Corrections in brackets are in the original.


    DEPOSITIONS of witnesses [in behalf of the United States] sworn and examined in the city of Portland, district of Oregon, before me, Ralph Wilcox, clerk of the district court of the United States for the district of Oregon, by virtue of a verbal agreement made and entered into between W. C. Johnson, Esq., as counsel for the United States of America, and Amory Holbrook, Esq., as counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company.

J. C. Ainsworth, being first duly sworn, deposes and testifies as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation.
    Ans.--Forty-four years old; my residence, Portland, and occupation steamboating.
    Int. 2.--Are you connected with the Oregon Steam Navigation Company? If so, state in what capacity, and how long you have been connected with that Company.
    Ans.--I am connected with it; I am president of the Company, and have been connected with it ever since its organization, in 1860.
    Int. 3.--State how long you have been engaged in steamboating on the Columbia River before the organization of that Company.
    Ans.--Off and on from 1851 until the organization of the Company.
    Int. 4.--State whether the Hudson's Bay Company have transported goods up the Columbia River in their own boats since your acquaintance with the river. If so, up to about what time?
    Ans.--I have no knowledge of their transporting goods in their own boats.
    Int. 5.--State whether, since you commenced steamboating on the Columbia River, that Company has shipped its goods on steamboats of your Company and other persons or companies.
    Ans.--They occasionally shipped goods by our Company's boats. I have no knowledge of their shipping by other boats.
    Int. 6.--Have the quantities of goods shipped by the Company up the Columbia been large or small?
    Ans.--It would be what I call small.
    Int. 7.--If you know from the directions on the goods, or the statements of the agents of the Company what port or ports were supplied in this manner, please state.
    Ans.--I do not know positively. I think, however, they were for Colvile.
    Int. 8.--At what point were these goods placed on your boats?
    Ans.--For the present season I think they were shipped at Portland; they used to ship from Vancouver when they had an establishment there.
    Int. 9.--Have any obstructions, to your knowledge, been placed at any of the portages on the Columbia River which would prevent the shipment of goods up the Columbia, or down the same, in the mode formerly practiced by the Hudson's Bay Company with bateaux, horses, and men?
    Ans.--There have been railroads built at the Dalles and Cascades portages, but [they] do not interfere with the shipments of goods as formerly with bateaux, horses, and men.
    Int. 10.--Please give your opinion as a shipper of goods, whether the placing of steamboats and railroads on the Columbia River has been an advantage or disadvantage to the Hudson's Bay Company in the transportation of their goods up and down the river? (Objected to as immaterial, because the Company claim the right of navigation, and the privileges of the portages, and not the mere convenience of transportation.)
    Ans.--It has certainly been a great advantage to all shippers in reducing the price of transportation.

    Int. 1.--Did not the Hudson's Bay Company send large quantities of goods in their own boats up and down the Columbia River from 1851, and thence on for several years?
    Ans.--I suppose they sent goods up the Columbia River in their own boats, but not to my knowledge; I have no personal knowledge of it
    Int. 2.--Did not the Company receive by vessels and steamers from abroad, large quantities of goods, from 1851 until 1860?
    Ans.--I think they did at Vancouver.
    Int. 3.--Did not the steamer Otter, belonging to the Company, make frequent trips to Vancouver during the time mentioned?
    Ans.--She made a few trips, but I think not frequent, as near as I recollect.
    Int. 4.--At the time you commenced business on the Columbia, did not the Company furnish more merchandise for transportation than any other parties?
    Ans.--Certainly not.
    Int. 5.--Prior to 1860, when the Oregon Steam Navigation Company commenced business, do you know how the Company forwarded goods from Vancouver up the Columbia River?
    Ans.--From 1858 to 1860, I think they sent them up by steamboats; prior to that time I have no personal knowledge, and that extended to the Dalles only during that time.
    Int. 6.--From 1858 to 1860, did not the Hudson's Bay Company furnish more goods for transportation than any other parties?
    Ans.--I think not; Uncle Sam shipped more than anybody else those days.
    Int. 7.--Who, besides the government, shipped an equal amount, if you recollect?
    Ans.--I don't recollect; the shipments of the Company, as compared with the balance, was inconsiderable at the time.
    Int. 8.--Do you know where were the old portage landings of the Company at the Cascades?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 9.--How can you say, then, that their portages are not obstructed?
    Ans.--Because anyone can land there, and take goods over the portage on horses.
    Int. 10.--Is not all the land at the Cascades claimed by private parties; and has it not been so claimed for several years?
    Ans.--I think it is, and has.
    Int. 11.--Are not the landings at the Dalles portage also taken up by private claimants?
    Ans.--I believe so.
    Int. 12.--Is not the occupation by these claimants an obstruction to the free use of both portages by the Hudson's Bay Company?
    Ans.--No more so to them than to anyone else.
    Int. 13.--Is it not an obstruction to anyone without obtaining a charter, or laying out a public way?
    Ans.--There is a public trail and highway, that anyone can travel, both at the Cascades and Dalles.
    Int. 14.--Please state what improvements in transportation, on the Columbia River, have been made since you came to Oregon.
    Ans.--Improvements have been very great; there were no steamboats on the Upper Columbia when I came to Oregon; there are now ten or more; and first-class railroads at the portages, at the Cascades and Dalles.
    Int. 15.--How many steamboats have your company, for the purpose of trade, between Portland and the Cascades?
    Ans.--There are four; seldom more than one used at a time; one runs daily.
    Int. 16.--How many steamboats between the Cascades and the Dalles?
    Ans.--Three; one runs daily.
    Int. 17.--How many steamboats above the Dalles, and how far do they run?
    Ans.--There are seven above the Dalles; run to Wallula and White Bluffs on the Columbia, and to Lewiston on Snake River.
    Int. 18.--Have your company any other boats above on the Columbia, or its tributaries?
    Ans.--We have one boat on the Upper Snake River, from Farewell Bend to Owyhee crossing; the distance about one hundred and twenty miles. We have an interest in a boat on the Upper Columbia, above Colvile, and have an interest in a boat on the Pend Oreille Lake; the one on the Upper Columbia is called the Forty-nine, and her route is two hundred and fifty miles; the other, on the lake, runs about sixty miles.
    Int. 19.--Please state the other distances run by your boats.
    Ans.--From Portland to Cascades, sixty-five miles; Cascades to Dalles, fifty miles; Dalles to Wallula, one hundred and twenty-five miles; Wallula to White Bluffs, about fifty miles; Wallula to Lewiston, about one hundred and seventy miles.
    Int. 20.--Please state whether the Forty-nine runs within American or British territory.
    Ans.--Most of the distance in British territory.
    Int. 21.--Does it run under a British or American license, or both?
    Ans.--I do not know, positively, but think both.
    Int. 22.--Please state the length of the railroad at the Cascade portage, and the cost of the road and its equipment.
    Ans.--The length of the road is about six miles; can't state the exact cost of the road, but it is a first-class road; it is well equipped; two first-class locomotives, and one second class, and plenty [of] freight and passenger cars.
    Int. 23.--Please state also in regard to the road at the Dalles.
    Ans.--The road at the Dalles is about fourteen miles long; it is first class; has two first-class locomotives, two second-class ditto, and a suitable number of freight and passenger cars.
    Int. 24.--Are not the regions of country, east of the Cascade Mountains, mainly supplied with merchandise passing over your route? Please state the limits of country supplied by you.
    Ans.--The country supplied by our line comprises Eastern Oregon, most of Idaho Territory, portion of Montana Territory, portion of the British possessions, bordering on the Columbia River, and a portion of Washington Territory.
    Int. 25.--Please state the comparative increase of business, annually, during the last six years, on your route.
    Ans.--I can't answer at present; I will give a statement to be attached hereto.
    Int. 26.--State what, in your judgment, is the prospect of business on the route for the future; is it likely to increase, or diminish?
    Ans.--I think it is likely to increase; how much, I cannot say.
    Int. 27.--Please state, if you recollect, the present rates of freight and passage, from Portland to the principal interior points.
    Ans.--Freight, or general merchandise, from Portland to the Dalles, is, at present, fifteen dollars per ton; Dalles to Umatilla, fifteen dollars per ton; Dalles to Wallula, seventeen dollars and fifty cents per ton; Dalles to Lewiston, sixty dollars per ton; Dalles to White Bluffs, twenty-five dollars per ton. Freight on Pend Oreille Lake, ten dollars per ton. Passage from Portland to Dalles, six dollars, including fare on railroad; Dalles to Umatilla and Wallula, including railroads, twelve dollars; Dalles to Lewiston, twenty-two dollars; Dalles to White Bluffs, seventeen dollars.
    Int. 28.--Please state how these rates compare with those charged in previous years.
    Ans.--Greatly reduced; freights have been reduced at different times; many instances, more than one-half.
    Int. 29.--Please state the original capital of the Oregon Steam Navigation Company, and its present capital.
    Ans.--The original capital was $172,500; the present capital, $2,000,000.
    Int. 30.--What is the par value of a share?
    Ans.--Five hundred dollars is the amount of a share.
    Int. 31.--What is its market value, so far as you know, from any late sales?
    Ans.--Eighty cents.
    Int. 32.--Please state what rights to the land at the portages at the Cascades and Dalles the Company possessed.
    Ans.--The Cascade Railroad Company at the Cascades--owned, substantially, by the same owners as the Steam Navigation Company--own right of way--thirty feet wide, over the line of the road, with sufficient amount of land for warehouses, turnouts and landings; the same is true of the road at the Dalles, owned by the Oregon Steam Navigation Company.
    Int. 33.--Please state whether you know anything of the abandonment of any of the Company's posts east of the Cascades, or the manner in which Colvile was supplied, prior to the present time.
    Ans.--I don't know anything about the abandonment of any posts east of the Cascades; I don't know how Colvile was supplied, prior to 1858, having no steamboat interest east of Vancouver prior to that date.
    Int. 34.--Please state what dividends the Oregon Steam Navigation Company has been paying for the past few months.
    Ans.--One percent, per month.

    Int. 1.--To what extent does the Oregon Steam Navigation Company now control the carrying trade on the Columbia River and its tributaries, east of Portland, leaving out the Willamette River.
    Ans.--About exclusive control.
    Int. 2.--State, if you can, the number of tons shipped by the Hudson's Bay Company the present season.
    Ans.--Our secretary informed me that it was about seventy-five tons.

    Int.--Please state, if you know, what proportion the seventy-five tons, alluded to just now, bears to the whole amount shipped to Colvile by the Hudson's Bay Company, by way of Fraser River.
    Ans.--Can't state.
Portland, July 26, 1866.

W. W. Chapman, being duly sworn, deposes and testifies as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, occupation, and what official positions you have held in Oregon or elsewhere?
    Ans.--Age, 58; residence, Portland, Oregon; profession, a lawyer; I held the position of Surveyor General for Oregon for the years 1859, '60, and I believe part of 1861; am not positive as to date. I have held federal appointments elsewhere.
    Int. 2.--Have you at any time engaged in practical farming; if so, when and where?
    Ans.--For many years I have been engaged more or less in carrying on farming operations, and to some extent personally; generally in Oregon, since 1847, I have been the owner of a farm, and a good deal of the time resided thereon.
    Int. 3.--When did you come to Oregon?
    Ans.--In 1847. I think I arrived in November that year.
    Int. 4.--Are you acquainted with the Hudson's Bay Company's post at Umpqua; if so, state when you first saw it, and what subsequent knowledge of, and connection with it, you had?
    Ans.--I was acquainted with that post from 1853 until 1856, in the fall. I may have seen it in 1852. The exact time when I first saw it I do not now remember, so as to state positively. I made an arrangement with a Hudson's Bay Company's agent, or factor, for taking possession and using it in connection with another contract for the purchase of their stock. I moved upon it in the fall of 1853, and resided there until the fall of 1856.
    Int. 5.--Who was the agent in charge of the post before you took possession?
    Ans.--There was no resident agent; the agent or factor to whom I have referred was Governor Ogden and Mr. Ballenden, who resided at Vancouver. There was, however, a Frenchman at the post, I think employed to take care of affairs there. I think he had left before I removed to the place. His name I cannot tell now.
    Int. 6.--What rent did you pay for the use of this post?
    Ans.--I cannot now tell the amount. It was a small sum per annum. I think it must have been considerably under $100, or it might have been that sum.
    Int. 7.--State, as near as you can remember, the price you paid per head for the stock of the Company, either cattle or horses?
    Ans.--My recollection now is that there were two contracts in reference to cattle, and the impression I have is that it was from eight to fifteen dollars. I am not positive by any means of the amount. I did have a contract with reference to some cattle on the Vancouver side, and I may confound the prices.
    Int. 8.--Were these cattle tame or wild?
    Ans.--They were wild, very; to get them it was necessary to chase them down with horses, or shoot them like deer.
    Int. 9.--How much land did the Company have enclosed at this post?
    Ans.--I never measured it or took particular note at the time that I remember; but recollecting the enclosure at this day, I should suppose there was some thirty or forty acres; it might have been more or less.
    Int. 10.--Describe the buildings at Fort Umpqua, giving the manner of their construction, size, &c., and state what became of them, if you know?
    Ans.--There were three separate buildings, I believe, when I first contracted; one was so dilapidated that I don't remember it well enough to describe it; it was of so little consequence that it fell down, or was torn down to keep it from falling. Another was a long building, with three apartments, I believe, one story high, constructed in the usual manner of the Company, that is, with short hewed or split slabs, slipped into grooves in upright posts. I have seen a great many buildings on the same plan among the Canadian French. This building I think had been constructed for a warehouse or store-rooms. I judge so from its appearance, and I think that was its reputation. There were the remains of a building which had been burnt down some years before, or at least before I had any knowledge of it. I would think it had been a dwelling-house. It had been rather a square building, at least that is my present recollection. There was another, a barn, which stood off from the cluster of buildings I have referred to, some one or two hundred yards, perhaps, constructed, I believe, in the same way. It was there, I think, when I first contracted, but was burned up before I removed there. Fires raged extensively in that country for some time before I removed to the place; a great deal of. country was overrun, and much damage was done by it, as I learned. Considerable damage was done to this place, particularly in burning down the barn referred to. The building which I have called a store or warehouse, I used as a dwelling until out of it and some new lumber I constructed another house, which I have not described. That was a tolerably good frame house, a story and a half high. Its dimensions I couldn't give exactly. I should think it would be from 16 to 18 by 20 to 24 feet. This house was there the last time I saw it.
    Int. 11.--State, in your judgment, the value of the buildings you have described, which were on the place when you went there, and also of that which you constructed?
    Ans.--It would be very difficult to set a value or price. All the building that was worth anything was the long building I have spoken of with three rooms, which was some 30 or 40 feet long; the flooring was puncheons or hewed; they might have been whip-sawed, but they were thick, heavy lumber. There was very little if anything overhead that is of any value; one or two of the rooms might have had something overhead, but of no consequence. The house was so racked and liable to fall, as I supposed, that I propped it up for the first winter with long pieces, and made haste to get into another building. A hundred dollars would be a big price for its value, while the work on it would be worth much more, either to make the lumber or put up the building. The barn I think was not entirely covered. I may not have seen it but once, and do not remember it well enough to describe it, or fix a price. I think it was built in the same way as the other, though I am by no means certain that it was. Its value, however, was not very great as it then stood, when I saw it; perhaps not over a hundred dollars, although it must have cost a good deal more for the lumber and for putting it up. Had it been substantial and needed by a farmer, it might have been of more value. It may have been built at a later date than the other buildings, and more substantial, but of that I am unable to say. The building which I constructed myself, I think could not have cost me over three or four hundred dollars.
    Int. 12.--Give your judgment of the value per acre of the land claimed by the Company at that post?
    Ans.--The value of that land depends upon the quantity and period at which the value is fixed. In 1853 there was a mania for farming lands, and prices and value was high. From 1854 on for some time, prices declined very much, until lands in that vicinity were very low. It would be necessary to fix a period to get at any definite value. I do not think that at any time, that I now remember, that those lands were worth more than ten dollars per acre; although the fancy of some and the peculiar circumstances of others might have indicated a value of fifteen dollars per acre. Not being acquainted with that country since 1856, except by reputation, my estimate of value must be taken with some allowance. With the improvements as they were in 1856 and 1857, there being some sixty or eighty acres under a first-rate stake and ridered fence, the improved part of it, with some little outside land, was estimated to be worth about fifteen dollars per acre.
    Int. 13.--Give your judgment of the value per acre in 1856 and 1857 of the 640 acres claimed by the Company at Fort Umpqua?
    Ans.--I do not remember exactly the boundaries of the land claimed by the Company, but it was always understood that the Company claimed the bottom lying in the bend of the river, by a direct line from the extremes, and crossing the points of the hills; on the upper end of this bottom there was a Frenchman had a little claim, which might or might not have been within their boundaries. Taking it altogether, as I understood it, an average of ten dollars an acre would, I think, have been a high price. It might have reached between ten and fifteen dollars, and I think that it could not very well have gone over ten dollars. The price which I have given is not so much from a recollection of the general price of lands in that country, as the particular value of this land, which I consider one among the best tracts of land in that country.
    Int. 14.--How would the price of lands generally in Oregon, including the Umpqua Valley, in 1863, compare with their value in 1856?
    Ans.--Lands in Oregon, generally, I think, were better about 1858. I rather think they declined to about 1862; but they were different in different places. There is a remarkable peculiarity in the varied prices of land in Oregon at the same period. Public attention will be directed to some section of the country by something exciting, and consequently lands will be higher in that particular section, while in other sections, at the same time, causes which have conduced to high prices have ceased to exist, and consequently the prices of land decline. For instance, sometimes towns will flourish and lands in the vicinity will be high for a time; other times leading thoroughfares will be popular, and ceasing to be so for a time the prices of land will decline. In 1863 I think the price of lands in the vicinity of Umpqua was very low. My reason for thinking so is that in 1861 or 1862 there was a tremendous flood, which literally washed out the Lower Umpqua, as I am informed and believe, doing very great damage. I did not see these things, but such was the general report. How far that country might have recovered in 1863 I am unable to state.
    Int. 15.--Has the Hudson's Bay Company, to your knowledge, in any way occupied their claim at Umpqua since you abandoned it as their tenant?
    Ans.--The last act of the Hudson's Bay Company, with which I am acquainted, having a tendency to possession and occupancy, and indicating their relation to that tract of land, was their contract with me in relation thereto, and the possession which I took in pursuance, except that occasionally some members of that Company may have called on me in passing. I now recollect of nothing else. It has been a long time, and occurrences may have escaped my recollection.
    Int. 16.--State the substance of your contract with the Hudson's Bay Company about stock at Vancouver, and where it was made? (Objected to; the witness admitting that the contract may have been in writing, and no cause having been shown why it cannot be produced.)
    Ans.--I think I purchased all their cattle called wild cattle on the north side of the river. I think there was a specification that it did not include the cattle at the farms, or at Nisqually; these were farms carried on somewhere towards Nisqually, it may have been the Cowlitz farms, and the cattle about those farms were exempted from this contract; the precise language used in the restriction or exemption I can't give; the price I would not be positive of now, I think I must have had about three contracts about cattle, and it's hard, from recollection, to give the price; it was a low price; I should say from five to eight dollars. I think this must have been in 1852 or 1853; it was, at all events, while Mr. Ballenden was there, I believe.
    Int. 17.--Give, as near as you can, the number of cattle affected by this transaction, and state whether they were tame and drivable or otherwise?
    Ans.--I suppose there were a great many; it was rumored that the plains back of Vancouver had a great many on them; also in the direction of Lewis River, and down the Columbia. I think I never saw but one, and that was running. I sold another that I was told belonged to us since that time; all the cattle that were there wild were understood to be mine. I sold one or two for some small sum; my search was on this wise: I employed a man, half-breed, I think, at Vancouver, who was recommended to me by someone over there, furnished him provision, and sent him out northwardly to hunt the cattle; he stayed about long enough to eat the grub and returned; he gave some excuse, and I discharged him; he couldn't find any, or didn't find any at least. I went myself once as far as Mr. Covington's, on the fourth plain, and was about to drive off some of his cattle, but, on a mutual explanation, I returned without any cattle. I went down the Columbia River, where I found one that I have referred to; there might have been other cattle in the country designated, possibly, but I considered it a fruitless undertaking, and abandoned any further attention to it.
    Int. 18.--Are you acquainted with Jesse Applegate, J. S. Rinearson, and J. C. Carson, if so, state their standing in community, and your judgment of their competency to pass upon the value of property examined by them? (Objected to as immaterial, incompetent, and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--I am personally and well acquainted with each. They were men of unimpeachable character, I should consider them entirely competent to judge of the value of lands, houses, and other improvements.
Portland, July 26, 1866.

A. L. Lovejoy, being duly sworn, deposes and testifies, as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and profession?
    Ans.--Some fifty-four or five years of age; residence Portland, Oregon; a lawyer by profession.
    Int. 2.--State when you came to Oregon, and whether your residence therein has been continuous until this time?
    Ans. I came to Oregon in 1842, but in the fall of 1842 I went to Fort Hall, and from there to the Spanish country, Taos or Santa Fe, and from there to Colorado, as it is called, and then returned to Oregon in the fall of 1843; came to the Willamette Valley about the middle of October, 1843, and from that time my residence has been in Oregon.
    Int. 3.--State what official positions you have heretofore held under the provisional, territorial, and state governments of Oregon, and the United States government.
    Ans.--I was elected a member of the legislative committee in June, 1844, under the provisional government, and served that session, and in 1846 was re-elected, and served as speaker of the House. I was in the Legislature, from time to time, until the Territory was organized; when the Territory was organized, in 1848, I was elected a member of the Legislature, and served as speaker of the House, and was elected two or three times member of the Council, and was president of the Council. I was a member of the late convention which formed the constitution; after that, I was appointed receiver of the Land Office at Oregon City, about 1859.
    Int. 4.--Please state whether you were acquainted with Dr. John McLoughlin, Peter S. Ogden, James Douglas, and other factors and managing agents of the Hudson's Bay Company during your early residence in Oregon?
    Ans.--I was well acquainted with Dr. McLoughlin, Mr. Ogden, and Mr. Douglas, more particularly with Dr. McLoughlin. I was acquainted with some others.
    Int. 5.--What connection, if any, did these men and their employees, and servants, and those under their influence, have with the formation of the provisional government of Oregon?
    Ans.--I always understood that they participated in common with other citizens of the valley. Dr. Tolmie was a member of the Legislature in 1846. H. M. Pierce was a member; A. McDonald was a member in 1846. They generally voted at the elections.
    Int. 6.--State what, if anything, you have heard Dr. John McLoughlin say with reference to his supplying emigrants at an early day with food and clothing and seed for their farms, and the action of his superiors with reference thereto?
    Ans.--At an early day, Dr. McLoughlin furnished the emigrants coming, great many of them, very destitute, with fuel and clothing, seed, grain, and cattle, and they were to pay him when they could; it was a large amount, some seventy-five or eighty thousand dollars, at least I so understood from him. I understood him to say that he had acted, against orders, that he had done it on his own responsibility; that they complained that he had done it against orders, and that he sold goods on credit without authority, and that they did not do a credit business. He said further that they proposed to charge him with this amount; he then said that he claimed that if they charged him with this amount that he claimed the profits that grew out of it; that is the way he expected to get even on it. I never knew what the Company did in the premises. (The foregoing answer is objected to by the counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company so far as it purports to be a statement of Dr. McLoughlin's conversation, because it is hearsay and incompetent.)
    Int. 7.--State whether Dr. McLoughlin was pleased or displeased with this conduct of his superiors in the Hudson's Bay Company? (Objected to as incompetent and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--I should infer from his conversation that he was displeased.
    Int. 8.--Have you been acquainted with the Hudson's Bay Company's property at Champoeg? If so, state during what years.
    Ans.--I recollect at an early day of seeing a warehouse there, and I do not know but there was a store connected with it. I recollect of going there several times, but don't recollect the years.
    Int. 9.--What became of the Company's buildings at that point?
    Ans.--Either rotted down or washed away.
    Int. 10.--Did you ever see the dwelling-house at that post?
    Ans.--I have.
    Int. 11.--How much, in your opinion, were the warehouse and dwelling-house, of which you have spoken, worth when you last saw them?
    Ans.--Well, sir, I should think that twenty-five hundred or three thousand dollars would build them new. They were in good condition, and if anybody wanted them I should think they were worth that sum.
    Int. 12.--How many years since you particularly observed them?
    Ans.--It must be eight or ten years ago, I should think; I have seen them since.
    Int. 13.--Are you acquainted with Jesse Applegate, J. S. Rinearson, and J. C. Carson? If so, state their standing in community, and your judgment of their competency to estimate the value of property examined by them.
    Ans.--I am well acquainted with Applegate and the others; I think their standing in community is good; men of intelligence, and would be very suitable men to appraise property of almost any kind.

    Int. 1.--In the conversation with Dr. McLoughlin, referred to by you in answer to the sixth direct interrogatory, did he not say that he feared or supposed the Company might charge him for giving credit contrary to orders, rather than that its officers had proposed to do so?
    Ans.--I don't know that they had done it. The impression I had is that they had threatened to do it, and he expected that they would; I don't know that they did it.
    Int. 2.--At what time was this conversation; was it while the Doctor resided in Oregon City, or before he left Vancouver?
    Ans.--It was after he left Vancouver, I think, and while he resided in Oregon City.
    Int. 3.--When he came to Oregon City to reside, had he not resigned his position as governor or chief factor of the Hudson's Bay Company?
    Ans.--I think he had, or was about to resign.
    Int. 4.--In what year did he come to Oregon City to reside?
    Ans.--It appears to me it must have been as early as 1845, but I cannot tell certain.
    Int. 5.--In what year was the provisional government of Oregon organized?
    Ans.--The first steps were taken in 1843; in 1845 there was a kind of a constitution adopted.
    Int. 6.--Was not the object of that government the maintenance of law and order, and the adoption of measures to promote the settlement and prosperity of Oregon?
    Ans.--It was.
    Int. 7. Did not the gentlemen you have named in your direct examination as officers of the Hudson's Bay Company, erate as heartily in the organization and support of that government as other citizens of Oregon?
    Ans.--They did, and helped equally to bear the burdens.
Portland, July 27th, 1866.

A. C. Gibbs, being first duly sworn, deposes and testifies as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and profession?
    Ans.--My age is forty-one; residence, Portland; profession, a lawyer.
    Int. 2.--How long have you been in Oregon; at what places have you resided, and what official positions have you occupied in the state?
    Ans.--I have been in Oregon since the middle of October, 1850. I have resided at the mouth of the Umpqua River, at Roseburg, and at Portland; was collector of customs for the southern district of Oregon for six years; been twice a member of the Legislature of Oregon; elected prosecuting attorney in 1858, and have been Governor of Oregon for the last three years.
    Int. 3.--Are you acquainted with the Hudson's Bay Company's post at Umpqua? If so, state when you first saw it; how long you were in the vicinity; and describe it generally.
    Ans.--I am acquainted with the post; saw it first the latter part of October, 1850; about the 23rd, I think; I remained in the immediate vicinity of it a few weeks; and lived as near as the mouth of the Umpqua and Roseburg for seven years. I was well acquainted with that post during that time; frequently passed it. It is situated about forty-five miles from the mouth of Umpqua River, about twenty miles above the head of navigation, in a big bend. As I have understood the claim and lines, it was six hundred and forty acres, about one half first-rate prairie land, level, and the balance extending on a hill, a part of it timber. When I first saw it, I should think there was about eighty acres of it enclosed with a common rail fence, and about half an acre was enclosed as a stockade, made of small trees set in the ground, some fifteen feet in height, with gates for ingress and egress. Inside this stockade were buildings, one of which was occupied as a dwelling-house for the superintendent of the post; the others were used for granaries and the store. I think the number of granaries and store were so divided as to make four or five apartments in number. I think they were all covered with one roof. The body of the buildings were made of hewn logs, and I think the divisions between them were of the same material. The main building or residence, I think, was hewed on the inside at least. This building is what is called a story and a half building. The others were one story high. There were a few apple trees inside the enclosure.
    Int. 4.--What were these buildings and improvements worth when you first saw them, separate from the land?
    Ans.--Well, I think the value, considered in the light of any purpose for which any person would want to buy property of that kind in that locality, considering the condition of the country, would be $1,500.
    Int. 5.--In what condition were these buildings, from time to time, during your stay in that section of the country? (Objected to as immaterial.)
    Ans.--The buildings when I first saw them were in very good condition; the stockade was very much decayed near the ground; the fence appeared to have been built a number of years; some of the rails were rotten; it was afterwards taken down, relaid, throwing out the poorer rails, and enclosed, I think, about half as much as at first. Within two or three years from the time I first saw them a part of the buildings burned down; the stockade was either burned down or torn down about that time; I never saw it after the fire.
    Int. 6.--How much were the improvements worth, as you last saw them? (Objected to as immaterial.)
    Ans.--I should judge $1,000 or $1,200.
    Int. 7.--How much, in your opinion, was the Company's claim worth per acre, when you first saw it, and also when you last saw it, including 640 acres and the improvements? Please state with reference to your knowledge of the market value of such property at those different dates.
    Ans.--I should think the claim, taken as a whole, was worth four or five dollars an acre. The market value in that country was greater from 1850 to 1854 than it has been since; still the improvements were worth more when I first saw them than they were in 1854.
    Int. 8.--How much was the land actually enclosed worth per acre, with the improvements?
    Ans.--I don't think it was worth much, if any more, than the level land outside of the enclosure, as the fence was old, and the land had the appearance of being cultivated for a number of years. The value of the bottom land, I should think, was worth about seven dollars per acre; the hill lands about two dollars per acre.
    Int. 9.--Who occupied this post while you were in that country?
    Ans.--The first man in charge of it, when I came there, was a Frenchman called Captain Gagnier; the next man in charge that I remember of, was King--I think T. B. King, and then Colonel Chapman, My impression is that it was not occupied when Colonel Chapman came.
    Int. 10.--During your knowledge of this post, did the business of the Hudson Bay Company there increase or decrease?
    Ans.--It decreased very much; never was much, to my knowledge, except in selling grain to settlers the first year or two, and disposing of some goods they had on hand when I first came there. I think it entirely stopped both selling grain and disposing of goods, before or during the time Mr. King was there. My recollection is that after Colonel Chapman came, he repaired a part of the fences and commenced raising grain.
    Int. 11.--How did the values of property in Oregon generally, in lands and improvements, compare in 1863 with those prevailing from 1850 to 1855?
    Ans.--I think lands were higher in 1850 and 1851 than they were in 1855, and were not any higher until the last two or three years. I think they have been increasing in value during that time.
    Int. 12.--About what date was such property in Oregon generally at its lowest figures since 1855?
    Ans.--I should say from 1859 to 1863.
    Int. 13.--Are you acquainted with Jesse Applegate, J. S. Rinearson, and J. C. Carson; if so, state their standing in community, and your judgment of their fitness to appraise property examined by them?
    Ans.--I am well acquainted with Jesse Applegate and J. C. Carson, and some acquainted with Mr. Rinearson. I consider Mr. Applegate as well qualified for that business as any man in Oregon. I consider Mr. Carson well qualified to judge of any matters pertaining to buildings. I am not well acquainted with Mr. Rinearson, to speak particularly; what I know of him is favorable,

    Int. 1.--State whether the land referred to was not among the best in Umpqua County?
    Ans.--One-half of the claim, I think, was.
    Int. 2.--Before 1854 do you know of any such land being sold for less than ten dollars per acre?
    Ans.--Yes; I do.
    Int. 3.--Where and whose?
    Ans.--In the fall of 1850 I took a claim of 320 acres, about a mile and a quarter from this claim; about 80 acres of it was as good as any of this. About February I sold it for $250. I know the claim of John E. Gardner, about five miles below, being sold on execution, I think for about $700. I think this sale of Gardner's was after 1854, and not as good land; part of it was as good.
    Int. 4.--Did you consider the price obtained by you for the land you sold, a fair value?
    Ans.--I did, a fair market value; I could not get any more.
    Int. 5.--Did you not sell that land because you wished to change your residence?
    Ans.--That was the main reason; I wished to go to another part of the country.
    Int. 6.--Did you sell anything more than the improvements?
    Ans.--I sold the possessory right that all settlers had on public lands under the land law.
    Int. 7.--How long had you resided upon and cultivated this land?
    Ans.--I took it in October and sold it in February following; not time for cultivation in the meantime.
    Int. 8.--What possessory right under the land law had you then acquired?
    Ans.--I acquired the same right that other settlers did upon public lands in Oregon, which, under the law granting lands to settlers, had it been continued four years, would have given me title in fee simple.
    Int. 9.--Did not the land law make all sales of that description null and void?
    Ans.--The law allowed a person, a settler, to take possession of the land and hold it, and protected him in that right. When a sale was made, the person buying acquired the right to take possession of the land the same as if it had been vacant land.
    Int. 10.--Was not the purchaser required to do as much to secure the title as though he had never bought from you?
    Ans.--He would be, with the exception that the permanent improvements that had been made would be credited to him, the same as if he had made them.
    Int. 11.--Do you mean that such improvements would excuse him from any part of the four years' residence and cultivation required by law?
    Ans.--It would not excuse him from any part of the four years' residence; it might or might not excuse him from cultivation, if part of the permanent improvements consisted in planting; an orchard which remained on the premises would excuse him from any further cultivation, and would perfect his title after four years' residence.
    Int. 12.--Was the transfer made by you anything more than an abandonment of your claim to the land?
    Ans.--It was, as it vested in the purchaser what little improvement I had made on the land.
    Int. 13.--Do you consider such a transfer as any fair evidence of the value of land?
    Ans.--I think it is some fair evidence of it; lands would have been higher if purchasers could have got a title in fee simple.
    Int. 14.--State the size of the dwelling-house within the stockade at Umpqua.
    Ans.--I can't do it definitely; my opinion of that subject would be a mere approximation, without any particular examination.
    Int. 15.--Were there not two dwelling-houses within the stockade, besides the range of stores?
    Ans.--I have no recollection of but one.
    Int. 16.--Could those buildings, and the stockade, have been erected for less than $5,000?
    Ans.--That would depend upon the time that they were erected. I have only given my opinion of them in the condition that I saw them.
    Int. 17.--Judging from what you saw, the apparent age of the buildings, and the condition of the country, do you believe that the Company could have erected them, with the stockade and fences, for less than $5,000?
    Ans.--I can't tell definitely the condition of the country. I have no knowledge of [it] except from its history at the time when the buildings were erected; judging from their appearance, if labor was less, they might not have cost, and probably would not cost, that amount; but if the price of labor was high as when I came to the country, it would cost that sum and probably more.
    Int. 18.--How far was Umpqua from Fort Vancouver, the headquarters of the Company?
    Ans.--I think some two hundred and fifty miles.
    Int. 19.--Was not the transportation necessary for conveying materials and supplies so costly as to make the buildings very expensive?
    Ans.--Yes, much more so than if the materials had been nearer.
    Int. 20.--What business, if you know, was this post designed for beside what you have stated?
    Ans.--I suppose for the purpose of trading with the Indians. I suppose that was the principal object for which it was established.
    Int. 21.--What particular trade with the Indians, if any?
    Ans.--Buying furs and skins.
    Int. 22.--Do you know what checked that trade in 1850-51?
    Ans.--The settlement of the country by the whites, and the decrease of the number of Indians.
    Int. 23.--Did not the difficulties with the Rogue River Indians attract all the Indians in that part of Oregon, so that about that time no Indians remained in the Umpqua to collect furs?
    Ans.--I think it did not; all the Umpqua Indians were friendly during that war, excepting a few in the southern part of the Umpqua Valley.
    Int. 24.--At what time were the Umpqua Indians collected at the reservations?
    Ans.--I don't remember when that was; a sub-Indian agent appointed at the mouth of the Umpqua River, I think in 1853; it did not cause any change of residence on the part of the majority of the Indians. Those residing between the fort and Scottsburg changed their residence, generally, to the reservation.
    Int. 25.--Were not treaties made with the Indians, in Southern Oregon, in 1851?
    Ans.--I don't remember when they were made, excepting at Rogue River Valley; a treaty was made, after the war, in 1851.
    Int. 26.--At that time was not Judge Skinner appointed Indian agent for Southern Oregon?
    Ans.--I know he was Indian agent after the war, but don't remember what time he was appointed. I know that Skinner was the first agent, and Dr. Ambrose the next.
    Int. 27.--Was not Judge Skinner appointed under Fillmore's administration?
    Ans.--He was.
    Int. 28.--Was not the post at the Umpqua used as a trading post by all the Indians in Southern Oregon, as well as by those residing in its immediate vicinity?
    Ans.--I have no definite knowledge on that subject; my impression is that trade at that post was confined mostly to the Indians living on the Umpqua, Coos, and Coquille rivers, and their tributaries. I suppose these Indians traded the goods they got at that post with other Indians living farther south.
    Int. 29.--Was it not generally understood that that post was especially important, on account of the number of sea otter, which were very valuable, taken by the Indians on the southern coast of Oregon?
    Ans.--I think it was.
    Int. 30.--Was it not generally understood that the Hudson's Bay Company fortified that post upon account of the hostile disposition shown by the Indians towards Jedediah Smith and his party, some years before?
    Ans.--I think it was understood that they fortified the post, or built the stockade, on account of the hostility of the Indians; can't say whether it was before or after the massacre of the Smith party. It was once attacked by Indians while Captain Gagnier had charge of it.
    Int. 31.--Was it not understood, also, that the Company sent an expedition for the rescue of that party and the recovery of their property?
    Ans.--I have no definite knowledge on that point. I have heard that one of the party wandered about until he reached Vancouver, and they sent men down and recovered some of the Smith property. I have heard that two of the party were rescued, and that it was in 1829.
    Int. 32.--Was not that party generally understood to be American citizens?
    Ans.--They were.
    Int. 33.--Was not that post generally understood to have been a place of protection for American citizens, as well as for the employees of the Company?
    Ans.--I can't say that it was, as it was situated twenty or thirty miles from the Oregon and California road, and there were no American citizens settled in the Umpqua Valley while the Indians were hostile.
    Int. 34.--Was it not near the route, formerly traveled, between California and Oregon?
    Ans.--No nearer than twenty or thirty miles. I never heard of any travelers coming up the coast route, except the Smith party, until after the country was settled in 1850.
    Int. 35.--Did not the existence of that post, in your judgment, for so many years, have a beneficial effect in taming the Indians, and making them friendly towards the first American settlers?
    Ans.--I think it did, very materially.
    Int. 36.--Do you know anything of the killing or taking of the Company's cattle by the early settlers in that neighborhood, or others traveling in that vicinity? (Objected to by counsel for the United States, as it is not pertinent cross-examination, because no claim is made for damages on this account in the memorial of the Company; because it is immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--I do, from rumor; I have no knowledge of my own.
    Int. 37.--State whether what you have heard is from general rumor prevalent in that vicinity, or otherwise. (Objected to by counsel of United States, because hearsay and rumor are not competent evidence, and because such rumors were probably started by the Company's servants.)
    Ans.--General rumor prevalent in that locality.
    Int. 38.--Please state, then, what you have heard. (Objected to, for reasons noted above.)
    Ans.--I have heard that the Company had, in 1850, a number of hundred head of cattle, ranging over an extent of country from some five miles in width, to ten or twelve miles in length; the number of cattle might have been two hundred; it might have been four or five hundred, judging from what I have heard. At that time they were very wild and unmanageable--called Spanish cattle--sometimes annoyed and attacked the people and travelers. That some of the settlers and travelers killed some of them for food, and for the purpose of getting them out the way. From 1850 to 1853 there were twenty-five or thirty settlers in that vicinity. The number of cattle was understood to have considerably decreased up to the time Colonel Chapman took charge of them, and afterwards, I think at the time Colonel Chapman left, they were all gone. My understanding has been, while Colonel Chapman was there, that arrangements were made by him with other parties to kill cattle, for which he was to have compensation for the meat, and that he did all he could to prevent the cattle being killed without his consent, unless they made arrangements with him.
    Int. 39.--From 1850, until Colonel Chapman took charge of the post, was it not a common occurrence for the settlers when they wanted beef to go out and shoot one of the Company's cattle? (Objected to for reasons before stated.)
    Ans.--I don't think it was a very common occurrence; all the knowledge I have is from common rumor; I know that Captain Gagnier used to go out and kill wild cattle and sell the beef to settlers; they were always called wild cattle there.
    Int. 40.--Do you not know that persons who supplied the markets at Jacksonville, Yreka, and other places were in the habit of driving off small bands of these cattle for that purpose?
    Ans.--I do not. I think they were so wild they could not have been driven to the nearest market, which was Scottsburg. To have taken them to Jacksonville or Yreka they would have had to cross three ferries, and it would have been impossible to have got them over in boats.
    Int. 41.--Did not cattle frequently cross these rivers by swimming, following one or more that were tame?
    Ans.--I never knew or heard of it.
    Int. 42.--Are you acquainted with Archibald McKinlay and Thomas Lowe? If so, state their standing in community, and your judgment of their fitness to appraise property examined by them?
    Ans.--I know both of them, but am not sufficiently acquainted with them to give a proper answer in reference to their fitness as appraisers; I am better acquainted with McKinlay than Mr. Lowe; I know nothing and have heard nothing against their standing in community or which would affect their credibility as appraisers.
    Int. 43.--Have you ever said or written anything, or have you any prejudice against the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company now under examination?
    Ans.--I have said something in private conversation against the manner and amount of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company; I don't remember I have written anything on the subject; I have no prejudice against the Company.
    Int. 44.--State whether, while residing in the Umpqua Valley, you ever advised any person that the land of the Company at that post was subject to occupation and preemption as vacant land?
    Ans.--I don't remember that I ever did; am pretty sure that I was never employed as an attorney on the subject; I think the question had been discussed among the people in that section of the country; I may or may not have said something about it; I don't know who occupied the land after Colonel Chapman left; I don't know who occupies it at the present time.

    Int. 1.--Give the best of your knowledge of the market price of good farming lands in Oregon generally, away from the immediate vicinity of towns, from 1861 to 1863 inclusive. (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--I should say from two to five dollars per acre, depending upon the character of the soil and the amount of the improvements; some farms would be worthless and some more.
    Int. 2.--State your opportunities for acquiring a knowledge of the value of lands?
    Ans.--I have traveled considerably over the state, and have been interested in three farms during that time, two of which have been sold; also known of the sale of farms by other persons. As Governor of Oregon I have had to locate public lands for common school purposes. I have located, since the fall of 1862, 400,000 acres. The Legislature has fixed the price at two dollars an acre in currency or greenbacks.

    Int. 1.--State whether, in speaking of prices in your testimony, you have fixed a coin value, except in your last answer.
    Ans.--Coin value.
    Int. 2.--State whether location with reference to rivers, roads, and facilities of reaching a market are not to be considered in estimating the value of land, as well as fertility of soil, and the nature of improvements.
    Ans.--They should be considered, and are, by those buying and selling lands.
    Int. 3.--Would you say five dollars per acre was the highest value of land in Oregon during the time mentioned?
    Ans.--I would not.
    Int. 4.--How, then, do you mean to be understood in your answer to the first direct interrogatory on the preceding page?
    Ans.--I mean to be understood as answering a general question, which required an answer, averaging the price generally in the different parts of the state, according to my best judgment.
    Int. 5.--Please state, in your judgment, the highest value of good farming lands away from close vicinity to towns from 1861 to 1863?
    Ans.--I think that five dollars ought to be considered the highest value of such lands, except where very valuable improvements, consisting of houses, fencing, and orchards are put upon the lands, then the price would be higher, and that price might depend upon the improvements.
    Int. 6.--Are not the lands selected by you for school purposes, either in very remote sections, or of such small value for agricultural purposes, that settlers have passed them by, or have left them vacant?
    Ans.--Yes; such is the case generally. Perhaps I ought to except some lands in Baker and Union counties, east of the Cascade Mountains.
    Int. 7.--Would the price fixed by the state for these lands be a fair and just test of the value of such land as that of the Company at Umpqua?
    Ans.--I don't think it would.

    Int. 1.--How much of the material for the buildings at Umpqua was necessarily transported from Vancouver, or other distant sources of supply?
    Ans.--I can think of nothing but nails and glass, except hinges, which may have been on the small doors. The tools for the erection of the buildings, and the grain, and the men to assist in the transportation, and the agricultural implements and provisions until the next harvest had to be brought from Vancouver.
Portland, July 27, 1866.

M. M. McCarver, being first duly sworn, deposes and testifies as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation?
    Ans.--Am fifty-eight years of age; residence, Portland, Oregon; occupation, that of farmer, trader, and miner.
    Int. 2.--When did you come to Oregon, and where have you resided since?
    Ans.--I came to Oregon in 1848; have resided near Oregon City and in Portland most of the time since.
    Int. 3.--What offices did you hold under the provisional government?
    Ans.--I was member of the Legislature and Speaker of the House, at the time of the passage of the Organic Law of Oregon, in 1844, which was submitted to the people and adopted by them.
    Int. 4.--State what connection the officers of the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Agricultural Companies had with the formation of the provisional government, and whether they voted generally and wielded an influence for or against the organic act you refer to?
    Ans.--Dr. McLoughlin, Douglas, and others of the principal officers of the Company advised and assisted in the formation of the government, and they and those under their influence, I believe, generally voted for the organic act.
    Int. 5.--Who of their officers and agents served as members of the Legislature, or held other public positions under that government?
    Ans.--Dr. W. F. Tolmie was a member of the Legislature from the Puget's Sound district; A. L. Lewis, and perhaps others, were members; Mr. Frank Ermatinger was treasurer of the Territory.
    Int. 6.--Were you ever at Fort Boise? If so, state when.
    Ans.--I was there in 1843; and the last time, about two months since.
    Int. 7.--What is now remaining of the Company's buildings at that post?
    Ans.--The old fort and building, being built of unburnt brick or adobe, are melted down by floods and rains so that I was unable to find the exact place until pointed out to me by the man who was cultivating the ground, although I knew I was within a few rods of the place.
    Int. 8.--Suppose the buildings at that post as you saw them in 1843 were in existence in 1863, what would they be worth in then condition of settlement, trade, and mining in that section?
    Ans.--I do not think that they could have been sold at that time for $1,000.
    Int. 9.--What is the nature of the soil about this post?
    Ans.--Generally barren and sandy, with no timber near except scrubby cottonwood and willow on the Boise, and very little of the land tillable.
    Int. 10.--What is the value per acre of the best unimproved land at this post as the country is now settled?
    Ans.--From $3 to $5 dollars per acre, and it would be some time before much of it would be entered at $1.25 per acre.
    Int. 11.--How far is this land from any town or principal mining camp?
    Ans.--It is at least fifty miles from any mining camp or town. If it was not that it was claimed for ferry purposes, it is doubtful whether it would now be occupied for agricultural purposes.
    Int. 12.--How much time have you spent in the mining country of Boise and Owyhee?
    Ans.--I have been there three or four years; I did not live at Owyhee any of the time, but passed back and forward several times.

    Int. 1.--State how long you were at Fort Boise in 1843?
    Ans.--I was there two or three days--don't recollect exactly--waiting for our lost company to come up.
    Int. 2.--Did you in that time make such an examination of the buildings and improvements as to be able, after the lapse of twenty-three years, to fix their value definitely?
    Ans.--I could approximate the value; if they had been there in 1863, they, would have been worth the sum named, about $1,000.
    Int. 3.--Please describe the buildings, particularly as you saw them in 1843?
    Ans.--It is so long since, that it would be hard for me to describe them particularly. There was an adobe wall ten or twelve feet high--square, I think; I should think it was not two hundred feet square; not over that; I don't think there were any bastions, if there was, I did not notice them. There were two rooms and an enclosure inside of the wall; there may have been more, but I don't recollect; these rooms were covered with split timber, and dirt thrown over them?
    Int. 4.--Do you not recollect a dwelling-house beside the range you have described?
    Ans.--No; I don't recollect.
    Int. 5.--What sort of wood was used in the construction of these buildings; was it fir or pine?
    Ans.--What I noticed particularly, was split logs, put over the roof, and covered with dirt; I think it was cottonwood--no pine nearer than thirty or forty miles, unless a few scattering trees in the mountains.
    Int. 6.--Considering the cost of transportation and materials, what in your judgment must those buildings have cost, in the condition of the country at that time?
    Ans.--I don't know. It would be very considerable at that time, from the cost and difficulty of the transportation of provisions and materials; it would have cost more than what it would have sold for, at the time I fixed the value.
    Int. 7.--State whether the exposure of men employed in transporting provision through a hostile country, and in erecting such a post among Indians, did not greatly increase the cost?
    Ans.--Yes; I suppose it would.
    Int. 8.--State whether the condition of the Indians in that region was not such as to require defensive works for the safety of white men?
    Ans.--The fort was built some time before we reached there, and while I was there the agent told me that the Indians on the south side of the river were always hostile.
    Int. 9.--Do you not know that during the years of early emigration to Oregon, that post was of great value as a means of protection and convenience to emigrants?
    Ans.--Yes; I have reason to believe it.
    Int. 10.--In your judgment, would not the suffering, loss of life, and loss of property have been much greater than they were, if the Hudson's Bay Company had had no posts at Fort Boise and Fort Hall?
    Ans.--Yes, I believe it; they furnished supplies and furnished horses when teams gave out.
    Int. 11.--Was there not an influence exerted upon the Indians through the Company at these establishments, tending to save emigrants from Indian hostilities?
    Ans.--I have every reason to believe it.
    Int. 12.--Did you see any livestock, or farming implements at Fort Boise?
    Ans.--I saw no farming implements, but I saw horses. I don't know whether they belonged to the Company, as there were Indians there.
    Int. 13.--Were there not corrals for stock?
    Ans.--I think there was a corral outside of the enclosure; I am not positive whether it was made of adobe or timber, I rather think it was adobe.
    Int. 14.--How thick were the adobe walls of the fort?
    Ans.--Three feet thick, I would suppose.
    Int. 15.--How long do you think it would take ten men to build a wall of that height, thickness, and length?
    Ans.--My opinion would not be worth much, as I am unacquainted with the making adobe buildings.
    Int. 16.--Is that position of especial value for ferry purposes; if so, why?
    Ans.--I don't think it is a very good position; it has not proved itself so; the principal ferry is Old's ferry, and Washoe ferry.
    Int. 17.--Who is the present claimant and occupant of that land?
    Ans.--Jonathan Keeney and son, who are American citizens; who have a splendid wire rope, and a pretty good boat--self-propeller.
    Int. 18.--State, if you can, the cost of transportation from Portland to Idaho City, during the years you have been trading there.
    Ans.--Transportation has run, generally, from ten, fifteen to twenty cents per pound, from Umatilla landing to Idaho City, which is seventy miles beyond Fort Boise; the highest rate of freight we paid was forty cents, in February, 1863. Freight, I am told, is now down to seven cents, in wagons; ten and twelve cents in pack trains.
    Int. 19.--Is any part of Idaho capable of producing wheat and other agricultural products?
    Ans.--Yes; wheat, barley, and oats grow as well as in the Willamette Valley, in small strips of a mile or two wide along the streams where the land is irrigated. I have seen potatoes which grew on Godin's Creek as good as any that were ever raised in Oregon. I have also seen and sold potatoes which grew in Boise Valley, as well as excellent tomatoes and corn; there is a grist mill for grinding corn in Boise Valley.
    Int. 20.--What, in your judgment, is the population of Idaho the present year?
    Ans.--I do not think that there are as many as there were two years ago; the farming population is greater, and the mining less; I judge from appearances only, of what I see in the towns; I. refer to placer mining only, as in the quartz mining the number has increased.
    Int. 21.--Was not the provisional government, to which you have referred, organized without regard to national allegiance, for the purposes of maintaining law and order, for mutual protection, and for promoting the settlement and prosperity of Oregon?
    Ans.--Yes; that was the understanding.
    Int. 22.--Did not the officers of the Company cooperate actively and harmoniously with the other residents of Oregon for these ends?
    Ans.--Yes, sir.
    Int. 23.--Did not the furnishing of provisions, clothing, seed, cattle, and other articles by the Company to the settlers greatly assist in the early settlement of Oregon?
    Ans.--Most unquestionably.
    Int. 24.--At the time of the Whitman massacre, and of the Indian disturbance, were not the agents of the Company prompt and active in their efforts to rescue sufferers, and to punish. the guilty?
    Ans.--They furnished provisions and ammunition to assist in carrying on the war against the Cayuses, which followed the Whitman massacre; they assisted in rescuing the sufferers, but I do not know that they took any part in punishing the guilty, except in selling supplies to the provisional government, as required; they were trading in the country, and desired the good will of both whites and Indians.
    Int. 25.--Are you acquainted with Archibald McKinlay and Thomas Lowe? If so, state their standing in the community, and whether they are fit persons to estimate the value of property.
    Ans.--I am acquainted with them, though not so intimately with Mr. Lowe as Mr. McKinlay; Mr. McKinlay is a man of good sense and judgment, and Mr. Lowe is also, as far as I know; their standing in the community is good, as far as I know, and I never heard anything against them.
    Int. 26.--Are you the M. M. McCarver, who, as Speaker of the Legislative Committee of Oregon, in 1845, signed a memorial to the Congress of the United States?
    Ans.--I am.

    Int. 1.--Is the land in the immediate vicinity of Fort Boise suitable for agricultural purposes, without irrigation at considerable expense?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 2.--Is there any Indian trade of any value in that country at this time?
    Ans.--None, that I know.
    Int. 3.--Have you seen the buildings of the Hudson's Bay Company, at Walla Walla? Also, what would you think of the judgment of a man who would suppose their cost to have been $100,000?
    Ans.--I have seen the buildings in 1843, and several times since; I would suppose the judgment of such a man very lame in that particular.

    Int. 1.--In 1843, had you any opportunity of judging of the Indian trade at Fort Boise?
    Ans.--From what I saw during these two or three days I stayed there, I do not think the trade was much.
    Int. 2.--In those days, was it not customary for Indians to come to the Company's posts at intervals, and in large numbers?
    Ans.--I presume it was.
    Int. 3.--Is not the river bottom readily and easily irrigated near Boise?
    Ans.--I think it could be irrigated, and will be, but with much difficulty.
Portland, July 28, 1866.

July 30, 1866. A. P. Ankeny, being first duly sworn, deposes and testifies as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and what business you have principally followed, in the last six or eight years?
    Ans.--I am fifty-two years old; residence, Portland; I have been a trader in general merchandise, stock, &c., and steamboating.
    Int. 2.--When did you first come to Oregon?
    Ans.--In 1850. I came into the eastern part of the Territory in 1849.
    Int. 3.--Are you acquainted with the Hudson's Bay Company post at Fort Hall; if so, state when you first saw it, and what length of time you remained there?
    Ans.--I saw it first in the summer of 1849, and saw it in 1850 also. I was only there about two days--camped close by it.
    Int. 4.--Describe, if you can, the improvements of the Company there at that time, and state what was the condition and who was in charge?
    Ans.--It was adobe improvements, such as the enclosure of the fort and the buildings; I am unable to describe their particular dimensions, and number; at the time I was there, they seemed to be comfortable; the walls seemed to be scaled in places, and looked as if they had been used and knocked around a good deal; my impression is that Captain Grant was in charge; there was, also, a Mr. Johnson there with whom I did some business.
    Int. 5.--What is the nature of the soil about Fort Hall?
    Ans.--In places it seems to be pretty good, there were spots of good land, which seemed to be better than the average in that country.
    Int. 6.--What, in your judgment, would be the value per acre of a tract of land one mile square, around this post--then, or at any time since? (Objected to as irrelevant, the Company not claiming a mile square only, at Fort Hall.)
    Ans.--Well, I should not regard it as being worth any more than other good government land in that vicinity--of course there is choice in places--I am not a sufficient judge to know what portion of the land was susceptible of a high state of cultivation; since that time mining camps have been stuck around there, and lands are more valuable in certain locations; I have not been there since 1850.
    Int. 7.--When you were at Fort Hall in 1849 and 1850, what were the appearances as to the amount of trade carried on there?
    Ans.--It gave evidence of a good deal of trade there, packing, &c., and there were a good many goods and furs there--I had some conversation with them, but had no means of judging of the amount.
    Int. 8.--Up to what date, in your judgment, did the Indian trade in that country remain of any value? (Objected to, because there is no evidence that the witness has any knowledge of the Indian trade there, or that he had been in that country for sixteen years, and because it is incompetent.)
    Ans.--I could not tell at Fort Hall. I understood the trade at that post to be from the Indians to the north and east; I don't know whether they were hostile or not.
    Int. 9.--Are you acquainted with the Company's post at Boise? If so, state when you first saw it, and how long you remained there.
    Ans.--I saw it in the fall of 1850, and remained there near about six weeks.
    Int. 10.--State who was in charge at that time, and what was the condition and appearance of the buildings and enclosure at that date?
    Ans.--Mr. Craigie was in charge; the buildings around inside of the enclosure were run down and a good deal dilapidated; the corral on the outside was adobe, was much broken down; we kept stock in it; but it was much dilapidated.
    Int. 11.--What, if anything, did the Company's agent in charge at that time say about the condition of trade at this post? (Objected to as incompetent and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--In conversation with Mr. Craigie, he told me that the post did not pay at that time; he had but very little goods at the post when I was there.
    Int. 12.--How much, in your judgment, were the Company's improvements at this post worth in 1850?
    Ans.--I could not see that it would be worth anything to me at that time; it might be worth something for some purposes; it would not be worth anything to me; I would not stay there to have it as a gift; it was worth nothing for agricultural purposes.
    Int. 13.--How many times have you been at Fort Boise or its neighborhood, since 1850, and when were you last there?
    Ans.--I have not been at the site of the old fort since 1850; but have been on Boise River, above the fort, in 1864.
    Int. 14.--Suppose that the buildings and improvements of the Company at Fort Boise, as you saw them in 1850, remained in 1864, what would they be worth as the country was then settled. (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--I would judge they might be worth as a place of deposit or something of that kind, $2,000, probably.
    Int. 15.--Describe the nature of the soil immediately around Boise?
    Ans.--It is an alkali soil, brush and sand the most of it.
    Int. 16.--What is such land worth per acre? (Objected to as incompetent, and not appearing that the witness knows its value.)
    Ans.--I should class it with government land, worth $1.25 per acre. Three or four miles away there is some better land--there are some small spots that by irrigation would produce some little.
    Int. 17.--Are you acquainted with the Company's post at Colvile? If so, state when you were first there, and how frequently since.
    Ans.--I was there in 1859 and 1860; not been there since 1861.
    Int. 18.--Has this post, in relation to the trade of the Upper Columbia, any importance as a site for trade, or landing for boats?
    Ans.--It is situated some distance from the river; I don't think it has any importance as a boat landing; I could not consider that it has any importance as a place of trade, as trade is now; it is an out-of-the-way place as to the trade for which it was built, and the trade of the valley in its immediate vicinity; I suppose it is of some importance, or they would not have built it, if they had not thought so; as a fur region, it is the best I have ever seen; I have seen more fine furs there than at any other place I have ever seen; they might have been brought there from other places.
    Int. 19.--How far above the town of Colvile is this post?
    Ans.--The town of Colvile, or Pinkney, as it is called, is ten or fifteen miles from the Hudson's Bay Company's post, right inland, south of east from the post.
    Int. 20.--How far above Colvile is the landing for the steamer?
    Ans.--I don't know.
    Int. 21.--State, if you know, the market value of agricultural land in the vicinity of Colvile?
    Ans.--I don't know that I could state the prices of land, not being conversant with sales there.
    Int. 22.--What, in your judgment, is land worth per acre, say 640 acres, immediately around Fort Colvile?
    Ans.--Well, I should judge, from $2.50 to $5 per acre.
    Int. 23.--Are you acquainted with the Company's post called Fort Okanagan? If so, state when you were there.
    Ans.--I was there in 1859 and 1860; it might have been the year before that. I was there several times in one year. I was there in 1860 and 1861, two or three times.
    Int. 24.--State whether this post was occupied or not?
    Ans.--It was, the first time I went there; there was a man stopping there. I think the Company had an agent there, I think, in charge of some furs stored there. I can't say whether it was abandoned; there were parties staying there. There was a ferry there. My impression the last time I was there was that they were not Hudson's Bay men.
    Int. 25.--What was the condition of the buildings and improvements at Okanagan?
    Ans.--It was all going to rack; it seemed to be a general waste around the premises when I was there.
    Int. 26.--What were these buildings worth, in your judgment?
    Ans.--I would suppose they would be worth $500.
    Int. 27.--What, in your judgment, would thirty acres of land at this fort be worth for agricultural purposes?
    Ans.--Not worth much as government land; not worth anything to me. Immediately around the fort the soil was sandy and the land poor.
    Int. 28.--Is this point of any value as a place for trade?
    Ans.--Not much at this time; it might have been, for Indian trade, at an early day.
    Int. 29.--Are you acquainted with the Company's post at Walla Walla, now called Wallula? If so, state when you first saw it, and how frequently since.
    Ans.--I saw it first in 1850; saw it in 1853; saw it in 1855 and 1856, and since 1860. I have seen it, off and on, every year.
    Int. 30.--What, in your judgment, is the value of the buildings of the Hudson's Bay Company at that post, as you first saw them?
    Ans.--They were worth, probably, $10,000.
    Int. 30.--What, in your opinion, is the value of 640 acres of land immediately surrounding this post, viewing it as a steamboat landing and place of trade?
    Ans.--I would not consider it to be worth more than $1.25 per acre. My reason for that opinion is, that I was driven away two or three years ago, and went right above and entered a better landing, at government price, which is now owned by the Oregon Steam Navigation Company.
    Int. 32.--Are you acquainted with the country at and around Vancouver? If so, state how long you have been familiar with that post and neighborhood.
    Ans.--Saw it first in 1850; have been more or less acquainted with it ever since.
    Int. 33.--What, in your opinion, has been the highest value of 640 acres of land at Vancouver, including the Company's fort and the town site? Give it at so much per acre. (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, the Company not claiming 640 acres of land.)
    Ans.--It is a very pretty site and a very pretty farm. I would not regard it as worth over $20 per acre. It might be regarded as some higher than that, taking everything into consideration.
    Int. 34.--Give, as near as you can, the market price of good farming lands in the tract of country bordering on the Columbia River, from five or six miles above Vancouver to fifteen miles below?
    Ans.--I suppose, from $1.25 per acre to $10, as to location and quality of soil, and so on.
    Int. 35.--About what time was the price of land and improved farms in Oregon and the vicinity of Vancouver at the lowest ebb, within the last ten years?
    Ans.--About 1858, I think they were the lowest. After that they began to look up, probably on account of the discovery of the northern mines.
    Int. 36.--Is there any Indian trade of any value at Vancouver, Walla Walla, Okanagan, or Boise? (Objected to, as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--I presume there is some little trade; as to what value, I can't say. I don't think there is any to amount to anything, at this time. I have not seen any Indians about, offering to trade, lately. (Objected to, as the witness has already stated that he has not been at several of these points for years.)
    Int. 37.--About how long since did this Indian trade cease in the regions where these posts are situated? State the occasion of it, in your opinion. (Objected to, for the same reasons as before.)
    Ans.--It has been on the decrease since 1856, as near as I can get at the time; there has been very little Indian trade since 1860, at some of the posts--I could not say as to all of them. I think it was the settlement of the country and the encroachment of the whites on the lands of the Indians that caused the decrease of the trade, together with the discovery of gold.
    Int. 38.--What effect, in this particular, would be produced by the government policy of making treaties with the Indians and gathering them upon reservations?
    Ans.--I think it would destroy the trade of these posts; it would demoralize the whole fur trade; the posts would be of no further value for that particular purpose.

    Int. 1.--Can you undertake to state definitely, after a lapse of sixteen or seventeen years, the condition of the improvements at Fort Hall?
    Ans.--Only as I then saw it, in 1850.
    Int. 2.--Can you definitely state the number of the buildings within the wall?
    Ans.--No, sir; I could not.
    Int. 3.--State how much land was under cultivation at Fort Hall, as near as you recollect?
    Ans.--I could not say; they had quite a nice garden, and there might have been other fields cultivated, but I did not see them; I was about over the pasture grounds.
    Int. 4.--Were not the pasture grounds extensive and of great importance, in consequence of the Company's having a large amount of stock?
    Ans.--The whole face of the country, up and down, was good pasture land. The Company had a considerable stock when I was there.
    Int. 5.--Would not that land be worth more than $1.25 per acre to persons having stock to pasture?
    Ans.--l think not, outside of improvements; there is a great deal of that kind of land there.
    Int. 6.--Is not the land in the vicinity of Fort Hall easily irrigated?
    Ans.--I could not answer that question; I did not go to see.
    Int. 7.--Is not Fort Hall a central point of meeting for the great routes from the United States to Oregon and California, with roads diverging thence to Salt Lake and Utah, to British Columbia, and to Montana?
    Ans.--It may have been before I arrived there; I came by the way of Salt Lake both times that I was at Fort Hall; it was a branching point for the different roads mentioned.
    Int. 8.--Do you know whether that post was not one of great importance for convenience and protection to the early emigrants to Oregon?
    Ans.--It was very convenient to be able to get supplies there, such as they had; it was very convenient to any traveler coming to this country; I could not say how that was regarded, as to protection; but that it was very convenient to camp there.
    Int. 9.--Do you not know that trapping parties made that their headquarters, going thence down the Missouri, down Green River, and Colorado, north to the Flathead country and south to the Salt Lake country, and coming there to exchange their furs and obtain supplies?
    Ans.--I have heard mountain men speak frequently of being at Fort Hall, and obtaining supplies and starting from there.
    Int. 10.--Can you form any estimate of the cost of the improvements at Fort Hall?
    Ans.--I have not paid but little attention, and was in the fort but little--only in one room where I did business; I would not like to state any estimate.
    Int. 11.--Was it not necessary to transport from a long distance, and at great expense, men, materials, and provisions for the construction of the establishment, except the adobes?
    Ans.--Aside from what little groceries they need, it looked to me that the material was all obtained there, except the bolts, hinges, and other things of that kind.
    Int. 12.--What do you mean by little groceries?
    Ans.--That is what they generally carry; they generally obtained their meat there; I speak in general terms.
    Int. 13.--Were not any tools necessary?
    Ans.--I should think it would come under that head; packers generally carry a hatchet, ax, and auger.
    Int. 14.--Could such an establishment as Fort Hall have been constructed by such tools as a hatchet, ax, and auger alone?
    Ans.--With the addition of a saw, hammer, plane, and a few nails, and a spade, also.
    Int. 15.--Do you believe that such tools alone were employed in the construction of that fort?
    Ans.--I could not state as to that; there might have been others used.
    Int. 16.--Were there any windows in the fort or building?
    Ans.--I think there was; there were doors and some small windows, if I recollect right
    Int. 17.--Was not all the lumber used there brought from a long distance, and at great expense?
    Ans.--I don't know the distance it was brought; it must have been attended with some expense.
    Int. 18.--How near to Fort Hall did you see any wood growing that would be suitable to make doors and windows of?
    Ans.--I don't know of any wood around there except cottonwood; I don't know whether the doors and windows were made of that or not; it was not a great distance to that--I don't know how far.
    Int. 19.--Did you see any other wood within one hundred miles?
    Ans.--Yes; driftwood in the river; could make any kind of lumber that the wood would make; it could be sawed out of it.
    Int. 20.--Was there any wood growing within one hundred miles, to your knowledge?
    Ans.--I don't know, I was not about much; it might have been within ten miles, and me not know it.
    Int. 21.--Did Craigie, the Company's agent at Fort Boise, in his conversation with you about the business there, tell you why the post did not pay at that time? If so, what reason did he give?
    Ans.--He said the Indians had become indolent and lazy, and they had to feed them out of the salmon in the winter which they had bought from them, and that it did not pay, and that he thought they would abandon the post.
    Int. 22.--Did he not tell you that some of the Indians had become more unfriendly on account of difficulties with the emigrants and settlers, and that they feared that their lands and property would be taken from them?
    Ans.--I believe he told me that he was afraid of them, which I knew by experience, as they kept me in hot water all the time I was there.
    Int. 23.--After the lapse of sixteen years since seeing that post, will you undertake to speak definitely of the value of the improvements there?
    Ans.--I might give what I thought was the value of them at that time; I could only give my opinion.
    Int. 24.--In saying the post was worth nothing to you, do you mean simply to refer to its uses for agricultural purposes, or for other purposes?
    Ans.--I don't think it was of much use for agricultural purposes; it may have been of use as a place of storage in transit; it might have been a good trading post and I not know it.
    Int. 25.--If the Indians had continued friendly, and trade with them prosperous, would not those improvements have been of much greater value than you have fixed?
    Ans.--Not unless there had been a great improvement made on them; they were in a dilapidated condition when I was there.
    Int. 26.--Can you estimate the cost of those improvements?
    Ans.--I would not undertake to estimate the cost of them.
    Int. 27.--In constructing the improvements was it not necessary to [send] men, provisions, and materials a long distance, and at great expense?
    Ans.--Materials that were used were about the same as at Fort Hall; were in about the same ratio, only not so far in the interior, by about four hundred miles.
    Int. 28.--Was there any wood growing in the vicinity suitable for building?
    Ans.--There was driftwood in the river, and some timber on Boise River.
    Int. 29.--Do you now remember the number of buildings at Fort Boise?
    Ans.--It was built in a square, with buildings around the inside, and in the corners; it was about one hundred feet square; there was a corral on the outside; I could not state how many openings there were on the inside.
    Int. 30.--How far is Fort Colvile from the Columbia River?
    Ans.--Some little distance, it may be a mile of perhaps two miles; I can't state exactly.
    Int. 31.--Why do you call it an out-of-the-way place in your direct examination?
    Ans.--I speak in reference to the trade in the upper country.
    Int. 32.--How is it an out-of-the-way place for the upper country business, if located upon or so near the river?
    Ans.--It is not right at a steamboat landing; things have to be hauled or packed there; it is out of the way of transporting from this point to the Kootenay; the location for the agricultural interest around it was good.
    Int. 33.--State, if you can, the extent of good farming lands in this vicinity?
    Ans.--You might say from there up to Colvile or Pinkney City, as it is called, an agricultural valley all the way, about twelve or fifteen miles long, and three or four miles wide.
    Int. 34.--Is not that land as good as any farming land in Oregon or Washington?
    Ans.--A portion of it may be; it is a colder nature than the land here, I think; portions of it is very productive.
    Int. 35.--What is the ground of your judgment of [that] land around Fort Colvile is worth only from $2.50 to $5.00 per acre?
    Ans.--Because that is the general average of land all over this country--the general average of unimproved land.
    Int. 36.--What would you say is the value of cultivated land near Fort Colvile?
    Ans.--It depends altogether upon the demand.
    Int. 37.--Is not land which yields wheat, like that near Colvile, worth more than any unimproved land in this state or Washington Territory?
    Ans.--I don't think it is worth more, unless there is a great demand for it; it has been worth much less at times.
    Int. 38.--When was land near Colvile worth less than unimproved lands west of the Cascades?
    Ans.--About 1859, and along up to 1862; about that time it was very dull, the farms were nearly all deserted, and land was offered very low.
    Int. 39.--Do you know that wheat has been higher in Colvile Valley than in any other part of Oregon or Washington Territory for the last ten years?
    Ans.--I could not say that it was any higher; sometimes high, sometimes low, according to the demand there.
    Int. 40.--What was the highest price you have known wheat to bring in Colvile, and when?
    Ans.--I couldn't state how high it has been in Colvile; I have no means of knowing.
    Int. 41.--Can you tell the lowest price?
    Ans.--I have known flour to be bought as low as $8.00 per one hundred lbs.; I can't say about wheat.
    Int. 42.--At the time it was worth $8 per cent. in Colvile; what was it worth in Portland?
    Ans.--I can't tell what it was worth here at that particular time; it was not worth $8 per cent.
    Int. 43.--Is there a sawmill at or near Fort Colvile, and to whom does it belong?
    Ans.--I don't know, sir; I have always understood that there was one there, but don't know to whom belongs.
    Int. 44.--Is not Colvile Valley the nearest source of supply to the Big Bend mines, and to the Kootenay mining camps?
    Ans.--I don't know that there is any difference; as the roads are now to the Kootenay. I should suppose Colvile would be the nearest point to the Big Bend mines; and it may be to the Kootenay mines.
    Int. 45.--Does not the nearness of these lands to the market give to them a much greater value than that which belongs to the unimproved lands of Oregon and Washington Territory?
    Ans.--It does at this time, since the new discoveries in that country; the date I visited there it did not.
    Int. 46.--Is the measure, then, by which you fix the value of the land near Colvile at $2.50 to $5.00 per acre, a fair one, if you base that value upon the price of unimproved land in the western part of Oregon and Washington?
    Ans.--It was at that time; at that time I speak of; I have not been there since.
    Int. 47.--Will you then undertake to say that its present value, as stated in your direct examination, is only from $2.50 to $5.00 per acre?
    Ans.--At that time it was; I would not state at the present time, because I am not there, and don't know.
    Int. 48.--What do you mean by "that time"?
    Ans.--From 1859 to 1861.
    Int. 49.--Did you ever see the portage wagon road made by the Hudson's Bay Company, across the rocky hill, at the Kettle Falls?
    Ans.--I think I have; I don't know who made it.
    Int. 50.--Do you recollect a bridge at the falls?
    Ans.--I can't say that I recollect anything definitely about those points.
    Int. 51.--How long were you at Fort Okanagan at any one time?
    Ans.--Not over a day and night.
    Int. 52.--Do you recollect what buildings and improvements there were there?
    Ans.--Yes; it had pretty much all gone to ruins when I was there; there were parts of buildings there, part frame and part adobe--different style of buildings from the others.
    Int. 53.--Are you certain there were any adobes there?
    Ans.--There was such a pile of dirt, and mosquitoes were so bad, that I did not stay inside and pay much attention to it; the timber had fallen down from the bastions; it was all out of order.
    Int. 54.--Were you ever there more than once?
    Ans.--Yes, sir; I have passed there, probably, six times, and been around there; I don't think I ever slept in the house but once.
    Int. 55.--Was there not timber growing in the vicinity, so that it could be used in constructing the stockade and buildings?
    Ans.--There was plenty of timber on the river, above the fort.
    Int. 56.--Do you know anything of Indian difficulties in 1855, 1856, and 1857, which caused the withdrawal of the Company from its use of Fort Okanagan as a trading post?
    Ans.--I know of difficulty being with the Indians; I don't know whether that caused them to withdraw or not. There were some persons there that claimed to have authority from the Company, the first time I was there.
    Int. 57.--When you say, in your direct examination, that 640 acres of land at Fort Walla Walla, now Wallula, is worth only $1.25 per acre, do you mean to say that the section of land which embraced the Company's post is now worth only $800?
    Ans.--At this time, with the town site and buildings on it, it may be worth more, but at that time I considered it worth only $1.25 per acre--I mean, by that time, two or three years ago, when I was driven away; at that time Vansyckle claimed the landing, and wanted to charge me $1 per ton for landing my goods there.
    Int. 58.--Did not land that you took cost you more than $1.25 per acre?
    Ans.--The land, I believe, was entered for the use of the steamer Spray, at government price. We put buildings on it and started an opposition town, and sold out to the Oregon Steam Navigation Company.
    Int. 59.--How much land did you enter or purchase?
    Ans.--I can't tell exactly the number of acres; it was in fractions along the river; I think it was one 40 and one 80, as near as I can recollect.
    Int. 60.--At what price was that land sold to the Oregon Steam Navigation Company?
    Ans.--I couldn't state at what price; it was put in with buildings, wood, and the steamer Spray at $65,500. I am not positive as to that; it may have been sold separate.
    Int. 61.--Were there not portions of the land of the Company at Walla Walla which were enclosed and cultivated?
    Ans.--I don't think I ever saw any land enclosed, except a corral and the fort; I never saw any cultivated.
    Int. 62.--Do you not recollect a field up the river, about 30 acres in extent, which was under a good state of cultivation in 1850?
    Ans.--There was a patch on the Walla Walla River, about two miles from the fort; I did not leave the trail and go down to it; I don't know the size of it; it was somewhere on the river between the fort and the Hudson's Bay farm; there were two or three little patches, but I don't know who they belonged to.
    Int. 63.--Will you say, from your knowledge of the land, that no part of the 640 acres around the fort is worth more than government price for agricultural purposes?
    Ans.--Taken as a whole, I don't think it is worth the government price for agricultural purposes; there may be some small patches, which overflow, that would be worth it to cut grass upon.
    Int. 64.--State whether that point is not one of the important steamboat landings on the Columbia, with reference to the interior trade?
    Ans.--It is for Walla Walla Valley at this time, partially, and only partially for the other districts.
    Int. 65.--Do you not know that this land purchased by you was within the lines of the Hudson's Bay Company's claim, and its occupation a part of their possessory right? (Objected to by counsel for the United States, because this is a legal question only to be decided by the Commission trying this case.)
    Ans.--I don't know where this claim extended to; Vansyckle claimed a mile on the riverfront, and we went above him.
    Int. 66.--Are you interested as a town site proprietor in Lewiston?
    Ans.--I am not a town site proprietor; I laid out the town of Lewiston as a surveyor; I never owned any lots until within the last eighteen months.
    Int. 67.--Have you any interest as a proprietor of the town site or lots at Umatilla?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 68.--Is not the route by Okanagan the most convenient for the driving of stock from Oregon to British Columbia?
    Ans.--No, sir; by the Okanagan River is, but not by the fort.
    Int. 69.--Were you not, yourself, traveling to and from British Columbia at the time of your several visits to Okanagan?
    Ans.--Yes, sir.
    Int. 70.--Why did you travel that way six times, if it was not the most convenient road?
    Ans.--I had business part of the time with parties coming that way with wagons; there were two roads, one for wagons and one for stock.
    Int. 71.--What is the basis of your estimate of value of land at Vancouver when you say that you would not regard it as worth over $20 per acre?
    Ans.--The question that was asked me was as to the value of 640 acres there, without improvements; now, as the town site is, that is more than an average price of lands in this country.
    Int. 72.--Do you mean to say that, situated as it is on the bank of the Columbia, with its advantages of location, it would not be worth more than $20 an acre, if used as a town site?
    Ans.--I regard it now, with other places in this country developed, that $20 an acre, at this time, is sufficient, but at an earlier period, unencumbered, I should regard it at a much higher price.
    Int. 73.--In your judgment, did not the question of title to the land greatly diminish, from 1850 to the present time, its value?
    Ans.--I think, if it had been unencumbered, it would have been of much more value than it is now.
    Int. 74.--When you say unencumbered, do you mean if it had been free from all doubt as to ownership?
    Ans.--I mean free from the different claimants now occupying it.
    Int. 75.--Do you not believe that if the Hudson's Bay Company had been the exclusive claimants of that section in 1850, and had laid out a town there, they could have realized a much greater sum than you have mentioned as its value?
    Ans.--I think not as a Hudson's Bay Company; there was too much feeling against them to make a town site on American soil.
    Int. 76.--Do you mean to say that purchasers would not have bought lots of the Company if it had built a prosperous town there?
    Ans.--I don't know any reason why that people would not buy lots.
    Int. 77.--What, then, do you mean by saying that there was such a feeling against the Company as would have kept the price down, as stated by you?
    Ans.--Common rumor; the belief and common talk in this country is that the Company are entirely too slow for the age; I know of no other reason.
    Int. 78.--Do you not know that a town site was laid out there in 1850, or soon after, in 1850, or 1851, I think, upon which lots were readily sold?
    Ans.--There was below the reservation a town site built there; I presume it must have been laid out.
    Int. 79.--Is not that within a mile of the Company's fort?
    Ans.--I think it is.
    Int. 80.--Do you know anything of the price of lots there, from 1850 to the present time?
    Ans.--I have never owned any property there; never had any faith in the town; I don't know that I can give the price; property has been selling and re-selling there, but I have paid but little attention to it.
    Int. 81.--Can you estimate the number of buildings or population now on that site?
    Ans.--I don't think I could; it is quite a little village there.
    Int. 82.--Is it not, so far as you know, the largest town in Washington Territory?
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 83.--What towns are larger?
    Ans.--Aside from the fort, I think Walla Walla is the largest place.
    Int. 84.--Is there any other town beside that, between the mouth of the river and the Cascades, on the north bank of the Columbia River?
    Ans.--I think not, if I recollect right.
    Int. 85.--Is it not the county seat of Clark County?
    Ans.--I believe it is.
    Int. 86.--Has it not a large agricultural region to support it?
    Ans.--Moderately so for Washington Territory; it has not a large one.
    Int. 87.--Is not Clark County one of the largest and most productive counties in the Territory?
    Ans.--I am not sufficiently posted on the Sound counties to answer that; I think not; I think Walla Walla County is the largest.
    Int. 88.--Is not Vancouver the best and only eligible site for a town, from the Cascades to the Cowlitz River, on the Columbia?
    Ans.--I think it is the most beautiful place, and the most eligible, but not the only one.
    Int. 89.--If, in 1850, you had been the owner, with a good title of a section at Vancouver, would you have sold it for $20 an acre?
    Ans.--I think I would not have sold it at $20 an acre.
    Int. 90.--At what price would you have disposed of it, taking into view the beauty of its locality, the farming country around it, and the perspective development of the country?
    Ans.--If it had been mine, I would have given one half of it away to capital to draw the business there, and I would have taken the chances for the balance to pay me, or to realize a much larger sum than $20 per acre.
    Int. 91.--Would you not thus have expected to make it the most prominent and important town in Oregon as it then was?
    Ans.--I should have tried to do so.
    Int. 92.--Would you not have considered it worth at least $250,000 if you could have pursued such a course?
    Ans.--I should have realized all that was possible, I couldn't say that it would be worth $250,000.
    Int. 93.--Is there not much good farming and pasture land on the Columbia River, from about six miles above and fifteen or twenty miles below Vancouver, and ten miles inland?
    Ans.--There is overflowed lands for grazing purposes, and a limited amount of cleared land, the land being heavily timbered; there are some prairies in the rear of Vancouver; all the bottom lands overflow, more or less.
    Int. 94.--Do you know whether the margin of the lakes below Vancouver do not afford much food for stock and hogs, from wapato and other natural roots?
    Ans.--When that country does not overflow, it is all a good grazing country; it overflows in the summer from one and a half to three months.
    Int. 95.--Are there not within the above limits valuable mill privileges?
    Ans.--Up the river, I know of a mill there; I have never been in it to examine it; it is four or five miles above Vancouver; I have seen it.
    Int. 96.--Do you know what was the market value of stock, beef cattle, sheep, and hogs, within easy reach of Portland and Vancouver, from 1850 to 1857?
    Ans.--From three and a half to ten cents per pound, on foot, net weight.
    Int. 97.--During those years, were not large quantities sent to California and Victoria from Oregon?
    Ans.--Yes, sir.
    Int. 98.--Do you not think that, since 1850, any well-organized company, enjoying undisturbed possession of the land you have described about Vancouver, could have made large annual profits by the sale of livestock and all kinds of agricultural produce at Portland and other places in Oregon, and by exportation to California and the British Possessions?
    Ans.--Yes; I think they could, as is usual in that line of business.
    Int. 99.--Have not many farmers on that tract greatly improved their condition since 1850?
    Ans.--On the Columbia bottoms, I think not; they have been drowned out by floods; as to those back, I do not know.
    Int. 100.--Can you tell what was the price of cattle on the hoof, from 1857 to 1863, in places within easy reach of Portland?
    Ans.--From three and a half to ten cents, net.
    Int. 101.--Can you say what was the price in Victoria in 1858?
    Ans.--I don't know that I can give the price in 1858 in Victoria.
    Int. 102.--Please state, if you know, the price from 1858 until this time?
    Ans.--From six to fifteen cents, net; I should think that would cover it, all kinds.
    Int. 103.--Do you know Archibald McKinlay and Thomas Lowe? If so, state their standing in community, and your judgment of their fitness to estimate the value of property?
    Ans.--I know McKinlay; I have but little acquaintance with Mr. Lowe; Mr. McKinlay is always regarded, as far as I know, a good man; I have heard many persons express their sorrow for him that he had been unfortunate in business.
    Int. 104.--Have you any of the feeling against the Hudson's Bay Company of which you have spoken?
    Ans.--Personally, I have not; I have always been treated well; all business I have done with them, was done correctly.
    Int. 105.--Have you any prejudice against the claims made by the Company against the government?
    Ans.--I think I have. Entirely too large a claim, as far as know.
    Int. 106.--Do you believe you would feel the same prejudice if these claims were presented by American citizens against the government?
    Ans.--I think I would, sir, a much greater.
Portland, July 31, 1866.

S. M. Gilmore, being first duly sworn, deposes and testifies as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation?
    Ans.--I am fifty-one and a half years old, or a few days over; at this time, my residence is in Portland; my business is farming; though not at present engaged in any business, I am about returning to my farm.
    Int. 2.--When did you come to Oregon?
    Ans.--I came in the year 1843.
    Int. 3.--Did you stop at the Hudson's Bay Company's post at Walla Walla while on your way that year? If so, state how long, and who was in charge of the post at that time.
    Ans.--I stopped at what was then called Fort Walla Walla about two weeks; Archibald McKinlay was in charge at that time.
    Int. 4.--Was the fort then new or old?
    Ans.--It seemed to have been just about finished, as near as I could judge; they were just about finishing the roof of the last building.
    Int. 5.--What, if anything, did you hear Mr. McKinlay say, while you stayed there, about the cost of building this post? (Objected to, as irrelevant and incompetent.)
    Ans.--I am not sure what it was; I remember, however, that there was a good deal of conversation had with him about the cost of things in and about the post. Him and Mr. Applegate had a great deal of talk about those things in my hearing. I remember that I was very much surprised at the cheapness of things about the post, both goods and other things. I don't think I can definitely state--I don't like to state positively; it seemed to me some, either £8 or £80; I was surprised at the amount; it occurred to me to be a very small amount; there was "eight" in it somewhere.
    Int. 6.--Who else were present at the time of this conversation?
    Ans.--I am not certain; they had frequent conversations; sometimes one, two, or three persons would be present--different persons; frequently Mr. Applegate's brothers would be present in their conversations.
    Int. 7.--Did this sum, named as the cost of the fort, include or exclude the value of the labor of the Company's servants?
    Ans.--I suppose, my understanding was, that it was the cost of the wall; the wall was of adobe; I supposed it was simply the cost of the labor to put it up; it was some ten or twelve feet high.

    Int. 1.--Can you undertake to remember, with any degree of certainty, the conversation that took place in regard to a matter in which you had no interest, twenty-three years ago?
    Ans.--In some things, I can.
    Int. 2.--Have you, since 1843, repeated that conversation to anyone? If so, to whom and when?
    Ans.--I don't remember that I have.
    Int. 3.--Have you mentioned it to no one until this afternoon?
    Ans.--About eleven o'clock this morning I was asked if I remembered anything about it.
    Int. 4.--By whom?
    Ans.--Mr. Johnson asked me about it.
    Int. 5.--Are you positive that, in the conversation in 1843, Mr. McKinlay did not say that it only cost the Company the sum named, in money, for work done on the wall?
    Ans.--That is my impression. There are very few things that men can be positive about, that took place twenty-three years ago; there are some things I can be positive about.
Portland, July 31, 1866.

Joseph L. Meek, being first duly sworn, deposes and testifies as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation?
    Ans.--I am fifty-six years old; I reside near Hillsboro, in Washington County, Oregon; and am by occupation, at present, a farmer.
    Int. 2.--What offices have you held in Oregon?
    Ans.--I served two terms in the Legislature, under the provisional government; high sheriff of the Territory for several years under the provisional government; elected special messenger to the Executive of the United States, in 1847, to ask aid from the United States government to suppress hostilities in this country, and, extend the territorial government over it; was there appointed U.S. Marshal for Oregon; held that office near five years.
    Int. 3.--When did you first come on to the western slope of the Rocky Mountains, and in what capacity?
    Ans.--In the month of August, 1829; in the capacity of hunter and trapper.
    Int. 4.--How long did you follow that business, and in what sections of the country?
    Ans.--I followed it nearly eleven years; we was bounded, generally, on the west by the Blue Mountains; on the east, by the forks of the Platte; south, by the river Gila; and north, by the north branches of the Missouri, and into the Okanagan country.
    Int. 5.--In whose employ did you come out; how long did you remain with him; and in what other employ did you operate?
    Ans.--I came out with Smith, Jackson & Sublette, and remained with them one year; they sold out to the Rocky Mountain Fur Company, I remained with them about five years; they sold out to the American Fur Company, and I was a free man, trapped on my own hook, and traded with the American Fur and Hudson's Bay companies.
    Int. 6.--Where did you go after you ceased trapping, and where have you resided since?
    Ans.--I came to Tualatin Plains, and have resided there ever since, with the exception of the trips I have taken to the mines and about; my family have resided there all the time.
    Int. 7.--What influence did the Hudson's Bay Company exercise over the Indians in the section where you operated, with reference to American trappers and traders; state such facts as occur to you in this connection?
    Ans.--The Hudson's Bay Company exercised a great influence over the western Indians, that is the Cayuses, Nez Perces, Flatheads, and Spokanes, and through there; they had no influence over the Indians east of the Rocky Mountains at all, and way south. They could do almost anything with the Indians. I know of one party that was robbed by the orders of one of the Hudson's Bay Company men, the commander of Fort Walla Walla; the party was robbed, and the furs brought back to the post and sold. I was not with that party; that was my understanding about that matter; that was what the Indians said, and what the whites said that was robbed.
    Int. 8.--What distinction in names, if any, did the Hudson's Bay agents teach the Indians about the nationality of white men? (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant to the issue.)
    Ans.--Whenever they fell in with us, they called us in jargon "Boston men," and the Hudson's Bay men, "King George men"; near the Rocky Mountains they did not speak jargon at all, them upper tribes.
    Int. 9.--How did the Indians manifest their difference of feeling towards Americans and Hudson's Bay men?
    Ans.--Where the Hudson's Bay influence was great, their men could go where we dare not go unless we had force.
    Int. 10.--How many Americans were necessary for protection to each other, where a single Hudson's Bay man could go in safety?
    Ans.--It would be owing to where we were going; it generally took us from twenty-five to fifty to pass through this lower country, that is about Fort Hall and Fort Boise, and all that region of the country, and north of there.
    Int. 11.--What badge did the Indians recognize as indicating a Hudson's Bay man?
    Ans.--They would tell them by their dress--Scotch cap and red belt--and their general appearance; they generally had clothes, and we had but very few.
    Int. 12.--In the several wars which have occurred between the whites and Indians in Oregon, have any distinctions been made by the Indians between Americans and the Hudson's Bay Company men? If so, state in what way manifested.
    Ans.--At the time of the Cayuse War, when we went up, the Hudson's Bay men generally went about most anyplace from the forts; a great many half-breeds that were with the army went about; that was, I suppose, on account of their blood.
    Int. 13.--State whether the Company maintained its posts during that entire war, in the hostile country?
    Ans.--All the posts that I was at, they did, that is, Fort Walla Walla, Fort Boise, and Fort Hall.
    Int. 14.--In the early settlement of the agricultural lands of the Willamette Valley, and what was then Oregon generally, what encouragement or discouragement was experienced by Americans from the Hudson's Bay Company? (Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial.)
    Ans.--When I first came down, in 1840, they discouraged settlements by the Americans, that is especially north of the Columbia River; they expected the Columbia River to be the boundary line; they would not let us go north of the Columbia, but always advised us to go south, into the Willamette Valley. There were some men that got cattle; Mr. Walker and Mr. Doty got cattle; there were but five or six of us here then; they got oxen and some cows.
    Int. 16.--Were cattle sold or loaned to the settlers; if loaned, upon what terms? (Objected to as before.)
    Ans.--They were loaned, not sold; the Hudson's Bay Company had no cattle to sell; they were to return the cattle with the increase.
    Int. 16.--Up to what date did the Company continue to discourage the settlement of Americans in Oregon? (Objected to as leading, and because it states what the witness has not stated in regard to the settlement of Oregon, and because it is immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--Up to about 1843 or 1844.
    Int. 17.--What condition, if any, did the Company impose upon you, and those settling with you in the Tualatin Plains, before they gave their consent?
    Ans.--The condition was that we were to let the Indians alone; not to raise no fuss with them, and not to trade with them--that is, for furs.
    Int. 18.--How far, and in what direction are the Tualatin Plains from Vancouver?
    Ans.--About twenty-five miles, a little south of west; on the south side of the Columbia.
    Int. 19.--What, in your judgment, caused the change in the tactics of the Company, in 1843-44, with reference to American settlers? (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--I thought it was on account of the emigration, so many coming in here, and the American squadron having just been here.
    Int. 20.--Are you acquainted with the Hudson's Bay Company's post at Fort Hall? If so, state when, and by whom it was built, how long it was in course of construction, and if you know how many hands were employed in it.
    Ans.--I am; it was built by Captain Wyeth, in 1835--that is, a temporary post, that was built that fall; it was a wooden fort, and but a short time at it; ten or twelve men only. Captain Wyeth came up the next year from down here (it might have been 1837 when he came up) and brought up ten or twelve Kanakas when he came up, and put up the adobe fort.
    Int. 21.--How long were these ten or twelve Kanakas building the adobe fort?
    Ans.--I don't know; it was a very short time; I went on a fall hunt, and when I came back it was done.
    Int. 22.--What wages were paid to these men, and to the Hudson's Bay men, generally?
    Ans.--Captain Wyeth's Kanakas, that he brought up, always told me that they got from seventeen to twenty-four pound sterling per year; a great many of the Hudson's Bay men have told me the same thing; some said they got seventeen, some as high as twenty-four; the new ones got the lowest price.
    Int. 23.--Were they furnished with clothing, or were they required to buy this themselves?
    Ans.--I think they bought it themselves, but goods with them was very low.
    Int. 24.--What, in your opinion, did the building of Fort Hall cost, as it was finally completed?
    Ans.--I suppose it cost about $1,000; I don't think it cost more than that.
    Int. 25.--Describe the soil about Fort Hall, and state how much it is worth per acre for agricultural and pastoral purposes?
    Ans.--There are some pretty good spots about Fort Hall; the bottom is about a mile wide, and ten or twelve miles long; the pasturage very good; the land, perhaps, is worth $1.25 per acre; I have seen thousands of acres of as good land sold for that price.
    Int. 26.--Are you acquainted with the Company's post at Boise? If so, state when you were there first, and when you saw it last?
    Ans.--I am acquainted with it; I was in the fort in 1840 the first time; I saw it last in 1848.
    Int. 27.--Describe the soil about Boise, and state how much it is worth per acre?
    Ans.--The soil is very bad about Boise, sand, sage, and greasewood is about all; can't tell how much it is worth, it is worth nothing to me.
    Int. 28.--How much is that land worth per acre to any person for agricultural purposes?
    Ans.--I don't think it would be worth anything to anybody.
    Int. 29.--How much, in your judgment, was the cost and value of Boise?
    Ans.--I think about the same as Fort Hall, about $1,000.
    Int. 30.--How long was this post being built, and how many men were engaged in its construction?
    Ans.--I don't know; I was not there when it was constructed.
    Int. 31.--Have you been at Okanagan? If so, describe the soil about that post, and state how much it is worth per acre.
    Ans.--It has been many years since I was at Fort Okanagan; there was no fort there when I was there; there was a trading house there, or something; the soil I did not pay any attention to; I have no idea of the value of the land.
    Int. 32.--Have you read the memorial of the Hudson's Bay Company, as presented in this case? If so, state whether you know all the posts named in it, and whether any of them are of any value for Indian trade, since the settlement of the country by the whites; if so, which of them are still useful in that trade? (Objected to because indefinite, the time not being specified when the alleged value ceased, and because irrelevant and immaterial.)
    Ans.--I have read the memorial; I believe I know all the posts mentioned therein, except the one at Umpqua; I think Colvile and Okanagan are of some value; the others I think are not--the fur trade is all dead about the other posts.
    Int. 33.--How many times have you been at Fort Walla Walla, since 1840?
    Ans.--l was at Walla Walla in 1840, 1848, 1855, and 1862.
    Int. 34.--What do you think is a fair estimate of the cost and value of Fort Walla Walla?
    Ans.--Walla Walla was a larger fort than the others; it was made of adobe when I was there, in 1848 and 1855; what the probable cost would be, I would hardly know; to take all the material, men, and provisions there from Vancouver, I should think it would cost £1,000 sterling--it was built in a miserable place.
    Int. 35.--Describe the soil at Walla Walla, and give your judgment of its value per acre?
    Ans.--It is sand and gravel; the value per acre is very little; I think it is worth nothing for agricultural purposes.
    Int. 36.--How often have you been at Vancouver since 1840?
    Ans.--I don't know; I used to go there seven or eight times a year, and stay there a week; then my visits fell off'; I have been there every year, except the last.
    Int. 37.--Describe the operations carried on there in 1840 and shortly after.
    Ans.--The operations there in 1840 were very large; that was the great depot of the Company; all the supplies for this country went from Vancouver about this time; there were a great many men there at work; some farmers, some boatmen, some shepherds, some millers, some clerks, some chief factors, and some trappers; that was Vancouver's palmy days, in 1840; there were a good many missionaries there.
    Int. 38.--What was the character of the buildings at this post?
    Ans.--There were large warehouses, large sills, and upright posts, with grooves, in the French Canadian style; I think the siding was of lumber--very thick plank--but am not certain.
    Int. 89.--Were these buildings suitable for any business, except such as was carried on by this Company?
    Ans.--I suppose they would have been; they would have been good barns in my country; they would have been a great place to stow cotton and sugar in the south.
    Int. 40.--What, in your judgment, would be the cost and value of their best warehouse, one hundred by forty feet?
    Ans.--I don't know; not being a carpenter, I can't tell. I don't know what one of those big warehouses would cost; at that time wages were very cheap; I would suppose the Company could put up one of them for one hundred pounds sterling.
    Int. 41.--State whether you, yourself, put up a fine barn in Oregon, and whether, from that, you have any idea of the cost of such buildings? (Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial.)
    Ans.--I did not put up a fine barn in Oregon; a man is to put me up one for $250, fifty-four feet long, and forty wide; but that is only about half the length of one of them warehouses, and it is to be built this fall.
    Int. 42.--You have stated that Vancouver was in its glory in 1840; how did its condition in 1846 compare with what it was in 1840?
    Ans.--In 1846, Vancouver was on the decline; it would not compare with 1840 at all; the farms were rather out of repair in 1846, the outbuildings were going to decay.
    Int. 48.--State whether the Company arrested this decay and going to rack, or otherwise, in the years immediately succeeding 1846; state, generally, what you observed in this respect as to farms, buildings, and amount of business, from year to year, up to 1860, when the Company left. (Objected to as leading, and because the witness has said nothing of any buildings going to rack.)
    Ans.--I think that it appeared to be on the decrease from 1846 up to 1860; a general decrease of everything; in 1855 and 1856, the business, I think, was nominally nothing to what it was in 1840--that is, their old trade; Othello's occupation was gone.
    Int. 44.--State, if you know, when they ceased farming operations on the Mill Plain.
    Ans.--I do not know when they did cease.
    Int. 45.--How much, in your opinion, were good farming lands worth in 1863, along the Columbia River, from the Mill Plain, above Vancouver, to the Cathlapotle River below?
    Ans.--Good farming lands along there must have been worth from $10 to $15 an acre; but that was very scarce there, owing to the overflow of the Columbia River in the summer.
    Int. 46.--What kind of food and provisions were generally furnished to the Hudson's Bay men at the interior posts, such as Boise and Hall, about the time of their construction?
    Ans.--At Fort Hall, meat was generally furnished them by the hunter, and such as they could purchase from the Indians--buffalo, elk, &c., game being in great abundance in that country, about Fort Hall; I think they had nothing else.
    Int. 47.--Were or were not provisions transported from Vancouver for the use of their servants at the interior posts?
    Ans.--I think not. I think some little for trade, sugar, and tea, and some little flour; these were not furnished the men.
    Int. 48.--State, if you know, what the Company usually paid for what was called a pack of dried meat, at Fort Hall? (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--A pack of dried meat was generally a piece of ninety pounds. In the fall of the year when the Indians came in, you could get a pack of meat for a butcher knife and about a foot of rope tobacco. The whole country was full of buffalo at that time.

    Int. 1.--State whether the influence of the Hudson's Bay Company over the Indians was not salutary and beneficial?
    Ans.--Certainly was in all this lower country.
    Int. 2.--Was not that influence exerted uniformly and promptly for the protection of the early emigrants and settlers?
    Ans.--It certainly was.
    Int. 3.--Can you give the names of the party who said they were robbed by the orders of one of the Hudson's Bay Company men?
    Ans.--I can, some of their names--Wilkins, Robinson, and McDofy, three of them that I remember well.
    Int. 4.--In whose employ were these men at the time?
    Ans.--Captain Wyeth's.
    Int. 6.--State the time, place, and circumstances of this alleged robbery?
    Ans.--I don't think I can exactly; it must have been in 1834 or 1835; I think they told me it was on the headwaters of Day's River; I don't know what the circumstances were.
    Int. 6.--Who was at that time the commander of Fort Walla Walla?
    Ans.--Mr. Pambrun.
    Int. 7.--Did you ever hear him say anything about the matter?
    Ans.--Never a word.
    Int. 8.--Did you see him frequently after it occurred?
    Ans.--I seen him, not very frequently; though several times.
    Int. 9.--Did you ever ask him anything in regard to it?
    Ans.--Never, I don't think I ever did.
    Int. 10.--Did the men who said they had been robbed state any reason for such an order of Mr. Pambrun?
    Ans.--They stated various reasons about it, the main reason that they said, was because they wouldn't trade their beaver with Mr. Pambrun, at Walla Walla; another reason was, that one of the men had stolen a woman from Walla Walla and run off with her. What we call stealing a woman, is taking a wife when you can get her; that's what we call petit larceny in the mountains.
    Int. 11.--Was not the capture or stealing of a woman regarded by the Indians as an act of hostility, provoking their revenge?
    Ans.--If she had been stolen from the Indians, it would have been considered so by them; but as she was stolen from the whites, the Indians, generally, had nothing to do with it.
    Int. 12.--From whom was this woman stolen?
    Ans.--I think she was stolen from some of the Hudson's Bay men.
    Int. 13.--Was she recaptured by the Indian party?
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 14.--Was not the attack upon these men under the circumstances, generally regarded among mountain men as an act of justice?
    Ans.--I think not, sir. No, sir.
    Int. 15.--Do you know whether any of the principal officers of the Company approved of that act?
    Ans.--All that I ever heard speak of it, condemned it, that is the principal officers, the bourgeois.
    Int. 16.--Did you ever hear that Mr. Pambrun ordered it, except from the men who were robbed?
    Ans.--I heard it from the Indians, the nation that done it, and the men--that is all I ever heard say so.
    Int. 17.--What tribe did it?
    Ans.--The Cayuses and Walla Wallas, I think.
    Int. 18.--Do you not know that Indians are very artful in making up stories of that sort, to shield themselves?
    Ans.--Yes, Indians are very artful in making up stories, but there are not many of those Indians that dare make up a story against a Hudson's Bay bourgeois, at those times.
    Int. 19.--Do you not know that in 1835, the Cayuses tied Mr. Pambrun, and kept him in custody several hours?
    Ans.--I think it was in 1835 that they tied Mr. Pambrun, and kept him in custody for several hours, to make him reduce his tariff of trade.
    Int. 20.--Did they not, also, at a subsequent time, while Mr. McKinlay was in command at Walla Walla, take possession of the post, and threaten its destruction?
    Ans.--I was not there at the time, but the Indians took possession of Fort Walla Walla and would have kept it if Mr. McKinlay had not been going to blow it up; that I heard from a good many whites and a good many Indians.
    Int. 21.--Was not the Company compelled after 1835, to strengthen their force at Walla Walla, in officers and men, on account of the hostile disposition of the Cayuses?
    Ans.--I know that there were a great many men who came out that year, and the fort was greatly strengthened, but I had thought it was on account of the new opposition that had sprung up in the upper country by Captain Wyeth.
    Int. 22.--Do you believe that this alleged robbery would have taken place, if it had not been for the stealing of the Indian woman?
    Ans.--I do not know whether it would or not.
    Int. 23.--Were not most of the troubles between the mountain men and the Indians caused by quarrels about Indian women?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 24.--Was not that a cause of difficulty in many instances?
    Ans.--I think not, sir; no, sir.
    Int. 25.--Did you ever hear of any other robbery, such as this mentioned, in which any blame was imputed by rumor or otherwise to any officer or the Company?
    Ans.--I think not; no, sir.
    Int. 26.--When you say that it required from twenty-five to fifty Americans to go in safety, where a single Hudson's Bay man could go alone, do you mean to say that you ever knew of one Hudson's Bay man going where it would have been unsafe for Americans to go except in such large parties?
    Ans.--Yes, sir; they used to go from Boise to Fort Hall, one or two, alone, where it was unsafe for twenty Americans to go. Ramo [Raimond] used to come down; I don't know whether he used to come down by himself, or one man with him.
    Int. 27.--Was it not, however, usual for the Company's men to travel in parties, and armed, in going from one post to another, or traveling about the country?
    Ans.--Yes; it certainly was.
    Int. 28.--Do you not believe that the great reason why the Indians respected and feared the Company and its men was because of their knowledge that the Company had power to punish any wrongs; and also because the Company always instructed its agents to act fairly and justly towards the Indians?
    Ans.--The upper Indians had no knowledge of the kind, except by the Company cutting off their supplies when they did wrong. Some time after Fort Hall fell into the Company's hands, they had complete dominion over that country--Indians and all; I think they always instructed their agents to act fairly and justly towards the Indians. The name of the Company passed me through to Fort Bridger, in 1848; when the Indians came to me, I told them that Tom McKay was behind, with a large party, going to Fort Hall to trade; I wore the Hudson's Bay dress out and out.
    Int. 29.--Was this trip, in 1848, the one you made as messenger to the United States government, to ask aid in suppressing hostilities?
    Ans.--Yes, sir.
    Int. 30.--Did not the officers of the Company, at all its posts, do everything in their power for your protection, convenience, and comfort, on that trip?
    Ans.--Yes, sir; I had an order from Dr. McLoughlin to that amount.
    Int. 31.--When you say that the Company maintained its posts during the Cayuse War, at Walla Walla, Fort Boise, and Fort Hall, state whether its officers, at those places, were not prompt and ready to assist the troops in any way when requested.
    Ans.--Not at Walla Walla; I think not; I think the troops went and took powder from there, under a protest from Mr. McBean, the officer in charge; at Fort Boise and Fort Hall they were very clever to me, and gave me all the assistance I required.
    Int. 32.--Did not Mr. McBean, shortly after, leave the Company's service?
    Ans.--I was not there; I heard he did, though.
    Int. 33.--Did not the Cayuse War follow as the consequence of the massacre of Dr. Whitman and his family?
    Ans.--Yes, sir; that was the cause of the Cayuse War.
    Int. 34.--State who rescued the survivors of that massacre.
    Ans.--Peter Skene Ogden, chief factor of the Hudson's Bay Company.
    Int. 35.--Did he not go up, personally, with a company, before the provisional government had time to act in the matter?
    Ans.--Yes, sir; when the news arrived at Vancouver, he equipped a party, and went direct up in person, and bought the survivors, and brought them down; he gave presents to the Indians; I think there were about sixty came down in the boats.
    Int. 36.--When you say that the Company discouraged settlements north of the Columbia River, state whether it was not on the ground that, if the land north of the Columbia should be assigned to Great Britain, American settlers might lose their nationality.
    Ans.--I don't know about that; I know they would not let us settle on the north side; so far as nationality was concerned, I don't think they cared anything about it.
    Int. 37.--Did they hinder settlers from going north of the Columbia, except upon lands which they claimed to occupy?
    Ans.--I think not, sir; they claimed the whole country though, north of the Columbia.
    Int. 38.--When the settlers first occupied any land north of the Columbia, who were they, and where were they located?
    Ans.--There were some settled just below Vancouver--Mr. Short--and some settled above, near tea prairie; Mr. Short settled there under protest; his house was torn down; I think he was brought over and put ashore at Linnton; I don't remember the dates; it must have been 1845 or 1846.
    Int. 39.--Had not the Company always claimed and occupied the land where Short settled, since you knew it?
    Ans.--Yes, sir.
    Int. 40.--Do you know whether there were not some settlers on Baker's Bay, in 1840, and from that time on?
    Ans.--I think there were.
    Int. 41.--Did not the Company advise settlers to go to the Willamette Valley, so that being together they might be better enabled to protect themselves from Indian hostilities?
    Ans.--They always advised them to go the Willamette, but I always thought it was to keep them out of their way at Vancouver, and from settling that country.
    Int. 42.--Was not the land in the Willamette as good as that north of the Columbia?
    Ans.--I think the land in the Willamette was better than that north of the Columbia, for raising wheat.
    Int. 43.--Was not one reason stated by Dr. McLoughlin, for his advice, that if they scattered about they would be in greater danger?
    Ans.--That was one of his reasons.
    Int. 44.--Do you not now believe that the advice given by Dr. McLoughlin to the settlers was the best for their interests that he could give?
    Ans.--I think his advice was pretty good then, but it has proved very bad since.
    Int. 45.--How has it proved bad?
    Ans.--The first settlers were deprived of the most valuable part of the country.
    Int. 46.--Which was that?
    Ans.--That was all the. lower country--places near to the river--along the Willamette, below the falls; but I believe the Doctor meant his advice for the good of the settlers at the time.
    Int. 47.--Why were the lands along the Willamette River, below the falls, the most valuable lands in Oregon?
    Ans.--It is so near to market, and convenience of getting to them; but I must add that they didn't look so convenient in those days as they do now, with big farms, and towns on them.
    Int. 48.--Have not the markets all grown up since that time?
    Ans.--No, sir; the wheat market was better that day than it is now.
    Int. 49.--Were not prairie lands which produced wheat more valuable to the settlers than heavily timbered lands on the river banks?
    Ans.--They were, at that time, to raise wheat on.
    Int. 50.--Were they not for everything which it was profitable to raise?
    Ans.--Yes, sir.
    Int. 51.--Did you not, in 1850 or 1851, write a letter to Dr. John McLoughlin, in reply to some questions sent to you by him, stating that his conduct while at the head of the Company had greatly promoted the welfare and prosperity of the early settlers, and that, but for him, you did not believe the settlers could have got through with their difficulties, or words to that effect. (Objected to, because the letter is the best evidence of its contents, and no attempt is made to account for its non-production; counsel for the United States now demands the production and inspection of that letter.)
    Ans.--I think I did, sir.
    Int. 52.--Did not Lucie and others take lands along the river, below the Willamette Falls, and afterwards abandon them, and move to the upper prairies?
    Ans.--I think they did; I have heard so.
    Int. 53.--Do you know of any instance in which the Company refused to furnish stock to a respectable settler, worthy of credit?
    Ans.--I don't think I do, sir.
    Int. 54.--Do you know of its refusing to furnish supplies to emigrants or settlers who were worthy of credit?
    Ans.--Some they furnished with supplies, some they did not, that is, certain kind of supplies. If a man would take a claim, he could get seed wheat, plows, hoes, harrows, teeth, and so on, if he would show a disposition to go to work to raise wheat, which they was the only market for.
    Int. 55.--Was not that market, if the only one, better than none?
    Ans.--Yes, it was better then than it is today, as far as supplies are concerned.
    Int. 56.--Did not the Company, also, purchase any other farm produce which the settlers could supply, such as potatoes, pork, butter, &c.?
    Ans.--I don't think they bought many potatoes; they would buy pork and butter.
    Int. 57.--Did not the better class of emigrants feel that it was ungenerous, and not right to settle upon lands claimed by the Company?
    Ans.--I think some of the emigrants, the most of them, did not want to give them the whole of the country; they felt it was right to give them land around their posts; outside of that, they felt that they had a right to settle where they wanted to.
    Int. 58.--Did you know anything of Jedediah Smith, who was trading and trapping in Southern Oregon? State what you know of his rescue, if anything; by whom, and when it was made. (The counsel for the United States insists that this is not a proper cross-examination, but is making the witness that of the Company, and he will assume to cross-examine about this subject. The counsel for the Company insist that it is legitimate cross-examination, for the purpose of showing the conduct of the Company towards an American trapper and trader, concerning which questions were put on the direct examination.)
    Ans.--I knew Jedediah Smith very well, having served under him in the Rocky Mountains; I think the rescue was made, in 1828, by Mr. McLeod, of the Hudson's Bay Company; in 1829, I was detailed by the Company in whose service I was, to hunt for him; we crossed the Rocky Mountains, and found him in Pierre's Hole, on the head of Snake River, with a party; he came and joined the company then--the company of Smith, Jackson, and Sublette--he was one of the partners; he told me that he had been defeated at the crossing of Rogue River--all his men killed but three, I think; he made his way to Vancouver, and the Company equipped and sent out a party to get his property, and rescue any of his party that might be left; I think he remained the winter of 1828 with the Hudson's Bay Company; in the summer of 1829 we met him on Snake River.
    Int. 59.--How much of his property was rescued, if you know?
    Ans.--That I do not know; how much; there were various statements made about it; I don't remember exactly what Smith said; I think he said very little was recovered; some beaver and horses--mostly beaver.
    Int. 60.--How large a party was sent out for this purpose, and how long were they absent?
    Ans.--I don't know, exactly, how many there were in the party; Smith said, I think, there were forty or fifty men; I think they were under the command of Thomas McKay, and he said he was going to kill all the Indians out there, and the order was countermanded, and Mr. McLeod was sent in his place; I don't remember how long; I think they were out there the balance of the fall of 1828; I think they were out several months; Smith and Black told me often, but I don't remember.
    Int. 61.--Did not Smith express great gratitude to the Company, because it had done so much for him, especially as he was a rival fur trader?
    Ans.--Smith always expressed great gratitude to the Company for the act they had done.
    Int. 62.--Did he say whether it was done without any charge?
    Ans.--Smith always said it was done without any charge, but it was always disputed by the other partners--so much so, that they dissolved and sold out the next summer, to the Rocky Mountain Fur Company, and formed a new firm.
    Int. 63.--Could Smith and Black have gone from Vancouver to Pierre's Hole without assistance from the Hudson's Bay Company, at that time?
    Ans.--I think not, sir; or the assistance of some person else; I think they went up with the Company to Walla Walla, and through that country to the Flatheads; where we met them I suppose it is 1,200 miles from Vancouver.
    Int. 64.--At what time, in 1836 or 1837, did Captain Wyeth arrive at Fort Hall, with the Kanakas spoken of by you, in your direct examination?
    Ans.--I don't remember exactly; I think the Kanakas came up with Captain King. I don't think Captain Wyeth came up until in the winter sometime; I was not at the fort.
    Int. 65.--When did you leave the fort for your fall hunt, and how long were you absent?
    Ans.--I didn't belong to the fort at all; I belonged to the American Fur Company at that time, I think, or the Rocky Mountain Fur Company, and would pay a visit to the fort, every once and a while, when we got beaver to trade.
    Int. 66.--How long were you absent on the fall hunt, spoken of by you, in your answer to direct interrogatory No. 21?
    Ans.--We would, generally, start out about the 20th of August, and, generally, come back about the middle of October, or 1st of November, when it got too cold to trap.
    Int. 67.--Do you mean to say that Fort Hall was completed between the 20th of August and the 20th of October, or the 1st of November, by ten or twelve Kanakas?
    Ans.--I think the fort was put up in about that time; I don't know whether the inside was complete or not; the fort was up--the walls were up.
    Int. 68.--What was the length, height, and width of the walls?
    Ans.--I don't know, sir.
    Int. 69.--Was it not about thirteen feet high, by nineteen inches thick?
    Ans.--I do not know, sir; it looked like quite a fort--as though it might measure thirteen feet high.
    Int. 70.--Was it not about one hundred feet square?
    Ans.--I think it was about one hundred feet square.
    Int. 71.--How far from the fort were the adobes made?
    Ans.--They were made right at it--very close--on the bank of a slough of Snake River.
    Int. 72.--When you returned, how many men were at Fort Hall?
    Ans.--I suppose there were about 150, or near about that many.
    Int. 73.--How many of those men belonged to Captain Wyeth's party, and were under his directions, or that of his agents?
    Ans.--I don't know, exactly; they were all under his direction, while about Fort Hall; there were a good many freemen--men not hired to him.
    Int. 74.--Do you not know that the greater part of those men had been employed in the construction of the fort, as well as the ten or twelve Kanakas mentioned?
    Ans.--I presume there were a good many men worked on the fort, besides the Kanakas; I speak of the Kanakas, because they were workmen, and understood the business.
    Int. 75.--How long did you remain at Fort Hall at that time?
    Ans.--I think I was there three days; it generally took one to get drunk, and two to get sober.
    Int. 76.--When were you next there?
    Ans.--I was there sometime in February; we wintered in the forks of Snake River, and came down to have another spree.
    Int. 77.--Were not Captain Wyeth's men still employed in completing the improvements within and about the fort?
    Ans.--No, sir; it was extremely cold then; snow two feet deep, and they laid in winter quarters.
    Int. 78.--Had not a large amount of work been done since you were there in the fall?
    Ans.--I think there were some houses put inside of the fort--no great amount of work done--and the bastions fixed, I think.
    Int. 79.--Do you believe that it would be possible to build that fort, and make all the improvements, within and around it, counting the cost of transportation of men, the necessary tools, provisions, and other expenses, for $1,000?
    Ans.--Yes, sir; provisions would cost but very little, at that time, in that country.
    Int. 80.--What was the cost of transportation, per pound, from Vancouver to Fort Hall?
    Ans.--I do not know, sir; I don't know what they charged; they transported nothing but their goods and men; they didn't transport the adobes, they made them there.
    Int. 81.--Were the Indians there, and about there, at that time, hostile or friendly?
    Ans.--They were friendly.
    Int. 82.--How was lumber obtained; where, and how far was it transported?
    Ans.--Lumber was obtained by whipsawing by two men; transported about a mile, or a mile and a half from the fort.
    Int. 83.--In fixing the cost you have named, is it a mere guess--or have you estimated, in detail, the different items of expense necessarily incurred?
    Ans.--I have not estimated it in detail, exactly; I have studied a good deal about it; when men were hired for nineteen pound sterling per year, they could put up the fort for $1,000.
    Int. 84.--What wages did Captain Wyeth's American laborers get?
    Ans.--I think they were to get $250 for fifteen months; these were men that were hired in St. Louis, and came out--[they] were not hired in the mountains.
    Int. 85.--How much did he pay his hunters, employed at the fort?
    Ans.--I don't remember; hunters were generally paid a big price, about $1,000 or $1,200 a year; according to how much rum they drank, whether they got $1,000 or $1,200 a year; they would generally give a man who spent his money a much larger price, than to those who did not.
    Int. 86.--How much of the cost price did you fix for the labor done?
    Ans.--I don't know that I fixed any particular cost price for labor.
    Int. 87.--What part then of the $1,000 would be required for the wages of the men employed?
    Ans.--I don't know, sir; some $6 [60?] or $100, perhaps.
    Int. 88.--What part would be required to pay for their transportation from the East, or from Vancouver to Fort Hall?
    Ans.--I don't know, sir.
    Int. 89.--Must it not have cost at least $50 dollars a man, to transport these men to Fort Hall, and to pay the expenses of their journey?
    Ans.--Those men were hired at St. Louis, by the Company, and came out with a large pack train, loaded with goods, some 200 mules, and came on to Fort Hall and built it, or had it built. I don't know what it cost, I never transported men.
    Int. 90.--Did you ever build a fort, or pay for building one, or examine the account of expenditures for building one?
    Ans.--No sir; I never built a fort, nor examined the account of expenditures for building one.
    Int. 91.--Do you know the cost of bringing Kanakas here from the Sandwich Islands, 30 years ago?
    Ans.--I do not know, sir.
    Int. 92.--Do you know the cost of bringing men from England to the Columbia River, at that time?
    Ans.--I do not, sir.
    Int. 93.--Or from Canada or the United States?
    Ans.--I do not, sir.
    Int. 94.--Was not Fort Hall a very important position, where the routes concentrated from all directions?
    Ans.--It was a very important position after it fell into the hands of the Hudson's Bay Company; most all trappers resorted there, because they could get goods cheap for beaver, and good clothing.
    Int. 95.--Did not the Company have large hunting and trapping parties, out in all directions, through that country, who made their headquarters at Fort Hall?
    Ans.--There were a great many small parties out through that country, who made their headquarters at Fort Hall.
    Int. 96.--Were they sent out by the Hudson's Bay Company, chiefly?
    Ans.--The Hudson's Bay Company supplied them, and I think they were bound to the Company for their furs.
    Int. 97.--Was not the trade with the Indians, at Fort Hall, very extensive and profitable, so long as you were in that country?
    Ans.--No, sir; I don't think it was worth but very little; the trade with the free trappers was immense.
    Int. 98.--Was not Fort Hall a place of general resort for emigrants, when they began to come to Oregon and California?
    Ans.--I think it was, sir; they generally passed Fort Hall.
    Int. 99.--Did not the position of that fort, in the Indian country, have the effect of protecting the emigrant route?
    Ans.--I think it had, sir; I suppose it was a great protection to the emigrant route.
    Int. 100.--Was not the same true, of Forts Boise and Walla Walla?
    Ans.--I don't think Fort Boise was of any consequence at all, except the name of the Hudson's Bay Company; that was a protection along there. The emigrants hardly ever came by Walla Walla, but I presume it was a protection.
    Int. 101.--Was not the bottom land, near Fort Hall, cultivated by the Company, and did it not yield good crops?
    Ans.--Not in my day there; I never saw any good crop raised, except a little patch of wheat, by McDonald; there might to have been four or five bushels.
    Int. 102.--In what year was that?
    Ans.--It must have been in 1838 or 1839.
    Int. 103.--How long were you at Fort Boise, in 1840?
    Ans.--I was there, perhaps, five days.
    Int. 104.--Did you so particularly examine its condition and improvements, as to be able to describe them now?
    Ans.--I think not, sir; I remember looking at the fort and admiring it; it was finished off much nicer than Fort Hall; it was made of beautiful adobes--much better than Fort Hall.
    Int. 105.--Who was in charge of Fort Boise at that time?
    Ans.--Mr. Payette.
    Int. 106.--In fixing its value at $1,000, have you any more definite basis, than in the case of Fort Hall?
    Ans.--No, sir; none.
    Int. 107.--In your judgment, would not the emigrants, in all probability, have had trouble with the Snake Indians at Boise, but for the fact that the Company had a fort there?
    Ans.--They might have had trouble there; it was a troublesome country along there for emigrants.
    Int. 108.--Were not the families of the Company's men furnished with rations at Fort Boise and Fort Hall, and was it not necessary to make their position comfortable and agreeable, to keep them in service, at these posts, when it was so easy for men to take farms in Oregon?
    Ans.--It appears to me that they got rations at times; at times I know they did; them forts was kept up then, the time I am speaking of now, to be sold to the government, and not for the protection of emigrants, or for Indian trade.
    Int. 109.--To what time do you refer; what year?
    Ans.--I refer to the time the emigration was coming pretty thick, along about 1844 or 1845; the beaver trade was about done in those days.
    Int. 110.--How do you know such to be the object of the Company?
    Ans.--I heard it spoken of here by members of the Company.
    Int. 111.--Where?
    Ans.--At Oregon City. I remember of hearing it spoken of often by Mr. Ermatinger.
    Int. 112.--At that time, had the treaty been made between the United States and Great Britain?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 113.--What government did they suppose would buy Fort Hall and Fort Boise, before the treaty was made?
    Ans.--They expected a treaty would be made, and that Fort Hall and everything south of the Columbia would fall into the hands of the American government.
    Int. 114.--What caused the beaver trade to cease, at the time you mention, at these posts?
    Ans.--The beaver trade had been on the decrease for a long time; the beaver were scarce, and the free trappers could not live and had to leave the country.
    Int. 115.--In fixing your estimate of the value of the fort and improvements at Walla Walla, is it based upon anything more detailed or definite than in regard to Forts Boise and Hall?
    Ans.--No, sir; none.
    Int. 116.--Can you describe or specify the buildings at Walla Walla, in 1848?
    Ans.--I thought the buildings were tolerably good in 1848 when I was there; [there] was an adobe fort, which was new to me; I can't specify or describe the number of buildings.
    Int. 117.--Can you tell the number of buildings at Fort Vancouver in 1840, and so on to 1846?
    Ans.--No, sir, I cannot; I might tell what was inside the pickets; there were two large warehouses at the west gate, and the magazine, a small building, the "depense" [Fr. defense], the store, a large building; then the granary; then the big house--they called it "tie-house;" [ty-ee, i.e. chief's house]; then bachelor's hall, and a row of buildings, with six or seven doors, separate tenements, under one roof; then the Indian store, and the bastions, and the clerk's office; the school house, or priest's house; that is about all I remember.
    Int. 118.--You stated yesterday that one of these large stores, 100 by 40 feet, could be put up for £100 sterling; state whether the shingles, nails, and shingling of such a a building must not have cost nearly that amount?
    Ans.--I do not know what the price of nails was at that time, nor shingles. I thought I stated yesterday that where men were hired for £17 per year, that I thought such a building would only cost £100 sterling.
    Int. 119.--How much of that £100 would go for the labor, and how much for material?
    Ans.--I never made any estimate, sir.
    Int. 120.--Do you suppose that such men as the Company hired for £17 per year, would be employed to shingle a store, or warehouse?
    Ans.--I suppose there were plenty of them employed at it that were hired from £17 to £24 per year.
    Int. 121.--Can you tell how many thousand shingles would be used on such a building?
    Ans.--I never made any calculation of it; I should judge about 60,000 eighteen-inch shingles.
    Int. 122.--What was the price of shingles in Oregon, at Vancouver?
    Ans.--I do not know at that time.
    Int. 123.--At any time since 1840?
    Ans.--I do not know at any time, at Vancouver; in Portland, they have been $2.50 to $3.00.
    Int. 124.--How many pounds of nails would be required to lay 1,000 shingles?
    Ans.--I do not know; having never shingled any.
    Int. 125.--How many stories high are these warehouses?
    Ans.--I always thought they were two stories; they have two floors.
    Int. 126.--Can you make any more definite estimate of the cost of any of the other buildings, in and around Fort Vancouver?
    Ans.--No, sir; I cannot.
    Int. 127.--In the palmy days, as you term them, of the Company, did it not have undisturbed possession of the land claimed by it, from a point five miles above Vancouver to the Cathlapotle, and running back some miles?
    Ans.--They had undisturbed possession of all that country north of the Columbia River.
    Int. 128.--Was it not in actual occupation of the land described, using portions of it for farms, and other portions for the pasturage of herds of cattle, bands of horses, and flocks of sheep?
    Ans.--They were in possession of some of that land; they had farms, houses, cattle, horses, and sheep scattered around.
    Int. 129.--Were they not in actual occupation of the land described?
    Ans.--They were in actual occupation of part of it.
    Int. 130.--Of how great a part of it?
    Ans.--I don't know how great a part of it, but a considerable amount of land.
    Int. 131.--Did they not keep employed a large number of herders, farmers, shepherds, and others to take care of their stock, cultivate the farms, and carry on the agricultural operations?
    Ans.--Yes, sir; they had a large number of men living there in them days.
    Int. 132.--Were there not large quantities of provisions, vegetables, wheat, &c., raised annually for stock and for shipments?
    Ans.--There were great quantities raised of potatoes, wheat, vegetables, and other things; what they did with them I don't know; the wheat, I believe, they shipped to Sitka.
    Int. 133.--Was not the Company's trade extensive with Sitka and the Sandwich Islands and California, in the productions of Oregon, such as lumber, wheat, beef, pork, flour, and salmon?
    Ans.--The trade of the Company must have been very extensive; they did nearly all the business on this coast. They shipped large quantities of wheat and butter to Sitka; what they shipped to California and Sandwich Islands I don't know.
    Int. 134.--Do you know how many ships arrived annually from England?
    Ans.--I do not know--one or two; I think two arrived in 1841, the Cowlitz and Columbia.
    Int. 135.--Was not the Company in the habit of furnishing provisions for its interior and northern posts, in large amounts, from what was raised near Vancouver?
    Ans.--I don't know what they furnished the northern posts; in the interior, Fort Hall, and there, I think not.
    Int. 136.--Where did the interior posts get their supplies of this sort?
    Ans.--It was furnished to them by the hunter.
    Int. 137.--Do you mean to say that at Forts Boise and Walla Walla and Okanagan the Company's officers and men were supplied by hunters?
    Ans.--No, sir; I do not. When I speak of the hunters, it is at the interior forts--Fort Hall.
    Int. 138.--When did American settlers begin to occupy the lands claimed by the Company at Vancouver, and along the river, as heretofore described?
    Ans.--I think the fall of 1845 and 1846.
    Int. 139.--From that time, were not the business and the profits of the Company, in their agricultural view, greatly diminished?
    Ans.--The Company's business, in their agricultural pursuits, appeared to be on the decline; but I don't think it was caused by the settlers.
    Int. 140.--Did not the occupation of their farms and pastures by the settlers necessarily reduce their business?
    Ans.--I think it would; and a man like me--an outsider--would not discover it, likely.
    Int. 141.--Do you not know that in 1846 the Company raised large crops of wheat, peas, oats, barley, and potatoes?
    Ans.--I think in 1846 they had very large crops at Vancouver.
    Int. 142.--Were you not frequently at Vancouver, in that year, while the British ship Modeste was there?
    Ans.--Yes, sir; I was there very often; sometimes remained eight or ten days at a time.
    Int. 143.--Do you not believe that, if the Company, with its means of carrying on business, its facilities for trade, and other advantages such as those mentioned, had been protected in the use of the lands claimed by them near Vancouver, they would have made very large profits between the years 1840 and 1860--especially in view of the rapid settlement of the Pacific Coast, stimulated by the discovery of gold?
    Ans.--If they had full control of that country, as they had In 1840, they certainly would have made very large profits on their trade.
    Int. 144.--Can you say how much land, from 1853 to 1860, remained in the Company's possession at Vancouver?
    Ans.--I cannot say, sir; I think it was a small quantity.
    Int. 145.--Were not all the farms in the vicinity, formerly occupied by them, at that time in the possession of settlers claiming them under the donation law?
    Ans.--I think they were; but most of those settlers were old servants of the Hudson's Bay Company.
    Int. 146.--Give the names of those old servants mentioned, as far as you can?
    Ans.--I don't remember their names; some lived on the Fourth Plain, some lived on the Mill Plain, and some below Vancouver.
    Int. 147.--Were there more than five or six of these out of about thirty who occupied that land in 1853?
    Ans.--I don't know how many were on the land in 1853; there were several settlers there--I don't know how many of the old servants among them.
    Int. 148.--Do you know whether the most important and valuable claims near the fort were not taken by American citizens?
    Ans.--I think some of the claims were taken by American citizens.
    Int. 149.--How many men were employed at the grist and sawmills of the Company?
    Ans.--I do not know; there were a good many men about the sawmill.
    Int. 150.--Did not the Company manufacture large amounts of lumber, as well for the use of the country as for export?
    Ans.--There was quite a large amount of lumber manufactured there; I don't know what they did with it.
    Int. 151.--Was not Fort Vancouver renewed in 1843 and the succeeding years, and kept in good repair?
    Ans.--I think it was, sir; that is, the fort.
    Int. 152.--Were not the farms well stocked in 1846, and did not the Company provide large quantities of turnips, hay, and other provender for winter feed?
    Ans.--I think the farms were well stocked in 1846, and the Company provided large quantities for winter; I thought it was on account of the prospect of war between the two governments.
    Int. 153.--Is there, along the Columbia River, on either side, from its mouth to the Cascades, any such body of farming and pasture land, as that between the Mill Plain and the Cathlapotle, claimed by the Company, and in their occupation?
    Ans.--No, sir; that is the most beautiful spot in the distance named.
    Int. 154.--Do you know of any pasturage in Oregon to compare with it, considering quality, variety, extent, and convenience?
    Ans.--No, sir; I think it is the most convenient and best pasturage that I know west of the Cascade Range.
    Int. 155.--Do you not know that many of the Company's cattle were driven away or killed from the Company's farms at Vancouver and Sauvie's Island, by the early settlers?
    Ans.--I do not know, sir; I think not; I don't think the early settlers stole many cattle.
    Int. 156.--Do you know anything about the late settlers in that respect?
    Ans.--I do not know, sir.
    Int. 157.--Do you not know that it used to be the fashion to sell the Company's beef, calling it elk?
    Ans.--No, sir; I never saw any beef sold, called elk.
    Int. 158.--So far as you know, has not the influence of the Company and its officers been favorable to the preservation of peace and good order, and the maintenance of law?
    Ans.--Yes, sir; it always has.
    Int. 159.--While marshal of the United States for Oregon, from 1849 to 1853, where did you find rooms for the courts at Vancouver?
    Ans.--I found rooms in Fort Vancouver; I got them from the chief factor in charge.
    Int. 160.--Was their use furnished gratuitously?
    Ans.--I have no vouchers for money paid by me for the use of those rooms, no charge having been made for their use.
    Int. 161.--Did not Mr. Ogden, chief factor, tell you that you were welcome to use them whenever you wanted them?
    Ans.--Yes, sir; Mr. Ogden was very clever in that respect.
    Int. 162.--In your official life, state whether you found any residents of Oregon more prompt and willing to assist you when necessary, than the officers of the Company?
    Ans.--No, sir; I never found any that was more prompt than the officers of the Hudson's Bay Company.
    Int. 163.--State whether the overflow of the Columbia bottoms, in the summer, does not leave the bottom lands as valuable for cultivation and pasturage as any other?
    Ans.--About the first of June, when the water falls, it becomes fine pasturage; as to cultivation, the water falls too late to raise a crop of any great amount.
    Int. 164.--Do you not know that some of the best potatoes, cabbage, field turnips, and other vegetables are raised on that overflowed land?
    Ans.--I know that some fine potatoes and cabbage is raised on it.
    Int. 165.--Do you know that the Company annually sent large trapping parties from Vancouver into Southern Oregon and California?
    Ans.--Yes, sir; in 1840, and along there, they sent large parties south.
    Int. 166.--Was not Fort Walla Walla of great importance to the Company, as a depot and landing place for the Snake country and Colvile posts and Okanagan, as well as obtaining horses for the use of its brigades?
    Ans.--Fort Walla Walla was the distributing post for all that upper country, and therefore must have been of great importance.

    Int. 1.--About what time did the Hudson's Bay Company cease sending trapping parties to Southern Oregon and into California?
    Ans.--I do not remember; it must have been in 1846-47.
    Int. 2.--What reason did the Cayuses give for taking possession of Walla Walla, when Mr. McKinlay was in charge?
    Ans.--I think it was on account of the tariff being too high, as they thought.
    Int. 3.--Were the earliest settlers at Baker's Bay, north of the Columbia River, Americans or old Hudson's Bay men? (Objected to as immaterial.)
    Ans.--I think they were old Hudson's Bay men.
    Int. 4.--How many settlers, in 1840 and 1841, were able to get seed wheat of the Company?
    Ans.--I do not know; most any man could get seed wheat that showed a disposition to make a farm and raise wheat.
    Int. 5.--What condition, if any, did the Company seek to impose upon those receiving seed wheat?
    Ans.--They impose the condition that they would pay it back again.
    Int. 6.--Do you know of any farmer who was refused seed grain by them? If so, state who it was. (Objected to as immaterial.)
    Ans.--I know some that were refused seed grain; Mr. George Davis, Joseph L. Meek, I think though there were several others.
    Int. 7.--State whether you and these other men took claims, and wanted to make a start at farming, or not.
    Ans.--Those other men--some of them--took claims, and I took a claim; it is hard to tell what my object was when I took a claim.
    Int. 8.--Of the company of men first settling on the Tualatin Plains, who were furnished with seed grain, so far as you know. (Objected to as before.)
    Ans.--Mr. Doty, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Newell.
    Int. 9.--Were they more respectable, or more worthy of credit than those who were refused? (Objected to as before, and because it is leading.)
    Ans.--I presume the Company thought so.
    Int. 10.--State what you think about it. (Objected to as before.)
    Ans.--So far as I myself was concerned, I thought I was as worthy as any man that lived; the other men were very worthy men, as I thought.
    Int. 11.--Who were furnished with cattle by the Company, as far as you know?
    Ans.--Mr. Walker, Mr. Doty, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Kelsey.
    Int. 12.--Were the cattle sold, or simply loaned? (Objected to, because it is a repetition of the examination in chief.)
    Ans.--I think they were loaned.
    Int. 13.--Was it not generally understood among the American trappers, that the Hudson's Bay Company got a very large quantity of Jedediah Smith's furs, for which he and they failed to account to the Company to which they belonged? (Objected to, because it is leading and immaterial and hearsay.)
    Ans.--It used to be said so amongst the trappers in the mountains.
    Int. 14.--If you remember, state the quantity which was thus reported? (Objected to as before.)
    Ans.--It was always reported as about forty packs.
    Int. 15.--Give an estimate of the value of forty packs of beaver at that time.
    Ans.--Forty packs of beaver at that time, in the mountains, was worth about $20,000; I don't know what they would be worth at Vancouver.
    Int. 16.--State whether the dispute about this matter was the cause of the dissolution of the firm of Smith, Jackson, and Sublette, to which you refer in your cross-examination. (Objected to as leading, immaterial, and incompetent, unless the witnesses' means of knowledge are stated.)
    Ans.--I do not know; that was the report among mountain men.
    Int. 17.--Was there much or little lumber used in the building of Fort Hall?
    Ans.--There was very little lumber about Fort Hall.
    Int. 18.--When families of trappers or servants were furnished rations, at the Hudson's Bay posts, do you know whether these trappers or servants were charged for them or not?
    Ans.--No, sir; they never were charged for them.

    Int. 1.--What character did Jedediah Smith bear?
    Ans.--He bore a very high reputation for truth and veracity, and a gentleman.
    Int. 2.--From what you know of his reputation, do you believe he was capable of conspiring with Dr. McLoughlin to defraud his partners?
    Ans.--I think he was a man of too great a reputation to be guilty of any act of the kind.
    Int. 3.--How long did you know Dr. John McLoughlin, and what was his reputation for truth and honesty during that time?
    Ans.--I got acquainted with John McLoughlin in the winter of 1840; I knew him from that time until he died; he was a high-toned gentleman; for truth and veracity he could not be beat.
    Int. 4.--From what you know of the character and honesty of Dr. McLoughlin, do you believe that he was capable of conspiring with Jedediah Smith for the purpose of defrauding his, Smith's, partners, or to make money for the Hudson's Bay Company?
    Ans.--I have no idea that the Doctor was ever capable of any such business.
    Int. 5.--Can you name some of the earliest settlers of Baker's Bay?
    Ans.--I cannot.
    Int. 6.--Were not McCarty, sometimes called Brandywine, and Edwards, among the first settlers there?
    Ans.--I think they were; Brandywine, I know was.
    Int. 7.--Were either of these old Hudson's Bay men?
    Ans.--I think not, sir; no.
    Int. 8.--Were not the early settlers at Baker's Bay men who went there for the purpose of becoming bar and river pilots?
    Ans.--I do not know, sir.
    Int. 9.--When you and others were refused wheat by Doctor McLoughlin, did he not say that he was willing to furnish it to any who were farmers, but was unwilling to sell it for other purpose?
    Ans.--I think he did; I think he said he was willing to furnish it for seed to farmers.
    Int. 10.--At that time, had you done any farming in Oregon?
    Ans.--None.
    Int. 11.--Did you not, afterwards, obtain at Vancouver such things as you wanted to carry on your farm?
    Ans.--Yes, sir.
    Int. 12.--Do you not know that many of the settlers who borrowed cattle from the Company never returned them, or paid the Company for them?
    Ans.--I know some men borrowed cattle there and never returned them.
    Int. 13.--Were not some of these the persons mentioned by you in your previous testimony?
    Ans.--Yes, sir; Mr. Williams was one that I know of; Mr. Griffin never returned his, I think.
    Int. 14.--Are you acquainted with Archibald McKinlay and Thomas Lowe? If so, state their standing in community, and your opinion of their fitness to estimate the value, of property?
    Ans.--I am very well acquainted with Archibald McKinlay, and some acquainted with Mr. Lowe. I think they were in high standing in community--Mr. McKinlay I know was. I think that Mr. McKinlay was a very fit man to estimate the value of property. Mr. Lowe I don't know so well about; I am not so well acquainted with him.

    Int. 1.--What would you think of the judgment of a man who would say that it was worth $100,000 to build Fort Walla Walla, in 1842 and 1843?
    Ans.--I should say that he had very extensive ideas; his ideas would differ from mine about $95,000.
August 2, A.D. 1866.

W. F. Tolmie, being first duly sworn, deposes and testifies as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation, and of what country you are a citizen?
    Ans.--My age, fifty-four; residence, Vancouver Island; business, that of merchant and farmer; I am a native of Scotland, and a subject of Great Britain.
    Int. 2.--Are you now, and have you been in the service of the Hudson's Bay Company, west of the Rocky Mountains? If so, state how long you have thus served, in what capacities, and what is your present rank.
    Ans.--I have served the Hudson's Bay Company for more than thirty-three years, as surgeon, clerk, chief trader, and chief factor; my present rank is that of chief factor.
    Int. 3.--Under whose direction, at this time, is the business of the Hudson's Bay Company west of the Rocky Mountains?
    Ans.--It is under the direction of a board of managers, consisting of three persons, viz: chief factors McTavish, Tolmie, and Finlayson.
    Int. 4.--Are you acquainted with the history and condition of the various posts of the Hudson's Bay Company named in their memorial, in this case, either of your own knowledge, or the reports and statements of the officers and employees of the Company?
    Ans.--Either of my own knowledge, or by report, I know more or less about all of them.
    Int. 5.--Is the post at Flatheads now occupied by the Company; I mean the one described in the memorial?
    Ans.--'The Company have a post in the Flathead country; I do not know whether it is the same or not; they have done business in that country since 1846, until the present time.
    Int. 6.--Is the post in the Flathead country at present occupied by the Company north or south of the 49th parallel of north latitude? State all you know from the reports of those under your direction.
    Ans.--It is south of the line.
    Int. 7.--Is the post at Kootenay now occupied by the Company?
    Ans.--The post south of the line, I believe, is not occupied, though I do not mean to say that it is abandoned, as the Company have a post in Kootenay, north of the line, near to or in the gold mining region; they probably have an Indian chief in charge of the old post.
    Int. 8.--How long since the post south of the line was occupied by the Company?
    Ans.--I think it was occupied in 1863, and perhaps in 1864.
    Int. 9.--Who was in charge at that time?
    Ans.--A Mr. Linklater.
    Int. 10.--How far from the old post is the new one you speak of, north of the line?
    Ans.--I cannot say.
    Int. 11.--Are you positive that the old post has been occupied since 1860?
    Ans.--I am rather inclined to think that it was occupied in 1864, and that the new post was established that year, near or in the mines.
    Int. 12.--Is the post at Okanagan now occupied by the Company?
    Ans.--There may be an Indian chief in charge; I know that there was, and I don't know that he has been dismissed.
    Int. 18.--How long since the Company had a white person at the fort?
    Ans.--I think in 1861 or 1862 they had a white person there.
    Int. 14.--Is Fort Hall now occupied by the Company?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 15.--When was it abandoned?
    Ans.--l think in 1856, if not 1855.
    Int. 16.--What occasioned its abandonment?
    Ans.--The Indian war of 1855 and 1856--the introduction of ammunition was forbidden by the government; it was a necessary of life to the people of the post, who depended mainly on hunting for their subsistence.
    Int. 17.--Was it occasioned by any hostility of the Indians towards the Hudson's Bay people at the post?
    Ans.--Not that I know of.
    Int. 18.--Was any effort made by the Company, after the close of the Indian war of 1856, to repossess themselves of this post?
    Ans.--Not that I know of.
    Int. 19.--Have you any knowledge from any source, as to whether Fort Hall remains?
    Ans.--I have no knowledge.
    Int. 20.--Is Fort Boise now occupied by the Company?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 21.--When was it abandoned, and what was the cause?
    Ans.--It was abandoned, I have learned, in 1856, because the Snake Indians became hostile after observing the intimacy existing between the Hudson's Bay people at Boise and the United States soldiers stationed there.
    Int. 22.--After the close of the Indian war, was any effort made by the Company to regain this post?
    Ans.--Not that I know of.
    Int. 23.--Is the post at Walla Walla occupied by the Company?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 24.--When, and for what cause was it abandoned?
    Ans.--It was abandoned in the winter of 1855-56, during the Indian war, as I have learned, in consequence of a written order of Indian agent Nathan Olney.
    Int. 25.--After the close of the Indian war, was any effort made by the Company to regain this post?
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 26.--Is the post at Umpqua now occupied by the Company?
    Ans.--It is not.
    Int. 27.--When was it abandoned, and for what cause?
    Ans.--The Indian war of 1852 or 1853 damaged business very much; I think in that year, the officer in charge, a Mr. King, refused to return to the post; in 1853 it was leased to Colonel W. W. Chapman.
    Int. 28.--Since Colonel Chapman left the post, has it been occupied at all, under the authority of the Company?
    Ans.--No; it has been occupied as a donation claim by American citizens, as I have understood.
    Int. 29.--Is the fishing post at Chinook, or Pillar Rock, occupied by the Company?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 30.--When, and for what cause did they cease to use this station?
    Ans.--I cannot say.
    Int. 31.--How many years have you known it to be unused by the Company?
    Ans.--It may have been used up until 1860, for all I know.
    Int. 32.--Is the post at the mouth of the Cowlitz River now used by the Company?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 33.--At what time did the Company cease to use that post?
    Ans.--In 1857 or 1858, to the best of my recollection.
    Int. 34.--Is the post now used by the Company, in the Flathead country, the same as was used by them in 1846?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    (Witness desires to correct his answer to interrogatory No. 16, so that it shall read as follows: The Indian war of 1855-56. The introduction of ammunition into the Snake country had been forbidden by government; ammunition was absolutely needed at Fort Hall for defense, for trade, and to a certain extent for the subsistence of the people at the fort, who depended, though not so much so as in earlier days, on the productions of the chase for food.)

    Int. 1.--State whether during the wars of 1855 or 1856 the navigation of the Columbia River was interrupted by Indian hostilities?
    Ans.--It was.
    Int. 2.--Was it possible, during that period, for the Company to maintain correspondence between Vancouver and the posts east of the Cascade Mountains?
    Ans.--It was not; two of the express men were killed in coming from Fort Hall to Walla Walla.
    Int. 3.--Was not Mr. James Sinclair, who had been in charge of Walla Walla, murdered by the Indians at the Cascades, while on his way to Walla Walla from Vancouver, for the purpose of endeavoring to receive the property abandoned by order of Mr. Olney?
    Ans.--He was.
    Int. 4.--Was Nathan Olney an Indian agent of the United States government?
    Ans.--So I have understood.
    Int. 5.--State whether a letter, of which the following is a copy, to wit:
"To JAMES E. SINCLAIR, Esq.
    "DEAR SIR: Judging from the present appearances, I am induced to believe that a war with the tribes of Indians in your immediate vicinity is unavoidable; if such an unfortunate event should occur, your crew and the lives of your family, and of those in your employ, must necessarily be sacrificed, unless you remove beyond the reach of danger. I, therefore, as Indian agent, order you, with your family and hands, to leave the country without delay, and proceed to the Dalles, or lower down the river, as your convenience may require.
    "Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
        "NATHAN OLNEY, Indian Agent"
was not delivered to the Company by Mr. Sinclair, as the cause of his abandoning Walla Walla, and the Company's property therein, in 1856? (Objected to, because the original letter is not produced, and no reason given why it is not done; such original is now demanded by counsel for the United States.)
    Ans.--I have understood that Mr. Nathan Olney wrote a letter to Mr. Sinclair, directing him to abandon Walla Walla; I was informed of this by letter from Mr. McTavish at the time. The letter read, is, I believe, a copy of Mr. Olney's said letter.
    Int. 6.--Do you know where the original letter is at this time?
    Ans.--I think it is in the possession of Mr. McTavish, who is now in Washington.
    Int. 7.--Why did not the Company resume possession of Fort Walla Walla after the war?
    Ans.--The country was in a very disturbed state after the war; the value of Walla Walla was greatly diminished as a distributing point and as a place for the purchase of horses. Forts Hall and Boise could not be reached, owing to the hostile condition of the Snake Indians. Neither of these posts, nor Walla Walla, Okanagan, and Colvile, could be thoroughly outfitted, owing to the existence of an order from General Clark, prohibiting the introduction or sale at any of the interior posts of ammunition, which is essentially necessary in Indian trade; moreover, the Company's post at Walla Walla was occupied by United States troops, long after 1856, and when abandoned by them, it was taken as a donation claim by an American citizen named Vansyckle. I do not know that the prohibition issued by General Clark regarding the introduction of ammunition into the interior has yet been rescinded. Another Indian war broke out in 1858.
    Int. 8.--How long did the United States troops occupy Fort Walla Walla, if you know?
    Ans.--I do not know the exact time.
    Int. 9.--Why was Fort Okanagan left in charge of an Indian chief only, without any white manager or agent of the Company?
    Ans.--Okanagan was, in former times, a place of great importance, as one in the chain of the Company's posts, on the Columbia River. The supplies of goods and provisions from Vancouver, and the supplies of provisions from the Company's farms at Colvile were forwarded from Okanagan, by pack trains, to the northern posts. After the disturbance to their business, on the Columbia River, ensuing during and after the Cayuse War of 1847-48, the Company were obliged, at great outlay, to open roads through lofty and rugged pine-clad mountains to the navigable waters of the Lower Fraser, and to supply their posts north of 49° by that route thereafter; whereupon Okanagan became merely a fur trading post, which could be attended to by an Indian. A new post, to supersede Okanagan as an establishment for farming, and for the recruiting of pack trains, etc., was formed at Similkameen, a few miles north of the line, about the time that an Indian chief was placed in charge of Okanagan.
    Int. 10.--Why, if you know, was no effort made by the Company to resume possession of Fort Hall after its abandonment, on account of Indian difficulties?
    Ans.--These difficulties, as far as I know, have existed more or less ever since 1856. It would have been of no use, either for trade with white trappers or Indians, to have occupied these posts while the sale of ammunition was prohibited.
    Int. 11.--Do you know whether Governor Stevens prohibited trade with the Indians in Washington Territory; if so, when?
    Ans.--He did, I think, in 1853.
    Int. 12.--State whether the same is true as to the reoccupation of Fort Boise, as was stated in regard to Fort Hall?
    Ans.--It is.
    Int. 13.--State, if you know, the present condition of the Indians, in the vicinity of Fort Boise?
    Ans.--I learn that they are at war with the whites.
    Int. 14.--State, if you know, the reason why the Company did not resume possession of Fort Umpqua?
    Ans.--There were several reasons. The Umpqua Indians were placed on a reservation and were no longer free to hunt for furs, as formerly; and since Mr. Chapman, to whom the place was leased, gave up the Company's post there, it has, as I am informed, been occupied as a donation claim by an American citizen.
    Int. 15.--Why did not the Company continue their possession of the post, at the mouth of Cowlitz River?
    Ans.--The warehouses at the entrance of the Cowlitz River had been erected for storage of grain, produced on the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company's farm, at the Cowlitz; when these farms had been taken possession of by squatters, the warehouses were no longer of much use; one of them, if I remember right, was destroyed by the caving in of the bank; the other was sold by the Company's agent there, but without the Company's authority for this act, to a Mr. Huntington, who claimed the land under the donation act.
    Int. 16.--Why was the Kootenay post--I mean the new one--established north of the boundary line?
    Ans.--For the sake of the trade with the miners, and because a trail to Kootenay, through British territory, had been explored and opened by the Hudson's Bay Company, and improved by the government of British Columbia.
    Int. 17.--When did you become one of the board of management?
    Ans.--In 1857.
    Int. 18.--Since that time, have you resided at Vancouver?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 19.--State whether the posts of the Company, east of the Cascades, were not under the supervision of the chief factor, resident at Vancouver?
    Ans.--They were more immediately under his supervision, but since the abandonment of Forts Walla Walla, Boise, and Hall, the officers in charge at Colvile, under the direction from the board of management, supervised the interior posts still occupied.
    Int. 20.--State how far, or to what extent the interruption of the right of navigation of the Columbia during the Indian difficulties of 1855, and subsequent years, affected the Company, with reference to the maintenance and supply of their posts in the interior.
    Ans.--It entirely prevented the supply of Walla Walla, Boise, and Hall, destroying the Company's interests at those places, and very seriously affected the Company's interests at Colvile, and the posts depending on it, north and south of the 49th parallel.
    Int. 21.--What measures were the Company compelled to adopt for lack of transportation by the river, especially as to their more northern posts?
    Ans.--They were obliged to explore roads from the head of navigation, on the lower part of Fraser's River, through rugged mountains to Colvile, and to their northern posts, formerly supplied by way of the Columbia River and the Okanagan Valley. In these operations, much risk was incurred, and great loss of pack horses sustained.
    Int. 22.--Is it safe for occupants of these interior posts to depend upon hunters alone for a supply of the means of subsistence? (Objected to as not pertinent cross-examination.)
    Ans.--It is not; and it has not been the Company's policy to depend on hunters alone, at any of their posts west of the Rocky Mountains. (The foregoing answer objected to, because the latter part is not responsive to the question, and because the subject matter does not relate to the examination in chief, which was strictly confined to the facts and causes of abandoning the posts referred to. The counsel for the United States protests against this witness being thus examined, unless made the witness of the Company, and subjected to cross-examination.)
    Int. 23.--Did not the fact stated by you in your last answer constitute one of the causes for leaving the posts mentioned by you, in your direct examination, during the Indian difficulties referred to?
    Ans.--It did; more especially in regard to Fort Hall.

    Int. 1.--By what route was Colvile principally supplied during and since the Cayuse War, in 1847-48?
    Ans.--For some time, principally supplied by the Columbia River; of late it has been supplied by Fraser's River, although goods of American manufacture have been sent in by way of the Columbia River. Not having resided on the Columbia River since 1844, I cannot be particular as to the years.
    Int. 2.--Has not the country about Boise and Hall been occupied for several years past by American settlers and miners; if so, is it more safe for them than for Hudson's Bay men, at their posts?
    Ans.--Fort Hall, I have understood, is occupied by Mormons, and the Boise country by American farmers and miners; the whole of that country was formerly occupied by the Snake Indians, who, I learn from the public prints, are continually committing depredations on and murdering the whites. It does not seem to me that the country is safe for American citizens, neither would it be for Hudson's Bay traders, unless well fortified in isolated posts.
Portland, August 3, 1866.

M. P. Deady, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
    Int. 1.--Please state your age, residence, and profession?
    Ans.--I am aged forty-two years; reside in Portland, Oregon; I am judge of the United States District Court for Oregon.
    Int. 2.--When did you come to Oregon, and at what different places have you resided since that time?
    Ans.--I arrived in Oregon in the autumn of 1849; from thence on until the autumn of 1853 I resided at Lafayette, Yamhill County; from thence forward until the autumn of 1860, I resided near Winchester, in the Umpqua Valley; and since the last mentioned period, I have resided in Portland. During all the time up to the fall of 1860, I traveled a great deal over the state, or so much of it as lies west of the Cascade Mountains.
    Int. 3.--What have been your opportunities during all this period for acquiring a knowledge of the market value of agricultural lands at different parts of the state and the southern portion of Washington Territory?
    Ans.--I have been conversant with the prices of such lands during this time in the Willamette, Umpqua, and Rogue River valleys, and upon the coast; but have known but little of the value north of the Columbia River. This knowledge is derived from information as to what such lands have been bought and sold for, from time to time, including some purchases and sales of my own. My knowledge of the value of lands lying in the vicinity of Vancouver is not based upon the knowledge of any actual sales in that vicinity, but is rather an inference from the prices and sales of land lying south of there, more or less remotely.
    Int. 4.--Are you acquainted with the land claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company in the Umpqua Valley? If so, state how much, in your judgment, it was worth per acre during the time you knew it.
    Ans.--I first visited the Umpqua Valley in the spring of 1852; I first saw the place called Fort Umpqua, said to be in the occupancy of the Hudson's Bay Company, in the last of July or 1st of August, 1853; from the summer of 1853 to the summer of 1860 I lived within twenty or thirty miles of Fort Umpqua, and passed it frequently during the year. Taking 640 acres around the building, I think it would have sold during that period for one to four dollars per acre. The price of land in that locality fluctuated during that time with the business and commerce of the Umpqua River and the facilities thereby afforded for purchasing supples and exporting produce. In the fall of 1853 I purchased the possession--a squatter's right--of 640 acres of land near Winchester for $2,500. In the winter of 1860 and 1861 I sold the same on time for $3,000, after putting five thousand dollars' worth of improvements upon it. This farm was much more eligibly situated and more valuable than the land at Fort Umpqua for agricultural purposes. I conveyed the fee simple when I sold. I might mention that between those extremes, in 1854 or 1855, I purchased a quarter section or 160 acres of land in the Umpqua--being valuable more for the timber than agriculture--and give $500 for it. In the spring of 1859 I purchased a quarter section of very valuable agricultural land, tolerably well improved, and gave for it, I think, $800, $200 of that amount being in cattle at high prices.
    Int. 5.--Would the price you have named for the Company's land at Fort Umpqua include or exclude the improvements?
    Ans.--My estimate was based upon the value of the land, not the improvements.
    Int. 6.--Taking the state of Oregon, generally, and the lands of Washington Territory lying contiguous thereto, along the Columbia, what would you say was the market value in 1863 of good agricultural lands, away from the immediate vicinity of towns? (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--That question will only admit of a very general answer, and I will give you the best I can, which is from $2 to $5 an acre. In 1862, such land, I think, was lower in value, so far as it was sold, than I have known it since. I have been in the country, and [it] did not commence to recover, I think, until the latter part of 1864; since then it has been rising steadily in value, up to this summer, owing to the price of wheat.
    Int. 7.--Taking the tract of country ten miles in width, running from six miles above Vancouver, down to the Cathlapotle River, what is it worth per acre, as an entire tract?
    Ans.--Without reference to improvements or special uses as a town site, I think it might be worth from $1 to $3 an acre. This opinion is not based upon a familiar acquaintance with the tract of land, but only from observing it in passing up and down the river, except as to the immediate site of Vancouver, with which I am personally and familiarly acquainted.
    Int. 8.--Are you acquainted with Jesse Applegate, J. S. Rinearson, and J. C. Carson? If so, state their standing in community, and what is their qualification for appraising property examined by them.
    Ans.--I know the gentlemen named; Mr. Carson I have known a few years; he has a good reputation for integrity and common sense, so far as I know; he has been engaged, during those years, in running a sash and door factory in Portland, and I suppose he would be a fair judge of the value of ordinary buildings and improvements upon a farm. I have no special knowledge in relation to his character or qualifications. I have known Mr. Rinearson for a period of fourteen or fifteen years, during which time, I believe, he has been engaged in farming, running a sawmill, and as an officer in the Oregon cavalry; I think he has a good reputation for integrity, and I believe him to be a man of fair mind and judgment; I should think he would be a very competent man to estimate the value of land and ordinary improvements upon it anywhere in Oregon or Washington Territory. I have known Mr. Applegate for upwards of fourteen years, during which time he has been engaged in farming; he is also a surveyor, and a builder or maker of all kinds of farm buildings and houses; he has the reputation of being a man of strict integrity, and, I think, deserves it; he is a man of good sense and judgment in such matters, has had a large and varied experience in the settlement and growth of this country, and ought to be well qualified to estimate the value of lands and ordinary improvements anywhere in Oregon or Washington Territory, now, or as far back as 1843, at which time, I believe, he came to the country.
    Int. 9.--Were treaties made with the Indians of the Umpqua Valley, and they removed to reservations before or after Colonel Chapman was placed in possession of Fort Umpqua? (Objected to as leading, incompetent, and immaterial.)
    Ans.--Colonel Chapman went on to the Fort Umpqua place in the summer of 1853; at that time, no treaties had been made with the Indians of the Umpqua Valley, that I remember, nor were they removed to any reservations. In November, 1854, General Palmer made a treaty with the Umpqua Valley Indians, established a small reservation south of the Umpqua River, near the Coast Mountains, to which he removed, or attempted to remove the Indians of the Umpqua Valley, particularly the tribe called the Calapooias, but few of them remained on this reservation, and the Umpqua Valley Indians, for all practical purposes, remained at large until they were removed to the present Coast reservation, in the winter of 1855 and 1856. Sometime, I think, in the spring of 1855 General Palmer established a reservation at the mouth of the Umpqua River, and on the north side, where the Umpqua Indians called "the Fish Indians," or "Tide Water Indians" were kept, until, I think, in the spring of 1859 they were removed twenty miles north of the mouth of the Siuslaw.
Portland, August 3, 1866.

J. Q. Thornton, being first duly sworn, deposes and testifies, as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and profession.
    Ans.--My age is fifty-six; profession law; my residence, Benton County, Oregon; I am also a farmer--have been conducting a farm fourteen years.
    Int. 2.--Were you acquainted with Dr. John McLoughlin, in his lifetime? If so, state how many years you knew him.
    Ans.--I was; I became acquainted with him in February, 1847, and was personally acquainted with him from that time until his death.
    Int. 3.--State whether you ever lived at Oregon City, and for how many years?
    Ans.--I resided in Oregon City from about the 6th--I think it was--day of February, 1847, until about 1st day of May, 1852.
    Int. 4.--During that time, did McLoughlin state anything to you as to the treatment of his superiors in the Hudson's Bay Company, growing out of his encouragement of the settlement of the country, and advancing supplies on credit to the early settlers of Oregon? If so, state fully what he said on that subject. (Objected to by counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company, because it is hearsay, and not the best evidence, and, therefore, incompetent; and because it is immaterial, Dr. McLoughlin not being, at the time, an officer of the Company.)
    Ans.--He did; I became the professional adviser of Dr. McLoughlin, I think, about the 1st of November, 1849, and considered myself, and so far as I know, was considered by him as such, until the time of his death. He had frequent conversations with me, at various times, between the first and last periods mentioned, upon the subject embraced in the question. He stated that he had not encouraged the settlement of Oregon by American citizens, but that they arrived here, from time to time, without any agency on his part, many of them, and, probably, most of them, being in circumstances in which they must have suffered hunger, cold, and nakedness, had he not, while chief factor of the Hudson's Bay Company, at Vancouver, furnished them supplies of food, clothing, implements, and seed for crops, upon a credit, they not having the means in either money or property to pay for the supplies thus furnished. That he could have wished that this had not been necessary, because he believed that there were those about him who strongly disapproved of the course he was pursuing in this respect, affirming that it would lead to the permanent settlement of the country by American citizens, and thus give the United States government an element of title to the country the government could not have without such settlements; and that those persons thus alluded to, as being dissatisfied, would report him to the Hudson's Bay Company's house at London; that he ascertained finally that such complaints had been made, but that he still continued to furnish the supplies, because as a man of common humanity he could not do otherwise; and he resolved that he would continue thus to do, and take whatever consequences might result from it; that the Company's managing and controlling officers in London did finally call him to an account for thus furnishing supplies as already stated, and for the reasons indicated; that he represented to them the circumstances under which he had furnished these supplies, alleging that as a man of common humanity it was not possible for him to do otherwise than as he did; that he foresaw, as clearly as they did, that it aided in the American settlement of the country, but that this he could not help, and it was not him but for God and government to look after, and take care of the consequences. The Bible told him that if his enemy be hungry, he must feed him; if naked, he must clothe him; but that these settlers were not even enemies. That in thus finding fault with him, they quarreled with him for doing what anyone truly worthy the name of a man could not hesitate to do; and that he concluded by indignantly saying: "Gentlemen, I will serve you no longer." He also informed me that he had proposed to the controlling authorities, in London, that if they would allow him to retain the profits upon the supplies and advances made, as above mentioned, to the settlers, he would very cheerfully, personally, assume the payment to the Company of all the sums thus advanced, but that this the Company declined to do. My memory is not very distinct, at least not so much so as it is as to the statements I have already made, but my recollection is that he also informed me that the Company, although it refused to permit him to retain the profits as above mentioned, did hold him responsible for every dollar of the advances he had made, and I do know that he regarded and treated the debts thus owing by American citizens as debts owing not to the Hudson's Bay Company, but to himself, individually. He frequently complained to me of persons who thus owed him, and who were thus still owing him, but who not only did not pay him when he was well assured they could have done so, but who, to this injustice, added the ingratitude of denouncing and abusing him as an aristocrat.
    Int. 5.--What was the market value of good farming lands in the Willamette Valley, away from the immediate vicinity of towns, in 1861, 1662 and 1863? (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, both as to the time named and the land described.)
    Ans.--I think that such land would not have averaged more than $2 an acre; I bought good first-class prairie lands about those times for $2 an acre; I also bought lands, part prairie and part timber, for a dollar and a half an acre.

    Int. 1.--Please say where and in what year and month did Doctor McLoughlin make the statements to you detailed in your answer to direct interrogatory No. 4.
    Ans.--They were made to me many times during the time of my being his professional adviser, sometimes in my office in Oregon City, where I resided, from February, 1847, to May, 1852, and sometimes at his own residence, and sometimes at my residence, in the same place; I cannot fix the precise date of any of these conversations; they were frequent, however; often being led to be circumstances transpiring during the day. One such circumstance I will mention leading to such conversation: After Mr. Preston, Surveyor General, had arrived at Oregon City, and entered upon the duties of his office, I, having some business with him, found him upon the street and communicated to him my business, immediately after which  an American citizen with whom General Preston had been conversing said to General Preston: "Who is this?" When he replied: "This is Judge Thornton." The man then rudely replied: "Then damn him; I don't want to know anything more about him; he is Doctor McLoughlin's counsel; he is a Hudson's Bay man." Feeling indignant, I replied: "I know not who you are; but I am sure from your language that you are some unworthy American citizen in whose worthless carcass Doctor McLoughlin has kept the breath of life, and you are now repaying him--as many such as you have paid him, by abusing him, and by cursing me, because I did not ask your permission to become his professional adviser." Asked General Preston the name of the man that was assailing me, General Preston told me his name, and informed me that he lived on the Columbia Slough. I went to Doctor McLoughlin immediately, and asked him if he knew a man of that name. He inquired if the man lived upon the Columbia Slough. I replied in the affirmative. The Doctor then went on to inform me that while he was chief factor of the Hudson's Bay Company at Fort Vancouver, he had received information of an American emigrant and his family being somewhere up the Columbia River, under circumstances of privation and distress, and likely to perish; that upon receiving the information. he dispatched a boat with men and supplies to rescue this family from their peril; that the next day, after the boat had departed up the river, this man living on the Columbia Slough (I have forgotten his name) came overland to Fort Vancouver for succor, and was informed that succor had been dispatched the day before; and the Doctor further stated that in due time the family were brought down; that he furnished this man and his family food and clothing for twelve months, as also feed and team to produce a crop, nourish and sustain his family in the country; that the supplies amounted to several hundred dollars, for which he had been compelled to account to the Hudson's Bay Company, and that this man had only never paid him a cent since, but had added to this injustice the ingratitude of denouncing him, almost unceasingly, as a damned old aristocrat. I ought to have stated that the Doctor went to his books and showed me the exact amount of this ingrate's indebtedness.
    Int. 2.--When did Doctor McLoughlin go to Oregon City to reside?
    Ans.--I do not know; he was there when I first came to Oregon City, in February, 1847.
    Int. 3.--Did he never tell you when he took the Oregon City claim, and when he made it his fixed residence? If so, state the dates.
    Ans.--He did; Doctor McLoughlin employed me to give him a written opinion as to the validity of his title to the tract of land usually known as the Oregon City claim; this was, I think, sometime in October or November, 1849. I required him to furnish me with a statement of the facts in a chronological order, constituting the basis of his title. This he did in manuscript of about thirty pages, which was consumed, together with my office and library, late in the autumn of 1851. In that manuscript he mentioned the date of his first settling in Oregon City, which date has perished from my memory, with the manuscript; but I think that it was in 1844. He informed me that prior to his settling there himself, he had done something, exactly what I do not remember, in preparing for the erection of a mill; but my recollection is that these preparations were in the interest of the Hudson's Bay Company, or the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company.
    Int. 4.--Have you not repeatedly heard Doctor McLoughlin say that he was compelled to come to Oregon City, for his property there required his personal attention, on account of the disposition of settlers or others to take the whole or a portion of it?
    Ans.--I think not; I certainly have no recollection of any such statement.
    Int. 5.--Have you not heard him say repeatedly, and have you not seen written statements made by him, that he resigned his position in the Hudson's Bay Company for the purpose of residing upon, and taking care of his property at Oregon City?
    Ans.--I have no recollection of ever having heard him make any such statement, nor have I any recollection of ever having seen any such written statements.
    Int. 6.--After his claim was reserved by the action of Congress, in 1850, did you not prepare, as his counsel, a statement in regard to the matter, which was published, in which the following sentence occurs: "Doctor John McLoughlin resigned his chief factorship and all connection with the Hudson's Bay Company for the purpose of holding this claim as an American citizen, and as becoming to all intents and purposes an American citizen, in fact, as he was already in feeling?
    Ans.--Small-rate politicians, who fancied that I stood in the path of their advancement, sought to render me odious with American citizens, because of my having become Dr. McLoughlin's professional adviser, and very many abusive things were said of me, and coarse epithets bestowed upon me on this account; and newspaper articles were published denouncing what I may have said, written, or published in reply to any one or more of these assaults; it is not possible for me, after a lapse of fifteen years, to remember; of some of them I took no notice; I think that such was my habit. The act of the 27th of September, 1850, usually known as the donation law, reserved from the operation of that law the Oregon City claim, confirming, however, to purchasers the sales of all lots made by Dr. McLoughlin prior to the 4th of March, 1849, and of course omitting to confirm any sales made between the last mentioned date and the 27th September, 1850. Speaking from memory, I believe I was the owner of something over 200 town lots in that place, all of which, I believe, except two, were purchased after the 4th March, 1849. By the act of September 1850, the lands and lots in question were donated to Oregon for the endowment of a university; many persons, the titles to whose lots were thus jeopardized, requested me to prepare a memorial to the Legislature, praying that body to confirm to myself and other purchasers the title to the lots we had thus purchased; such a memorial I prepared; it was printed, signed, and presented to the Legislature. It is probable that I made out in such memorial the best and strongest case I could in an appeal to a class of politicians from whose principles and integrity I believed we had little to hope. I have no recollection of the language I employed, or of the facts relied upon, so far as I relied upon any. There is not upon my memory a trace of a single fact--I mean as contained in the memorial; the whole has gone, glimmering through the dream of things that were; I am sure, however, that I made no statement which I did not believe to be true, and yet I have no recollection of having, in that memorial, or in anything which may at any time have come from my pen, used the language to which my attention has been called by the question.
    Int. 7.--Can you say, after the lapse of fifteen years, that Dr. McLoughlin stated to you that the Hudson's Bay Company had compelled him to pay the amount for which settlers and emigrants had been credited?
    Ans.--As I have already remarked. Dr. McLoughlin had many conversations with me upon the subject of these supplies thus furnished American citizens, and stated that he was held, or had been held, individually responsible for every dollar of it. I am not able to state, at this distance of time, whether he had actually repaid all these sums to the Company, but I know that he regarded and spoke of these sums, which American citizens thus omitted to repay to him, as being his own private loss.
    Int. 8.--Was not the loss spoken of by him merely his share of the profits or earnings of the Company, a proportion of which made his salary?
    Ans.--It was not; in his communications to me upon the subject, he always spoke of these advances not paid as being wholly bis private loss.
    Int. 9.--Did you ever know of these claims being assigned to him by the Company as his own?
    Ans.--I have no knowledge of any such transaction.
    Int. 10.--Were you ever employed, while his counsel, to collect any of these claims for his benefit?
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 11.--Do you not know that these accounts and claims were in the hands of the Company's agents for collection until you left Oregon City?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 12.--Do you not know that after Dr. McLoughlin's retirement, his successors, Mr. Ogden and Mr. Douglas, continued to give credit to settlers and emigrants?
    Ans.--I can only speak of what I heard after my settlement in Oregon City, in 1847; from information which I had in a great variety of ways, not now, however, remembered, I answer that I believe that they did; not, however, indiscriminately, but with the ordinary care of ordinarily prudent merchants.
    Int. 13.--Did you ever hear the Doctor give any other reason for retiring, except that he was complained of for giving credit to emigrants and settlers?
    Ans.--He never assigned any other reasons, in conversation with me, than the one I have already mentioned in my examination in chief.
    Int. 14.--Did he ever read or show to you any letter in which he was notified that he was to be held liable for these credits?
    Ans.--I have no recollection of any such letter.
    Int. 15.--Who did he say were those about him who strongly disapproved of the course he was pursuing, as mentioned in your direct examination?
    Ans.--I remember that they were subordinate officers of the Company; their names, however, if ever communicated to me, have escaped my memory.
    Int. 16.--Did Dr. McLoughlin tell you the names of those by whom he was called to an account; if so, who were they?
    Ans.--He frequently, in such conversations, mentioned the name of Sir George Simpson, but I think that the persons who thus held him to account, he spoke of as being the Governor and Company, or Governor and Directors of the Hudson's Bay Company's house at London; my understanding being that the head or controlling power of the Hudson's Bay Company was located in London, and that it was known by one of the names I have mentioned.
    Int. 17.--Do you not recollect that Dr. McLoughlin told you that Sir George Simpson's great complaint against him was his allowing a credit of 10,000 sterling to Bishop Blanchet, or the Catholic Mission, without any security?
    Ans.--This is the first time that I have ever heard of that transaction.
    Int. 18.--Do you not know, from what Dr. McLoughlin told you, that he gave large credits to the Catholic missions, while in charge of the Company's business?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 19.--State whether farming lands in the Willamette Valley, away from the immediate vicinity of towns, are as valuable as good farming lands on the Columbia near to navigation.
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 20.--What, since you have been in Oregon, are the highest prices you have known to be given for good and improved farming lands, not in the immediate vicinity of towns?
    Ans.--The price of such lands has varied in different years, different localities, and according to the amount of improvements upon the lands. I have known some good lands with not much improvement sell for seventy-five cents an acre. From your verbal explanation of the scope of your question, I understand that I am to confine my answer to good land that may have been fenced, or some part of which may have been fenced, and a greater or less number of acres of which may have been cultivated. I have known of no such lands selling for more than $2 an acre.
    Int. 21.--Were not lands in Oregon, such as those described in the 5th direct interrogatory, very much depressed in value, in the years 1861-62-63?
    Ans.--No, I think not; I am not aware of their being so depressed; land is much higher now than it was then, or had been at any time before.
    Int. 22.--What causes fluctuation in prices of land in the Willamette Valley? Does not the rise and fall of wheat affect it more than anything else?
    Ans.--In my judgment, based upon observation, the demand for lands has depended upon two elements: the first I regard as the number of emigrants coming into the country within the year; and, secondly, the capacity of the land to produce wheat (that being the leading staple of the country), and not the price of wheat in any one year.
    Int. 23.--Do you mean to say that if wheat should rise from fifty cents to a dollar per bushel, and continue at that price for a year, it would not, in your judgment, affect the price of land?
    Ans.--The single circumstance of the rise in the value of wheat in any one year would not, in itself, materially increase the price of land, in the absence of an emigration to increase the demand for farming land, because almost every man who wishes to be a farmer is already the owner of more land than he can by any possibility cultivate, without the hiring of the labor necessary to do so, and experience has taught the leading agriculturists of this state that this process, continued long enough, will bankrupt any man; by this very interesting process I have myself sunk, I think, not less than $10,000.
    Int. 24.--State, if you know, the average production of wheat per acre of good farming land in the Willamette Valley?
    Ans.--I don't think I know.
    Int. 25.--State, if you know, the price of wheat in the year 1860?
    Ans.--I must have known, of course, and yet I do not now remember.
    Int. 26.--In 1861?
    Ans.--My answer is the same, nor do I recollect the price, except for the last year, and in 1846-47, when it was a legal tender under the provisional government. The price last year was $1.
    Int. 27.--Can you state the average cost of clearing and fencing farming land in the Willamette Valley?
    Ans.--I cannot.

    Int. 1.--Why do you say good farming lands on the Columbia are more valuable than those in the Willamette Valley generally, when the lands of the Willamette are in the oldest and most thickly settled portions of Oregon? (Objected to because the question contains a statement not in accordance with the facts, and because leading. The counsel for the United States insists that the attorney of the Hudson's Bay Company personally knows that the Willamette Valley was generally settled before lands were taken to any extent along the Columbia, and is now by far more densely populated; and now the counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company declares that he does not personally know any such thing, and insists that the question is improper, for reasons aforesaid.)
    Ans.--In making that statement, I understood the question as asking for a comparison of value between good lands convenient to navigation, and good lands remote from navigation. I believe, of course, that all other things being equal, that lands here or elsewhere lying nearest to market or the means to a market, are the most valuable.
    Int. 2.--Which is worth most, good farming land lying contiguous to navigation in the heart of the Willamette Valley, or good farming land contiguous to navigation anywhere on the Columbia, each away from towns?
    Ans.--I think that a section of good farming land lying in the heart of the Willamette Valley would be worth twenty or thirty times as many sections of the best land I have ever seen on the Columbia. I have never, however, been on the Columbia above Fort Vancouver.

    Int. 1.--Why is good farming land in the Willamette worth twenty or thirty times as much as good farming land on the Columbia?
    Ans.--In the first place, I know of no land on the Columbia River which could be called good farming land, as compared with the standard of good farming land in the heart of the Willamette Valley. Locations on the Columbia, if open and dry, are usually either sandy or gravelly, or both; other locations, if open, are very much subject to ruinous overflow at a time of year when an overflow is usually equivalent to a total destruction of the crop; other locations, and most of them, are covered with a heavy growth of timber requiring vast labor and expense to remove, and a lifetime in which to remove it, if [the] agriculturist would have anything which rises to the dignity of a farm, such as a reasonable amount of labor and capital would open in the heart of the valley. Beyond and above all this, the heart of the Willamette Valley is remarkably healthy; while the Columbia, as I have usually understood, is rather otherwise, in consequence of the very great spring rise; still another element of price is the fact that the weight of population, wealth, schools, and all the colleges are in the Willamette Valley.
    Int. 2.--Do you mean to be understood to say that, in your judgment, there is no good farming land on the Columbia?
    Ans.--I mean to say that there is none that will at all favorably compare with what are known as good farming lands in the heart of the Willamette Valley.
    Int. 3.--When, then, you say that good farming lands in the Willamette Valley are worth $2.00 an acre, do you mean that the farming land on the Columbia is worth only one-twentieth or one-thirtieth of that sum?
    Ans.--I know of no land on the Columbia which, when compared with good farming lands in the heart of the Willamette Valley, would be considered good farming lands; and yet I would not be understood as affirming that lands known on the Columbia as farming lands, by the people residing in the vicinity, would sell for no more than one-twentieth or one-thirtieth of the price of lands in the heart of the Willamette Valley; but my meaning will be comprehended when I say that a farmer of good, sound, practical sense, who has a section of land in the heart of the valley, and intends to make agriculture his business, would not be likely to exchange it for twenty or thirty sections on the Columbia River. It is possible that there may be here and there a few such sections on the Columbia River that possess a higher and even a much higher value than this would seem to indicate.
    Int. 4.--Do you not know that the overflowed lands on the Columbia produce large and profitable crops of hay, potatoes, cabbages, and other vegetables, after the water subsides?
    Ans.--My understanding is that they frequently do; but I also understand that the annual rise of the Columbia frequently comes so late as to make the production of these crops impossible; and I have never understood that these lands were at any time adapted, save in very exceptional locations, to the production of the great staples of the country.
    Int. 5.--Does not the land claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company, from a point six miles above Vancouver, ten miles back, and down the river about thirty miles, consist, for the most part, of these exceptional locations, as you term them?
    Ans.--Judging from the opportunities afforded me by a twenty years' residence, I have no hesitation in saying they do not; within that space thus described, however, there are a few such exceptional cases as I have mentioned, judging from the information that I have derived from others, having a very limited personal acquaintance.
    Int. 6.--Have you ever visited any part of this tract, except the site of Fort Vancouver?
    Ans.--I have been more or less frequently at Fort Vancouver--never above it--and personally know the country below it only as I have seen it repeatedly in passing up and down the river.
    Int. 7.--How long is it since you were at Vancouver?
    Ans.--I think not since 1849 or 1850.
    Int. 8.--Have you seen any part of this tract since that time?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 9.--Are not the lands of which you speak in the Willamette Valley subject to overflow? I refer to farming lands contiguous to navigation.
    Ans.--They are not; I do not consider lands that are annually overflowed, or that are in most years overflowed, as being good farming lands.
    Int. 10.--What is the assessed value of your land in Benton County, to which you have referred in your examination?
    Ans.--I shall have to speak from memory, and may be a little above or below the assessment, when I say about $5 per acre; but that includes a large frame barn, 60 feet square, frame dwelling-house, outhouses, and probably not less than 3,000 fruit trees, most of them bearing.
    Int. 11.--What, if you recollect, was its assessed value five years ago?
    Ans.--I have no recollection; do not remember; nor have I an impression as to whether the assessment then was above or below $5.
    Int. 15.--Can you tell whether $5 per acre is the average assessment of land in Benton County?
    Ans.--I do not know, but I should say not; my opinion is that it would not be so high.
    Int. 13.--State whether the roads in the Willamette Valley are generally in good condition in the winter months?
    Ans.--The reverse is true.
    Int. 14.--What would be the comparative cost of transporting wheat from Vancouver to Portland, as compared with the cost of bringing it from points ten miles from the Willamette, in Benton County, in the winter and spring?
    Ans.--I do not know. The price usually paid for wheat at points on the Willamette where that is the eastern boundary of Benton County would not permit the farmer to hope to obtain any reasonable profit, as the prices of wheat usually are, who, in the rainy season, should haul his wheat ten miles through the mud. In the rainy season, wheat can readily be carried in steamers from Vancouver to Portland, and other points on the river, below Oregon City; at what rates, however, I do not know, but I presume at rates lower than any farmer could afford to haul it ten miles, as above.
    Int. 15.--Do you know the cost in the winter and spring of transporting wheat from ten or fifteen miles inland, to shipping points in Benton County?
    Ans.--No sensible farmer will voluntarily defer such carriage to the rainy season, because, at that season, it would be extremely difficult to get the wheat to market. The custom is to carry the wheat to the towns or warehouses on the river before the rainy season sets in; if not in an immediate pressure for money, the farmer stores it in the warehouses of the merchant, where it ordinarily remains until the farmer supposes that the price of wheat has gone up to something near the highest point to which in his judgment it is likely to go, when he sells it to the merchant or warehouse keeper, upon an agreement, which is always either expressed or implied, that he should have it if he would pay as high a price as other wheat buyers. The wheat thus stored, I ought also to say, remains in the warehouse a reasonable length of time (the precise time I have forgotten), without charge for storage, provided the warehouseman becomes the purchaser. Beyond this I do not know.
    Int. 16.--Do you mean to say, that in your judgment, one-tenth even of the wheat raised in Benton County for market is thus delivered before the rainy season sets in?
    Ans.--I do; I have never known a single instance of an Oregon farmer, of common prudence, who was acquainted with and knew what our rainy seasons were, and who had wheat to sell, who voluntarily deferred the hauling of it until after the rainy season set in. It often happens that the great press of farm labor in the autumn is such that the farmer, with his utmost diligence, is not able to get his wheat to market or into the warehouses before the rainy season commences; but after the rainy season has set in, and the roads become, in consequence, as deep as they usually are in the rainy season, the hauling, I believe, is always, almost necessarily, deferred until the roads become again settled. To avoid this necessity, they make most haste, in this respect, as the season for rain approaches.
    Int. 17.--How much wheat is annually raised in Benton County? (Objected to, as the Oregon census returns of 1865 are better evidence.)
    Ans.--I don't know.
    Int. 18.--Can you approximate the amount?
    Ans.--Any effort of the sort would be a mere guess; I could not come within many thousand bushels.
    Int. 19.--Is wheat the chief agricultural product of the county?
    Ans.--It is.
    Int. 20.--Is there, at all seasons of the year, a market in Benton County for farm produce, such as exists at Vancouver, afforded by the town, military post, vicinity to Portland, and the conveniences for shipping to other points?
    Ans.--I know nothing of what is or has been the price of wheat at Vancouver; I am sure, however, that the facilities for getting wheat, or rather farm products, to market from Vancouver are greater than for getting like products from the interior of Benton County, or even from a point on the river in that county, if Portland be considered that market, because of Portland being so much nearer to Vancouver than Benton County, and because, moreover, there is at all seasons a water communication.

    Int. 1.--Does it rain more in the winter in Benton County than it does near Vancouver, in Washington Territory? (Objected to, because the witness has already said that he had not been at Vancouver since 1850, and because it is immaterial, irrelevant, and a repetition of the examination in chief, and leading.)
    Ans.--I have no means of knowing.
    Int. 2.--So far as you know, is there any material difference in that respect? (Objected to as before.)
    Ans.--I think there cannot be, from the fact that I don't think there can be more than about a degree and a half difference in the latitude of the two localities.
    Int. 3.--Would it be any harder, or cost any more, to haul a load of wheat ten miles to the Willamette River, in Benton County, in the winter, than it would to haul a load ten miles to the Columbia River, from back of Vancouver, in the winter?
    Ans.--I presume not; I ought to say, however, that I know nothing personally of the country back of Vancouver, and I can judge of it only from what I learn of the country through others.

    Int. 1.--Would not the comparative difficulty and cost depend solely upon the condition of the roads?
    Ans.--I think they would.
Portland, August 6th, 1866.

Lloyd Brooke, being first duly sworn, deposes and testifies as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation.
    Ans.--Age forty-seven; residence, Portland; the last occupation that I had was that of a juror.
    Int. 2.--Have you ever resided at Vancouver, in Washington Territory? If so, state during what years, and in what capacity you were employed at that post?
    Ans.--I was there from 1849 to 1853, and from 1855 to 1862, both years inclusive; I lived in the valley of the Walla Walla during parts of the years 1853-54-55, and visited Vancouver frequently. While at Vancouver I was quartermaster's clerk, and agent under Captain Rufus Ingalls.
    Int. 3.--Describe the Hudson's Bay Company buildings and improvements at Vancouver, with reference to their state of repair when you went there, in 1849?
    Ans.--The stockade, or the pickets, as they were called, some of them were new, and some were old; they were repairing them every year; on one or two occasions the wind would blow ten or fifteen feet of them down, and they would then have to repair it. The sale-shop, and the building immediately adjoining that on the west side of the fort, were in good repair, except the foundations; they were rough buildings, but in fair repair. There were two large store-houses on the east side of the fort, the roofs of which were good, otherwise dilapidated. They were constructed in such a manner that the least settling would cause them to open. The flooring was rough and loosely laid. There were no other buildings on that side of the fort worth mentioning that I remember of. There was a little hut at the gate, which had been a blacksmith shop, but of no value. On the north side of the fort, the first that I remember is a granary; the roof of that was good, and the bins on the inside were good; the outside was in similar condition to the balance I have spoken of, being opened in places by the settling of the foundation. The next house was the counting-room; that house was in good repair, except the foundation; that house was weatherboarded on the outside and ceiled on the inside; I cannot pretend to give the dimensions, as I don't know. The next house was a similar house to the counting-room, but not in as good repair; it was vacated between two and three years after that time, because it was considered unsafe, either from fear of falling down, or the unhealthy condition from the rotten timber under it. I do not remember what the reason was. Then comes the commanding officer's quarters, or the governor's house; the roof of that building was good, in fact all the roofs were good. I suppose they had been renewed within the last four or five years before my arrival. That house was weatherboarded outside and ceiled inside. It had a cellar underneath; the floor in the dwelling-house had settled in many places; I should call that house very much dilapidated. On the east side of the fort there was a row of buildings occupied by the officers and their families. I believe that that whole row was ceiled inside; the foundation of that whole row was somewhat out of repair, and the floors rough. I think that is all that was inside the fort.
    Int. 4.--Up to what time did the Company remain in possession of these buildings inside the fort?
    Ans.--I don't remember; I have just read a letter from Captain Ingalls, addressed to the officer in charge of the Hudson's Bay Company's fort, dated in March, 1860, and it was in the following summer or fall that they moved off.
    Int. 5.--What was the condition of the buildings you have named, when the Company removed in 1860, as compared with their condition in 1849, when you first saw them?
    Ans.--I think there had been no repairs on the buildings, and they had suffered the usual wear of ten or eleven years. I am not positive that any of them had fallen down, but I remember that a prop had been put up on the north end of a long row of buildings, on the north end of the sale-shop; timber was also put up to prop it. One building I did not mention, the powder magazine, which was in as good condition as the others.
    Int. 6.--What, in your opinion, was the granary building worth when you saw it in 1849?
    Ans.--I don't think I can put an estimate on those buildings; they were all cheaply constructed buildings; I have thought of it a good deal since I knew I was to be called as a witness, but I cannot really fix any price; they were a style of building of which I knew little about; I do not know much of any kind of buildings.
    Int. 7.--In what state of repair were the buildings outside of the fort, in 1849?
    Ans.--The school-houses were incomplete; there was no floor in them. The church was in good repair. The house adjoining the church was also in good repair. The salmon store had a good roof, but was otherwise very much dilapidated. The boat sheds were fir posts stuck in the ground, with slab roofs; they did not amount to anything. There was one building that was called the "Johnson house" that we lived in, that was a very good house. I remember one other house, that was a good dwelling-house, with two rooms. The balance of the houses in and around the fort were of little value.
    Int. 8.--What farming operations, if any, were carried on in 1849, on the Mill Plain? Describe the condition of fencing and improvements at that place at that time.
    Ans.--I don't remember any farming operations in 1849, on the Mill Plain; there was someone living in the house, how many persons I couldn't say. The buildings there were old. I don't remember seeing many barns; they were similar structures to the boat sheds; the fencing was down in many places; couldn't say the amount of fencing; many of the rails were old and rotten.
    Int. 9.--State whether the occupant was in the employ of the Hudson's Bay Company.
    Ans.--I believe that he was; I don't remember the man's name.
    Int. 10.--Were there any American settlers on or about this plain, so as to interfere with the Company's farming operations in 1849?
    Ans.--Not that I remember.
    Int. 11.--Did the Company cultivate this farm at any time while you were at Vancouver?
    Ans.--Not that I remember.
    Int. 12.--State about how frequently you saw this Mill Plain during each year of your stay at Vancouver.
    Ans.--At least as often as once a month, and in the summer of 1849 almost every Saturday.
    Int. 13.--About what time did American settlers occupy this plain?
    Ans.--I don't remember when they commenced occupying the country around Vancouver; I think there were some settlers got in on the Mill Plain previous to the fall of 1852.
    Int. 14.--Did the Company have any farming operations at the lower plain after you went to Vancouver? If so, how much and how long were they continued?
    Ans.--They had several fields of wheat in 1849; I can't state the amount, neither can I state how long it continued in their hands. They had a small timothy meadow.
    Int. 15.--About how much land was enclosed and cultivated in the Fort Plain?
    Ans.--I can't say; they had three or four very large fields, the whole of that ground I know they cultivated up to 1852; I think they cultivated part of it after that; I don't know how much. It was all subject to overflow.
    Int. 16.--Did the Company have any farming operations on any of the other plains about Vancouver?
    Ans.--I don't remember any; there was one place occupied called the Priest's Farm; I don't know whether it belonged to the Company or not; it was afterwards taken by an American settler.
    Int. 17.--Did the Company have any cattle, horses, or sheep occupying the pasture grounds generally about Vancouver? If so, state as near as you can how many, and what extent of country was occupied by them.
    Ans.--They had horses and horned cattle that ranged from Lewis River [the Cathlapotle] to Washougal. I have no knowledge of any range farther north of the Columbia River than about seven miles. I have no knowledge of the number of horned cattle or sheep. I think in 1849 they could collect one hundred horses there.
    Int. 18.--Up to what time did the Company continue to keep these horses, cattle, and sheep, and what disposition did they make of them, if you know?
    Ans.--I don't remember up to what time they kept them; they consumed some themselves, and sold some.
    Int. 19.--Taking 640 acres of the town site at Vancouver, what is it worth per acre? State any facts on which you base your opinion.
    Ans.--I wouldn't give over $20 an acre. There is a very small portion of it required for the town that is there; the town has always depended upon the size of the garrison for its prosperity. I think that ten acres of land, right on the bank of the river, was purchased in 1856, by Captain Ingalls, at $1 per acre, and it was sold this last spring for the same price, after paying taxes on it for several years. This was a desirable location, and was at the head of what I consider ship navigation.
    Int. 20.--What would you consider the value per acre of the mile square occupied by the military reserve, and on which was located the post of the Hudson's Bay Company, lying above the present town site?
    Ans.--There is part of it that I wouldn't give government price for; and a part of the farming land, I suppose, would be worth about $10 an acre. The Harney place, containing 110 acres, very near the reserve, and a beautiful site near the river, on which there is a building which cost over $2,000, in good repair, has been for sale for the last two years for $2,000, and no purchaser. It is where the old "Dundas Castle" was.
    Int. 21.--What, in your judgment, is the value per acre of such lands as the Mill Plain, the Lower Plain, and the other plains about Vancouver?
    Ans.--There is a very great difference between the plains. I don't consider the Mill Plain as worth more than government price; it is very poor gravelly land. [As to] the second, third, and part of the fourth plain, I should say two-thirds of the Fourth Plain would bring, for farming purposes, $5 per acre. The whole of the Lower Plain, for grazing and farming purposes, is worth twenty dollars an acre. It is the best part of the country; when produce is in demand a man can make plenty of money.
    Int. 22.--Was the Company making any use of a gang sawmill above Vancouver in 1849, or at any time afterwards?
    Ans.--I never saw a gang saw in their mill, that I remember. I purchased and measured lumber at the mill in June, 1849; at that time there was but one upright saw at work.
    Int. 23.--How many years after this did they continue to run this single saw?
    Ans.--To the best of my recollection, they leased the mill in the winter of 1849 and 1850, and they took possession again of the mill, I think, in the fall of 1850, and I don't think they manufactured much lumber after that--not with the old mill, certainly.
    Int. 24.--How much was lumber worth per 1,000 feet in 1849 and 1850?
    Ans.--I think sales were made here at $100 per 1,000 feet.
    Int. 25.--State, if you know, the condition of the grist mill above Vancouver, while you were there?
    Ans.--I know that they were using it. I don't know the condition of it. I don't know the state of repair that it was in.
    Int. 20.--Taking the Company's buildings at Vancouver, as they were after 1849, for what purposes, if any, were they suitable or valuable, aside from the Indian trade of the Company. I speak with reference to the settlement and improvement of the country by American citizens. (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--The only use that I know that they could be put [to] would be for storing hay. I speak with reference to their then condition. If money was laid out on them, they could be made habitable houses.

    Int. 1.--From 1849, for several years, were not some of those buildings used for storing government property by the quartermaster and commissary?
    Ans.--They were.
    Int. 2.--Up to what time were they so used?
    Ans.--l think in the fall of 1856.
    Int. 3.--At what time in 1849 did you arrive at Vancouver?
    Ans.--I think I was there on the 19th day of May, 1849.
    Int. 4.--What military officer was in command, and how many troops had he?
    Ans.--Major Hatheway was in command, had two companies of artillery; I don't know the number of men.
    Int. 6.--How long did these troops remain there, and where were they quartered?
    Ans.--Sometime during the summer of 1849 one company left there, I think, in the spring of 1850, Major Hatheway went to Astoria with the other company. During the summer 1849 the troops remained in tents. In the latter part of the summer, or early in the fall, they fitted up one of the school houses for company's quarters, and built quarters for the officers.
    Int. 6.--Where was that school house, within or without the fort?
    Ans.--Without.
    Int. 7.--Was it rented from the Hudson's Bay Company, and at what rate?
    Ans.--I don't remember the rate. It was obtained by the Company's permission, but I don't think they paid any rent at first, on account of repairs that required to be made; but afterwards they paid rent.
    Int. 8.--Do you remember what rent was paid subsequently?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 9.--Who succeeded Major Hatheway in command, and with how many troops?
    Ans.--Colonel Loring succeeded him in command. I think there were four companies at first.
    Int. 10.--Where did they find quarters?
    Ans.--They went into tents, and took the quarters that had been fitted up, for a hospital.
    Int. 11.--Where did the officers go?
    Ans.--The company officers went into tents. Some of the staff officers occupied the quarters constructed by the artillery officers. I should have said the company officers without families went into tents. The balance of the staff officers were quartered in buildings hired or rented from the Hudson's Bay Company. The company officers with families also went into quarters hired from the Hudson's Bay Company.
    Int. 12.--How long did they thus remain?
    Ans.--Until late in the fall of 1850.
    Int. 13.--Where did they then go?
    Ans.--They went into quarters constructed by the government
    Int. 14.--How many buildings were constructed by the government for their accommodation?
    Ans.--Eight sets of officers' quarters, including the quartermaster's house; four sets of soldiers' quarters; and quarters for the band.
    Int. 15.--State, if you know, the amount expended in the construction of these quarters.
    Ans.--I don't know.
    Int. 16.--What was the price paid for the lumber used by the quartermaster, in 1849-50, in the construction of these buildings?
    Ans.--The highest price that I remember was $80 per thousand.
    Int. 17.--What was the price of shingles?
    Ans.--I have no recollection.
    Int. 18.--What rent was paid for the store in the fort, used by the quartermaster and commissary in 1849?
    Ans.--There was no store used in the fort in 1849.
    Int. 19.--In 1850, then.
    Ans.--l don't think they had any as early as 1850; I am certain they had not; they used one of the school houses spoken of.
    Int. 20.--Can you say what rent was paid for one of the school houses?
    Ans.--I cannot.
    Int. 21.--Can you say what rent was paid for a store in 1851?
    Ans.--I don't remember anything about what was paid.
    Int. 22.--Do you not recollect that, when it was first hired, it was at the rate of $100 per month, which was afterwards reduced to $80.
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 23.--State whether the Hudson's Bay Company did not lease the sawmill spoken of by you to Captain Ingalls for the term of six months in 1849?
    Ans.--In the winter of 1849 and 1850, it was leased to James B. Leach, not a government affair at all; Captain Ingalls had something to do with it, and afterwards sold out it to me.
    Int. 24.--How much rent was paid for the sawmill under that lease?
    Ans.--I don't remember.
    Int. 25.--How much did you pay for the lease when you bought?
    Ans.--I don't remember; it was some trifling amount.
    Int. 26.--Do you not recollect that the monthly rent was eleven hundred and ninety-one dollars and sixty-five cents.
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 27.--How long did you keep that lease?
    Ans.--I suppose until its termination; I know I was very sick of it; I did not want to keep it longer than necessary.
    Int. 28.--Did not the government pay to the Company for a field of wheat in the rear of the fort, at the time they began the erection of barracks there?
    Ans.--They did.
    Int. 29.--How large was that field, and what amount was paid for the crop?
    Ans.--To the best of my recollection they took but a small portion of the field; I don't remember what they paid.
    Int. 30.--Do you not recollect that George C. Bomford estimated its value by agreement, and reported that there was seven acres and twenty-seven-hundredths, and the value of wheat growing thereon was $842.40.
    Ans.--I remember that he measured the ground, but I don't remember the quantity or the value attached to the crop.
    Int. 31.--Do you not know that every tenement belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company outside the fort, the use of which could be dispensed with by the Company's servants, was taken up by government officers and employees in 1849 and 1850?
    Ans.--No, I don't know that; I don't know whether they could have dispensed with any more or not; a great many such buildings were rented.
    Int. 32.--How many were rented?
    Ans.--I don't remember of but ten that were rented for officers' quarters, and one stable.
    Int. 33.--Do you include those which were rented to clerks, wagon masters, and other servants of the Government?
    Ans.--I do.
    Int. 34.--What was the average rent of these buildings?
    Ans.--From $15 to $25 per month; I don't know but there was one as low as $10 per month.
    Int. 35.--Were there not some that rented for $30 a month?
    Ans.--I don't remember of any that rented for $30; I won't be positive about it.
    Int. 36.--State whether or not the Company were not constantly repairing their different buildings when needed?
    Ans.--I have no recollection of any repairs of importance made by them.
    Int. 37.--Do you not remember that Mr. Crate was regularly employed with more or less men in making repairs?
    Ans.--Mr. Crate built a new sawmill, and I saw him fixing up the pickets; they had a number of men working, but I did not notice what they were doing; it was possible that Crate and his party might have done it, but I did not see them. There was one building burned down in the fall or winter of 1852; I think it was the kitchen, and that was rebuilt.
    Int. 38.--Was not the building used as a storehouse by the government in sufficiently good order to put large quantities of stores therein without repairs?
    Ans.--No material repairs were required, except patching up the flooring.
    Int. 39.--Did not the Company keep the buildings rented by the government in good order, so that they were sufficiently secure for storage?
    Ans.--I don't think they ever did anything to them, or that anything ever was required; the floors settled in one of the storehouses, but there were no repairs required, as they were down as low as they could go. Nothing but rough packages [were] stored on them.
    Int. 40.--State whether new foundations were not placed under the stores in the fort in 1855?
    Ans.--I did not return to Vancouver until the fall of 1855; it may have been done daring my absence.
    Int. 41.--What do you mean when you say that the government house was very much dilapidated in 1849?
    Ans.--I mean that it was dilapidated.
    Int. 42.--In what respects was it dilapidated?
    Ans.--The portico in front of the house was out of repair; the foundation had settled, causing openings in the outer wall; and the doors and windows would drag when they were opened.
    Int. 34.--Under what part was the foundation settled?
    Ans.--Under the main building.
    Int. 44.--Do you mean that the whole of the main building was settled?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 45.--What part of the building was settled then?
    Ans.--I think it was the northwest corner.
    Int. 46.--Did the settling of the northwest corner and the portico's being out of repair cause that house to be very much dilapidated?
    Ans.--It was an old house, and the wear of time would cause it to be somewhat dilapidated.
    Int. 47.--Was not that house used as the Governor's house until 1860, and did it not continue to be a comfortable residence, as in 1849?
    Ans.--It was occupied as the Governor's house until 1860, or by the person in charge of the fort, but was not as comfortable a house by any means in 1860 as it was in 1849.
    Int. 48.--State whether it had not been thoroughly repaired and painted and papered on the inside in the meantime?
    Ans.--I believe it was painted and papered, but I am not sure of any carpenter's work except shoving up the porch; I don't think the house was ever painted on the outside except in front.
    Int. 49.--Can you give the dimensions of that house or of any house there?
    Ans.--No, sir, I cannot give the dimensions of that house or of any of them.
    Int. 50.--When you say that all the buildings constructed were cheaply constructed, do you mean to he understood as saying that their cost was trifling and cheap?
    Ans.--I mean to say that their cost was trifling to the Hudson's Bay Company, as the outer walls of most if not all the buildings were constructed of slabs or refuse lumber, and have always understood that the wages paid by that Company to their servants was a mere pittance at the time of the construction of those buildings.
    Int. 61.--Are you positive that the outer walls of those buildings were mere slabs?
    Ans.--I am positive in regard to those buildings occupied by the United States government.
    Int. 52.--Were they not in part constructed of four-inch plank and of hewn timber?
    Ans.--The uprights were of hewn timber, the corner posts; I think the walls were of slab of those buildings I alluded to before.
    Int. 53.--Were not the pieces you call slabs sawed on four sides?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 54.--How many of the buildings in the fort are you willing to swear were made of slabs?
    Ans.--The building occupied as quartermaster's and commissary's storehouse.
    Int. 55.--Can you state what such a building as you describe that to have been could have been built for in 1849?
    Ans.--I cannot.
    Int. 56.--Do you know the dimensions of the new quartermaster's store built by the government at Vancouver?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 57.--If such a building as you have described that to be could have been put up for a trifling price, would the quartermaster have been willing to pay a monthly rent for [it] of $100 in 1849 or several subsequent years?
    Ans.--The quartermaster had no option in the matter.
    Int. 58.--Why not?
    Ans.--The authority had to come from Washington; he had no authority previous to 1856 to construct permanent buildings.
    Int. 59.--When Captain Ingalls, in 1850, hired the sawmill of the Company with its appurtenances, the Johnson house occupied by himself, and the Laframboise house occupied by Doctor Holden for six months, at a monthly rent of $1,191.66⅔, was that property hired for the use of the government?
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 60.--Who paid the rent of the houses?
    Ans.--Captain Ingalls hired the Johnson house individually; I am not positive about the Laframboise house.
    Int. 61.--Did not the Company have other houses besides those rented to the government outside the fort?
    Ans.--Yes.
    Int. 62.--How many?
    Ans.--It is impossible for me to say.
    Int. 63.--When you were at the Mill Plain, in 1849, did you visit the house there?
    Ans.--I passed it repeatedly; I don't think that I was ever in the house.
    Int. 64.--Can you say that no crops were raised there that year?
    Ans.--I cannot.
    Int. 65.--Can you say that there were no settlers at the farther end of the plain during that year?
    Ans.--To the best of my knowledge and belief there were none.
    Int. 66.--Can you say that you saw no sheep pasture there during that year?
    Ans.--I saw sheep there.
    Int. 67.--Were there few or many?
    Ans.--I should say that there were many.
    Int. 68.--Were they not regularly pastured there so long as the Company had sheep, in subsequent years?
    Ans.--I think they were.
    Int. 69.--Was not a large extent of land there enclosed by the Company's fences?
    Ans.--A large extent of land had been enclosed; the fences were down in many places; there may have been fields through which I had no occasion to pass, around which the fences were perfect.
    Int. 70.--Was it not the practice of the Company to repair the fences annually, during those seasons of the year when it was necessary?
    Ans.--I don't know as to the Mill Plain, but on the Fort Plain they kept their fences in good repair.
    Int. 71.--Can you [say] that in subsequent years after 1849 you saw no cultivation of the farms at Mill Plain?
    Ans.--I don't remember seeing any.
    Int. 72.--Of late years have you seen crops growing there?
    Ans.--I have, since it passed into the hands of American settlers.
    Int. 73.--Are those crops abundant and comparing favorably with those produced on good farming lands in the country?
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 74.--For what, in your judgment, is that land most valuable?
    Ans.--I attach no value to it, or to the greater portion of it.
    Int. 75.--Was it not of great value to the Company for pasturage for their stock, when the bottom lands were overflowed?
    Ans.--That, with the other plains adjoining it, was the only pasturage that I know of during high water; I don't think that any stock other than sheep could be kept there any length of time.
    Int. 76.--Could they not be readily kept by the aid of large turnip fields.
    Ans.--They could.
    Int. 77.--Is not the soil of the Camas Plain very superior, and its pasturage of great value?
    Ans.--The soil is very superior; the pasturage is of no greater value than the bottom lands of the Columbia.
    Int. 78.--Are they not of great value?
    Ans.--They are, except when overflowed, for pasturage.
    Int. 79.--Did not the government constantly hire pasturage on the Camas Plain for its stock?
    Ans.--I am not aware that the government ever paid for pasturage on the Camas Plain, or any other plain; between three and four hundred government mules were pastured on that plain during the summer of 1850.
    Int. 80.--Has it not been used for pasturage since that time by the government?
    Ans.--I do not remember that the government had any grazing camp on that plain later than 1850, although the animals may have gone there, and run there of their own accord.
    Int. 81.--When was that plain taken up by settlers?
    Ans.--The first settler that I remember there was in 1852.
    Int. 82.--Does not that plain now contain some of the best farms in the country?
    Ans.--I have been told so; I have never visited any of the farms except the first one that I alluded to.
    Int. 83.--State, if you know, the extent of that plain?
    Ans.--I cannot speak positively; I think that it is five to six miles long, and will average two miles in width; I knew less of that plain than the others.
    Int. 84.--Does not the timbered land near Vancouver produce largely wild peas, which furnish food for stock during the summer months, when the bottom lands along the river are more or less overflowed?
    Ans.--A greater part of it does.
    Int. 85.--During what years has the town of Vancouver been most prosperous?
    Ans.--From the spring of 1856 to the spring of 1860.
    Int. 86.--Was the garrison larger during those years than at any other time?
    Ans.--I can't say that it was; the prosperity was caused by that being the depot at which were purchased all the material, except lumber, for building the posts east of the Cascade Mountains, as also the grain forage for those posts. Since 1860 a sufficiency of grain for the use of the posts east of the Cascades has been raised in their vicinity.
    Int. 87.--What posts were built east of the Cascades, between 1856 and 1860?
    Ans.--Fort Dalles, Fort Simcoe, Fort Walla Walla, and Fort Colvile.
    Int. 88.--What posts have been erected since 1860?
    Ans.--Fort Boise; and I don't remember whether Lapwai was erected previous to 1860 or subsequently.
    Int. 89.--Was not by far the largest part of the forage used by the government between 1856 and 1860 purchased in California?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 90.--During that interval, what was the price of real estate in Vancouver; I mean of lots within 100 yards of the river?
    Ans.--I don't remember, if  I ever knew.
    Int. 91.--Do you know anything of the value of real estate in Vancouver during that time?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 92.--From whom did Captain Ingalls purchase the property mentioned by you in your examination in chief?
    Ans.--One of the Short heirs; I don't remember his name.
    Int. 93.--How far was that land from the Company's fort?
    Ans.--About half a mile.
    Int. 94.--Was not that land within the lines of what was claimed by the Company as their possessory right?
    Ans.--It was.
    Int. 95.--Did not Captain Ingalls, when he purchased that land, propose to erect a wharf there, in the expectation that it would be found to be at the head of ship navigation?
    Ans.--I don't know.
    Int. 96.--Have you not heard him so state, or something similar thereto?
    Ans.--I am not positive, but I think that he and Mr. Vaughn, who owned property adjoining, did talk of erecting a wharf.
    Int. 97.--Since that time has he not had opportunities of selling it at a larger price than that named?
    Ans.--Not to my knowledge; I have been his agent since 1860, and have used every exertion to sell it for a higher price, without success.
    Int. 98.--Is not Captain, now General Ingalls, an owner of real estate in Portland? If so, state to what extent. (Objected to as immaterial and not pertinent cross-examination.)
    Ans.--He is; he owns fifteen acres within the city limits.
    Int. 99.--What do you estimate the present value of that land to be?
    Ans.--$20,000; I have been offered $17,000.
    Int. 100.--State whether, since 1856, you have owned any real estate in Vancouver.
    Ans.--I have; I owned the undivided half of a house and lot in Vancouver, and a house on the government reserve.
    Int. 101.--What price did you obtain for your property, and where was it situated?
    Ans.--The house on the government reserve I sold for $1,000; it cost me §3,500. The other property was on Main Street, in the business part of the town; we paid $300 for that property; the house cost that much; we sold it for $900, during one of the periodical excitements about the capital being removed to Vancouver.
    Int. 102.--While you owned it, for how much was it rented per month?
    Ans.--For $25; I had rented it before we bought it to the Indian Department,
    Int. 103.--Did you ever own a block in the rear of the town?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 104.--By what kind of title did Captain Ingalls receive and dispose of his land?
    Ans.--I don't know the nature of the deed he received; when he sold he gave a quitclaim deed.
    Int. 105.--By what sort of title are lots disposed of in Vancouver, so far as you know?
    Ans.--I don't know.
    Int. 106.--Do you not know what sort of a title you received and gave for the house and lot mentioned by you?
    Ans.--I received and gave a quitclaim.
    Int. 107.--How much of the mile square at Vancouver would you not give government price for, and what part of that land, alluding to the 20th direct interrogatory?
    Ans.--The north half.
    Int. 108.--Do you not know that land adjacent to the north half of the reserve is now selling at from $300 to $400 an acre?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 109.--Do you know what General Harney gave for a block in that vicinity?
    Ans.--I don't remember the price; I never knew it.
    Int. 110.--From whom did General Harney purchase the land mentioned by you in answer to the 20th direct interrogatory?
    Ans.--J. W. Nye.
    Int. 111.--Was not that land part of what was claimed by the Company, and were not their fences upon it when it was purchased by General Harney?
    Ans.--It was part of the land claimed by the Company; there was a fence on a portion of the west line, erected by Alexander Pambrun; I don't think there was any other fence on the place; I know that General Harney immediately enclosed a portion of it with a new fence.
    Int. 112.--Do you not know that, in 1859, when complaint was made to General Harney, by the agent of the Company on account of this purchase, he relinquished in writing all occupation of the land. (Objected to by counsel of the United States, because the writing is the best evidence, and no attempt is made to account for its non-production. The counsel now demands the production and inspection of the writing alluded to, if any such exists. The counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company hereby gives notice that a letter signed by General Harney, dated April 4, 1859, in which he informs the agent of the Hudson's Bay Company that he has relinquished the occupation of the land referred to in the above question, is filed before the Commission before whom this proceeding is pending, and therefore the original letter cannot be here produced.)
    Ans.--This is the first time that ever I have heard of it; I know that he never relinquished possession.
    Int. 113.--Do you know the price per acre paid for that land by General Harney?
    Ans.--I don't know; I have the deed in ray possession; I think it did not exceed $10 an acre.
    Int. 114.--What sort of land is that; is it timbered or cleared?
    Ans.--A greater portion of it is timber.
    Int. 115.--Is there any tillable land within that 110 acres; if so, how much?
    Ans.--About twenty acres, I think; what I mean by tillable land is land cleared ready for the plow.
    Int. 116.--How far is this land from the Company's fort?
    Ans.--I should say a short mile.
    Int. 117.--How wide is Ryan's claim between Harney's land and the reserve?
    Ans.--I think that it is less than three-quarters of a mile.
    Int. 118.--On the Harney land, is there any bottom ground?
    Ans.--None.
    Int. 119.--How do you know that the building there cost $2,000?
    Ans.--By seeing many of the bills, and by paying most of the bills myself.
    Int. 120.--What sort of title do you propose to give for this property, as agent for General Harney, in case a sale is made?
    Ans.--I have not thought of it at all, but I will give any title the purchaser demands.
    Int. 121.--Will you give a warrantee deed against all persons whatever?
    Ans.--I will.
    Int. 122.--Are you authorized to make any such title?
    Ans.--I have never examined the power of attorney very closely, but I think I am.
    Int. 123.--When you say that you wouldn't give government price for the north half of the mile square at Vancouver, and that you suppose a part of the farming land would be worth about $10 an acre, do you mean to say that the site, considering its location upon the Columbia River, its vicinity to the town, and to the adjacent farming country, is worth only the price named?
    Ans.--I do.
    Int. 124.--If you were owner of it, would you sell it for that sum?
    Ans.--I would.
    Int. 125.--If you had owned it in 1849, would you have sold it for that sum?
    Ans.--I would not.
    Int. 126.--What, then, would you have considered its value?
    Ans.--I never fixed any value on it, but then believed that there would, eventually, be a town of some importance on that ground; in fact, there was a county seat laid out on it.
    Int. 127.--Do you not believe that, if in 1849 or 1850, the Company had sold lots below the post and along the river, they could have realized a very large amount of money thereby? (Objected to, because the United States has not contracted to pay the Company what they might have made, but for whatever rights they had in and after 1863. The counsel for the Company insists that the foregoing objection is improper, because it contains matter to be disposed of by the Commission, and not by counsel in objection to interrogatories.)
    Ans.--I don't think that anyone would have purchased land of the Hudson's Bay Company outside of their enclosures; they had no enclosures acknowledged to be theirs, within one mile of the fort--downstream--except garden patches adjoining the cabins of their servants.
    Int. 128.--What do you mean by acknowledged to be theirs?
    Ans.--It was claimed by Short, and in his possession.
    Int. 129.--Did he claim that he erected there?
    Ans.--I don't know.
    Int. 130.--Were they not as old fences, and precisely like others of the Company in the vicinity?
    Ans.--They were.
    Int. 131.--Were there not large enclosures west and south of the fort which, if sold in lots, would have afforded room for the business of a large town?
    Ans.--From the western line of pickets to the western line of their enclosures did not exceed 300 yards, in my opinion, from the front line of these enclosures; they did not extend to the river at that time; to the north of the line of their enclosure did not exceed one-quarter of a mile.
    Int. 132.--At the time you built the house referred to in your testimony, did not the Company protest against your putting it up?
    Ans.--I have no recollection of it.
    Int. 133.--Do you not know that it was the subject of correspondence between the military authorities and the Company at that time?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 134.--Did not the Company have good roads from the fort to the farms in all parts of the tract claimed by them?
    Ans.--l think they never did anything more than to cut the brush out of the roads where there was timber, and to use the same trail where they traveled through the prairies long enough to make a road; they built a bridge across the creek back of the fort, but that had ceased to be passable when I arrived in the country, and it was never repaired.
    Int. 135.--Having expressed your opinion as to the manner in which the Company made the roads, will you now say whether they were in good condition.
    Ans.--For carts and two-horse wagons, with light loads, they were.
    Int. 136.--When you say that the only use to which the Company's buildings could be put, after 1849, was for stowing hay, do you mean to say that the use to which they were put for storing and selling merchandise and quartermaster and commissary's property for several years was an improper or unfit one?
    Ans.--I do.
    Int. 136.--Why was it unfit, so far as the sale store was concerned; was not that watertight, secure and convenient, as any other place of trade in the country?
    Ans.--I believe the store was watertight, but I considered it unfit for any other kind of trade than the one they carried on, it being the Indian trade at that time; it was dark, cold, and all the inside work of the roughest character.
    Int. 138.--How many windows were there in the lower story?
    Ans.--I don't remember, but they were very small windows, small glass, such as [is] never used in sale stores.
    Int. 139.--State whether in 1849 the government was not ready to purchase all the farm produce that could be produced about Vancouver?
    Ans.--I think not; they had no use for a large supply.
    Int. 140.--Did it not have use, in subsequent years; for all that could be produced?
    Ans.--Yes, sir.
    Int. 141.--How much hay was annually purchased, and what price, if you recollect?
    Ans.--I don't remember the quantity purchased; I don't think it was less than 200 tons a year after 1849; the price varied from $15 to $30 a ton.
    Int. 142.--What was the average yield of hay per acre on the Fort and Lower Plains?
    Ans.--I couldn't say; I don't know.
    Int. 143.--How many oats were purchased annually, and at what price?
    Ans.--I don't remember.
    Int. 144.--Can you say what was the yield per acre of oats on the Company's farm?
     Ans.--I cannot.
    Int. 146.--Do you know how much wheat was purchased, and at what price?
    Ans.--I am not aware of their purchasing any wheat.
    Int. 146.--From whom did the government obtain its beef cattle?
    Ans.--John Switzler supplied them with beef principally from the spring of 1849 to the spring of 1853.
    Int. 147.--What price was paid, and how much was purchased annually?
    Ans.--I think the price would average for those years mentioned eighteen cents, delivered to the commissary; I have no idea of the amount.
    Int. 148.--Did not Switzler obtain the cattle to fill his contract chiefly from the Company?
    Ans.--He did not; the cattle for the largest contract filled by him were purchased of Waldo, of the Waldo Hills, near Salem.
    Int. 149.--Was it not generally understood that many of the Company's cattle, horses, and other stock, were killed or stolen by settlers? (Objected to, because no claim is made in the memorial on this account, and because common understanding is not evidence.)
    Ans.--Yes, very many.
    Int. 150.--Do you not believe that since 1849, after the discovery of gold in California, any well-organized company having undisturbed possession of the tract of land like that claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company in the vicinity of Vancouver, could have made very large yearly profits by the sale of livestock and all kinds of produce at Portland, and other places in the vicinity, as well as by exportation of the same to California and to the British Possessions?
    Ans.--They could have made, by sales in the vicinity of Vancouver and exportation to California, up to 1853, very large profits; about the latter part of 1853 the price of cattle declined very materially. When the Fraser River mines were discovered, there was again a demand for cattle and produce, which lasted at high figures probably one year.
    Int. 151.--Did not Captain Wallen and Captain Grant lease from the Company land for the purpose of raising vegetables, in 1853? If so, state the amount of land hired and the price paid, if you know.
    Ans.--They did; I don't know the amount of land hired; I don't think they paid anything, as the crop was destroyed by high waters.
    Int. 152.--Can you give the cost of clearing and fencing land in this country?
    Ans.--I don't know anything about the cost of fencing; I don't think, judging from my own experience, that an acre of land in the forest back of Vancouver can be thoroughly cleared and grubbed for less than $150--all the stumps taken out.
    Int. 153.--Do you know anything of any sales of real estate in the vicinity of Vancouver, outside of the town site?
    Ans.--I have understood, hearsay, that Mrs. Malick sold to Charles Preux a small tract of land on the bank of the Columbia River, about one and a half miles below Vancouver, for $100 per acre; I believe it to be a fact; it was between 1856 and 1860.
    Int. 154.--Do you know of any other sales?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 155.--Can you tell the present population of Clark County, embracing Fort Vancouver and the tract of land named?
    Ans.--I cannot.
    Int. 156.--Are you not personally and more directly interested in the growth and prosperity of Portland than of Vancouver?
    Ans.--I am; but my interest in Vancouver would have been much greater than it is in Portland, had I not lacked confidence in the future growth and prosperity of the former place.
    Int. 157.--What caused you to lack confidence, as stated?
    Ans.--The limited extent of farming land near Vancouver, and the constant shifting of the bars in the Columbia River down the stream.
    Int. 158.--Did not the controversies in regard to titles at Vancouver seriously retard its growth and prosperity?
    Ans.--I think the growth of Vancouver was retarded, in the first place, more by the large military reservation which was first declared there; the settlers, other than those already on the ground, were prevented from making improvements. I don't think that there was any question of title as to the Short claim on which the present town of Vancouver is principally located.
    Int. 159.--Do you not know that the Surveyor General of Oregon refused to allow any notification to be made for the Short claim?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 160.--Were you not clerk or agent of the quartermaster's department in 1860, when the Company were removed by order of General Harney, and as such, did you not take an active part in dispossessing the Company and its servants? (Objected to, because the question assumes that the Company was removed from Vancouver by order of General Harney, which is not true in fact, as the Company's agents voluntarily removed.)
    Ans.--I was clerk or agent in 1860, and never took any active part in dispossessing the Hudson's Bay Company, but was ordered to remove some houses, only one of which I think was occupied at the time, and all of which were outside of the Company's enclosures, which orders I obeyed.
    Int. 161.--Who owned those houses of which you speak?
    Ans.--The Hudson's Bay Company.
    Int. 162.--When you destroyed these houses, did you not deprive the Company of their use, and dispossess them?
    Ans.--The Company were not using the houses, and had not used the houses, with the exception of the one I have spoken of, for over one year previously, according to the best of my recollection.
    Int. 163.--Was not the one occupied the dwelling-house of one of the Company's servants, and had it not been for several years?
    Ans.--One of the houses was occupied by some Kanakas, and had been constantly occupied since May, 1849.
    Int. 164.--Were not some of these houses the same buildings that the government had formerly hired from the Company, paying rent therefor?
    Ans.--No, sir; the only building occupied by the government in that vicinity had been removed some years previous.
    Int. 165.--Do you mean to say that the Company, by leaving those buildings unoccupied, had lost its ownership of them, so that when you destroyed them you did not dispossess the Company of them?
    Ans.--I mean to say that the Company, by not occupying those buildings, showed that they did not consider them fit to occupy, as they really were not, and that they had virtually abandoned them; they were an an eyesore and a harbor for drunken Indians.
    Int. 166.--Do you mean to say that the house occupied was such a harbor?
    Ans.--I mean to say that the house that was occupied was a harbor for drunken Kanakas; I have frequently known Captain Ingalls to get up at night and quell disturbances around that house.
    Int. 167.--If the Company owned those buildings, and saw fit to leave them vacant, did you not dispossess the Company by destroying them?
    Ans.--Yes, I suppose it can be so construed that it dispossessed them of those buildings.
    Int. 168.--Was not the stable which had been used by the Company ever since you went there one of the buildings destroyed by you?
    Ans.--I believe that I did.
    Int. 169.--Was not that occupied at the time by the Company?
    Ans.--I think not, but the building was utterly worthless; there was more fear of losing their horses if kept inside than any other way; it was propped up on every side.
    Int. 170.--Even if an old building, and such an one as you describe, had the Company ever authorized government officers to take possession of or destroy it, to your knowledge?
    Ans.--They had not; I believe they remonstrated against it.
    Int. 171.--Do you not recollect that that stable had been repaired not long previously?
    Ans.--I do not, although I believe it required constant repairs to keep it from falling down.
    Int. 172.--Was it not a new stable after 1850?
    Ans.--I think that it was the same stable that stood there in 1849, when I arrived at Vancouver.
    Int. 173.--Do you not know that military officers, in 1860, also removed the fences around the fields of the Company?
    Ans.--I believe that they did, and enlarged the enclosures.
    Int. 174.--Were not the fields of the Company thrown open, so that they were without value for cultivation?
    Ans.--A portion of them were; in 1860 the Hudson's Bay Company were not in possession of any fields other than those immediately around the fort, and part of those were occupied by the military as gardens, by permission of the Hudson's Bay Company.
    Int. 175.--Were not the fences on the western side of the fort destroyed by the military authorities, in spite of the remonstrance of the Company?
    Ans.--They were removed; I can't say that they were destroyed; and I believe the Company remonstrated. I was not correct in stating that the rails were used for another enclosure at that time; the fence was built some time afterwards.
    Int. 176.--Was not the landing jetty of the Company torn down and a wharf erected by the military authorities on its site?
    Ans.--Yes.
    Int. 177.--Was not the salmon store, a large building belonging to the Company, destroyed or removed by military order?
    Ans.--It was; but I think that it was after the Company left; but of that I am not certain.
    Int. 178.--Do you not know that the Company had corrals which were also destroyed by military order in 1860, or previous?
    Ans.--I remember one corral owned or used by the Hudson's Bay Company; it was taken down by the military in 1850 or 1851, on account of its insecurity, and a new one erected in its place by the quartermaster, and used jointly with the Hudson's Bay Company; I do not recollect any other corral.
    Int. 179.--In the various estimates you have given as to the value of different tracts of land, is your evidence based merely on common observation, or special consideration given to this subject, as being conversant with the business of farming, as well as informed as to the returns per acre at different places and in different years, by those who are now cultivating the land formerly cleared, broken up, and enclosed by the Hudson's Bay Company?
    Ans.--My opinion of the value of the land is formed from ordinary observation while passing through the country and observing the difference in the appearance of the crops in different localities; I have very little knowledge of farming, and don't know that I am a judge of soil.

    Int. 1.--Are the roads about Vancouver better than the roads overland of the same character generally in Oregon?
    Ans.--I know of no land of the same character in Oregon; they are better than the ordinary roads in Oregon on which I have traveled, owing to the nature of the soil and face of the country. The roads leading to most of the plains before mentioned pass over gravelly soil.
    Int. 2.--How were [did] the controversies about titles in Portland, as affecting value, compare with the controversies at Vancouver? (Objected to as immaterial, incompetent, and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--The controversies in Portland, I think, were much greater than at Vancouver.
    Int. 3.--What notice, if any, was given to the Company in 1860, about removing their buildings and fences, if they considered them of any value? (Objected to, because it is not the proper mode of proof, and is incompetent, because it is immaterial, the government being in the occupation of the land by permission of and subject to the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, and any notice, even if given by a tenant to the owner, amounts to nothing.)
    Ans.--A letter was written by the United States quartermaster to the officer in charge of the Hudson's Bay fort.
    Int. 4.--What is the amount of your interest in Portland?
    Ans.--I own about five blocks and a half; I suppose they are worth about $25,000.
    Int. 5.--State whether the Hudson's Bay Company were allowed the free use of the wharf erected at Vancouver by the government.
    Ans.--They were.
    Int. 6.--Which was most convenient for the Company's use, the old jetty or this wharf? (Objected to as immaterial, the Company having a right to use their own property in their own way without obstruction, or the destruction of any of it.)
    Ans.--It don't admit of comparison; the jetty was insecure, and not capable of sustaining much weight, and could only be used at high water; whereas, the wharf is a splendid structure, capable of being used at every stage of water.

    Int. 1.--What was the cost of that wharf and the adjacent stores?
    Ans.--I don't know.
    Int. 2.--Can you tell within $50,000 of what it and the adjacent buildings cost?
    Ans.--I don't think it cost $50,000; it may have; there were other buildings going on at the same time.
    Int. 3.--Do you not know that the Company remonstrated against the destruction of their property, and offered to lease the government a wharf privilege there for $1,500 a year, which was refused--the jetty destroyed, and the wharf built in spite of the remonstrance?
    Ans.--The Hudson's Bay Company always remonstrated against the removal of any of their buildings; I do not know that they offered to lease a wharf site, but do know that the jetty was torn down in spite of such remonstrance.
    Int. 4.--What do you mean by saying that controversies about titles in Portland are much greater than in Vancouver?
    Ans.--I mean that I do not believe that the question of title ever affected the sale of any property at Vancouver off the military reserve, whereas, in this town, until very lately, there has been great dispute about title, and many of the titles are to this day imperfect.
    Int. 4.--Do you mean to say that there is no question about the title to the town site of Vancouver outside of the military reserve?
    Ans.--In my opinion, there is not; there has been an attempt made by the Roman Catholic Church to set up a fraudulent claim to the town site, which for a time disturbed the title to the land between the Short claim and the military reserve; that disturbance has been quieted, I believe, by the counsel of Mr. Holbrook.
    Int. 6.--Up to 1860, when the Hudson's Bay Company withdrew from Vancouver, were not their rights considered as affecting the title?
    Ans.--They were not.
    Int. 7.--Have not other parties also set up titles to the town site of Vancouver?
    Ans.--I think not to any part of the Short claim, but to the slip of land between the reserve and the Short claim; claims were set up by two parties.
Portland, Oregon, August 8, 1866.

United States of America,
District of Oregon.
    I, Ralph Wilcox, clerk of the district court of the United States for the district of Oregon, do hereby certify that the foregoing depositions, hereto annexed, of J. C. Ainsworth, W. W. Chapman, A. L. Lovejoy, A. C. Gibbs, M. M. McCarver, A. P. Ankeny, S. M. Gilmore, Joseph L. Meek, W. F. Tolmie, M. P. Deady, J. Q. Thornton, and Lloyd Brooke, witnesses produced by and on behalf of the United States, in the matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States, before the British and American Joint Commission for the adjustment of the same, were taken before me, at my office in the city of Portland, district of Oregon, and reduced to writing by myself, in the presence of W. C. Johnson, Esq., attorney for the United States, and A. Holbrook, Esq., attorney for the Hudson's Bay Company, beginning on the 25th day of July, A.D. 1866, and continuing from day to day until the 8th day of August, A.D. 1866, according to the several dates appended to said depositions, when they were signed respectively.
    I further certify that to each of said witnesses, before his examination, I administered the following oath:
    "You do solemnly swear that the evidence which you shall give in the matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God."
    That after the same was reduced to writing, the deposition of each witness was carefully read to him and then signed by him in my presence.
    In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the peal of said court, this ninth day of August, A.D. 1866.

    Depositions of witnesses sworn and examined in the city of Astoria, county of Clatsop, and state of Oregon, before me, J. G. Hustler, county clerk of said county, by virtue of a verbal agreement made and entered into in my presence between W. C; Johnson, Esq., as counsel for the United States, and Amory Holbrook, Esq., as counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company, in the matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States of America.

W. H. Gray, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, being duly sworn, deposeth as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation?
    Ans.--My age, fifty-six; residence, Astoria, Oregon; occupation at present, inspector of customs; cabinetmaker by profession.
    Int. 2.--When and by what route did you come to Oregon, and at what place have you since resided?
    Ans.--I came to Oregon in 1836, by way of Missouri, Platte and Green River; Fort Hall; Boise; Walla Walla, and Vancouver; I have resided at Waiilatpu or Whitman's Mission; Lapwai or Spalding's Mission; at or near Salem, Oregon;.Oregon City; Clatsop Plains; Astoria; Fort Hope; British Columbia; Okanagan; Portland; Dalles City, and at present Astoria.
    Int. 3.--In what capacity and for what purpose did you first cross the Rocky Mountains?
    Ans.--I came in the capacity of secular agent, mechanic and teacher to the Mission of the A.B.C.F.M.,then about being established in the country, in connection with Rev. H. H. Spalding and Doctor Marcus Whitman and their wives.
    Int. 4.--State whether you returned to the Eastern States? If so, when, and how did you come back to Oregon?
    Ans.--I remained in the country during the fall of 1836 and 1837; assisted Doctor Whitman and Mr. Spalding in putting up their buildings at their respective stations until late in December of 1836, from thence I was directed by the Mission to proceed to Vancouver, present my credentials to the gentlemen in charge of Vancouver, procure an outfit and return to the United States by way of Spokane, Flathead, and travel with the Flathead tribe, and from thence return to the American rendezvous, and thence to the United States, and report to the A.B.C.F.M. and procure associates or assistants, and return to the Mission in 1838. I obtained, or the board obtained, three families; and at Cincinnati I arranged, on my own responsibility, with a young man named Rogers, also a wife for myself in New York, and returned to the country, making a detour onto Wind River, and thence returned by way of Fort Hall and Boise to Whitman's Mission. (The foregoing answer objected to by counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company, because it is immaterial, excepting so far as it is responsive to the interrogatory.)
    Int. 5.--When you first came to the country, and in the immediately following years, what was the policy of the Hudson's Bay Company with reference to the general settlement of Oregon by Americans? State any facts in your knowledge pertinent to this object. (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--The policy of the Company, as made known to me by John McLeod, Thomas McKay, P. C Pambrun, John McLoughlin, James Douglas, Francis Ermatinger, and, I think, Mr. Simpson, was to discourage and dissuade all American settlement in the country; this policy was made known to me first at rendezvous on Green River by McLeod and McKay; afterwards, by Mr. Pambrun, Ermatinger, Doctor McLoughlin, and Mr. Douglas; first, in refusing to allow our Mission to engage men such as was deemed necessary to assist in erecting the Mission establishments; afterwards, by Doctor McLoughlin and Mr. Douglas, in declining to allow the Mission to bring men or laborers from the Sandwich Islands in their ships, which was a prominent reason for my being sent back to the States to bring a reinforcement to the Mission across the mountains. In the mountains I obtained the consent of Mr. Ermatinger to bring a carpenter and blacksmith, under a contract drawn by him, for the services of the Mission, upon conditions that those men were to receive only the wages given to the servants of the Hudson's Bay Company, and not to trade any goods they might receive for their pay for services to the Indians for furs, or interfere with the Company's trade in any manner.
    Int. 6.--What experience, if any, have you had in the erection of adobe buildings, in Columbia Valley, in the early history of the country?
    Ans.--I superintended the erection of those at Dr. Whitman's station; I also figured with Mr. McKinlay, of Fort Walla Walla, as to the erection of that establishment, and have also made calculations as to the expense of erecting the ordinary common wooden buildings of the country, and have found that the adobe buildings were the least expensive; but while adobe measuring a square foot, with the labor that then was in the country and could be had, would cost from two to two and a half cents per foot, sawed lumber would cost ten cents per foot, and that the adobe buildings at the Mission were nearly equal, if not superior to most that there was at Walla Walla, which did not cost, according to McKinlay and myself, to exceed $1,000. (The foregoing answer after the word "establishment" was objected to, because it is immaterial and not responsive to the interrogatory.)
    Int. 7.--State whether you saw the adobe fort at Walla Walla, built by Archibald McKinlay about 1842? If so, how frequently were you there before and after that time; also state how the amount of buildings superintended by you at the Whitman Mission would compare with the extent of buildings at Walla Walla?
    Ans.--I was there as often as once a month, or oftener, until late in September, 1842; the buildings were nearly equal in extent at Whitman's Mission to those at Walla Walla, and Mr. McKinlay repeatedly said they were of a better quality and workmanship. (The foregoing answer objected to by counsel of Hudson's Bay Company, from the word "Walla Walla," because it is not responsive to the question, but it is a voluntary statement by the witness.)
    Int. 8.--What, in your judgment, was the cost and value of the adobe fort and buildings of the Hudson's Bay Company, at Walla Walla?
    Ans.--The cost, I do not think, exceeded fifty pounds sterling; their value would depend upon the object the person had in erecting or keeping them; I think the value would not exceed $1,000.
    Int. 9.--Did you have any conversation with Mr. McKinlay about the cost of erecting Walla Walla? If, so, state when it was, and what he said.
    Ans.--I had frequent conversations with McKinlay, before and after the wooden stockade was burnt, in reference to rebuilding the fort; the conversations occurred about the time that the fort was burnt; I think it was in 1841; in those conversations we estimated the expense of building with wood or adobe; he said he was satisfied it was cheapest and best to build with adobe.
    Int. 10.--Did Mr. McKinlay name any sum as about the cost of the fort, after it was completed? If so, state what it was.
    Ans.--My impression is that he stated distinctly that one hundred pounds sterling, or less, would cover the entire cost of the Company.
    Int. 11.--Was there any lumber used in building Walla Walla? If so, about how much, and for what purpose.
    Ans.--There was some used for floors, tables, or counters, and I think there were some shelves put up. Of course there were windows, doors, and such things. I do not think they exceeded 3,000 feet.
    Int. 12.--When and how many times were you at Fort Hall?
    Ans.--I was there in August, 1836, June, 1837, and August, 1838; passed again in August, 1853.
    Int. 13.--At about what sum would you estimate the cost of Fort Hall?
    Ans.--At less than the cost of building Walla Walla.
    Int. 14.--How many times and when were you at Fort Boise?
    Ans.--I passed what was called Fort Boise in 1836, and again in 1838 and again in 1853. In 1838 and 1853 it was at or near the mouth of the Boise River.
    Int. 15.--What would you say of the cost of Fort Boise?
    Ans.--I should say it cost less than Fort Hall, as it was more of a stopping place.
    Int. 16.--At about what price per acre would you estimate the lands near Forts Boise and Hall respectively?
    Ans.--The price would depend upon the purposes for which the land was to be used; if for farming purposes, the cost of irrigation would be more than their value; if for grazing purposes, it would depend upon the amount of stock the parties owning would wish to put upon them or the amount of grass that would be produced. I do not think their value would exceed one dollar and a quarter an acre, the government price.
    Int. 17.--How frequently were you at Vancouver in 1846 and years immediately succeeding, say up to 1850?
    Ans.--I think I was there three times in 1846; I have been there frequently, that is at different years; I do not know how many times.
    Int. 18.--In what state of repair were the Company's buildings and fences at and about Vancouver in 1846?
    Ans.--The new buildings at the fort were, I think, in the best repair; I have seen them either before or since; the fences and farm improvements were not in as good repair as I have seen them before; I think that was in 1836.
    Int. 19.--State generally in what condition the Company kept these buildings and farms in after years?
    Ans.--The new buildings appeared to be kept up; the farms and outbuildings seemed to be neglected. All the old buildings were propped up, and were in a miserable condition generally. There seemed to be a general neglect about farms, as compared with 1836.
    Int. 20.--Describe the character of the buildings at Vancouver and the manner of their construction?
    Ans.--The store houses were built generally with frames, upright posts, grooved from six to ten feet apart; these grooved posts were filled with hewed timber, so as to make them about a story and a half; including the roof, it would be two stories; all of them in 1836 were covered with sawed boards of the roughest workmanship, and all the buildings were of the roughest workmanship; those that were put up in 1846 were of a different construction, better material, and covered with shingles, and of better workmanship; they were rough in their construction--what were called rough buildings.
    Int. 21.--How many new buildings did you observe there in 1846?
    Ans.--My impression is that there were two large store houses, and my impression is that some of the old buildings were re-covered with shingles; I am pretty certain that is the fact.
    Int. 22.--At about what sum would you estimate the cost of one of those storehouses, one hundred by forty feet, constructed in this rough manner you have described?
    Ans.--I should think that they could have been put up for from five hundred to one thousand dollars at that time, judging from the price of buildings I put up myself in other places.
    Int. 23.--At what times and places in Oregon have you erected buldings, besides those at Whitman's station, already referred to?
    Ans.--I have put up buildings near Salem, Oregon City, Clatsop, and Astoria.
    Int. 24.--Are you acquainted with the fishing station of the Company called Chinook or Pillar Rock? If so, state when you first saw it, and how long you have known it since.
    Ans.--There was a place, a salmon fishery near Pillar Rock, in 1844; I have passed the place again in 1846, and frequently since then; I have never seen anything there, or in that vicinity, except some temporary sheds, and a few tanks or barrels for salting salmon.
    Int. 25.--In what manner were these sheds or buildings constructed?
    Ans.--I always thought they were put up by the Indians for the accommodation of the temporary salmon trader; they consisted of four posts set in the ground, some split cedar puncheons fastened up around the sides by withes and old ropes covered with poles and split puncheons; I never supposed the Company had any pretensions to claim those buildings. (The last sentence objected to as not responsive to the interrogatory, and because it is mere supposition.)
    Int. 26.--Who was the temporary salmon trader in charge there in 1844 and 1846?
    Ans.--I do not recollect the name.
    Int. 27.--Up to what time did the Company continue the use of this fishing station?
    Ans.--I could not say the time they abandoned it; my impression is they left it in 1846 or 1848.
    Int. 28.--When did you commence residing on Clatsop plains, near Astoria, and how long did you remain there?
    Ans.--In 1846, I remained there about nine years.
    Int. 29.--State what acquaintance during that time you had with the Company's establishment at Fort George or Astoria?
    Ans.--I was frequently at Astoria and in the buildings.
    Int. 30.--What was the number and character of the buildings at that post, and in what state of repair were they kept?
    Ans.--There was one house having two rooms, and a kind of a lean-to for a kitchen, in which Mr. Birnie resided, made in the French style. There was another, or perhaps two huts or places, occupied by men who kept the place; there was also a place used for salting and storing salmon, and a small place where there were a few goods kept. I think that is the amount of buildings and improvements about the establishment; they were all of the roughest character; I think they were all unpainted; I think Mr. Birnie's house may have been whitewashed.
    Int. 31.--About what was that lot of buildings worth at the date of the treaty in 1846?
    Ans.--I do not consider they were worth anything.
    Int. 32.--What became of these buildings?
    Ans.--They rotted down, and were removed.
    Int. 33.--Up to what time did the Company continue to occupy them?
    Ans.--I do not know; Mr. Lattie, I think, occupied them after Mr. Birnie left; Mr. Birnie made his arrangements to leave soon after I came down in 1846 or 1847.
    Int. 34.--State whether or not the military interfered in any way with the Company's property during the brief time they were at Astoria? (Objected to as leading.)
    Ans.--I do not think they did; I think Mr. Lattie had left before the military had come.
    Int. 35.--Were you acquainted with the Company's claim and buildings at Cape Disappointment? If so, describe them.
    Ans.--I was there in 1844 and 1846, and I then saw a shed or an establishment similar to the one described at Pillar Rock, with the diflerence that the house or shed at the Cape had a two-sided peaked roof, with the fixtures for salting salmon; afterwards there was another building put there for a storehouse; it was framed and covered with shingles, and never finished, to my knowledge; cannot say positively.
    Int. 36.--About what would you estimate to be the value of the buildings you have described at the Cape?
    Ans.--My impression is that the building last named was put up by contract for two hundred and fifty dollars; the other was an Indian hut.
    Int. 37.--Taking 640 acres running back from the Cape, what is the land worth per acre, for purposes of agriculture or trade, or for any purpose other than for military and lighthouse uses? (Objected to as immaterial, and because the Hudson's Bay Company were not limited as to manner of use of the land.)
    Ans.--In my opinion it was worth nothing at all; if it had been it would have been occupied by settlers; I would have occupied it myself if it had been worth anything.
    Int. 38.--What is the present value of two acres of land surrounding the old Fort George as a center?
    Ans.--I think, including the streets, that four lots on that site have been sold for $250 a lot, within three years last past; this would make the two acres worth about one thousand dollars.
    Int. 39.--What was the same ground worth in 1846?
    Ans.--One hundred dollars a lot; I could have bought it at that time for that sum.
    Int. 40.--Have you ever had any conversation with the leading men of the Hudson's Bay Company about the permanence of their posts and improvements in what was originally known as Oregon? If so, state with whom, and when it was, and what they said.
    Ans.--I have had frequently, with Messrs. Ermatinger, Pambrun, McLoughlin, and Douglas; with Mr. Ermatinger in 1837 and 1838, during the pending of the application by the Hudson's Bay Company for the renewal of their charter in London; with Dr. McLoughlin and Mr. Douglas, also, during those years. There was a doubt expressed to me by those gentlemen as to whether they would succeed in getting their charter renewed, and in consequence of that doubt, they were not willing to make any extensive or permanent improvements in the country, or to order any extensive supplies, more than was necessary for their immediate trade. This extended to a certain extent till the boundary line was settled, in 1846. (The foregoing answer objected to, because any alleged statements by subordinates of the Company at any time, and especially prior to the treaty of 1846, are immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Int. 41.--State what you know about the fur trade west of the Rocky Mountains about 1838, what was its condition afterwards and what produced the change in this respect, if any took place?
    Ans.--I was told by the gentlemen above named that it was the policy and disposition of the Hudson's Bay Company to cultivate or preserve the furs in any country that they had the exclusive control of, so that the Indians could get their necessary supplies; and they had made advances to Indians to give them supplies, so as to prevent the destruction of the furs in the country where they had exclusive control; but as they were expecting to be obliged to leave the Snake country, and south of the Columbia River, they had advanced the price of furs, and removed the restrictions on the killing of young fur animals, which they continued in their own countries; and as the result of this, Mr. Ermatinger informed me that the Company had shipped from the Snake country, by way of Vancouver, more furs than they had shipped from the country in any one year. As to the condition of the country afterwards, it was completely robbed of all its fur-producing animals, and as such, was considered of little or no value to the Company. (Objected to, for the same reason as the last answer.)
    Int. 42.--Have you ever had any conversation with the late Dr. John McLoughlin about supplies and assistance furnished the early settlers of the country, and his consequent treatment by his superiors? If so, state when and what it was. (Objected to, because immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--I have, both as regards the missionaries and settlers. In the winter of 1836 and 1837 Dr. McLoughlin explained to me fully the position and relation in which he stood to the Company, and the difficulty he would necessarily get into by furnishing supplies to missionaries or settlers, and advised me, as I was about returning to the States, to advise our board in reference to sending on supplies to the Missions--to our Mission particularly referred to. He also said that he was fearful that there would be complaints and difficulties growing out of the supplies he had already furnished to the Methodist Missions; that whatever supplies we received from the Company we must consider them as an especial favor. Afterwards, in 1845 and 1846, perhaps, when I was building a house for the Doctor, in Oregon City, he told me that he had a falling out with the Company, in consequence of furnishing those supplies, and that he had left their service; he said that they held him personally responsible for the amount of the advances made to the Protestant missionaries and settlers.

    Int. 1.--When did you have the last conversation with Dr. McLoughlin?
    Ans.--In the fall of 1847; I spent some two weeks of that year in Oregon City.
    Int. 2.--Did he say that the Company had charged him for the supplies advanced to settlers, or that he feared they would charge him?
    Ans.--My impression is that he said they had charged him, and that he had to pay it.
    Int. 3.--In his conversation, in the winter of 1836 and 1837, did not Dr. McLoughlin tell you that he was instructed by the Company to do no credit business?
    Ans.--Not at all; the supplies furnished to the Mission were not upon credit, but drafts drawn upon the Board, payable in London.
    Int. 4.--Did he ever refuse supplies to Dr. Whitman's Mission?
    Ans.--I do not think he did, to a limited extent.
    Int. 5.--Did he ever refuse anything desired by Dr. Whitman?
    Ans.--To a certain extent he did refuse; that is, the supplies were limited to what the Company or he thought was sufficient for our immediate wants.
    Int. 6.--Do you mean to swear that Dr. McLoughlin ever refused Dr. Whitman any favor for which he asked?
    Ans.--I mean to say that there was scarcely a single invoice or bill calling for supplies for the Mission that was sent to Vancouver and filled; I know the first invoice made out was not filled.
    Int. 7.--In what respect?
    Ans.--In respect to goods and tools.
    Int. 8.--Did the Company have the tools and goods that were sent for to spare and dispose of?
    Ans.--The Company had the most of the goods that we wanted; they stated that they could not spare them from the Indian trade. Tools they only had a limited supply, and advised me to make out my bills and forward them to London, and they would be filled.
    Int. 9.--Who of the Company refused to allow you to engage such men as you wanted to erect buildings?
    Ans.--Mr. McLeod in the Rocky Mountains, and Dr. McLoughlin objected to it in Vancouver.
    Int. 10.--What reason did they give?
    Ans.--The reason assigned was that those men would be trading and interfering with Indians about the stations.
    Int. 11.--Was not the reason given that they had not the men to spare?
    Ans.--The reason assigned in the Rocky Mountains by McLeod was that they preferred to supply the men necessary, rather than to allow the Americans to be brought from the mountains. Dr. McLoughlin had not the men to spare.
    Int. 12.--How many men did you bring with you the first trip?
    Ans.--We brought but two men to Fort Hall; one left at Fort Hall.
    Int. 13.--How many men did you have when you put up the Mission buildings spoken of at Whitman's station?
    Ans.--I had one man and a negro cook, and what assistance I could get from the Indians. At Spalding's station I had no white man, only Indians.
    Int. 14.--Did not Dr. McLoughlin, when he declined to allow the Mission to bring men from the Islands, say that his vessels could not bring the men the Company needed?
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 15.--What reason did he give?
    Ans.--The principal reason was the liabilities of those men to interfere with the Mission labors, and cause difficulty with the Indians.
    Int. 16.--Do you not know that the Company was required to give bonds to the Hawaiian government for the safe return of the islanders brought from Honolulu, and were therefore compelled to keep them under their supervision?
    Ans.--I think they were not, in 1836 and 1837 and perhaps 1838; but after that I think they were.
    Int. 17.--How many men did you have when you built the Mission's buildings, which you said were better and larger and more extensive than Fort Walla Walla?
    Ans.--We had four men, more or less, during the time, besides Indians.
    Int. 18.--How many months were you employed?
    Ans.--In connection with the farming, building, ditching, and building mills, we were about one year.
    Int. 19.--How many buildings did you put up that year?
    Ans.--Two buildings besides the mill.
    Int. 20.--How large were those buildings?
    Ans.--One was about thirty-two by sixty, a story and a half; the other, I think, was eighteen by forty-five; added to it was a kitchen twenty by thirty.
    Int. 21.--What was the mill building?
    Ans.--The mill was a wooden building, I think, twenty by thirty-five. In connection with it was a threshing machine so arranged that the wheat was taken from the field, placed in the threshing machine, which was driven by the mill power, threshed, cleaned, and carried into a bin in the mill by elevators.
    Int. 22.--Was there any wall around the building?
    Ans.--Nothing more than the ditches to convey water for irrigation, which rendered it difficult for horses to jump across. There were cow yards and corrals similar to those at Walla Walla.
    Int. 23.--How many Indians did you employ during that year?
    Ans.--We employed from one to twenty, at different times.
    Int. 24.--What did the improvements made by you that year cost?
    Ans.--They cost the American Board about $600; the mill machinery was sent out by the Board, and was extra.
    Int. 25.--Do you know the amount of damages claimed by the American Board of the government for the destruction of that property? (Objected to, as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--I do not know; I have understood that it was either three or nine thousand dollars, including cattle and everything.
    Int. 26.--Did Dr. Whitman go to the Eastern States in 1842?
    Ans.--Yes, sir.
    Int. 27.--Do you know whether the American Board at that time complained of the greatness of the expenditures which he had made at that station?
    Ans.--I do not think they did.
    Int. 28.--Have you not recently written an article in regard to that matter, published in the Astoria Gazette?
    Ans.--Not in relation to the expenses incurred in building that station, but in relation to his expenses in getting to the States was the ground of the complaint of the Board. It cost him over a thousand dollars to get to the States.

173

    Int. 29.--Are the statements made by you in that article true?
    Ans.--I think they are, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
    Int. 30.--Did Dr. Whitman tell you that he went to see Mr. Webster and Mr. Fillmore for the purpose stated in that article?
    Ans.--Dr. Whitman, when he left his station to go the States, gave me the facts as stated in that or previous articles. On his return he visited me at Oregon City; he gave me the substance, almost verbatim, as near as I can recollect, of that article.
    Int. 31.--Did he say that he saw Mr. Webster, as Secretary of State, and Mr. Fillmore, as President, upon the subject?
    Ans.--He said he called upon them both, and had the conversations with them.
    Int. 32.--When did Dr. Whitman die?
    Ans.--He was killed in 1847.
    Int. 33.--When did Mr. Fillmore become President?
    Ans.--If my memory serves me, he became President on the death of General Taylor.
    Int. 34.--When did General Taylor die?
    Ans.--I cannot say what year; it is a matter I have not charged my mind with at all.
    Int. 35.--How, then, can you say that Dr. Whitman saw Mr. Fillmore, as the President, in 1842?
    Ans.--That is the impression that passed in my mind when I inserted the name Fillmore as being President at that time.
    Int. 36.--Have you not said that Dr. Whitman told you he saw Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Webster at the time he was in Washington?
    Ans.--I think I said so.
    Int. 37.--Will you now swear that he told you that he saw either of those gentlemen at that time?
    Ans.--I am pretty positive that he told me that he saw Mr. Webster; and if Mr. Fillmore was acting President in the winter of 1842-43, he saw him. I am satisfied that Dr. Whitman told me that he saw the President, and my own impression is that Fillmore was acting President; but I had a doubt in my own mind when I penned the article, whether it was him or Tyler.
    Int. 38.--Did Dr. Whitman inform you that Mr. Webster stated that he (Mr. Webster) was ready to part with what was to him an unknown and unimportant portion of our national domain, for the privileges of a small settlement in Maine, and the fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland?
    Ans.--The substance of that idea was communicated to me by Dr. Whitman.
    Int. 39.--Do you not know that Dr. Whitman reported to the American Board that he had been treated by the officers of the Hudson's Bay Company with the utmost and unlimited kindness all the time he had been in Oregon?
    Ans.--I am well satisfied that Dr. Whitman reported that to the American Board; I did the same myself when I was home.
    Int. 40.--Are you not the same W. H. Gray who, as member of the Legislative Committee in 1845, signed a memorial to Congress asking for the establishment of a Territorial government?
    Ans.--I am.
    Int. 41.--Does not that memorial contain this sentence, speaking of the subjects of Great Britain: "It is but just to say that their conduct towards us has been mostly friendly, liberal, and philanthropic," And also this: "The British subjects and American citizens vie with each other in their obedience and respect to the laws, and in promoting the common good and general welfare of Oregon"?
    Ans.--I think those passages are in that memorial.
    Int. 42.--During the time that you were connected with the Mission, was not every facility and courtesy for transportation or temporary dwelling at the posts of the Company extended to the members of the Mission by the Company's agents?
    Ans.--I think, as to the facilities for transportation, there was nothing extra. So far as facilities for temporary residence, it did not appear to me that the Company, as such, were disposed to put themselves out of the way, and in consequence of that fact there was but little visiting or remaining about the posts of the Company.
    Int. 43.--Was there ever any lack of courtesy or of the spirit of accommodation manifested by any of the Company; if so, by whom?
    Ans.--We used to think there was, occasionally, by Mr. Pambrun, and also by the controlling influence at Vancouver.
    Int. 44.--Did you not, in 1839, apply to Dr. McLoughlin for the situation of teacher for your wife?
    Ans.--I think I did.
    Int. 45.--Did he decline to employ her?
    Ans.--I do not recollect distinctly the result of that application; she was not employed.
    Int. 46.--Did you at the same time seek for employment at Vancouver?
    Ans.--My impression is that I did.
    Int. 47.--Have you not been conscious of an unfriendly feeling towards the Company and its agents ever since their refusal to employ you and your wife?
    Ans.--Not on account of that transaction or refusal to employ us.
    Int. 48.--Do you mean to say that you and your wife, and Dr. and Mrs. Whitman, did not make frequent and prolonged visits to Walla Walla and Fort Vancouver?
    Ans.--I mean to say that me and my wife never visited Vancouver but once; we were compelled, in consequence of a misunderstanding between Mr. Spalding and ourselves, to remain at Walla Walla (or rather my wife was) during the winter of 1839 and 1840, some two or three weeks, awaiting my return from Vancouver. On my return we went directly to Dr. Whitman's station; we seldom visited the fort afterwards. Dr. and Mrs. Whitman made frequent calls upon Mr. Pambrun's family, and occasionally visited Fort Vancouver. Between some of the gentlemen of the Company, Dr. Whitman and family, myself and family, there was always a cordial and agreeable association and acquaintance, and we always felt that it was private, and had nothing to do with the affairs of the Company.
    Int. 49.--Was the Company on this coast known or represented except by its agents at its posts?
    Ans.--There was always in our intercourse with the gentlemen of the Company a distinction kept up by themselves, as to the manner in which we should regard them in our private business or social relations, and in their actions and business relations as connected with the Company.
    Int. 50.--Did you know the Hudson's Bay Company, except by its representatives at its posts?
    Ans.--We always understood there was a double action, so far as related to the gentlemen of the Company and the Company itself; the question might be answered--we did.
    Int. 51.--Do you then mean to say that the agents of the Company acted differently as private individuals and as agents?
    Ans.--I mean to say they acted in a double capacity.
    Int. 52.--In what capacity did you act?
    Ans.--I acted as secular agent to the Mission of the A.B.C.F.M.
    Int. 53.--What was your pay, and what were your duties?
    Ans.--My pay and that of my family was simply what we ate and wore and would naturally consume; my duties were attending to the secular department of the Mission, assisting in building mills and attending farms.
    Int. 54.--Do you mean to say that you came out in 1836 without any wages except subsistence and clothing?
    Ans.--I do.
    Int. 55.--How much salary did Dr. Whitman receive?
    Ans.--I do not think he ever received one dollar as salary.
    Int. 56.--Were you not entirely subject to Dr. Whitman's direction?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 57.--What authority had you independent of his control?
    Ans.--The regulations of the American Board and vote of the Mission as a body.
    Int. 58.--Was it not of great advantage to the Mission to
have the post at Walla Walla in their neighborhood, and to find the Indians there partially reclaimed from the habits of their savage life?
    Ans.--When that post was under the supervision and direction of Mr. Pambrun and Mr. McKinlay, it was a great advantage to both the Mission and fort; as soon as it passed into the hands of Mr. McBean, it became the immediate cause, with other influences in that section, of the destruction of the Mission.
    Int. 59.--When did Mr. McBean take charge?
    Ans.--I am unable to say; it was after 1842.
    Int. 60.--When did you leave Dr. Whitman's?
    Ans.--In the fall of 1842.
    Int. 61.--Do you not know that Mr. McKinlay continued there until 1846?
    Ans.--I do not; I saw him in Oregon City before 1846; I am almost positive it was 1845, residing there.
    Int. 62.--Were you at Whitman's or at Walla Walla between 1842 and 1848?
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 63.--In saying that McBean's occupation of the fort resulted in part as just stated by you, do you pretend to know anything about it, or is your opinion based upon rumors?
    Ans.--My knowledge and opinions are based upon the testimony which has been given and published in relation to the destruction of that Mission, and the particular accounts I have received from the Indians in that section of the country since 1861, which I believe to be substantially correct.
    Int. 64.--Are you as certain in regard to that statement as you were that Fillmore was President in the winter of 1842 and 1843?
    Ans.--I am considerably more certain than of that, as I have more thoroughly studied the subject.
    Int. 65.--Do you not know that Indians often fabricate stories to suit their own purposes?
    Ans.--That depends altogether upon the object to be accomplished.
    Int. 66.--When Mr. McKinlay told you that the buildings at Fort Walla Walla cost a hundred pounds sterling or less, did he not say that was all the money he was obliged to pay out?
    Ans.--I think he said it was all that was required; that it was the full extent of it.
    Int. 67.--Did he include the expense of bringing men from Europe, Canada, or the Islands, to do the work?
    Ans.--The men that did the work were Kanakas, with the Indians that were employed. He said he was obliged to have a certain number of men at the fort for the protection of the property, and all the additional expense of putting up the establishment to the Company would not exceed the sum stated.
    Int. 68.--Did he include anything but the extra work required in that sum?
    Ans.--I think he included the total expense of the concern, without including the protection of the fort, property, &c. He figured in that the expense of bringing some four Kanakas there, which was not much at that time.
    Int. 69.--If a stranger had come to that place alone, with no fort at Vancouver, or other settlements west of the Rocky Mountains, how much money do you believe it would have cost him to have brought the men there, furnished the materials and provisions and protection to build such a fort among such Indians?
    Ans.--I don't believe it would have cost more than it did us to build the Mission.
    Int. 70.--How much did it cost to bring Dr. Whitman's party from the States, to send you home and bring you out again with men, and to purchase supplies at Vancouver, before your Mission was built?
    Ans.--I am not able to say.
    Int. 71.--Could you have built the Mission, supplied and protected yourselves, but for the aid furnished by the Company, and the fact that the Company had establishments in the vicinity convenient for your assistance?
    Ans.--We came to the country without any particular knowledge of and entirely independent of the Company, and expected to establish our Mission without any assistance from them. At the American rendezvous we learned from Captain Wyeth, McLeod, and Mr. McKay, that we could get supplies of the Methodist Mission, and also of the Hudson's Bay Company, and, in consequence of this information, we sold and threw away a large amount of supplies that were not able to get replaced at Vancouver; so far as the protection of the Company afforded, my impression is, and always has been, that the Mission of the board and of the Methodists would have been far more successful had there been no Hudson's Bay Company in the country.
    Int. 72.--Have you not made on several occasions statements different from this contained in your last answers?
    Ans.--I have repeatedly said that the Company's establishments being in the country was a great convenience both to the Missions and the settler, but never admitted, to my knowledge, their being necessary.
    Int. 73.--What was lumber worth at Walla Walla in 1842?
    Ans.--About ten cents per foot.
    Int. 74.--How many doors were there in the fort at Walla Walla?
    Ans.--I don't know.
    Int. 75.--How many feet of lumber are required for a door?
    Ans.--About eighteen or twenty feet.
    Int. 76.--How many feet were required for the counters?
    Ans.--About twenty-four feet.
    Int. 77.--How many feet were required for the floors?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 78.--How many feet were required for the shutters?
    Ans.--There were no shutters about it, at least when I left there.
    Int. 79.--Will you say on oath that not more than three thousand feet of lumber were used in that fort?
    Ans.--I have my doubts whether there was as much as that used.
    Int. 80.--Were any of the buildings ceiled?
    Ans.--Not when I left; I have understood that some rooms have been finished off since I left.
    Int. 81.--What was finished when you left?
    Ans.--The main wall and two bastions, the store and two rooms occupied by Mr. McKinlay, also the men's quarters were, as I supposed, nearly or quite considered finished.
    Int. 82.--Was not the wall upon a stone foundation?
    Ans.--Yes, sir.
    Int. 83.--How far was that stone brought?
    Ans.--From along the bank of the Columbia River.
    Int. 84.--What distance?
    Ans.--I think within three-quarters of a mile.
    Int. 85.--What would it cost to bring stone for the foundation of a wall a hundred and thirteen feet square from that distance?
    Ans.--That would depend upon the persons employed and the amount paid per day for man and team.
    Int. 86.--What sort of gates were used in the wall, how many, and of what size?
    Ans.--I think there were two wooden gates, one in front and one in the rear; my impression is that those gates were from eight to ten feet wide--double gates; they may have been eight feet high.
    Int. 87.--How much lumber would be required to make those gates?
    Ans.--They may have taken 200 feet--fifty feet per gate.
    Int. 88.--State how you make fifty feet a gate ten feet wide and eight feet high.
    Ans.--Counting battens and cross-pieces, which was necessary to be put on, it would take probably that amount.
    Int. 89.--Do you mean to say that a gate ten feet wide, eight feet high, double, will amount only to fifty feet?
    Ans.--No, I don't mean to say that; I mean to say that two gates, filling that space, will take 100 feet, and the other two gates will take the other 100 feet.
    Int. 90.--State now whether a gate, double, ten feet wide, eight feet high, can be made of 100 feet of timber.
    Ans.--Not if it's of double thickness; the greater portion of the gate being single thickness, with the battens, can be made of that amount of lumber; by double I mean folding; there was only one thickness filling the space.
    Int. 91.--How far were the adobes made from the fort?
    Ans.--I do not think to exceed one-quarter of a mile.
    Int. 92.--Of what were the roofs of the building made?
    Ans.--Split puncheons, grass, and dirt.
    Int. 93.--Did you include those puncheons in the three thousand feet?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 94.--How many times were you at Vancouver between 1846 and 1850?
    Ans.--I think I was there in 1846 three times; from that on to 1850 I was there occasionally.
    Int. 95.--Were you there twice between 1846 and 1850?
    Ans.--Yes; I think I was there more than twice.
    Int. 96.--State which of the buildings were propped up and in a miserable condition between 1846 and 1850.
    Ans.--Those on the west or lower end of the fort and those on the north side; the main house was in rather a shaky condition; the long apartments used for the clerks was in tolerable repair; the center office and the new store houses, with the new bastion, were in good condition.
    Int. 97.--What did you mean by saying in your examination-in-chief that all the old buildings were propped up and were in a miserable condition generally?
    Ans.--I meant just those I have described as old buildings.
    Int. 98.--When you say that one of the new storehouses 100x40 feet could have been built for from five hundred to a thousand dollars, state the basis of your estimate.
    Ans.--The price of lumber and labor.
    Int. 99.--How much lumber is there in those buildings?
    Ans.--I could not say.
    Int. 100.--How many shingles?
    Ans.--It takes six shingles to the square foot, laying them six inches to the weather.
    Int. 101.--Suppose they were laid four inches to the weather, as they were? (Objected to, because there is no evidence whatever that those shingles were thus laid.)
    Ans.--I do not know that they were laid four inches to the weather; it would take nine if they were so laid.
    Int. 102.--How many thousand shingles would be required at that rate per foot to cover the houses?
    Ans.--55,350 shingles not allowing any for waste, counting the rafters thirty feet long.
    Int. 108.--Is there not a good deal of waste to be allowed?
    Ans.--There always is a waste in building.
    Int. 104.--What was the price of shingles when that building was put up?
    Ans.--I think $2 per thousand; I think those shingles were bought for $1.50 per thousand.
    Int. 105.--What makes you think so?
    Ans.--The grumbling of the men that made them; they said they got nothing for them.
    Int. 106.--Who were they?
    Ans.--Emigrants; they were working for clothes and supplies.
    Int. 107.--Do you know them?
    Ans.--I do not personally.
    Int. 108.--When was that building put up?
    Ans.--I cannot say exactly as to the year, but it was there, I think, in 1846.
    Int. 109.--How long before that had you been at Vancouver?
    Ans.--I was there in 1842. In 1843 I signed a petition against the Company, and did not visit the fort until 1845 or 1846.
    Int. 110.--How long did you stay there then?
    Ans.--About four or five hours.
    Int. 111.--Were those buildings then finished?
    Ans.--I think they were, and goods stored in them.
    Int. 112.--Where did you see the emigrants that made the shingles and told this story about $1.50 per thousand?
    Ans.--At a place called Linnton, about eight miles from Vancouver, on the Willamette River.
    Int. 113.--When?
    Ans.--In 1846.
    Int. 114.--How do you know that the shingles on those buildings were the same as were made by the emigrants?
    Ans.--I don't know, only as persons were talking about it at Linnton, and complaining that they got no pay for it.
    Int. 115.--From that time to the present, now twenty years ago, have you thought of that price of the shingles?
    Ans.--I think I have; I paid but $2 per thousand for shingles for my own building.
    Int. 116.--Did you, about the year 1840, erect any building in Oregon to compare in size with those stores?
    Ans.--None, without it was Dr. McLoughlin's house in Oregon City, which I erected in 1846.
    Int. 117.--How much did he pay you for that work?
    Ans.--For the entire building, additions and all, he paid me about $1800.
    Int. 18.--What is the size of that house?
    Ans.--My impression is that it is about 30x68 feet; I will not be positive; two stories.
    Int. 119.--Will you be positive that it is 40 feet long?
    Ans.--Yes, sir.
    Int. 120.--Will you be positive that it was 60 feet long?
    Ans.--I think it was over that.
    Int. 121.--What materials, if any, did you furnish?
    Ans.--I do not recollect that I furnished any material; my impression is that I did not.
    Int. 122.--Are those stores at Vancouver two stories high?
    Ans.--I should think they were not, except you include the roof.
    Int. 123.--What do you mean by including the roof?
    Ans.--That part above the plate and under the collar beams.
    Int. 124.--Do you mean that they are only one story with an attic under the roof? (Objected to, as the witness has already stated that they were two stories including a part of the distance under the roof.)
    Ans.--I mean to say that there is one story complete, and one that may be called a story under the roof, and a place for storing light stuff in the roof part.
    Int. 125.--How many feet post are those buildings?
    Ans.--I think they were sixteen feet post.
    Int. 126.--Were not those posts twenty-two feet?
    Ans.--I should judge not.
    Int. 127.--Was not the fort and much of the stockade rebuilt, and the stockade doubled in extent, between 1836 and 1846?
    Ans.--I think the fort was increased to double its original size about the year 1836; that the new quarters for the clerks, blacksmith shop, Indian trading shop, and a large house for the residence of Dr. McLoughlin, parsonage for Rev. Mr. Beaver, and some other small buildings, were in the new part of the fort.
    Int. 128.--Between 1836 and 1846 was not a large tract of land at the Lower Plain cleared of cottonwood and other timber, and brought into cultivation?
    Ans.--I think not; I think all the farming improvements about the establishment were better in 1836 than 1846.
    Int. 129.--Did not Mr. Douglas make large improvements and extend the farms in 1838 and 1839, during Dr. McLoughlin's absence?
    Ans.--My impression is that the farms were not largely extended, but the cultivation of cereals was increased.
    Int. 130.--Do you not know that a thousand acres additional at Mill Plain were fenced in and cultivated at that time?
    Ans.--If it was, I did not see it, nor did I hear Mr. Douglas speak of it. I recollect that he took me to the barns and stacks of wheat; and showed me a washing machine that there was in the establishment; that was in the fall or winter of 1839.
    Int. 131.--Did not the Company annually put up large large quantities of salmon for domestic use and for export; and was not the fishing station at Pillar Rock constantly used by them for that purpose?
    Ans.--I think the Company put up large quantities of salmon for their own use and for exportation; but a small portion of it was from Pillar Rock or the mouth of the river; that the larger portion of it was from the vicinity of Vancouver and the Cascades.
    Int. 132.--Do you not know that the Company, as late as 1852, annually sent men to that station for the purpose of curing and packing salmon?
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 138.--Were not the buildings at Fort George in use until 1850?
    Ans.--I do not think they were by any person belonging to the Company. I know Mr. Lattie went to California with me in 1849.
    Int. 134.--In what month?
    Ans.--I think it was the last of April or first of May.
    Int. 135.--Did not his family occupy the buildings until the military under charge of Major Hatheway took possession of them in 1850? (Objected to, as there is no evidence of [that] Major Hatheway or any other military man took possession of the Company's buildings.)
    Ans.--I think not; I think they went to Vancouver, as Mr. Lattie went to California in 1849; at least I understood from Mr. Lattie that was the arrangement.
    Int. 136.--Was not Mr. Lattie drowned in 1849, and did not his family then return to Fort George and continue there until the military took possession?
    Ans.--My impression is that Mr. Lattie was drowned in the vicinity of Vancouver, and that his family remained there.
    Int. 137.--Did not Major Hatheway with his command occupy those buildings in 1850?
    Ans.--I do not think they occupied one of them.
    Int. 138.--Are you positive that they did not?
    Ans.--I am positive that I visited Major Hatheway in his quarters pretty soon after they arrived on the ground. I found him occupying a tent with a board floor, his officers and men occupying other tents around in the vicinity.
    Int. 139.--Do you mean to say that you don't know that the military occupied those buildings for any purpose in 1850?
    Ans.--I mean to say that they did not occupy those buildings to my knowledge for any purpose; my impression is that they did not.
    Int. 140.--Did they occupy two acres of ground surrounding the buildings?
    Ans.--I think they did; they occupied the greater portion of the ground around the building; and, I think, when they got ready to build, they removed the old building out of their way; such as were in their way.
    Int. 141.--What did you mean by saying in your examination-in-chief that the military did not interfere with the Company's property while in Astoria?
    Ans.--I simply meant that I understood that the Company had voluntarily abandoned the whole concern previous to the arrival of the military.
    Int. 142.--To whom had they abandoned it?
    Ans.--I could not say as there was any particular individual they had abandoned it to, unless it was Shively and Welch, who claimed the adjoining land.
    Int. 143.--Whence did you derive your impression that the building put up at Cape Disappointment was erected by contract for $250? Who told you so?
    Ans.--I cannot say who told me so.
    Int. 144.--Have you any definite knowledge on the subject?
    Ans.--I got that impression from Mr. Scudder.
    Int. 145.--When was that house built?
    Ans.--It was built after 1846.
    Int. 146.--How do you know?
    Ans.--Because I was at the Cape when the United States schooner Shark came in, and the house was not there then.
    Int. 147.--What is the size of the lots on the site of Fort George?
    Ans.--50 by 150 feet.
    Int. 148.--How many lots in a block three hundred feet square?
    Ans.--Twelve lots.
    Int. 149.--How many lots in a tract of two acres?
    Ans.--I don't know, including the streets.
    Int. 150.--Why, then, did you say in your direct examination that there were only four lots in the tract of two acres?
    Ans.--My impression was that there were two wide streets running through that tract of land which would cut it up.
    Int. 151.--How wide are the streets?
    Ans.--I think sixty feet.
    Int. 152.--Can two streets 60 feet wide so cut up two acres of ground as to leave only four lots 50 by 150 feet?
    Ans.--Not being a surveyor, I could not say.
    Int. 153.--Will you undertake to swear that the streets as laid out do cut up that tract of land; or is it a mere impression without any knowledge?
    Ans.--My impressions and knowledge of the whole matter are derived from Mr. Shively, who has had the ground surveyed.
    Int. 154.--Have you any personal knowledge of the matter?
    Ans.--Nothing more than having looked at the ground and lots in company with Mr. Shively.
    Int. 155.--Having looked at the ground and lots yourself, can you say that there are but four left out of the two acres beside the streets?
    Ans.--No, I cannot.
    Int. 156.--Would not a block three hundred feet square, containing twelve lots, be worth the same rate as stated by you in your direct examination, to wit, $3,000?
    Ans.--I do not think a block on the place is worth $3,000; that is, without any improvements; at the time I looked at the place with Mr. Shively, he offered me two blocks of twelve lots each, farther back, for $1,000 a block.
    Int. 157.--What did you mean by saying that a one-third of block was worth $1,000, and now that a whole block is not worth $3,000?
    Ans.--I simply meant that the four lots, or the one-third of a block, was so situated that it was more valuable than any other lots in the entire place.
    Int. 158.--Are the four lots of any more value than the other eight lots in the same block?
    Ans.--I think they are, being corner lots, and it being the best location.
    Int. 159.--When you speak of conversations with Messrs, Ermatinger, Pambrun, McLoughlin, and Douglas, state under what circumstances those conversations were held; were they confidential or public?
    Ans.--They were held at different places with the different individuals; considered by me more as confidential than as public, yet I did not understand as there was any injunction as to secrecy in reference to the subjects spoken of.
    Int. 160.--Were they held while you was the guest of any or all of them?
    Ans.--Many of the conversations and facts referred to were with Mr. Ermatinger while I was traveling in company with him to and through the Flathead country, from Wind River to Fort Hall, and at Dr. Whitman's station. Those that were communicated to me by Dr. McLoughlin and Mr. Douglas were received while in business transactions, and in conversations while at Vancouver. Those from Mr. Pambrun were received from him while at Fort Walla Walla and while at Dr. Whitman's station.
    Int. 161.--Do you deem it proper to make public confidential conversations, even if not pledged to secrecy? (Objected to as immaterial, the witness being sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and having no discretion about retaining any communication about which he may be questioned.)
    Ans.--When the interest of a community or of a country require that such conversations and communications should. be made public, then I deem it necessary, proper, and right that they should be made public.
    Int. 162.--Did you not, before being sworn, voluntarily state these conversations, so that you might be called as a witness?
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 163.--Do you mean to say that you had not told, before being sworn, these pretended conversations to Mr. Johnson?
    Ans.--I mean to say that they are not pretended conversations, and I do not think I have told them to Mr. Johnson.
    Int. 164.--Will you swear that you have not done so?
    Ans.--I will say that I have not given to Mr. Johnson any particulars that I have stated in these questions, but I have informed him in general that I have had many conversations with these parties in reference to the affairs of the Missions, settlers, and the Company; but Mr. Johnson has asked me generally what I knew about these matters, and I have given him a general answer.
    Int. 165.--Have you not, during the last year, been very busy in making charges against the Hudson's Bay Company and some of its officers, on account of matters occurring within the last twenty-five years?
    Ans.--For something over a year I have been collecting up facts, incidents, and statements, and all the histories I could get hold of, for the purpose of giving an accurate and truthful history of the early settlement of the country. In those facts, incidents, and statements I have given to the Hudson's Bay Company, all the Missions, and all the individual persons that I have spoken or written about, as near the truth as I have been able to collect, and have also requested of all persons knowing any facts stated that was not strictly true to forward the correction, and it should have its weight in the historical sketches being given.
    Int. 166.--Have you not, during the last year, made many and grievous charges in print against the Company?
    Ans.--I do not think I have made a single charge but what is strictly true, from the best knowledge and information I could get.
    Int. 167.--Will you not answer the last question, already asked twice, without further evasion or equivocation? (The foregoing question is objected to by counsel for the United States as impertinent and improper, the witness having already fully stated what he has done. The counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company insists that the question is not answered frankly and properly, and regrets that the course of this witness throughout the whole of this examination has been such as to compel counsel to resort to this mode of cross-examination, which he would gladly avoid, in order to arrive, if possible, at the truth.)
    Ans.--I do not think that I have evaded or equivocated in the least, but have given what I conceive to be a plain, distinct, and positive answer to the question put.
    Int. 168.--Do you consider yourself capable of writing an impartial and unprejudiced history of the Hudson's Bay Company in Oregon?
    Ans.--That is for those who read the history to judge.
    Int. 169.--The question is with reference to your own judgment; will you answer it?
    Ans.--I cannot say; I have not undertaken to write a history of the Hudson's Bay Company, but of all events and general transactions that have occurred within the country during the time I have been in it, and particularly of events occurring up to the formation of the country into a Territory of the United States.
    Int. 170.--Is your feelings such towards the Company that you believe yourself capable of acting towards it and its officers impartially and without prejudice?
    Ans.--I don't think feelings or prejudices have anything to do with it, but facts are all I seek to know.
    Int. 171.--In what capacity was Mr. Ermatinger at the time he talked with you in regard to the plans of the Company?
    Ans.--My impression is that Mr. Ermatinger was or was about to be chief trader.
    Int. 172.--Is he now dead?
    Ans.--My impression is that he is.
    Int. 173.--Is Mr. Pambrun dead?
    Ans.--He is.
    Int. 174.--Is Dr. McLoughlin dead?
    Ans.--He is.
    Int. 175.--Can you state anything said by Mr. Douglas in regard to the plans and policy of the Company?
    Ans.--Mr. Douglas informed me, on our first arrival at Fort Vancouver, in our business transactions with him, that it was not the policy of the Company to furnish goods to missionaries or settlers; and he advised, and, I think, made out a bill for me for tools which were ordered from London.
    Int. 176.--Were they ordered and obtained through the Company?
    Ans.--They were.
    Int. 177.--Was Dr. McLoughlin or Mr. Douglas likely to take into their confidence a stranger and an American citizen in regard to their plans for future business, especially at a time when, as you stated, there was a doubt of their remaining in the country?
    Ans.--I do not consider that the conversations and plans and business relations that was entered into with the Company, through Dr. McLoughlin and Mr. Douglas, were of the nature of confidential or secret transactions. At the time of these conversations I do not think the Company pretended to have any claim to the country further than their chartered rights as a Company.
    Int. 178.--Was not that prior to the treaty of 1846, and subsequent to the treaty or convention of 1818?
    Ans.--This conversation that I refer to was in 1836.
    Int. 179.--In what year was this great shipment of furs, of which you spoke?
    Ans.--In 1838 and 1839; I think.
    Int. 180.--Do you not know that the fur trade was as successful and as prosperous for three years following as during that year?
    Ans.--I know that Mr. Douglas, Mr. Ermatinger, and other gentlemen of the Company informed me that their fur trade was falling off and decreasing from that time on. (The witness desires to state that since testifying on cross-examination he has ascertained that Mr. Tyler was President, instead of Mr. Fillmore, at the time of Dr. Whitman's visit to Washington, alluded to in the 37th cross-interrogatory.)
Astoria, Oregon, August 11, 1866.

George Summers, being duly sworn, deposes as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation.
    Ans.--Age, fifty-six; residence, Astoria; occupation, merchant.
    Int. 2.--When did you come to Oregon, and where have you been since that time?
    Ans.--I came to Oregon in 1843; I have resided at Clatsop County since 1843; up to 1849 on Point Adams; since then in Astoria.
    Int. 3.--Are you acquainted with the Hudson's Bay claim and buildings at Cape Disappointment?
    Ans.--I have no knowledge of their having a claim there; that was my understanding.
    Int. 4.--Who first took a claim, to your knowledge, at Cape Disappointment?
    Ans.--Mr. William McDaniel.
    Int. 5.--At what time did Mr. McDaniel take his claim, and what disposition did he make of it?
    Ans.--It might have been in the winter of 1845 or 1846; I am not positive of the time; he came over to me in the nighttime to get me to make a conveyance to Mr. Ogden from him (McDaniel).
    Int. 6.--Was this conveyance drawn by you made to P. S. Ogden individually, or to the Hudson's Bay Company? (Objected to as incompetent and immaterial.)
    Ans.--I understood that the conveyance was to Mr. Ogden, as his private property; that has always been my understanding.
    Int. 7.--If you ever saw the building erected by Mr. Ogden at Cape Disappointment, please give an estimate of what it is worth. (Objected to as leading, and because there is no evidence that Mr. Ogden erected any building at the place named.)
    Ans.--I saw the building that was called the Ogden building, but don't know who built it; I have no means of forming an estimate of its value.
    Int. 8.--What was the nominal consideration named in the deed drawn by you from McDaniels to Mr. Ogden? (Objected to as incompetent, leading, and immaterial.)
    Ans.--I think it was $1,000; it was my impression that the paper I drew was not accepted by Mr. Ogden; another was drawn by some other person before the consummation of the bargain.
    Int. 9.--Are you acquainted with the old Hudson's Bay post called Fort George, at Astoria? If so, state when you first saw it, and how long you have known it since.
    Ans.--In November, 1843, I first landed at Fort George; I have known the place or point of land ever since.
    Int. 10.--Describe the buildings that were at this post in 1846, and give an estimate of their value at that time.
    Ans.--The building occupied by Mr. Birnie was a log house, with a stone chimney in it; I think there were two rooms and an entry; one story; there might have been sleeping apartments under the roof; there might have been some log and some plank buildings among the outhouses; I do not remember the number of outhouses. I think the salmon house was a plank house, and larger than any of the others; it was for storing salt and salmon, and it had large vats in it capable of holding three or four hundred barrels altogether. I think $500 would cover the value of all the improvements there were on it. The floor of the salmon house had rotted and broke down during my knowledge of the occupation of the building.
    Int. 11.--What, in your opinion, was the value in 1846 of two acres of land immediately surrounding Fort George, fronting on the Columbia River?
    Ans.--I should think about $100 an acre.
    Int. 12.--Did you live in Astoria in 1850?
    Ans.--Yes, sir.
    Int. 13.--When the military reserve was made by Major Hatheway, in 1850, state your recollection as to whether the buildings you have described were occupied by anyone for the Hudson's Bay Company.
    Ans.--I think they were.
    Int. 14.--By whom?
    Ans.--By some man who shortly afterwards moved to the Cape; I do not remember his name.
    Int. 15.--State the condition of the buildings at Fort George in 1850.
    Ans.--The whole of them were in a dilapidated state; Mr. Birnie had to shingle the log building on the outside; that made it appear better, and [it] was better than the others; and the rest were all going down.
    Int. 16.--What were these improvements worth in 1850?
    Ans.--I should think they were valueless; I would not remove them, for them.
    Int. 17.--What became of these buildings?
    Ans.--I cannot tell what became of them; they rotted and fell down, and were taken away piecemeal.
    Int. 18.--About what was the value in 1850 of the two acres of land?
    Ans.--I should think they had not increased in value.
    Int. 19.--What is the present value of the land?
    Ans.--I suppose about $1,000 an acre.

    Int. 1.--Do you mean to say that, in 1846, if you could have purchased the land occupied by the Company with all the improvements, you would have thought it worth but $700?
    Ans.--I would not buy it at any price.
    Int. 2.--What would it have cost to have cleared that land of stumps?
    Ans.--I did not know that there had been any stumps there.
    Int. 3.--If the land had been heavily timbered, like the land adjoining, what would it cost to put it in a condition in which you saw it? (Objected to, as the land immediately adjoining is not and probably never was heavily timbered.)
    Ans.--I have no knowledge of the expense of clearing land; I never did a day's work in that line in my life.
    Int. 4.--Was not the land occupied by the Company the only cleared land at Astoria in 1843?
    Ans.--The whole point, as far as I knew, was occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company. There was no other land cleared, and no other white settlers at that time. Colonel McClure was on the west side of the creek, near by.
    Int. 5.--How much land was cleared at the point, how many acres?
    Ans.--I don't know how many acres.
    Int. 6.--Were not those improvements worth more than $500 to the Hudson's Bay Company for the purpose of their trade? (Objected to as immaterial.)
    Ans.--I have no means of knowing what they were worth to them.
    Int. 7.--Do you know anything of the cost of constructing such buildings prior to 1846?
    Ans.--No, sir; I do not.
    Int. 8.--Was not Fort George a convenience and protection to settlers prior to 1846?
    Ans.--It was a convenience, but I do not know as it was any protection.
    Int. 9.--Was not the knowledge on the part of the Indians that the Company had a large force at Vancouver ready to punish any aggression made by the Indians upon Fort George or the neighborhood a means of protection?
    Ans.--It was never considered in such light here. When the Indians made any aggressions or committed any theft we went after them ourselves.
    Int. 10.--Was not the post of value to the Company for the fur trade, salmon fishery, and for furnishing supplies to its vessels?
    Ans.--Yes, sir; I suppose it was?
    Int. 11.--Do you not recollect that Governor Douglas was at Fort George in 1850, about the time that Major Hatheway took possession of it, and removed and disposed of the personal property of the Company?
    Ans.--I was not here at that time; I was in California; I spent the most of that year there.
    Int. 12.--Do you not know that the family of Mr. Lattie were residing at the post in the spring of 1850?
    Ans.--I don't know.
    Int. 13.--Did not Mr. Eckerson and other parties connected with the military occupy those buildings after Major Hatheway took possession?
    Ans.--I don't know; I never was on the point while the military occupied it.
    Int. 14.--Were the buildings removed till after the military vacated the post?
    Ans.--I could not tell when they were removed; the buildings were in a state of decay, and gradually disappeared.
    Int. 15.--Do you not know that Mr. Piske had charge of the Company's property at Cape Disappointment for several years after 1846?
    Ans.--I do not; he lived there; in what capacity, I know not.

    Int. 1.--Look from the window near you, at the point formerly occupied by Fort George, and give a general estimate of the number of acres of open ground at that place in 1843.
    Ans.--I suppose about ten acres.
    Int. 2.--State whether or not you built a log house on your claim in 1843.
    Ans.--In 1845 I built a house about twenty feet square; it was hewed on two sides, and the corners dovetailed down.
    Int. 3.--Up to what time was the fur trade of any value at Astoria?
    Ans.--I cannot tell.
    Int. 4.--Was there any trade to amount to anything in 1850?
    Ans.--Don't know; whatever there was the Company had; there were some valuable sea otters taken.

    Int. 1.--Did not the occupation by the military of Fort George, and the reservation of the adjoining land, depreciate the value of the land at the fort and at Astoria in 1850?
    Ans.--Yes, sir,
Astoria, Oregon, August 13, 1866.

James Taylor, being duly sworn, deposes and testifies as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation.
    Ans.--Age, fifty-seven; residence, Astoria; occupation, farmer.
    Int. 2.--State when you came to Oregon, and the different places you have since resided in.
    Ans.--I came to Oregon in 1845, and resided in Oregon City until 1851, except [that] a portion of 1847 and 1848 I resided on Clatsop Plains; I resided four years on Clatsop Plains succeeding 1851; since 1855 I have resided at Astoria.
    Int. 3.--When did you first see the Hudson's Bay establishment at Fort George?
    Ans.--In January, 1846.
    Int. 4.--Describe its improvements, and their condition at that time, and give an estimate of their value at that date.
    Ans.--The principal building was the storehouse, and I think a portion of it was occupied as a dwelling-house; there were some other houses, but I don't recollect their number; to the best of my recollection they were small buildings and old-like buildings; I think they were built of square-hewed timber; they appeared to be old buildings and somewhat advanced in wear. I think the buildings were worth from $500 to $700.
    Int. 5.--What was the land occupied by Fort George worth per acre in 1846?
    Ans.--I should judge, the way that land has sold since that, it was worth $100 to $150.00 per acre at that time.
    Int. 6.--State whether you saw this post in 1850.
    Ans.--I believe I did; I believe I saw it in 1850, though I have no particular recollection.
    Int. 7.--What was the value of that land about 1850 or 1851?
    Ans.--I think the value of that land did not change materially from what it was worth in 1846.
    Int. 8.--What became of the buildings you have described?
    Ans.--I am not able to say, except one, that one Mr. Welch hauled up to my place and sold it to me for firewood after I moved to Astoria.
    Int. 9.--How frequently did you see these buildings during the four years you resided on Clatsop Plains?
    Ans.--I think on average of once a month.
    Int. 10.--Were the buildings kept in repair or otherwise?
    Ans.--To the best of my recollection they always looked about the same thing to me from the first time I saw them.
    Int. 11.--What is the present value of two acres of land, fronting on the Columbia, immediately surrounding the site of those buildings?
    Ans.--I should judge that the value of the two acres would be $2,000, including the streets. I think I could go now and buy the best block for $2,000. That includes about two acres.
    Int. 12.--Have you ever seen the Company's fishing station near Pillar Rock?
    Ans.--I have a very indefinite recollection of it; I have seen it several times. We used to travel up and down the river in canoes, and stopped at all these points several times.
    Int. 13.--State about what time it was you thus stopped there, and give the best description of the buildings at that place.
    Ans.--I think it was about the fall of 1849; I was there once; I think I was there before, but don't remember distinctly the building; to my recollection it was a shed or frame with puncheons around it in some way; it was not occupied at the time; I should think it was about 20 by 25 or 30 feet; it was a good-sized salmon shed.
    Int. 14.--About how much would you estimate the value and cost of such a building?
    Ans.--I think it was worth, perhaps, about $100 for that purpose.
    Int. 15.--Have you known that station to be used or occupied by the Company since you were there in 1849; and if so, up to what date?
    Ans.--I do not know that they ever occupied it since, and I do not know that they occupied it before, except from report.
    Int. 16.--Did you ever see the building claimed by the Company at Cape Disappointment? If so, state when you first saw it.
    Ans.--I recollect seeing a building there which was said to have been put up for Mr. Ogden, but I don't remember the date; I think it was after I moved down in 1851, but I am not positive.
    Int. 17.--Describe that building as well as you can, and give an estimate of its value.
    Ans.--I think it was in an unfinished state when I saw it, and had never been finished; the cost of it might have been between $200 and $300; it was a frame building, to the best of my recollection; I cannot say as to its size, but I think it was 18 by 24 to 28 feet; it is all guesswork; that is my judgment.
    Int. 18.--What is the value of 640 acres of land at Cape Disappointment for the purpose of agriculture or trade?
    Ans.--It is not well suited for either, and would not be worth more than Congress price, $1.25 an acre.
    Int. 19.--What is the land worth per acre at the fishing station at Pillar Rock? Describe it.
    Ans.--I suppose it is not worth more than government price, as no one has seen fit to take it up; I have [but] a faint recollection of it farther than a little cove and a sand beach; mountains come in close all along there; I don't remember how much space there is.

    Int. 1.--When you were at Fort George, in 1846, did you examine the buildings with sufficient care to be able, after twenty years, to fix their value at that time?
    Ans.--I did not examine the buildings any further than the impressions fixed on my mind of their appearance at that time.
    Int. 2.--In fixing that price, would you say that they were worth no more than that to the Company for the purposes for which they were used then? (Objected to, as the United States only agreed to pay what the buildings were worth, if they ever appropriated them, and their market value is the fair standard.)
    Ans.--I am not prepared to say what they were worth to the Company, but I gave an estimate of what I think such buildings were worth, or would bring at that time.
    Int. 3.--Do you not believe that they were worth more to the Company than they would bring?
    Ans.--Under certain circumstances they would have been worth more; but under some circumstances they would not.
    Int. 4.--Considering the cost of transportation of men, materials, and provisions from Vancouver, do you believe those buildings could be erected for that sum?
    Ans.--I think when they were erected they cost more; but to the best of my recollection, in 1846 most of the small buildings were in a dilapidated condition.
    Int. 5.--Was not the value of the land depreciated in 1850 by the occupance of the military, and by the reservation made by the government?
    Ans.--I think the sale of lots made just previously to the reservation, and the sale of lots afterwards, about corresponded in price; I mean after the abandonment of the military.
    Int. 6.--Do you know the extent and value of the Company's business at Fort George in 1846, and subsequent years?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 7.--Did you ever stop at the Pillar Rock station during the fishing season?
    Ans.--I did not.
    Int. 8.--Considering the price of labor, and the cost of transportation of men, materials, and provisions, do you think the salmon house at Pillar Rock could have been built for $1,000?
    Ans.--I think the cost of the house, when it was built, may have been more than that; I judge of its value from its appearance when I saw it.
    Int. 9.--Were you ever in the Company's house at Cape Disappointment?
    Ans.--I don't recollect that I ever was in it; it was pointed out to me.
    Int. 10.--Did you ever see it, except from the water on Baker's Bay?
    Ans.--I passed along by the house in going from McKenzie's Head, and it was pointed out to me as Mr. Ogden's house.
    Int. 11.--Considering the location of that land at Baker's Bay, and near the mouth of the Columbia, do you not believe it to be worth more than $1.25 an acre?
    Ans.--It is not, for agriculture or trade, but for military and other purposes it is worth more to government.
    Int. 12.--Is it not a government reserve, having upon it a fort and lighthouse?
    Ans.--It is.
    Int. 13.--When was that reservation made?
    Ans.--I think the reservation was not complete till 1859 or 1860; I am not positive. The reservation was extended in 1858 or 1860, but the lighthouse was commenced in 1853 or 1854.
    Int. 14.--If you had owned that mile square at the time the reservation was made, what would you have considered it worth? (Objected to as immaterial.)
    Ans.--The government would not, I think, have been willing to pay over $3,000 to $5,000 for the whole section of that land. The government, I think, paid $2,800 for about one-quarter section, or, at that rate, at Point Adams, immediately opposite, and offered $3,000 for another section.
    Int. 15.--If you had owned the land, would you have sold it for $5,000?
    Ans.--I think I should, if government had appointed commissioners to appraise the land; I don't think I would have got that.

    Int. 1.--How long did the military occupy the reservation at Astoria?
    Ans.--I do not recollect; I think they abandoned the reservation sometime in 1852 or 1853.
    Int. 2.--How many buildings have you erected or had constructed for you in Oregon? (Objected to as immaterial.)
    Ans.--I suppose I have had about one dozen, including barns and houses.
    Int. 3.--How does the land at Point Adams compare with that at Cape Disappointment for agricultural value, including 640 acres?
    Ans.--The land at Point Adams is all level land; that at Cape Disappointment is hilly; there is very little difference; if any; Point Adams has the preference.

    Int. 1.--Would Point Adams be of any value for lighthouse purposes, as compared with the land at the Cape?
    Ans.--It would not for lighthouse purposes.
Astoria, Oregon, August 13, 1866.

James Welch, being duly sworn, deposes as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation.
    Ans.--Age, fifty years past; residence, Astoria, Oregon; occupation, brickmason and plasterer.
    Int. 2.--When did you first come to Astoria?
    Ans.--I came in March, 1845, and remained a short time. I returned with my family, May, 1846, and have lived here ever since.
    Int. 3.--If you knew them, describe the buildings of the Hudson's Bay Company at Fort George, as you saw them in 1846, and give an estimate of their value at that time.
    Ans.--They had some four log cabins; they were all old buildings; they were scarcely fit to live in at that time; they were worth probably from $500 to $800.
    Int. 4.--Was there any land cultivated at this post in 1846, or afterwards; if so, how much, and how long was the cultivation continued?
    Ans.--There was nothing but a garden spot; I do not think over one acre altogether. The cultivation was continued until near the time the military made a reservation; Mr. Peers and Mr. Craigie, the last of the Company's men, did not cultivate any; they were there one at a time.
    Int. 5.--What part, if any, of the Company's business was continued at this post at the time Major Hatheway came, in 1850?
    Ans.--I am of the opinion that when Major Hatheway came they had moved all their effects across the river to Chinook.
    Int. 6.--What was the value per acre of the land immediately surrounding Fort George in 1846; say two acres fronting on the Columbia River?
    Ans.--I don't know what it was worth; it was cleared land, and it was worth what it cost to clear it, which was very considerable. I bought the undivided half of 640 acres of John M. Shively in 1845 (including the Company's claim) for $2,000; it cost about $300 an acre to clear the land.
    Int. 7.--What was the price of land per acre at that place in 1850?
    Ans.--There was no land selling at that time when the reservation was here; it was a very poor sale.
    Int. 8.--What was it worth per acre immediately after the reservation was abandoned?
    Ans.--There was no sales that I know of by the acre; I should think it was worth at least $1,000 an acre anyway; it was the town site that gave it value.
    Int. 9.--What became of the buildings you have described?
    Ans.--They rotted down partly, and the remainder was occupied by the Indians, who burned and pulled them down.
    Int. 10.--Are you acquainted with the Company's fishing station near Pillar Rock? If so, state when you saw it first, and how frequently you were there afterwards.
    Ans.--I passed there in the spring of 1845, and in 1846 and 1847.
    Int. 11.--Describe the building of the Company at that place, and estimate its value.
    Ans.--It was a small log building; some sheds around it; I think it was all worth probably about $300.
    Int. 12.--What kind of timber or lumber was used in constructing this building?
    Ans.--The logs were fir, and the sheds were of cedar slabs or puncheons, such as were hewed out by the Indians to build their huts with.
    Int. 13.--Do you think such a building cost anything like $300? (Objected to as leading, and because it is cross-examination of the witness by the party calling him.)
    Ans.--It did not cost that; I think it was worth that sum to anyone who wanted to use it for that purpose.
    Int. 14.--How long did the Company continue to use it?
    Ans.--I do not know; I did not see them after that time.
    Int. 15.--Did they use it as long as to 1852?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 16.--Describe the land at that station, and give an estimate of its value per acre.
    Ans.--The land is rough; it is under a hill or mountain, and it is worth nothing only for that purpose.

    Int. 1.--Were you at the Pillar Rock station during the fishing season in the years you have mentioned?
    Ans.--In 1846 and 1847 I was there; that is, I passed there.
    Int. 2.--Were the Company carrying on considerable business while you were there, in curing and putting up fish?
    Ans.--I could not tell; I was not there long enough.
    Int. 3.--Will you describe the four buildings at Fort George; how large were they?
    Ans.--I did not measure; the one in which they had their trading goods was a long building about sixteen feet wide and some forty or fifty feet long, I should judge; this was the one they had their goods in and lived in.
    Int. 4.--Was there not also a salmon house, about thirty long by twenty feet wide?
    Ans.--There was a salmon house; I do not know how large it was; there was also a house occupied by the Kanakas, with two rooms in it; the other one was a small building, having one room in it.
    Int. 5.--Were not these buildings made of hewed timber squared on four sides, with sills and posts, and the sills laid on blocks?
    Ans.--They were.
    Int. 6.--Would such buildings generally be called log cabins in Oregon?
    Ans.--Such as them I think would; a log cabin, in fact, was superior to them, especially if it had a good roof on it, and the logs sound. These were both rotten and leaky, and eat up principally with worms.
    Int. 7.--Are you positive that the Company left the buildings before Major Hatheway came to Astoria and went into camp below the town?
    Ans.--I am not; I kind of think he went into camp below Astoria, before the Company left the fort.
    Int. 8.--Do you not recollect that Gov. Douglas was here that spring, and disposed of or removed the Company's property when Major Hatheway took possession?
    Ans.--I do not; they had no property here; about a canoeload of goods. They had two or three head of cattle.
    Int. 9.--Did not the military occupy these buildings after they took possession?
    Ans.--They might; I do not know; if they did it was [for] a very short time. They built their buildings on the hill.
    Int. 10.--Were not the buildings occupied as quarters or for storehouses so long as the military remained there?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 11.--Do you not remember that Eckerson and Hunt, with their families, occupied two of them, and were not Eckerson and Hunt soldiers?
    Ans.--They were there a part of the time; I can't say how long. They were soldiers. Eckerson was a sergeant and Hunt was a soldier.
    Int. 12.--Did you not sell one of these buildings, or the logs of which it was made, to Col. James Taylor for firewood in 1852?
    Ans.--I might have done it.
    Int. 13.--Did you take possession of the premises after the military abandoned them, and disposed of the building?
    Ans.--No, sir; I claimed to have possession all the time.
    Int. 14.--Did you resume possession then?
    Ans.--I claimed to hold it from the time I purchased it of John M. Shively up to the present time.
    Int. 15.--Could timber be very rotten in 1846 which you sold for firewood six years afterwards?
    Ans.--It could; you understand that where the corners were exposed to water they would become rotten, while the middle of the log would remain sound.
    Int. 16.--Did you buy the Company's buildings when you bought the land of Shively?
    Ans.--I bought the undivided half of 640 acres of land, and I supposed that when that was divided what was on it and fell to me was mine.
    Int. 17.--Did you suppose that Shively had a right to sell the Company's buildings?
    Ans.--I did not suppose anything about it.
    Int. 18.--Did you or Shively interfere with the Company's land or property from 1846 to 1850?
    Ans.--Not that I know of.
    Int. 19.--Did you or Shively interfere with the military while they occupied the property?
    Ans.--Not that I know of; they were the trespassers, and when they left the property, the buildings they erected reverted to us, except what buildings were on the land owned by others, which reverted to them.
    Int. 20.--During the reservation, did you and Shively, or the military authorities, have control of the land formerly occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company?
    Ans.--The military built houses on it, and claimed it under their form of reservation.
    Int. 21.--Did you and Shively at that time exercise any control over that tract of land?
    Ans.--I have not seen any difference since I lived there.
Astoria, Oregon, August 13, 1866.

State of Oregon,
County of Clatsop.
    I, T. G. Hustler, county clerk of said county, do hereby certify that the foregoing depositions, hereto annexed, of W. H. Gray, George Summers, James Taylor, and James Welch, witnesses produced by and in behalf of the United States, in relation to the matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company, before the British and American Joint Commission for the adjustment of the same, were taken before me, at my office in the city of Astoria, and reduced to writing by me, beginning on the 11th day of August, A.D. 1866, and ending on the 13th of said month, according to the dates appended to said depositions, when they were respectively signed. I further certify that such depositions were taken in pursuance of the verbal agreement of the attorneys aforesaid made in my presence.
    I further certify that to each of said witnesses, before his examination, I administered the following oath:
    "You swear that the evidence which you shall give in the matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States of America shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God."
    That after the same was reduced to writing, the deposition of each witness was carefully read to and then signed by him.
    In testimony whereof, I have hereto set my hand and the official seal of the county court of said county, this thirteenth day of August, A.D. 1866.

    Depositions of witnesses produced in behalf of the United States, taken before me, J. M. Bacon, county clerk of Clackamas County, Oregon, at Oregon City, in said county, in pursuance of a verbal agreement made in my presence by W. C. Johnson, Esq., attorney for the United States, and Amory Holbrook, Esq, attorney for the Hudson's Bay Company.

W. W. Buck, being first duly sworn, deposeth as follows;
    Int. 1.--What is your age, residence, and occupation?
    Ans.--Sixty-two years; Oregon City; president and superintendent of the Oregon City Paper Manufacturing Company; also in connection with my son in carrying on a sawmill. I have been to some extent a contractor of wooden buildings.
    Int. 2.--When did you come to Oregon, and where did you first locate?
    Ans.--I arrived in Oregon in November 1845; for a few months stopped on what is called Scappoose Plains, six miles above the place now known as St. Helens; after that in Portland, until 1848; from that time to the present in Oregon City.
    Int. 3.--What was the amount of your acquaintance, if any, with the Hudson's Bay establishment at and about Vancouver?
    Ans.--I was frequently there; it was my place of trade from November, 1845, to 1847; since that time I have been pretty familiar with the place.
    Int. 4.--Describe the condition of the Company's agricultural operations and property in 1846, so far as you know that condition.
    Ans.--I know nothing about any of it except that portion immediately about the Fort Vancouver and on Sauvie's Island; on Sauvie's Island there was comparatively no improvement at that time, except two small log cabins, one on the slough side, and one on the Columbia side; they were occupied by men who were called dairymen and took care of the cattle on the island, I do not think there was any farming on the island except a small garden on one of these places. The two buildings, I suppose, could be constructed for one hundred dollars; but I do not pretend to say what they were worth to the Company. About the fort they had a considerable extent of farming land, and raised considerable crops of grain; but the number of acres I do not know.
    Int. 5.--State whether the fencing and farm buildings about these places were kept in repair after 1846.
    Ans.--I think they were, about the fort.
    Int. 6.--In what state of repair were the Company's buildings at Fort Vancouver and the outbuildings in the immediate neighborhood in 1846?
    Ans.--I think for the kind of buildings they were in pretty good state of repair.
    Int. 7.--What kind of buildings were they?
    Ans.--The buildings were of very cheap constructions, with sills and beams; the sills and beams grooved, and puncheons or sawed lumber slipped into the grooves. It was a style of building I was unacquainted with before. Some of them might have been with grooved posts, and the timber slipped down in them. They were generally rough-finished buildings. All these descriptions are comparative according to circumstances and dates in building in a new county buildings might be tolerably good, while in an old country they might be called rough cases. Some of the outside or Kanaka buildings were built of slabs, and they were very trifling buildings.
    Int. 8.--What in your judgment, would have been the cost in 1846 of erecting one of the Company's store houses, such as you have described, 100 by 40 feet?
    Ans.--That style of building I do not know how to get at; but as near as I could guess, I should think would cost about $1,500
    Int. 9.--Were the buildings inside and outside the fort kept in repair after 1846? If so, up to what time, and if only part of them were, state which, so far as you know.
    Ans.--I think they were kept in repair until Mr. Douglas left; I think that was in 1849; after that some of them, at least, I think a considerable number of them, were left measurably, and went to decay. The outside buildings were neglected to some extent after 1849.
    Int. 10.--If you remember, state how some of these decaying buildings on the inside of the fort were supported or prevented from falling about that date.
    Ans.--I could not answer that question.
    Int. 11.--Taking the country and its commerce and settlement by whites, as it was in 1863, for what purpose, if any, would such buildings as the Company had at Vancouver be valuable? (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--Some of them would do for stables to put horses in, and a portion of them had entirely disappeared; some of them were used for that purpose in 1863, and others had entirely disappeared.
    Int. 12.--Suppose one of those store houses, as it was in 1846, was in existence in 1863, for what purpose would it be valuable as the settlement and business of the country were then arranged? (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, and because the; Company were obliged to give up possession of that property in 1860.)
    Ans.--The answer will be the same. The different style of buildings used and required in 1863 would have made such buildings only fit for keeping hay and horses in, the purpose for which they were only used.
    Int. 13.--How would it have been in 1860?
    Ans.--I am not exactly prepared to answer that.
    Int. 14.--Were you acquainted with the Company's property on Champoeg? If so, state when you first saw it, and how many years you were familiar with it.
    Ans.--I do not think I ever saw that until 1850, but have been familiar with it since that.
    Int. 15.--Describe the buildings you saw at that place in 1850.
    Ans.--I do not know that I could tell; but there was a building for a warehouse or granary, a store, and there was a dwelling-house, but I do not know if the Company owned it; my memory as to size would be indefinite; my recollection would be that the granary would be, perhaps, 30 by 40 feet; the store, I think, would be, perhaps, 24 by 34 feet, or something like that; the dwelling-house might be 20 by 30 feet; I think the warehouse or granary was what some term a blockhouse or hewn log house, but I am not positive; according to the best of my recollection, the store was a frame building; I think the dwelling-house was a frame building also.
    Int. 16.--Give an estimate of the value of these buildings as you first saw them?
    Ans.--As good buildings as these could be built, when I first saw them, for $3,000.
    Int. 17.--State when you saw these buildings last, and what their condition then was.
    Ans.--I do not think I ever saw them after 1853; no change more than the usual wear of time.
    Int. 18.--What became of those buildings finally?
    Ans.--Washed away in 1861 by the flood.
    Int. 19.--Were you acquainted with Dr. John McLoughlin during his lifetime? If so, state during what years.
    Ans.--I was acquainted with Dr. J. McLoughlin from November, 1845, until he died in 1857.
    Int. 20.--Did you ever have any conversation with Dr. McLoughlin about difficulties he had with the Company's managers (his superiors), growing out of advances made to the early settlers in the country? If so, state what he said. (Objected to as leading, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.)
    Ans.--I had frequent conversations with the Doctor, in which he complained of being badly used by the settlers, in consequence of having advanced goods to them, and could not get his pay; that the Company complained of him for making those advances; I think he said he had to assume a considerable amount himself.
    Int. 21.--What official positions have you held in Oregon?
    Ans.--I have been a member of the Legislature; President of the Council under [the] Territorial government; I was also for some time one of the County Commissioners of this county, and afterwards Territorial Treasurer.

    Int. 1.--When did you leave the Scappoose Plains?
    Ans.--In 1846.
    Int. 2.--When did you go there, and where have you since resided?
    Ans.--In August of 1846, I moved to a place a little below Portland; in 1847 I lived in Portland; from that I moved to Oregon City, where I have resided until this time.
    Int. 3.--How long since you were at Fort Vancouver?
    Ans.--I was at Fort Vancouver a year ago last winter--the last time.
    Int. 4.--How long prior to that was your previous visit there?
    Ans.--I was there on the 4th of July previous.
    Int. 5.--How many times were you there between 1850 and 1860?
    Ans.--I was only there once, in 1852.
    Int. 6.--How many times each year were you there between 1845 and 1850?
    Ans.--I cannot answer that question; I was there often, but do not know how often.
    Int. 7.--How long were the visits you made there during that time?
    Ans.--Never more than one night at a time.
    Int. 8.--When you say that a considerable number of the buildings were left, and went measurably to decay after 1849, please state which of these buildings you refer to.
    Ans.--I have no means to describe the buildings; I do not know the names of them.
    Int. 9.--Were they inside the fort?
    Ans.--Yes.
    Int. 10.--Had they gone to decay in 1852?
    Ans.--I think not, to any great extent.
    Int. 11.--How can you say, if you were not there after 1852, that they were left, and had gone to decay in 1860?
    Ans.--Because they were nearly all gone in 1860.
    Int. 12.--What time in 1860 were you there?
    Ans.--Sometime in the summer.
    Int. 13.--Had not the Company at that time removed from Fort Vancouver and taken away their present property?
    Ans.--I think they had.
    Int. 14.--Were not the buildings of the Company in use as storehouses by the Company and by the government from 1849 to 1852?
    Ans.--The government did not use any of them until 1850; I do not know whether the government used any of them or not.
    Int. 15.--Were not those buildings at that time suitable and sufficient for storage?
    Ans.--I suppose they were; they were old buildings, but I suppose they were good enough for storage.
    Int. 16.--Do you not know that the buildings at the post were mostly rebuilt in 1845 and 1846?
    Ans.--I know they were not.
    Int. 17.--Were not two of the largest warehouses erected during those years on the south side of the fort?
    Ans.--Not to my recollection.
    Int. 18.--When you say that the different style of buildings regarded in subsequent years would have made such buildings only fit for stables, do you mean that if they had been kept in repair they were not as well adapted for storage as before?
    Ans.--They were not so built as to preserve the building from going to decay by the action of the weather.
    Int. 19.--If they had been kept in repair, were they not as good in 1863 as in 1850, for purposes of storage?
    Ans.--They cannot be kept in repair; the frame and sills were so exposed to the weather that they necessarily rotted in a few years.
    Int. 20.--If they could be kept in repair, would they not have been as suitable?
    Ans.--I cannot answer that question.
    Int. 21.--Could not new blocking and sills be easily supplied when necessary?
    Ans.--I do not know about that question; a house can be built new when necessary.
    Int. 22.--What was the size of those posts?
    Ans.--I should judge them to be about a foot square; they may not have been so large.
    Int. 23.--How many years, in your judgment, would such posts stand the weather?
    Ans.--The lower end of the post would not stand more than six or eight years,
    Int. 24.--How many of these posts were in the side of the building 100 feet long?
    Ans.--I think them posts were about eight feet apart; they might be more or less.
Int. 25.--Did you never observe that those posts were spliced at the foot when new sills were put in?
    Ans.--They may or may not; I never observed it.
    Int. 26.--Is your acquaintance with buildings of that kind sufficient to enable you to form a definite judgment as to the time they will stand?
    Ans.--I know pretty well the durability of this fir timber, of which they were built, when exposed to the weather.
    Int. 27.--Can you tell the price of hewed timber at Vancouver in 1846?
    Ans.--No; I know what it was at Portland.
    Int. 28.--How much hewn timber, in your judgment, was required for a building 100 by 40 feet, two stories high, constructed as you have stated those at Vancouver were constructed?
    Ans.--Perhaps 1,000 feet.
    Int. 29.--How much planking for filling in?
    Ans.--9,240 feet.
    Int. 30.--How much for rafters?
    Ans.--2,500 feet.
    Int. 31.--How much for flooring?
    Ans.--10,000 for the two floors, if it was 1¼ inch.
    Int. 32.--Do you not know that those floors were three-inch plank?
    Ans.--I do not know what they were.
    Int. 33.--In making this estimate, how many posts do you count?
    Ans.--I counted sixteen.
    Int. 34.--How can you count only sixteen, when you said they were eight feet apart, and the sides and ends measured 280 feet?
    Ans.--I did not say they were only eight feet apart; they might be more or less. In estimating the number of the posts, it was not definite; it was only a guess.
    Int. 35.--When you fix the value at only $1,500, is not that estimate also indefinite, and mere guesswork?
    Ans.--It is an approximation.
    Int. 36.--Are you positive that the Company had but two dairies on Sauvie's Island?
    Ans.--It was all I ever knew o£
    Int. 37.--Did not Malcolm Smith occupy one on the Columbia River?
    Ans.--A man that they used to call Malcolm had one; I never knew what his other name was.
    Int. 38.--Was not the Frenchman spoken of by you named Guilbeau?
    Ans.--Malcolm was the man I had in my mind as the Frenchman.
    Int. 39.--How many times did you ever visit the Company's farms on Sauvie's Island?
    Ans.--I did not know that they had any.
    Int. 40.--What did you mean by saying that you knew nothing of the Company's agricultural operations and the property, except about the fort and on Sauvie's Island?
    Ans.--I did not thereby say they had farms on Sauvie's Island.
    Int. 41.--What did they have on Sauvie's Island?
    Ans.--They had stock; used the island for grazing.
    Int. 42.--How much stock did they have there in 1846?
    Ans.--As to the amount, I know nothing how much.
    Int. 43.--How many milch cows?
    Ans.--They had considerable stock, but what number of any particular kind I do not know.
    Int. 44.--Do you know what became of this stock?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 45.--Was not a considerable portion of it killed or taken away by settlers at different times?
    Ans.--As to that, I know nothing more than I heard reports that some people at some several times killed cattle there.
    Int. 46.--When at Champoeg, did you so particularly examine the buildings as to be able to testify in regard to their condition and value?
    Ans.--I made no more than common observation.
    Int. 47.--At what time were the conversations with Dr. McLoughlin, to which you have referred?
    Ans.--After the year 1848.
    Int. 48.--Are you certain that what the Doctor said was not, that he feared the Company might compel him to assume settlers' debts, because he had given credit contrary to orders?
    Ans.--That was the impression that I got from the Doctor, and what I intended to have said in my direct answer; I am not positive whether he said he feared the Company would charge him or had charged him.
Oregon City, August 15, 1866.

J. T. Apperson, being duly sworn, says:
    Int. 1.--What is your age, residence, and occupation?
    Ans.--Age, thirty-one years; residence, Oregon City; engaged in steamboating; a carpenter and joiner by trade. From February, 1862, to April, 1865, I was 1st lieutenant in the 1st Oregon cavalry, in the United States service.
    Int. 2.--On what route have you been steamboating, and for how many years?
    Ans.--On the Willamette River, from Portland to the Yamhill, from 1858 until I went into the service of the United States. Since I left the service I have been engaged on the Upper Willamette River.
    Int. 3.--Are you acquainted with the Hudson's Bay Company's property at Champoeg? If so, state when you first saw it, and how frequently you were at or about it afterwards.
    Ans.--I am acquainted with it; I saw it almost daily from 1858 until I went into the service; the boat on which I was running made daily landings there.
    Int. 4.--Give a description, as near as you can, of the buildings at this place in 1858, giving size, manner of construction, and state of repair.
    Ans.--I cannot give it accurately, not having measured them; there was a warehouse, storehouse, and dwelling-house; I think, also, there was an old blockhouse there; the warehouse, store, and dwelling-houses were frame buildings; the blockhouse was a log building; I think the warehouse would not exceed 22 by 36 feet; the dwelling-house I do not think was over 18 by 26 or 28 feet, one story high; the warehouse was also one story high; the store was probably 22 by 40 feet, one-and-a-half stories high; I think none of them were painted, except the front of the storehouse; in 1858 the warehouse, dwelling-house, and blockhouses were in a bad state of repair, and unoccupied at that time; the store was occupied, and I presume was in moderate repair at that time.
    Int. 5.--How long after 1858 was the storeroom occupied?
    Ans.--I am not positive, but am under the impression it was occupied until the flood, in 1861.
    Int. 6.--Were either of the other buildings occupied or used after 1858?
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 7.--What became of these buildings?
    Ans.--They were all washed away daring the flood in 1861, I think.
    Int. 8.--Give an estimate of the value of those buildings as you saw them in 1858.
    Ans.--I do not think at that time they were worth over $4,000 at the outside.
    Int. 9.--How much was land worth per acre, in your judgment, anywhere from 1858 to 1862, at the landing fronting the Company's building at Champoeg?
    Ans.--I do not think it was worth to exceed $50 per acre during that period.
    Int. 10.--What was it worth per acre after the flood, in December, 1861? (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--It was almost comparatively valueless after the flood, as I do not think it was worth at the outside over $5 per acre in that locality.
    Int. 11.--Was the store at Champoeg occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company, or by someone leasing from them? (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--I think it was occupied by other parties.
    Int. 12.--Did the buildings at Champoeg remain of as great value until they were washed away, as you have fixed them in 1858? If not, state the amount of depreciation in your judgment. (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--They were not of as great value at the time they were washed away; I do not think they were worth to exceed $1,500 or $2,000 in 1861, on account of the decay; they had depreciated very materially from 1858 to 1861, being old and unoccupied, and not kept in repair, except the store.

    Int. 1.--Did you ever see that property before 1858?
    Ans.--I think that I have, but not to notice it particularly.
    Int. 2.--Did you know Archibald McKinlay and Thomas Lowe, and were they not in charge of that property from 1858 until 1861?
    Ans.--I was personally acquainted with them, and I think they were in charge of the property.
    Int. 3.--State what was their standing in the community, and whether you consider them qualified to judge of the value of property of which they were acquainted? (Objected to as not proper cross-examination, no question having been. asked the witness about Messrs. Lowe and McKinlay.)
    Ans.--Their standing was good in community; I should consider their judgment good.
    Int. 4.--Are you positive that the store was not painted on all sides?
    Ans.--I am not positive; but my impression is it was only painted in front, though I am not sure about it.
    Int. 5.--Do you not remember that Mr. McKinlay occupied the dwelling-house with his family in 1858?
    Ans.--I know Mr. McKinlay did occupy it; but I was under the impression that he moved out about that time or a little before.
    Int. 6.--Do you not know that the warehouse was used for storage of wheat in 1858 and after?
    Ans.--My impression is, it was not.
    Int. 7.--Did not the boats on the river frequently stop at the Company's landing to receive freight?
    Ans.--They did.
    Int. 8.--Did not that freight come from the Company's warehouse?
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 9.--Was not that freight generally shipped by Mr. McKinlay and his partner?
    Ans.--They shipped a good lot of freight from the Company's landing.
    Int.. 10.--Was there any other warehouse near that landing except that of the Company?
    Ans.--There was not, until 1859 or 1860; Mr. McKay built one for private use; his was below, at another landing.
    Int. 11.--Do you mean to say that the warehouse was carried away entirely with the flood?
    Ans.--It was not carried away entirely, but was removed, probably, fifty yards below.
    Int. 12.--In estimating the value of the buildings, please state what you regard as the worth of the store.
    Ans.--I fixed it at $1,500.
    Int. 13.--What of the dwelling-house?
    Ans.--At $1,000.
    Int. 14.--What of the warehouse?
    Ans.--I estimated that at $800.
    Int. 15.--Have you had experience in the erection of such buildings?
    Ans.--I have.
    Int. 16.--How was that warehouse constructed?
    Ans.--It was a frame building shingled.
    Int. 17.--Do you think that such a building 22 by 36 feet could have been erected for $800?
    Ans.--I do not; but in making my estimate in 1858, I considered its then value at not what it would cost, it being an old building.
    Int. 18.--Do you not know that lots 50 by 100 feet in 1858 were worth $50 each at Champoeg, or more?
    Ans.--I think the lots in town were worth from $50 to $75 each at that period; in fixing this price at $50 per acre, I referred to land not in town, as the Company's landing was a little above the town, and not so valuable as lots in town, and the principal landing for the town was below the Company's landing, probably 250 or 300 yards below.
    Int. 19.--How many lots were there in a block or an acre?
    Ans.--About eight lots.
    Int. 20.--Do you think there was as much difference in the value of an acre as four or six hundred dollars and fifty dollars at a distance of two or three hundred yards?
    Ans.--In that locality I do.
    Int. 21.--Do you not know that the Company had several lots in what you call the town?
    Ans.--I do not know that they did, but my impression is that they had; I have heard it spoken of.

    Int. 1.--Were not Messrs. McKinlay and Lowe merchants, and, so far as you know, without any experience in building?
    Ans.--They were merchants, and, so far as I know, had no experience in building, but men of good judgment, in my opinion.
    Int. 2.--About what time did Mr. McKinlay move upon his claim across the river from Champoeg?
    Ans.--I think it was in the latter part of 1857 or the early part of 1858.
    Int. 3.--Who were his partners, of whom you have spoken?
    Ans.--The firm's name was Allan, McKinlay & Co.; Mr. Allan and Mr. Lowe were the partners that I knew.
    Int. 4.--How long after the spring of 1858 did they do business in Champoeg?
    Ans.--I could not tell exactly, but I think it was sometime in 1860, before they closed out entirely at Champoeg.

    Int. 1.--Do you not know Messrs, McKinlay and Lowe had several buildings erected for them; stores, dwelling-houses, and a mill, at and near Oregon Oity, and at and near Champoeg?
    Ans.--I know that they had.
Oregon City, August 16, 1866.

William Barlow, being first duly sworn, says:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation.
    Ans.--My age is forty-four years; residence, Oregon City; merchant, hotel keeper, and farmer.
    Int. 2.--When did you first come to Oregon?
    Ans.--In 1845.
    Int. 3.--Are you acquainted with the Hudson's Bay Company's establishment at Champoeg? If so, state when you first became acquainted with it.
    Ans.--I am acquainted with the warehouse, place of residence, store and blockhouse; I first became acquainted with it in the fall of 1846, and have been there more or less ever since.
    Int. 4.--What, in your opinion, would have been the cost in 1846 of erecting the buildings you have mentioned?
    Ans.--My opinion is from $4,000 to $5,000.
    Int. 5.--What became of those buildings?
    Ans.--Some of them rotted down, and the remainder of them, I think, were all washed away by the flood of 1861, unless it would be a little portion of the old blockhouse, but am not sure.
    Int. 6.--Taking these buildings as you last saw them, before the flood of 1861, what do you think was their value? (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, the Company being dispossessed of their property in Oregon, or obliged to leave Fort Vancouver in 1860.)
    Ans.--I should think the full value would be from $1,000 to $1,500.
    Int. 7.--What, in your opinion, was the value per acre of land at and about these buildings before the flood in 1861?
    Ans.--I do not know what the value of the land was.
    Int. 28.--About what was the market value of good farming lands, in the northern portion of the Willamette Valley, from 1860 to 1863, with regard to buildings?
    Ans.--Good prairie land was worth probably $10 per acre; good timber land was worth probably from one and a quarter to three dollars per acre; that is the rate generally assessed by the assessor.
    Int. 9.--Have you one of the best claims, including a large amount of prairie, in Clackamas County? (Objected to as leading and immaterial.)
    Ans.--I think I have one of the best.
    Int. 10.--How is that land improved?
    Ans.--All the prairie land is fenced and broke and in good cultivation; large orchard, frame barn, good farmhouse and outhouses.
    Int. 11.--At about how much per acre has that land been assessed for the last four or five years, with all the improvements?
    Ans.--It has been assessed at about $10 per acre.

    Int. 12.--When you say that the cost of erecting the buildings of the Company at Champoeg was in 1846 between four and five thousand dollars, in your opinion, please to state the amount you fix on each building.
    Ans.--The warehouse probably was the best building at that time of any of them, and probably cost $1,200 or $1,500; the dwelling-house was worth about $1,200; the storehouse might have been worth $1,000; the blockhouse was hardly worth anything, not over $500.
    Int. 2.--Can you give the size of the warehouse?
    Ans.--I cannot give the size of that, or of any of the buildings.
    Int. 3.--Is not your estimate of the worth of those buildings in 1845 and 1846, twenty years ago, necessarily indefinite and uncertain, when you do not remember the size of either?
    Ans.--I stated in the start that I gave that as my opinion of the value of them at that time; I will state further that I think I could have put the buildings there for that money.
    Int. 4.--Can you tell which of the buildings rotted down, as stated by you?
    Ans.--I think the blockhouse was one, and a portion of the big warehouse.
    Int. 5.--Are you positive that either of them rotted down before 1861?
    Ans.--I was there some time before 1861, and the warehouse was considered unsafe at that time to put grain in; at least they told me so.
    Int. 6.--Were not new sills put under the building before 1861?
    Ans.--I do not know; I heard so, but do not know.
    Int. 7.--Were not all the buildings standing just before the flood, in 1861?
    Ans.--I am not certain as to that; there was so many new buildings put up at Champoeg about that time, I cannot remember about these.
    Int. 8.--Have you not, since 1861, seen the warehouse when it was removed by the flood, some little distance towards the river, from its old location?
    Ans.--Yes, I have seen it from the river; I would not swear that it was all there or not, but have seen some of it there.
    Int. 9.--Was not that the only building at Champoeg which was not carried away by the flood?
    Ans.--I think it was.
    Int. 10.--How far is your farm from Oregon City?
    Ans.--Ten miles.
    Int. 11.--Is not Oregon City the point to which you are compelled to bring your produce for market?
    Ans.--Yes, this is our point of trade.

    Int. 1.--Has any use been made of the warehouse at Champoeg, where it lodged in 1861?
    Ans.--I do not know anything about it, whether it was or not.
    Int. 2.--About what would be the cost of putting the improvements on your farm? (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--The improvements on my farm could not be put on for less than $6,000 at this time.

    Int. 1.--State whether the business of farming with such land and such improvements as you possess has been profitable for the last fifteen years.
    Ans.--Part of the time it has, and part of the time it has not.
    Int. 2.--During what years was it profitable?
    Ans.--It was profitable from 1852 until 1856 and 1857; from that time until 1862 it was just a living business, and did not pay any profit to the farmers.
    Int. 3.--To what do you attribute the absence of profit from 1857 to 1862?
    Ans.--The fact that California got able to supply her home demand, which gave us no market for our surplus, having no other market to ship it to.
    Int. 4.--During those years, was not a market open to British Columbia and the northern mines?
    Ans.--Yes, to some extent there was; but not sufficient to justify the farmers in raising large crops of produce; at least they all thought so.
    Int. 5.--If during those years you had used surplus crops by way of raising stock, sheep, cattle, and hogs, do you not think the business would have been profitable?
    Ans.--It might have been; different management in husbandry would have made different profits; there is great room for improvement in farming now in Oregon.
    Int. 6.--During those years, was there not a large and increasing demand for livestock in Victoria and British Columbia, and were not the prices offered good?
    Ans.--There was a demand for livestock; prices ranged in this valley, from 1857 until after the flood, at about three to four cents on foot per pound; averaging three cents.
    Int. 7.--Do you know the prices in Victoria during that period?
    Ans.--Nothing more than hearsay; I knew men who shipped cattle to Victoria, and made it profitable.
    Int. 8.--From 1862, to what do you attribute reviving profits of farming?
    Ans.--To two causes: first cause, failure of crops in California, and the development of the mines north and east of us.
    Int. 9.--Have you not been the assessor of this county at different times during the last fifteen years, and is it not usual in assessing real estate to appraise it at less than its actual cash value?
    Ans.--I never was the assessor of this county but one year, and then there was no fixed value on land at all, but merely on improvements at that time; at the present time I think it is usual for assessors to assess the property at its real cash value; they always favor property holders.
    Int. 10.--Do you mean to say that you would sell your farm for the amount in cash for which it was assessed the last year?
    Ans.--No, I would not; I sold in 1862, 720 acres, all fenced but the timber, about 600 acres prairie, for the sum of $9,800; a good portion broke; there was in cultivation about 240 acres, about 360 acres unbroken.
    Int. 11.--How much does it cost to break land per acre?
    Ans.--It is worth about $3 per acre to break prairie land.
Oregon City, August 10, 1866.

John G. Campbell, being first duly sworn, deposeth as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation.
    Ans.--Age, forty-nine years; residence, Oregon City; accountant.
    Int. 2.--When did you first come to Oregon?
    Ans.--ln the fall of 1843.
    Int. 3.--Were you ever in the employ of the Hudson's Bay Company? If so, state where, and during what years?
    Ans.--In Oregon City, in the year 1846, probably in 1845, and in the beginning of 1847.
    Int. 4.--Were you in business on your own account at any time in Oregon? If so, state during what years.
    Ans.--I was in business in 1848, 1849, 1850, and up to 1855.
    Int. 5.--If you know, state what was the principal business of the Hudson's Bay Company when you first came to Oregon.
    Ans.--Fur business.
    Int. 6.--Was there any change in after years in the nature of the business done by them? If so, state what it was, and to what causes attributable.
    Ans.--There was change in the business at Oregon City and, I believe, also in Vancouver; elsewhere I cannot say. On account of the influx of the population, the trade was a great deal heavier.
    Int. 7.--For how many years did the Hudson's Bay Company have the principal trade of the American settlers in what was known as Oregon? (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--From 1843 to 1850.
    Int. 8.--Give your judgment, as a business man, as to whether this trade of the settlers in Oregon was an advantage or profit to the Company or not.
    Ans.--I should judge it to be very lucrative.
    Int. 9.--In your judgment, what would be the comparative profit derived in those years from trade with the settlers and the trade with the Indians in furs and peltries; which would be the most important trade? (Objected to as immaterial.)
    Ans.--I should judge the trade with settlers.

    Int. 1.--Please to state by what means the Company made trade with settlers with which [of] you speak so lucrative; was it not by combiniug with their fur business the purchase and shipment of produce raised by the settlers to foreign ports?
    Ans.--I think in a measure it was.
    Int. 2.--What were your means of knowing that the trade was lucrative?
    Ans.--Understanding the price of wheat, and knowing the price thereof, and the price the goods were sold at.
    Int. 3.--What, in your judgment, was the number of people in Oregon in 1845, and about what the annual increase to 1850?
    Ans.--In 1845 I should judge there were about 5,000 people, before the emigration of that year came in; I think it would average 1,200 increase per annum up to 1850.
    Int. 4.--Were there or not American trading houses or stores during that period in Oregon?
    Ans.--There were; I do not recollect the number.
    Int. 5.--Did not the Company allow as high prices for wheat and produce, and sell goods as low as any trading house in Oregon, qualities being the same?
    Ans.--Taking the prorata, they did so, decidedly.
    Int. 6.--In your judgment, was not the existence of the Company and its business in Oregon of great advantage in promoting the prosperity of the people and developing the resources of the country?
    Ans.--I have always considered it a great advantage to both parties.
    Int. 7.--If the Company had not been here, do you not believe that the safety of the settlers would have been greatly endangered, or their prosperity retarded?
    Ans.--I do; very much so.
    Int. 8.--Do you not know that the Company gave liberal credits to settlers on their arrival, when they were without means to support themselves and their families?
    Ans.--They did.
    Int. 9.--Did not the Company extend those credits from year to year subsequently, if settlers were in needy circumstances?
    Ans.--I do not know that they extended any after 1846.
    Int. 10.--Do you not know that up to the time that you left the Company many of the settlers were indebted to the Company for supplies furnished to them?
    Ans.--I know they were.
    Int. 11.--Can you state about the amount of that indebtedness, as appeared upon what was called the settlers' balance?
    Ans.--I never saw a balance sheet after 1845; at the closing of 1845 there was due forty-odd thousand dollars, including a large amount due from the Missions.
    Int. 12.--Were these debts due from settlers in the Willamette Valley, residing about Oregon City, or in its vicinity?
    Ans.--The whole of these accounts that came up here were due from residents of the Willamette Valley.
    Int. 13.--Do you know whether settlers residing in other parts of Oregon were likewise indebted to the Company?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 14.--Have you any means of knowing whether the debts of which you speak in 1845 were ever paid in whole or in part?
    Ans.--They were paid in part; how big a part I don't know.
    Int. 15.--In speaking of the business as being lucrative, did you consider the fact of this indebtedness of settlers?
    Ans.--I think I did.
    Int. 16.--Do you know whether the Company ever charged the indebtedness of settlers to Dr. McLoughlin? (Objected to, as no question was asked the witness relating to this matter in his examination-in-chief.)
    Ans.--I never heard of their having done so.
    Int. 17.--Were you on intimate terms with Dr. McLoughlin from 1845 until his death, and residing in the same town with him?
    Ans.--I was.
    Int. 18.--Did you ever hear him speak of his relations with the Company, after retiring from it, with reference to credits with settlers?
    Ans.--Yes, I have.
    Int. 19.--Did he ever say that he had been obliged to pay any part of the debts due from settlers?
    Ans.--I never heard him say so.
    Int. 20.--While in the Company's service, were notes given by settlers for what was due? If so, to whom were they made payable, and why?
    Ans.--Notes were given, made payable to John McLoughlin, C.F. (chief factor) and John McLoughlin, agent of the Hudson's Bay Company; and the why was, I told the Doctor, they ought not to be drawn in the Hudson's Bay Company's name, but in an individual's name.
    Int. 21.--Please to state your means of knowing that the comparative profits of the fur trade were less than those of the trade with settlers.
    Ans.--As the knowledge I derived was from conversations with officers of the Hudson's Bay Company.
    Int. 22.--Do you know the cost of transportation to and the prices paid for furs at Fort Hall, Kootenay, Okanagan, and other interior posts, except from hearsay?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 23.--Up to 1845, had not the Company practically the entire control of the interior fur trade, as well as for some years after?
    Ans.--A great many folks said they did not.
    Int. 24.--Who besides them shared in its control, if you know?
    Ans.--I understood Sublette and Campbell, Peg-leg Smith and the American Fur Company.
    Int. 25.--Was not the trade of these parties chiefly confined to the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains?
    Ans.--I understood chiefly it was.
    Int. 26.--Do you not know that the gentleman called Smith, mentioned by you, traded his furs to the Hudson's Bay Company?
    Ans.--I do not know; I met him in 1847 going there to Fort Hall for his brandy; he told me so.

    Int. 1.--Do you not know that Dr. McLoughlin had great difficulty with the Company on account of credits extended to the settlers, of which you have spoken? (Objected to as leading.)
    Ans.--The Doctor considered that he had been very much abused by the Company in regard to its action on this matter of credits.
    Int. 2.--What offer, if you know, did the Doctor make the Company with reference to these accounts? and state upon whose advice this offer was made. (Objected to as leading and immaterial.)
    Ans.--I do not know that he ever made any.
    Int. 3.--What, if anything, did Dr. McLoughlin tell you upon the subject?
    Ans.--I decline to answer the question, as I do not desire to make public confidential communications; I was clerk for the Doctor and the Company at the same time, keeping both sets of books.

    Int. 1.--How long did you continue to act as clerk or agent for Dr. McLoughlin?
    Ans.--Until May, 1847.
    Int. 2.--Subsequent to that time, did you for a longer or shorter period act in the same capacity, or attend to his business?
    Ans.--I did not during his life.
Oregon City, August 16, 1866.

State of Oregon,
County of Clackamas
    I, J. M. Bacon, county clerk of said county, do hereby certify that the foregoing depositions, hereto annexed, of W. W. Buck, J. T. Apperson, William Barlow, and J. G. Campbell, witnesses produced by and in behalf of the United States in defense against the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company, before the British and American Joint Commission for the adjustment of the same, were taken before me, at my office in Oregon City, in said county, and reduced to writing by me, on the 15th and 16th days of August, A.D. 1866, according to the dates appended to said depositions, when they were signed respectively. I further certify that such depositions were taken before me in pursuance of a verbal agreement made in my presence between W. C. Johnson, Esq., attorney for the United States, and Amory Holbrook, Esq., attorney for the Hudson's Bay Company.
    I further certify that to each of said witnesses, before his examination, I administered the following oath:
    "You swear that the evidence you may give in the matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God."
    That after the same was reduced to writing, was carefully read to and then signed by him. In testimony whereof, I have hereto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of said county, this sixteenth day of August, A.D. 1866.

    Deposition of witnesses sworn and examined [in behalf of of the United States] in the city of Vancouver, in the county of Clark and Territory of Washington, before me, Joseph M. Fletcher, a notary public within and for the said Territory of Washington, by virtue of a verbal agreement made in my presence between W. C. Johnson, Esq., counsel for the United States, and Amory Holbrook, Esq., counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company, in the matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States of America.

Lewis Love, being first duly sworn, deposes as follows, to wit:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation.
    Ans.--Age, forty-eight years; residence, Clark County, Washington Territory; occupation, miller; I am running a sawmill and grist mill.
    Int. 2.--When did you come to the country, and where have you since resided?
    Ans.--I came to the country in 1849; first four years of my residence on Columbia River bottom, opposite Vancouver; from that time (1854) to 1860 in the city of Portland; from 1860 to the present time in Clark County, Washington Territory.
    Int. 3.--What business did you follow when you lived opposite Vancouver?
    Ans.--I carried on a farm, and two years of the time dealt in merchandise.
    Int. 4.--State whether during the time you have lived in this country you have been acquainted with the Hudson's Bay Company's post at Vancouver.
    Ans.--I have been, to some extent; I used to see it the first four years pretty often, and done most of my trading there; during the next six years, while I resided in Portland, I only saw it occasionally; I have lived in Vancouver and vicinity since 1860.
    Int. 5.--On what particular part of the tract claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company do you now reside?
    Ans.--On the tract of land known as the Hudson's Bay Company sawmill site, taken as a donation claim by E. J. Taylor.
    Int. 6.--What has been the value, in your judgment, of land per acre at and about the Mill Plain, during the last three or four years, without reference to improvements?
    Ans.--I should think one dollar and a half an acre; there is a good deal of vacant government land there.
    Int. 7.--What do you say of the soil of the Mill Plain for agricultural purposes?
    Ans.--I should call it rather poor land--gravelly.
    Int. 8.--Are you acquainted with the tract of land lying along the Columbia River, from the military reserve down to and including the Lower Plain? If so, give an estimate of its value per acre.
    Ans.--I should not be a good estimate of its value, as I never dealt in it, but I have been over it frequently.
    Int. 9.--Give the best of your judgment, as a farmer and business man, and according to your knowledge of the value of similar land.
    Ans.--I should think, probably, about $5 per acre.
    Int. 10.--About what would you give as the value per acre of the 640 acres in the military reserve?
    Ans.--I should think $8 an acre would be a fair price for it.
    Int. 11.--What would you say is the value per acre of the present town site of Vancouver, say running one mile back from the Columbia River, including the claim of Amos Short, and the wedge between that and the military reserve?
    Ans.--I should think it would be worth in its present state probably $50 an acre.
    Int. 12.--In what state of repair were the buildings of the Company during the four years from 1850 to 1854, when you were most familiar with them?
    Ans.--The buildings were getting pretty old from appearance; they were also repairing some considerable during the time; the stockades about were rotted down; the same posts were cut off and reset in the ground during that time; my statement would be that they were going down quite fast, so far as preservation was concerned.
    Int. 13.--State anything you observed indicating this fact, if you now remember.
    Ans.--Some of the floors were settling out of shape, as if they were giving way underneath; the outward appearance of the buildings looked as if they were going to decay; I never saw any built just like them, and they might look different to me than to the owners on that account.
    Int. 14.--In what state of repair were the Company's buildings and fences at the farms away from the post when you first saw them?
    Ans.--I know very little about them, from my own knowledge outside the post, until they were taken by American settlers; I never traveled over the country much until after that.
    Int. 15.--What is the value per acre of the land lying along the Columbia River, above the military reserve, extending to and including the site of the Company's mills, a mile in width?
    Ans.--I should estimate the land in its raw state at about $2 per acre.

    Int. 1.--How much land did you buy of E. J. Taylor, and when was the purchase made?
    Ans.--A little less, I believe, than 320 acres; I think about four years ago.
    Int. 2.--What price did you pay for that land?
    Ans.--I think the nominal price was $8,000, but it was an exchange of property; it was not a regular purchase.
    Int. 3.--What improvements were on the land when you purchased it?
    Ans.--I should think there was from twelve to fifteen acres cleared, and about 2,000 fruit trees, and some old buildings.
    Int. 4.--Were not those buildings erected by the Hudson's Bay Company?
    Ans.--A portion of them were, I believe; the house that Mr. Taylor occupied was built by the man who took the claim before him; I don't remember his name now; I think they called him Kanaka Bill; he was a Kanaka, however.
    Int. 5.--Are there not good farms on the Mill Plain?
    Ans.--I believe there is.
    Int. 6.--Do you know of any sales of farms on the Mill Plains within the last five years?
    Ans.--I believe I do.
    Int. 7.--State any, giving the names of seller and purchaser, amount of land, and the sum paid.
    Ans.--I only know from hearsay; Dampfoffer sold to Mrs. Jones a hundred and sixty acres; I heard the amount was $900. Mr. Wm. Goodwin sold a quarter of a section, taken as a homestead, for $200; Wm. Hazard sold to Buchanan; I can't state the amount paid, or the amount of land; Mr. E. Goodwin sold a quarter section for $600, as I understood it to be.
    Int. 8.--Do you mean to say that the prairie land on the Mill Plain is, in your judgment, worth only a dollar and a half an acre?
    Ans.--I don't mean to say that the land in the Mill Plain is only worth a dollar and a half an acre.
    Int. 9.--How much is prairie land worth there?
    Ans.--I think the land in the prairie itself is worth $5 an acre.
    Int. 10.--How extensive is the Mill Plain?
    Ans.--I think about three sections; probably not so much, perhaps a little more.
    Int. 11.--Do you mean to say that there is only land enough there for three full claims of 640 acres each?
    Ans.--I think that would include all the prairie land, or about all.
    Int. 12.--What is the timber land adjoining the prairie worth per acre?
    Ans.--I should think below Congress price, or else it would be entered; it is poor and gravelly.
    Int. 13.--How much of the timber land adjoining the prairie is now vacant?
    Ans.--I could not state as to quantity; nearly all on the north side; between that and the Clackamas Creek.
    Int. 14.--In estimating the value of the land between the reserve and the lower plain, inclusive, state your reason for fixing it at $5 per acre.
    Ans.--My reason for that is, that it takes in a considerable quantity of swampy land and small lakes that I don't consider worth anything, the whole basis being made for wild land without improvement.
    Int. 15.--Excluding swampy land and lakes, what is the value of that land at the present time?
    Ans.--From $20 to $25, the present value without the improvements.
    Int. 16.--Do you not know that land within those limits has been sold, and is now valued at $100 per acre?
    Ans.--I don't know of any sales at $100 an acre; I heard of a sale from Captain Ingalls to Turnbull and others, but I did not hear the price.
    Int. 17.--When you say that $8 an acre would be a fair price for the 640 acres in the military reserve, what is your basis for that opinion?
    Ans.--My basis is, I estimate it higher for its being a suitable place for a town site, and without reference to any improvements making it valuable.
    Int. 18.--Do you mean to say that if the land were vacant now, it would be worth only $8 an acre?
    Ans.--I don't intend to be understood to say that it would be only worth $8 an acre, if vacant now, at its present valuation; the growth around it makes it more valuable now. In giving its value at $8, I consider it in its wild state, and without improvements in its vicinity.
    Int. 19.--What, in your judgment, would be the value of the reserve, if vacant at the present time, located as it is?
    Ans.--I should put it the same as the town site, at $50 an acre, considering its surrounding improvements.
    Int. 20.--Do you mean to say that land in the town site is worth only $50 an acre?
    Ans.--I think that is all it is worth, in my estimation, including the whole tract.
    Int. 21.--How many acres does the town tract include?
    Ans.--I only know from hearsay the strip of land called the wedge; I never knew how much there was of it. The town site laid off by Mrs. Short I understand to be 320 acres.
    Int. 22.--Do you know within the last ten years of the sale of any block measuring about an acre upon the town site for $50?
    Ans.--I don't think I do, of any sales being perfected.
    Int. 23.--Do you know what the average price of lots has been during that time?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 24.--Do you know of any sales whatever within that time? If so, state them, the prices, and the distance from the river.
    Ans.--I bought one lot, about 150 feet from the river, for $30; I think in block No. 45; I bought it at a public auction in January last; there were other sales at the same time, ranging from $20 to $120; I think that would be about what I understood it to be; it was at an administrator's sale.
    Int. 25.--How far was the land mentioned from the Company's old post?
    Ans.--I should think about three-quarters of a mile.
    Int. 26.--Is it not near the lower end of the town site?
    Ans.--I should say it was pretty near, fronting on the first street back from the river at that point.
    Int. 27.--Do you know of any sales of land adjoining the town site within the last ten years?
    Ans.--Mr. Brown, I believe, bought a tract adjoining, but I don't know what he paid; Mr. Slocum bought a piece, the piece I understood to be $30 per acre; the tract of land sold by Curtis Short to Captain Ingalls, within the last ten years, was sold for $100 per acre.
    Int. 28.--From whom did Slocum buy the land spoken of; when, and how much?
    Ans.--He bought it from Curtis Short; it was part of the same tract, lying back of Captain Ingalls'; I think about thirty acres; I think about 1861 or 1862; I can't give correct dates.
    Int. 29.--Can you say that you noticed before 1854 any defect or decay in the buildings of the Company, at Fort Vancouver, which rendered them unfit for use?
    Ans.--I saw no defect, except [in] what they were still using; I was frequently through the buildings; Mr. Wark used to show me around through the buildings.
    Int. 30.--What defect did you see in the buildings which they were using? Specify the buildings.
    Ans.--The only ones that I noticed any defect in, was the sales room and the storage room immediately adjoining; the sinking of the floors was the only defect.
    Int. 31.--Do you not know that the Company renewed the sills or blocks whenever there was any decay affecting the floors?
    Ans.--I never saw them renewing either sills, or blocks, or the floors.
    Int. 32.--Do you not know that in 1854 the quartermaster and commissary departments of the government occupied the store house, of which you speak?
    Ans.--I think they did not; they occupied themselves the sales room and storage room, as a supply room for the sales room.
    Int. 33.--Is the statement made by you in your direct examination that the buildings were going down quite fast, so far as preservation was concerned, true of any except the buildings you have last mentioned?
    Ans.--I think they were all getting old, and going to decay with old age.
    Int. 34.--Can you specify any defect except what you have named in the sales store and the store house adjoining?
    Ans.--Not any defect, further than age.
    Int. 35.--Do you know of any sales of land, above the reserve, along the river, within the last ten years? If so, state the price and parties.
    Ans.--I think Mr. Nye sold Mr. Fritz a piece; I think it was eighty acres, for $300; it fronts on the river.
    Int. 36.--Is there a single section, in those limits, which you do not believe is worth five dollars an acre?
    Ans.--I think there is.
    Int. 37.--Will you name the land to which you refer?
    Ans.--I refer to the land occupied by Mr. Lieser and Mr. Stensgair, and also Mr. John Earnest; I would not give two dollars per acre for any of that in its wild state; I would not for my own, either, provided there was no other advantages with it; I traded for it for milling purposes, and not for farming; I don't consider Hexter's any better, without any milling privileges with it.
    Int. 38.--What is the value of the milling privilege on your land?
    Ans.--I would be a very poor judge of that; I will do the best I can; I should think the seat, with sufficient land to carry it on, separate from any other land, would be worth $3,000.
    Int. 39.--State what, in your judgment, is the value of the mill seat, on Mr. Hexter's land.
    Ans.--I suppose that would be worth, probably, $1,000.
    Int. 40.--What, in your judgment, is the value per acre of the land claimed by William Ryan, adjoining the reserve?
    Ans.--I should think that strip of land, separate from any above, would be worth twenty dollars per acre.
    Int. 41.--What is the value of the land of J. W. Nye, above Ryan?
    Ans.--I should think what there is left of that claim, including his wife's, is worth ten dollars per acre; there is a part of it worth a mere nothing, which I include in my estimate.
    Int. 42.--Which portion of it do you consider worthless?
    Ans.--That would be the north side of it, which is a rocky steep hillside.
    Int. 43.--Do you not know that General Harney bought a portion of that northern part of the claim, in 1860, at ten dollars per acre?
    Ans.--I do not; he bought the best part of the northern part of the claim, including some open land; the price, I do not know.

    Int. 1.--What improvements were on lands sold by Dampfoffer, William Goodwin, and Moses Goodwin?
    Ans.--On Dampfoffer's there must be near a hundred acres fenced in and in cultivation, and a log house, with a good shed on it; William Goodwin's, I should think, about ten acres fenced in, a small orchard, a log barn, and a one-story box house; Moses Goodwin, perhaps, thirty acres in cultivation, a small orchard, a good frame barn, and a common box house.
Vancouver, Washington Territory,
August 20, 1866.

Levi Douthet, being first duly sworn, deposes as follows, to wit:
    Int. 1.--What is your age, residence, and occupation?
    Ans.--I am fifty-four years old; my residence is Clark County, Washington Territory; my occupation is farming at present; but I am a mechanic by profession
    Int. 2.--When did you first come to Washington Territory, and where have you resided since that time?
    Ans.--I crossed the plains in 1852, landed in Clark County, and have remained in Clark County ever since.
    Int. 3.--What official positions have you held in Clark County, and what office do you now hold?
    Ans.--I had the honor of being one of the representatives of the people of Clark County in the legislature one session; and I now hold the office of probate judge, having been elected in 1864.
    Int. 4.--In what business were you engaged upon your first arrival in 1852, and how long did you continue in that employment?
    Ans.--I don't know that I can give exact dates; the first business I engaged in was in the employment of the Hudson's Bay Company, as millwright and carpenter; but about the mill mostly I worked under the direction of Wm. F. Crate; I began about the 1st of November, 1852, and continued until sometime in the spring, perhaps about four months, between four and five.
    Int. 5.--What, in your opinion, was the cost and value of the sawmill, constructed by the Company about that time, on which you labored?
    Ans.--I could not give an opinion as to the cost, as I do not know the cost of the iron; I think the mill was worthless, except for the iron, which might be taken out and put in some other construction.
    Int. 6.--State your reason for judging the mill to be worthless.
    Ans.--My reason is that, owing to the manner in which it was constructed, it cost more to attend it and keep it running than the profits would pay.
    Int. 7.--How long after 1852 did the Company continue to use the mill?
    Ans.--Mr. Crate told me in the spring, I think, ahout the time I quit work, that Mr. Ogden said the mill was running them in debt, and he was ordered to quit running it, as they did not want any lumber for their own use, and could not sell it for a sufficient price to pay for the expenses of running the mill.
    Int. 8.--While there, did you see the old gang sawmill and the grist mill? If so, state their condition, and whether they were used by the Company or not.
    Ans.--I saw a portion of the remains of the old gang sawmill; it looked as if it had fallen down of itself; it was very rotten; I saw the grist mill; it was also very much on the decay; the Company was still using it; it has decayed since then entirely, and was thrown away either by the Company or Mr. Crate.
    Int. 9.--What would you consider the value of the grist mill as you first saw it?
    Ans.--That is a very hard question; there were a good set of burrs and irons, which was the whole value of the mill; they also had a small set of burrs, which I was informed was very good; Mr. Crate took them with him to Vancouver's Island.
    Int. 10.--Was there any other mill in that vicinity of which you have not spoken? If so, describe its condition and value.
    Ans.--There was another old sawmill up where the other sawmill was; that is within less than a hundred yards of the other mills; it was somewhat on the decay, and had been abandoned and the machinery taken out when I first went there.
    Int. 11.--What became of the machinery in the new sawmill, built in 1852 and 1853?
    Ans.--I don't know.
    Int. 12.--Did you ever work for the Company about their buildings at Fort Vancouver?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 18.--How frequently were you in and about the fort during 1853, and how intimate was your acquaintance with the character and condition of the Company's buildings there?
    Ans.--I done the most of my trading in the Company's store that year; I was quite frequently there, once or twice a month at least; sometimes more than that, often in a week; I paid some attention to the buildings, as they were built in a different style from any that I had ever seen.
    Int. 14.--In what state of repair were these buildings? Describe their condition as fully as you can in this respect
    Ans.--They looked very old; the sills, I think, were very much decayed; they were so much so that some two or three years afterwards Mr. Crate was engaged in putting new sills under some of them.
    Int. 15.--How many of the buildings were repaired by Mr. Crate to your knowledge?
    Ans.--I think one or two; there might have been more.
    Int. 16.--For what purpose, if any, would such buildings as those the Company had at Vancouver be useful, as the country and town are now settled by whites? (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--I think they would only be useful as a barn or stable; or something of that kind, and not very suitable for a barn, on account of not being constructed right.
    Int. 17.--What, in your opinion, was the value of one of the storehouses 100 by 40 feet, as you saw it in 1853?
    Ans.--These buildings answered the Company's purposes, held their goods and kept them dry; but I don't think Yankees would give anything for them for their use; I don't think they had any value; the Company abandoned them, and since then I don't think they have been occupied by any person, excepting that the government has used them to put hay and straw in; I think they are about all gone now; I believe the Company took all the doors and windows away.
    Int. 18.--Were the buildings in and about the fort kept in good repair from 1853 until the Company left in 1860?
    Ans.--I think the Company kept them in repair suitable for their use. When the pickets would rot down, they reset them, or got new ones; they would frequently break off at the ground, on account of being rotten, a rod or two at a time.
    Int. 19.--Taking the fort as a central point, what is the present value per acre of three square miles of land fronting on the Columbia River?
    Ans.--To sell 1,920 acres would not bring as much in proportion as it would if a man were allowed to take a small piece of it. I would estimate the value of the land, exclusive of buildings, at from ten to fifteen dollars per acre. It takes in some valuable land, and some that is not so valuable. I aim to get at the average value of the whole.
    Int. 20.--What would you consider the average value per acre of land on the Lower Plain, having frontage on the river, for five miles next below the land you have already estimated, say 3,200 acres?
    Ans.--My estimation of that would be from five to seven dollars per acre, exclusive of the improvements, averaging the whole: I think that is a liberal estimate, as some has been reported to the probate court as sold at $3 per acre at a guardian's sale.
    Int. 21.--How much of this tract is subject to annual overflow?
    Ans.--The greater portion of it.
    Int. 22.--Take a tract below that last estimated by you, reaching to the Cathlapotle River, say ten miles long and two miles wide, and estimate its value per acre.
    Ans.--I think it worth pretty much the same as the other land; I don't know much difference; it is all grazing land, and its distance from town don't make much difference to stock-raising.
    Int. 23.--Take six or seven miles along the Columbia, above the tract you have estimated, including the town site, and three miles in width, so as to embrace the Mill Plain and the sites of the Company's mills, and give your judgment of its value per acre.
    Ans.--I don't think I could average that land at over $2 per acre, exclusive of improvements; there is some of it not yet entered at $1.25 in greenbacks, I think.
    Int. 24.--How is the soil on the Mill Plain?
    Ans.--I call it light and gravelly.
    Int. 25.--What is the value per acre on the average of the tract of country extending back of the fort, plain, and including the second, third, and fourth plains, including a tract four miles up and down the Columbia, and six miles in width?
    Ans.--I think that tract is about the same as that last estimated; about $2 per acre; I would not invest money in it at $2 per acre; not in the whole tract.
    Int. 26.--Taking the town of Vancouver as it is, and the settlements around it, at what price per acre would you value the 640 acres immediately around the Company's old fort, now included in the military reserve, exclusive of the buildings?
    Ans.--I should think I should put it the same as the first, from ten to fifteen dollars per acre.
    Int. 27.--How far, and in what direction do you live from Vancouver City?
    Ans.--Between four and five miles, in a northeastly direction.

    Int. 1.--How much land do you own, and. what is its value per acre?
    Ans.--About 375 acres; I think it is worth between $12 and $15 per acre, without the buildings; I mean the 320 acres included in my donation claim; I include the cost of clearing, ditching, fencing, and orchard; the other is not worth more than three or four dollars per acre; it is unimproved.
    Int. 2.--What is the expense per acre of clearing such land?
    Ans.--I think the expense of clearing and ditching has cost men $50 per acre for all the land I have cleared.
    Int. 3.--How much land was thus cleared?
    Ans.--I suppose between fifty and fifty-five acres.
    Int. 4.--What are your buildings worth?
    Ans.--About eight or nine hundred dollars.
    Int. 5.--What is the assessment upon your property?
    Ans.--I think they assess my land at $1.25 per acre, exclusive of improvements.
    Int. 6.--What were your improvements assessed at?
    Ans.--About seven hundred and eighty-two dollars.
    Int. 7.--Is not $1.25 per acre the usual rate of assessment of farming lands in this country?
    Ans.--I think the assessor assesses all land at $1.25 per acre, and the improvements besides.
    Int. 8.--Do you not know of land being sold in your neighborhood within the last five years at $10 per acre?
    Ans.--None except a small tract of about forty acres that was sold a few days ago for $450; $150 down, the balance on time.
    Int. 9.--Do you not know of a sale by E. McCarty of a quarter section for $1,500?
    Ans.--I know of a sale and the time of a sale; I do not know the precise amount, but think it was somewhere near $1,500.
    Int. 10.--Do you not know of a sale by Durgan of a half section for $2,000?
    Ans.--Of my own knowledge I do not know; but I heard he sold his place for that price on time; but I do not know the amount of land.
    Int. 11.--Do you not know of a sale by Shaw of a half section for $1,200?
    Ans.--Mr. Shaw and the purchaser both made a statement to me about the sale, and told me that he got $1,500 for the land, one horse, plow, grain, cattle, beds and bedding, and everything about the place; I think there was about six or seven hundred dollars worth of personal property.
    Int. 12.--Do you not know of a sale made by Irby of a half section for $2,000?
    Ans.--I understood that Mr. Irby sold his donation claim, but don't recollect of ever hearing what he got.
    Int. 13.--Do you not know that the burrs and machinery of the old grist mill were taken out and put into the new one?
    Ans.--Yes; I know they were, in fact one pair of them.
    Int. 14.--Do you not know that the old sawmill had been rented to the government prior to 1853?
    Ans.--When I came here the mill was not running, and never did run after.
    Int. 15.--What, in your judgment, is the value of the water privilege where the grist mill was?
    Ans.--It would depend upon whether it was used or not; if a man would use it, it would be worth something; if he don't use it, it would be worth nothing.
    Int. 16.--Do you not know what is meant by the value of a water privilege?
    Ans.--I suppose it means the profits that can be derived from it by constructing good machinery upon it.
    Int. 17.--Taking that as the basis of value, what is that water power worth?
    Ans.--I think it might be worth from $1,000 to $2,000 in its natural state.
    Int. 18.--Do you not know that the land claim, including that power, was sold by Crate for $5,000?
    Ans.--I know it was sold, but don't know the price.
    Int. 19.--Do you know the value of the water power at the sawmill mentioned by you?
    Ans.--I don't know, I am not a mill-man at the present time, and don't know how to fix the value; I think it is about like the other, and worth about the same.
    Int. 20.--Do you not know that the half section including that water privilege has been sold by Taylor to Love for $8,000, or thereabouts?
    Ans.--The property has changed hands, but I never heard anyone say what the price was.
    Int. 21.--Do you not know that the Company were compelled to abandon the use of the sawmill in part by the fact that the adjacent lands claimed by it were taken up by settlers?
    Ans.--Mr. Crate told me that Mr. Ogden, the chief factor of the Company at this place, told him to quit employing hands to run the mill, for the Company did not want any lumber, and it did not pay expenses.
    Int. 22.--At that time was not the greater part of the land in the vicinity taken by immigrants?
    Ans.--I think it was claimed about one claim deep on the river for about eight or ten miles up the river from Vancouver?
    Int. 23.--Do you know of any sales of land at the Mill Plain within the last live years? If so, give the names of the parties buying'and selling, the prices, and the amount of land.
    Ans.--I have heard of land changing hands, but know nothing about the quantity or prices.
    Int. 24.--If you know nothing of any sales there, how do you fix the price of that land as stated in your direct examination?
    Ans.--I fix the price from the fact of persons offering improved land for sale, and averaging it with the river bluff, which is stony and entirely worthless for cultivation.
    Int. 25.--State at what price you know improved land to be offered for sale, per acre, at the Mill Plain.
    Ans.--Some four or five months ago Mr. Zeek offered a quarter section for $1,000; I think Mr. Bennington's place was offered at about $7 per acre.
    Int. 26.--What, in your judgment, is the value of the Ryan claim, per acre, lying east of the reserve?
    Ans.--I think from $10 to $15 per acre is as much as it could be sold for.
    Int. 27.--How much grass will that land yield per acre?
    Ans.--The grass land is subject to overflow every year, and when it does overflow, it yields nothing; the grass will be there, but spoiled; the land is good meadow land when it don't overflow, and produces a fine crop; I mean the bottom part, not the whole section.
    Int. 28.--How much hay does the meadow land yield per acre when not overflowed?
    Ans.--It depends upon how well the hay is cured; I have seen hay weighed pretty green, and I think if weighed that way it would weigh three tons to the acre, but if properly cured about two tons.
    Int 29.--What has been the average price of well-cured hay per ton at Vancouver for the last ten years?
    Ans.--I think about $16.
    Int. 30.--Do you mean to say then that land adjacent to Vancouver which will produce two tons of hay worth $16 per ton is only of the value of from $10 to $15 per acre?
    Ans.--When I estimated Mr. Ryan's claim I included hills and bluffs, the entire 640 acres, and took into consideration that the hay land is subject to annual overflow, and to take away the fence and spoil a great deal of the hay.
    Int. 31.--How much of Ryan's land do you consider hay land?
    Ans.--From the amount of hay I hear of his selling, I should think about forty or fifty acres; the overflow hurts some of it every year, and when it is a high overflow, it hurts all of it.
    Int. 32.--What is the land worth between the bluff and the line of annual overflow?
    Ans.--The foot of the bluflf is the line of the annual overflow.
    Int. 33.--What is your basis of estimate of value of the land at and around Vancouver?
    Ans.--My estimate is based upon sales of land that have heretofore been made and other land that I have heard of having been offered tor sale.
    Int. 34.--What land within the limits of the three sections has been sold at the price you name?
    Ans.--There was some unplatted town land sold by Mr. Lawrence as executor of the Short estate at an average of from thirty to forty dollars per acre.
    Int. 35.--Was not the land sold by Lawrence, outside of the town site, rocky and heavily timbered for the most part?
    Ans.--The land was returned on the inventory and returned to the probate court as unplatted town land, and sold as such; the timber had most all been taken off; it had been timbered; there were a few dead trees and very thick brush all over it; I don't recollect of ever seeing any rock; the land was about the same as to gravel as the other land we have been talking about.
    Int. 86.--Do you think that such land, situated as it was, is a fair standard of the average value of the three sections, embracing the reserve, the town site, and Ryan's and Short's claims?
    Ans.--I think it is worth more than the average value of the other land included in the three sections.
    Int. 37.--Do you mean to say it is worth more than the average of the land on the town site?
    Ans.--I think the town site is worth more, the part that is platted.
    Int. 38.--Do you think it is worth more than the land on the reserve would be worth if the government should discontinue the reserve, and it could be sold in parcels such as those sold by Lawrence?
    Ans.--I think it is; in that I include the whole reserve supposing it to be cut up in parcels the same as Lawrence sold.
    Int. 39.--Do you mean to say that, in your judgment, that land is worth more than the average of the reserve, if it were put into market in a similar way?
    Ans.--Estimating clear of the improvements, I do.
    Int. 40.--What has been the average value of land, on the town site as platted, within the last live years?
    Ans.--I think the average has been from $25 to $30 per lot, exclusive of improvements; there are eight lots in a block.
    Int. 41.--What did you mean, in your direct examination, by saying that the average value of the land of the three sections mentioned was only $10 to $15 per acre? Is that estimate consistent with the last few answers given by you?
    Ans.--In that I meant to average the valuable portion of the land with what was not so valuable on account of lying further back; I think it is consistent.
    Int. 42.--Do you not know that there are many blocks on the town site, which, if the buildings were removed, are worth from $1,200 to $2,500?
    Ans.--I think if the buildings were removed from all the blocks it would not be worth so much, for the reason that the valuable buildings upon one block increases the value of all blocks adjoining.
    Int. 43.--Do you not know that there are many blocks on the town site, which, if the buildings were removed, are worth from $1,200 to $2,500?
    Ans.--I think if the buildings were removed from the blocks they would not be so valuable, as the buildings increase their value.
    Int. 44.--Do you mean to say that the buildings on any block in the town site are all that give value to the block?
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 45.--Are there not blocks on the town site which, without regard to the value of the buildings, are worth from $1,000 to $2,000?
    Ans.--I know of no block that has ever sold for that price.
    Int. 46.--Do you mean to say that blocks on Main Street, and between Third and Seventh, have no value aside from the buildings standing upon them? If they have, state that value as you estimate them.
    Ans.--I think they would have; I think if the buildings were all off of all the blocks, about $200 a block would be a fair estimate.
    Int. 47.--I have not asked you in regard to all the buildings being removed from all the blocks, but simply what is your estimate of the value of the ground within the limits named; will you give that estimate without any further reference to the wholesale destruction of the town?
    Ans.--I think that $200 is a fair estimate, independent of the buildings.
    Int. 48.--When you say that the land on the Lower Plain is worth from five to seven dollars per acre, do you consider the prices which have been paid for various tracts of that land, or is your estimate based solely upon a guardian sale named by you?
    Ans.--My estimate is not based solely upon a guardian sale, but is based according to the value of similar land in the country. I can buy as good land any day for $1.25 per acre; Mr. Fletcher will sell it to me; I mean the Register of the Land Office.
    Int. 49.--Do you mean to say that land as convenient to market, as fertile, and as well situated as the strip below Vancouver, and within a mile of the Columbia River, can be obtained for $1.25 per acre?
    Ans.--I did not say that; there is no government land within that distance from the river, but there is land from fifteen to twenty miles from Vancouver that is just as fertile, and better situated for stock-raising, that I can get for $1.25 per acre; it is government land. The land on the Lower Plain is only suitable for stock-raising and dairy purposes, and part of the year it is not fit for that, because it overflows, and you have to hire pasturage back.
    Int. 60.--Do you not know that there are some of the best and most profitable farms in Clark County on the Lower Plain?
    Ans.--Not according to my estimation there is not.
    Int. 51.--Do you know Joseph Petrain's claim? If so, state what he raises upon it.
    Ans.--I know the claim; he told me this season he raised nothing on account of the overflow.
    Int. 52.--Do you know Charles Proulx's claim? If so, state its value, and what he raises on it.
    Ans.--I know Proulx's claim; he told me also about a month ago that his crop had been destroyed by the overflow; I would estimate his and Petrain's land at about $10 per acre.
    Int. 53.--What would you estimate the value of Laframboise's claim, now owned by Friedenrick?
    Ans.--I don't think that tract of land quite worth as much as Petrain's or Proulx's; I should estimate it at about eight or nine dollars per acre.
    Int. 54.--What is your estimate of the value of the Malick claim?
    Ans.--I should think that about the same as Proulx's and Petrain's.
    Int. 55.--Do you not know that a portion of that claim has been sold for $50 per acre?
    Ans.--If it has, I never heard of it.
    Int. 56.--What is the value of the Reynard claim?
    Ans.--I think five or six dollars per acre.
    Int. 57.--Do you know the Robie land; if so, what is its value?
    Ans.--I know the land; I should say from five to seven dollars per acre.
    Int. 58.--What is the value of Mr. Dillon's claim?
    Ans.--I expect from five to seven dollars per acre.
    Int. 59.--Have you not now stated the value of all the land between Short's claim and the lower end of the Lower Plain?
    Ans.--I don't remember any other claimant.
    Int. 60.--Did not Mr. Crate repair all the buildings at Vancouver, from time to time, as repairs were needed?
    Ans.--I do not know what Mr. Crate done to all the buildings, or whether he did anything or not; he only showed me some new sills that he was putting under a couple of the buildings.
    Int. 61.--Was it not his business to superintend repairs about the fort?
    Ans.--I think not until after they let the sawmill go down.
    Int. 62.--Was it then his business?
    Ans.--Mr. Crate told me that on account bf the sawmill going down he had to come to the fort to work for the Company.
    Int. 63.--Do you not know that the government hired one of the large warehouses for storage purposes during the years 1853, 1854, and 1855?
    Ans.--I know that the government occupied one of the large buildings during the time spoken of, but by what right I know not.
    Int. 64.--Are you positive that the Company took all the doors and windows away, as stated in your direct examination?
    Ans.--I am not very confident that I saw them stripped; I did not see the Company take them away, but it was common talk that they did take them.
    Int. 65.--How long after the Company left did you see the doors and windows were gone?
    Ans.--I think it was about the first or second day after they left, and they were all gone except one building, which had some lights and blinds in.
    Int. 66.--Do you not know that Mr. Bratton was put in charge of those buildings by order of General Harney, and that in his absence the soldiers destroyed the windows and doors?
    Ans.--I do not know; I think it was impossible for them to destroy them without its being known; I do not know, except, what Mr. Crate told me; I asked Mr. Crate why they stripped the doors and windows, when they expected to put in a spoliation bill against the government, and he said that would make no difference. (All the above answer after the word "know," in the first line, objected to by counsel for Hudson's Bay Company, because it is not responsive to the question, but is a voluntary statement of the witness, and because it is hearsay and incompetent.)
    Int. 67.--When did you have this alleged conversation with Crate?
    Ans.--Shortly after the Company left.

    Int. 1.--How much clearing, ditching, fencing, and orchard are there on your claim?
    Ans.--That would embrace about fifty acres, and between two and three acres of orchard.
    Int. 2.--How much improvement was on the forty acres sold for $450 by Mr. Jamison?
    Ans.--I should suppose about an acre at least, cleared, fenced, and in cultivation, and a log cabin and the shell of a frame building.
    Int. 8.--How much improvement was on the land sold by McCarty?
    Ans.--About three acres cleared in fence and cultivation, and two or three acres in pasture, and a well dug and a log cabin; a log barn and threshing floor between two log pens and some other outbuildings.
    Int. 4.--How much improvement was on the land sold by Shaw?
    Ans.--I should judge there was forty acres cleared, fenced, and in cultivation, perhaps one hundred and fifty fruit trees bearing, a log barn built with two pens, with threshing floor in the middle between the two pens, and shedded on two sides, a well of water, a very neat frame house well painted, a story and a half high, and some other buildings, cellar, &c.
    Int. 5.--How was the Durgan place improved?
    Ans.--I think about forty acres in cultivation; two orchards, about one hundred and fifty trees each bearing; perhaps forty acres of pasture fenced; log barn, similar to Shaw's, and a stable and a very large dwelling-house nicely furnished and two stories high, and some other outbuildings.
    Int. 6.--When was the new mill built into which the burrs and machinery from the old grist mill were put?
    Ans.--The new mill was up and covered when I came to the country; it strikes me Mr. Crate took the machinery out of the old mill and put it into the new mill after the Company left.
    Int. 7.--State whether this mill was on Crate's land when he made the sale referred to in your cross-examination?
    Ans.--Mr. Crate's land included this mill and the old mill too.
    Int. 8.--How much improvement was on the 160 acres at Mill Plain offered by Mr. Zeek for $1,000?
    Ans.--I think the land was all under fence ready for the plow; most of it had been tilled; a log cabin; a very nice young orchard bearing, and some other outbuildings; they were cheap and not of much value.
    Int. 9.--How far from the river is the principal portion of the land sold by Mr. Lawrence at an average of between thirty and forty dollars per acre?
    Ans.--I think about a fourth of a mile from the river would take you to the edge of the principal portion.
    Int. 10.--On whose land is the present town of Vancouver?
    Ans.--It is on what is called the Short claim and on a fraction claimed by several others.
    Int. 11.--On which part is Main Street about which you were asked?
    Ans.--Main Street is an the line between the Short claim and the fraction.
    Int. 12.--What is the present population of Vancouver, as near as you can judge, excluding the military? (Objected to as immaterial and incompetent, the Hudson's Bay Company not being responsible for the increase of population or otherwise.)
    Ans.--I don't think I can give a correct estimate of the population.
Vancouver, Washington Territory,
August 21, 1866.

Patrick A'Hern, being first duly sworn, deposeth as follows, to wit:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation.
    Ans.--I believe my age is about thirty-eight years; my residence is in Vancouver, Washington Territory; my occupation, clerk, and I am at present County Auditor of Clark County.
    Int. 2.--How long have you been Auditor of the county?
    Ans.--Since 1855.
    Int. 8.--Have you in your custody, as such auditor, the assessment rolls of Clark County for that term of years?
    Ans.--I think I have.
    Int. 4.--What is the total amount assessed in Clark County, for real and. personal property, for each year since 1855? (Objected to by counsel for Hudson's Bay Company, because incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--I took a memorandum from the rolls yesterday by by request of W. C. Johnson, Esq., counsel for the United States. In 1855, it was $347,821; in 1856, $317,510; in 1857, $321,871; in 1858, $435,756; in 1859, $515,115; in 1860, $548,635; in 1861, $557,973; in 1862, $606,178; in 1863, $426,000; in 1864, $495,894; in 1865, $1,068,619; in 1866, $773,070.
    Int. 5.--What was the occasion of the marked increase in 1865?
    Ans.--I should judge it was on account of the assessment of the Oregon Steam Navigation Company in Skamania County, which was included in Clark County that year.
    Int. 6.--What was the assessment of the Oregon Steam Navigation Company that year? (Objected to by counsel for Hudson's Bay Company, because it is immaterial, incompetent, and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--$445,000.
    Int. 7.--What was the assessment of the Oregon Steam Navigation Cornpany in 1866? (Objected to for the reasons above noted.)
    Ans.--$150,000.
    Int. 8.--About what is the present population of Vancouver, excluding the military? (Objected to for the reasons above noted.)
    Ans.--I should judge it was 1,500.
    Int. 9.--How many votes were cast at the last election in Vancouver precinct? (Objected to for the reasons above noted.)
    Ans.--289 votes.
    Int. 10.--What was the total vote of Clark County at the June election in 1866? (Objected to for the reasons above noted.)
    Ans.--608 votes.
    Int. 11.--What distance above, below, and back of Vancouver, do the lines of the precinct extend?
    Ans.--It is about four miles on the river, and about a mile back.
    Int. 12.--Give the assessment of the Hudson's Bay Company in Clark County for the years 1858-59? (Objected to for the reasons above noted.)
    Ans.--In 1858, they were assessed at $60,480; in 1859, they were assessed $55,140.
    Int. 13.--How much of those amounts was returned as capital in business? (Objected to for the reasons above noted.)
    Ans.--In 1858 the amount was the total value assessed without further remarks. In 1859 the same is true, excepting the item of one flouring mill, assessed at $2,000.

    Int. 1.--Do you not know that assessors in Clark County in assessing real estate have uniformly valued it at $1.25 per acre?
    Ans.--I believe they have; they have only assessed real estate for about four years.
    Int. 2.--How far up the Columbia River from Vancouver is the eastern line of Clark County?
    Ans.--I should think twenty-six or twenty-seven miles at least.
    Int. 3.--How far down the river is the line of boundary on the western side from Vancouver?
    Ans.--I should think it is something about thirty-five miles.
    Int. 4.--About how far northerly from the river does the County extend?
    Ans.--I don't know; I think the northern boundary is not defined, but it embraces all the occupied lands.
    Int. 5.--Do you not believe, from your knowledge of real estate in the country, that the assessments spoken of are very unreliable as furnishing data of the value of real estate?
    Ans.--I think if a correct assessment was made it would double the amount returned every year.
    Int. 6.--During the years 1858 and 1859 was the military reserve upon which the Company's post was situated assessed as real estate, to your knowledge?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 7.--During those years was not the greater part of the land formerly claimed by the Company as part of their possessory rights occupied and improved by settlers?
    Ans.--It was.
    Int. 8.--Is not the greater part of the gross assessment given by you, as taken from the rolls, put upon property in the city of Vancouver and its immediate vicinity?
    Ans.--I think it is, excepting the year 1865, when Skamania County was assessed with Clark County.
    Int. 9.--From your knowledge of the value of property at Vancouver, as indicated by actual sales, do you not believe that the true value of land on the town site is greater than the whole amount of the county assessment, excluding Skamania County? (Objected to as not proper cross-examination.)
    Ans.--I think it is.
    Int. 10.--In your judgment, what is the value per acre of the lands lying below Vancouver, say for five miles down, and extending back one mile, returned by the assessor at $1.25 per acre? (Counsel for the United States protests against this mode of examining the witness, none of his opinions having been asked in his examination-in-chief, he only being called as to the contents of official documents in his possession; with reference to all other matters, he will be treated and cross-examined as the witness of the Company.)
    Ans.--There has been land sold at from $4 to $100 an acre, including the improvement, judging from the deeds recorded in my office.

    Int. 1.--Will you swear that lands generally in Clark County were assessed under $2 per acre in 1865?
    Ans.--My answer to that would be that some were assessed at $2, some at $1.25, and some at nothing.
    Int. 2.--Did this include or exclude the improvements?
    Ans.--The assessor informed me that where there was a good cleared farm, he valued it at $2; if not so well cleared, at $1.25; on homestead entries, where the parties had no title, he only valued the improvements. In all cases the buildings of all descriptions were assessed separately from the lands.
Vancouver, August 22, 1866.

Territory of Washington,
County of Clark
    I, Joseph M. Fletcher, notary public in and for said Territory, do hereby certify that the foregoing depositions, hereunto annexed, of Lewis Love, Levi Douthet, and Patrick A'Hern, witnesses produced by and in behalf of the United States in defending against the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company, before the British and American Joint Commission for the adjustment of the same, were taken before me, at my office in the city of Vancouver, and reduced to writing by me, on the 20th, 21st, and 22nd days of August, A.D. 1866, according to the several dates appended to said depositions, when they were signed respectively. I further certify that such depositions were taken before me in pursuance of a verbal agreement between W. C. Johnson, Esq., attorney for the United States, and Amory Holbrook, Esq., attorney for the Hudson's Bay Company.
    I further certify that to each of said witnesses, before his examination, I administered the following, to wit:
    "You swear that the evidence which you may give in the matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States of America shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God."
    That after the same was reduced to writing, the deposition of each witness was carefully read to him and then signed by him.
    In testimony whereof, I have hereto set my hand and affixed my official seal, at my said office, this the twenty-second day of August, A.D. 1866.

    Depositions of witnesses produced in behalf of the United States, taken before me, J. M. Bacon, county clerk of Clackamas County, Oregon, at Oregon City, in said county, in pursuance of a verbal agreement made in my presence by W. C. Johnson, Esq., attorney for the United States, and Amory Holbrook, Esq., attorney for the Hudson's Bay Company.

Jesse Applegate, being first duly sworn, deposeth and says:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation.
    Ans.--Age, fifty-five years; Yoncalla, Douglas County, Oregon; farmer; formerly surveyor and civil engineer.
    Int. 2.--How long have you resided in Oregon, and at what places?
    Ans.--I have resided twenty-three years; six years in the Willamette Valley, the remainder of the time in Umpqua Valley.
    Int. 3.--Are you acquainted with the Hudson's Bay Company's post at Umpqua? If so, state for how many years you have known it, and how far it is from your residence.
    Ans.--I am, or have been acquainted with it since 1849; it is about eighteen miles from my residence.
    Int. 4.--Did you ever have anything to do in designating the boundaries of the land claimed by the Company at that post? If so, state when, what it was and by whose directions. (Objected to as immaterial and irirelevant.)
    Ans.--I surveyed a section of land, including the improvements, at Fort Umpqua, in the year 1850 or 1851. The survey was submitted to Mr. Ogden, then in charge at Vancouver, and approved by him.
    Int. 6.--Were the cattle and other stock of the Company at Umpqua confined in their range to the 640 acres so surveyed by you? (Objected to as immaterial.)
    Ans.--They were not.
    Int. 6.--What, in your judgment, is the market value per acre of that tract of land at the present time? (Objected to as immaterial, and because present value of the land is not the measure of damages to which the Hudson's Bay Company is entitled of the use of which it has been heretofore deprived.)
    Ans.--About $2, exclusive of improvements.
    Int. 7.--Has its value been any greater for the last five years? If so, state when, and what it was then worth. (Objected to for the same reasons as above stated.)
    Ans.--It has not.
    Int. 8.--What remains, if anything, of the Company's former improvements on that land? (Objected to as immaterial.)
    Ans.--I think nothing of value. I think the barn and some other parts of the improvements, were burned by fire before Colonel Chapman leased the premises. There remained in in the year 1855 or 1856 some log buildings, used as servants' quarters and some of the old fencing; I suppose at the present time it has gone by the course of nature, nothing to be seen of it from this side of the river.
    Int. 9.--Do you know the building erected by Colonel Chapman during his residence there? If so, state its condition and value when you last saw it. (Objected to as before.)
    Ans.--In 1855 or 1856 there was a new building in course of erection by Colonel Chapman; the same house was still standing when I last saw the premises, in about 1862; it is a common farm house; I do not now remember its size; worth four or five hundred dollars.
    Int. 10.--Up to what time did the Company continue to occupy these premises, by their agents or tenants?
    Ans.--Mr. Ogden sent to me a copy of a lease by the Company to Colonel W. W. Chapman, leasing to him the premises, I think, for three years, at the rate of $100 per annum; I do not remember the date of the lease, nor when Colonel Chapman as tenant abandoned the premises; he was the last occupant in behalf of the Company.
    Int. 11.--Who has occupied it since that time, and under what claim?
    Ans.--I cannot say.
    Int. 12.--Have you ever had any experience in erecting buildings in Oregon in the French Canadian style, as was common with the buildings of the Hudson's Bay Company? If so, state when and how much.
    Ans.--l bnilt a house 36 by 18 feet, ten feet high, upon that plan, in 1849 and 1850; I found it a cheap and expeditious mode of building log houses.
    Int. 13.--How many men were engaged in constructing your building, and how long were they at work? (Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--I cannot say how many men were employed upon the building, nor the length of time it was being built; my estimate when completed, with floors and eight feet porches on each side, mud chimneys at each end, shingle roof, at about $500, labor being at the time $40 per month.
    Int. 14.--When were you flrst at Fort Walla Walla, and how long did you remain there at that time?
    Ans.--I was at Fort Walla Walla in the fall of 1843, remained there about three weeks building boats.
    Int. 15.--Who was in charge of the post while you were there?
    Ans.--Archibald McKinlay.
    Int. 16.--Did you, during your stay, have any conversation with Mr. McKinlay about the cost of erecting the adobe fort then about completed? If so, state the substance of your conversation. (Objected to as incompetent and immaterial.)
    Ans.--Mr. Hunt, and others of our party of emigrants, made the gates of the fort. I had some conversation with Mr. McKinlay about the cost of the structure; he said, as well as I can recollect, that the labor had been done mostly by the ordinary force of the establishment; beyond this it had not cost the Hudson's Bay Company but about eight pounds sterling.
    Int. 17.--Was there anything in these conversations particularly tending to impress them upon your memory? If so, state what. (Objected to as immaterial.)
    Ans.--It seemed to me that so large a work as the building of a fort would have cost more money, but that would depend upon the force necessary to man the establishment; and the price named by Mr. McKinlay may have been the cost of materials not made upon the ground.
    Int. 18.--Have you lately visited and examined the lands and improvements claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company at any of the posts named in their memorial in this case? If so, state which of them, when you went, in connection with whom, for what purpose, and under whose directions. (Objected to as leading, incompetent, and the last three clauses as immaterial.)
    Ans.--In the months of July and August of this year, in connection with J. S. Rinearson and J. C. Carson, I have visited Walla Walla, Fort Colvile and Vancouver for the purpose of ascertaining the present cash value of the lands and improvements at those places now in possession of the Hudson's Bay Company, also to ascertain the value of lands in their vicinity; we did this under instructions from W. C. Johnson, attorney for the United States in this case.
    Int. 19.--What were the instructions under which you acted? (Objected to as immaterial.)
    Ans.--They were in words and figures following, to wit:

    Gentlemen: You are constituted a Board of Experts for the examination of the lands and buildings at the more important posts claimed by the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Agricultural Companies, and for which they demand compensation. Having accepted this duty, my instructions to you are as follows:
    1st. You will proceed as expeditiously as possible to Fort Colvile, in Washington Territory, and mark out as nearly as may be a square mile of land, making the buildings of the Company the middle points on Columbia River.
    2nd. You will examine the buildings and improvements of the Company at that place, together with the land, with sufficient care to give a just estimate of their actual present value in gold coin, and also so that you can give a tolerably accurate statement if I should hereafter desire, of the manner of their construction, the amount of fencing, &c.
    3rd. You will examine and measure in the same manner what is known as the White Mud farm, some twelve miles from Fort Colvile, making the ancient improvements of the Company the center of the square mile of land.
    4th. Observe, generally, as you can, the character of the country around Fort Colvile, within four or eight miles up and down the river, so as to give some estimated value per acre. In this connection, I respectfully suggest the propriety of examining the assessment roll of the county, which will assist you in estimating the value of the property. And you can avail yourselves of all the ordinary modes of acquiring a knowledge of these values, including inquiry from residents at that point.
    5th. Your attention is also called to the grist mill and water power used by the Company a few miles above the fort.
    6th. On your way down the river you will make a like examination and survey of the old Fort Walla Walla, now called Wallula, making the small stream below the fort the lower line of the land.
    Upon your return as far down the river as Vancouver I will join you, and your proceedings thereafter will be under my verbal direction until the completion of the work.
    Such notes of distances, amounts, nature and character of soil, improvements and buildings, &c., &c., as will enable you to make a written report if called upon, you will see the propriety of preserving.
    Jesse Applegate, Esq., will be furnished with means to pay the expenses of your transportation and subsistence, of which he will keep an accurate account.
    Wishing you a pleasant and prosperous journey, I am, gentlemen,
Messrs. JESSE APPLEGATE,
JACOB S. RINEARSON,
J. C. CARSON.

    (The foregoing letter objected to, because directions are given for the particular examination only of a square mile at Fort Colvile, whereas the memorial of the Company claims 350 acres of land, occupied, used and cultivated for a farm, about five miles square of land for pasturage.)
    Int. 20.--Have you agreed upon a statement upon the subject set forth in the foregoing instructions? If so, please now present it and make it part of your evidence in this case.
    (Against the introduction as evidence of the statement of the witness and Rinearson and Carson, the counsel of the Company protest and object, because such a statement so proposed to be introduced is in violation of the rules of evidence, and is in no respect legal proof, but is incompetent, leading, immaterial and irrelevant, and because the alleged statement is in great part made up of reports and of hearsay, which are utterly inadmissible as evidence, and because it is concerning the present value of property, and describing limits of property not material or pertinent to the issue pending before the Joint Commission, and the counsel insists that if the testimony of the witness, Applegate, is to be taken in this matter, it shall betaken by interrogatory and answer, in accordance with the universally recognized rules of evidence, so that counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company may have opportunity, in accordance with such rules and the regulations of the Joint Commission, to make objection to questions which may be incompetent, leading, immaterial or improper for any reason; the counsel further protests against this most extraordinary and unwarrantable attempt to invalidate or dispute the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company by the concerted and wholesale ex-parte statements and affidavits of the witness Applegate and others.
    Counsel for the United States now tenders to the counsel of the Company the inspection of said statement, so that he may object to the whole or any part as far as it may be incompetent or in anywise improper.
    The counsel for the Company, for the reasons already stated, objects to the introduction of the statement referred to, and because that so much of said statement is subject to objections, it is insisted that the whole is inadmissible, incompetent, and immaterial.)
    Ans.--We have so agreed, and I now present the document marked "G," as the statement referred to, which is as follows:

    To the Hon. WM. C. JOHNSON, Attorney for the United States, for the adjustment of the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company and Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, upon the United States government.
    SIR: In pursuance of your instructions to us, as a board of experts, to examine and report upon the present condition and value of the real property claimed by the above named companies at certain of their posts occupied by them at the date of the boundary treaty of 1846, we submit the following report of the facts coming to our knowledge:
    1st. At old Fort Walla Walla, now called Wallula, with Major J. S. Rinearson taking the bearings and angles, and J. C. Carson and Jesse Applegate the measurements, the boundaries of a section or six hundred and forty acres of land, having a mile of front upon the Columbia River, and running back for quantity was ascertained, the site of the old fort being about the center of the river front. Upon the section so ascertained, and for some miles on all sides of it, there is no land fit for cultivation, nor could we learn that cultivation had ever been attempted in that vicinity, either by the Hudson's Bay Company or its present inhabitants, the country being a sand plain underlaid with rolled stones and shingle, and without soil. Of buildings and the remains of buildings, we found the river front of the old quadrangle had been removed, but by its traces, marked by the stones laid for its foundation, that it had been about 113 feet front, and 103 feet deep; the east or wall up the river, except about six feet of the front end, is still standing, and is in a useful state of preservation; the wall is ten feet high, two feet thick at the base, and one foot thick at top; a bastion about sixteen feet square and fourteen feet high stands at the northeast angle of what was the quadrangle; the rest of the wall and buildings, if there were any, are in ruins or have been removed. The old bastion is roofed with split pieces of timber, the interstices stopped with grass and supporting a covering of earth (probably adobes), and from its decay and apparent age, may have been the first put upon it, as, to the knowledge of one of your experts, was the kind of roofing over the buildings inside the fort twenty-three years ago. For a part of its length the east wall of the quadrangle forms the east wall of a modern building, erected, as we were informed, since the year 1860, in which year the old fort was sold by the representative of the Hudson's Bay Company for the sum of nine hundred dollars, to one of the original proprietors of the town of Wallula. Nothing more of the old structure was found standing upon the premises; some of its materials (adobes or sun-dried bricks) seem to have been used in the walls of buildings in the vicinity, but much of them remain upon the ground unfit for any useful purpose. We value what remains of the Hudson's Bay Company fort at Wallula at two hundred dollars. Since the purchase of the old fort by Mr. Higgins, in 1860, it has become the nucleus of a small village called Wallula. Wallula was built up under the impression that it was the proper point for the depot for the, then, new discovery of gold placers in the Nez Perce's country, but as the mining ground was extended in all directions from the first discovery, other points both above and below have been found more convenient and accessible for the end of water and the beginning of land transportation to the mines, and Wallula is left without an impulse to further growth and improvement, and as it now is, the depot for the town of Walla Walla and its dependencies only, and the land surrounding it vacant, the land, exclusive of improvements, has only a nominal value.
    2nd. At Fort Colvile, situate on the left bank of the Columbia River, near the northern boundary of the United States. Here, as at Walla Walla, Mr. Rinearson was the surveyor, Carson and Applegate measured the distances, a mile fronting upon the river was ascertained, with the improvements near the center of the front, but in this case the buildings are about 25 chains back from the river. But to include all the land that has been, and is now in cultivation, we found it will be necessary to make two surveys of a section or 640 acres each. Section No. 1 includes the fort buildings and about 76 acres of land in cultivation, and section No. 2, fields, amounting in the aggregate to about 150 acres. On section No. 1 are three enclosures; one of about four acres between the fort and the river, another of about eleven acres below the fort, and another of about sixty acres above the fort. The first named is used as a kitchen garden; this year only about one-half has been planted. The crops of vegetables upon it do not look very promising, owing either to a lack of moisture or negligent cultivation. The second or eleven-acre field has a fair grain crop upon it, and seems to have been but recently reduced to cultivation. The field of sixty acres above the fort has upon the low ground, which constitutes about half the field, an excellent crop of wheat, oats, and potatoes; the rest of it is productive or sterile in direct ratio to the height of the land, that part of the land lying low enough to be influenced by the high water in the Columbia has upon it a crop in proportion to that influence, but that portion which lies too high to be affected by the spring freshet of the Columbia will fail to reward the husbandman. By permission of the Hudson's Bay Company, a Mr. O'Sullivan occupies and cultivates this last described field, free of rent; he says he is an American citizen, and so soon as the land is cleared of the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company, he expects to hold it under existing preemption or donation laws. There is on section No. 1 about 11,000 rails and poles surrounding the enclosures; the bottom rails rest upon stakes or posts, which raises them about one foot from the ground, and the corners are secured by stakes driven into the ground and fastened together at the top; from three to five poles or rails make each panel; there being no hogs upon the Fort Plain, to fence against that animal is unnecessary; but cattle or horses, inclined to be breachy, would not long be turned by a fence so low and weak as encloses all the fields in the Fort Plain. On section 2 there are three small improvements held under the same tenure as that of Mr. O'Sullivan--that is, with consent of the Hudson's Bay Company, and like him the occupants expect to become owners of the soil after the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company have been extinguished. There is, however, one exception, a Mr. Hall has purchased one of these improvements of the tenant of the Hudson's Bay Company, paying one hundred dollars for possession; this arrangement was made without consulting the Hudson's Bay Company.
    Besides these improvements, which are valued by the assessor of Stevens County, Washington Territory, at $25, $100, and $200, respectively, there are about 150 acres enclosed; a part is cultivated by Indians, free of rent; a part by the Hudson's Bay Company, and some of it idle. About 20,000 rails or poles enclose these fields with a fence similar to those of section No. 1; some of the rails are rotten with age, and the fencing generally out of repair; a few huts, old and valueless, are scattered among the fields, some of them occupied by Indians, the rest empty. As portions of the enclosed lands have been exhausted by continuous crops, and none of it difficult to reduce to cultivation, we consider the land rather injured than benefited by the cultivation, and that the fencing does not exceed two thousand dollars in value.
    The buildings as examined by Messrs. Rinearson and Carson were found to be outside the fort proper:
    1st. One barn about 63 feet long, 19 wide, and eight high, erected with plates upon grooved posts set in the ground about ten feet apart, the walls of poles fitted into the grooves, roof of sawed boards, no floor, the building old and decayed; worth two hundred and fifty dollars.
    2nd. A house about 15 by 37 feet, and eight feet high, built similarly to the barn, except that the walls are of squared timber, the roof of split boards, and there is a plank floor in it; building decayed and in bad order; worth four hundred dollars. Mr. O'Sullivan occupies this building.
    3rd. A root house, in good order, about twenty feet square; worth one hundred dollars.
    4th. A barn 25 by 50 feet, and twelve feet high, regularly framed, and boarded on the outside with boards placed vertically; no floor; roof of bark; this barn is fit for use, and worth four hundred dollars.
    5th. A house 23 by 25 feet, and ten feet high, regularly framed, except that the walls are made with squared timber fitted into the posts, roof of sawed boards, used as a work shop, sills rotten; worth two hundred dollars.
    6th. A smith shop 20 by 15 feet, and eight feet high, walls grooved posts set in the ground and filled between with fitted timber, no floor, bark roof, much decayed; worth one hundred dollars.
    7th. House 20 by 50, and twelve feet high, with attic story, built in three parts, regularly framed, and the walls filled with squared timber, has a first and second floor, the walls inside ceiled with boards, shingle roof, sills somewhat decayed, roof old and leaky; worth five hundred dollars. Besides these there are a few old decayed buildings not fit for use and of no value.
    Buildings inside the fort:
    1st. Storehouse 25 by 77 feet, and twelve feet high, is regularly framed, has two partition walls, first and second floor, walls of squared timber, and shingle roof; in use, and worth one thousand dollars.
    2nd. Warehouse 25 by 42 feet, and ten feet high, built similarly to the storehouse, except partitions; worth four hundred dollars.
    3rd. Dwelling, a modern building, now occupied by Chief Trader McDonald; it is 25 by 50 feet, and fourteen feet high, it is weatherboarded on the outside and divided into rooms and plastered inside (for further description see Mr. Carson's private notes), worth three thousand dollars.
    Behind the dwelling are two old buildings about 15 by 20 feet, one story high; one of them is used as a kitchen, the other is an apartment to the house; they are in a state of decay; value two hundred and fifty dollars.
    The buildings form the west side of a quadrangle, enclosed with pickets set in the ground ten feet high, and pinned near the top to horizontal timbers. The three lines of pickets measure respectively, 56, 225, and 100 feet. At the northeast corner is an old bastion 12 by 12 feet, and twenty feet high; inside the enclosure is an old magazine and store-house; the whole in a decayed and dilapidated condition, and only used as a corral; valued as fuel at two hundred dollars.
Aggregate value of buildings on section No. 1, at Fort Colvile……$6,800
Value of fencing, including the tenement of O'Sullivan…… 700
Value of fencing on section No. 2, exclusive of the tenements…… 1,300
Amount taxable…… $8,800
    Value of the same as given in to the assessor by Chief Trader McDonald…… $6,200.
    The Fort Plain is cone-shaped, having its base of one and a half or two miles in length on the river, and its apex two miles back, pointing towards the valley of Mill Creek. The central portion of the plain is occupied by a lake, having communication with the river by a slough or channel at the lower extremity of the plain. The depth of water in the lake and the extent of its surface depends upon the stage of water in the river. Except the bed of a slough or depression between the fort and the river and a few spots along the base of the hills where brooks enter the valley, the land subject to inundation by the lake is all that is fit for cultivation; the remainder is mere shingle and sand. The arable land of the plain, which does not exceed five hundred acres in all, is an alluvial deposit of loam, without subsoil, on a bed of gravel and sand, and its fertility depends almost entirely upon the height and continuance of the spring freshets of the Columbia, which occur when growing crops most need moisture. If the river continues high through the growing season the higher portions of the fields produce good crops, but the lower are overflowed or too wet; when the freshet is small the lower grounds produce, while the higher are too dry. Owing to these uncertainties in farming upon the Fort Plain, Mr. McDonald informed us that the Hudson's Bay Company had found it cheaper to purchase its supplies of farm produce than to cultivate them, and this is the reason why so much of the land heretofore cultivated by the Company is now given over to the Indians or occupied by their former servants rent free, the latter occupants expecting to obtain the fee simple title as American citizens. We therefore consider for agricultural purposes the fee simple title to the whole Fort Plain not to exceed twenty-five hundred dollars, beyond or exclusive of the improvements. The plateau upon which the fort stands is very well adapted for a town site, for as there is no soil, there would be no mud in the streets. The Columbia, here a placid and magnificent sheet of water, covers its front, and its surroundings are very grand and beautiful. But, unfortunately, the Kettle Falls below, and the Little Dalles above, obstruct the navigation of the river, and towns, if there be any, will naturally spring up at these places of debarkation. Therefore, as a town site, we attach no value to it. About four miles south of the fort and upon the stream called Mill Creek is the Hudson's Bay Company mill. It has once been a strong building, about 30 by 40 feet, and 20 feet high; it has been strongly framed, and the walls made of squared timber, grooved into the posts in the usual manner. The machinery was driven by a breast wheel sixteen feet in diameter with thirty-inch buckets, and consisted of one pair of stones, three feet in diameter, out of the granite common to the vicinity, a bolting apparatus, but no smut mill. The whole structure seems to be entirely rotten, and has not been used for some years, nor can it be until entirely rebuilt. We value the mill at five hundred dollars, it has been assessed at fifteen hundred.
    The White Mud farm, the last remaining property or improvement made by the Hudson's Bay Company in the vicinity of Colvile, is about thirteen miles southeast of the old fort; [it] consisted (as stated by Mr. McDonald) of only about thirty acres enclosed and a few buildings of no great value. The Company ceased to cultivate it in 1860, and J. J. Demers was put in possession. There is now but the ruins of one of the houses built by the Company, and no vestige of their enclosures. The ruin being made the center of a section, the survey would embrace the farm of Demers, Isaacs, and parts of those of Huston and Borland. These parties pay taxes for the improvements made upon it, and we saw nothing of value remaining at the White Mud farm which had been made by the Company. In regard to the fee simple title to lands in the vicinity of old Fort Colvile, we herewith submit an extract from the assessor's books of Stevens County, which shows the value of improvements according to the judgment of that officer, who resides in the country and knows the value put upon property by its owners, as well as himself; and we quote the instance of George B. Wonnacott, who purchased for $800 a farm for which he is assessed $l,000, and we were told by other intelligent men that improvements could be purchased in almost any part of Mill Creek Valley for less than they could be made, and as under existing donation and homestead laws, possession will confer title to the occupant, we are of opinion that the public lands in Colvile Valley will command no more than the minimum price, exclusive of the improvements made upon them, say $1.25 per acre.

    At this place we found no person claiming to represent the Hudson's Bay Company, and only a few ruins of no appreciable value that once formed a part of their establishment; we, therefore, proceeded to consider the value of the land by first determining the value of a section of land having a mile of front upon the Columbia River, and including the site of the old fort. Six hundred and forty acres so located would include all or most of the buildings constituting the military post and the town site of Vancouver.
    2nd. Ten sections of land, or six thousand four hundred acres, the value of which is enhanced by the post and town in their vicinity, and lastly the value of land generally, in the neighborhood of Vancouver. Exclusive of improvements, we value the 640 acres embracing the town and fort at fifty dollars per acre. The 6,400 acres next surrounding them at an average of four or five dollars per acre, and the remainder of the country at the minimum price of the public lands--say $1.25 currency, equal to ninety cents coin.
    We came to the above conclusions from an examination of the land itself; from the value placed upon real estate, both in the town and the country by its owners, and from the fact that much of the land in the vicinity of Vancouver is vacant and subject to entry under the homestead law, or at the above named minimum price; that is to say, that in the opinion of the undersigned the tract of land upon which the Hudson's Bay Company's fort stood has been increased in value between fifty and sixty thousand dollars by the establishment upon it of a United States military post and the building of an American town, and not from improvements made upon it by the Hudson's Bay Company, all of which we respectfully submit.
Jesse Applegate sworn to before me, August 27, 1866.
    Sworn to and subscribed by J. S. Rinearson and J. C. Carson, before me this 1st day of September, A.D. 1866.
    Int. 21.--Do you now so adopt the statement and make it part of your testimony? (Objected to for the reasons above stated, because it is leading and incompetent.)
    Ans.Yes.--
    Int. 22.--Have you any document or extract which fortifies the opinions expressed in the foregoing report in relation to Colvile? If so, please state what it is, and present it to be annexed to your deposition. (Objected to as leading and incompetent and immaterial, and because the paper presented is not proved, nor is there legal evidence that Lyman C. Richardson therein described as assessor was or is the assessor of Stevens County, Washington Territory, and because the said paper is in other respects defective as proof of any fact whatsoever.)
    I present a paper marked "I," it being an extract from the assessment rolls of Stevens County, Washington Territory, in which county Fort Colvile, the mill, and White Mud farm is situated, which is as follows:

Extract from the Rolls of the Assessor of Stevens County, Washington Territory for the year 1866 [sic], Hudson's Bay Company represented by Angus McDonald:
Lands cultivated (rents on same)…… $100.00
Buildings and rails…… 6,100.00
One mill (out of repair)…… 1,500.00
Henry Lafleur (joins the White Mud farm, Isaacs' place is included)…… 1,000.00
George B. Wonnacott (7 miles from Old Colvile)…… $1,000.00
T. J. Demers (on the White Mud Farm)…… 1,600.00
Francois Marzon, 12 miles from Old Fort…… 500.00
Alex'r. Marzon, 13 miles from Old Fort…… 400.00
Antoine Charette, 14 miles from Old Fort…… 600.00
Jo. Martin, 7 miles from Old Fort…… 300.00
S. Merchant, 6 miles from Old Fort…… 100.00
Gaspor, 8 miles from Old Fort…… 80.00
John Probelle, 1 mile from Old Fort ……100.00
James Lee, 1½ mile above Old Fort…… 25.00
Peter Gush, 2 miles from fort, on Fort Plain…… 200.00
Alex'r. Jandron, 5 miles from Old Fort…… 600.00
George Finis, 6 miles from Old Fort…… 600.00
L. Peon, 9 miles from Old Fort…… 350.00
John Huston (on Mud Farm)…… 250.00
    I certify the above as correctly extracted from the assessment rolls made by me for the county and the year above written.

    Int. 1.--What, in your judgment, was the value per acre of the land at Fort Umpqua in 1850, provided a sufficient legal title thereto could be made?
    Ans.--In 1850 it was believed that the Umpqua River would be the channel of trade for the mines in Southern Oregon and Northern California; claims were then taken up in the Umpqua Valley and considered more valuable than land is at present; the section of land including Fort Umpqua and its improvements might have been sold for from three to five thousand dollars at that time.
    Int. 2.--In your judgment is not a part of this land as good soil as any in the Umpqua Valley? If so, what portion of the land?
    Ans.--The Fort Umpqua claim is mostly on the river bottom, which is not considered the best soil in the valley.
    Int. 3.--Do you not recollect that in 1851 you wrote to Mr. Ogden, then chief factor of the Company, that in your judgment the Company's section at Umpqua was as valuable as any section in the valley?
    Ans.--I do not remember of such a letter, but the value of the claim does not depend entirely upon the quality of the soil. In 1851, when it was expected the Umpqua River would be the channel of commerce, the claim was valuable for its location.
    Int. 4.--Do you not recollect writing to Mr. Ogden, after making the survey, that you were happily disappointed in finding better land and more of it than you had expected or words to that effect, on the Fort Umpqua claim?
    Ans.--I do not recollect the contents of the letter.
    Int. 5.--What are the principal agricultural products of Umpqua for exportation from 1850 to the present time?
    Ans.--For a few years, from 1850 forward, flour was exported from the Umpqua Valley, since when livestock, bacon, and wool are its exports.
    Int. 6.--Was not the land occupied by the Company, and that in its vicinity, valuable for the purpose of raising hogs, sheep, and cattle?
    Ans.--Yes.
    Int. 7.--Did not the Company, when you first knew the land, have large herds of cattle at and near that point?
    Ans.--Yes, they had; Mr. Gagnier, [who] was in charge of the fort, informed me that there were four or five hundred head of cattle.
    Int. 8.--Do you not know that some of the settlers were in the habit of killing the Company's cattle to a considerable extent?
    Ans.--I do not; I have heard such charge made.
    Int. 9.--Was not the post at Umpqua a convenience to the early settlers, and do you not believe that the influence exerted upon the Indians had been favorable to the security of the settlers?
    Ans.--I think the influence exerted over the Indians was everywhere favorable to the early settlement of the country, and some supplies were obtained at Fort Umpqua.
    Int. 10.--What was and is the market for the productions raised in the Umpqua Valley?
    Ans.--Down to about 1856 or 1857 the best market was to the south; at present the best market is north, in the direction of the northern mines.
    Int. 11.--Has that region a market as convenient to producers as Vancouver, Portland, and the country east of the Cascade Mountains are to the farmers of Clark County, Washington Territory?
    Ans.--Not at present.
    Int. 12.--Has there been since 1857?
    Ans.--After the failure of the southern mines to afford a market, the exports from the Umpqua Valley were sent to San Francisco until the mines of British Columbia and Eastern Oregon created a better market.
    Int. 13.--How often have you been at Fort Umpqua since Colonel Chapman left there?
    Ans.--Not at all.
    Int. 14.--Are you certain that the lease of Colonel Chapman was for the term of three years, and did it not contain a clause by which he agreed, in case the right of the Company to the land was extinguished by the purchase of the government thereof, that the lease should be surrendered?
    Ans.--Mr. Ogden sent me a copy of the lease, with a request that I would put Mr. Chapman in possession; I merely looked over it once, and I do not remember its contents; I think that three years was named. I think there was a provision similar to the ones mentioned in question.
    Int. 15.--Will you state how many miles farther from Victoria, as a market for livestock, it is to the Umpqua Valley, in Oregon, that it is to Pierce County in Washington Territory?
    Ans.--The livestock designed for the Victoria market are driven to Puget's Sound, Pierce County, to be shipped to Victoria; I do not know the distance exactly; by the usual route it is 150 miles from Portland to Umpqua Valley.
    Int. 16.--When, after 1843, were you next at Fort Walla Walla?
    Ans.--In the latter part of July, 1866.
    Int. 17.--Did you visit the Whitman station in 1843, and how long did you remain there?
    Ans.--Yes; I remained about a week.
    Int. 18.--Can you now state the number of buildings inside the fort at Walla Walla?
    Ans.--I cannot be certain of the number of rooms; there was a line of buildings along the south wall where Mr. McKinlay resided, another along the east wall used for storehouses.
    Int. 19.--Was there nothing erected on the north or west sides?
    Ans.--I don't remember any of them.
    Int. 20.--Was the fort at that time completed?
    Ans.--No, it was not completed; the southwest bastion  had not been covered, and the gates were made while I was at the fort.
    Int. 21.--Was the buildings of which you have spoken on the south and east side fully completed?
    Ans.--I cannot say.
    Int. 22.--Was any work done toward the completion of the building on the fort during the three weeks of your stay there, except the making of the gates?
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 23.--Do you know the price paid for making the gates?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 24.--Do you know the dimensions of the gates?
    Ans.--No, I do not remember.
    Int. 25.--How many windows and doors, so far as you recollect, were there about the premises?
    Ans.--There were not many windows; I cannot say the number.
    Int. 26.--Was not the statement made by Mr. McKinlay, referred to in your direct examination, that in building the fort he had been obliged to pay out only eight pounds sterling, the Company having furnished the labor and materials necessary, except to that extent?
    Ans.--The answer in the direct examination was, as I understood the matter, from Mr. McKinlay.
    Int. 27.--Did you understand him that that structure was completed as you saw it, at an expense of only about eight pounds sterling over and above the ordinary labor of the establishment?
    Ans.--I so understood him.
    Int. 28.--How much lumber, in your judgment, had been used at that time for doors, windows, shutters, gates, floors, counters, and other purposes in the establishment?
    Ans.--I cannot say the amount of lumber; very little had been used.
    Int. 29.--How did Mr. McKinlay pay Mr. Hunt and other emigrants who worked for him--in money, or in goods and provisions?
    Ans.--I do not know which.
    Int. 30.--Do you believe that it would have been possible for Mr. McKinlay, with the laborers of the Company at his command, to have furnished everything as necessary for the construction of the fort and buildings with the sum of eight pounds sterling?
    Ans.--Yes; as there was but a small amount of material used in the building of the fort which might not have been manufactured on the ground; I did not know what force he had at command.
    Int. 31.--At that time was not Fort Walla Walla a station of great importance to the emigrants, both for convenience and protection?
    Ans.--Mr. McKinlay had but few supplies in the fall of 1843 to spare to emigrants. Doubtless the fort, as a general plan for maintaining peace with the Indians, afforded protection to the emigrants passing through.
    Int. 32.--At that time did not the Company have a large amount of stock-pastures in the vicinity of Fort Walla Walla?
    Ans.--I did not see the stock of the Company; the immediate vicinity of the fort is barren of grass; I cannot say how many cattle and horses were kept near the fort at that time.
    Int. 33.--Did you see any gardens or other cultivated lands near the fort?
    Ans.--I did not.
    Int. 34.--Did you not know that there was such lands in the vicinity or within a few miles?
    Ans.--I saw no cultivation in the vicinity of the fort or within a few miles.
    Int. 35.--Was there not good grazing ground within a half of a mile of the fort?
    Ans.--No; at least I saw none; the cattle ranges for the Company were up the Walla Walla River, and on the Touchet; I did not see them.
    Int. 36.--When you say in your statement that, for some miles on all sides of Fort Walla Walla, there is no land fit for cultivation, nor could we learn that cultivation had ever been attempted in that vicinity either by the Hudson's Bay Company or its present inhabitants, please state whether you mean that the Company, so far as you could learn, made no cultivation for some miles in all directions from the fort; and if so, how many miles.
    Ans.--We mean just what we say in the sentence quoted in the question; I do not know where the Company cultivated, or how many miles such cultivation (if there were any) was from the fort.
    Int. 37.--Have you not read the evidence taken in behalf of the Company last year, which has been published?
    Ans.--I have not read, as I remember, any of the evidence in relation to Walla Walla.
    Int. 38.--How do you know the Old Fort was sold by the representative of the Hudson's Bay Company in 1860 to one of the original proprietors of the town of Wallula?
    Ans.--We were so informed by Mr. Vansyckle, D. S. Baker, and others, who spoke of it as a well-known fact.
    Int. 59.--By whom was it said the sale was made?
    Ans.--We stated or intended to state that we obtained this fact from information, not as a fact ascertained by ourselves.
    Int. 40.--Were not all the statements made by you concerning the sale derived from mere report?
    Ans.--Yes.
    Int. 41.--Can you now give the name of the seller?
    Ans.--A note of the name was taken by the experts; I do not find it in my own notes; I cannot give it.
    Int. 42.--Please to say whether by the term "experts" you mean yourself and Rinearson and Carson, who were requested to visit and examine that they might testify in regard to it?
    Ans.--I do.
    Int. 43.--Can you give the name of the purchaser of the fort?
    Ans.--Mr. Higgins.
    Int. 44.--Was he one of the parties from whom you derived any information?
    Ans.--We did not see Mr. Higgins.
    Int. 45.--Did you look for or see any record of this alleged transaction?
    Ans.--We did not.
    Int. 46.--Did you ever hear the name of the alleged seller mentioned at any other time as a representative of the Hudson's Bay Company?
    Ans.--I do not remember that I did.
    Int. 37.--Have you not personally known all the representatives of the Company since you have been in Oregon?
    Ans.--Not all of them.
    Int. 48.--Have you not known by name at least those who have been acting as representatives of the Company?
    Ans.--I cannot say.
    Int. 49.--In 1860 who were the representatives of the Company, so far as you know, at Vancouver and Colvile?
    Ans.--I do not know, in 1860, who represented the Company in either place.
    Int. 50.--Have you not as reliable information in regard to that as you have in regard to many statements in your report, which are based on information merely?
    Ans.--I cannot say in regard to the reliability of my information; it was not my duty in 1860 to collect information; it was, in 1866.
    Int. 51.--If, in 1866, your duty was as stated, did you not think yourself under obligations to learn whether the sale was made by an authorized agent of the Company before making the statement which you have presented?
    Ans.--We did not.
    Int. 52.--Did you think that such a statement, without deriving your information from the seller or purchaser, or seeing or looking for any record of the alleged transaction, was fair and just?
    Ans.--We did not investigate more fully the sale of Walla Walla, because we were informed the transaction would be established by other evidence.
    Int. 53.--From whom and when did you receive this information?
    Ans.--We received the information from persons residing at Wallula at the time of our visit, and from Mr. Johnson, I think, before and since our visit.
    Int. 54.--Do you mean to say that you based the statements in your report upon information given to you by Mr. Johnson before you commenced your examination?
    Ans.--I do not mean so to say, but that we were governed in our investigations by instructions from Mr. Johnson in regard to the subjects to be investigated.
    Int. 55.--Were there any instructions except those, a copy of which has been filed?
    Ans.--There were none, except verbal explanations of those instructions.
    Int. 56.--Did Mr. Johnson inform you that you need not investigate the alleged sale of Fort Walla Walla, because it would be proved by other evidence?
    Ans.--His instructions generally were to confine ourselves to the ascertainment of facts required of us in his written instructions.
    Int. 57.--What do you mean by saying then, in your answer to the 63rd interrogatory, that you derived information from Mr. Johnson, both before and after your visit to Walla Walla, as to the fact named therein?
    Ans.--I mean what I say in answer to that interrogatory.
    Int. 58.--Please then state what information he gave you before your visit, and what he gave you since your visit.
    Ans.--My answer to this is the same as to the 56th interrogatory.
    Int. 59.--Can you state any information given by him to you concerning the alleged sale of Fort Walla Walla before you went there?
    Ans.--I cannot state any information not contained in my answers already given.
    Int. 60.--Can you state any information given to you by Mr. Johnson, concerning the alleged sale of Fort Walla Walla since your return from there?
    Ans.--Nothing further than is contained in my answer to the 53rd interrogatory.
    Int. 61.--Do you mean to say that after your return from your expedition in search of information, you derived information from Mr. Johnson, upon which in part your report was based?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 62.--Did you have any conference with him upon the subject of the sale of Fort Walla Walla mentioned in the report before submitting it?
    Ans.--We had a conference with Mr. Johnson since our return in respect to our report, as to the method we should present the facts collected, not in regard to the facts themselves.
    Int. 63.--Did anything said by Mr. Johnson, before or after you went, affect your investigation?
    Ans.--Yes, in regard to the subjects to be investigated.
    Int. 64.--How long were you at Walla Walla and its vicinity?
    Ans.--Three or four hours going up, and less than one hour on our return.
    Int. 66.--Was not your stop there limited to the time of the boat's landing at Walla Walla on her regular trip?
    Ans.--It was.
    Int. 66.--How far in that time did you go from the landing?
    Ans.--We made the survey described in our report and a short distance beyond, say one-fourth of a mile, to an eminence in the rear, to obtain a view of the surrounding country.
    Int. 67.--Did you make any other examination of the lands formerly occupied and used by the Company as described in its memorial?
    Ans.--We did not.
    Int. 68.--Do you not know that most of the land in the vicinity of Wallula is claimed by pre-emption, or under the homestead law?
    Ans.--No, we saw no lands in cultivation in that vicinity.
    Int. 69.--How far from the fort do the vacant lands extend, to your knowledge?
    Ans.--We saw no cultivation in the vicinity, and were informed by the people of Wallula that the land was vacant.
    Int. 70.--How many buildings are there at Wallula?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 71.--Is not the valley of Wala Walla thickly settled, and are not the farming lands generally occupied and cultivated?
    Ans.--We did not visit that section of the country known as Walla Walla Valley.
    Int. 72.--Did you not receive information to that effect from the same source that you learned of the vacancy of the land about Wallula?
    Ans.--I made no inquiries respecting Walla Walla Valley; I received no information pertinent to the report made by us, not contained in it.
    Int. 73.--Do you not know that Wallula is the shipping port of Walla Walla County and its vicinity, as well as for large quantities of merchandise on its way to the mines in the interior?
    Ans.--The information obtained by us in respect to those facts is embodied in our report.
    Int. 74.--Do you decline to make any statement in reply to the last question except by reference to the report?
    Ans.--I do not decline to answer any question pertinent to the reports or a clear understanding of it; I refer to the report in the last answer, because it stated the extent of my information upon the subject inquired after.
    Int. 75.--Do you not know, or have you not been informed, that the Hudson's Bay Company, since 1855, when it was compelled to abandon Fort Walla Walla at the time of the Indian war, under the orders of the United States authorities, has had no agent at that post?
    Ans.--I do not know whether the Company has occupied that post since 1855 or any subsequent period, as reports in regard to that fact are contradictory.
    Int. 76.--Have you ever heard that the Company occupied that post since 1855. If so, from whom?
    Ans.--I have heard from Dr. Baker and others that the man who sold the claim claimed to represent the Company.
    Int. 77.--Excepting that rumor, have you ever heard of any other occupation by the Company since 1855?
    Ans.--As well as I remember, I have not.
    Int. 78.--In stating in your report that the land at Wallula has merely a nominal value, do you mean to say that, used as a shipping port, as it now is, for the region mentioned by you, it has no market value if sold or offered for sale?
    Ans.--Yes.
    Int. 79.--Do you not know that lots and blocks at that point are assessed as town property, and taxes paid thereon?
    Ans.--We were informed, for the reason stated in the report, town property in Wallula could not be sold for the cost of the improvements.
    Int. 80.--Is it not often the case when new towns are hastily built at large costs under the excitement of speculation, that reaction occurs, and improvements cannot be sold for their cost, while the land has actual value?
    Ans.--The first clause of this question is unfortunately true of many towns in the mining regions; the second clause is also true where the town site is upon land that may be used for other purposes.
    Int. 81.--Do you not believe that Wallula will necessarily be used as a shipping port for the regions above it, and which are accessible from it, and that therefore the land must increase in value?
    Ans.--As a matter of belief, I think the improvements at Wallula will continue to decrease in value, and as there is no more land needed for building purposes and the land is utterly valueless for other purposes, that it will not increase in value.
    Int. 82.--How long were you at Fort Colvile, and employed in the examination of the land described by the Company in its memorial?
    Ans.--We were two days making the survey and examining the property; we were in the vicinity two other days, in which we were employed in collecting general information of the country.
    Int. 83.--Describe the property examined by you, the number of acres of land, and its location.
    Ans.--These facts are to be found in the report.
    Int. 84.--Did you examine all the land claimed by the Company in its memorial?
    Ans.--We were only in the valley, not upon the surrounding mountains.
    Int. 85.--Did you examine all the lands in the valley, so claimed by the Company in its memorial?
    Ans.--The claim of the Company, as set forth in the memorial, is indefinite as to location; we examined by actual survey the lands in the Fort Plain; we also ascertained about the position the Mud Farm would occupy within a mile square section; the rest of our examination was made solely,  so far as I was concerned, to enable us to make a fair estimate of the value of the land in that vicinity.
    Int. 86.--Have not the Company in cultivation on the Fort Plain more than 225 acres, mentioned in your report, as sections No. 1 and 2.
    Ans.--l cannot say, that being the amount that we arrived at; it may be more or less; we passed over lands, outside of the enclosures, which appeared to have been once in cultivation, but we did not ascertain their extent.
    Int. 87.--How do you know that any part of the field of 60 acres described by you in section No. 1 is ever overflowed?
    Ans.--By observation and information.
    Int. 88.--From whom did you derive the information?
    Ans.--I think from Mr. O'Sullivan.
    Int. 89.--Did he tell you that any part of that upon which you saw crops growing had been overflowed the present year?
    Ans.--I do not remember that he did.
    Int. 90.--Have you ever seen any of that land overflowed, and have you ever been at Colvile, except at the time mentioned in your report?
    Ans.--I have not; I was led to believe that my information in regard to overflow was correct, from the facts that the present line of fence bordering on the lake or slough is not in a straight line, but bent around the margin of the lake or water, and the land outside having the appearance of being once cultivated.
    Int. 91.--From your observation and information are you so positive in regard to the overflow of that land that you are willing to testify that it has been inundated within the last five years?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 92.--How then can you say that what is not overflowed is productive or sterile in direct ratio of the height of the land, as stated in your report?
    Ans.--Prom observation and information.
    Int. 93.--Why will that portion that lies too high to be affected by the spring freshet of the Columbia fail to reward the husbandman, as stated in your report?
    Ans.--From observing that the crops on the highlands were poor, and that the land outside the fence seemed to have been cultivated and abandoned.
    Int. 94.--Do you mean to say, then, that only the lands affected by the spring freshet are of value for agricnltural purposes?
    Ans.--That is my opinion in respect to cultivation.
    Int. 95.--What have Mr. O'Sullivan's intentions or expectations in regard to holding the lands of the Company, after they are cleared of the Company's claims, to do with the value of the property, so that you deemed it necessarv to make that statement in your report?
    Ans.--Nothing.
    Int. 96.--Why did you burden your report with such statements?
    Ans.--In order to show those who held adversely, and with consent of the Company.
    Int. 97.--What has that to do with the value of the property?
    Ans.--Nothing.
    Int. 98.--How do you know that Mr. Hall purchased improvements of the tenant of the Company, as stated, on section 2?
    Ans.--From information.
    Int. 99.--What information?
    Ans.--From Mr. O'Sullivan and others.
    Int. 100.--Did the man who bought, or the one who sold, furnish you with the information?
    Ans.--They did not.
    Int. 101.--Was that alleged transaction in regard to property of the Company, thus fraudulently disposed of, mentioned by you in the report for the sake of giving evidence as to the value of the property?
    Ans.--It was not.
    Int. 102.--Do you wish to be understood as stating that, in your judgment, the enclosed lands described by you are of no value?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 108.--What then do you mean by this sentence, "as portions of the enclosed lands have been exhausted by continuous crops, and none of it difficult to reduce to cultivation, we consider the land rather injured than benefitted by the cultivation, and that the fencing does not exceed $2,000 in value."
    Ans.--The meaning of the sentence quoted from the report is that the preparing of the new land for the plow under the circumstances stated does not increase the value of the land; that the use had of the land would repay the expense of reducing its cultivation.
    Int. 104.--Is your meaning then that the land is of no more value than if it were new and unbroken?
    Ans.--It is.
    Int. 105.--Did you not observe that portions of the cultivated land appeared to have been sown with timothy, and allowed to remain without other crops, to give the opportunity for renovation?
    Ans.--I saw some timothy growing in places in fields; I cannot say for what purpose.
    Int. 106.--Did you learn the yield of timothy and other crops there per acre, or the value when sold?
    Ans.--I find no information in my notes respecting timothy; the yield of oats will probably be from 20 to 40 bushels per acre; wheat 10 to 25; potatoes from 50 to 200 bushels. Wheat sold before harvest at five dollars is expected to bring after harvest two dollars; oats sold before harvest at three dollars expected to bring after harvest one dollar. This information was obtained partly by observations made partly by ourselves and partly from information obtained from farmers in that country.
    Int. 107.--Were not the expected reductions in price after harvest based upon the supposition that the mining region would not furnish any market the present year for agricultural productions, there being a heavy crop?
    Ans.--The prices named are the conclusion of the farmers; I cannot say upon what grounds.
    Int. 108.--Did you personally examine and estimate the value of the buildings outside and inside the fort proper?
    Ans.--l did not.
    Int. 109.--You say in your report that the land subject to inundation by the lake is all that is fit for cultivation; please say how many acres are subject to inundation.
    Ans.--We do not say that the land. subject to inundation is all that is fit for cultivation; I cannot aay the number of acres that is subject to inundation.
    Int. 110.--Please explain what you mean by that phrase in your report, for it certainly is there.
    Ans.--I leave the report to stand or fall, in that partictular, to the grammatical construction of the sentence referred to in the question.
    Int. 111.--Do you decline any further explanation of your meaning?
    Ans.--The exceptions made in the first clause in the sentence certainly mean that they are independent of the inundation of the lake.
    Int. 112.--When Mr. McDonald informed you that the Company found it cheaper to purchase its farm produce than to cultivate, did he assign a reason for this?
    Ans.--Mr. McDonald stated the fact contained in the report; he may have had other and different reasons for adopting the course declared.
    Int. 113.--Did he not state other and different reasons to you?
    Ans.--He may have done so.
    Int. 114.--Did he not say that on account of the frequently recurring excitements about gold discoveries, it was impossible to keep hired men to their bargains, or words to that effect?
    Ans.--He may have done so.
    Int. 115.--Do you not know that the Company used for pasturage all that part of the Fort Plain which is cultivated?
    Ans.--I cannot say that I know anything about it; they doubtless did so if they kept animals running at large.
    Int. 116.--Is it not suitable for pasturing purposes?
    Ans.--It is.
    Int. 117.--How far is it from the fort to Kettle Falls below!
    Ans.--About a mile in a straight line, a little more by the road.
    Int. 118.--How far from the fort to the Little Dalles above?
    Ans.--Mr. McDonald says that the old Hudson's Bay Company's guides called it fifteen miles by the thread of the river, but he himself thinks it is about twenty miles.
    Int. 119.--Cannot steamers go to the fort landing six months in the year?
    Ans.--Mr. McDonald says, "I think that steamers from above, between that and the Big Bend, could anchor there six months in the year, but not from below; I think that a steamer strongly propelled could anchor there at least eight and a half months in a year; in that case, if she was detained at all at the Dalles by high water, it would not be much over a month; the rest of her detention during the twelve months would be only from ice."
    Int. 120.--How long were you at the Company's grist mill?
    Ans.--We were there an honr or an hour and a half; I did not know the time.
    Int. 121.--How do you know that the mill has not been used for some years?
    Ans.--From information and the condition of the structure.
    Int. 122.--From whom did you obtain this information?
    Ans.--I cannot give the name of our informant in regard to the time the mill has been idle; the condition of the structure would certainly make use of it unsafe.
    Int. 123.--Is there anything about its condition, except the decay of its sills, which would make its running unsafe?
    Ans.--Yes.
    Int. 124.--What.
    Ans.--The ties binding the building together are also rotten.
    Int. 125.--Are there not strong square plates sufficient to secure the building, independent of the ties?
    Ans.--Not in our opinion.
    Int.126.--In the short time you were there, did you have opportunity so thoroughly to examine the building as to be able to form a satisfaotory estimate, especially if you have been misinformed as to its use for some years past?
    Ans.--We were.
    Int. 127.--Did you go into the building and examine the inside?
    Ans.--We did not go into the building; we trusted to Mr. McDonald's information as to the inside machinery and to what we could see of it through the window, and the space round the shaft and the water wheel.
    Int. 128.--Was such a mode of examination satisfactory?
    Ans.--It was.
    Int. 129.--In estimating its value at $500 dollars, state the basis of your estimate.
    Ans.--Our estimate was based upon those portions of the machinery and other parts that might be useful in its reconstruction.
    Int. 130.--Did you estimate the value of the water power?
    Ans.--We did not.
    Int. 131.--Did you not consider that it had any value?
    Ans.--We did not agree upon the valuation of the water power, and did not report.
    Int. 132.--Will you state the value of the water power on that stream in your judgment?
    Ans.--In case the mining regions of the Columbia continue to be profitable, in my judgment, the water power on Mill Creek where the mill stands will be of great value.
    Int. 183.--In case it were your own, what would you consider its value?
    Ans.--In case it were my own, I should be loath to sell it at present for less than five thousand dollars; it would certainly be worth much more in the hands of a company able properly to improve it.
    Int. 134.--To such a company, what would you deem its value, if that region should be reasonably prosperous?
    Ans.--I cannot say.
    Int. 135.--By whom were you informed that tihe mill was assessed at $1,500?
    Ans.--By inspection of the assessment rolls.
    Int. 136.--How long were you employed in examining those rolls?
    Ans.--Long enough to obtain the information submitted with our report.
    Int. 137.--Was anything assessed upon the rolls besides improvements?
    Ans.--There was on the rolls the assessment of personal property and improvements.
    Int. 138.--Was there any assessment of real estate?
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 139.--Did you regard the assessments as indicating any true or conect value of the property assessed?
    Ans.--We did.
    Int. 140.--If so, how did it happen that you fixed the value of the mill at one-third of the assessment?
    Ans.--The property valued by us was valued according to our own judgment.
    Int. 141.--How do you know that the Company ceased to cultivate the White Mud farm in 1860?
    Ans.--We learned most of the facts stated in the report about the White Mud farm from Mr. McDonald?
    Int. 142.--Did Mr. McDonald inform you that Demers was put in possession of that farm?
    Ans.--I so understood him, but he may have said "was in possession."
    Int. 148.--If you have notes of your conversation with Mr. McDonald, upon which you based your report, please examine them and state what he said in regard to Demers.
    Ans.--Mr. McDonald says, "that Demers and Wolf built upon the Company's claim, and Demers took possession of the Company's actual property, destroyed some of it, and left some of it standing"; all was done trader the protest of the Company; this happened in 1858, 1859, and 1860. He, McDonald, further remarks "that Maj. Lugenbeel, of the United States army, is a witness to the above encroachments." I find no notes of his statement, but suppose it was made to one of our party.
    Int. 144.--Are you positive that none of the houses, built by the Company and belonging to it, are now standing on the White Mud farm?
    Ans.--But one.
    Int. 146.--Will you say that the land which composed that farm is not worth, in your judgment, more than $1.25 an acre?
    Ans.--It seems to be worth no more, exclusive of improvements.
    Int. 147.--Describe that soil.
    Ans.--The soil seemed to be very good, some of i, but we were not governed by the quality of the soil only in making an estimate of the present value of the land, but upon the assessment roll and such sales of improvements as had been made in the vicinity.
    Int. 147.--Was not the soil of the land described in the Company's memorial as White Mud farm as fertile and rich as any known to you in Oregon or Washington Territory?
    Ans.--It is not.
    Int. 148.--How were you guided as to value of land by the assessments, when, as already stated by you, no lands are assessed?
    Ans.--Because under existing donation and honiestead laws, possession confers title.
    Int. 149.--What has that to do with the assessment as an indication of the value of land?
    Ans.--Because the assessments are the valuation of the improvements, and the possession of the improvements is, in effect, the possession of the land.
    Int. 160.--Did you exercise your judgment in regard to that land, as you did in regard to the mill, the value of which you reduced to one-third of its assessment?
    Ans.--We did not.
    Int. 151.--How can you say that Lyman C. Richardson knows the value to put upon property in Stevens County? Have you any acquaintance with him, so that you are willing to testify as to the correctness of his judgment?
    Ans.--I have no further or other reasons to rely upon the judgment of Mr. Richardson than is stated in our report.
    Int. 153.--State how you know that Wonnacott bought a farm for $800; if you know the quality of that farm, and what improvements are thereon.
    Ans.--From the statement of Mr. Wonnacott and others, and the farm seems to be as good as those adjoining it.
    Int. 153.--Do you know the price of wages at Colvile and the vicinity?
    Ans.--We were told rails were made at $1.50 to $2 per hundred, and farm labor was about $40 per month.
    Int. 154.--Do you mean including, or excluding board?
    Ans.--The rail making exclusive, the monthly wages inclusive..
    Int. 155.--What, if you know, are the wages of millwrights and carpenters?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int.. 156.--How then could you form an estimate of the value of the mill, if you did not know what the wages would be in making the machinery at that place?
    Ans.--Mr. Carson can, perhaps, answer the question in regard to the price of skilled labor; our estimate was based upon those portions of the machinery that might be useful in its reconstruction.
    Int. 157.--As Mr. Carson is not a witness at present, and you are, how could you estimate the value of that machinery, when you do not know the price of skilled labor there?
    Ans.--Skilled labor generally bears a proportionate price to common labor; precisely what proportion it bears to common labor at Colvile, if informed, I do not recollect.
    Int. 158.--State what what proportionate price skilled labor bears to common labor, such as millwrights, blacksmiths, and other mechanics, who must be employed in the construction of mill machinery.
    Ans.-Generally, about fifty percent higher.
    Int. 159.--Do you believe that the wages of such men at Colvile can be obtained for $2 a day and board?
    Ans.--I cannot say.
    Int. 160.--Did you estimate the value of that machinery upon that basis?
    Ans.--The estimate is in accordance with the supposition that mechanics would work for sixty or seventy dollars per month.
    Int. 161.--Did you ever know a millwright to work at that rate in Oregon or Washington?
    Ans.--I have employed millwrights at lower rates.
    Int. 162.--Have you done so during the present year or within the last three years?
    Ans.--I have built no mills in that period.
    Int. 163.--Did you ever do so except in winter when the days were short?
    Ans.--Yes.
    Int. 164.--Did you see any roads which you were informed were constructed by the Company? If so, state their character, extent, and probable cost.
    Ans.--I saw two roads that Mr. McDonald informed me were constructed by the Company; one of them, particularly, must have cost a good deal of labor; one of them leading down the Columbia I followed but a short distance; the other leads off in the direction of the American Fort Colvile. "It," Mr. McDonald says, "has been made a public road," distance three or four miles.
    Int. 165.--Do you know anything of a bridge erected by the Company? If so, where?
    Ans.--I saw some bridges; I do not know who built them.
    Int. 166.--Did you examine the water power at Kettle Falls? If so, state whether it is valuable, and so located as to be of consequence at any time?
    Ans.--I looked at the Kettle Falls, but do not think them valuable for manufacturing purposes.
    Int. 167.--Why not?
    Ans.--On account of the expense consequent to using water from so large a river, and the removal of the rocks in order to take out the water and use it in safety to the machinery.
    Int. 168.--How wide is the Columbia River at that point?
    Ans.--I eannot say; it is perhaps three or four hundred yards.
    Int. 169.--From your experience, do you not believe, when the wants of the country may demand it, that the skill of civil engineers and the enterprise of capitalists will find a means to make that water power of great value?
    Ans.--In a populous country where water power is needed such might be the case, but in the vicinity of Kettle Falls water powers of much less cost to improve are sufficient for the wants of the country now, aud perhaps for ages to come.
    Int. 170.--When were you first at Fort Vancouver, and what property had the Hudson's Bay Company there at that time?
    Ans.--I was first at Vancouver in November, 1843; there was at that time substantially the buildings set forth in the memorial of the Company, exeept the bastions, which were built later.
    Int. 171.--From that time to 1850, how frequently were you at Vancouver?
    Ans.--I was there often; I think once a year at least.
    Int. 172.--Did you visit and particularly notice the Company's farms in the vicinity?
    Ans.--Only those bordering on the river.
    Int. 173.--How far down the river from Vancouver did those farms extend, so far as you know?
    Ans.--A piece of land in cultivation began about half a mile below the fort, and extended down the river perhaps two miles.
    Int. 174.--Were those farms extended further down the river at a later period?
    Ans.--Not that I know; the period to which I refer to [in] the preceding interrogatory was two or three years subsequent to 1843.
    Int. 175.--Describe the farms in the vicinity of the fort, around and above it, what were the productions and the extent of lands under fence?
    Ans.--There was an orchard and kitchen garden in the rear of the fort; I think I saw some lands cultivated in front, or rather up the river from the front; the enclosed plain extending up the river from the fort about two miles in length, and would average in my recollection about half a mile in width, was used chiefly for pasturage.
    Int. 176.--At that time, state, if you know, the amount of livestock pastured by the Company.
    Ans.--I cannot state the number.
    Int. 177.--From 1843 to 1849, state what, in your judgment, was the influence of the Company upon the settlement of the country and the pacification of savages and the protection of emigrants and settlers.
    Ans.--The influence of the Company was, in all respects inquired after, most beneficial and salutary.
    Int. 178.--Was that influence in any respect subsequently changed, up to the time of the Company's leaving, in 1860?
    Ans.--Not to my knowledge.
    Int. 179.--Are you the Jesse Applegate whose name appears subscribed to memorial of the Legislative Committee of Oregon, dated June 28, 1845, and addressed to the Congress of the United States?
    Ans.--I am.
    Int. 180.--Were you not the author of that memorial?
    Ans.--I was a member of the committee that reported the memorial.
    Int. 181.--Did you not write in October, 1851, a letter to Dr. John McLoughlin containing the following paragraph:
    "As one of the early emigrants to Oregon, I am pleased to bear evidence to your kindness and Christian philanthropy; of those requiring assistance, you have never exacted either a civil or religious test; Catholics and Protestants, Americans and British have been equal sharers of your bounty, and are equally indebted to you for protection and assistance; but the evidence of a private citizen is unnecessary to establish the fact of the active and beneficial assistance you have ever rendered to American settlers in Oregon; the acknowledgment of this fact is contained in a memorial transmitted to the Congress of the United States in 1845, is superior to all private testimonials; that document, signed by every officer of the provisional government, legislative and executive and judicial, pays a just tribute to the conduct of the Hudson's Bay Company in Oregon which, up to that time, was under your superintendence."
    Ans.--I wrote such a letter, or a letter to that purport; I do not remember the date.
    Int. 182.--Do you not believe that in the absence of protection to the people of Oregon on the part of the American government up to the 4th of March, 1849, the assistance and support of the infant settlement furnished by the Hudson's Bay Company was, if not essential, of great importance to the very life of those settlements?
    Ans.--Their concurrence in the provisional government for the purpose of keeping peace was, in my opinion, indispensable.
    Int. 183.--Have you any definite idea of the amount of business transacted by the Company at Vancouver between 1843 and 1849, derived from your observation of the arrival of furs or otherwise? If so, please state.
    Ans.--I have no definite idea of the amount of business done at Vancouver. On two occasions I was at the fort when the annual fleet of boats called by them a "brigade" arrived from the upper Columbia; these boats were about forty feet in length, about six feet beam and four feet deep; they were built very light and capable of bringing a large cargo; they seemed on those occasions filled with furs and peltries. I also saw the barque Columbia lying at anchor in front of the fort, which vessel, I was informed, made annual voyages to London. They had also coasting vessels; I do not know how many.
    Int. 184.--Was not the chain of posts comprising Fort Vancouver, Fort Walla Walla, Fort Hall, and Fort Boise an organization necessary, as well for prosperously conducting the fur trade, as for the protection of the Company's trains in their passage across the continent?
    Ans.--I passed the forts named in the interrogatory on my way to the country; they were doubtless for the purposes named.
    Int. 185.--Were not the construction and maintenance of these posts a work of great magnitude, involving large and annual outlays and expenses?
    Ans.--To extend trade and hold so large a number of Indians spread over so large a surface was a great work; as to the expense of it, I cannot answer.
    Int. 186.--From your general knowledge of business, do you not think that in a new country so far distant from civilized regions and so much occupied by Indians, that such a work must have been attended with very great annual expense?
    Ans.--Not knowing the number of officers and servants employed by the Company, I cannot answer in regard to the expense.
    Int. 187.--In your report you state that 640 acres making the old fort a center, will include all or most the buildings constituting the military buildings and the town site at Vancouver; is that correct?
    Ans.--I think it is.
    Int. 188.--If you had owned that section in 1849, situated as it is upon the Columbia River, would you have been willing to sell it for $50 an acre?
    Ans.--What I might have done in 1849 or 1850, I cannot say; I would now, if the section named belonged to me, sell it for that price with the value of the improvements added.
    Int. 189.--Do you know of any actual sales on that section at the rate of $50 an acre?
    Ans.--I do not know of any sales at that price; I was informed of the actual sale of lots, some improved and some unimproved, that justified, in my opinion, the value of the whole section at that rate.
    Int. 190.--Were you not also informed of the sale of lots and blocks at Vancouver, which would have justified you in fixing a higher rate?
    Ans.--I was not.
    Int. 191.--How long were you employed in examining the land at Vancouver and its vicinity?
    Ans.--Upon the late visit about one and a half days.
    Int. 192.--What sales do you refer to in your statement in reply to interrogatory 189?
    Ans.--We were informed of the sale of some lots adjoining or cornering with the public square, made at auction the present year, which sold for less than $50 each; these were unimproved; we were also informed that lots having improvements upon them sold for prices not exceeding the value of the improvements.
    Int. 193.--Do you know that blocks containing an acre comprise eight such lots as you have specified?
    Ans.--Blocks containing eight lots 50 by 100 feet, with the streets on two sides added, contain one acre and nearly 128 square rods; taking this estimate of the value of lots around the public square, considering those along the water and in other places having enhanced value by location, we did not consider the lots on a town plot of one section would average higher than $50 per acre.
    Int. 194.--By whom were you informed of the sales mentioned?
    Ans.--Walter P. Mayberry informed us that he purchased two lots, cornering with the public square at public auction the present year at $41 each; he also told us that improved lots could be purchased on almost any part of the town plot, from those wishing to sell, at prices not exceeding the value of the improvements.
    Int. 195.--Who is Walter P. Mayberry, where does he reside, and what is his business?
    Ans.--He is a citizen of Clark County; resides about seven miles from Vancouver, in what is known as the Fourth Plain, on a farm.
    Int. 196.--Do you know whether he owns any town lots in Vancouver, except the two purchased at auction?
    Ans.--Mr. Mayberry mentioned having purchased or being about to purchase two lots of 50 by 100 feet, one having upon it a small house, the other a barn, built in the last two or three years, 100 feet long and 50 feet wide, the two lots being oftered to him or bought by him for $1,250; he says the barn cost the builder $2,000.
    Int. 197.--What is the size of that barn?
    Ans.--It is about twenty feet high; the other dimensions were given in the answer before.
    Int. 198.--Did you hear of any other actual sales, except from Mr. Mayberry; if so, from whom?
    Ans.--l have heard of other actual sales, but cannot give the names of my informants.
    Int. 199.--Can you designate the property sold, the names of purchasers or the names of sellers, or the amounts paid?
    Ans.--I cannot.
    Int. 200.--Do you not know that titles to the land upon the town site at Vancouver are very uncertain on account of the conflict between different claimants thereto?
    Ans.--I do not know of any uncertainty of titles; we were informed the land in the vicinity of Vancouver was disposed of by the government as other public lands; about the immediate town site I cannot say.
    Int. 201.--From whom did you get that information?
    Ans.--From the several land owners whose farms we visited.
    Int. 202.--I have not asked you about land owners or farms, but in regard to the town site, and now repeat, did you hear, while making inquiries in regard to that property, that there was any uncertainty as to the title on account of a conflict between different claimants?
    Ans.--I did not.
    Int. 203.--How did you learn that much of the land in the vicinity of the town site was vacant and subject to entry?
    Ans.--I was so told by Thomas Norton, Wm. L. Lakin, Charles B. Crossman, and Walter P. Mayberry.
    Int. 204.--Did you inquire as to that matter of the Register of the Land Office?
    Ans.--I did not.
    Int. 205.--Did you not see, and were you not at his office while there?
    Ans.--Not that I know of.
    Int. 206.--Would not information from him have been much more reliable and satisfactory than that derived from farmers living five or six miles from Vancouver?
    Ans.--No, it would not; because the farmers acquainted with the country know whether the surface of land is fit for cultivation, a fact which cannot be learned at the land office.
    Int. 207.--The inquiries have been in regard to vacant land subject to entry, and not as to land unfit for cultivation; would not information as to vacant land be more reliable from the register than from any other source?
    Ans.--In regard to vacant land it would not.
    Int. 208.--Do you not know that much of the land below Vancouver, embraced in the ten sections mentioned by you, is of a special value as pasture land, and yields an annual profit for grazing purposes alone?
    Ans.--In my opinion, not more than the ten sections named are of enhanced value for any purpose.
    Int. 209.--Where did you understand the vacant lands referred to by you were situated?
    Ans.--Within the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company.
    Int. 210.--In what part of that claim?
    Ans.--In the neighborhood of the persons whose names are given as having given information on that subject.
    Int. 211.--Did you seek information as to the value of lots and blocks on the town site from persons owning them, or residents of the town?
    Ans.--We obtained information from persons without inquiring whether they were buyers or sellers.
    Int. 212.--Did you ask for information from any person residing on the town site?
    Ans.--I cannot say.
    Int. 213.--Did you ask for information from any other person except Mayberry, who pretended to own any town lots on the town site?
    Ans.--We obtained information from others, but I cannot give the names; my colleagues may.
    Int. 214.--Did you not receive information of actual sales of property at much higher prices than any which you have specified?
    Ans.--l did not.
    Int. 215.--Do you know, that in your estimate of all the lands claimed by the Company, except the 11 sections which you put at $1.25 an acre, equal to ninety cents in coin, embrace the Mill Plain, First, Second, Third, and Fourth Plains, the grass lands on the Lower Columbia bottom, containing a large number of farms, and at least fifty or sixty thousand acres of good farming land?
    Ans.--I do, and from information given by the farmers themselves; Thomas Norton, who lives four and a half miles back from Vancouver, on the road leading to Fourth Plain, has 320 acres of land, a good supply of spring water, not common to the country, 111 acres swamp or bottom land, comparatively open; the rest of his land timbered, but all fit for cultivation; has a new barn 54 by 60 feet, a log dwelling, a thrifty young orchard, and about 50 acres in cultivation; values his place at $2,000; did not want to sell, but would take that price. Wm. L. Lakin sold a farm on Fourth Plain, in 1863, seven miles from Vancouver, consisting of 104 acres, all improved, for $800 in property; he has now a homestead fourteen miles from Vancouver. He described the land as very rich, and said there was "considerable vacant land in his neighborhood equally valuable." Charles B. Crossman has also, a homestead fourteen miles from Vancouver. T. Ruork has also a homestead, and others. (All the foregoing answer after the words "I do" objected to, because it is not responsive to the question, and is a voluntarily supplementary report of the witness.)
    Int. 216.--Do you not know that on the same land specified in the last question there are valuable mill privileges?
    Ans.--There are mill privileges; as to their value, I cannot say.
    Int. 217.--Do you know the price of wool at Vancouver?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 218.--Do you know its price at Oregon City?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 219.--During the last three years, what has been the price of livestock on Umpqua; cattle, sheep, and hogs?
    Ans.--I do not think within the time named the prices of those animals have much fluctuated. Hogs two years old I have purchased at $5 each; mutton sheep, from $2.50 to $3; bullock about four cents a pound net on foot.
    Int. 220.--Since the Hudson's Bay Company made its claim against the government, in regard to which you have been testifying, have you not written, published, and expressed your earnest opposition thereto?
    Ans.--I have.
    Int. 221.--Have you not felt from that time to the present a strong and earnest bias against the claim, and have done all in your power to weaken and defeat it?
    Ans.--I have.

    Int. 1.--When you mentioned the fact of the sale of Walla Walla to Mr. Johnson, did he not tell you that he never before heard of that transaction, but would find the persons in possession of the facts, and establish it by legal proof, if possible. (Objected to as leading, and as cross-examination of the party's witness.)
    Ans.--I do not recollect the conversation had with Mr. Johnson; that the sale of Walla Walla would be established by direct evidence may have been impressed upon my mind by some other person.
    Int. 2.--How was Mayberry's barn, to which you have alluded in your cross-interrogatory 116, finished? (Objected to as immaterial.)
    Ans.--The barn pointed out to me as being the one purchased by Mr. Mayberry was weatherboarded, painted, and had shingled roof.
    Int. 3.--Would the bias you feel against the Company's claim in any way affect your judgment of the value of any particular piece of property estimated by you, whether it belonged to the Company or not?
    Ans.--I do not think it would; I do not think it has.
    Int. 4.--Does your opposition to the payment of the Company's claim go to the entire extent, or only so much as you believe to be unjust, under the treaties upon which it is based? (Objected to as leading, incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant.)
    Ans.--So much only as I deem to be unjust.

    Int. 1.--Do you suppose that your judgment is more free from the influence of strong and earnest bias than is that of other men of intelligence?
    Ans.--I do not feel myself more competent to decide upon the question of my own prejudice than a lunatic upon his own sanity.
Oregon City, Oregon, August 28, 1866.

Extract from the Rolls of the Assessor of Stevens County, Washington Territory for the year 1856 [sic] (Hudson's Bay Company represented by Angus McDonald).
Lands cultivated, rent on same…… $100.00
Buildings and rails…… 6,100.00
One mill (out of repair)…… 1,500.00
Henry Lafleur (joins the White Mud farm, Isaacs' place is included)…… 1,000.00
George B. Wonnacott, seven miles from Old Colvile…… $1,000.00
T. J. Demers, on the White Mud Farm…… 1,600.00
Francois Marzon, 12 miles from Old Fort…… 500.00
Alex'r. Marzon, 13 miles from Old Fort…… 400.00
Antonine Charette, 14 miles from Old Fort…… 600.00
Jo. Martin, 7 miles from Old Fort…… 300.00
S. Merchant, 6 miles from Old Fort…… 100.00
Gaspor, 8 miles from Old Fort…… 80.00
John Probelle, 1 mile from Old Fort ……100.00
James Lee, 1½ mile above Old Fort…… 25.00
Peter Gush, 2 miles from Old Fort, on Fort Plain…… 200.00
Alex'r. Jandron, 5 miles from Old Fort…… 600.00
George Finis, 6 miles from Old Fort…… 600.00
------ Peon, 9 miles from Old Fort…… 350.00
John Huston, on Mud Farm…… 250.00
    I certify the above as correctly extracted from the assessment rolls made by me for the county and the year above written.

State of Oregon,
Clackamas County,
    I, J. M. Bacon, county clerk of said county, do hereby certify that the foregoing deposition, hereunto annexed, of Jesse Applegate, witness produced by and in behalf of the United States, in relation to the matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company, before the British and American Joint Commission for the adjustment of the same, was taken before me, at my office in Oregon City, in said county, and reduced to writing by myself, on the 27th and 28th days of August, 1866, according to the date appended to said deposition, when it was signed. I further certify that such deposition was taken before me in pursuance of a verbal agreement made in my presence between W. C Johnson, Esq., attorney for the United States, and Amory Holbrook, Esq., attorney for the Hudson's Bay Company.
    I further certify that to said witness, before his examination, I administered the following oath:
    "You swear that the evidence you may give in the matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God."
    That after the same was reduced to writing, the deposition of said witness was carefully read to him and then signed by him.
    In witness whereof, I have hereto set my hand and affixed the seal of said county, this twenty-ninth day of August, A.D. 1866.

    Deposition of witnesses produced in behalf of the United States, taken before me, R. Wilcox, clerk of the district court of the United States for the District of Oregon, in pursuance of a verbal agreement made in my presence by W. C. Johnson, Esq., attorney for the United States, and Amory Holbrook, Esq., attorney for the Hudson's Bay Company.

J. S. Rinearson, being first duly sworn, deposes and testifies as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation.
    Ans.--My age, forty-four; residence, near Oregon City, Clackamas County; occupation, farmer and surveyor, but for the last three or four years I have been in the service of the United States, as a soldier, and acting as Major of the 1st Oregon cavalry.
    Int. 2.--How long have you resided in Oregon?
    Ans.--Most of the time since 1845.
    Int. 3.--Are you now in the service as a soldier?
    Ans.--I am not.
    Int. 4.--Have you ever been at the Hudson's Bay Company's post called the Okanagan? If, so state when and how long you remained each time.
    Ans.--I was at Okanagan, I think, in September, 1858; I remained in that vicinity two days.
    Int. 5.--Describe the condition of the post at that time, and state whether it was occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company. (Objected to as immaterial, the Company having been compelled on account of Indian difficulties and the interruption of their business at the various posts by the interferfence of officers of the United States government to abandon their business at Fort Okanagan prior to 1858.)
    Ans.--I saw no white men there at all, excepting our own company. Some of the buildings were in bad condition, but I think not all.
    Int. 6.--What kind of people did you find occupying the fort and its neighborhood, and for what purpose? (Objected to as immaterial.)
    Ans.--There were a number of Indians there who assisted us in crossing our wagons and stock; we found one man at the post, I supposed to be a half-breed, who spoke some English.
    Int. 7.--Describe the soil in the vicinity of Okanagan, and give an estimate of its value per acre.
    Ans.--I know but little of the country, excepting right at the post, which I should regard as not valuable for agricultural purposes.
    Int. 8.--Have you lately visited and examined the lands and improvements claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company at any of the posts named in their memorial in this case? If so, state which of them, when you went, in connection with whom, for what purpose, and under whose direction. (Objected to as leading, incompetent, and immaterial.)
    Ans.--I have visited the old site of Fort Walla Walla, Colvile, and Fort Vancouver, in company with Jesse Applegate and J. C. Carson, and under instructions of Wm. C. Johnson, attorney for the United States in this case, within the last six weeks, for the purpose of examining the posts and ascertaining the amount of improvements, building, fencing, &c., at the different stations.
    Int. 9.--Look at the statement marked "H" embodied in the disposition of Jesse Applegate taken in this case, before J. M. Bacon, county clerk of Clackamas County, Oregon, shown you;, state what it is, and what you desire done with it in reference to your evidence. (Objected to as leading, incompetent, and immaterial.)
    Ans.--It is an estimate or valuation of the buildings and other improvements such as fencing, also the valuation of lands at the. different stations, which I offer as part of my evidence in this case.
    Int. 10.--Do you now so adopt that statement and make it part of your evidence in this case? (The question is objected to as leading and incompetent, and the introduction of the statement referred to is objected to and protested against, for the reasons given by the counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company in making objection to interrogatory of the said deposition of Applegate, to which reference may be had for fuller statement of objection to the above interrogatory.)
    Ans.--I do.
    Int. 11.--Were you ever at Vancouver before the time of making your special visit referred to in your report? If so, state how long you were at the post, in what capacity, and what were your opportunities for becoming familiar with the lands claimed by the Company.
    Ans.--I have been at Vancouver quite often since I have been a citizen of Oregon, and especially have I visited Vancouver whilst in the service of the United States as a soldier; my opportunities were nothing beyond spending a week or two, at different times at the garrison, and often passing over a small portion of the land claimed by them.
    Int. 12.--In what directions from the garrisons, and for about what distances, did your travels extend at such times?
    Ans.--I do not think that I was over a mile, that I recollect of, from the garrison.
    Int. 13.--To what extent had you visited these lands when you were at Vancouver before entering the service?
    Ans.--I have more than once been at the Company's mills, six or seven miles above Vancouver; went from Vancouver up by land to the mills; I have been below Vancouver as far down as the mouth of the Willamette.

    Int. 1.--What, in your judgment, is the value of land per acre which will produce two tons of hay to the acre when hay is worth $15 per ton?
    Ans.--That would depend on the location of the land.
    Int. 2.--How would it depend on the location, the price being fixed at $15?
    Ans.--If I owned land that would yield me two tons per acre annually, and that hay would bring me $15 per ton in the field, I would not care to sell it for less than $50 per acre.
    Int. 3.--Do you mean that land which will yield an annual income of $30 an acre, subject only to the expense of cutting and making hay thereon, is worth only $50 an acre?
    Ans.--I should think it would bring more money than that.
    Int. 4.--How much do you think it would bring?
    Ans.--I certainly can't tell what lands of that description would bring; they would bring much more than hay lands generally sell for in this country.
    Int. 5.--Do you not know that within the ten sections of land mentioned in your statement near Vancouver, and estimated by you as of the value of four or five dollars per acre, there is a considerable portion of land which produces two tons of hay to the acre?
    Ans.--There is a very small proportion of the lands spoken of [which], by good culture, I think, would produce at least two tons per acre in favorable seasons.
    Int. 6.--Did you make any inquiries upon the subject of the occupants of that land?
    Ans.--I did.
    Int. 7.--Did you not learn from them that a considerable portion of the hay-producing land annually yielded two tons per acre?
    Ans.--I did not so understand it from the information by inquiry.
    Int. 8.--Name the owners of the land who gave you information, and state what each said.
    Ans.--Whilst I have no notes of my trip, I stopped at a farm; the owner of the land does not reside on it; it was occupied by a renter, who was at that time hauling oats, with whom I had conversation with regard to the products. He informed me that that field just over the fence there had been recently fenced by himself; that it produced a much better crop than the other field that he was then hauling from. After inquiring from him with regard to the value of lands, I passed on down, visiting two or three other farms below. Their crops were not so good as the first farm that I visited, inasmuch as the high waters had prevented them from having the use of their most fertile lands. I then returned, passing in a different direction, across the low lands or the prairie, and down the river to Mr. Dupuis, there I got off my horse and walked across his enclosures to the lake, passing over his meadow. This land next to the river, I suppose, would produce two tons to the acre of hay in a favorable season, but did not see Mr. Dupuis, and, therefore, had no information from him in reference to his crops. He is the only owner of land in that vicinity whose name I recollect.
    Int. 9.--Have you stated all the information which you obtained in regard to the value of the land upon that part of the ten sections which is below Vancouver?
    Ans.--I recollect of nothing else particularly. I conversed with various persons on my way down the slough, but did not see the man that I had been informed wished to sell his ranch, but went into the house and talked some time with the lady; I found there, perhaps the wife of the man that was cultivating the place, who informed me that they had been unable to put in any crop in consequence of high water.
    Int. 10.--How long were you absent from Vancouver in making this examination?
    Ans.--I think about five hours at that time.
    Int. 11.--If two persons, one owning that land on the ten sections below Vancouver and the other desiring to purchase it, had referred the price to be paid to you, would you have been willing, in justice to both parties, to have fixed that price, basing your judgment upon the examination you made and the information you received?
    Ans.--My knowledge and information is not confined exclusively to information obtained at the time of my last visit to Vancouver, but that together with my knowledge of that country for some years past would enable me to give an opinion with some more accuracy than though I had not been there before; with this information I think I would be able to judge somewhat as to the value of the ten sections, taking them together.
    Int. 12.--Have you not said that you never were on that land below Vancouver before?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 13.--When were you there, [sic] and what parts of the ten sections below Vancouver did you visit prior to the so-called examination?
    Ans.--I think that I have been a number of times on portions of the bottom below, near Vancouver and opposite the mouth of the Willamette, and a short distance below. In the spring of 1861 passed down the river on the north bank below Vancouver some miles, but do not know how many.
    Int. 14.--Will you undertake to say that the information derived from passing down the river five years ago furnished you with information which, taken in connection with the other mentioned by you, would justify you in fixing upon the value of the property, if that value were to be exclusive upon parties interested in its sale or purchase?
    Ans.--l should think that the valuation placed upon the land by myself and others would be the outside figures, taking into account that the most valuable portion of the lands for agriculture are very frequently inundated or covered with water.
    Int. 15.--What do you mean by "very frequently"?
    Ans.--More or less annually.
    Int. 16.--Did you make any examination or obtain any information as to the value of that part of the ten sections above Vancouver by making inquiries of the owners thereof?
    Ans.--Only one or two of the owners; but of the owners of the land immediately adjoining Vancouver town site, and perhaps the most valuable, I made no inquiries.
    Int. 17.--Who were those owners that you did make inquiries of, and what did they tell you?
    Ans.--Love, and, one other settler there, whose name I have forgotten.
    Int. 18.--Are you positive that Love, or the settler with the forgotten name, own land within the ten sections?
    Ans.--l am not positive that they do.
    Int. 19.--What, in your judgment, is the value of Ryan's land, per acre, just above Vancouver?
    Ans.--I should think that the land above Vancouver, that does not overflow, would be worth thirty or forty dollars per acre.
    Int. 20.--Do you not know that upon that land are large fields, where grain and hay are produced?
    Ans.--I know that there is grain and hay produced in that  valley, but I do not know that there is hay produced on that farm; but there is grain.
    Int. 21.--What, in your judgment, is the value per acre of the claim of Nye adjoining Ryan's?
    Ans.--I should think that there would not be a great difference in the value, excepting the distance being a little greater to the garrison, where they usually sell their grain and hay.
    Int. 22.--Do you not know that portions of the land on the ten sections below Vancouver, on the first, second, and third sections, nearest the town, have been sold, at different times, for from forty to one hundred dollars per acre, exclusive of improvements?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 23.--Did you make inquiries to ascertain whether such sales had been made?
    Ans.--I inquired of the first man with whom I conversed, hauling in grain, if there were any farms in the immediate vicinity for sale; he told me that there was one below. The ranch adjoining the place which he was at work on, he told me, had been sold by the owner that occupied by permission of the Hudson's Bay Company and, finally, became the owner, and then sold it to a Jew in Vancouver for an amount that I do not now recollect. I remarked to him that from the appearance of the improvements that he could not have got much money outside of his expenses in making the improvements; he said he thought the improvements had cost more than he had received for the farm. (The foregoing answer objected to, because it is not responsive to the question.)
    Int. 24.--Did you not learn of purchases of that land, or portions thereof, made by Proulx, Petrain,.and Ingalls?
    Ans.--I am sure that I did not hear the name Ingalls mentioned, and have no recollection of the other name.
    Int. 25.--Was not a part of your object to obtain information of sales at the lowest rates that have been made, if possible?
    Ans.--I understood that it was expected of us to ascertain from observation and otherwise the value of lands claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company.
    Int. 26.--How, then, did it happen that in acquiring information you gained none of sales made on that land at rates of from forty to one hundred dollars an acre,. while you readily found infornaation of sales at very low rates?
    Ans.--Most of the persons with whom I conversed were strangers to me, and I knew not what information I might receive until they had given me such information, the substance of which I have endeavored to communicate.
    Int. 27.--Did you learn of any sales made on any part of the ten sections?
    Ans.--I did not hear of any that I recollect of, except what I have already spoken of.
    Int. 28.--Was the sale of land to the Jew, the one you mean, and can you say that that land was upon any part of the ten sections?
    Ans.--Yes, sir; I so understand it to be.
    Int. 29.--If you had been credibly informed that portions of that land, amounting in the aggregate to several hundred acres, had been sold for from forty to one hundred dollars, per acre, would that information have influenced your judgment, and would you still have thought that land was worth but from four to five dollars per acre?
    Ans.--I think that it is possible that a few acres, with the improvements, might bring that amount of money, but I do not think that that would change my opinion of the whole of the ten sections taken together. I did not inquire as to a few acres, but with reference to several hundred acres sold at that price without improvements.
    Int. 30.--If you had found that to be the case, would your judgment have been changed as to the average value of the ten sections? (Question objected to, because the terms "several hundred" are not sufficiently definite to enable the witness to form any accurate judgment. The counsel for the Company protests against frivolous and impertinent objections, made for the purpose of suggesting answers to the witness while under cross-examination.)
    Ans.--If any very large amount of land, in the low lands alluded to, were worth and could be sold for from forty to one hundred dollars per acre, it is a higher estimate than I would place upon any considerable quantity of land or number of acres of the overflowed lands in the bottom.
    Int. 31.--I did not ask about your estimate, but whether the fact of such sales, if known to you, would have changed the result to which you arrived?
    Ans.--If I had have known, or had supposed that the lands alluded to heretofore were worth from forty to one hundred dollars per acre, in all probability it would have changed the estimate of the whole, because at the present estimate I did not regard it as of that value.
    Int. 32.--What did you regard as the value of the first section below Vancouver per acre?
    Ans.--Not to exceed $25 an acre for one hundred acres.
    Int. 33.--What did you regard as the value of the second section?
    Ans.--There is a strip of land along next to the river from 100 to 150 yards wide, more or less, somewhere in that vicinity and, perhaps, extending that width clear across the section, as equal in value to the above, and, perhaps, of more value for agricultural purposes; the balance of the section is regarded as without value, so far as agricultural purposes are concerned, as from the appearance of the land it is covered with water annually for some weeks, excepting that portion, if any, which extends across the flat, reaching in to the high lands beyond.
    Int. 34.--How many acres of that second section are worth $25 or upwards?
    Ans.--I should not think to exceed sixty to eighty acres.
    Int. 35.--If portions of land, amounting in the aggregate to one section, have been sold at an average of $70 per acre, would not that be a far greater sum than your highest estimate of the whole ten sections?
    Ans.--Yes, it would, but not exceeding $12,800.
    Int. 36.--Does not your present estimate of the first section below Vancouver, with eighty acres added of the second section, at $25 an acre, amount to more than half of your highest estimate of value of the whole ten sections? (After this question was propounded the witness desired to change his answer to interrogatory No. 32, which as first given and written by the officer, was as follows: "Not to exceed $25 per acre." (The counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company objects to any change being made in the answer, the bearing of the testimony being suggested to the witness by the last interrogatory. The witness insists that the estimate above referred to only applied to part of the land, was a mistake of the officer in penning it down, and did not give his ideas in full as is expressed them at the time. The counsel for the Company objects to the attorney of the United States putting upon the record the last sentence, and states that the foregoing paragraph was taken down from the lips of Mr. Johnson, the witness having made no remark or suggestion since the above objection made by counsel for Company. The witness having changed his answer to 32nd interrogatory, by adding the words "for 100 acres" the counsel for the Company for the present waives interrogatory No. 36.)
    Int. 37.--What is the value of the land on the first section below Fort Vancouver; I mean the one below the central section, designated in your report as being worth $50 an acre?
    Ans.--One hundred acres I suppose to be worth $25 an acre. I estimated the balance of the section in connection with the other lands of the same valuation as that of the balance of the ten sections.
    Int. 38.--Will you state its value without reference to other lands?
    Ans.--I cannot very well do it.
    Int. 39.--Why cannot you as well state the value of 540 acres as of 100, which you fix at $25, all being in the same section?
    Ans.--The front portion of the claim I have passed over a number of times, and by such observations as I was enabled to make in passing over it I felt justifiable in saying that I supposed it to be worth $25 an acre. The balance of the land I had estimated in connection with other lands within the ten sections, much of which I regarded as of much less value, but have given what I conceive to be near the value of the whole.
    Int. 40.--If you can estimate that land in connection with the rest of the ten sections, why can you not estimate it by itself?
    Ans.--I think I would have much less difficulty in coming to a conclusion as to the value of the lands generally in the vicinity of Vancouver, than to point out and estimate the value of certain portions which I did not examine with a view to a separate valuation of a certain piece.
    Int.. 41.--Why is the 100 acres spoken of, of greater or less value than the balance of the section?
    Ans.--It is more convenient to the town of Vancouver, it is more convenient to the river, and a portion of it is much better than that in the interior for gardens and for culture.
    Int. 42.--Will you undertake to say that there are not 200 acres of equal value?
    Ans.--I do not think there is; at all events, if I were going to purchase, I should make a difference.
    Int. 43.--What difference would you make between the second and the first 100 acres?
    Ans.--There is land upon that section, and on the back portion of it particularly; that I should regard as valueless for agricultural purposes; and the portion lying still nearer the first 100 acres is also yellow sand and gravel, and not valuable for agricultural purposes, and I have but little idea of the value that may pertain to it outside of agricultural purposes.
    Int. 44.--Do you mean to say that on that section there are 100 acres of yellow sand and gravel lying adjacent to the 100 acres which you estimate at $25?
    Ans.--Even the first 100 acres run back, I should suppose, to the yellow sand and gravel; and all of the land upon this section back is very much of the same appearance, as far as I noticed.
    Int. 45.--Do you not know that portions of these ten sections below Vancouver are rented for pasturage, yielding a large annual income?
    Ans.--I am very sure that all of the lands that I traveled over outside of the cultivated lands, most of which has been fenced, as I was informed, but at the present time there is but a small portion of the fences remaining, having been washed away during the high waters; the stock running over the prairies; but very little grass at the present time on any of the lands that I passed over; but in place of grass the ground was pretty generally covered with weeds.
    Int. 46.--What inquiries did you make of owners of lots on the town site?
    Ans.--I made no inquiry myself; there was some inquiry made by Mr. Applegate in my presence, but I do not now recollect the purport of the conversation.
    Int. 47.--Upon what basis was your estimate made of $50 per acre as the value of the land on the reservation and town site?
    Ans.--During my stop in Vancouver, myself and Mr. Applegate and Mr. Carson interchanged opinions with regard to the value, from information derived from citizens of the town and vicinity and from our own observation, and in that way arrived at the conclusion that the lands, including the 640 acres, or one section, was probably worth $50 an acre.
    Int. 48.--Name the citizens of the town from whom you derived your information.
    Ans.--The person that I allude to--that inquiry was made of by Mr. Applegate--was the same person that was on examination at Vancouver; I supposed he lived in town; I didn't know anything about it.
    Int. 49.--Was not that man's name Douthit?
    Ans.--I so understood.
    Int. 50.--Did you personally make inquiry of any resident of Vancouver, while you were there, as to the value of property on that section?
    Ans.--I think not, excepting from Mr. Applegate, who was requested to gather such information in various ways, so as we could come to a conclusion as to the value per acre of the land upon which Vancouver is situated. (The foregoing answer, from and after the word "excepting," is objected to as not responsive, and the witness is requested hereafter to make his answers responsive to the question, without voluntary additions in regard to matters, about which inquiries are not made.)
    Int. 51-Was not the amount of $50 (fifty) fixed upon by you as the value per acre of that land rather as the result of an agreement between you, Applegate and Carson, than because of any information derived by you personally from any source whatever?
    Ans.--The conclusion upon my part was from information, and a belief as to the value of the land per acre derived from such information.
    Int. 52. Did you derive that information personally from anyone except Messrs. Applegate and Carson? If so, from whom?
    Ans.--Upon one occasion only that I recollect of, Mr. Applegate made inquiry, and I think it was of Mr. Douthit; was made in my presence. The precise conversation I do not recollect, but it was in reference to the sale of property in Vancouver. I also had a long conversation with Mr. Love.
    Int. 53.--Have you had any conversation upon which you based your estimate of value except from Applegate, Love, and Douthit?
    Ans.--I recollect of no other.
    Int. 54.--Do you own any lots in Vancouver?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 55.--How do you know that the old fort at Walla Walla was sold by the representative of the Hudson's Bay Company in 1860, as stated by you in your report?
    Ans.--Simply as was stated there, from information; we were so informed.
    Int. 56.--Is it stated in your report that you were so informed?
    Ans.--I so understood it.
    Int. 57.--By whom were you so informed?
    Ans.--Judge Humason, at the Dalles.
    Int. 58.--Can you give the name of the seller?
    Ans.--I think that Mr. Humason said that it was a Mr. Higgins, but I am not positive; it may have been him that was the purchaser, if so, I do not know who the seller was.
    Int. 59.--Was Higgins one of the original proprietors of the town site at Wallula?
    Ans.--I think not, but I do not know positive.
    Int. 60.--Do you not know that Vansycle and Tatem were the original proprietors?
    Ans.--I think so; that was my impression.
    Int. 61.--Did not Vansycle tell you that Corporal Higgins, a discharged or runaway soldier, jumped the place and sold its possession to him?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 62.--Do you know anything of this alleged sale except from mere report?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 63.--Why did you mention that in your report if you had no evidence in regard to it except rumor?
    Ans.--Judge Humason stated that it was true, as he had no doubt, and referred us to a party that we learned afterwards was at Owyhee, that knew more about it, perhaps, than he did, and I supposed that what he was telling me was true, and we reported it.
    Int. 64.--Who was the party at Owyhee to whom Humason referred you?
    Ans.--I cannot say whether it was the party who purchased it for the $900, or whether it was the party that sold it, but I understood him that it was one or the other, but I do not now recollect; Humason gave the name, but I cannot repeat it.
    Int. 65.--As a fair and candid man, in search of truth as one of a board of experts, do you think that the statement made by you in regard to that transaction, based upon mere rumors, was just and proper?
    Ans.--If true, I should think it was.
    Int. 66.--Was it true?
    Ans.--I do not know; I don't know any more about it than I have already stated.
    Int. 67.--If you do not know that it was true, was the statement just and proper?
    Ans.--I should have said nothing in reference to this matter had I not supposed at the time that the sale had been made.
    Int. 68.--If you do not know that it was true, was the statement just and proper?
    Ans.--I have never heard it contradicted that I know of.
    Int. 69.--Was your object in making the report to repeat rumors against the Company, of which you had no evidence except hearsay?
    Ans.--My object certainly was not to state anything except to impart truthful information.
    Int. 70.--Do you term it truthful information when you have only hearsay as the basis of a rumor?
    Ans.--As I stated at the outset the information given by Judge Humason I supposed at that time was correct.
    Int. 71.--Will you say whether you term that information truthful which is based only upon rumor, and are willing upon that to swear absolutely to a fact, as in this instance?
    Ans.--I do not wish to be understood as stating in reference to this matter anything further than information.
    Int. 72.--Why, then, in your report did you state and swear to it as a fact?
    Ans.--My understanding was that it was so stated that this was upon information.
    Int. 73.--When you say in your statement that for some miles on all sides of Fort Walla Walla there was no land fit for cultivation, state whether you examined the land on all sides of that Fort for some miles.
    Ans.--I am quite familiar with that locality, and there is no good agricultural lands within some distance; I do not know how far, except on Walla Walla Creek, and that some distance from the fort.
    Int. 74.--Do you not know that the Company formerly, while in occupation of the fort, cultivated land in that vicinity at different points?
    Ans.--I know that there was land cultivated on Walla Walla Creek some distance from the post, but I do not know how far; I think the nearest land that I know of in cultivation there would be two miles from the town, or where the Old Fort used to stand.
    Int. 75.--Why did you say in your report that you could not learn that any cultivation had ever been attempted by the Company in that vicinity?
    Ans.--I don't know that the Company did cultivate any there.
    Int. 76.--Who did cultivate at that time when the Company occupied the post?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 77.--How many buildings are there at Wallula?
    Ans.--I don't know; there may be half a dozen; there may be more or less.
    Int. 78.--Is not the valley of the Walla Walla thickly settled, and are not the farming lands generally occupied and cultivated?
    Ans.--I have not been up to Walla Walla, that is the town of Walla Walla, for near two years; when I last passed from where the old Hudson's Bay fort stood, there was but very little settlement on Walla Walla Creek for perhaps eight miles; above that, clear on to the garrison, the lands are pretty well occupied for twenty miles, for some distance beyond the garrison.
    Int. 79.--Do you not believe that Wallula, as a shipping port for the Walla Walla Valley and the regions beyond, is likely to increase in value and importance?
    Ans.--I think that the shipping list of the Steam Navigation Company to Wallula will fall short of the shipping list two years ago, and, perhaps, a greater length of time, say from two to four years since, would be, perhaps, six times as great, and very possibly ten times as great as it has been the present season.
    Int. 80.--Is not Walla Walla Valley one of the best agricultural regions east of the mountains, and must it not, in your judgment, steadily increase in wealth, business, and importance?
    Ans.--A portion of Walla Walla Valley produces finely; in wealth, I should think so; but formerly there was a large amount of business done at Walla Walla by traders, who at this time procure their supplies at other points.
    Int. 81.--If you have not been at Walla Walla for two years, and can say nothing about its agricultural development and improvement, how does it happen that you are so prompt to testify as to depression in business there, by volunteering a statement not responsive to the last question?
    Ans.--I stated in reply to the first question that I regarded the Walla Walla Valley as containing some excellent agricultural lands, and I know they supply a great deal of flour for the upper country. I know from having spent the summer of 1865 in the Boise country, the upper mining districts, that very few business men do their shipping from any other point, except the Umatilla Landing, excepting flour and some barley and oats, which are produced in the Walla Walla Valley.
    Int. 82.--Do you not know that the population of Walla Walla is greater now than ever before?
    Ans.--I should suppose the permanent population was greater now than at any time before.
    Int. 83.--Do you not know that the business of the Snake country, to which you refer as being conducted through Umatilla, was never transacted to any great extent at Walla Walla?
    Ans.--I think to no great extent.
    Int. 84.--Why do you say that you think that the shipping list of the Oregon Steamship Navigation Company at Wallula is less than it was two years ago?
    Ans.--From the fact that the supplies for the Idaho mines at the present time, and for some time back, are usually forwarded from Umatilla.
    Int. 85.--Were they forwarded from Wallula two years ago?
    Ans.--I think even at that time but a small proportion of the whole amount shipped to the Boise country was shipped from Wallula.
    Int. 86.--If they were not shipped then from Wallula, how do you explain the reduction of trade and business, Boise having comparatively nothing to do with it?
    Ans.--For some years past my time has been spent mostly in the upper country; when first at Wallula, since the gold excitement in the upper country, most of the supplies were sent by the way of Wallula; since that time roads have been opened, making the route more direct to the mining district from other points than that of Wallula; hence the trade and business has diminished at the first named point. (The foregoing answer objected to, because not responsive to the question, which referred to the reduction in business as it was two years ago, the witness having before testified concerning that in his answer to interrogatory No. 79.)
    Int. 87.--Do you know anything of the amount of goods shipped by the Oregon Steamship Navigation Company to Wallula the present year?
    Ans.--I do not know the number of tons shipped the present year or any previous year.
    Int. 88.--Do not the goods for Montana and the Big Bend mines go by way of Wallula?
    Ans.--I suppose in part; but so far as I know from personal observation, freight for the upper country was landed at White Bluffs, and forwarded by wagons to Montana.
    Int. 89.--What personal observation have you made?
    Ans.--When on my way to Colvile, there were several gentlemen on board that were en route for Montana; on my return from Colvile I met the freight or teams hauling up the freight belonging to those gentlemen, all of which had been landed at White Bluffs, and sent by teams from that point.
    Int. 90.--How much freight did you meet?
    Ans.--I do not know the number of tons of freight, but I should think there were from eight to ten large wagons well loaded.
    Int. 91.--How often does a boat go to White Bluffs?
    Ans.--At that time once a week.
    Int. 92.--Did not the White Bluff boat discharge more freight at Wallula than it carried to White Bluffs?
    Ans.--The steamer that I went up on arrived at Wallula late in the evening, and I did not notice the amount of freight landed at that point.
    Int. 93.--How long did the boat stop at Wallula going up?
    Ans.--It remained there until the following morning.
    Int. 94.--How many hours?
    Ans.--I do not know how many hours it remained at Wallula, as I do not recollect at what hour it arrived there.
    Int. 95.--How long after daylight did it start?
    Ans.--I should think it left Wallula about six or seven o'clock; I am not positive about that.
    Int. 96.--Were you there more than three or four hours?
    Ans.--I should think we were there ten hours.
    Int. 97.--How long did you stop on your return?
    Ans.--On our return we arrived there in the night season, and left there quite early in the morning.
    Int. 98.--Were you there more than an hour on your return?
    Ans.--I do not know whether we were there one hour or not.
    Int. 99.--How many hours?
    Ans.--I am not able to say how long we were there, having been asleep when the boat arrived.
    Int. 100.--Did you go ashore on your return?
    Ans.--I did not.
    Int. 101.--Was Mr. Applegate with you at both times?
    Ans.--Mr. Applegate came on the steamer that I did on our return from White Bluffs. He was.
    Int. 102.--Did you make your examination in the night on the way up?
    Ans.--No, sir; we commenced it very early in the morning, but after daylight.
    Int. 103.--How long were you employed about it?
    Ans.--I should think two or three hours.
    Int. 104.--What were you doing during the balance of the ten hours that you were there?
    Ans.--I was asleep, for my part, the most of the time.
    Int. 105.--Will you swear that the steamer did not leave about sunrise?
    Ans.--I will swear that it was after sunrise some time, when it left there and went up.
    Int. 106.--Besides the boat that goes to White Bluff, how many others go to Wallula, and how often?
    Ans.--I do not know, but I think my information was that a steamer arrived at Wallula tri-weekly.
    Int. 107.--Does not a boat then go to Wallula four times while one goes to White Bluff only once a week?
    Ans.--I understand that they have three steamers a week at Wallula and one at White Bluff.
    Int. 108.--Are not the three steamers in addition to the White Bluff boat?
    Ans.--When we went up we changed steamers at Wallula; on our return we did not; there are but three steamers that come from below.
    Int. 109.--If the Boise trade has never been transacted at Wallula, how can the business at Wallula have been affected by the opening of roads to Umatilla and the transaction of the Boise business thereby?
    Ans.--Some years since merchants and traders of the Boise country did more or less of their trade by way of Wallula, but very little of late years.
    Int. 110.--What do you mean by some years since; how many years?
    Ans.--Say 1862 and 1863; less still in 1864, but perhaps more than at the present time.
    Int. 111.--How many merchants were there at Boise in 1862?
    Ans.--None at Boise City.
    Int. 112.--Will you undertake to say that the shipping business at Wallula has been reduced within the last four years by anything except the withdrawal of the Boise trade spoken of?
    Ans.--Sometime in 1862 or 1863 merchants doing business at Oro Fino and other mining towns in that section of country, and also at Lewiston, received their goods at Wallula; since or about that time, perhaps a large proportion for that mining district have been forwarded direct by steamer to Lewiston, consequently lessening the shipments to Wallula.
    Int. 113.--Do boats run now to Lewiston?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 114.--Did they not run there in 1862 when there was sufficient water, and does not the navigation to Lewiston depend upon the stage of water?
    Ans.--I understand that they cannot navigate Snake River at all times; I cannot say whether any steamer has been sent as high up the river as Lewiston during the year 1862.
    Int. 115.--Did not you yourself go to Lewiston by steamer in 1862?
    Ans.--I did not.
    Int. 116.--When was the steamer Spray built?
    Ans.--I can't now say whether it was in 1862 or 1863.
    Int. 117.--Do you not know that she was built and run to Lewiston in opposition to the Oregon Steam Navigation Company, and sold to the Company in 1862?
    Ans.--I understood that she was built as an opposition steamer, and afterwards sold to the Oregon Steam Navigation Company; I do not now remember what year she was sold.
    Int. 118.--Where were you stationed during the summer of 1862?
    Ans.--I was stationed at Lewiston in August, 1862.
    Int. 119.--How did you go to Lewiston?
    Ans.--I rode there on horseback.
    Int. 120.--Were not boats running to Lewiston during that year?
    Ans.--There was.
    Int. 121.--How long were you at Fort Colvile this year, at the time of your so-called examination; when did you arrive and when did you leave?
    Ans.--I think it was on Friday evening that we arrived at Mr. McDonald's, at Fort Colvile; we left Mr. McDonald's, I think, on Sunday afternoon.
    Int. 122.--Did you not leave Sunday morning, after breakfast?
    Ans.--Upon reflection it was in the forepart of the day; we left there on Sunday.
    Int. 123.--Did you have with you a copy of the Company's memorial?
    Ans.--I had seen it; I do not know whether there was one along; I had none.
    Int. 124.--Did you examine the property claimed by the Company in its memorial at Fort Colvile and its vicinity, or only so much as is described in your report.
    Ans.--Our examination was only partial, so far as the whole claim is concerned, at that place.
    Int. 125.--How many days were you employed in examining the property?
    Ans.--We passed down Mill Creek Valley over the lands claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company in their memorial, on Friday; on Saturday we made some surveys in the Colvile prairie of the improvements of lands claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company, and also the buildings of the Hudson's Bay Company at Fort Colvile; on Sunday we returned by way of the mill belonging the Company, situated on Mill Creek, and on the same day proceeded to White Mud farm, made some inquiry and examination, and then returned to the United States garrison near by, having ceased our examination on leaving White Mud farm.
    Int. 126.--How long did it take you on Friday to ride from the garrison to Mr. McDonald's?
    Ans.--I do not recollect how long we were on the way, but we traveled briskly, stopping only on the way long enough to take supper, and proceeded immediately to Mr. McDonald's.
    Int. 127.--Did you arrive at Mr. McDonald's until about eleven o'clock at night?
    Ans.--I do not know what time it was when we arrived at Mr. McDonald's
    Int. 128.--Do you not know that it was very late when you arrived?
    Ans.--We took supper at Mr. Wonnacott's, and left there after sundown, and rode to Mr. McDonald's, somewhere in the neighborhood of six or eight miles.
    Int. 129.--Do you wish to be understood as saying that you examined any of the Company's property on Friday evening?
    Ans.--Nothing more than simply passing over the claim and inquiring of Mr. Wonnacott and others with reference to the value of lands, &c.
    Int. 130.--Did you pass over any of the Company's property in going from Wonnacott's to Fort Colvile; if so, what?
    Ans.--I understand that they claimed the land over which we passed, near Mr. Wonnacott's, in their memorial.
    Int. 181.--Do you mean that they claimed land from Wonnacott's to the fort, over which you drove that night?
    Ans.--My understanding was not that they claimed all the land from Wonnacott's to Colvile.
    Int. 132.--How much of the six or eight miles traveled by you did they claim?
    Ans.--I am not able to say how much.
    Int. 133.--How careful an examination of the land spoken of could you make, while driving briskly over it, late at night?
    Ans.--We were not able to make any examination, at all events did not do so, during the evening after leaving Mr. Wonnacott's, excepting merely to pass over it.
    Int. 134.--Is not very much of the examination of the Company's property referred to in your report made by merely passing over it?
    Ans.--We examined the improvements quite thoroughly.
    Int. 135.--Have you not said that you thought that you and the other witnesses traveled too rapidly, and made the examination too hurriedly, to be able to do justice to the subject, or words to that effect?
    Ans.--I do not recollect of having conversed with any particular person in reference to the hurried manner in which we made the examination, but I did think that we should have taken more time to have done the same work that we did.
    Int. 136.--Have you not said that if your investigation had been more deliberate you would have been better satisfied?
    Ans.--I do not recollect.
    Int. 137.--Have not the Company in cultivation on the Fort Plain at Colvile more than 225 acres mentioned in your report, as sections No. 1 and No. 2?
    Ans.--Not that I know of.
    Int. 138.--How do you know that any part of the field of sixty acres described by you is ever overflowed!
    Ans.--A portion of it is adjacent to a lake; it was very apparent that at times the water of the lake extended into the field; besides, we were so informed by Mr. O'Sullivan.
    Int. 189.--From your observation and information, are you so positive in regard to the overflow of that land that you are willing to swear that it has been inundated within the last five years?
    Ans.--I do not now recollect as to any particular time it had been covered with water, or even any part of it.
    Int 140.--Why will that portion of it which lies too high to be affected by the spring freshet of the Columbia fail to reward the husbandman, as stated in your report?
    Ans.--It is very dry sandy soil, and would require moisture from the rise of the river, or frequent rains during the summer, in order to reward the farmer for his labor.
    Int. 141.--Do you then mean to say that only the lands overflowed in the spring have any value for agricultural purposes?
    Ans.--No, sir; the best lands for agriculture have the appearance of having at times been covered with water.
    Int. 142.--Do you not know that rains or showers frequently fall in the summer in that region?
    Ans.--I understand that the summer seasons, as a usual thing, are dry.
    Int. 143.--What have Mr. O'Sullivan's intentions, as to the land he occupies, to do with the value of the property, so that you deem it necessary to testify in regard to them?
    Ans.--What is said in reference to Mr. O'Sullivan was simply to state facts in reference to our observation whilst at Colvile.
    Int. 144.--What has that to do with the value of the property?
    Ans.--I do not know that it lessens or enhances the value of the property.
    Int. 145.--What purpose had you then in burdening your report with it?
    Ans.--Nothing outside of imparting such information while at that place.
    Int. 146.--Do you suppose that his intentions could give any information as to the value of the property?
    Ans.--His intentions were, I suppose, to cultivate the soil; in the end be the owner as he stated, as he had long since become an American citizen, and thought he was entitled to the land occupied by him.
    Int. 147.--How do you know that Hall purchased the improvements of the tenant of the Company for $100, as stated in section twenty-three?
    Ans.--I do not recollect from whom we had the first information, but understood from Mr. McDonald, if my memory serves me correctly, that different settlers in the Colvile prairie were occupying by permission of the Company, with the exception of Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall afterwards informed that he had bought a claim, and did not know that there were any objections to his occupying it, but do not now recollect whether it was from him, or other parties, we received the information as to the amount paid for it.
    Int. 148.--Was this alleged transaction of Hall's stated for the purpose of giving information in regard to the value of the property?
    Ans.--We speak of Mr. Hall in order to show how the lands were now occupied and by whom.
    Int 149.--Does that give any information as to the value. of the property; that a man should be in the occupation of the Company's property by a fraudulent purchase and without their consent?
    Ans.--I suppose that it simply gives information as to the price he paid, and how he purchased.
    Int 150.--Do you wish to be understood that you base your estimate of value upon such a sale as this?
    Ans.--That, in connection with other sales and information.
    Int. 151.--Did you examine and estimate the value of the buildings outside of the fort?
    Ans.--I helped to measure and examine them.
    Int. 152.--Did you estimate their value?
    Ans.--Yes, sir, in company with Mr. Carson particularly, and assisted by Mr. Applegate.
    Int. 153.--Did Mr. Applegate look at the buildings for the purpose of fixing a value thereon?
    Ans.--He was not with us at the time that the measurement was made; afterwards a portion of the buildings were also examined by Mr. Applegate.
    Int. 154.--How did you fix the value of Mr. McDonald's building at $3,000; do you believe it could be erected for that sum?
    Ans.--I do not know whether it could be put there for $3,000 or not; but we suppose its value to be about $3,000 at the present time.
    Int. 155.--What do you suppose a dwelling-house 25 by 50 feet and fourteen feet high, weatherboarded on the outside and divided into rooms, and plastered throughout, and with two large stone chimneys, such as you describe Mr. McDonald's house to be, could be built for in Portland?
     Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 156.--If you have no idea what such a house could be built for in Portland, how could you estimate its cost and value at Colvile?
    Ans.--Mr. J. C. Carson is a builder in Portland--a joiner and carpenter--and examined the building of Mr. McDonald, and upon such examination, found the building of Mr. McDonald at the present time to be of the value of about $3,000; to some extent I base my judgment upon his experience as a builder.
    Int. 157.--Has Carson, to your knowledge, any experience in the Colvile prices of labor and materials?
    Ans.--I presume nothing, except what he may have gained whilst up there.
    Int. 158.--Have you any?
    Ans.--I have not, as before stated.
    Int. 159.--What did you learn were the wages of carpenters and masons at Colvile, while you were there?
    Ans.--I do not know that I learned the wages of either carpenters or masons.
    Int. 160.--Do you suppose the wages of carpenters, masons, and other mechanics to be the same at Colvile as in Portland?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 161.--Do you suppose the price of material used in building at Colvile to be the same in Portland?
    Ans.--No, sir, I should think they would be higher at Colvile, except lime, which might be cheaper there than at Portland.
    Int. 162.--Why should lime be cheaper there than here?
    Ans.--Because there is an abundance of lime rock in the immediate vicinity.
    Int. 163.--Is not the dwelling of Mr. McDonald painted?
    Ans.--It is.
    Int. 164.--Would not painting add materially to the cost at Colvile?
    Ans.--It would add to the cost of the building.
    Int. 165.--Why did you not in your description of the building name that fact if you desired to give all the information that you could?
    Ans.--I suppose that it was not done for any reason beyond, perhaps, simply neglecting or forgetting to mention it.
     Int. 166.--Have you any idea of the cost of the other buildings described by you; inside and outside of the fort?
    Ans.--I have no information as to the original cost of those buildings, simply stating the present value, which I should think the outside or highest price or present value. (The foregoing answer after and including the word "simply" objected to because not responsive to the question; and is a voluntary statement of the witness upon a matter not inquired about from him.)
    Int. 167.--Did not Mr. McDonald tell you that carpenter's wages were $10 a day at Colvile?
    Ans.--I do not recollect any such conversation.
    Int 168.--Did he not tell you that the wages of mechanics generally were $10 a day?
    Ans.--I have no recollection of anything of that kind.
    Int. 169.--When Mr. McDonald informed you that the Company found it cheaper to purchase its farm produce than to cultivate, did he assign a reason for this? If so, what was it?
    Ans.--I can only state the substance of the conversation; the reasons were that it was cheaper to buy than to raise the grain; that was about the reason assigned.
    Int. 170.--Did he not say that on account of frequent excitements about gold discoveries that it was impossible to keep hired men to their bargains, or words to that effect?
    Ans.--Such may have been his statement, but I do not recollect it.
    Int. 171.--Did he not say that the wages were too high for farming business?
    Ans.--I have already stated once or twice that I did not recollect the precise language used, but it was such as to justify the statement that it was cheaper to purchase than to cultivate the farms himself.
    Int. 172.--How long were you at the Company's grist mill?
    Ans.--I should think not over a half hour.
    Int. 173.--Were you there five minutes?
    Ans.--Yes, sir.
    Int. 174.--Did you go into it?
    Ans.--No, sir, the doors were locked.
    Int. 175.--Did not Mr. McDonald offer to unlock them, and you decline because you had no time to stop?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 176.--How do you know that the mill has not been used for some years, as stated in your report?
    Ans.--I do not know that it has not been used for some years, as I do not now recollect what the information was in reference to the length of time that it had been standing idle.
    Int. 177.--Do you recollect who gave you information that it had not been used for some years?
    Ans.--The most information that we received in reference to the mill was from Mr. Wonnacott, who has rented the mill, and with whom we had a good deal of conversation in reference to the mill, and from whom, I suppose, we have received such information as we have reported.
    Int. 178.--If you do not recollect what information you had as to the length of time the mill had not been used, how can you declare in your report under oath that it has not been used for some years?
    Ans.--I have no doubt that at the time that report was written that the information received was fresh in my mind; but at this time, having no written memorandum, I cannot say what it was beyond the report made at the time or soon after.
    Int. 179.--Did you not swear to this report yesterday?
    Ans.--I have sworn to the report as being correct to the best of my belief and judgment.
    Int. 180.--In the short time you were there, outside of the mill could you so thoroughly examine it as to be able to form a satisfactory estimate of its value, especially if you had been misinformed as to its use for some years past?
    Ans.--The estimate is simply an opinion from such an examination as I was able to make whilst there.
    Int. 181.--Can a man safely estimate the value of a grist mill without going inside of it?
    Ans.--I should think not, if it was a mill really possessing much value.
    Int. 182.--How can you know whether a mill possesses much value without going into it?
    Ans.--I suppose ordinarily you could not.
    Int. 183.--Did not Mr. Wonnacott tell you that he was to pay $500 a year as rent for the mill, as well as to put and keep it in repair during his lease?
    Ans.--I do not recollect whether he stated the price he was to pay for the use of the mill, but stated that he intended to run the mill or start the mill as soon as he could.
    Int. 184.--In fixing its value at $500 state the basis of your estimate.
    Ans.--As I have stated I was not in the mill; the external appearance was such as to justify the conclusion that $500 would possibly be either more or less than the real value, not knowing the amount and value of the machinery in the mill.
    Int. 185.--What did you estimate as the value of the bolting apparatus?
    Ans.--I was not in the mill at all.
    Int. 186.--Did you estimate its value?
    Ans.--I did not see any.
    Int. 187.--How then can you swear in your report that there was one in the mill?
    Ans.--I can only say from information.
    Int. 188.--What is the value of a bolting apparatus in Portland, if you know?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 189.--What is the value of a breast wheel sixteen feet in diameter, with thirty-inch buckets?
    Ans.--I do not know what it would cost to build one; I examined the wheel, and it had the appearance of having been built many years since, very much hacked up by chopping the ice from the shaft, arms, and buckets.
    Int. 190.--Did you estimate the value of the water power?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 191.--Why not; did you not consider that it had any value?
    Ans.--It is a fine water power, but we did not take into the estimate the water power.
    Int. 192.--What in your judgment is the value of that water power?
    Ans.--At the present time I should not consider it very valuable; although it is a fine water power, the country being very sparsely settled and other mills more convenient to the upper settlements, greatly lessen the present value of that water power.
    Int. 193.-- Will you fix a value upon it as an expert?
    Ans.--If the water power belonged to me I should consider that I had been quite expert if I could procure $500 or $1,000 for my claim at the present time.
    Int. 194.--Why did you not mention this water power in your detailed statement of the Company's property at Colvile and its vicinity?
    Ans.--We did not think that our instructions required us to do so.
    Int. 195.--Is not the water power as much a part of the Company's property as the grist mill standing upon it? (Objected to, as this is the very point which the Commissioners, and not the witness, are competent to determine.)
    Ans.--They are occupying it.
    Int. 196.--Were you not instructed to examine and report on the present condition and value of the real property of the Hudson's Bay Company at certain posts occupied by them? If so, what do you mean by saying that you were not instructed to consider the value of a water power, upon which the Company had a mill?
    Ans.--I understood our instructions to be to examine the improvements in the way of building and fencing, the amount of land enclosed, and report the probable value at the present time; at the same time to notice the country generally so that we might be enabled to report the value of the lands in the immediate vicinity of such improvements.
    Int. 197.--Take your own report, subscribed and sworn to by you, and read aloud the first paragraph, that it may be copied.
    Ans.--"In pursuance of your instructions to us, as a Board of Experts, to examine and report upon the present condition and value of the real property claimed by the above named Companies at certain of their posts occupied by them at the date of the boundary treaty in 1846, we submit the following report."
    Int. 198.--If such were the instructions as admitted by you in your report, why did you omit a water power on land claimed by the Company, and used by them in running a mill?
    Ans.--I did not consider under the instructions that it was required that we should make further report than what I have just stated that I understood the instructions to be, and did not neglect speaking of the water power through any design whatever.
    Int. 199.--Do you not know that the Company used that water power under the same authority and in the same manner as the other property upon which you reported?
    Ans.--I suppose they did.
    Int. 200.--Why, then, did you not report upon it as you did upon other property? (Objected to, as the witness has already three times answered the same question. The counsel for the United States protests against encumbering the record for any such purpose.)
    Ans.--I have already given the only reason that existed or does exist why it was not particularly pointed out.
    Int. 201.--Do you mean to say that you considered yourself instructed to select portions of the Company's property claimed by them, of which you would estimate the value, and others of which you would not estimate the value?
    Ans.--I have already stated what I understood to be the instruction from the attorney for the United States, to the best of my ability and judgment to discharge the duties incumbent upon me under those instructions.
    Int. 202.--If the attorney of the United States had instructed you not to examine the post at Colvile, would you have omitted it in your estimate to the value of the Company's property?
    Ans.--If the attorney for the United States had instructed us not to examine it, we should not have done it.
    Int. 203.--Did not you and Messrs. Applegate and Carson agree in saying after you had seen the water power referred to, "that it was one of the finest water powers on the Pacific Coast"?
    Ans.--I think it to be a fine water power; I do not know that they would differ with me in opinion; I think it is very likely that we talked it over; I think they regarded it the same as I did.
    Int. 204.--Did you regard the assessment rolls of Stevens County as indicating any true or correct value of the property assessed?
    Ans.--We obtained from the assessor a copy of the assessment roll for the present year for the purpose of gaining information with reference generally in regard to property in Stevens County.
    Int. 205.--Did you regard it as reliable for the purpose of estimating the value of property?
    Ans.--So far as I recollect, I did.
    Int. 206.--How then did it happen that you fixed the value of the mill at only one-third of the assessment?
    Ans.--Because I regard that to be the value, as far as I know, in reference to the mill.
    Int. 207.--Did you, in a single instance, fix the value of the Company's property higher than the assessor?
    Ans.--I believe so.
    Int. 208.--Do you know that the Company ceased to cultivate the White Mud farm in 1860, except from hearsay?
    Ans.--I do not not.
    Int. 209.--Describe the soil of White Mud farm.
    Ans.--The soil of White Mud farm is a sandy loam, and I should think productive.
    Int. 210.--Do you not believe that that that land is fairly worth more‍ than a dollar and a quarter an acre?
    Ans.--I do not think that it would bring over that and deduct the improvements that is now on it.
    Int. 211.--Would not one-half of one year's crop upon that land pay the full value of the land?
    Ans.--It would depend altogether upon the price for which they could sell.
    Int. 212.--How many bushels of wheat to the acre will that land produce?
    Ans.--I should think that most of the land that is now in cultivation in a favorable season is capable of producing twenty-five bushels to the acre.
    Int. 213.--Do you know the market price of wheat in Colvile last year?
    Ans.--I do not remember; my impression is that it brought a good price.
    Int. 214.--Did you examine the water power at Kettle Falls?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 215.--In estimating the value of property at Vancouver, in Clark County, did you consider the value of mill sites on the land formerly claimed by the Company?
    Ans.--No, sir; only in connection with other property.
    Int. 216.--How do you know that much of the land in the vicinity of Vancouver is vacant, and subject to entry?
    Ans.--I was so informed.
    Int. 217.--Did you obtain your information from the Register of the land office?
    Ans.--No, sir, but citizens residing in the neighborhood.
    Int. 218.--From information that you had, are you willing to swear that there is a single vacant section within four miles of Vancouver?
    Ans.--Some twelve months since I went to the land office and examined the plats designated unentered land, and at that time a large portion of the lands lying back were not entered, and I suppose the information that we had from settlers there was correct.
     Int. 219.--What do you mean by a large portion? State how much land within four miles was vacant at the time you saw the plats.
    Ans.--I can't tell the number of sections that were vacant at the time.
    Int. 220.--Could you not readily have obtained reliable information as to the present settlement of that region of country by applying to the Register of the land office at Vancouver?
    Ans.--We could have ascertained the amount of land sold and not sold, no doubt.
    Int. 221.--If you desired reliable information, why did you not seek it where it could so readily have been procured from the Register?
    Ans.--I conceived my information quite reliable, having, as I have already stated, some time since examined the maps, and more recently had information from settlers, fully agreeing with my own inspection of the matter.
    Int. 222.--Do you not know that what was vacant land a year ago in the vicinity of Vancouver has been rapidly filling up since then?
    Ans.--I have no doubt but more or less land has been entered since I examined the maps.
    Int. 223.--Are not the First, Second, Third, and Fourth, Camas and Mill Plains mostly filled with settlers, and upon them are there not productive and extensive farms?
    Ans.--I have not been in all of those prairies. The Mill Plain contains no good agricultural lands that I am aware of, being mostly very gravelly, sandy land. The other Plain that I was in, aside from the Mill Plain, is very similar to the Mill Plain. Whilst at Mill Plain, however, I was in company with a gentleman who lived some years in what was called the Mill Plain, who informed that he now lived in the prairie lying back of the Mill Plain, which he represented as being low and sometimes rather wet, but contained better land. I inquired of him what lands were worth in that prairie in which he resided; he said he did not wish to sell his, but I could enter land in the prairie that, perhaps, was as good as his. (All the foregoing answer after and including "whilst at Mill Plain" is objected to, because not responsive to the question, and because it is anonymous hearsay.)
    Int. 224.--Are there not, to your knowledge, many valuable and productive farms upon the land which is rated by you at ninety cents per acre?
    Ans.--I think there are some pretty good farms.
    Int. 225.--Are not the lands of Love and Hexter, upon which there is a sawmill and grist mill, also upon these ninety-cent lands?
    Ans.--The improvements of those farmers, the mill of Mr. Love were not taken into account. Mr. Love did not place a higher estimate upon the lands than we did. (The answer of the witness objected to, because it is not responsive, and is only another addition to his report.)
    Int. 226.--Are not the water power of Love and Hexter upon the ninety-cent lands?
    Ans.--I should think they were.
    Int. 227.--You have stated that the land below Vancouver, subject to inundation, is regarded as of no value for agricultural purposes; does not such inundation greatly improve the productiveness of the land for pasturage, and is not good pasture land of great importance to any farmer?
    Ans.--Lands subject to inundation at times may be improved by such inundation, but it may remain on the land a sufficient length of time to greatly injure it as pasture lands.
     Int. 228.--Are not those lands below Vancouver good pasture lands, and have they not been so ever since you have known them?
    Ans.--At the present time there is but little grass, but very little, on the plains alluded to outside of the enclosures.
    Int. 229.--When were you first acquainted with the lands below Vancouver, and how were they then occupied?
    Ans.--I do not know how many years it is since I was first on those lands below Vancouver; they were occupied, as I understood, by the Hudson's Bay Company, or under their authority, such farms as there were there.
    Int. 230.--How long after your arrival in Oregon, in 1845, did you visit that region?
    Ans.--I was at Vancouver when I first came down into the valley, but it may have been two or three years, and possibly more than that before I was on the lands alluded to in the question.
    Int. 231.--Were not these lands taken among the first of the Hudson's Bay Company's claims by settlers after 1846, when trespassing upon the Company's claims commenced?
    Ans.--I never heard of any difficulty with settlers and the Hudson's Bay Company, excepting the claim of Short, that I recollect of in that vicinity.
    Int. 232.--I do not speak of difficulties, but ask whether the lands below Vancouver were not among the first selected by settlers after the lands claimed by the Company began to be occupied?
    Ans.--I do not know of any person or persons, excepting Mr. Short, as having taken and occupied claims immediately below Vancouver, or anywhere in that vicinity.
    Int. 233.--You have already said that the land below Vancouver, when you first knew it, was occupied by the Company or persons in its employ; state when settlers, besides Mr. Short, first began to claim that land in their own right?
    Ans.--I can't state.
    Int. 234.--Do you not know that that portion of the tract claimed by the Company was the first upon which emigrants settled?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 235.--Did you ever know of any part of the Company's tract being claimed by settlers before that part was claimed?
    Ans.--I have no definite recollection of any particular claim, claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company, as having been taken by settlers of American citizens, excepting Mr. Short.
    Int. 236.--Do you mean to say that you do not know that any part of the land claimed by the Company in 1846 had been claimed by settlers, excepting Mr. Short?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 237.--What then do you mean by your last answer but one?
    Ans.--I mean just what I have stated.
    Int. 238.--How long did the Company, after you first knew the land below Vancouver for four or five miles, continue to occupy it without interruption by settlers?
    Ans.--I know of nothing beyond what I have already stated with regard to Mr. Short. 
    Int. 239.--So far as you know, did the Company continue to occupy it until 1860 without interruption?
    Ans.--So far as I know they did.
    Int. 240.--Do you know whether the Company or settlers occupied the land from 1859 to 1860?
    Ans.--It was occupied by the Company or by their authority the first time that I was ever there; and I supposed that they were still occupying it between the dates mentioned in the question.
    Int. 241.--Is your knowledge of the matter so limited that you do not know that the Company was interrupted in the possession of the land referred to by any settlers, except by Short before 1860?
    Ans.--My knowledge is such that I don't know of any person disturbing them, beyond what I have already stated.
    Int. 242.--Are you in all respects satisfied with the report made by yourself, Mr. Applegate, and Mr. Carson?
    Ans.--I believe in one instance that I made some explanations in reference, perhaps, to one clause in the report.
    Int. 243.--Have you not said that the report as written by Mr. Applegate did not express your views, and you would not sign it unless it was modified?
    Ans.--No, sir; I said no such thing.
    Int. 244.--Did you not say that you desired to write you own report, that you might express your own individual views?
    Ans.--I stated and supposed that each one would be required to make a written statement in reference to our labors whilst on the commission.
    Int. 245.--Who hindered or dissuaded you from making such a statement?
    Ans.--No person hindered me; but in interchanging views with the other gentlemen associated with me, it was thought that a single report would be more proper, and all that was required of us.
    Int. 246.--Why did you think that single report would be more proper?
    Ans.--The information sought was not alone confided to myself, but also Mr. Carson and Mr. Applegate, therefore we would necessarily be required to make but the one statement.
    Int. 247.--Was there any confidential information upon the subject?
    Ans.--The report, as made, we had great confidence in the correctness of as to the property examined.
    Int. 248.--Did you not expect to be witnesses, each testifying to his individual knowledge?
    Ans.--I supposed we would certainly be examined as to what we had seen whilst at the various posts and farms of the Company.
    Int. 249.--Was it not your special object in your expedition to gather information which would tend to weaken and reduce the claim of the Company for damages, or for the value of property formerly belonging to it?
    Ans.--The object of myself, as well as Mr. Applegate and Mr. Carson, was to obtain all of the information that we could get with reference to the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company, as also the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, and report the fact; such was my object and nothing more.
    Int. 250.--Was not your investigation intended to be ex parte?
    Ans.--We were sent by the attorney for the United States to the different posts, as heretofore mentioned, requesting the agents of the Company to point out any improvements that the Company might claim, in order that we might be able to report the amount of improvements and its value when called upon.
    Int. 251.--Is that statement consistent with what you have already said in your cross-examination in regard to the instructions given you by Mr. Johnson?
    Ans.--It is consistent.
    Int. 252.--Did you request the agents to point out the improvements as stated?
    Ans.--Yes, sir, wherever we found them.
    Int. 253.--Have you not a strong and earnest bias against the claim of the Company which prompts you to do all that you can to weaken and reduce it?
    Ans.--If I have any bias it is not such as would induce me to make any report excepting founded upon observation and information that I conceived to be reliable.
    Int. 254.--Do you conceive that report based on hearsay and rumors from persons, many of whom are not known do you, and many of whose names you cannot recollect, is fair and just towards parties who may be affected by such report?
    Ans.--I should not place much weight upon information unless I had some good reason to suppose that information to be correct.
    Ans. 255.--What compensation have you received, or do you expect to receive, for your services in this matter?
    Ans.--I have received my expenses and $25 besides; I suppose that we ought to have about $5 per day besides expenses, but I suppose from what Mr. Johnson has said he would not pay me quite that much, I suppose, from the time I left home on the 18th day of July until I am released.

    Int. 1.--When you say in your cross-examination that part of Ryan's land in the bottom above Vancouver, which does not overflow, should be estimated at $30 or $40 per acre, to about what proportion of his 640 acres do you refer? State as near as you reasonably can. (Objected to as leading and incompetent.)
    Ans.--I do not know certain or to any great certainty where Mr. Ryan's lines are; I know that it runs down in the bottom, and that the lands there are sometimes covered with water, and it would be but a small portion that I would consider as anything like that value.
    Int. 2.--Is the same true of Nye's, next above Ryan's? (Objected to for same reason as before.)
    Ans.--They are very much of the same character of land, and subject to inundation.
Portland, August 31, A.D. 1866.

J. C. Carson, being first duly sworn, deposes and testifies as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation.
    Ans.--My age is forty-two years; residence, Portland, Oregon; my occupation a carpenter and joiner and builder and contractor, and am engaged in the manufacture of doors, sash, and general building materials.
    Int. 2.--How long have you resided in Portland?
    Ans.--Since 1853.
    Int. 3.--Have you lately visited and examined the lands and improvements claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company at any of the places named in the memorial in this case? If so, state which of them, when you went, in connection with whom, and under whose direction. (Objected to as leading, incompetent, and immaterial.)
    Ans.--I have visited Walla Walla, Old Fort Colvile, and Fort Vancouver, in connection with Jesse Applegate and Major J. S. Rinearson, within the last six months, and under the direction of Hon. W. G. Johnson, attorney for the United States.
    Int. 4.--Look at the statement marked "H," embodied in the deposition of Jesse Applegate, taken in this case before J. M. Bacon, county clerk of Clackamas County, Oregon, now shown you, state what it is, and what you wish done with it in reference to your evidence. (Objected to as leading, incompetent, and immaterial.)
    Ans.--It is a written statement of facts and conclusions arrived at by myself and associates, and I wish to make it a part of my evidence in this case.
    Int. 5.--Do you now so adopt that statement, and make it part of your testimony in this case? (The question is objected to as leading and incompetent, and the introduction of the statements referred to is objected to and protested against, for the reasons given by the counsel for the Hudson's Bay Company in making objections to Interrogatory No. 20 of the said deposition of Applegate, to which reference may be had for fuller statement of objection to the above interrogatory.
    Ans.--Yes.

    Int. 1.--Are you satisfied in all respects with the report referred to?
    Ans.--I am.
    Int. 2.--By whom was that report written?
    Ans.--By Jesse Applegate.
    Int. 3.--Does the report contain a statement of the present condition and value of all the real property claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company at the posts visited by you?
    Ans.--It does, according to our judgment.
    Int. 4.--What value is given in the report to the water power used by the Company at their grist mill near Colvile?
    Ans.--We placed in our report no value upon that.
    Int. 5.--Why not?
    Ans.--We did not understand that our instructions required us to place a value upon it.
    Int. 6.--Was it not a part of the real property claimed by the Company?
    Ans.--The water power is embraced in their claims, I believe.
    Int. 7.--How then can you say that your report upon the value of all the real property claimed by the Company, when you omitted that part of it?
    Ans.--We did not understand that our instructions required us to report upon the water power.
    Int. 8.--Did you understand your instructions to authorize you to use your discretion in leaving out any part of the property claimed by the Company?
    Ans.--No; I understood the instructions to be that we were to investigate the lands and improvements.
    Int. 9.--Do you not think that water power in use by a party is as much real property as land?
    Ans.--I do not consider it so.
    Int. 10.--Do you call it personal property?
    Ans.--No, it is not personal property.
    Int. 11.--What, in your judgment, is the value of that water power, which you have omitted in your estimate of the value of the Company's property?
    Ans.--I do not know the profits derived from the mill, and cannot give any correct or definite idea of its value.
    Int. 12.--Have you no experience or judgment of such matters which will enable you to form an opinion of the value of a water power seen by you, especially when you examined it so much as to form an estimate of the value of a mill upon it?
    Ans.--I consider this water power a very good one, and easy of improvement, but it is only valuable in proportion to the demand for its use.
    Int. 13.--What is the fall?
    Ans.--We did not measure the fall, but think it is over a hundred feet.
    Int. 14.--What is the width of the stream?
    Ans.--We did not measure the width of the stream; it was probably, when we saw it, from seventy-five to one hundred and fifty feet; I cannot answer definitely.
    Int. 15.--Is not the fall nearer two hundred than one hundred feet?
    Ans.--I cannot answer that question; I do not know.
    Int. 16.--How do you know that the mill has not been used for some years, as sworn to by you?
    Ans.--We were so informed by persons living in that section of country.
    Int. 17.--Is not your oath in that respect based wholly upon hearsay?
    Ans.--It is.
    Int. 18.--Name the persons who told you that the mill had not been run for some years.
    Ans.--I think the persons were O'Sullivan and Wonnacott.
    Int. 19.--Are you positive that either of them made that statement?
    Ans.--I so understood them.
    Int. 20.--Were you willing in making your report to swear absolutely to matters as facts upon your understanding of information given you by strangers?
    Ans.--It was the only evidence that we could gather in that particular, and believed that they were disinterested persons, and we believed what they said.
    Int. 21.--Would you be willing to swear that a man committed an offense simply because Wonnacott and O'Sullivan said so?
    Ans.--There is a difference when an offense is concerned, and simply in a civil matter.
    Int. 22.--Would you be willing, knowing nothing of the matter personally, to swear that one man owed another $100, simply because Wonnacott and O'Sullivan said so?
    Ans.--No; but in relation to the mill taking it in connection with its appearance and surroundings, we believed it had not been run for some time, and it is in an unsafe state to run it now.
    Int. 23.--Did you go into the mill?
    Ans.--Only in the basement part under the mill.
    Int 24.--Did you see the bolting apparatus?
    Ans.--I did not.
    Int. 25.--What is the value of bolting apparatus in Portland? 
    Ans.--I do not know; it is owing to the kind and size.
    Int. 26.--Do you know the prices of different kinds and sizes?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 27.--What is the value of a pair of millstones three feet in diameter?
    Ans.--I don't know.
    Int. 28.--What is the cost at Colvile of a breast wheel sixteen feet in diameter with thirty-inch buckets, and the iron and supports necessary to put it in running?
    Ans.--I am not a millwright and cannot form a correct estimate of the cost of a new wheel, but there would be a large difference between that and the worth of an old wheel.
    Int. 29.--If you did not go into the mill, or see its bolting apparatus or stones, and do not know the value of such things, and did not see any of the machinery inside, how could you fix the value of the mill at $500; was it merely a guess, based upon a detailed estimate ́of the mill and its fixtures?
    Ans.--My judgment of the value to the machinery inside of the mill was formed by information obtained by Mr. Applegate.
    Int. 30.--You mean to say then that you have no individual judgment in the matter, except upon hearsay, told by one man to another, who told you?
    Ans.--All I know about the inside machinery I learned from Mr. Applegate.
    Int. 31.--Did Mr. Applegate go into the mill?
    Ans.--Not to my knowledge.
    Int. 32.--Did not Wonnacott tell you that he had hired the mill for $500 a year, and was to put and keep it in repair during his lease at his own cost?
    Ans.--I did not hear Mr. Wonnacott make that statement, but understood that Mr. Wonnacott had leased the mill; the terms I never learned.
    Int. 33.--Did you particularly examine the buildings at Fort Colvile, outside and inside the enclosures?
    Ans.--I did.
    Int. 34.--Do you believe at the price of mechanics' wages at Colvile, and of building materials there, that you could erect a house 25 by 50 feet, fourteen feet high, weatherboarded, painted, divided into rooms, and plastered inside, for $3,000?
    Ans.--Yes.
    Int. 35.--At what price do you estimate lumber?
    Ans.--The prices of lumber at Colvile was $25 per 1,000 feet, as we ascertained.
    Int. 36.--Do you mean that good merchantable lumber, on the ground at Fort Colvile where Mr. McDonald's house is, can be bought for $25 per 1,000?
    Ans.--$25 per 1,000 is the cost at the mill; the cost of hauling I do not know; the distance is about fifteen miles.
    Int. 37.--How many thousand feet of lumber of different sorts must have been used in that house?
    Ans.--About 10,000 feet of rough lumber, and about 6,000 feet of flooring and siding.
    Int. 38.--Do you not know that the lower floor is of two-inch plank?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 39.--How many shingles are on the house, and what is their value on the premises?
    Ans.--There are about 15,000, worth $8 per thousand.
    Int 40.--Where are they worth $8 per thousand?
    Ans.--At Fort Colvile.
    Int. 41.--What is the expense per thousand at Colvile of dressing lumber for flooring and siding?
    Ans.--If dressed by hand it would be worth about $20 per thousand.
    Int. 42.--What is the cost of the doors and windows in that house; do you know the number of each?
    Ans.--I think there are nine windows and six or seven doors; I would average them at about $8 each there.
    Int. 43--How long would it take a carpenter to make a door such as those in the house?
    Ans.--An ordinary carpenter would make a little more than one a day.
    Int. 44.--What are carpenters' wages at Fort Colvile?
    Ans.--They are from five to six dollars.
     Int. 45.--How long would it take to make a window such as those you saw, and what is the cost of the glass at Colvile?
    Ans.--It would take about half a day to make a window; I did not price glass at Colvile; it would be worth Portland prices with transportation added; this glass in that house would in Portland cost about $8.
    Int. 46.--What is the price of lathing?
    Ans.--I don't know the price at Colvile.
    Int. 47.--What is the price of lime?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 48.--How much lime must have been used in plastering that house?
    Ans.--The plastering is a very poor job; there may have been five or ten barrels.
    Int. 49.--What are plasterers' wages at Colvile?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 50.--How much paint and oil, in your judgment, have been used on that house?
    Ans.--I don't know how much was used on that house; it needs repainting now.
    Int. 51.--Do you know the costs of paints and oil at Colvile?
    Ans.--I do not know the prices there; it would be Portland prices with freight added.
    Int. 52.--What is the freight per pound from Portland to Colvile, including land and water carriage?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 53.--Do you know the wages of painters at Colvile?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 54.--Are there not chimneys in that house, and of what description?
    Ans.--There are two chimneys to the house, with one fireplace to each, built, as I was informed, by Mr. McDonald of the quartz rock common to the falls there; they are about twenty-five feet high.
    Int. 55.--What, in your judgment, is the cost of those chimneys?
    Ans.--I would guess $100 each.
    Int. 56.--Do you know the price of nails at Colvile?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 57.--In making your estimate, when you were ignorant of the value of so much of the material used, the cost of transportation of lumber from the mills, and the wages of some of the mechanics necessarily employed, could you arrive at a result at all definite or certain?
    Ans.--Knowing the price of the principal article used, I think I have allowed a margin in my estimation large enough to cover the cost of those smaller articles, the prices of which I was not acquainted with.
    Int. 58.--Have you not already said that you did not know the price of transportation of lumber from the mills to the house, and that your estimate was based upon lumber at $25 per 1,000?
    Ans.--I do not know the exact price of transportation, but my estimate was based upon the price of lumber at the mills.
    Int. 59.--Is not $25 per 1,000 the lowest price for common lumber at the mills?
    Ans.--I do not know whether it was the highest or lowest price.
    Int. 60.--Were you informed that such lumber as is fit to be used in making doors and windows, and for finishing a dwelling-house, could be obtained at that price?
     Ans.--I did not price the different qualities of lumber. The timber used both for common and finishing lumber at that place, I believe, is principally pine.
    Int. 61.--Have you any idea of the original cost of the other buildings described by you inside and outside the fort?
    Ans.--I have not.
    Int. 62.--Did you make any special estimate of the value of either of them, further than to set a price upon a hasty examination of their present appearance?
    Ans.--After examining the buildings as carefully as I could, I made up my estimate of their value from their present condition; I took all the time as I deemed necessary to make the examination.
    Int. 63.--How long were you in examining the eleven buildings, excluding Mr. McDonald's dwelling, described by you?
    Ans.--I was from three to five hours in making the measurements and notes, but made up and added the estimates afterwards.
    Int. 64.--During that time, was not the dwelling of Mr. McDonald examined and measured, and was not more time given to that than to any other building?
    Ans.--It was, and more time was given to the measurement of that than to any other one house.
    Int. 65.--How do you know that Mrs. Hall purchased improvements of a tenant of the Company for $100; is not that statement, sworn to as a fact, from hearsay only?
    Ans.--So far as I know it is only from hearsay.
    Int. 66.--When Mr. McDonald informed you that the Company found it cheaper to purchase its supplies of produce than to cultivate, did he assign a reason for this, and what was it?
    Ans.--I do not remember whether he assigned a reason or not.
    Int. 67.--Did he not say that because of frequent excitement in reference to gold discoveries it was impossible to keep men to their contracts, or words to that effect?
    Ans.--I do not remember now that he did.
    Int. 68.–Did he not say that wages were too high for farming business?
    Ans.--Not to my recollection.
    Int. 69.--Did he not tell you that the wages of carpenters and mechanics was $10 a day?
    Ans.--I have no recollection of it.
    Int. 70.--Did you regard the assessment rolls of Stevens County as indicating any true or correct value of the property assessed?
    Ans.--As much so there as in any other county. I have as much faith in the officers of that county as any other.
    Int. 71.--Did you think it reliable for the purpose of estimating the value of property?
    Ans.--I think it afforded us a very good guide.
    Int. 72.--How then did it happen that you fixed the value of the mill at only one-third of the assessment?
    Ans.--We estimated the buildings as it stands, without any water power.
    Int. 73.--Did not the assessor estimate it in the same way, but for three times the amount?
    Ans.--I do not know, but if he did, he may not have noticed that the building was very much decayed.
    Int. 74.--Do you not know that you have sworn in your report that the mill assessed at $1,500?
    Ans.--Yes.
    Int. 75.--Do you swear to the statement that the Company ceased to cultivate the White Mud farm in 1860, as a fact, from anything except hearsay?
    Ans.--It is only from hearsay; we were so informed.
    Int. 76.--Describe the soil of White Mud farm.
    Ans.--The crops upon the farm looked very well, but as to the quality of the soil, I am not a judge.
    Int. 77.--Do you not believe, considering the appearance of the crops and its productive capacity, that that land is fairly worth more than $1.25 an acre?
    Ans.--That portion of it under cultivation, no doubt, is worth more than $1.25 an acre, but making an average of the whole, in my opinion, it is not.
    Int. 78.--How much is under cultivation, and what part is that of the whole?
    Ans.--We did not measure that part under cultivation, but were informed by Mr. McDonald that they had cultivated thirty or forty acres; what proportion that is of the whole, I cannot say.
    Int. 79.--What is the value of that thirty acres per acre, exclusive of the other?
    Ans.--I cannot say.
    Int. 80.--How many bushels of wheat to the acre will it produce?
    Ans.--I cannot say; the crop on it looked to be an average fair crop.
     Int. 81.--Does not that part not in cultivation produce good crops of hay?
     Ans.--Some parts may; other parts are too broken and hilly.
    Int. 82.--Is not by far the largest part capable of producing good hay?
    Ans.--I think not.
    Int. 83.--How long did you stop on the White Mud farm for the purpose of examining it?
    Ans.--About half an hour.
    Int. 84.--Are you certain that you stopped there more than five minutes?
    Ans.--Yes.
    Int. 85.--Did you yourself get out of the wagon while there?
    Ans.--I do not think I did.
    Int. 86.--Did you examine the water known as the Kettle Falls?
    Ans.--I did not.
    Int. 87.--Did you examine any roads or bridges made by the Company on the land claimed by it, or in its vicinity?
    Ans.--I do not know what roads were made by the Company; I examined no road or bridge, supposing the Company had made or built them.
    Int. 88.--Did you particularly observe the roads running to and around the fort at Colvile?
    Ans.--We rode over the road in the Company's claim in going down to the fort, and also in coming back.
    Int. 89.--Were the roads good, or otherwise?
    Ans.--The road is a very good wagon road most of the way.
    Int. 90.--In the short time you were at Colvile, were you not compelled to examine the land so far as you did examine it, simply by passing over it?
    Ans.--The examination that we made of the lands there were made while passing over and observing the land as it lay, and the crops upon it.
    Int. 91.--Have you not said that you thought that you and the other witnesses traveled too rapidly and made the examination in a manner too hurried to be able to do justice to the subject.
    Ans.--I do not remember ever making any such remark.
    Int. 92.--Have you not said that if your investigation had been more deliberate you would have been better satisfied?
    Ans.--I do not remember making that statement, but I think if we had taken more time we would have been better prepared, and our report would have been more favorable to the United States.
    Int. 98.--Did you not make it as favorable as possible from all the information you could get?
    Ans.--I believe we did.
    Int. 94.--Was not your object to reduce the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company as much as possible, so far as you could get information authorizing you to do so?
    Ans.--My object was to arrive at facts, as near as I could ascertain.
    Int. 95.--Is it a safe way, if your judgment, to reach facts by depending upon the rumors of strangers, concerning whose intelligence or integrity you know nothing personally?
    Ans.--In comparing the statements of different persons in the same community, and comparing that with the statement of a sworn officer, I know of no better way to make up my opinion.
    Int. 96.--How long were you at Walla Walla?
    Ans.--Three or four hours.
    Int. 97.--Did you not arrive there in the night?
    Ans.--We did.
    Int. 98.--Did you visit any of the land in the vicinity?
    Ans.--I helped measure a mile up and down the river; I made no other examination of the land.
    Int. 99.--Do you swear to the statement that there is no land fit for cultivation for some miles on all sides of the fort, as a fact, merely from hearsay?
    Ans.--A further examination was made of the lands by Messrs. Applegate and Rinearson, and upon their statement I was guided in my judgment upon that point.
    Int. 100.--How do you know that the Old Fort was sold in 1860 for $900 by the representative of the Company to one of the original proprietors of Wallula, as stated by you as a fact in your report?
    Ans.--That is from hearsay.
    Int. 101.--Who said so?
    Ans.--That information was also got by Mr. Applegate.
    Int. 102.--Did you yourself hear anything about it, except from Mr. Applegate?
    Ans.--I heard others talk about [it], but I cannot remember who it was.
    Int. 103.--Do you know anything personally of the prosperity or business prospects of Wallula, and is not your statement of these matters based entirely upon hearsay?
    Ans.--It is not entirely hearsay, business men and freighters all concur in the fact that business is dull there now.
    Int. 104.--Do you not know that large amounts of freight are landed there to be forwarded to Montana, Big Bend, and other interior points?
    Ans.--I know that freights are landed there, but not in quantities so large as formerly.
    Int. 195.--Were you ever there before?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 196.--How do you know that much of the land in the vicinity of Vancouver is vacant and subject to entry?
    Ans.--By information obtained from persons living in that vicinity.
    Int. 197.--Did you seek for information upon that point from the Register of the land office, at Vancouver?
    Ans.--I did not.
    Int. 198.--From information that you had are you willing to swear that there is a single vacant section within four miles of Vancouver?
    Ans.--No; not within four miles.
    Int. 109.--Did you visit the different prairies in Clark County, the land of which you have valued at ninety cents an acre? If so, state which you visited.
    Ans.--I visited Mill Plain and the timber lands between it and Vancouver, and then through the timber land again to the Fourth Plain, and including the timber land and the land below, with the prairie, our estimate was $1.25 per acre, or ninety cents in coin; I passed through the First, Second, and Third Plains in going to the Fourth.
    Int. 110.--How many farms are there on the Mill Plain?
    Ans.--I do not know; did not count the farms; we found lands on the Mill Plain which had been once cultivated, which are now thrown out, and small fir trees were growing on the ground.
    Int. 111.--How many farms were there on the First Plain?
    Ans.--I did not count the farms.
    Int. 112.--How was the land on the First Plain, fertile or otherwise?
    Ans.--I examined that plain but little, and cannot say how much fertile land there is; it is a small plain, and open timber; what there is of it is very ordinary; the crops looked thin and dry.
    Int. 113.--How many farms are there on the Second Plain?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 114.--How many farms are there on the Third Plain?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 115.--How many farms are there on the Fourth Plain?
    Ans.--I did not count the farms on the Fourth Plain.
    Int. 116.--Were you ever on these plains before?
    Ans.--I was never north of the Fourth Plain before.
    Int. 117.--Were you ever in any part of Clark County before, except at Vancouver?
    Ans.--Never, except to touch at the bank as boats were passing.
    Int. 118.--In estimating the lands of Clark County at ninety cents per acre, mentioned in your report, had you any basis for that estimate for all the region, except the parts visited by you, aside from hearsay?
    Ans.--Our opinions were made by conversations and inquiries made of some farmers that we met on our route, and by observations we made ourselves of the lands and their surroundings.
    Int. 119.--Referring to your individual knowledge, as you are testifying for yourself alone, state whether your estimate is not based entirely upon hearsay, except so far as you saw the places mentioned by you.
    Ans.--After getting what information I could from parties we met on our route, inhabitants there, and then comparing that information and the lands and location with other lands more favorably located, I made up my opinion.
    Int. 120.--Did you see any part of that land west of Vancouver and down the river, thence running back to the Cathlapotle? I refer to the ninety-cent lands, not including the ten sections named in the report.
    Ans.--I did not examine that part.
    Int. 121.--Do you think you are qualified, from the slight examination you made and the scattered information you picked up, to estimate the value of 150,000 acres of land?
    Ans.--I think with the knowledge of the country that I have, and of the prices of lands in locations more favorably situated, that I am.
    Int. 122.--If you owned that tract of land, and proposed to sell it upon the estimate of any man who had never seen it, would you be willing to rely upon his judgment if he made only so much examination as you did, and only gathered information concerning it in the same way.
    Ans.--If I owned that land, I would be willing to sell it upon the estimate of one or more men who were considered competent judges. If I owned this land I would be very glad to take the price we have set upon it. (The last sentence of the foregoing answer objected to, because it is not responsive to the question, and is an impertinent and voluntary statement of the witness, who is hereafter requested only to answer the questions put to him.)
    Int. 123.--Would you not expect a competent judge to make a full and fair examination of the premises which he was directed to estimate the value of, and would the visiting a very small portion thereof be to you a satisfactory examination?
    Ans.--I should expect a competent judge to make an examination satisfactory to himself, and if I believed him to be impartial, I would be satisfied with his judgment.
    Int. 124.--If you found that he visited but a very small part of it, and formed his information as to the balance from persons who were strongly prejudiced and bitterly opposed to your interests, what would you think of his good judgment and fidelity?
    Ans.--If all parties were prejudiced, I should give but very little weight to the judgment in the case.
    Int. 125.--Did you estimate the value of the water power now used by Love and Hexter, one for a saw, and the other for a grist mill, upon this land?
    Ans.--I did not.
    Int. 126.--Did you see them?
    Ans.--I did.
    Int. 127.--What value do you put upon the water power at the grist mill?
    Ans.--I consider that water power, situated as it is, at a very nominal value.
    Int. 128.--What do you consider the power at Love's to be worth?
    Ans.--That is a better water power than the other, but situated remote from market as it is, I cannot place a cash value on it.
    Int. 129.--What do you consider the worth per acre of Ryan's claim, lying next above Vancouver, on the Columbia River?
    Ans.--That section may be worth from ten to fifteen dollars an acre.
    Int. 130.--Do you not know that a portion of that claim, or the claim adjoining above, at the corner, back from the river and farthest from Vancouver, has been sold at $10 an acre?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 131.--What, in your judgment, is the value of the claim above Ryan's per acre?
    Ans.--It is worth from one dollar and a quarter to five dollars an acre; some of it, I think, is worth nothing.
    Int. 132.--Do you not know that Nye sold 80 acres of the upper portion of this land, timbered and without improvements, to a man by the name of Fritz for $800 within the last four or five years?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 133.--What estimate per acre do you put upon the claim of Fritz, above that of Nye?
    Ans.--About the same as Nye's, from one to five dollars an acre.
    Int. 134.--Did you visit and examine the land of Fritz?
    Ans.--I passed through the upper end of it along the road; made no other particular examination.
    Int. 135.--At what value per acre do you fix the Short claim, the first below Vancouver?
    Ans.--That land, west of the city, I did not examine, and that claim was put in the average of the other lands.
    Int. 136.--Will you state your estimate of its value by itself?
    Ans.--I cannot, as I did not examine it separately.
    Int. 137.--Do you not know that considerable portions of that claim have been sold at prices ranging from forty to one hundred dollars per acre?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 138.--Did you visit and examine so that you can estimate the value of the second section below Vancouver?
    Ans.--I did not visit it; nor can I estimate the value, only in the average estimate.
    Int. 139.--Will you say the same of the others of the ten sections below Vancouver?
    Ans.--Yes.
    Int. 140.--What, in your judgment, is the value of land per acre, which will produce two tons of hay to the acre, when hay is worth $15 per ton in the field?
    Ans.--I cannot give an answer to that, that I would feel satisfied with. In the first place I am not a farmer, and do not know the difference in the value of hay lands and grain lands, and the value of hay lands would depend upon the value of the lands adjoining in the same form, whether the land is timber land, overflowed land, or open prairie.
    Int. 141.--Do you mean to say that you are unable to estimate the value of land which yields an annual income of $30 an acre, subject only to the expense of cutting and making two tons of hay thereon?
    Ans.--Not knowing its location, I do; overflowed land may yield two tons to the acre, of which kind of land I sold about 500 acres on Sauvie's Island, about a year ago, for a few cents over $2 an acre.
    Int. 142.--Did that land which you sold annually yield two tons of hay to the acre?
    Ans.--It is said to be as good hay land as there is on Sauvie's Island, but whether it will annually yield two tons or not, I do not know.
    Int. 143.--How much of the land sold was good hay land?
    Ans.--About one-half.
    Int. 144.--What was the description of the other land?
    Ans.--A portion of the land was an oak opening, and the other portion was open and broken prairie land; some small portion was slough land, a small slough going through the lower end of it.
    Int. 145.--From whom did you purchase it; when, and for what price?
    Ans.--I bought it on execution about three years ago; it satisfied a demand of about $2,000.
    Int. 146.--To whom did you sell it?
    Ans.--To two brothers named Scroggin.
    Int. 147.--Do you think $2.00 an acre is a fair value for good hay lands which yield two tons of hay to the acre?
    Ans.--No; I think it ought to be worth more than that.
    Int. 148.--Do you not know that the present current price of good hay lands on Sauvie's Island is at least $10 per acre?
    Ans.--I do not know.
    Int. 149.--If two persons, one owning the land on the ten sections about Vancouver, and the other desiring to purchase it, had referred the price to be paid to you, would you have been willing in justice to both parties, to have fixed thắt price, basing your judgment upon the examination you made, and the information you received?
    Ans.--I would.
    Int. 150.--Did you receive any information from parties occupying the land, and now claiming to own it, as to its value?
    Ans.--Not on the ten sections.
    Int. 151.--Why did you not make inquiries of them?
    Ans.--I thought my information was sufficient without.
    Int. 152.--Do you not think that they were much more capable of giving reliable and intelligent information than persons living several miles distant, and in other parts of the county?
    Ans.--They may have been, but from my knowledge of the county itself and that surrounding it, I was satisfied.
    Int. 153.--Do you mean that you were satisfied that you had got the price low enough?
    Ans.--I mean that I was satisfied to form an opinion and swear to it.
    Int. 154.--If you had been credibly informed by the occupants of that land, that portions of it, amounting in the aggregate to one thousand acres or upwards, had been sold for prices varying from $40 to $100 per acre, would that information have influenced your judgment, or would you still have thought that the whole land was worth only from four to five dollars per acre?
    Ans.--It would have changed my opinion very little.
    Int. 155.--If one thousand acres had been sold for $40, would not that amount of land alone bring a greater price than the highest rate you put upon the whole ten sections?
    Ans.--It would.
    Int. 156.--Were you not informed that any part of the ten sections below Vancouver was leased for pasturage purposes, or of the rents paid therefor?
    Ans.--I was not.
    Int. 157.--Did you make any inquiries of owners of lots on the town site as to their value?
    Ans.--I did of an owner of lots in town, who lived out of town.
    Int. 158.--Who was he?
    Ans.--A Mr. Maberry, who lives in the Fourth Plain.
    Int. 159.--How many lots does he own, and on what part of the site are they located?
    Ans.--He named two lots that he owned, on a corner fronting the public plaza, in the central portion of the town.
    Int. 160.--Do you not know that the public plaza is half a mile from the river, and remote from the settled part of the town?
    Ans.--No, I don't know that.
    Int. 161.--Did Mr. Maberry lead you to suppose that the public square was in the vicinity of the settled part of the town?
    Ans.--I so understood.
    Int. 162.--Upon what basis was your estimate made of $50 as the value per acre of the land on the town site and on the government reservation?
    Ans.--Upon a general basis and the prospective future of Vancouver and the surrounding country.
    Int. 163.--What do you mean by a general basis?
    Ans.--I refer to the whole country around.
    Int. 164.--What do you mean by the "prospective future"?
    Ans.--I can only judge the future by the past, and comparing prices of thirteen or fourteen years past it does not indicate to me that the prices of land tend upwards very rapidly.
    Int. 165.--Do you know what the prices of land have been at Vancouver for thirteen or fourteen years?
    Ans.--I do not, but see many empty houses there now that have been filled since thirteen years ago.
    Int. 166.--What, in your judgment, is the value of lots, say on Main Street, about three blocks or eight hundred feet from the river, not including the buildings thereon?
    Ans.--I do not know; I did not price lots on that street.
    Int. 167.--Do you know the price of any lots, except those of which Maberry gave you information?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Int. 168.--Did you inquire from any resident of Vancouver the price or value of lots there?
    Ans.--I did not.
    Int. 169.--If you had learned from those who knew that land was selling at the rate of from $400 to $2,500 a block in all the settled part of Vancouver, comprising some fifty blocks or upwards, would that fact have changed your opinion of the value of the section, embracing the town site and the reserve?
    Ans.--In connection with the other part of the claim it would not.
    Int. 170.--Would not the sale of fifty blocks alone, at $700, only, each, amounted to more than your estimate of the whole section, at $50 per acre?
    Ans.--Yes. 
    Int. 171.--If, then, you had learned that a portion of the town site was actually worth more than the whole estimate you place on the whole section, what do you mean by saying your estimate would not be changed?
    Ans.--I have not so learned that any fifty blocks can be sold for that; I do not believe they can if the improvements are taken off.
    Int. 172.--The question was not as to what you had learned, as you have already stated how much information you gained, but was simply, whether, if it were proved to you that fifty blocks of land was sold for more than your estimate of the value of the whole section, you would change your estimate, or still insist that the land was only worth $50 an acre?
    Ans.--My opinion of the lands on the town site was made up independent of the improvements upon any part of the section; if all the improvements were removed, and then it could be proved to me that fifty blocks could be sold for $700 each, I then would be satisfied that I had erred in my opinion of the value of the whole section.
    Int. 173.--Do you mean to say that you would fix the price at $50 an acre if there were no building upon that reservation or town site and it was simply vacant land?
    Ans.--Knowing that there is town site there, my opinion was made up independent of the improvement upon it.
    Int. 174.--Can you estimate the value of lands on a town site without considering the value of improvements as giving worth to the land upon which the site is located?
    Ans.--I consider that the buildings upon one block enhances the value of the land of the next block.
    Int. 175.--In considering the value of lots in a town there, can you make a fair estimate without considering the general state of improvements in the town? 
    Ans.--The site of Vancouver is one of the oldest sites on the coast, and comparing her scattered and empty houses with other towns in the vicinity, it has aided me in forming my conclusions.
    Int. 176.--How many empty houses did you count in Vancouver?
    Ans.--I did not count them.
    Int. 177.--Will you swear you saw five?
    Ans.--I will not swear how many I did see, for I did not count them.
    Int. 178.--What do you mean by saying that you saw any empty houses, when you did not count them and cannot tell how many you saw?
    Ans.--I mean just what say.
    Int. 179.--Did you see two empty houses there?
    Ans.--I have already said that I did not count the number of empty houses.
    Int. 180.--Can you swear that you saw two empty houses at Vancouver, in your last visit there?
    Ans.--Yes.
    Int. 181.--Did you see three?
    Ans.--Yes.
    Int. 182.--Did you see five?
    Ans.--Yes.
    Int. 183.--Can you designate them, or the parts of the town in which you saw them?
    Ans.--In standing on the porch of the Alta House, I noticed three or four in the first block, to the left, fronting the river, and one near the bank of the river, in front, and one or more on the next block on the other side of Main Street. I did not count these houses while there, but call them to mind now.
    Int. 184.--Did you go into the buildings on the block first named, where you say there were three or four vacant houses?
    Ans.--I did not, but passed them several times, and noticed that the sidewalks were much out of repair.
    Int. 185.--Will you state how many buildings there were on that side of the block?
    Ans.--I did not count the buildings on either side of the block.
    Int. 186.--Were not those buildings situated near the banks of the river on low ground, which had been recently overflowed during a very high stage of water in the Columbia?
    Ans.--They were situated north of the first wharf and street, and in the first block west of Main Street; I do not know whether it had been overflowed or not; the streets were dry when I was there.
    Int. 187.--Was not the amount of $50 fixed upon by you as the value per acre of that land, rather as a result of an agreement between you, Applegate, and Rinearson, than because of any definite knowledge you had as to its value?
    Ans.--My judgment was made up without any agreement with anybody but myself.
    Int. 188.--Have you not a strong and earnest bias against the claim of the Company, which prompts you to do all that you can to weaken and reduce it?
    Ans.--I have endeavored to make up my estimates impartially and without prejudice. The Company has never wronged me out of a cent.
    Int. 189.--Are you the proprietor of town property in Portland; if so, to what extent?
    Ans.--I am, to the extent of from $6,000 to $10,000.
    Int. 190.--Do you think that a report or estimate based on hearsay and rumors from persons, many of whom are unknown to you, and many of whose names even you do not recollect, is fair and just towards parties who may be injuriously affected by such report or estimate?
    Ans.--I admit that my opinion is made up only to a very small degree, if at all, from more hearsay and from persons wholly unknown to me.
    Int. 191.--Have you not testified in repeated instances that statements made by you in your report were formed only on hearsay?
    Ans.--Only in cases of but little importance.
    Int. 192.--Do you mean to say that you consider yourself the judge of the importance, or want of importance, of any parts of your testimony?
    Ans.--My opinions of importance might differ from other persons' opinions.
    Int. 193.--What compensation have you received for your services in this matter?
    Ans.--I have received four dollars per day, and expenses paid thirty-six days.

    Int. 1.--How many rooms was Mr. McDonald's house, at Colvile, divided into?
    Ans.--Into two square rooms; hall and press on the lower floor; the upper floor is unfinished, and not divided into rooms.
    Int. 2.--For about what sum would you undertake to construct as good a building as Mr. McDonald's house in Portland? (Objected to as leading, incompetent, and immaterial, the Hudson's Bay Company not claiming for a house in Portland, but in Colvile.)
    Ans.--About $1,500.
Portland, September 1, 1866.

United States of America,
District of Oregon.
    I, R. Wilcox, clerk of the district court of the United States for the district of Oregon, do hereby certify that the foregoing depositions, hereto annexed, of J. S. Rinearson and J. C. Carson, witnesses produced by and in behalf of the United States, in relation to the matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company, before the British and American Joint Commission, for the adjustment of the same, were taken before me, at my office in Portland, in said district, and reduced to writing by myself, or under my direction, beginning on the 30th day of August, A.D. 1866, and continuing from day to day until the 1st day of September, 1866, according to the several dates appended to said depositions, when they were signed respectively.
    I further certify that to each of said witnesses, before his examination, I administered the following oath:
    "You do solemnly swear that the evidence which you shall give in the matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God."
    That after the same was reduced to writing, the deposition of each witness was carefully read to him and then signed by him in my presence.
    In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said court, this 1st day of September, A.D. 1866.

     Depositions of witnesses produced and examined in the town of Olympia, in the Territory of Washington, on behalf of the United States, on the 16th day of November, A.D. 1866, and succeeding days, before me, Andrew J. Moses, as notary public in and for the Territory of Washington, by virtue of a verbal agreement made in my presence by W. Carey Johnson, Esq., on behalf of of the United States, and Frank Clark, Esq., on behalf of the said Hudson's Bay Company.

The Hon. C. C. Hewitt, being first duly sworn, in answer to interrogatories, deposes as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupations.
    Ans.--Age, fifty-five years; residence, Olympia, Washington Territory; I am chief justice of Washington Territory, and also carrying on a farm in Thurston County, Washington Territory.
    Int. 2.--In what years did you cross the Rocky Mountains?
    Ans.--In the years 1852 and 1862.
    Int. 3.--When you crossed in 1852, did you pass the Hudson's Bay Company's post, called Fort Hall; if so, in what month, and how long did you remain there?
    Ans.--I did pass Hudson's Bay Company's fort, called Fort Hall; I think it was about the 10th day of August; I remained there two days.
    Int. 4.--Do you remember who was in charge at that time?
    Ans.--I can't state positively the name; I think it was Craigie.
    Int. 5.--Whilst you were there, did you have any conversation with the officer in charge about the business being done at the fort, and what the Company proposed to do with the post? If so, state the substance of that conversation.
    Ans.--I did have a conversation with him upon that subject; the substance of it was that it would not pay to keep the post up, and that they were going to abandon it.
    Int. 6.--When you passed this point in 1862, in what condition did you find the post?
    Ans.--I found no post there; it had been washed out by the river; there was no building standing of any kind.
    Int. 7.--Was the ground remaining upon which Fort Hall stood?
    Ans.--I think not; at least not all of it.

    Int. 1.--On your arrival at Fort Hall about the 10th of August, 1852, who, if anyone besides this man whose name you say was Craigie, was at that place?
    Ans.--There was a number of men there; did not learn their names, or if I did, I have forgotten them.
    Int. 2.--Who accompanied you to Fort Hall?
    Ans.--A man by the name of C. L. F. Thompson, another man by the name of Plummer, another man by the name of Russel Austin, and Lewis Ensign; those are the only male members of the company that I recollect.
    Int. 3.--Was there much conversation among your party at the time you were at Fort Hall, about the business of the place at that time?
    Ans.--None that I recollect.
    Int. 4.--After leaving Fort Hall, did you have much, if any, conversation with your party or others about the place and business of the place?
    Ans.--I do not recollect if the subject was ever named among our party, or with others.
    Int. 5.--What was the business of the place at the time you were there?
    Ans.--It was a trading post. There was a store there with some Indian goods in it, and I should judge from appearances it was a depot for furs and peltries, and there may have been other goods there for aught I know. I purchased one or two articles myself, trifling in themselves, but important to me. I wanted to purchase some flour, but the man in charge would not let me have it. I judge from that he had none for sale.
    Int. 6.--Was not this man, whose name you think was Craigie, a mere hand or laborer at the post, and not a person placed in charge of it by the Company?
    Ans.--He told me he was the man that had charge of the post; he directed the other men that were employed there after the packing of furs, and appeared to exercise a general supervision of the business, as far as I could judge.
    Int. 7.--Did he tell you that he was permanently in charge of the post, or that he was only temporarily in charge, during the absence of his superior officer?
    Ans.--He told me neither, to the best of my recollection; what he told about it is what I have already stated, to the best of my recollection.
    Int. 8.--Was not that post of great value to emigrants to Oregon, Washington, and California, at that date, as affording protection against the Indians, and as a point where they could generally procure necessary supplies?
    Ans.--From my experience, I do not think it was; at that time I neither saw nor heard of any hostile Indians in that section of the country; I saw no force, if there had been hostile Indians there, sufficient to afford protection.
    Int. 9.--Do you know whether the annual accounts of profits and loss, at Fort Hall, were made up at that post, or at Fort Vancouver, and do you know whether this man, whose name you think was Craigie, had any means of judging correctly whether the business at Fort Hall was profitable or not?
    Ans.--I do not know anything about it.
    Int. 10.--Was not the site at Fort Hall valuable as a trading post, upon a line of travel from the Atlantic States to California, Oregon, and Washington?
    Ans.--I do not think it was any more than any other point at which there was a trading post; I do not know of any intrinsic value it had over any other trading post.
    Int. 11.--Do you not know that this locality is the best wintering ground for stock, within a wide circuit, within that section of the country?
    Ans.--I do not; I was never there in the winter.
    Int. 12.--Do you [know] when and why that post was given up by the Company?
    Ans.--I know nothing about it except what this man in charge told me.
    Int. 13.--In your examination-in-chief, do you mean to swear simply to your present recollection or impression of the substance of the conversation of this man, whose name you think was Craigie, had over fourteen years ago?
    Ans.--I do.

    Int. 1.--Did you see Captain Grant in 1852? If so, where was he, I mean, the Hudson's Bay officer who had been in charge of Fort Hall?
    Ans.--I saw a man called Captain Grant at the Soda Springs, at the southern bend of Bear River; do not know whether he had ever been in charge of Fort Hall or not.
    Int 2.--If there were any circumstances tending to fix in your recollection the conversation you have related, had with the officer in charge at Fort Hall, please state what they were.
    Ans.--I had read and heard a great deal about the Hudson's Bay Company. That was the first time I had ever visited one of their trading posts. I had a curiosity to know something about the manner of their doing business, and their profits, and I talked freely with the man in charge upon that subject. At Fort Hall, at that time, they were packing furs, which was to me new and novel, for the purpose of sending to Oregon City or Vancouver; I do not know which, I think to Oregon City. A pack train left whilst I was there, which was also new and novel, loaded with furs, all of which led to the conversation I have detailed, intended to fix it in my mind.

    Int. 1.--State the distance that Soda Springs is from Fort Hall, also what business Captain Grant was engaged in at the time you met him.
    Ans.--I should judge the distance to be seventy-five or eighty miles, more or less; Grant had a trading post there.
    Int. 2.--Was not the business Grant was doing that summer a very profitable one?
    Ans.--I judge from what I saw and from what he told me, it was.
    Int. 3.--Do you not know that Captain Grant was trading for the Hudson's Bay Company, in whole or in part?
    Ans.--I do not.
    Subscribed and sworn to before me this nineteenth day of November, A.D. 1866.

    R. H. Hewitt, being first duly sworn, deposeth in answer to interrogatories as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation.
    Ans.--My age is about twenty-seven; my residence is Olympia, Washington Territory, and my occupation is that of printer and editor and publisher of the Pacific Tribune newspaper.
    Int. 2.--Have you ever visited the site of the Hudson's Bay Company's Fort Hall? If so, state when it was, and what you found there.
    Ans.--I passed by it in August, 1862; I found a very few remains of old buildings, the bare remnants of an old station.
    Int. 3.--Judging from appearances, how had the post been destroyed?
    Ans.--Washed down by the rains, and then washed away by the floods.
Dated at Olympia, Washington Territory,
November 20, 1866.

Territory of Washington,
County of Thurston.
    I, Andrew J. Moses, a notary public in and for said Territory, residing in said county, do hereby certify that the foregoing depositions of C. C. Hewitt and R. H. Hewitt were taken before me, at my office in Olympia, in said county, on the 18th and 20th days of November, A.D. 1866, in pursuance of a verbal agreement, made in my presence, by W. Carey Johnson, Esq., in behalf of the United States, and Frank Clark, Esq., in behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company, and reduced to writing by me, or in my presence, and under my direction, by persons agreed upon between the parties.
    I further certify that to each of said witnesses, before his examination, I administered the following oath:
    "You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in the matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God."
    I further certify that said depositions were carefully read to, or by, said witnesses after the same were reduced to writing, and then signed by them, respectively.
    In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal, at my office in Olympia, the twentieth day of November, A.D 1866.


Depositions of witnesses taken in behalf of the United States:

George H. Belden, being duly sworn, deposes and answers to interrogatories as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and profession.
    Ans.--I am in my forty-eighth year; resident of Portland; civil engineer by profession.
    Int. 2.--In what business are you at present particularly engaged?
    Ans.--I am engaged as Superintendent of the Oregon Iron Company, at Oswego, Oregon.
    Int. 3.--How long have you been a resident of Oregon?
    Ans.--I arrived first in Oregon the 28th of February, 1852, returned to New York in June, 1856, arrived in Oregon again in May, 1861, and have resided in Oregon to the present time.
    Int. 4.--At what different places have you resided in Oregon?
    Ans.--In Portland, Oregon City, Salem, and Eugene City.
    Int. 5.--Were you ever employed in the Surveyor General's office in Oregon? If so, how long and in what capacity?
    Ans.--I was employed in the Surveyor General's office from July, 1852, to May, 1856, and again from the summer of 1861, to March, 1864, in the capacity most of the time of chief clerk.
    Int. 6.--What connection, if any, have you had with the survey, preliminary or otherwise, of routes for proposed railroads in Oregon?
    Ans.--I made a preliminary reconnaissance of the Dalles and Celilo railroad in 1861 or 1862; for W. S. Ladd and associates in the summer of 1863. I was on the survey of the California and Oregon railroad from Yreka, California, to the summit of the Siskiyou Mountains; I have also re-surveyed the Cascade railroad since its construction, for the Oregon Steam Navigation Company. (The fifth and sixth interrogatories and the answers thereto objected to by counsel on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company, on the ground of immateriality and irrelevancy.)
    Int. 7.--State concisely the various railroad schemes in any way connected with Oregon and Washington Territory which have been proposed at different times, to your knowledge. (The same objection on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company as to the preceding interrogatories.)
    Ans.--The proposed routes with which I am familiar are first the California and Oregon Railroad from Marysville, California, to Portland, Oregon. That part of the North Pacific Railroad west of the Rocky Mountains, by way of Lake Pend Oreille, White Bluffs, on the Columbia, Snoqualmie or Naches Pass, to Puget's Sound, also the Columbia River branch to Portland, also a proposed route from Salt Lake in Utah, to Snake River, to the Columbia River. I have heard also of the extension of the Oregon and California Railroad, by the way of Cowlitz to Puget's Sound.
    Int. 8.--Have you ever been upon the town site of Vancouver?
    Ans.--Yes, sir.
    Int. 9.--What, in your judgment, is the importance of that site in relation to these various railroad schemes? (Objected to by counsel of the Hudson's Bay Company, on the ground that it asks for an expression of opinion of the witness in relation to a matter in which the testimony of experts is not contemplated in law.)
    Ans.--It is not a very easy question to answer. I have never regarded Vancouver as a point immediately upon any of the routes referred to, for the reason that I have considered the south side of the Columbia River the better side for a railroad route, from the mouth of Snake River down to the Columbia Valley.
    Int. 10.--In your opinion, should the extension of the California and Oregon road from Portland to Puget's Sound cross the river above, at, or below Vancouver? (Objected to by the Hudson's Bay Company's counsel, on the same ground as the preceding interrogatory.)
    Ans.--I regard the Columbia River as a permanent obstacle to a continuous line of railroad from Portland to Puget's Sound; in other words, it is not practicable to construct a railroad bridge over it at any point below the Cascade Mountains; such a bridge would be of great magnitude, and more difficult of construction than the Victoria Bridge across the St. Lawrence.
    Int. 11.--Have any of the railroad schemes you have alluded to become so far developed, or their termini so definitely fixed, as to materially affect the value of real estate at any particular given point or points in Oregon or Washington?
    Ans.--I am unaware of any points that would be so affected.
    Int. 12.--How many different points on the Willamette and Columbia rivers have you heard named and proposed as the terminus of the Oregon and California Railroad?
    Ans.--Four points; one on the south bank of the Columbia, between the mouth of Sandy River and Vancouver; I am unable to locate it more definitely; the second at Portland; the third at St. Helens; the fourth at Rainier; I am ignorant of any other points spoken of.

    Int. 1.--Does anything that you have done as a civil engineer in Oregon, at any time, enable you to predict with any certainty where the terminus of any railway connecting the Atlantic with the Pacific States would be in Oregon or Washington Territory?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 2.--Does your experience enable you to state where a railway running northward, through Oregon from California, would eventually and permanently terminate?
    Ans.--No, sir.
    Int. 3.--If the Columbia is a permanent obstacle to the construction of a continuous railway from Portland to Puget's Sound, because as you say it cannot be bridged, without too much expense, and a railway should be constructed running down the north side of the Columbia River, would not Vancouver be an important point?
    Ans.--I should think it might be.
    Int. 4.--Is not Vancouver the head of navigation on the Columbia River for seagoing vessels?
    Ans.--There have been seagoing vessels at higher points on the Columbia than Vancouver, but I understand the navigation of the river to be more intricate and difficult above that point.
     Int. 5.--Do not engineers of ability prefer the north side of the Columbia River as the route for the Northern Pacific Railroad?
    Ans.--I am not aware of the opinion of others on that subject. The route that I spoke of in my previous examination was not the Pacific Railroad route proper, but of this branch to Portland.
    Int. 6.--Would not the North Pacific Railroad, connecting the Atlantic States with Puget's Sound, run north of the Columbia River?
    Ans.--I should say yes, sir; but, as I have always supposed, by either the Naches or Snoqualmie Pass.
    Int. 7.--In case the North Pacific Railway runs in either of the passes mentioned by you to Puget's Sound, would not a railway connecting California and Willamette Valley with the North Pacific Railway strike the Columbia River most properly somewhere between Sandy River and Vancouver?
    Ans.--Without any reference to the special interests of the Willamette Valley, as I consider those interests, it would be the best point to strike the Columbia River, and easiest of construction.
    Int. 8.--How far is Sandy River from Vancouver?
    Ans.--I do not know precisely; I am of the impression it is fifteen miles or thereabouts.
    Int. 9.--Which of the three presents the least difficulties for the construction of a railway from Portland to the Columbia River to a point between Sandy River and Vancouver, or a railway from Portland to St. Helens, or a railway from Portland to Rainier?
    Ans.--Aside from the costs of a bridge over the Willamette, my impression is that the route to the Sandy would be the easier one.
    Int. 10.--Does not a portion of the city of Portland, connected with the other portion of Portland by a steam ferry, lie east of the Willamette River?
    Ans.--I am uncertain whether any part of East Portland is within the incorporate limits of the city of Portland; I am of the impression a small portion is.
    Int. 11.--What is the distance in an air line between East Portland and a point on the Columbia River directly south of Vancouver?
    Ans.--I believe it to be about six miles.

    Int. 1.--What proportion do East and West Portland sustain to each other in population and business importance?
    Ans.--Portland is a large and improving town; East Portland is a mere suburb, but the value of property is improving there; many of its citizens reside there, but their business is in Portland proper.
    Int. 2.--Suppose you were constructing a railroad from Puget's Sound to the Columbia River; at what point would you expect to reach the Columbia first?
    Ans.--It is not an easy thing for an engineer to decide upon the relative merits of competing routes, without the knowledge given by an instrumental survey; all other things being equal, I should strike the Columbia at the nearest point to Puget's Sound, which would be in the vicinity of the Cowlitz River.
    Int. 3.--Do you know, or have you ever heard of any, feasible route from the Puget's Sound to the Columbia, except the one down the Cowlitz?
    Ans.--I have never known any other than that, except a line of military road from Vancouver, of which I have merely heard, but know nothing.
    Int. 4.--Is there any material difference, so far as you know, in the route for a railroad from Rainier, opposite the mouth of the Cowlitz to Portland, running on the south bank of the Columbia, and thence across to Portland?
    Ans.--I should think there would be very little difference in distance; my impression has been that the south bank is more rough and broken; it would, however, save a bridge at Portland.
    Int. 5.--What reasons have you for the opinion that the branch of the North Pacific Railroad, down the Columbia Valley, should and will be constructed to the south bank of the Columbia River, after getting below the Snake River?
    Ans.--First, there would be one crossing of the Columbia less. From Umatilla as far up the river as I have traveled, to a point a few miles below the Dalles, there is no special difficulty in the construction of a railroad. On the north side, for some fifteen or twenty miles above the Dalles, the difficulties would be great below Croit's [?] Point; I should suppose the difficulties would be about equal on each; side, as far down as the Cascade Falls; from the Cascades down, the Oregon side seems to me to be the easier of construction.
    Int. 6.--What is your information as to the comparative difficulties above Umatilla landing? (Objected to as hearsay.)
    Ans.--I am not sufficiently informed as to that region of country to offer an opinion.

    Int. 1.--State the width of the Willamette River at Portland, and the time required, and the means employed to cross from East to West Portland.
    Ans.--The width of the river is about 1,900 feet; from three to five minutes in crossing by steam ferry-boat.
    Int. 2.--Do not all the principal towns in the Willamette Valley above Portland, namely, Oregon City, Salem, Albany, and the largest extent of agricultural country, lie on the east side of the Willamette River, at least as far as the same is navigable during the greater portion of the year?
    Ans.--The three points spoken of, together with the best agricultural portions of the valley, are on the east side of the river.
    Int. 3.--Would it not be advantageous to have a short and therefore comparatively cheap railway bridge across the Columbia River at the Dalles, where the river is very narrow, and continue the railway thence to the mouth of the Cowlitz on the right or north bank of the Columbia River, and could not a branch line from Portland join that one by a ferry-boat at some point between Vancouver and Sandy River?
    Ans.--I think no engineer could compare the costs of the roads on both banks of the river without detailed instrumental surveys and careful estimates. My impression in regard to the banks of the Columbia River, through the Cascades, I have already stated. The connections by ferry-boat and the bridge are both feasible; so far as their respective merits are concerned, I think no one could determine. 
    Int. 4.--In case of the construction of a railway from California through Oregon, destined to bear the products and manufactures of Oregon to Portland, or either further north, which side of the Willamette River presents the greatest advantages and facilities for its construction?
    Ans.--In my opinion a railroad on the east side of the river, crossing to the west bank at Oregon City, would be of greater advantage, though of more expensive and difficult construction.

H. D. Huntington, being duly sworn, deposes and answers to interrogatories as follows:
    Int. 1.--State your age, residence, and occupation.
    Ans.--My age is fifty-five; my residence is Monticello, Washington Territory; occupation that of a farmer.
    Int. 2.--How long have you resided at Monticello!?
    Ans.--Since November, 1849, to present time.
    Int. 3.--Were you acquainted with the Hudson's Bay Company property at Coweeman, on the Cowlitz River? If so, state when you first saw it.
    Ans.--Yes; I saw it in the fall of 1848.
    Int. 4.--What became of that property?
    Ans.--Well, the buildings were torn down and used by me.
    Int. 5.--How did you come in possession of them?
    Ans.--I bought them from the agents of the Company.
    Int. 6.--How much did you pay for them?
    Ans.--Seventy-five dollars.
    Int. 7.--When was this purchase made by you?
    Ans.--My impression is that it was made in the fall of 1857.
    Int. 8.--What were the names of the agents of the Company with whom you negotiated about this purchase?
    Ans.--I suppose Mr. Graham might be said to be the principal man, and I finally closed the bargain with him; I also talked with Dr. Tolmie about it, but paid the money to Mr. Edward Spencer, then acting as agent at the warehouse.
    Int. 9.--Did Mr. Spencer give you any deed, bill of sale, or other writing for the property?
    Ans.--He gave me a writing; I suppose it might be called a bill of sale.
    Int. 10.--What has become of that writing?
    Ans.--It is lost, I suppose; I cannot find it.
    Int. 11.--Did he, at that time, give you any other writing or paper relating to the Company's rights there? If so, state what it was.
    Ans.--He gave me a paper; it was a certified copy of a writing which the Company had from a man called Thibeault.
    Int. 12.--If you now have that paper, please hand it to the officer now taking your deposition, and make it part of the same. (The introduction of the paper is objected to by the counsel of the Hudson's Bay Company, on the ground that at the date of the paper there was no title in the pretended grantor, that the instrument is without seal, that there is no consideration expressed, that it is a copy of an instrument which was never authorized to be recorded, that there is no acknowledgment, no proper certificate by the recorder, and that it is irrelevant.)
    NOTE.--Witness here hands in paper which is marked by me document "K."
    Int. 13.--Have any of the Company's agents had, or attempted to exercise, any control over that property since you purchased it?
    Ans.--No.
    Int. 14.--In what condition were the buildings when you bought them?
    Ans.--They were getting old and leaky.
    (The whole of the testimony of the witness, so far as it is intended to show the conveyance of any land, is objected to, on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company, for the reason that no conveyance of any description of any land to the witness is offered in evidence, and that no authority to act as agent of the Company has been shown.)

    Int. 1.--Did you not include within your donation claim, at Coweeman, the five acres of land then claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company, and on which their warehouses stood?
    Ans.--I did.
    Int. 2.--When you went to Coweeman, since known as Monticello, in 1849, what business were the Hudson's Bay Company carrying on there?
    Ans.--None at that time, except storing grain, that I recollect of.
    Int. 3.--Did they not sell goods there for some years after 1849?
    Ans.--Yes; they did.
    Int. 4.--Had not one of the buildings, which you refer to as having purchased, fallen into the river in consequence of the caving of the bank, and was not the other one threatened with similar destruction, and removed from its site by you?
    Ans.--One of them the water had washed the bank close up to it, but not under it; but shortly after, it washed about halfway under it, so I tore it down. When I tore the other one down, the water had not washed so close up to it, [but] that there was a path between it and the river; we were and are threatened all along there with the caving of the banks.
Portland, November 29, 1866.

    This is to say that I, J. Thibeault, holding a claim of land comprising 640 acres, or one mile square, situated at the Coweeman, on the south bank of the Cowlitz River, do hereby make over to the Honble. Hudson's Bay Company, for their use, and for their exclusive right and benefit, five acres out of said claim of that portion of land on which their granary and buildings now stand.
    Dated this twenty-seventh day of May, A.D. 1846.

		his
	J.	X	THIBEAULT.
		mark

Witnesses:

(Signed)	HENRY N. PEERS,
		his
(Signed)	CHARLES	X	DEROCHE.
		mark

Attested a true copy:
    (Signed)     RICHARD LANE,
                           Justice of the Peace in and for Vancouver County.
    I hereby certify that the above instrument of writing is recorded at page 163, in Record Book No. 8, in the Recorder's Office, in Oregon City. Recorded, January 26, 1849.
    Attested:
    (Signed)      THEO. MAGRUDER,
State of Oregon,
County of Multnomah.
    I, James Guthrie, Jr., notary public in and for said state, residing in said county, certify that the foregoing depositions of George H. Belden and H. D. Huntington were taken before me, on the 29th day of November, A.D. 1866, in pursuance of a verbal agreement, made in my presence, by W. Carey Johnson, on behalf of the United States, and W. F. Tolmie and R. H. Reed, Esqs., on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company, and reduced to writing by me, or in my presence, and under my direction, by persons agreed upon by the parties.
    I further certify that to each of said witnesses, before his examination, I administered the following oath:
    "You solemnly swear that the evidence you may give in the matter of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God."
    I further certify that the deposition of each witness was carefully read to, and then signed by him.
    I further certify that the paper hereto annexed and marked "K" is the one referred to the testimony of H. D. Huntington.
    In testimony whereof, I have hereto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal, at my office in Portland, in said county, the twenty-ninth day of November, A.D. 1866.
Last revised June 7, 2026