have clearly shown in the History of the Northwest Coast, whether on the ground of inherent rights, or rights of discovery or occupation, there was little to choose between the two nations. The people of Oregon further held that the convention of 1818 conferred no title, in which they were correct. They held that the Hudson's Bay Company, under its charter, could acquire no title to land—only to the occupancy of it for a limited time; in which position they were undoubtedly right. They denied that the Puget Sound Company, which derived its existence from the Hudson's Bay Company, could have any title to land, which was evident. They were quick to perceive the intentions of the parent company in laying claim to large bodies of land on the north side of the Columbia, and covering them with settlers and herds. They had no thought that when the boundary was settled these claims would be respected, and felt that not only they but the government had been cheated—the latter through its ignorance of the actual facts in the case. So far I cannot fail to sympathize with their sound sense and patriotism.
But I find also that they forgot to be just, and to realize that British subjects on the north side of the Columbia were disappointed at the settlement of the boundary on the 49th parallel; that they naturally sought indemnity for the distraction it would be to their business to move their property out of the territory, the cost of building new forts, opening new farms, and laying out new roads. But above all they forgot that as good citizens they were bound to respect the engagements entered into by the government whether or not they approved them; and while they were using doubtful means to force the British companies out of Oregon, were guilty of ingratitude both to the corporation and individuals.
The issue on which the first delegate to congress elected in Oregon, Samuel R. Thurston, received his
