Dr. John McLoughlin, the Father of Oregon Part 11

"R. SHORTESS."

"A. E. WILSON."[61]

W. H. Gray was one of the signers of the Shortess pet.i.tion. In his _History of Oregon_, pp. 296, 297, he says, in relation to certain persons who did not sign the Shortess pet.i.tion:

"Mr. George Abernethy declined to sign this pet.i.tion through fear of injuring the Methodist Mission in its secular or business relations with the Hudson's Bay Company.

"Hugh Burns would not sign it because he did not wish Congress to be asked to confirm his t.i.tle to lots and improvements.

"Jason Lee, though he thought it right to pet.i.tion Congress for protection, yet on account of his position as Superintendent of the Methodist Mission, and the influence of the [Hudson's Bay] Company against them should he sign it, thought it best not to give his name.

"Dr. I. L. Babc.o.c.k refused, because, by signing he would lose his influence with the [Hudson's Bay] company.

"Walter Pomeroy, ditto.

"Dr. Bailey did not wish any protection from the Congress of the United States.

"Rev. H. K. W. Perkins was _ashamed_ of the pet.i.tion. 'What does Congress care about measuring wheat? or a contest between two milling companies?'

"George Gay did not care anything about it. Congress might do as it pleased; he did not want its protection.

"The people in Tualatin Plains did not have an opportunity to sign or refuse for want of time to circulate it in that section. The bearer of it, William C. Sutton, was on his way to the States across the Rocky Mountains."

Thurston in his speech in Congress December 26, 1850, said, as to the author of the Shortess pet.i.tion: "I know the gentleman who wrote the original, whom to know is to respect, to listen to to believe. He is a gentleman of the highest standing in Oregon, of some twelve or fourteen years residence and who would be universally believed on any subject on which he would presume to speak."[62] Thurston certainly did not refer to Shortess. The latter, while a man of ability and some education, was of an ascetic disposition, intense in his dislikes and given to sarcasm.

He was not a popular man.

That the Shortess pet.i.tion was written by George Abernethy is shown in a foot-note on page 207 of volume 1, _History of Oregon_, Bancroft's Works, where it is said that "such is the statement of Shortess made to Elwood Evans by letter in 1867," quoting from a ma.n.u.script history of Oregon written by Evans for Bancroft. Subsequently Evans wrote an elaborate history of Oregon and Washington, ent.i.tled "History of the Pacific Northwest," which was published in 1889. On page 243 of volume 1 of this history Evans says that September 1, 1867, Shortess wrote an autograph letter to Evans that Shortess originally drew up notes or a summary of the subjects he intended to embrace in the pet.i.tion. That Shortess requested Abernethy "to write it in proper form, which he did, but refused to sign it or allow it to be circulated in his handwriting, fearing it might injure the mission. I had it copied by A. E. Wilson. It was circulated and, through his a.s.sistance, sent to Washington."

Shortess arrived in the Willamette Valley in April, 1840. He afterwards took up a land claim near Upper Astoria. He sold his claim and became a recluse. He died in 1877. Some time after he signed the Shortess pet.i.tion he appears to have changed his opinions of the Hudson's Bay Company, and especially of the Methodist missionaries. He wrote a doc.u.ment about his trip to Oregon which he gave to Mr. William Chance.

The latter gave this doc.u.ment to the Oregon Pioneer a.s.sociation. It is published in full in the _Transactions_ of the Oregon Pioneer a.s.sociation for 1896, pp. 92-107. It is a very interesting doc.u.ment. In it he refers to the Methodist missionaries in terms which, at least, are not complimentary.

DOc.u.mENT I

_Ricord's Proclamation; letters of A. Lawrence Lovejoy and Rev. A. F.

Waller of March 20, 1844; Ricord's Caveat; invalidity of Waller's claim to Dr. McLoughlin's land; and excerpts from letters of Rev.

Jason Lee to Rev. A. F. Waller and Rev. Gustavus Hines, written in 1844._

The following is a copy of a proclamation dated December 20, 1843, and issued by John Ricord, as attorney for Rev. Alvin F. Waller. The original of this doc.u.ment in the handwriting of Ricord, and signed by him, pasted on cloth, is in the possession of the Oregon Historical Society. Said original was publicly posted at Oregon City by Waller after Ricord left for the Hawaiian Islands. It shows weather stains, but is perfectly legible.

"TO THE PEOPLE OF OREGON.

"Fellow Citizens,

"Having been Retained professionally to establish the Claim of Mr. Alvin F. Waller to the Tract of Land on the East Bank of the Wallammette River, sometimes called the Wallammette Falls Settlement and sometimes Oregon City, I consider it a duty to my Client and the public, to state briefly and concisely the several circ.u.mstances of his case, as they really exist, in order that his motives may not be impugned and his intentions misunderstood and misrepresented.

"The public are already aware that my client commenced the Occupancy of his Farm, in the spring of A. D. 1840, when no one resided at the falls; and that, in the course of that Summer, he built his Home, moved his family into it, and cleared and fenced a good portion of the Land, from which, in the ensuing years A. D. 1841 & 1842 he raised successive crops of corn, Potatoes and other vegetables usually cultivated by Farmers.

That he remained thus occupying undisturbed, until the month of December A. D. 1842, about two years and six months, when Doctor McLoughlin caused his Farm to be surveyed, for the purpose of selling it in subdivisions to American Citizens. It has since been currently reported and quite generally believed, that my client had renounced his right in favor of Doctor McLoughlin. This I am authorized to contradict, having perused the letter written by Mr. Waller, which not only contains no renunciation, but on the contrary, is replete with modest and firm a.s.sertions of his rights in the premises: offering at the same time to relinquish his claim, if the Doctor would comply with certain very reasonable and just conditions. Upon this offer, the parties had come to no final conclusion, until my arrival in the Colony, when Doctor McLoughlin attempted to employ me to establish his claim, disregarding the rights of all other persons--which, I declined doing. Mr. Waller thereupon engaged me to submit the conditions a second time to the Doctor, for his acceptance or rejection; which I did in the following words:

"1st. That your preemptive line be so run as to exclude the Island upon which a private Company of Citizens have already erected a Grist Mill--conceding to them so much water as may be necessary for the use of said Mill.

"2d. That Mr. Waller be secured in the ultimate t.i.tle to the two city Lots now in his possession and other lots not exceeding in superficial area five Acres, to be chosen by him from among the unsold lots of your present Survey.

"3d. That the Rev. Mr. Lee on behalf of the Methodist Episcopal Mission, be in like manner secured in the lots claimed for the use of said Mission. They consist of Church and Parsonage lots and are well known to the public.

"I received a letter from Dr. McLoughlin dated 10th Novr. 1843, in answer to mine, in which he declines complying with the above Conditions, and thus puts an end to the offer of my Client to relinquish his right of Preemption. Under these circ.u.mstances Mr. Waller has now applied to the Supreme Court of the United States, which, under the Const.i.tution has original jurisdiction of 'all cases in Law & Equity, arising under Treaties,' to grant him a Commission for perpetuating the testimony of the facts in his case, _de bene esse_, in order that, whenever Congress shall hereafter see fit to prescribe by law the conditions and Considerations, he may be enabled to demand of the United States, a Patent; also praying the Court to grant him such other relief in the premises as may be consonant with Equity and good conscience.

"The Legality of Mr. Waller's claim rests upon the following Grounds:--

"1st. He was a citizen of the United States of full age and possessed of a family when he first came to reside on the premises. 2d. He built a House upon them and moved his family into it; thus becoming in Fact and in Law a Householder on the land. 3d. He cleared, fenced and cultivated a portion of it during two years and six months, before he was disturbed in his actual possession. And 4th. That he is not at this moment continuing the cultivation of his Farm, is not his fault since it was wrested from him.

"The Illegality of Doctor McLoughlin's Claim rests upon the following Grounds:--

"1st. He is a British Subject, owing allegiance to a Foreign Power, and has so continued to be ever since the Spring of A. D. 1840. For this reason alone he could not acquire preemption to lands in the United States.

"2d. He is the Chief Officer of a Foreign Corporate Monopoly. For this reason alone he could not acquire preemption to lands in the United States.

"3d. He does not now and never did reside on the land in question, but on the contrary, he resides and has always continued to reside on the North side of the Columbia River, the Section of country actually in dispute between the two Governments, about Twenty miles from the land claimed by Mr. Waller, and there he is obliged to remain, so long as he continues to be Chief Factor.

"4th. He is not in fact the Claimant. The Hudson's Bay Company, a Foreign Corporation, is in fact the Claimant while Doctor McLoughlin only lends his name; well knowing, that a Corporation even though it be an American one, can not acquire a preemption. This is evinced by the employment of men to be his Agents and to sell lots for him, who are at the same time partners in and receiving dividends and Salaries from the Company.

"5th. The pretentions of Doctor McLoughlin arose, if at all, two years and six months after the actual Settlement of Mr. Waller; and therefore they are in direct violation of the Treaty of A. D. 1827: Converting the mutual and joint occupancy into an exclusive occupancy by British subjects.

"6th. The Treaty of joint occupancy [1827] does not and was never intended on the part of the United States, to confer any rights of citizenship upon Foreigners. The Power to confer such rights is by the Const.i.tution reserved to Congress. And the right to acquire t.i.tle by preemption is peculiar to citizens.

"Those fellow citizens are the Facts and some of the Points of Law in my client's case. Upon the same principle contended for by Dr. McLoughlin, any of you may incur the risk of being ousted from your Farms in this Colony, by the next rich foreigner who chooses to take a fancy so to do, unless in the first instance, you come unanimously forward and resist these usurpations. It is not my client's intention to wrong any who have purchased Lots of the Doctor, and to guard against the injury which might result to individuals in this respect, I have carefully drawn up the Form of a Bond for a Warantee Deed, which Mr. Waller is at all times ready, without any further consideration, to execute to any person who has, in good faith, bought of the Doctor, prior to the date of this notice, by being applied to at his residence. Mr. Waller does not require one cent of money to be paid to him as a Consideration for his Bonds--the trouble, expense and outlays they have already incurred, with the desire to save all such persons harmless from pecuniary loss, is a good and sufficient Consideration in Law to bind him in the proposed penalty of One Thousand Dollars. See Comyns. Digest, a.s.sumpsit B.

"I am of opinion that Mr. Waller has rights in the premises, which neither Doctor McLoughlin nor even Congress by any retrospective legislation can take away from him;--and therefore, fellow citizens, in sincere friendship, I would counsel you to lose no time in applying to him for your new Bonds.

"JOHN RICORD,"

"Counsellor in the Supreme Court of the United States and Attorney for Alvin F. Waller."

"Dated 20th December, 1843."

The following two letters from A. L. Lovejoy to A. F. Waller and from Waller to Lovejoy, each dated March 20, 1844, are in reference to the foregoing proclamation by Ricord as attorney for Waller. These letters are in the handwriting of Lovejoy and Waller, respectively. The letter of Waller is shown by the line below Waller's signature to be a copy which he made and kept to show what he had written. These letters are in the possession of the Oregon Historical Society. They were among Waller's private papers at the time of his death.

"Wallamette Falls 20 Mar. 1844."

"To the "Revd. A. F. Waller--

"I have been directed by Dr. McLoughlin to make some enquiries of you in relation to a letter which appears to have been written by yourself to him relative to his claim. Dr.

McLoughlin observes in your notice to the People of Oregon words like the following:

"'It has since been currently reported and quite generally believed that my client had renounced his right in favor of Dr.

McLoughlin. This I am authorized to contradict having perused the letter written by Mr. Waller which not only contains no renunciation but on the contrary is replete with modest and firm a.s.sertions of his rights in the premises.'