Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Public Offices document
Head, Sir Edmund Walker to Rogers, Baron Blachford Frederic 2 May 1865, CO 305:27, no. 4225, 276.
Abstract
Head, Sir Edmund Walker to Rogers, Baron Blachford Frederic 2 May 1865, CO 305:27, no. 4225, 276.
Public Offices document.
Minutes (3), Enclosures (untranscribed) (2), Other documents (1).
Head to Rogers (Permanent Under-Secretary)
Hudsons Bay House
May 2nd 1865
Sir,
I have the honour to acknowledge your letter of the 24th April and I
beg that you will thank the Right Honorable the Secretary of State
for giving to the Hudsons Bay Company the opportunity of offering
some remarks on the subject to which it relates.
I now enclose a Memorandum prepared by our Solicitors in conjunction
with Mr Dallas on the facts of the case. This latter gentlemanwas
was
the person who originally sold the lot Z to Mr Lowenberg and was
conversant with all the circumstances. It will be seen that the
enclosed Statement certified by him differs materially from the
alleged facts as recited in your letter.
was
the person who originally sold the lot Z to Mr Lowenberg and was
conversant with all the circumstances. It will be seen that the
enclosed Statement certified by him differs materially from the
alleged facts as recited in your letter.
Assuming that Mr Dallas's statements are correct the Secretary of
State will see it is impossible for the Governor and Committee of the
Hudsons Bay Company to give way on the points at issue. They have
always considered the Agreement of 1862 as a final settlement of all
disputed questions, binding in good faith on both parties; and they
do not admit that there are reasons for takingthis
this particular case
out of the purview of that Agreement. When they are asked, what
means there are of obtaining the lot in question for the Colonial
Government they can only reply that they presume it may be done by
compensating Mr Lowenberg, but they do not see that this Company is
the party who ought to pay such compensation.
this particular case
out of the purview of that Agreement. When they are asked, what
means there are of obtaining the lot in question for the Colonial
Government they can only reply that they presume it may be done by
compensating Mr Lowenberg, but they do not see that this Company is
the party who ought to pay such compensation.
If Mr Cardwell is of opinion that the whole matter should go before
a Court in the Colony the Hudsons Bay Company must do their best to
defend it there, or in any Court of Appeal to which it may hereafter
be carried.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Elliot
Besides the traditional skill and ability which have invariably distinguished the proceedings of the Hudson's Bay Co in the defence of their interests they have at hand Mr Dallas—probably a shareholder if not a Director—who possesses an intimate personal knowledge of the localities in dispute. The Company's legal advisers are Messrs Crowder & Maynard, than whom better are not to be found. With such opponents it behooves this Office to exert all the means at its command to secure its rights, if rights we have. Of course this letter will be referred for the opinion of the Land Board; but I would wish to throw out the suggestion that if the question is to be tried at Law in the Colony the Court should at any rate be presided over by a competent & professional Judge. Mr Cameron—a very able man & self made Lawyer—is still acting as Chief Justice; both sides will feel it more satisfactory that the cause should be tried before a professional Judge. The Office of Attorney General, moreover, is not filled up. Mr Cary has been succeeded by Mr Wood who holds the Acting Appointment. I know nothing against Mr Wood who may be a very good Lawyer, & a sharper practitioner than the H.B. Company have it in their power to get on their side. But is it not advisable that, with such antagonists as the H.B.Co, we should have the very best local help in the Colony which we can get. Whether we shd
better our position by sending out a strange man as Attorney
General—to whom a salary of only £300 a year (with private practice)
is assigned than by confirming Mr Wood in the office is a question
of considerable nicety and importance. I simply call attention to
our legal situation in the Colony with the prospect of a suit before us.
Besides the traditional skill and ability which have invariably distinguished the proceedings of the Hudson's Bay Co in the defence of their interests they have at hand Mr Dallas—probably a shareholder if not a Director—who possesses an intimate personal knowledge of the localities in dispute. The Company's legal advisers are Messrs Crowder & Maynard, than whom better are not to be found. With such opponents it behooves this Office to exert all the means at its command to secure its rights, if rights we have. Of course this letter will be referred for the opinion of the Land Board; but I would wish to throw out the suggestion that if the question is to be tried at Law in the Colony the Court should at any rate be presided over by a competent & professional Judge. Mr Cameron—a very able man & self made Lawyer—is still acting as Chief Justice; both sides will feel it more satisfactory that the cause should be tried before a professional Judge. The Office of Attorney General, moreover, is not filled up. Mr Cary has been succeeded by Mr Wood who holds the Acting Appointment. I know nothing against Mr Wood who may be a very good Lawyer, & a sharper practitioner than the H.B. Company have it in their power to get on their side. But is it not advisable that, with such antagonists as the H.B.Co, we should have the very best local help in the Colony which we can get. Whether we shd
better our position by sending out a strange man as Attorney
General—to whom a salary of only £300 a year (with private practice)
is assigned than by confirming Mr Wood in the office is a question
of considerable nicety and importance. I simply call attention to
our legal situation in the Colony with the prospect of a suit before us.
ABd
3 May
Sir F. Rogers
This is a subject on which I cannot add anything to the topics thrown out by Mr Blackwood for consideration.
This is a subject on which I cannot add anything to the topics thrown out by Mr Blackwood for consideration.
TFE
3 May
To E.C. at once.
FR
3/5
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Memorandum explaining in detail the position of the Hudson's Bay
Company in regard to the dispute over the land sold to Lowenberg,
signed by A.G. Dallas, no date.
Other documents included in the file
Colonial Office to [Emigration Commissioners], 5 May 1865,
forwarding copy of the letter and enclosures for their observations
and suggestions.