A History of Oregon, 1792-1849. W. H. Gray
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