Ans. I believe the same gentleman, the late Mr. McLaughlin.

Int. 941-Please answer the last two questions with reference to the year 1846.

Ans.-Things had changed in 1846. The Hudson's Bay Company's affairs were then controlled by a board, of which the late Mr. Ogden was the senior officer; Mr. Douglas was the next, and there was a third member, whose name escapes me. The late Mr. Ogden and Mr. Douglas were both at Vancouver; which of them represented the interests of the Puget's Sound Company I am unable to say.

Int. 942.-Did not the Hudson's Bay Company sell sheep, cattle, and agricultural implements to the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company?

Ans. I believe there was some such transactions between the two Companies.

Int. 943.-Do you own any stock in the Hudson's Bay Company?

Int. 944.-Did you ever own any?

Ans. Never to my knowledge.

Int. 945.-What was the original amount of stock of the Hudson's Bay Company?

Ans. I cannot say.

Int. 946.-What is the present capital stock?

Ans. I have heard, but the sum has escaped my memory. Int. 947.-Has not the amount of capital stock been increased?

Ans. I have been informed that some change took place in the increase of the stock during the year 1863, but the details of such change I remember very little about.

Int. 948.—Who now are the principal owners of the Hudson's Bay Company's stock?

Ans. I have been informed that the stock is in a great many hands, but I believe the largest amount of stock in one name is in the shape of a trust fund for the sum of £100,000, endowed by that noble, generous, and philanthropic gentle

man, George Peabody, Esq., for the benefit of the poor of the city of London.

Int. 949.-Is not Sir Curtis Lamson a large stockholder? Ans. Sir Curtis Lamson is the Deputy Governor of the Company; I cannot say what stock he holds.

Int. 950.-Is not Sir Curtis Lamson a native of the United States, and has he not received his title for his services in laying the Atlantic Cable?

Ans. I have so read in the public prints.

Int. 951.—Is not Mr. Morgan, successor to Mr. Peabody, also an American, and a large owner in the stock of the Company?

Ans.—I have no personal acquaintance with Mr. Morgan, neither do I know whether he is a proprietor of the Hudson's Bay Company stock or not.

(The counsel for the United States requires Mr. Mactavish, who, as appears from his evidence, is a chief factor of the Hudson's Bay Company, and its agent in the prosecution of this claim, to produce here, for examination by the United States or their Counsel, all accounts, account-books, and letter-books of said Company, together with the regulations under which these books were kept, and the various forms of contracts with servants of the Company, all of which books, rules, and forms contain evidence pertinent to the issue in this case, as appears from the cross-examination of Mr. Mactavish, and suspends the further cross-examination of this witness until he shall produce such books, accounts, rules, and forms.)

(The Counsel for the Company protest against any such interpolations as above set out in this deposition.)

Examination Resumed, May 1.

Int. 952.-Will you please produce here for examination by the United States or their counsel, all accounts, accountbooks, and letter-books of the Hudson's Bay Company which were kept at the various posts of that Company south of the 49th parallel of north latitude during their occupation by the Company, together with the regulations under which their

books were kept, and the regular forms of contracts with the Company's servants.

Ans. I cannot say whether I will produce them or not.

(The above question objected to as incompetent, and as asking the witness not as to what he knows of the subject, but as to what his future course of action will be, over which, as witness, he can have no control.)

I, Samuel H. Huntington, Clerk of the United States Court of Claims, do hereby certify that the foregoing deposition, hereto attached, of Dugald Mactavish, a witness examined under and in accordance with the stipulation prefixed to the same, in the matter of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States now pending before the British and American Joint Commission for the final adjustment thereof, was taken at the city of Washington, in the District aforesaid, and reduced to writing, under my direction, by a person agreed upon by Charles C. Beaman, jr., Esq., attorney for the United States, and Edward Lander, Esq., attorney for said Company, beginning on the 8th day of March and ending the 1st day of May, 1867. I further certify that, before his said re-examination, I administered to said witness the following oath:

"You swear that the evidence you shall give in the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States of America shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: so help you God."

That, after the same was reduced to writing, the deposition of said witness was carefully read to and then signed by him. I further certify that Charles C. Beaman, jr., and Edward Lander, Esquires, were personally present during such reexamination of said witness, and the reading and signing of his deposition.

Witness my hand and official seal. [SEAL.]

SAM'L H. HUNTINGTON,

Clerk of the Court of Claims.

CITY OF WASHINGTON, June 26, 1867.

In the matter of the Claim of the Hudson's Bay Company against the United States.

Examination or cross-examination of William H. Farrar resumed, by agreement between C. Cushing, for the United States, and E. Lander, for the Hudson's Bay Company, on the same terms and conditions provided for the reexamination of Dugald Mactavish, as expressed in Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, under date of March 6, 1867, taken this, July 31, 1867, at Washington city, D. C.

Int. 1.-In your answer to Cross-Interrogatory No. 6, you say, among other things, as follows: "Negotiations are now in progress which I believe will settle the title to the Mission lands, and result in the location there (at Vancouver) of the Columbia river terminus of the Northern Pacific Railroad.' Have not the negotiations of which you spoke terminated since that time; and, if so, how, and with what effect upon the actual value of those lands?

Ans.--Those negotiations have terminated, and the title to the Mission lands has not yet been determined. The negotiations for the terminus of the Northern Pacific Railroad there have been abandoned; nothing could be accomplished in that respect. At the time of my previous examination I intended to have been understood as saying that if certain negotiations then in progress had resulted as I then anticipated, that that land would have been worth $1,000,000 to the persons having a clear title to it, allowing, of course, after the procurement of the evidence of title and the location there of the railroad, a reasonable time for the owners of the land to have made their money. Without a good title to that land, and without that being made the terminus of the railroad, those lands would not then command the same price in market.

Int. 2.-When you previously testified, how soon did you expect or believe that the work of construction would be commenced?

Ans. In the autumn of the same year.

Int. 3.-When you previously testified, how soon did you believe or hope that the War Department might relinquish the lands and a patent issued to the Catholic Mission?

Ans. I was very confident of obtaining it the same summer. Int. 4.—Has or not the Department since then positively refused to relinquish the military reservation at Vancouver? Ans.-Yes, sir; I am so informed.

(The answer objected to as being hearsay.)

Int. 5.-Were you counsel for the Mission; and, if so, did you acquire the above information as counsel, and from whi? Ans. I was counsel, and obtained the information from my client.

Int. 6.-Have you knowledge of any company or persons in Oregon having interest in the establishment of a shipping and landing port and railroad terminus at some point on the Columbia river, below Fort Vancouver; and, if so, what company or persons, and at what place?

(Objected to as irrelevant.)

Ans. No; I have none as to any company intending to make any railroad terminus below Portland, or the mouth of the Willamette river. Since I testified last year, the Oregon, or a portion of the stockholders of the Oregon Steam Navigation Company, have transferred their interest to a party or parties residing in San Francisco. From general reputation and newspaper report, it was the intention of the new purchaser or purchasers to abandon Portland as their headquarters and make St. Helen's, on the Columbia river, the headquarters of that Company, and of an ocean line of steamers plying between San Francisco and Oregon.

Int. 7.-What effect on the prospects of Vancouver, as a landing or shipping port, would be produced by the Steam Navigation Company establishing its terminus at or below St. Helen's, on the Columbia river?

Ans. Should that contemplated change take place, and prove successful, it would be injurious to Vancouver; but I don't think it will be a success.

Int. 8.-In the explanation appended to re-examination Interrogatory No. 3, on your previous examination, you say,