The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-07-27

Parliament and this charter having been granted the
powers and privileges sought 10 be exercised under 1t are
! illegal 8g
This was eyidenty the opinion of the Hudson's Bay
Company themselves carly $780, viz twenty years
after the date of this charter At that period they petit
toned for act to be passed for the confirmation OF
those rights and privileges which had been sought to be
granted them by charter The act OF the first OF VIII
liam and Mary did legalze and confirm them but only
for the period OF and no longer That act OF
Parliament has never been renewed since 1t expired n
1897 consequently, the charter is left where II ongi
nally STOOL and wholly unaffected by conformity act
| of Parliament
The very foundation for the charter is grant of ter
rtory presumed to have been made in the year i6'o IL
has been maintained that Charles the Second could
grant away what the Crown Of England did not pos
ses much less could be grant away the possessions OF
another power the very words Of the charter excluding
from the operation of the grant these identical territories
which the Htisons Bay Company now elaini For at
the date of the charter these territories then actu
ally in possession OF the Crown OF France and held and
occupied by the Company Of New France under charter
granted by Louis the Thirteenth of France bearing date
| 1926.
These facts presented not bearing directly upon
the question have in view, otherwise than showing
characteristic feature of the company in its Illegal and
| unwarranted assumption of privilege and power
controversy having arisen between the North
west Company and the Hudsons Bay Company, and
| the difficulties having been adjusted, the former
company was merged in the latter, and on the
sOth day of May, 1888 the crown issued grant or
license to the Hudsons Bay Company Of the exclusive
trade with the Indians in certain PM Is Of North America
for the term of twentyone years the terms of the grant
being follows: We do grant and give our license,
under the hand aud seal of of principal Secrea
of State, to the said governor and company the ud
Ray Company and their for the exclusive
privilege of a ling with the Indians in oil such parts to
the northward and westward Of the lands and territories
belonging to the United States OF America shall not
form part of any of provinces in North America or OF
lands territories belonging to the sd United States
of America to any European government, State or
power but subject nevertheless as hereinafter mentioned
and do by these presents give grant and secure to
the said governor and company and their successors the
sole and exclusive privilege for the full period OF twenty
years from the date of this grant of trading with the
Indians in all such parts of North America afores1d
On the 9th day of February 1857, select committee
was appointed by the British Parliament "to consider
the state of those British possessions in North America
which are under the administration of the Hudsons Bay
Company, which they have license to tralc'
This committee having taken voluminous evidence,
reported the 3lst of July 1887 In their report they
carefully waive all considerations to the validity of the
charter the right to the monopoly of trade, and con-
fine themselves to the declaration of opinion to the
egaincy of allowing the Hudsons Bay Company the priv
! icges of exclusive trade which they possess.
The question to the rights of the Hudson's Bay
Company before the British Parliament resolved ITSELF
have said, into one purely of expediency That is
question with which the American government has no
But when the pretended tights OF the Hudson
Bay Company set up against American citizens, the
of the United States has solely to consider the
validity and Legality of these pretended lights.
/
of right of the Hudsons Bay Company in the Pacific
British Possessions, is that OF exclusive trade with the
Indians 1t evident tat the possibility OF this coun
try being opened to color zation the enterprise of
civilized settlers, contemplated by the British
government The report of the committee Of Parlia
mcnt declares this They say, that to those eStcn
sve regions whether in Rupers land IN the Indian
territory for the present at least there be
pect of permanent settlement TO any extent by the
European for the purpose of colonization. The
granting of the license had regard to such supposed
state of things There is nothing in the letter or spirit
OF the license for exclusive trade with the Indians,
which justes the exclusion OF goods for the supply of
4 European or American miners and settlers
1t may however, be urged that the free admission of
goods may indirectly interfere with the monopoly of the
! Hudson Bay Company.
1t becomes therefore important question to deter
mine whether by the laws of the British realm such
monopoly has been granted to the Hudsons Bay Com
| pany can legally exist .E Q0
This question, it seems to me- has been absolutely do
ermncd by the famous statute of monopolics passed in
| the 21st of James First
The provisions of this statute mainly as follows
by authority Of present Parliaes,
monopoes commissions grants. cenaes, chart
letters patent heretofore granted
rate wat4eeser for he sole buying selling making working
using anything @ within VII & h, rea and S are and shall be- Ut
further enacted all person persons, bodies
be- shall stand snd DO disabled and incapable TO have exercise
put e AMY ss s OF aSy Or
faculty grounded pretended be grounded them OF
| them. M t ~
This statute has never been repealed annulled 1t
stands q part of the common law of England and
there be question that it renders totally void and
imperative the license for exclusive trade granted to the
Hudson's Bay Company. This question would have been
undoubtedly determined by the courts of law, ifindivid
nas had been found powerful enough to contend with
this wealthy company. a
Chief Justice Draper Of Canada, In his evidence be-
fore the committee of Parliament, says With regard
to the exclusive license to trade perhnps with the preu
dice which lawyers have in favor of their particular ew
never could understand how it could be contended for
/ in court of law for instant. The exclusive license
to trade appears to To be diamericay contrary to
the statute of Jnnes First ieerring undoubtedly to
the statute before quoted although he does not cite it
speaking always individually, would be whether not
that statute applied to colony, confined to
| monopoly within the mother county Assuming that
it was confined to monopoly within the mother
try it STILL think would be open to very fair argu
ment that it did apply to this company because their
charter makes the scat OF their government in EnglandS
He further says, In answer to question from Lord
John Russell II understand you to give decided opin-
| ion to the msnopoy of trade!' Ans. Upon that
point have entertained q doubt
The simple question presented to the Department os
State in view of the facts above presented ia this Will
the government Of the United States suffer the natural
rights of its citizens to labor and trade to be controlled
and restrained by company of merchants the legal
stcncc of whose rights hardly recognised ly the Brit
ish government, and only far upheld, they are
from considerations Of political expcdency but not of
law
beg leave to submit to the Department of State that
this Is question of trng Importance To the Pacific