make a volume of the usual size of law books of one thousand pages. Of course the fourth article of the treaty would be read to us by both the lawyers, and explained by the judge, who would doubtless say to the jury the first question to decide is, whether there is sufficient evidence to convince you that the company claiming this name have any legal existence outside the wording of the fourth article of this treaty. Our answer would be: "Your honor, there is not the least word in a single testimony presented before us to show that they ever had any existence, only as they assumed a name to designate the place a certain branch of the Hudson's Bay Company's business, outside of its legitimate trade; that this being a branch legitimately belonging to a settlement of loyal citizens of the country, we find that this Hudson's Bay Company, in assuming the supreme direction, as per testimony of Dr. Tolmie, superseded and usurped the prerogatives of the State; that the claim of this company, as set up in the wording of the treaty, is for the benefit of a company having no natural or legal right to assume supreme direction of the soil or its productions. Hence any improvement made, or stock destroyed, was at the risk of the individual owning, or making, or bringing such stock or improvements into the country, and subject exclusively to the laws of the country in which the trespass occurred. The claiming a name belonging to no legal body cannot be made legal by a deception practiced upon the persons making the treaty, as this would be equivalent to pledging the nation to the payment of money when no cause could be shown that money was justly due, as neither nation (except by a deception brought to bear upon commissioners forming the treaty by the mere assertion of an interested party) acknowledged the reported existence of such a corporation, thereby creating a corporate body by the wording of a treaty." This, to a common juror, we confess, would look like removing the necessity of a common national law, in relation to all claims of foreigners who might feel disposed to come over and trespass upon our national domain. A word in this treaty does not settle the matter, and the claim should not be paid. The article above referred to is commented upon by Mr. Day as follows:

"That by article four of the treaty concluded between the United States of America and Great Britain, under date of the 15th day of June, 1864, it was provided that the farms, lands, and other property, of every description, belonging to the Puget Sound Agricultural Company, on the north side of the Columbia River [they should have included those in the French possession, and added another million to their claim; but we suppose they became liberal, and consented to take half of the country their servants had settled upon], should be con

THE COMPANY'S COMPLAINT.

71 firmed to the said company; but that in case the situation of those farms and lands should be considered by the United States to be of public and political importance, and the United States government should signify a desire to obtain possession of the whole, or of any part thereof, the property so required should be transferred to the said government at a proper valuation, to be agreed upon between the parties.

"That the government of the United States has not, at any time, signified to the company a desire that any of the said property should be transferred to the said government at a valuation as provided by the treaty, nor has any transfer thereof been made [this was a great misfortune. Uncle Sam had so much land of his own he did not want to buy out this bastard company right away after the treaty was made]; but the company have ever since continued to be the rightful owners of the said lands, farms, and other property, and entitled to the free and undisturbed possession and enjoyment thereof. [True; so with all bastards. They live and die, and never find a father to own them, except they come up with a big pile of money, which in your claim is a case of clonas (don't know.)]

"That, by a convention concluded between the two governments on the 1st day of July, 1863, it was agreed that all questions between the United States authorities on the one hand, and the Puget Sound Agricultural Company on the other, with respect to the rights and claims of the latter, should be settled by the transfer of such rights and claims to the government of the United States for an adequate money consideration.

"And the claimants aver that the rights and claims of the Puget Sound Agricultural Company, referred to and intended in and by the said convention, are their rights and claims in and upon the said lands,. farms, and other property of every description which they so held and possessed within the said territory, and which, by reason of the said treaty of the 15th of June, 1846, and according to the terms of the fourth article thereof, the United States became and were bound to confirm. And of the said farms and other property, they now submit to the honorable the commissioners a detailed statement and valuation, as follows."

There have been twenty-seven witnesses examined to prove the claims above set forth, and not a single one of them testified or gave the least intimation that there ever was any such company as here set forth in existence, only as connected with and subject to the control and management of the Hudson's Bay Company, the same as their farming operations at Vancouver or Colville, or any other of their posts. The claim is so

manifestly fictitious and without foundation, that the learned attorney for the company bases his whole reliance upon the wording of the treaty, and in consequence of the wording of that treaty," and according to the terms of the fourth article thereof, he says the United States became and were bound to confirm." So we suppose any other monstrous claim set up by a band of foreign fur traders having influence enough to start any speculation on a nominal capital in our country and failing to realize the profits anticipated, must apply for an acknowledgment of their speculation, be mentioned in a treaty, and be paid in proportion to the enormity of their demands. We are inclined to the opinion that so plain a case of fraud will be soon disposed of, and the overgrown monster that produced it sent howling after the Indians they have so long and so successfully robbed, as per their own admission, of £20,000,000 sterling. (See Mr. M. Martin's Hudson's Bay Company's Territory, etc., p. 131.)

There is another question arising in this supposed Puget Sound concern. Suppose, for a moment, the commissioners decide to pay the whole or any part of this demand, who will be the recipients of this money? We doubt whether the learned commissioners or the counsel of the supposed company could tell, unless it is to be his fee for prosecuting the case.

Doctor William Fraser Tolmie and Mr. George B. Roberts are the only two witnesses that appear to know much about the matter, and Mr. Roberts' information seems to be derived from the same source as our own, so that the writer, though not a member of the company, has about as good a knowledge of its object and organization as Mr. Roberts, who was connected with the Hudson's Bay Company, and also an agent of this Puget Sound Company.

Dr. Tolmie says: "The Puget Sound Company acquired, or purchased from the Hudson's Bay Company, all its improvements at Cowlitz and Nasqualla, with its lands, live stock, and agricultural implements, all of which were transferred, in 1840 or 1841, by the Hudson's Bay Company to the Puget Sound Company."

As we understand this matter, it amounts to just this, and no more: The Hudson's Bay Company had consented to enlarge their business by employing an outside capital or sinking fund they had at their disposal; they instructed Dr. Tolmie, their special agent for that purpose, to receive all the property at the two stations or farms named, to take possession of them, and instead of opening an account with their opposition sinking fund, they called it the Puget Sound Agricultural Company. This explains the ten per cent. paid stock into that company. Now, if this venture is profitable, nothing is lost; if it is not,

AN AGE OF WONDERS.

73

it does not interfere with the legitimate business of the fur companyhence the distinct claim under this name.

"The Puget Sound Company charged the Hudson's Bay Company for all supplies furnished, and paid the Hudson's Bay Company for all goods received from them."

This was exactly in the line of the whole business done throughout the entire Hudson's Bay Company, with all their forts, and other establishments.

"Were not the accounts of the Puget Sound Company always forwarded to the Hudson's Bay Company's depot?" "They were," says Dr. Tolmie; and so were all the accounts of all the posts on this coast sent to the depot at Vancouver, and thence to head-quarters on the other side of the Rocky Mountains.

We have shown, by reference to the capital stock of the Hudson's Bay Company, that, in 1821, it was counted at £200,000. From this sum ten per cent., or £20,000, was set apart as a sinking fund to oppose any fur company or traders on the west side of the mountains, and an equal sum for the same purpose on the east.

This western amount, being placed under the direction of Dr. Tolmie and his successors, produced in seven years £11,000 sterling, equal to $53,240. This transaction does not appear, from the testimony adduced in the case, to have interfered in the least with the fur trade carried on at these stations, and by the same officers or clerks of the Hudson's Bay Company; hence, we are unable, from the whole catalogue of twentyseven witnesses in the case, to find out who is to receive this nice little sum of $1,168,000 or £240,000-only £40,000 more than the mother had to trade upon when she produced this beautiful full-grown child, the Puget Sound Agricultural Company, having had an abortion on the other side of the continent in the loss, without pay, of a large portion of the Red River or Selkirk country. Uncle Sam was ungenerous there.

This is truly an age of wonders, and this Hudson's Bay Company and its productions are entitled to some consideration for their ingenuity, if not for their honesty. It will be interesting to look at our British cousins and see what is said about this "itself and its other self." Mr. Fitzgerald says, page 260: "It is a matter of importance to know whether the Hudson's Bay Company is about to submit itself and its other self-the Puget Sound Association-to the same regulations which are to be imposed on other settlers of Vancouver Island and British Columbia."

On page 287, he further states: "The Oregon Territory was peopled, under the influence of the company, with subjects of the United

States. (Since writing the former chapter, I have heard this account given of the conduct of the Hudson's Bay Company, in regard to the Oregon boundary, which offers still stronger ground for inquiry. The country south of the 49th parallel, it seems, was hunted uptherefore the posts of the Hudson's Bay Company were become of no value at all. By annexing all that country to the United States, and inserting in the treaty a clause that the United States should pay the company for all its posts if it turned them out, the company were able to obtain from the Americans a large sum of money for what would have been worth nothing had the territory remained British.) That lost us the boundary of the Columbia River. That is one specimen of the colonization of the Hudson's Bay Company. The boundary westward from the Lake of the Woods, we have seen, gave to the United States land from which the company was engaged, at the very time, in driving out British subjects, on the plea that it belonged to the company; and now that the boundary has been settled only a few years, we learn that the settlers on our side are asking the United States to extend her government over that country."

If this does not show a clear case of abortion on the part of that honorable Hudson's Bay Company east of the Rocky Mountains, tell us what does. But it is interesting to trace a little further the British ideas and pretensions to this Pacific coast. Our British author says, page 288:

"Make what lines you please in a map and call them boundaries, but it is mockery to do so as long as the inhabitants are alienated from your rule, as long as you have a company in power whose policy erases the lines which treaties have drawn.

"Forasmuch, then, as these things are so, it becomes this country [Great Britain] to record an emphatic protest against the recent policy of the Colonial Office in abandoning the magnificent country on the shores of the Pacific Ocean to the Hudson's Bay Company.

"The blindest can not long avoid seeing the immense importance of Vancouver Island to Great Britain. Those who, two years ago [1846], first began to attract public attention to this question, are not the less amazed at the unexpected manner and rapidity with which their anticipations have been realized.

"Six months ago it was a question merely of colonizing Vancouver Island; now it is a question involving the interests of the whole of British North America, and of the empire of Great Britain in the Pacific Ocean."

It is always more or less difficult to trace the course of a false or fictitious object. It becomes peculiarly so when two objects of the