“And, lastly,” – here follows a particular statement asserting that for the violation of any one of the thousand and one conditions of that deed, the settler forfeits to the company his right to the land, which reverts back to the company.
Our country delights to honor the sailor and soldier who performs a good, great, or noble act to save its territory from becoming the abode of despotism, or its honor from the taunt of surrounding nations. In what light shall we regard the early American missionaries and pioneers of Oregon?
It is true they heard the call of the oppressed savage for Christian light and civilization. They came in good faith, and labored faithfully, though, perhaps, mistaking many of the strict duties of the Christian missionary; and some, being led astray by the wiles and cunning of an unscrupulous fur monopoly, failed to benefit the Indians to the extent anticipated; yet they formed the nucleus around which the American pioneer with his family gathered, and from which he drew his encouragement and protection; and a part of these missionaries were the leaders and sustainers of those influences which ultimately secured this country to freedom and the great Republic.
The extracts from the deed above quoted show what Oregon would have been, had the early American missionaries failed to answer the call of the Indians, or had been driven from the country; or even had not Whitman and his associates separated, the one to go to Washington to ask for delay in the settlement of the boundary question, the others to the Wallamet Valley to aid and urge on the organization of the provisional government.
CHAPTER IX
Puget Sound Agricultural Company. – Its original stock. – A correspondence. – No law to punish fraud. – A supposed trial of the case. – Article four of the treaty. – The witnesses. – Who is to receive the Puget Sound money. – Dr. Tolmie, agent of the company. – The country hunted up. – Difficult to trace a fictitious object. – Statement of their claim. – Result of the investigation.
The Puget Sound Agricultural Company, now claiming of our government the sum of $1,168,000, was first talked of and brought into existence at Vancouver in the winter of 1837, in consequence of, and in opposition to, the Wallamet Cattle Company, which was got up and successfully carried through by the influence and perseverance of Rev. Jason Lee, superintendent of the Methodist Mission. This Nasqualla and Puget Sound Company was an opposing influence to Mr. Lee and his mission settlement, and was also to form the nucleus for two other British settlements in Oregon, to be under the exclusive control of the Hudson’s Bay Company.
The original stock of the company was nominally £200,000. The paid-up capital upon this amount was supposed to be ten per cent., which would give £20,000, or $96,800, at $4.84 per pound. From the most reliable information we can get, this amount was taken from a sinking fund, or a fund set apart for the purpose of opposing any opposition in the fur trade. About the time this Puget Sound Company came into existence, the American fur companies had been driven from the country, and the fund was considered as idle or useless stock; and as the question of settlement of the country would in all probability soon come up, Rev. Mr. Lee having taken the first step to the independence of his missionary settlement in the Wallamet, this Puget Sound Company was gotten up to control the agricultural and cattle or stock interests of the country. It was in existence in name some two years before its definite arrangements were fixed by the Hudson’s Bay Company, through the agency of Dr. W. F. Tolmie, who went to London for that purpose, and by whom they were concluded, “with the consent of the Hudson’s Bay Company, who stipulated that an officer connected with the fur-trade branch of the Hudson’s Bay Company should have supreme direction of the affairs of the Puget Sound Company in this country. It was also stipulated that the Puget Sound Company should be under bonds not to permit any of its employés to be in any way concerned in the fur trade, in opposition to the Hudson’s Bay Company.”
It is easy to be seen by the above-stated condition, that the Hudson’s Bay Company were not willing to allow the least interference with their fur trade by any one over whom they had any control or influence; that their design and object was to control the trade of the whole country, and that they had no intention in any way to encourage any American settlement in it, as shown by the arrangements made as early as 1837.
There had been a correspondence with the managing directors of the company in London previous to Dr. Tolmie’s visit. The directors had discouraged the proposed enlargement of their business, but it seems from the statement of Dr. Tolmie, and the arrangements he made, that they acceded to his plans, and constituted him their special agent. There was at the time a question as to a separate charter for that branch of their business. It was finally conceded that a separate charter would enable this agricultural and cattle company to become independent of the fur branch, and thus be the means of establishing an opposition by the use of the funds appropriated to prevent any thing of this kind, and decided that as the company had stipulated that they were to have the “supreme direction of the Puget Sound Agricultural Company,” no charter was necessary, and hence any arrangements to that effect were withdrawn. It was from a knowledge of the fact that that company had not even the Parliamentary acknowledgment of its separate existence from the Hudson’s Bay Company, that all their land claims were at once taken; and upon that ground they have not dared to prosecute their claims, only under the wording of the treaty with the United States, which is the only shadow of a legal existence they have, and which, there is no question, would have been stricken from the treaty, except through the fur influence of the company to increase the plausibility of their claims against our government.
If there was any law to punish a fraud attempted to be committed by a foreign company upon a friendly nation, this would be a plain case; as the Hudson’s Bay Company, they claim $3,822,036.37; as the Puget Sound Company, $1,168,000. The original stock of the Hudson’s Bay Company was £10,500, or $50,820. In 1690 the dividends upon this capital invested were so enormous that the company voted to treble their stock, which was declared to be £31,500, or $152,460. In 1720 the capital was again declared trebled, and to be £94,500, or $457,380, while the only amount paid was £10,500, or $50,820. It was then proposed to add three times as much to its capital stock by subscription; each subscriber paying £100 was to receive £300 of stock, so that the nominal stock should amount to £378,000, or $1,820,520 – the real additional sum subscribed being £94,500, and the amount of real stock added or paid but £3,150. In 1821, the Hudson’s Bay Company and Northwest Company, of Montreal, were united. The Hudson’s Bay Company called £100 on each share of its stock, thus raising it nominally to £200,000, or $958,000. The Northwest Company called theirs the same. The two companies combined held a nominal joint stock of £400,000, or $1,916,000, while we have reason to suppose that the original stock of the two companies, admitting that the Northwest French Company had an equal amount of original capital invested, would give £37,300, or $135,134, as the capital upon which they have drawn from our country never less than ten per cent. per annum, even when counted at £400,000, or $1,916,000; and what, we would ask, has America received in return for this enormous drain of her wealth and substance?
Have the Indians in any part of the vast country occupied by that company been civilized or bettered in their condition? Have the settlements under their fostering care been successful and prosperous? Have they done any thing to improve any portion of the country they have occupied, any further than such improvements were necessary to increase the profits of their fur trade?
To every one of these questions we say, emphatically, No, not in a single instance. On the contrary, they have used their privileges solely to draw all the wealth they could from the country, and leave as little as was possible in return.
The British author, from whose book we have drawn our figures of that company’s stock, says of them: “To say, then, that the trade of this country (England) has been fostered and extended by the monopoly enjoyed by the company, is exactly contrary to the truth.”
We come now to learn all we can of a something that has assumed the name of Puget Sound Agricultural Company, and under