When, however, the scattered fur trading interests began to centralize by the formation of fur trading companies, some of the functions which belong to a civil government began to arise. The Pacific Fur Company, established by John Jacob Astor at the mouth of the Columbia River in 1811, with its little fort, exercised a greater authority in the protection of life and property than had existed before. It aimed to produce a condition of things more in harmony with a normal and peaceable trade. Its English successor, the Northwest Fur Company, established in control of the region after the war of 1812, was still more powerful. After consolidation with its rival, the Hudson’s Bay Company, its charter rights were extended, and, although only a trading company, the necessities of its position led it to the exercise of many of the functions of a civil government. Its control of its large number of employees was complete; its power over the native races was absolute; by judicious methods and quick retribution for offenses, it succeeded in rendering the wilderness a safe place for traders, explorers, and missionaries. Moreover, the possibilities for trouble which arose from the coming of American trappers and traders led to an additional step in the development of civil government, and one which more properly falls under that head.
In 1821 the English Parliament passed a bill by the terms of which the laws of Canada were extended over English subjects operating in the country to the south. Provision was made for justices of the peace, before whom cases were brought, and, if sufficiently important, were sent to the courts of Canada.[[1]] In this way, then, did the English government follow its subjects, and become the first real civil government exercised in the country, although it was exercised in the interests of only part of the inhabitants. England had found a way to look after her subjects without violating the strict terms of the treaty of joint occupancy.
The office of justice was held by officers of the fur trading company, whose power and prestige was thus increased. The history of government for about twenty years is summed up in the person of one man, Dr. John McLoughlin. The exercise of authority by that masterful character of early times still lives in the minds of the oldest pioneers, and has found expression in many of the records which constitute the sources of Oregon’s history. Although the official agent of the English company, a Scotchman by nationality, a Catholic in religion, and loyal to all the interests he represented, he was a man of too large a mold to be anything other than the instrument of justice and good order for all classes of people who might come within the bounds where his jurisdiction was exercised. “From 1823 to 1845 he was the controlling power in the country, and did more than any one else to preserve order, peace and good will among the conflicting and sometimes lawless elements of the population.”[[2]] Autocratic in his methods and strict in the enforcement of justice, he was yet kindly and merciful. His tours about the country to settle any difficulties that might have arisen in any of the trading posts, or agricultural settlements of ex-employees, were regular features of the early days, and were very effective.[[3]]
The inability of the independent fur trader to compete with the English company, and the comparative advantage that the English subject had in the protection by his country’s laws, naturally led to a feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of the American trader, and a belief that under the cover of a business enterprise the English civil government was gradually settling itself over the country to the exclusion of the American, whose interests and rights were equal according to the treaty of joint occupancy. That John Jacob Astor had not renewed his enterprise after the restoration of the fort at Astoria at the close of the war of 1812, was due to the refusal of the government, during Madison’s administration, to guarantee his company the protection of the United States in case of trouble.[[4]] Had that been done, company would have been in competition with company, and the conditions would have been more equal. As it was, however, the United States’ interests were represented and her hold maintained only by such independent traders and trappers as ventured into the country, and usually failed of maintaining themselves for any great length of time.
It was such a condition of affairs that came to the knowledge of the people, and finally reached those channels where it gained entrance into our national policy. It was a significant circumstance in the history of civil government in Oregon, that, in the winter of 1820 and 1821, four men were thrown together at a hotel in the City of Washington.[[5]] Two of them, Ramsey Crooks of New York and Russell Farnham of Massachusetts, were traders who had been connected with the unsuccessful enterprise of Mr. Astor. The other two were members of congress, John Floyd of Virginia and Thomas H. Benton of Missouri. Mr. Benton had for some time been interested in the question, and had been pondering upon a method of procedure. During this period of acquaintance they talked much together and became convinced of the advisability of an aggressive campaign for the protection of American trappers and traders, and the maintenance of the full American rights in the joint territory.
There were probably no better men to take the leadership in a movement of this kind than Floyd and Benton. Both were western in their training and in their sympathies, and both were enthusiastic in any movement pertaining to a westward extension of the country. Western men were already beginning to have weight in the national councils, and were exerting a distinct influence upon national policy. Although rough and unskilled in many of the essentials of good government, their influence tended toward a true American life and a broader idea of American national destiny.
The course upon which they entered, though carefully considered, was a bold one. The Oregon country was very far off and few knew very much about it. It seemed a land so far away that the American people, as a whole, had nothing to do with it. Perhaps they had heard of the Oregon river, and it had a place in their imagination along with the ideal beauty of Bryant’s poetic country; perhaps they had learned of the part performed by Captain Robert Gray and his ship Columbia in crossing the bar at the mouth, and revealing to the knowledge of his country and the world another great river; perhaps they knew of Jefferson’s romantic interest in the country and the expedition which he sent under Lewis and Clark; they probably knew that fur traders had gone there, and that an American fur company, at the time of the war of 1812, had been forced to sell out and its place taken by an English one; they knew that there was an American claim, which was felt to be quite strong, and that a treaty had been made with England providing for a joint occupancy; but there was no consciousness that the question was one of practical importance to the existing generation, except on the part of the more far-seeing. The people’s representatives in congress were more conservative than the people themselves, and a conception of the larger United States had taken possession of but a few.
The executive department was in advance of the legislative, for James Monroe was President and John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State—two men who were at the front in the breadth of their political ideas, as shown by the Monroe doctrine, originated by Adams, endorsed and declared by Monroe. In the clause that refused to European powers the right longer to colonize on American territory, it was the Oregon country that was thus protected against the aggressions of Russia at the same time that a hint was given to England. No executive had been more courageous in asserting the intention of the United States to maintain her larger interests, and none had been more disposed to follow with national protection, so far as conformed with treaty relation, her citizens who were leading in the westward expansion of the country.
Under such conditions what might the champions of an aggressive campaign expect to accomplish? Minds were filled with many questions. What was it right to do, and what was expedient; could a military post be established in the country as the President and Secretary wanted; could lands be granted to settlers as prospective emigrants wanted; could settlements be made and a civil government established as Floyd and Benton wanted? If it was right to do these things, was it expedient to do them, with the possibility of jeopardizing other interests less remote; was the nation ready to commit itself to an expansion of territory which might bring about many changes, and perhaps many dangers?
It was the work of these men, by patient, persistent and continued effort to arouse a sentiment favorable to American interests, to gather and disseminate such information as would help to make a public opinion, and to keep the subject before congress and the people all the time. Confident themselves in the value of the country to the United States, and of the right of title to the country, they were anxious for a movement looking toward permanent occupation.