I
said - Powder is useful to Indians, and tobacco they like - rum, too,
they would fain have.
We got what we asked. When we were done speaking,
the Earl said - I want you to put your names to a paper, to show in
England what we propose to do. We all said, No - wait till you come
back. He asked us again to sign, but we refused, saying it would be
time enough when the arrangement was completed. The Earl said - If your
names were down, it would be easier for me to conclude the affair when
I get back; besides, your young men would see, in the event of your
deaths, what you had proposed to do. So we consented. Our names and
marks were put down. We did not see why he pressed us to sign; but I
now think it was in order to have us in his power, should he not do
what he promised. He did not tell us what was in the paper, and I
regret to say we did not even ask him what was in it. That was our
ignorance. It was a great mistake, as after events showed; Lord Selkirk
never came back, and never completed the arrangements about the lands.
Our lands have not been bought from us - we have not received payment
for them. We got some things from time to time - small supplies - but
less and less as time rolled along, until we got nothing. These little
presents we looked upon as a consideration for the use of our land
until a bargain should be properly made. Besides, we were friendly to
the settlers, and often saved them from harm. We thought this also a
reason why we got things. For my part, there was a great reason why I
should receive something, irrespective of the land. I was the means one
time of saving Lord Selkirk's life. When he was going off, some half-
breeds wished to kill him - they asked us to take pemican to an ambush
ahead. I refused, and prevented them doing it. The Earl thanked me for
this. The things we got, I repeat, were not in payment for our lands.
We never sold them. We only proposed to do so; but the proposal was
never carried out, as Lord Selkirk never came back. At the time we held
council with him, there was no mention of the Hudson's Bay Company.
They were not spoken of, or taken into account at all. All of a sudden,
some years afterwards, it turned out that they were claiming to be
masters here.
"'And now I wish this statement to go across the waters to my great and
good Mother, and I pray her to cause a proper settlement to be made
with us for our lands, so that our children, and our children's
children, whose lands are being taken possession of by foreigners, may
receive what is just and fair for the loss of their lands. I am old and
feeble. I am the only surviving Chief of those who spoke to Lord
Selkirk. I pray the great Mother, whose medal I have, to feel for us
and help us.
"'(Signed)
"WILLIAM KING.'"
I should like here to add a very interesting letter from the agent of
the Hudson's Bay Company in the United States: -
"52, CEDAR STREET, NEW YORK,
"24th August, 1863.
"DEAR SIR,
"If in addressing you, and expressing a sincere hope that you had a
pleasant voyage to Liverpool per the steamer 'Scotia,' I seem to take
too much liberty, I beg your pardon, as it is not my nature to be
intrusive'.
"A friend, knowing that I am interested in the fur and skin trade,
handed me, to-day, a copy of the (London) 'Economist' of 4th ulto.,
calling my attention to the article headed 'The Hudson's Bay
Company.' As you are interested in the 'International Financial
Society,' I thought it proper, even at this late date, to call your
attention to the ignorance, if not malice, displayed by the editor.
"He says: 'Civilization destroys wild animals, we all know. An eager
trade destroys them, too. The moment they become either valuable to
man, or disagreeable to man, they cease to live.' This sounds very
like Dr. Johnson, without Dr. Johnson: for any farmer, trapper,
or trader knows, that as the United States territory becomes settled,
furred animals increase, because the refuse of civilization - the
hen-roosts, the corn-fields, &c. - feed, directly and indirectly, the
smaller animals, such as musquash, minks, foxes, racoons, opossums,
skunks, and others; but the larger animals, such as buffaloes, bears,
wolves, deer, elk, and others, would suffer from civilization were it
not that they retire to the deserts, of which there will be enough for
hundreds of years. Germany (it is said) produces more red-foxes than
all America; and wolves are plentiful in France. As to an 'eager
trade,' or excessive hunting, destroying wild animals, it is
impossible. If the 'catch' is excessive this year, the supply will
exceed the demand, and prices will fall; the hunt will be less
eager next year, and the animals will increase. In the March
sales in London this year, there were only 3,094 skunks, and the demand
was greater than the supply, so that the price was as high as 7s.
2d., which stimulated the United States collectors so much that
very likely C. M. Lampson & Co. will have about 100,000 in their
September sale, and prices will very likely fall to 1s., or
lower. The result will be, that the skunks will live in peace, and
increase and multiply for some years to come. The skunk is the most
'disagreeable' of animals to man; but it is not, therefore, destroyed.
I have a catalogue (Row, Row, Goad & Reece, brokers) of a fur sale (by
the candle) at the London Commercial Sale Room, Mincing Lane, on the
21st and 22nd March, 1821, which I compare below with catalogues of fur
sales in London on 27th and 28th January, and 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th,
9th, and 11th March, 1863.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 67 of 133
Words from 68251 to 69287
of 136421
