Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Public Offices document
Berens, Henry Hulse to Lytton, Sir Edward George Earle Bulwer 12 January 1859, CO 6:30, no. 1128, 459.
Abstract
Public Offices document.
Minutes (2).
Berens refutes allegations by American authorities that the HBC traded ammunition with “Indian
Tribes at war with the United States” for tacitly acknowledged stolen goods.
The minutes pass this information to the Foreign Office.
Berens to Lytton
Hudson's Bay House
LondonJanuary 31st 1859
Sir,
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the Earl of Carnarvon’s letter of the 21st instant, transmitting by your directions a copy of a despatch addressed by Lord Napier to the Earl of Malmesbury and dated the 20th December, in which he reports a conversation he had had with General Cass relative to the state of ammunition by the Agents of the Company to the Indian Tribes
at war with the United States.
While conveying to you the thanks of myself and the Committee for this communication
I take the opportunity of
of requesting your attention to one or two statements in Lord Napier’s letter which are felt to convey an imputation on the conduct of the Officers of
the Company which it is believed they have not merited. His Lordship in the course
of his observations on the purchase of “Animals and other property from the Savages”
assumes not only that the property in question was stolen but that the Hudson’s Bay
Officers “bought it with a full knowledge that it had been stolen.”
of requesting your attention to one or two statements in Lord Napier’s letter which are felt to convey an imputation on the conduct of the Officers of
the Company which it is believed they have not merited. His Lordship in the course
of his observations on the purchase of “Animals and other property from the Savages”
assumes not only that the property in question was stolen but that the Hudson’s Bay
Officers “bought it with a full knowledge that it had been stolen.”
Now, not only is there no proof beyond the bare assertion of the American authorities
that the “Animals and property” in question were stolen at all, but there is strong reason
to believe the contrary. Mr. Blenkinsop, the Officer in charge of the Company’s post at Fort Colvile in a letter on the subject, an extract of which I had the honour of transmitting
to you on the 15th December last says:
"The"
“The mules alluded to by Mr. Owens were said to have been in the hands of the Indians previous to the late outbreak.
We are not in the habit of trading property supposed to be stolen either from American
Citizens or their Government. If these mules, six in number, can be identified as
the property of the latter they will be held in readiness to be delivered over when
called for. For my own part I have great doubts on the point, as it is a well known
fact that a great many mules were in the possession of the Indians before the commencement
of the present War.”
“The mules alluded to by Mr. Owens were said to have been in the hands of the Indians previous to the late outbreak.
We are not in the habit of trading property supposed to be stolen either from American
Citizens or their Government. If these mules, six in number, can be identified as
the property of the latter they will be held in readiness to be delivered over when
called for. For my own part I have great doubts on the point, as it is a well known
fact that a great many mules were in the possession of the Indians before the commencement
of the present War.”
From this it is evident hot only that Mr. Blenkinsop has reason to believe that the animals in question were not stolen but that he has
pursued the very course suggested by Lord Napier as the most
most dignified which could be adopted on the part of the Hudson’s Bay Company, for
he has offered to restore the animals in question to “to the United States Army without
any demand for remuneration.”
most dignified which could be adopted on the part of the Hudson’s Bay Company, for
he has offered to restore the animals in question to “to the United States Army without
any demand for remuneration.”
With respect to the charge brought against the Company’s Officers of having sold Ammunition
to the Indians who are in hostility with the United States, there is strong reason
to believe that it is equally problematical, as I find by Mr. Blenkinsop’s letter already quoted that “since the attack on Col. Steptoe in May last we (the Company’s Officers) have disposed of, to friendly Indians only,
a very small quantity of powder, which I am convinced they would have used, if necessary,
in the defence of the Settlers themselves, but not a single ball has
has been given or sold to any Indians whatever during the last five months.” And Mr.
Ogden, another of the Company’s officers, in a letter of the 1st September says that “the Spokan and Cour-de-Alene Indians or a great number of them
passed through the Flat Head Country (a portion of the United States) last Fall on
their way to Fort Benson, where they remained all winter, and came back this Spring
with a large quantity of ammunition.”
has been given or sold to any Indians whatever during the last five months.” And Mr.
Ogden, another of the Company’s officers, in a letter of the 1st September says that “the Spokan and Cour-de-Alene Indians or a great number of them
passed through the Flat Head Country (a portion of the United States) last Fall on
their way to Fort Benson, where they remained all winter, and came back this Spring
with a large quantity of ammunition.”
From this it would appear that the Indians were supplied with ammunition, not by the
Company’s Officers, but by the Americans themselves.
