It is shown in the dates of the several letters. Mr. Hinman’s is dated December 4; Mr. Douglas’s, December 7; that to the Sandwich Islands, December 9. Now, between the 4th and 7th are three days. In a case of so much importance, and professed sympathy,—as expressed in his letter,—how is it, that three, or even two days were allowed to pass without sending a dispatch informing Governor Abernethy of what had happened, and of what was expected to take place? which last he had left out of his letter, and the copy of McBean’s; but does inform him of the threatened danger to Fort Nez Percés, as coming from McBean.
Mr. Douglas is prompt to urge the removal of Mr. Spalding, but unreasonably slow to send an express twenty or thirty miles to notify the American settlement of its danger.
We wish to say, once for all, that we are not giving the private history or character of any man or set of men. Their public conduct and proceedings are a part of our history. Mr. Douglas was, at the time we are writing, the acknowledged head of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and, as such, acted and controlled the movements of its members. Bishop Blanchet was the acknowledged head of the Roman Church, and, as such, acted with Mr. Douglas; for while not one Roman priest, or a servant of either of these two parties were disturbed or harmed in the least, all Protestant missionaries and American citizens were either killed, or driven from the upper country by order of that company. As Robert Newell asserts, under date of October 25, 1866: “And they could not have remained in the country a week without the consent and aid of that company, nor could any mission, in my opinion, in those days have been established in this (Wallamet) or that (Wallawalla) valley, without the aid and influence of the Hudson’s Bay Company, nor could the settlers have remained in the country as they did up to 1848, for the same reasons.”
This statement is made by a gentleman who professes to know more of, and has been (without a question) more favored by the Hudson’s Bay Company than any other American in the country. If his statement is true, which we have no doubt he believes it to be, then who is responsible for all the murders of American hunters, trappers, missionaries, immigrants, and settlers on their way to our country and in it. But we will not risk our conclusions upon the statement of an individual, who is totally ignorant of the policy of the company he undertakes to defend. We have, in addition, the sworn statement of Sir James Douglas as to the power and influence of his company, one year previous to the cutting off of the missionary settlement at Wailatpu.
He says, under oath: “Their posts were so arranged as to practically enjoy a monopoly in the fur trade, and they possessed an extraordinary influence with the nations west of the Rocky Mountains.” (Answer to interrogatory in claim Hudson’s Bay Company v. United States.)
That this influence was exerted to destroy that mission there can be no question; and that the same influence has since been exerted to spread, far and wide, statements originated by them and their associates to blast the character of the dead, and destroy the influence of the living in the cause of truth, is equally true.
We find it stated in Brouillet’s narrative that the most friendly and cordial relations existed between the Hudson’s Bay Company and his mission; so much so, that he is present by special invitation at Mr. Ogden’s council for arranging the purchase of the captives. He informs us, on page 69, “Protestantism in Oregon,” that Mr. Ogden told them that “the Hudson’s Bay Company had never deceived them; that he hoped they would listen to his words; that the company did not meddle with the affairs of the Americans; that there were three parties; the Americans on one side, the Cayuses on the other, and the French people and the priests in the middle; the company was there to trade and the priests to teach them their duties; ‘Listen to the priests,’ said he, several times; ‘listen to the priests; they will teach you how to keep a good life; the priests do not come to make war; they carry no arms,—they carry but their crucifixes,[15] and with them they can not kill.’ He insisted particularly, and at several times, upon the distinction necessary to be made between the affairs of the company and those of the Americans.”
[15] The Oblates, who constantly carry a crucifix on their breasts, were present.
The company’s interests must not be interfered with. The professions of sympathy found in Mr. Douglas’s letters are all explained, when the facts are fully developed. The complaint of the company, as stated in the memorial presented to the commissioners, April 17, 1865 (Hudson’s Bay Company v. United States, page 19), states that “among these circumstances may be specified the aggressive acts and the general conduct of American citizens, and of persons acting under the authority of the United States, commencing shortly after the 15th of June, 1846, and continuing from year to year, by which the rights of the claimants under that treaty were violated and denied, and their property and possessions were, in some instances, usurped and taken from them, and, in others, were necessarily abandoned. This course of conduct was, perhaps, to be expected, from the anomalous position in which the company was placed,—a foreign corporation exercising a quasi sovereignty and exclusive rights over territory transferred to a power whose policy in dealing with such territory was diametrically opposed to that which the company pursued, and from which they derived their profits.”
This complaint demands careful consideration at the present time. The statements of Mr. Ogden to the Indians, the memorial of the company, and the testimony it has produced in support of its claims, the statements and correspondence of the Jesuit missionaries, all go to prove the settled policy of the company to maintain its “quasi sovereignty” and exclusive asserted claims to the country at the time of the Wailatpu massacre.