English Hudson’s Bay effort to secure Oregon.—British claim to Oregon.—Dr. McLaughlin’s relation to the company.—Treatment of Red River settlers.—A mistake.—Sir Edward Belcher.—Duplicity of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—A noble man.—An Englishman’s opinion of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—Sir James Douglas’s testimony.—J. Ross Browne.—Duty of an historian.—Cause and effect.

Since commencing this work we have, by the kindness of friends who have taken a deep interest in all that relates to this country, been furnished with many valuable and important statements, documents, pamphlets, papers, and books, all relating to its early history.

Of the whole catalogue, the most valuable information is contained in a work entitled “An Examination of the Charter and Proceedings of the Hudson’s Bay Company, with Reference to the Grant of Vancouver’s Island. By James Edward Fitzgerald. London.” Published in 1849.

The author of this book, though not having the personal knowledge of the company, the Indians, and the country about which he writes requisite to a complete history, has shown a correctness of statistical facts, a comprehensive knowledge of his subject, an enlarged view of the British colonial system, and a correct idea of the debasing practices and utterly false positions of the Hudson’s Bay Company not found in any other writer.

Up to the time that this book of 293 pages fell into my hands, I did not know that any writer entertained similar views with myself in relation to this monstrous imposition upon the British and American people.

Mr. Fitzgerald has fortified his statements by his knowledge of the English people, their laws and usages, and the casual outcroppings of a system of unparalleled selfishness and despotism, carried on under the guise of a Christian commercial company, whose professed object was to extend commerce, and civilize and christianize the savage tribes of North America, yet who have invariably held up their Christian chartered privileges for the sole purpose of carrying on the most degrading and inhuman practices with not only the savages, but with all civilized and Christian men who have attempted to expose or even investigate their conduct.

As we proceed with our history, we feel confident that we shall be able to enlighten our readers on many dark subjects and transactions, and to fully prove every statement we have made, or may yet make. Mr. Fitzgerald has given us clearly and truthfully the English side of our history as connected with this Hudson’s Bay Company. The American part of it the writer is gathering up, and, in giving it to the public, will discard every statement that does not bear the impress of truth.

The reader will notice that our subject is extensive, that England and America, commerce and Christianity, civilization and savagism, are all involved and interested in it, and that Oregon, California, and British and Russian America have all participated in it during the past and present century; that we are tracing cause and effect and bringing to light influences that, while producing their legitimate results, were strange and unaccountable, because always kept under the selfish and unscrupulous policy of this English corporation of fur traders.

By referring to the charter of the Hudson’s Bay Company, we find that it was given by Charles II., in 1670, granting to the “governor and company and their successors the exclusive right to trade, fish, and hunt in the waters, bays, rivers, lakes, and creeks entering into Hudson’s Straits, together with all the lands and territories not already occupied or granted to any of the king’s subjects, or possessed by the subjects of any other Christian prince or State.”

Forty years previous to the giving of this charter by Charles II., of England, Louis XIII., of France, gave a charter to a French company, who occupied the country called Acadia, or New France.

In 1632, Charles I., of England, resigned to Louis XIII., of France, the sovereignty of the country then called Acadia, or New France.

Forty years after Louis XIII., of France, had given his charter, and thirty-eight years after Charles I., of England, had given up his right to the country, Charles II., of England, imitating the example of him who wished to give the world and all its glory to obtain the worship of the Saviour of mankind, gave to the Hudson’s Bay Company what he had not the shadow of a title to, as in the treaty of Ryswick, in 1697, twenty-seven years after this charter of the Hudson’s Bay Company had been given, the whole country was confirmed to France, and no reservation made on account of the Hudson’s Bay Company.

Mr. Fitzgerald, on his 12th page, says: “It has often been asserted, and is to a great extent believed, because there is very little general information on this subject, that the claim which Great Britain made to the Oregon Territory was dependent upon, or, at any rate, strengthened by, the settlement of the Hudson’s Bay Company on the Columbia River.

“Those who hold such an opinion will be surprised to learn that there are many, and they well acquainted with the country itself, who assert that the conduct and policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company in the Oregon Territory formed the chief part of the title which the United States had to the country, which was gratuitously given to her by the settlement of the boundary. What the United States owe to the company for its policy on the west side of the Rocky Mountains is a question to which the English public will some day demand a satisfactory answer.

“Dr. McLaughlin was formerly an agent in the Northwest Fur Company of Montreal; he was one of the most enterprising and active in conducting the war between that association and the Hudson’s Bay Company. In the year 1821, when the rival companies united, Dr. McLaughlin became a factor of the Hudson’s Bay Company. But his allegiance does not appear to have been disposed of along with his interests, and his sympathy with any thing other than British, seems to have done justice to his birth and education, which were those of a French Canadian. This gentleman was appointed governor of all the country west of the Rocky Mountains, and is accused, by those who have been in that country, of having uniformly encouraged the emigration of settlers from the United States, and of having discouraged that of British subjects. While the company in this country (England) were asserting that their settlements on the Columbia River were giving validity to the claim of Great Britain to the Oregon Territory, it appears that their chief officer on the spot was doing all in his power to facilitate the operations of those whose whole object it was to annihilate that claim altogether.”

Mr. Fitzgerald has given us in the above statement an important fact, and one that reveals to an American the deep-laid schemes of the English government, which, by the influence of the Hudson’s Bay Company, sought to secure the Oregon Territory to itself. He also explains the conduct of Dr. McLaughlin in his treatment of emigrants, as well as the relation he sustained to that company. While, as Americans, we can admire and applaud the conduct of a noble and generous “Canadian-born” citizen, we at the same time can see the low, debasing, and mean spirit of the Englishman, as manifested in the attempt to deprive the American Republic of its rightful domain.

We shall have occasion to refer to the bringing into Oregon of the Red River settlers, and as the result of that move, the unparalleled effort of Dr. Whitman to defeat the British designs upon the country.

Mr. Fitzgerald explains that matter so well, that we could not do justice to the truth of history not to quote him. He says, on the 14th page of his work: “There is one story told, about which it is right that the truth should be ascertained. It is said that a number of half-breeds from the Red River settlement were, in the year of 1841-2, induced by the company’s officers to undertake a journey entirely across the continent, with the object of becoming settlers on the Columbia River. It appears that a number went, but on arriving in the country, so far from finding any of the promised encouragement, the treatment they received from Dr. McLaughlin was such, that, after having been nearly starved under the paternal care of that gentleman, they all went over to the American settlement in the Wallamet Valley.”

This statement, while it affirms an important fact, gives a false impression as regards Dr. McLaughlin. He, to our certain knowledge, extended to the Red River settlers every facility within his power, and all of those emigrants to this day speak of his kindness in the highest terms. But not so of other leading or controlling members, who really represented the English part and policy of that company. Those settlers complained of the domineering and tyrannical treatment of their English overseers, which was the cause of their leaving what they supposed would eventually be the English part of Oregon Territory. They also became sensible that the Hudson’s Bay Company in Oregon was a different concern from the Hudson’s Bay Company in Rupert’s Land; that, however small their privileges were there, they were less on Puget Sound; and being near an American settlement, they naturally sought its advantages and protection.

Mr. Fitzgerald informs us that “these emigrants became citizens of the United States, and it is further said were the first to memorialize Congress to extend the power of the United States over the Oregon Territory. For the truth of these statements we do not, of course vouch, but we do say they demand inquiry.”

This statement of Mr. Fitzgerald entitles him to be considered a candid and fair writer, and one who is seeking for truth in reference to the subject he is investigating. He has naturally imbibed the feelings of an Englishman against Dr. McLaughlin, under the strong effort made by the English Hudson’s Bay Company to suppress and supersede the French Canadian influence in it.

He says, on page 15: “Dr. McLaughlin’s policy was so manifestly American that it is openly canvassed in a book written by Mr. Dunn, one of the servants of the company, and written for the purpose of praising their system and policy.”

Sir Edward Belcher also alludes to this policy. He says: “Some few years since, the company determined on forming settlements on the rich lands situated on the Wallamet and other rivers, and for providing for their retired servants, by allotting them farms, and further aiding them by supplies of cattle, etc. That on the Wallamet was a field too inviting for missionary enthusiasm to overlook, but instead of selecting a British subject to afford them spiritual assistance, recourse was had to Americans, a course pregnant with evil consequences, and particularly in the political squabble pending, as will be seen by the result. No sooner had the American and his allies fairly squatted (which they deem taking possession of the country), than they invited their brethren to join them, and called on the American government for laws and protection.”

The American reader will smile at Sir Edward’s little fling at the squatters in Oregon. He asserts a great truth in the same sentence that he utters a positive falsehood. No member of the Hudson’s Bay Company, nor the whole company together, ever encouraged a single American missionary to come to the country. Revs. Lee and Parker and Dr. Whitman came without their invitation or aid. They were entirely independent of the company, and were only suffered to remain, the company not daring to drive them from the country on their first arrival, as they all held the protection of the American government, as Indian teachers, under the great seal of the Secretary of War. This English fling at their own company is evidence of a jealousy existing which could not be satisfied short of the utter extermination of all American influence on this coast, and is further illustrated by this same Sir Edward Belcher, in contrasting the treatment of Captain Wilkes and his party with that of his own. He says (vol. 1, p. 297): “The attention of the chief to myself and those immediately about me, particularly in sending down fresh supplies, previous to my arrival, I feel fully grateful for; but I can not conceal my disappointment at the want of accommodation exhibited toward the crews of the vessels under my command in a British possession.” We old Oregonians are amused at Sir Edward’s ignorance of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s treatment of the crews of vessels, and servants of the company. We all know his crew were allowed to associate freely with the native women in the country and to distribute their rations of rum, and any other supplies they might have, without any remonstrance from the company. Sir Edward continues: “We certainly were not distressed, nor was it imperatively necessary that fresh beef and vegetables should be supplied, or I should have made a formal demand. But as regarded those who might come after, and not improbably myself among the number, I inquired in direct terms what facilities her Majesty’s ship of war might expect, in the event of touching at this port for bullocks, flour, vegetables, etc. I certainly was extremely surprised at the reply that they were not in a condition to supply. As any observation here would be useless, and I well knew this point could be readily settled where authority could be referred to, I let the matter rest. But having been invited to inspect the farm and dairy, and been informed of the quantity of grain, and the means of furnishing flour, and notwithstanding the profusion of cattle and potatoes, no offer having been made for our crew, I regretted that I had been led into the acceptance of private supplies; although, at that time, the other officers of the establishment had told my officers that supplies would of course be sent down.”

Mr. Fitzgerald says “the American policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company would seem, from the above facts, to be more than a matter of suspicion,” while we Americans are only disposed to regard them as a part of the duplicity of that company in their effort to deceive their own countrymen as to the value of the country over which they had ruled so long.

They had been too successful in deceiving all American writers to allow their own countrymen to understand their secret policy. Sir Edward Belcher and our English historian were equally misled in relation to the American policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company. It is true that Dr. McLaughlin, though he was a French Canadian subject, had not lost his American soul. The British iron had not driven the last noble sentiment of humanity from his heart, nor his connection with that polluted corporation of iniquity which pervades half the continent of North America; for when he found that this Hudson’s Bay Company was utterly lost to humanity, he tells them to their teeth: “Gentlemen, I will serve you no longer.”

No true American historian will allow, without contradiction, that corrupt company to hand down to future infamy the name of a noble and generous servant, because their infamous policy was defeated by the establishment of the American missions in the country. Dr. McLaughlin did all that he could, honorably, to comply with their “system of iniquity.”

Our English author says, on page 19, in reference to the conduct of the company: “They are convictions which have strengthened and deepened at every step of the inquiry; convictions that the Hudson’s Bay Company has entailed misery and destruction upon thousands throughout the country which is withering under its curse; that it has cramped and crippled the energies and enterprise of England, which might have found occupation in the directions from which they are now excluded; that it has stopped the extension of civilization, and has excluded the light of religious truth; that it has alienated the hearts of all under its oppression, and made them hostile to their country; above all, that the whole and entire fabric is built upon utterly false and fictitious grounds; that it has not one shadow of reality in law or in justice; that there is not the smallest legal authority for any one of the rights which this corporation claims. It is this conviction which has urged me to submit the statements and arguments contained in the following pages to the consideration of the public; and to arraign before that tribunal, from which in these days there is no escape,—the judgment of public opinion,—a corporation who, under the authority of a charter which is invalid in law, hold a monopoly in commerce, and exercise a despotism in government, and have so used that monopoly and wielded that power as to shut up the earth from the knowledge of man, and man from the knowledge of God.”

With the statements and convictions of this English author before us, we will add a statement of Sir James Douglas, given in answer to interrogatory 11 in the case of Hudson’s Bay Company’s Claim v. United States, to give the reader a better idea of the power and influence of that company in Oregon, in 1846.

Sir James says: “The Honorable Hudson’s Bay Company had fifty-five officers and five hundred and thirteen articled men. The company having a large, active, and experienced force of servants in their employ, and holding establishments judiciously situated in the most favorable portions for trade, forming, as it were, a net-work of posts aiding and supporting each other, possessed an extraordinary influence with the natives, and in 1846 practically enjoyed a monopoly of the fur trade in the country west of the Rocky Mountains, north and south of the forty-ninth parallel of latitude. The profits of their trade,” says this witness, “from 1841 to 1846 were at least seven thousand pounds sterling annually.”

The fifty-five officers and five hundred and thirteen articled men of the company, with their eight hundred half-breeds, and the Indians they could command by the judicious position of their respective posts, were deemed by them sufficient security for their trade, and a substantial reason why they should not give up the country without making another direct effort to drive the missionary and American settlements from it, notwithstanding all their pretension to join in the provisional government organized by the pioneer Americans in 1843.

The reader is referred to the discussion on the liquor question between Judge Sir James Douglas and Mr. Samuel Parker, as found in the tenth and eleventh numbers, first volume, of the Spectator, published June 11 and 25, 1845, and in another chapter of this work, and requested to keep all these facts before the mind, so as not to lose sight of the commanding influence, or, in other words, the commander, when we enter upon the preliminary and immediate causes of the Whitman massacre, and the Indian war that followed.

We have before us the original depositions in reference to the facts stated, and also the attempt to excuse the principal actors in that horrible transaction, as given by Brouillet in justification of the course pursued by the Jesuit missionaries.

We have also the superficial and bombastic report of J. Ross Browne, special agent of the Treasury Department, dated December 4, 1857, containing a copy of this Jesuit history of the murder of Dr. Whitman. In his remarks previous to giving Brouillet’s history, he says: “In view of the fact, however, that objections might be made to any testimony coming from the citizens of the Territories, and believing also that it is the duty of a public agent to present, as far as practicable, unprejudiced statements, I did not permit myself to be governed by any representations unsupported by reliable historical data.” —— “The fact also is shown that, as far back as 1835, the Indians west of the Rocky Mountains protested against the taking away of their lands by the white race. That this was one of the alleged causes of the murder of Dr. Whitman and family.”

There are sixty-six pages in this report. Twelve of them are Mr. Browne’s, one page of official acknowledgment, and fifty-three from the parties implicated.

The statements of Mr. Browne, of Mr. Fitzgerald, and the oath of Mr. Douglas, are sufficient to show the ignorance, stupidity, and falsehood incorporated in his report, were there no other historical facts to convict him of ignorance in allowing such representations to be made in an official document. In the proper place we will bring this report into our history, with both sides of the question.

Were we to express an opinion of Mr. J. Ross Browne’s report, with our personal knowledge of what he pretends to relate, we would say he ignored the people, the country, and the government whose agent he claimed to be, and was reporting for the special benefit of the Roman religion and British government, as these are extensively quoted as historical data from which his report and conclusions are drawn.

The reader will understand our main object to be to give a full history of all influences and prominent transactions and events that have occurred in Oregon from 1792 to 1849.

To understand cause and effect, and the true history of the country, we have to examine the facts as connected with actions, and also to trace back the history of the actors, in order to see how far they may be made responsible for the result of their actions.

Oregon, from the time of its discovery, has been a field where all the influences of which we are writing have been living, active influences; and they are by no means inactive or dead at the present time. Some of them are more active now than they were in 1836.

A full knowledge of the past will enable us to guard the present and the future. Our English writer has gathered his facts and drawn his conclusions in London. We, upon this, our western coast, are witnesses of the cause and results of his conclusions, and any statement he makes we feel ourselves abundantly able to corroborate or correct.

As we proceed with our history we shall have frequent occasion to quote Mr. Fitzgerald, as the best English evidence, in favor of our American statements or positions. Since writing the above we have noticed a lengthy article in the Edinburgh Westminster Review for July, 1867, giving a concise history of the Hudson’s Bay Company, under the heading, “The Last Great Monopoly.” In that article the author has shown extensive historical knowledge of the operations and influences of that monopoly in that portion of our continent over which they have held exclusive control.

He regards them as a blight upon the country, and an “incubus” to be removed by national legislation. If our work had been published, we should conclude that he must have drawn many of his facts from our own observations. But this is not the case; hence the value to us of his corroboration of the facts we affirm from personal knowledge.