A History of Oregon, 1792-1849. Gray William Henry
their proceedings, and, on the 2d of July, 1821, in an act bearing date as above, says of them: —
“Whereas, the competition in the fur trade between the governor and company of adventurers of England trading into Hudson’s Bay, and certain associations of persons trading under the name of the Northwest Company of Montreal, has been found, for some years past, to be productive of great inconvenience and loss, not only to the said company and association, but to the said trade in general, and also of great injury to the native Indians, and of other persons subjects of his Majesty; and whereas, the animosities and feuds arising from such competition have also, for some years past, kept the interior of America, to the northward and westward of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, and of the Territories of the United States of America, in a state of continual disturbance; and whereas, many breaches of the peace and violence extending to the loss of lives and considerable destruction of property have continually occurred therein,” etc. (See Greenhow’s History of Oregon, p. 467.)
The broad policy of British fur traders is here stated in plain language by their own government in a manner not to be mistaken. Their influence upon the Indians was injurious. Their policy toward each other was war and destruction to all opponents. The life and property of an opposing trader must not come in competition with the profits of their trade with Indians in any country.
How absurd it is for our government to spend millions of dollars to form treaties with Indians who are constantly visited by these foreign Indian traders and teachers, emissaries of a foreign power, who never breathed an honest breath or spoke a truthful word! Feeble and insignificant as they were, from 1813 to 1821 the whole Indian country of North America fell under their blighting and withering influence. Divided as they were, they were able to crush all honest competition, and combine in deadly combat against their own countrymen for the supremacy of the Indian trade. Have they lost their power and influence by uniting the elements of opposition in one vast fur monopoly? Nay, verily, as we shall see.
To gain a correct understanding of the foreign policy relative to the western portion of our country, it will be necessary to refer to the early history of the two fur companies, and trace their connection with France and England, which, notwithstanding the English government had given up the country to France in 1696 in the treaty of Ryswick, and no reservation was made on account of the Hudson’s Bay Company – as they did Oregon to the United States in the treaty of Ghent, in 1815, and made no reservation on account of the Northwest Fur Company – still the Hudson’s Bay Company held on to a single post, called Albany, on the southwest part of James Bay, for twenty-six years, as the Northwest and Hudson’s Bay fur companies did to Astoria and Oregon for forty-nine years.
In the wording of the treaty of Utrecht, in 1714, in which the country was given back to England by France, there is one proviso that is not to be overlooked, viz.: “It is, however, provided, that it may be entirely free for the company of Quebec, and all others the subjects of the most Christian king whatsoever, to go, by land or by sea, whithersoever they please, out of the lands of the said bay, together with all their goods, merchandise, arms, and effects, of what nature or condition soever, except such things as are above reserved in this article,” etc., the exceptions referring to forts, cannon, and permanent war materials.
This French stipulation in the treaty of Utrecht, in 1714, is repeated by the English diplomatist upon the Americans, in the third article of the treaty of June 15, 1846, forming the basis of the claim urged against our government in the treaty of 1864.
In the treaty stipulations between France and England in 1714, the commercial rights of the French company of Quebec were secured to them. From that time forward, the aggressive and oppressive policy of the British Hudson’s Bay Company was brought into collision, not only with the French Northwest Fur Company, but with the United States and all American fur companies and missionary and commercial enterprises coming within their fur-trade influence.
It will be remembered that the Hudson’s Bay Company, who claim their existence and privileges from the charter of Charles II., as early as 1670, had, in forty-four years’ time, only established (as Mr. Fitzgerald says) “four or five insignificant forts on the shores of Hudson’s Bay to carry on a trade in furs with those Indians who resorted thither;” while the French, for many years previous, had carried on an active trade with the Indians, and had explored the country and extended their posts up to the shores of the Saskatchewan, and over the Rocky Mountains, on to the waters of the Columbia. The French carried on the traffic by way of the St. Lawrence and the lakes to Fort William, on Lake Superior, and through the Lake of the Woods into Lake Winnipeg, or further south along the plains, crossing the course of the Red River; this being the direct and only line of posts kept up by the French Northwest Company, by which their food, goods, and furs were transported. The Hudson’s Bay Company carried theirs by way of Hudson’s Straits, around the coast of Labrador. In order to destroy and cut off as much as possible the trade of this Northwest Company, Lord Selkirk, in 1811-12, became a shareholder, and was allowed to claim, through the directors of the company, sixteen thousand square miles of territory in the Red River country, for the professed purpose of colonization.
This colony was planted directly in the line of the fur traffic of the Northwest Company, against which the Hudson’s Bay Company had encouraged and carried on the most bitter hostility, enlisting both men and Indians in a deadly feud between the two rival companies.
Our English writer remarks on page 57: “To those who had read the mutual recriminations that had been bandied between these two bodies, it was a strange sight to see the names of Messrs. McGillivray and Edward Ellice associated with that of the Hudson’s Bay Company, – to see men going hand-in-hand who had openly accused one another of the foulest crimes, of wholesale robbery, of allowing their servants to instigate the Indian tribes to MURDER the servants of their rivals, – this was a strange sight. And to see gentlemen who had publicly denied the validity of the company’s charter, who had taken the opinion of the leading counsel of the day against it, who had tried every means, lawful and unlawful, to overthrow it, to see these same men range themselves under its protection, and, asserting all that they had before denied, proclaim its validity as soon as they were admitted to share its advantages; who, without its pale, asserted the rights of British subjects against its monopoly, and, within its pale, asserted its monopoly against the rights of British subjects, – this, too, was a strange sight. Yet to all this did the Hudson’s Bay Company submit, rather than subject their charter and their claims to the investigation of a court of law.”
The Hudson’s Bay Company, one hundred and fifty years from the date of its charter, asserted its right to the country, and, by virtue of the privileges conferred in that charter, seized the supplies and goods of the Northwest French Canadian Company, and confiscated them to its own use. This resulted in a deadly war between the two companies, and was carried on, neither party applying to the courts of the mother country for a settlement of their difficulties; in fact, as has been shown by reference to the charter of the Hudson’s Bay Company, they had no legal rights, because none were in existence at the date of their charter; but, from the maneuvering of the company and the plausible efforts of Lord Selkirk to colonize, civilize, and settle the Red River country, they entered into his schemes, in order to crush the rival company and secure the whole country to themselves. It is unnecessary to detail any accounts of the horrid murders and infamous transactions that were put on foot and perpetrated by these two companies. After a furious contention, carried on for several years, “they bribed rivals whom they could not defeat, and the two companies united and agreed to carry on the fur trade together, to the exclusion of all others.”
The Selkirk settlement was soon made to feel the withering influence of the company that had located it in the country for a specific purpose, Neither, however, was there any compromise till its inhabitants had been driven from their homes, its Governor (Semple) and seventeen of his followers killed. Then a compromise was effected between the rival companies, and they were united by an act of Parliament, under the title of Honorable Hudson’s Bay Company, in 1821, – a license given to Messrs. William and Simon McGillivray, of the Northwest Company, and Edward Ellice, of the Hudson’s Bay Company. These corporate members and their associates “were to share the profits arising from the fur trade, not only from the Indian territories, but also from