, as also the lives of such as they have caused to be murdered by their influence over the Indians.

The telegraph has informed us that the commissioners have awarded to the Hudson’s Bay Company, $450,000, and to the Puget Sound concern, $200,000. We have no change to make in our opinion of the commissioners previously expressed, as they must have known, from the testimony developed in the Puget Sound concern, that that part of the claim was a fictitious one, and instituted to distract the public and divide the pretensions to so large an amount in two parts. That the commissioners should allow it can only be understood upon the principle that the Hudson’s Bay Company were entitled to that amount as an item of costs in prosecuting their case.

No man at all familiar with the history of this coast, and of the Hudson’s Bay Company, can conscientiously approve of that award. Our forefathers, in 1776, said “millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute,” which we consider this award to be, – for the benefit of English duplicity and double-dealing, in the false representations they made at the making of the treaty, and the perjury of their witnesses.