These missionaries have made no attempt to improve the condition of the Indians, but have impressed upon their ignorant minds a reverence for themselves and their superstitions. See Bishop Blanchet’s reply to Cayuse Indians, November 4, 1847, page 44 of Brouillet’s “Protestantism in Oregon;” also pages 34-5, Executive Doc. No. 38, J. Ross Browne, as given below: —
“The bishop replied that it was the pope who had sent him; that he had not sent him to take their land, but only for the purpose of saving their souls; that, however, having to live, and possessing no wealth, he had asked of them a piece of land that he could cultivate for his support; that in his country it was the faithful who maintained the priests, but that here he did not ask so much, but only a piece of land, and that the priests themselves would do the rest. He told them that he would not make presents to Indians, that he would give them nothing for the land he asked; that, in case they worked for him, he would pay them for their work, and no more; that he would assist them neither in plowing their lands nor in building houses, nor would he feed or clothe their children,” etc.
At Moose Factory, Mr. Barnley says: “A plan which I had devised for educating and training to some acquaintance with agriculture native children was disallowed, but permission was given me by the governor in council to collect seven or eight boys from various parts of the surrounding country, to be clothed, and at the company’s expense. A proposal made for forming a small Indian village near Moose Factory was not acceded to; and, instead, permission only given to attempt the location of one or two old men who were no longer fit for engaging in the chase, it being very carefully and distinctly stated by Sir George Simpson that the company would not give them even a spade toward commencing their new mode of life. When at length a young man was found likely to prove serviceable as an interpreter, every impediment was interposed to prevent his engaging in my service, although a distinct understanding existed that neither for food nor wages would he be chargeable to the company. And the pledge that I should be at liberty to train up several boys for future usefulness, though not withdrawn, was treated as if it had never existed at all; efforts being made to produce the impression on the mind of my general superintendent that I was, most unwarrantably, expecting the company to depart from their original compact, when I attempted to add but two of the stipulated number to my household. ⚹ ⚹ ⚹ ⚹ ⚹ ⚹
“At Moose Factory, where the resources were most ample, and where was the seat of authority in the southern department of Rupert’s Land, the hostility of the company (and not merely their inability to aid me, whether with convenience or inconvenience to themselves) was most manifest.
“The Indians were compelled, in opposition to their convictions and desires, to labor on the Lord’s day. They were not permitted to purchase the food required on the Sabbath, that they might rest on that day while voyaging, although there was no necessity for their proceeding, and their wages would have remained the same. ⚹ ⚹ ⚹
“At length, disappointed, persecuted, myself and wife broken in spirit, and almost ruined in constitution by months of anxiety and suffering, a return to England became the only means of escaping a premature grave; and we are happy in fleeing from the iron hand of oppression, and bidding farewell to that which had proved to us a land of darkness and of sorrow.
“From the above statements you will perceive that if true in some cases, it is not all, that the company have furnished the ‘means of conveyance from place to place.’ They have not done so, at all events, in the particular case mentioned, nor would they let me have the canoe, lying idle as it was, when they knew that I was prepared to meet ‘the expense.’
“And equally far from the truth is it, that the missionaries have been ‘boarded, lodged, provided with interpreters and servants free of charge.’”
In this last statement, Mr. Barnley is mistaken, for, to our certain knowledge, and according to the voluntary statement of the Roman Jesuits, Revs. Bishop Blanchet, Demer, P. J. De Smet, Brouillet, and many other Jesuit missionaries, they received from the Hudson’s Bay Company board and lodging, and were provided with interpreters, catechist, transportation, and even houses and church buildings.
The only mistake of Mr. Barnley was, that he was either an Episcopal or Wesleyan missionary or chaplain, like Mr. Beaver, at Fort Vancouver, and he, like Mr. Beaver, was a little too conscientious as to his duties, and efforts to benefit the Indians, to suit the policy of that company. The Roman Jesuitical religion was better adapted to their ideas of Indian traffic and morals; hence, the honorable company chose to get rid of all others, as they had done with all opposing fur traders. What was a civilized Indian worth to that company? Not half as much as a common otter or beaver skin. As to the soul of an Indian, he certainly could have no more than the gentlemen who managed the affairs of the honorable company.
CHAPTER VIII
Petition of Red River settlers. – Their requests, from 1 to 14. – Names. – Governor Christie’s reply. – Company’s reply. – Extract from minutes. – Resolutions, from 1 to 9. – Enforcing rules. – Land deed. – Its condition. – Remarks.
Before closing this subject we must explain our allusion to the Red River settlement, and in so doing illustrate and prove beyond a doubt the settled and determined policy of that organization to crush out their own, as well as American settlements, – a most unnatural, though true position of that company. It will be seen, by the date of the document quoted below, that, four years previous, that company, in order to deceive the English government and people in relation to the settlement on the Columbia River, and also to diminish the number of this Red River colony, had, by direction of Sir George Simpson, sent a part of it to the Columbia department. The remaining settlers of Rupert’s Land (the Selkirk settlement) began to assert their right to cultivate the soil (as per Selkirk grant), as also the right to trade with the natives, and to participate in the profits of the wild animals in the country. The document they prepared is a curious, as well as important one, and too interesting to be omitted. It reads as follows: —
“August 29, 1845.
“Sir, – Having at this moment a very strong belief that we, as natives of this country, and as half-breeds, have the right to hunt furs in the Hudson’s Bay Company’s territories whenever we think proper, and again sell those furs to the highest bidder, likewise having a doubt that natives of this country can be prevented from trading and trafficking with one another, we would wish to have your opinion on the subject, lest we should commit ourselves by doing any thing in opposition either to the laws of England or the honorable company’s privileges, and therefore lay before you, as governor of Red River settlement, a few queries, which we beg you will answer in course.
“Query 1. Has a half-breed, a settler, the right to hunt furs in this country?
“2. Has a native of this country, not an Indian, a right to hunt furs?
“3. If a half-breed has the right to hunt furs, can he hire other half-breeds for the purpose of hunting furs? Can a half-breed sell his furs to any person he pleases?
“5. Is a half-breed obliged to sell his furs to the Hudson’s Bay Company at whatever price the company may think proper to give him?
“6. Can a half-breed receive any furs, as a present, from an Indian, a relative of his?
“7. Can a half-breed hire any of his Indian relatives to hunt furs for him?
“8. Can a half-breed trade furs from another half-breed, in or out of the settlement?
“9. Can a half-breed trade furs from an Indian, in or out of the settlement?
“10. With regard to trading or hunting furs, have the half-breeds, or natives of European origin, any rights or privileges over Europeans?
“11. A settler, having purchased lands from Lord Selkirk, or even from the Hudson’s Bay Company, without any conditions attached to them, or without having signed any bond, deed, or instrument whatever, whereby he might have willed away his right to trade furs, can