Fort Vancouver Historic Structures Report

History and location

The earliest known information concerning the location of the storehouse for furs at Fort Vancouver is found on the ground plan drawn by George Foster Emmons on July 25, 1841 (see Plate III, vol. I). Emmons placed the "Building for Furs &c." along the south stockade wall near its western end, only a few feet east of the brick powder magazine that stood in the southwest corner of the fort. [1] As shown by the Henry Eld sketch of approximately the same date, this 1841 fur store was a substantial two-story or one-and-a-half-story, gable roofed structure (see Plates IV and LIII, vol. I).

By December 21, 1844, however, the location of the fur warehouse had been changed. On that date Clerk Thomas Lowe noted in his diary the erection of a new flagpole "within a few feet of the East end of the Fur Store." [2] From the ground plan drawn by Lieutenant Vavasour late in 1845 (see Plate VI, vol. I) and from the actual remains of the flagstaff recovered during archeological excavations in 1972, it is known with certainty that this new flagpole was situated about nine feet east of the structure designated on the present site plan of Fort Vancouver National Historic Site as Building No. 8. [3] It follows, therefore, that the structure whose site is now termed Building No. 8 probably was the 1845-period Fur Store. [4] Unfortunately, Vavasour's detailed plan merely identified this warehouse as one of two "Stores" ranged parallel to the south stockade wall in the southwestern quadrant of the fort.

In 1841, when Emmons drew his plan, the site now designated as Building No. 8 was occupied by the "Indian Trade Store--Hospital Dispensary &c." The Eld drawing shows this structure to have been rather low in height, perhaps only one story, and covered by a gabled roof. It was a long building and stood along the south palisade wall some 15 feet east of the 1841 fur store and directly east of the southwest gate.

On the other hand, the structure that occupied the site of Building No. 8 from at least late 1845 until the end of the fort's existence is known to have been a story and a half or a full two stories in height, and it was topped by a tall hipped roof. [5] Although its length and breadth appear to have been the same, or about the same, as those of the 1841 Indian Trade Shop, the 1845-period Fur Store was clearly not the same structure, at least in its entirety. It must be concluded that at some date between July 1841 and late 1845, when Lieutenant Vavasour drew a sketch of Fort Vancouver (see Plates IX and X, vol. I), the 1841 Indian trade shop was either rebuilt or extensively remodeled, and the new structure became the principal depot repository for furs. As has been seen, this change in function had occurred at least as early as December 21, 1844, and it is reasonable to suppose that replacement in the actual physical sense had also taken place by that time. [6]

Because Fort Vancouver, from its beginnings during the winter of 1824-25, was intended as a departmental depot, if only a temporary one, it can be assumed that a fur warehouse was among the first structures to be erected. The safekeeping of the peltries upon which profits depended was a major concern of every commissioned officer. Yet nothing regarding the physical appearance or location of the Fur Store is known prior to the plan and drawings made by Eld, Emmons, Agate, and possibly other members of the Wilkes Expedition in 1841. The fur warehouse of that year, as has been seen, was shifted prior to December 1844 to another structure standing directly east of it. It is this latter structure, here termed the 1845-period Fur Store, which is of immediate interest in connection with the reconstruction program. At the very minimum it had at least two predecessors--that still standing in 1841 and one at the first fort site on the hill, 1825-29.

Little more is known about the history of the 1845-period Fur Store than about the stories of its forerunners. One thing is certain, however: the Fur Store was a busy place during the first several years of its existence. There were gathered the annual fur returns of the entire Columbia District, and there they were stored and cared for until they were packed and shipped off in the Company vessel that sailed for England each fall. The numbers and types of furs are covered more precisely in the section of this chapter dealing with the Fur Store furnishings, but an idea of the quantities involved may be gathered from the fact that the ship Vancouver, which departed from Fort Vancouver on October 31, 1843, carried among her assorted cargo "the collection of furs of the season," consisting of 61,118 whole peltries, large and small, in addition to a number of tails, pieces, and damaged skins. [7]

But activity in the Fort Vancouver Fur Store slacked off beginning in 1845. The determination of the Company to shift its main Columbia District depot from Fort Vancouver to Fort Victoria on Vancouver Island has already been adequately discussed. [8] As one of several moves in that direction, Gov. George Simpson in January 1845, ordered Chief Factor McLoughlin henceforth to collect the furs from the entire Columbia District at Fort Victoria, from whence the annual ships would take them to London. [9] McLoughlin responded during the spring by instructing that the returns from the Northwest Coast were to be left at Victoria instead of being brought, as usual, to Fort Vancouver. [10] That September, after the furs from New Caledonia and the upper Columbia posts, as well as those gathered at Fort Vancouver and its immediate dependencies, had been assembled in the Columbia depot, they were placed on board the schooner Cadboro and sent to Fort Victoria. There the combined returns of the Columbia District were picked up by the barque Cowlitz for transport to England. [11] The Fort Vancouver Fur Store had ceased to be the principal repository for the Company's returns west of the Rockies.

Exactly what this change meant in the number of furs handled at Fort Vancouver is difficult to determine. Statistics on the returns of all the individual posts for Outfit 1845 (mid-1845 to mid-1846) have not yet been encountered by this writer, so it has not been possible to compute the number of furs that passed through the old Columbia depot during the summer of 1846. Because the returns from New Caledonia and most of the interior districts still reached the sea by way of the Columbia River, the volume continued to be substantial.

But further curtailments were to come. The Treaty of 1846 brought all of the Oregon Country south of the 49th parallel within the boundaries of the United States. Although the pact guaranteed the trading rights and the property of established British subjects and the Hudson's Bay Company south of the border, the political change brought increased difficulties for the firm. For several reasons it became desirable to supply the interior posts north of 49° by an all-British route from Fraser River. In 1847 a pack-horse trail was pioneered across the mountains from Kamloops to the lower Fraser, and the next year the fur returns of the northern posts, including Colvile, which was south of the border, were brought out by a land route. Although it required several years to perfect the new system, it is safe to state that in general the rich fur harvests of New Caledonia and Kamloops ceased to flow through Fort Vancouver after 1847. [12]

Concurrently the fur trade, which along the lower Columbia in particular had been declining for several years, showed a marked decrease as American settlements grew. Indian wars and the policy of concentrating the natives on reservations further disrupted the trade. By 1856 Fort Walla Walla, Fort Boise, Fort Hall, and Fort Umpqua were among the posts south of the boundary that had been abandoned by the Company. The annual flood of furs th at once poured into Fort Vancouver had been reduced to a trickle. [13]

By the fall of 1849 the reduction in fur returns had seemingly reached such a degree that the Company was willing to accommodate the need of the United States Army for additional storage space in the fort buildings. It will be recalled that on May 14, 1849, two companies of the First Artillery had established a military post on the land surrounding the stockade, and on June 1 the army's quartermaster had executed an agreement to rent certain Hudson's Bay structures. [14] As military operations expanded, additional buildings were rented from time to time.

Evidently it was on October 6, 1849, that the Company's officers in charge of Fort Vancouver began to rent "Half lower floor of Fur Store" to the army for $20 per month for use as a "commissary's store-house." [15] This arrangement continued without substantial change for several years, except that the rental appears to have fluctuated somewhat as time went by. Then, beginning in August. 1852, the available rent records cease to list "Half lower floor of Fur Store" and merely indicate that the "Fur Store" was one of the structures leased to the military. [16] The accounts are somewhat difficult to interpret, but they seem to indicate that about the same time, and surely by 1853, the rent for the "Fur Store inside Fort" increased from approximately $200 per year to $900. [17] Thus it would appear that by 1853 the army was renting all of the Fur Store instead of merely half of the lower floor.

Seemingly such fur storage and handling activities as continued at Fort Vancouver were transferred at that time to the 1845-period Indian Trade Shop (Building No. 21 on the present site plan of Fort Vancouver National Historic Site). At least such might be inferred from the fact that in 1860, when a board of army officers inventoried the surviving fort structures, they described the 1845-period Indian shop as the "Fur house, long since abandoned by the Company." [18]

The army used the rented Fur Store as a quartermaster and commissary warehouse. That the structure thus employed was indeed the 1845-period Fur Store (Building No. 8) is amply demonstrated by the map that accompanied Insp. Gen. Joseph K. Mansfield's report of March 1, 1855, to Gen. Winfield Scott, commanding the Army of the United States. On that drawing the structure presently termed Building No. 8 was identified as a military "Store," and it was the only building within the stockade for which army use was indicated. [19]

Rental records appear to show that the structure continued to serve as a military warehouse until about the end of 1857. [20] No rents were received for the Fur Store during 1858 and 1859, indicating that the building probably had reverted to the control of the Company. It is not known if the firm made any use of the former fur depository during those years. The building is next mentioned in the available records on June 15, 1860, the day after the Hudson's Bay Company abandoned Fort Vancouver. A board of army officers inventoried it as one of "three large storehouses, useless for any purpose connected with the public service." [21]

Within three weeks after the departure of the Company's employees from Fort Vancouver, the army had pulled down one of the large storehouses. It is not known that this building was the Fur Store, but such could have been the case. At any rate, if the structure survived the first vigorous effort by the army to "police the grounds" where the old fort stood, it did not long remain standing. Vandalism and the ravages of time reduced nearly all the fort building to heaps of rubble by the end of 1865. [22]

Fur Store operations. The primary functions of the staff of the depot Fur Store were to receive the pelts sent in by ship, by boat, and by pack train from the far-flung posts and trapping parties of the Columbia District, to clean and store them, and finally to prepare them for export to England or, beginning in 1845, to Victoria. The returns ordinarily were dispatched from each subsidiary post only once a year, most often with the brigades that visited the depot for the annual supply of trade goods.

The times of these shipments varied considerably. Usually they were made in the spring, at the end of the prime winter trapping season. Posts in distant places, such as New Caledonia, generally closed their year's accounts and packed off their furs somewhat earlier than the forts closer to Vancouver, but such was not always the case. Fort Nisqually, at a relatively short distance from the depot, sent both its accounts and its fur returns for Outfit 1834 to Fort Vancouver in late January 1835. [23] And the returns from the Snake Country and Southern brigades, while they operated, sometimes arrived at unexpected times. But the great bulk of the furs regularly reached the depot early in June with the boats from the interior. Starting at Fort Colvile this "brigade," as it was called, picked up the New Caledonia and Thompson River furs at Okanogan and then paused at Fort Walla Walla for the returns of that post before sweeping on, sometimes nine boats strong, to the Columbia headquarters. For various reasons, often because the returns from distant outposts or expeditions did not reach one of the larger district headquarters posts in time to be shipped with the brigade, furs from one outfit (the trading year from June 1 of the calendar year of the outfit to May 31 of the next calendar year) had to be held over for dispatch the following year. Thus a brigade might bring in returns belonging to two or more outfits. [24]

The furs arrived in tightly bound packs, each weighing about ninety pounds. [25] Each pack ordinarily contained two or more types of skins. That is to say, in the terminology of the trade, they consisted of "mixed skins" as contrasted with the packs of "pure skins" in which all the pelts were from the same species of animal. [26] The dimensions of the packs varied somewhat depending upon the types of furs they contained. Available descriptions are somewhat vague. One writer stated that a standard ninety-pound pack was twenty-four inches long, twenty-one inches wide, and about fifteen inches deep; another gave the dimensions of an eighty-pound pack as twenty-four inches by seventeen inches by ten inches. [27]

The formation of these packs at the individual posts was no casual affair. After being aired, dried, and cleaned, the entire fur returns to be shipped were counted so that the gross weight could be estimated and thus the number of packs determined. Then the different kinds of furs were divided as evenly as possible among the several packs. As one veteran trader stated, the object was to have "as many packs as possible made up of a uniform number of assorted skins." [28] The purpose of mixing the pelts, of course, was to reduce the risk of loss in case of accident during transit. If all the most valuable furs, such as martens, were concentrated in one or two packs and if these were swept away in a boat upset, the result would have been a financial disaster. Next, the larger skins were carefully folded to the proper pack size, and all the pelts were placed in piles and weighted down for about a week.

After these preliminaries were out of the way, the fur press was prepared for action. Three types of presses were employed at the various posts of the Columbia District--lever presses, wedge presses, and screw presses. To describe each of these in detail is not a function of this report, because not all were represented at Fort Vancouver. [29] They are, however, pictured in Plates I, II, III, V. The purpose of all three was the same: to compact the furs into tight bundles that could be transported easily and that were so firm as to be practically impervious to vermin and moisture. First, pack cords long enough to encircle the compacted furs were placed in open channels cut across the breadth of the press base block and were allowed to dangle free at each end. There were generally three of these cords, but the materials of which they were made varied according to time and place. During the earliest days of Company rule west of the Rockies, they were made from buffalo hides, which were obtained in the Flathead country. But by 1828 these animals were becoming so scarce that McLoughlin was sending the cords binding the packs that had arrived with the brigade back to the interior posts for reuse. [30] It is known that by 1835 deerskins were being cut up for pack cords at Fort Simpson and Fort McLoughlin on the Northwest Coast. [31] Undoubtedly the same practice was followed at other posts.

By at least 1848, and probably considerably earlier, it had been found that heavy cod line or a similar type of line made a satisfactory binding material for fur packs. In fact, it evidently was preferred to the old hide cord. When sending Dr. W. F. Tolmie at Nisqually fifty-six pounds of "Baling line" to tie up beaver pelts, the managers at Fort Vancouver warned that if that quantity did not suffice, he "must have recourse to pack Cord which will answer the purpose equally well; though it is always more supple and tougher when dried by exposure to the air in cold frosty weather." [32] By the 1860s, inland posts east of the Rockies were employing either "raw cowhide" or twenty-four-thread cod line for the three cross lashings on the packs, and eighteen-thread cod line for two lashings that ran the length of the packs and that seemingly were applied after the bundled furs left the press. [33] By the end of the century it appears that ordinary hemp rope was being used for binding (see Plate XI).

After the cords were placed, the next step was to provide some type of protective wrapper for the bottom of the pack. In modern times a piece of burlap is put in the fur press to serve as the bottom section of the covering that completely envelops the pack (see Plate VI]). One observer at Fort Colvile during the early 1860s reported that each pack was protected "by a wrapper of buffalo-hide." [34] How many buffalo hides got to Fort Colvile at that late period is a question, but the quotation serves to illustrate the fact that skins of various types, including bearskins but especially deerskins, were at times used as wrappers, particularly when transportation by pack animals was contemplated.

Unfortunately, the practice of the Columbia District in this regard during the 1840s is not known with certainty. In 1840 the Council of the Northern Department, which included the Columbia District, directed that no beaver or prime bearskins were to be used as wrappers or covers for packs in the future; but a common Company procedure in the 1860s and later was to employ one large beaver pelt for the bottom cover and another for the top but to leave the sides of the pack unprotected. [35] A picture of this type of pack is shown in Plate CIX in volume I of this report. It is possible that this technique was employed for packaging the furs that reached Fort Vancouver in 1845-46.

The pelts that were to make up the bulk of the packs were then laid in the press, care being taken to make the edges as even as possible and to see that skin, not fur, was exposed. The top covering was at last put in place, and one end of each pack cord was drawn up over the top of the pack and spaced so that it would run freely through one of three grooves cut in the top plate, which was then lowered firmly over the furs. Next, pressure was applied and the furs compacted to the desired degree (see Plates VI, VII, VIII).

In recent decades the following step has been to sew up the covering or wrapper while the pack is still in the press, the pack line or rope evidently being applied later (see Plate IX). In former times however, the ends of the three transverse pack cords were cinched tight and securely knotted. The pressure was then released and the pack taken from the press, "almost perfectly square," though after several days it expanded and took on a "rounded shape." [36]

Each pack was then marked in much the same manner as were the "pieces" of trade goods sent from the depot to the outlying posts. Because this process has already been described at some length on pages 248-49 of volume I, it will suffice to say here that the markings on these two types of packages differed in only one major respect: the initials of the post or district name indicated the place of origin on a fur pack, whereas they indicated the place of destination on a piece of goods. Also it was the usual, though not the universal, practice to include the initial of the firm, written HB or occasionally HB C, on the markings of fur packs. [37] Thus the fourth pack in a shipment of Outfit 1844 furs from Nisqually to Fort Vancouver bore the mark 44/HB N #4. [38] Before each pack was closed, a slip of paper was placed in it bearing a copy of the mark and an unpriced list of the contents. "This slip," wrote a longtime Company employee,

served to identify the pack or bale if the branded stave became detached, and also it enabled the person in charge of a shipment, which had got wet on the voyage and required to be opened and dried, to replace the furs belonging to different packs in rebaling them after being dried. The priced packing account of the furs, at the valuation allowed the post in general accounts, was not for the eyes of the men on the voyage with them. [39]

The text of one of these slips might be of interest. The following is extracted from the longer packing account of furs, returns of the Oregon Department for Outfit 1854, forwarded from Fort Vancouver to Fort Victoria via Nisqually on September 16, 1854:

The final step in preparing the pack for shipment may have been to affix a lead seal to discourage tampering. This writer has not yet encountered any documentary evidence concerning the use of such seals in the Columbia District, but a number of the actual items have been found during archeological excavations at the sites of Company posts and related establishments. They are distinctive in appearance, and their function seems unmistakable. They are roughly circular disks of lead, from about one inch to 1-1/8 inches or more in diameter. On the face they bear an impression of the sitting fox crest from the Company's coat of arms, surmounted by the motto "Pro pelle cutem." The reverse is plain, but from the specimens recovered it appears that the person who affixed each seal scratched numbers or letters on it with a knife or other sharp instrument. Some of these notations appear to be dates or outfit numbers, but others cannot be deciphered. [41]

When archeologists first encountered these seals at Fort Vancouver it was supposed that they were for bales of furs shipped to England, but after several were found at inland sites it was speculated that they were employed on packs of goods or furs. In the opinion of this writer it has not yet been established if they were for imports or exports or both.

It may appear that this lengthy discussion of fur-baling techniques at outlying posts is extraneous to a treatment of the depot fur store, but it will be recalled that Fort Vancouver itself became to a certain extent a subsidiary post after 1845. While ordinarily those furs that continued to reach it were sent on to Fort Victoria by ship, there were occasions when, as has been seen above in the case of Outfit 1854, the returns went by a river and land route. At such times the furs necessarily were formed into the smaller packs suitable for inland transport rather than into the heavy bales used for sea carriage. [42]

At any rate, once the packs from the outlying posts and districts reached the depot at Vancouver, they were soon opened and given a close inspection. One reason was to check the classification, because there was an occasional tendency of the districts to appraise their returns at a higher rate than their condition or size warranted. [43] Another was to detect damage. Insect infestation was the most dangerous condition, but dirt and dampness could also do much harm.

Another cardinal sin that reduced the value of furs, because it damaged them "in the middle," was the folding of pelts for packing with the fur outside instead of the hide. [44] Also, failure to remove the genitals of male martens before packing could have unpleasant effects. [45]

For an officer or clerk in charge of a post to be found negligent in packing his furs was no light matter. At the very least he could expect to become an object of the departmental manager's sarcasm. In 1834 McLoughlin wrote to Samuel Black, then in command at Thompsons River:

I am sorry to inform you that we found several of the Thompsons River Beaver much damaged by being moth eaten and swarming with the living animals-- It is strange that these animals formerly abounded at Walla Walla [where Black had previously been stationed] and now there are none--and Thompsons River which then had none at present abounds in them. This is certainly most curious. It is therefore necessary that the Thompsons River Furs be frequently beat and that they not be put in packs till they are ready to be brought here. [46]

As the furs were unpacked they were "hung up on lines like a wash" in the fort yard for dusting and drying. The more fragile furs, such as the martens and land otters, were merely left to air in the breeze, but the larger and sturdier pelts, like the beavers, were beaten with sticks exactly as if they had been carpets. [47]

At Fort Vancouver this work of unpacking and cleaning was ordinarily performed by the men of the brigade that brought them. [48] Presumably the operation was carried on under the watchful eye of a depot officer or clerk, but thus far no record has been found to indicate who this might have been for the 1845-46 period.

During all of these operations, and during the subsequent storage in the fur warehouse, the returns from each post or district were kept separated. This procedure not only made it possible to determine who was at fault for any defects, but it enabled the "Returns of the different places" to be "shipped separate" to England as McLoughlin told the Governor and Committee in 1832. [49] The practice of identifying the sources of the furs in the different bales sent to London was in effect at least as late as 1844. [50] Evidently it was an aid to the Governor and Committee in judging the condition of the trade in the various districts.

After cleaning and airing, the pelts were placed in the Fur Store. One visitor to a Company station on the Northwest Coast in 1868 noted that the "skins of each kind were sorted out into numerous grades and most carefully arranged." [51] And, as has been seen, at the depot they were also grouped by place of origin. The more valuable and fragile furs, such as fox and marten skins, were hung from the beams and from pegs or nails in the walls. The cheaper or tougher pelts, such as those of the beaver, were piled on the floor in "huge heaps." [52] Pictures of the methods of storing furs at various Company posts and depots will be found in Plates XI, XII, XIII.

Because dampness was much feared, the Fur Store was well ventilated. If the pelts were held at the depot for a long period they were regularly checked for evidence of insects and, if necessary, taken into the yard for airing and cleaning. This latter process, accomplished by beating the hardier pelts, was invariably undertaken at least once shortly prior to the final baling and shipping. [53] During the fall of 1843 it took one officer and fifteen men six weeks to beat and pack the returns being sent from Fort Vancouver to London. [54]

Preparations for the final packing got under way during late summer. Clerk Thomas Lowe noted in his diary on August 26, 1844: "Began to get the Fur Store cleaned out preparatory to packing"; and the next day he wrote: "Got the Fur Store washed." The beating of a shipment of beaver skins from Sitka began on the twenty-ninth, and all 4,000 of them were packed by September 3. Packing of "the other furs" continued under the direction of Clerk George B. Roberts. Lowe recorded on September 9 that "Mr. Roberts is busily engaged packing the Furs while this fine weather continues." [55]

From these words it might be inferred that the baling press at Fort Vancouver was outdoors in the depot yard. Such may well have been the case. Outdoor presses were not uncommon at Hudson's Bay Company depots. Yet in view of the frequently damp weather in the valley of the lower Columbia, the press probably was inside the Fur Store. Unfortunately the information required to be positive on this point has not yet come to light.

It is possible to state with reasonable certainty, however, that the press was of the screw type. At the direction of Chief Factor James Douglas, second in command at Fort Vancouver, Clerk Dugald Mactavish wrote on July 10, 1843, to Dr. W. F. Tolmie, in charge of Fort Nisqually, requesting him to send a jack screw to the depot because "We cannot very well do without one to pack our (Furs) with." [56]

Whether the depot had earlier possessed a screw press, and why a jack screw was needed at that particular date, is not evident. It is not known whether Tolmie was able to provide the desired article in time for the fall packing, but it would appear that one did eventually arrive. Early in April 1859, Chief Trader James A. Grahame, then in charge of Fort Vancouver, was called upon to send to Victoria "a Fur Press which has been for many years in use here" but which then found "little employment." [57] Only a screw press would have been the subject of such a request, because the people at Victoria could easily have made either a lever press or a wedge press from materials available locally.

Evidently the bales of furs produced at the depot for overseas shipment differed from the packs put up at the inland posts in only two major respects. First, they were fairly often composed of "pure skins," though bales of mixed pelts predominated. For example, the cargo of the barque Columbia, which sailed for England from Vancouver in 1844, included nineteen bales containing 175 beaver pelts and four bear skins each, the latter possibly serving as wrappers. There was also a bale of 100 "deer Hides." The majority of the bales, however, resembled bale #20, which contained the skins of ten brown bears, twenty-one grizzly bears, twenty-nine lynx, sixty-nine land otters, twenty-one raccoons, plus three pieces of land otter pelt. Bale #24 contained twenty-four brown bears, forty-five fishers, and forty wolves. [58]

Second and most important, however, the depot bales were much heavier than those designed for inland transport. In 1826 McLoughlin put up his beaver and otter skins for overseas shipment in bales weighing 130 pounds each. [59] But in 1844 a number of the bales sent on the Columbia were considerably heavier than that. In the packs of 175 beaver skins and four bearskins mentioned above, the heaver pelts alone weighed around 237 to 245 pounds, and the bearskins must have added about thirty pounds more or less, so that the total bale probably weighed in the neighborhood of 270 to 275 pounds. [60]

When available, deerskins were used as wrappers. On occasion, when sufficient hide or "parchment" covers could not be obtained, various expedients, such as wooden cases and hat boxes, were devised. [61] At other times the bales, compressed to "almost waterproof resistence," were shipped "without any covering or wrapper." [62] Sometimes such bales reached London in excellent condition, with only a little worm damage at the outer edges, the insects not having been able to penetrate the tight packs. [63] But on other occasions, despite the admonition of the Governor and Committee to tie up the bales with several turns of cord to press together the edges of the skins, the results were unfortunate. "Many" bales of the Columbia returns for Outfits 1838 and 1839 were "much motheaten all around the edges," and many skins in the middle of the packs were much damaged by worms. [64]

For such reasons the London officials on May 20, 1840, directed that furs of little value, such as bearskins and deerskins, should "be used as wrappers to all the Bales if possible, but at all events those containing Beaver and Otter Skins." [65] Records of Fort Vancouver show that this admonition was followed. "Dressed, staged, & damaged" furs used as wrappers included bears, foxes, and lynx, as well as the pelts of such smaller animals as rabbits, raccoons, and otters. [66]

Cords for tieing the bales seem to have gone through the same evolution as those for the inland packs. By 1848 "Baling line" seems to have been preferred to the former cords of buffalo hide or deerskin. [67]

In making up the bales over the years, a number of measures were tried in order to discourage insect attacks during the long sea voyage. One of the most common was to place tobacco between the layers of skins. Although this practice is mentioned in a number of contemporary documents and later accounts by Company employees, there seems to be no detailed explanation of the type of tobacco used and how it was positioned. [68] There are also mentions of rum "being placed between the layers of skins," though how this was accomplished is not made clear. [69]

But the fur returns were not only packed in bales at Fort Vancouver. The smaller, more delicate, and more valuable pelts were packed in puncheons and pipes to provide maximum protection against insects and dampness. In 1827 McLoughlin shipped some moth infested muskrat skins in empty rum puncheons, and they reached London in "very good condition." Two years later he urged the Governor and Committee to send back the fur casks containing the current returns "with a few Gallons of Spirits in each as furs are never injured by insects when packed in casks whose Staves are well saturated with Spirits." [70] The use of such containers was so successful that in 1840 the London office directed that henceforth foxes, martens, and small furs should be packed in puncheons, "which should be perfectly dry at the time of Packing." [71]

That such was the regular practice at Fort Vancouver during the 1840s is amply demonstrated by available evidence. [72] A few random examples selected from the invoice of returns of the Columbia District for Outfit 1843 shipped by the Columbia from Fort Vancouver in 1844 demonstrate how these containers were packed. Item 72 in the shipment was a puncheon containing 1,800 martens from New Caledonia. Item 87 was also a puncheon packed with 288 martens and 2,570 muskrats from five posts and districts. Still another puncheon held 103 martens, 960 minks, and 239 muskrats. A smaller pipe contained 305 martens belonging to Outfit 1844. [73]

It might also be noted that the returns of the Columbia District regularly contained a few items in addition to furs. The returns of Outfit 1843, for instance, included a cask containing 136 pounds of "Isinglass" (dried swimming bladder or sound of certain fish [sturgeon in the Columbia District] used, among other things, to clarify wines, beers, and other liquids), and six kegs of castoreum (a secretion of the beaver, used in medicine and by perfumers, as well as to bait beaver traps) totaling 259 pounds. Other products shipped on occasion included feathers (goose and "partridge" largely), whalebone, and whale oil. All of these items, evidently, were packed and shipped right along with the furs. [74]

Mention should also be made of the fact that organizing the annual shipments to London did not constitute the total of the packing activities conducted in the Fort Vancouver Fur Store. There were also the furs to be sent to the Russian American Company in Sitka under the terms of the 1839 agreement by which the Hudson's Bay Company leased the southern coastal strip of Alaska. The details of this arrangement cannot be treated at length in this report, but knowledge that it existed will serve to explain such fleeting references as Clerk Thomas Lowe's journal entry for November 4, 1844, in which he noted that two fellow clerks, J. A. Grahame and George Roberts, were "busy packing the West Side Otters for Sitka." [75]

The final step in preparing the bales, puncheons, casks, pipes, kegs, and other assorted packages for London was to mark them. As with the inland packs and "pieces," little is known about how the identifying symbols were applied, but there is some information avail able about the marks themselves. For instance, package number one (a bale) of the returns for Outfit 1843 shipped on the Columbia in 1844 bore the mark 43/HB #1. Evidently the same mark also contained the initials of the post, expedition, or district where the furs originated, but the invoice does not definitely show such initials in connection with the mark; they are only written after the list of the contents of the bale. Some of the initials thus noted are RAC (Russian American Company), C (Colvile), SC (Snake Country), NC (New Caledonia), FV (Fort Vancouver), etc. The first bale of the 1844 returns shipped on the same vessel was marked 44/HB #1. [76]

After all the packages were marked and when the ship was ready to receive cargo, the returns were placed on board. There was even a fixed procedure for this process. Writing to the captain of the annual vessel for 1833, Chief Factor McLoughlin cautioned: "particular care must be taken in handling Bales that they are not hoisted or carried about by the cords, but that a hand barrow and cradle to hoist them into the Vessel be used for this purpose." [77] Once on board, the returns were sealed in a "tight and well joined" room or "Fur Box" that was constructed each year by the ship's carpenter. [78]

The ship carried with it a bill of lading signed by the departmental manager, listing the numbers of each type of fur and the weights of the other products in the returns, and certifying that "said Goods" were the "growth and produce of the Hudson's Bay Company's Settlements in British North America" and that they were shipped for the account of "the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading to Hudson's Bay." Copies of several of the bills, which were printed forms filled in with ink, are available in the Company's archives. [79]

The Fur Store at Fort Vancouver was not the sole responsibility of any depot officer or clerk. Rather, it was lumped in with the other warehouses and placed under the supervision of the clerk in charge of "Store." [80] As has been seen, this man, from July 1844 to December 1846, was George B. Roberts. And Thomas Lowe's journal proves that Roberts actually did supervise a good deal of the fur packing during that period. But it also shows that other clerks, primarily assigned to other duties, were called in from time to time--perhaps when Roberts was busy receiving or baling trade goods--to take over affairs in the Fur Store or to assist there. [81]

Construction details

a. Dimensions and footings. The Fur Store (Building No. 8 on the present site plan) scales out on the Vavasour ground plan of late 1845 to measure about thirty-eight feet by ninety-eight feet or about thirty-nine feet by one hundred feet, depending on which version is employed (see Plates VI and VII, vol. I). The 1846-47 inventory lists two warehouses, "Stores Nos. 3 & 4" (of which Building No. 8 certainly was one), as measuring forty by one hundred feet. [82]

Archeological excavations under the direction of Louis R. Caywood in 1952 located three of the corners of the Fur Store and most of the footings under the exterior walls. These findings supported the inventory measurements of forty by one hundred feet almost exactly. [83] These dimensions were confirmed when National Park Service archeologists made more extensive excavations at the same site during the summer of 1972. [84]

Apparently all of the footings found by Mr. Caywood were placed with their longest sides at right angles to the axes of the walls. They were, as usual, spaced about ten feet apart between centers.

The 1972 excavations revealed a third line of footings midway between the north and south walls of the Fur Store. These footings were "offset from those of the exterior walls" and undoubtedly served as a base for a beam supporting the joists. The archeologists interpret their findings to indicate that all main footings were installed at the same time, though "supernumerary" or "occasional repair footings " were of a later date. Also, the original footings were set below the 1840s ground surface, leading the archeologists to speculate that the framing sills were on or very close to the ground. Evidence of "mortice cuts and/or tenon depressions " in the footings suggested to the archeologists that the upright framing timbers were tenoned through the sills and "partially rested either in or on the footings." [85]

Such may have been the case, but to tenon the upright framing timbers into the footings does not appear to have been a common Hudson's Bay Company construction technique, at least as far as this writer has been able to determine. A much more usual practice was to place a block or section of a tree trunk under the sill beneath each upright and to rest this block on a footing. Such blocks might account for the depressions found in the sills. Probably when the final report of the 1972 excavations becomes available the situation will be clearer. Architects preparing drawings for the reconstruction of the Fur Store should study the archeological findings very closely and analyze them in the light of measured drawings made by the Canadian National and Historic Sites Branch of actual surviving Hudson's Bay Company structures.

The 1972 excavations also revealed a "large and unusually shaped wooden foundation" within the southeast corner of the fur store. If this structure was actually a part of the warehouse, it appears to have been a supporting base for some type of heavy equipment that rested on or pierced through the floor of the lower story. As matters stand at present, neither the date nor the function of this assemblage of timbers is known. [86]

b. General construction. The Fur Store was a large warehouse of the same basic design and construction as the Sale Shop, the New Store, and the Receiving Store already described in detail in Chapters XI and XII of volume I of this report. There is no need to repeat those descriptions here. Thus the present discussion will be confined to those known features that distinguish the fur store from its companions.

The earliest known view of Fort Vancouver to show the 1845-period Fur Store is a pencil sketch drawn by Lt. Henry J. Warre in late 1845 or early 1846. In that picture the hipped roof of the Fur Store appears above the south palisade. The eave line of the building is visible as are very short portions of the south and east walls. On the other hand, no parts of the walls of the neighboring Receiving Store to the west are visible, and the ridge line appears slightly lower. The impression left by this sketch is that the Fur Store was a bit higher than the Receiving Store. [87]

The Coode watercolor view of 1846-47 seems to show the Fur Store and the Receiving Store as being about the same height (see Plate XI, vol. I). On the contrary, the oil painting by an unknown artist, probably about 1847-48, appears to represent the Fur Store as being slightly lower in outline than its neighboring warehouses (see Plate XVI, vol. I). This same impression very definitely is conveyed by an 1851 pencil drawing by George Gibbs (see Plate XVIII, vol. I). The other known views of Fort Vancouver either do not show the Fur Store at all or are so lacking in precision when it comes to detail as to shed no valid light on the question at hand.

In view of the conflicting evidence, it seems impossible to make a positive determination as to the relative heights of the Fur Store (Building No. 8) and the Receiving Store (Building No: 7). But because of Gibbs's almost photographic accuracy, the present writer would favor making the reconstructed Fur Store two or three feet lower than its mate to the west. Bearing in mind the Warre pencil sketch, however, this result should be achieved not by reducing the wall height but by lowering the pitch of the roof.

Walls. Although no written or pictorial evidence appears to exist to indicate whether or not the exterior of the Fur Store was weatherboarded, almost certainly it was not. Like the other main warehouses, the Fur Store undoubtedly was a full two stories in height. A very clear and only recently utilized version of the British Boundary Commission's 1860 photograph of the northwest angle of the Fort Vancouver courtyard plainly shows that the walls of the New Store rose about twenty feet above the ground and that the second story had quite as much headroom as did the ground floor (see Plate XIV). [88]

Archeological excavations in 1972 demonstrated that there were ten original footings each (counting the corner footings) in the north and south walls and five original footings each (counting the same corner footings) in the east and west walls. [89] Thus the north and south walls each had ten upright posts, forming nine bays. These posts, if all were spaced equally, must have been centered about 11-1/9 feet apart. The east and west walls had four bays each, with posts centered about ten feet apart.

Roof. Thomas Lowe's journal does not mention the shingling of the Fur Store, but as there are long gaps in his record, this omission by no means indicates that this work was not performed after June 15, 1843, the date of his arrival at the post. Also, it could have been performed earlier. The several versions of the view by Lieutenant Warre, 1845-46, appear to show the building with a shingle roof, and no extant pictures indicate a board roof, so it may be assumed that a shingle roof was in place during the period to which the post is to be reconstructed. As with the other warehouses, there were no chimneys.

Doors. The only known reliable picture that gives a clear view of any of the walls of the Fur Store is the Coode sketch of 1846-47 (Plates XI and XII, vol. I). This view shows three large doors, surely double, with arched tops, evenly spaced at ground-floor level across the front (north) face of the structure The only other wall visible is the east wall, and it is shown with no doors or windows whatever. Unless archeological excavations produce irrefutable evidence of the existence of one or more doors in the south or west walls, this writer suggests that these walls be left without doors when reconstruction plans are drawn. Probably the Company would have desired that all doors giving access to the precious fur returns should be in full view from the courtyard.

After the completion of volume I of this report, this writer encountered a very clear version of the 1860 photograph of the northwest corner of the fort in the Provincial Archives of British Columbia. This photo provided a much better view of the New Store (Building No. 5) than had hitherto been available (see Plate XIV). At the extreme left of this print about one-half of the arched double door in that structure is visible.

Upon close examination, it is evident that the arch was carved into a single huge timber which served as the top frame or header over the door opening. Or, possibly, the arch is formed by two large timbers carved in the shape of knee braces and joined together at the apex of the arch. At any rate, the curved top frame around the exterior of the arch over the entry to the Fort Nisqually granary seems to be absent (compare Plate XIV, vol. II, with Plate CXI, vol. I. See also measured drawings by Historic American Buildings Survey, Fort Nisqually Granary, Point Defiance Park, Tacoma, Washington, 2 sheets, in Library of Congress).

Probably the framing of the Fur Store entries was similar to that on the door to the New Store. The doors themselves were undoubtedly of very heavy construction and formed like the doors in the other warehouses.

The Coode watercolor is not sufficiently detailed to permit a judgment as to whether there were ramps or steps in front of the doors. An examination of the "original" sketch and the colored version of it reproduced in The Beaver Outfit 301 (autumn, 1970), p. 52, however, leads this writer to suspect that access to the building was by ramps.

Windows. The warehouses at Fort Vancouver impressed some visitors as being dark and gloomy inside. [90] Certainly the Fur Store must have been among the least cheerful, for the Coode watercolor shows it to have possessed few windows. Of the two sides of the building visible in that sketch, the east side is represented as having had no windows at all (see Plates XI and XII, vol. I). [91] On the entire 100-foot length of the front or north wall only three windows are depicted, all on the second floor. Seemingly they were centered over the three doors. The ground floor appears to have had no windows, at least in front. [92]

No pictures showing the south wall of the Fur Store have yet been found, and the only one depicting the west wall (Plate XX, vol. I) is so filled with errors as to be without value for the purpose at hand. Thus it seems most reasonable to assume that the general pattern of window placement shown in the Coode sketch was repeated on the south and west walls: Such reasoning would result in there being no windows in the west wall and six--three on each floor--in the south wall. It must be remembered that the walls were primarily places on which to hang furs. Light appears to have been a secondary consideration.

There seems to be no way of judging the sizes of the windows with any certainty. Probably, however, they were small, like those shown in Plate XIV depicting the New Store. Those windows had nine panes set in a single sash, which undoubtedly opened inward from one side. Window glass at Fort Vancouver ordinarily was received from England in three standard sizes: 7 by 9 inches, 7-1/2 by 8-1/2 inches, and 8 by 9 inches. [93] Careful analysis of the windows shown in Plate XIV by techniques known to architects probably would reveal the size used in the New Store.

At Fort Vancouver the windows in the warehouses for which adequate pictorial representation exists seem universally to have been centered between the wall uprights. At a number of posts the storehouse windows adjoined these uprights (see Plate LXXVIII vol. I, for an example). In view of the abundant evidence as to the prevailing practice at the Columbia depot, the windows in the Fur Store almost surely were of the former type.

The Fur Store windows undoubtedly were protected by solid wood exterior shutters. Plate XIV so well shows the construction of the typical warehouse shutters at Fort Vancouver that no comment is necessary, except to note that a careful examination of the original print seemed to show that the hinges, though external, were not of the strap type. Hinges at Fort Vancouver, incidentally, seem at that time to have been attached largely by nails and not by screws. [94] All windows on the ground floor probably were guarded by interior iron bars.

Exterior finish. The Coode watercolor shows the Fur Store as being unpainted except probably for the doors and windows, which are reddish brown and darker than the walls. In the picture the windows appear to be covered by the shutters, which thus must have been painted also. It is impossible to determine if the door and window frames are shown as being painted, but probably they were not. Undoubtedly the paint was the ubiquitous "Spanish brown," which was kept in stock at Fort Vancouver. [95]

Since the completion of volume I of this report more information has been obtained concerning the nature of this "Spanish brown" color that was widely used at fur trade posts across the breadth of the continent. National Heritage Limited, a Toronto-headquartered organization that is conducting the reconstruction of Fort William on Lake Superior, has sent staff members to Britain to determine exactly what shades were meant by the paint colors listed in early nineteenth century fur-trade inventories and other documents. One of the colors investigated was "Spanish brown," and British museum experts found that the paint of that name known to the fur traders was much more red than brown. [96] This finding perhaps is confirmed by the fact that a man who spent some time at Fort Vancouver as a youth later recollected that the gates were "red." [97]

c. Interior finish and arrangement. The historical record provides no information whatsoever concerning the interior of the Fur Store. The structure is not described in the 1846-47 inventory as being lined and ceiled. Ordinarily the inference to be drawn from this fact would be that the Fur Store was not lined with deal siding on the inside. However, every picture of the interior of a Company fur store seen by this writer has shown the walls lined with either vertical or horizontal siding, and the surviving Company stores at Fort St. James and Lower Fort Garry are finished in the same manner. In view of the great lengths gone to by the Company to preserve its returns in good condition, it would seem logical to expect that the Fur Store at Fort Vancouver would have been lined. Vertical deal siding appears to have been the most usual form of interior lining.

As with the New Store, one end of the ground floor may have been partitioned off to make a baling room, but otherwise the Fur Store probably was without interior walls. The plank floors, exposed beams, ceilings, and open-tread stairs without handrails undoubtedly were as described in Chapter XI on the Sale Shop (see pp. 204-8, vol. I). Probably penciled lists of furs were placed on the walls by the clerks from time to time as described on page 256 of volume I of this report. In view of the interior line of footings uncovered by archeologists, there could have been a line of center posts on the first floor supporting the ceiling beams. It is most likely that a trapdoor in the first floor ceiling facilitated the hoisting of furs to the second floor.

d. Connections with the stockade. Two versions of the Vavasour ground plan of late 1845 (Plates VII and VIII, vol. I) show the Fur Store as being linked at both its west and east ends to the south palisade wall by barriers of some type. These barriers are extensions of the lines of the west and east walls of the building. A third, and contemporary, version of the Vavasour plan shows only the west end of the Fur Store thus linked to the stockade wall (Plate VI, vol. I). The "Line of Fire Map" of September 1844, however, also depicts the links at both ends of the building (Plate V, vol. I). There remains little doubt, therefore, that both of these connections, which almost surely were lines of pickets, existed during the 1845-46 period. They surely were intended to safeguard the furs from the gaze of the merely curious as well as from the depredations of thieves.

Furnishings

As was the case with the other warehouses, the principal "furnishings" of the Fur Store were the items housed there. The number of furs in store varied widely, of course, according to the season of the year. There were also fluctuations in total returns from outfit to outfit and, as has been seen, noticeable declines beginning in the summer of 1845 with the shift of the main depot to Victoria.

Given more time for research in the Company's archives and in other repositories, it probably would be possible to determine exactly how many furs passed through Fort Vancouver on their way to Victoria during each of the years 1845 and 1846. All that would be necessary would be to ascertain the returns of all the posts and vessels that shipped their furs directly to Victoria and then subtract the numbers of each type from the known total departmental returns. Or, better yet, it might be possible to find the invoices of furs from Vancouver to Victoria for those years. Thus far this writer has not located this type of information.

In point of fact such a determination, while of much interest, would be of little practical value for the proposed restoration project. Given the prices of furs, the present feelings for the preservation of wildlife, and the huge cost of protecting about 60,000 pelts from insects and other dangers, there seems little possibility that anyone will seriously propose "refurnishing" the Fur Store with the maximum number of skins on hand at any time during the period to which the post is to be restored. The most practical solution would be a display in a limited section of the warehouse of a representative, and generous, sampling of the types of furs handled at Fort Vancouver.

Fortunately there is an abundance of information upon which to base such a sampling. The invoices and/or bills of lading for the shipments of the entire departmental returns from Vancouver to London are available for a number of years prior to 1845. They present a fine picture of the numbers and types of skins and other returns that passed through the depot Fur Store. As examples, two of these lists are reproduced below:

[Shipped from Vancouver, November 20, 1843]

I, John McLoughlin of Fort Vancouver, Columbia River, in British North America, Shipper of the following Goods on board the Ship Vancouver, William Brotchie Master, now about to sail from Columbia River, aforesaid, for the Port of London, vizt.-

Number
523	Badger
14820	Beaver
1828	Bear
2161	Deer
4	Elk
668	Fisher
756	Fox
72	Goat
551	Lynx
9449	Marten
7671	Mink
17438	Musquash [muskrat]
1028	[Land] Otter
214	Sea Otter
1663	Raccoon
169	Seal
4	Panthers
1904	Wolf
195	Wolverine
[61,118 whole skins total]
236-1/2 lbs.	Castorum [sic]
177 lbs.	beaver Coating
341 lbs.	Feathers--Goose & Partridge
325 lbs.	Islinglass [sic]
35	pieces Fisher, Marten, Otter, & fox Skins
46	otter Tails [damaged]
1	Sea Otter [damaged]
10	land Otter [damaged]
2	Martens [damaged]
19	Foxes [damaged]
3	Lynx [damaged] [98]

---

[Shipped from Vancouver, November 13, 1844] [99]

Recapitulation of Furs &c Shipped on board the Bque Columbia 1844

---

	[Returns of Out. 1843]	[Returns of Out. 1844]
Badgers	202	37
Bears
Black	555	375
Brown	193	89
Grizzly	176	72
Beaver
large	9448	3982
small	2707	1143
lbs. cut[tings]	35-1/2	100
Castoreum lbs.	259	5
Feathers lbs.	---	168
Fishers	332	243
Foxes
Blue	---	11
Cross	97	66
Red	158	127
Silver	37	11
Deer Hides	306	---
lbs. Isinglass	136	388-1/2
Lynxes	178	239
Martens
p. skin	5020	2506
In Robes	238	137
	[Returns of Out. 1843]	[Returns of Out. 1844]
Minks	1544	2451
Muskrats	14982	6254
Gns Whale Oil	---	---
Otters
Land	272	683
Sea Small	35	54
Sea Pup	7	9
Sea Tails	4	17
Raccoons	326	1102
lbs Whalebone	---	690
Wolverines	99	66
Wolves	637	373	[100]

In addition to the types of furs contained in these two lists, the pelts of a few other species of animals or of other grades appeared in the returns from time to time. Thus the returns shipped from Victoria in 1845 also included calf hides, ox hides large sea otter pelts, common hair seal pelts, and fur seal skins. [101]

The methods used for storing skins have already been treated in sufficient detail. But in addition to the piles of furs on the floors and the clusters of pelts hanging from the walls and beams, the Fur Store was "furnished" with a number of other highly necessary items.

Most conspicuous, perhaps, were rows of empty puncheons, pipes, kegs, and casks waiting until needed for packing the small furs, isinglass, castoreum, and certain other products. Evidently such containers were sometimes in short supply, and they, particularly the used rum puncheons, were carefully husbanded. [102]

Then, as with the other warehouses, there was an assortment of articles required for the operation of the Fur Store. Such items would include a baling press, one or more large weighing scales, pack cords or line, equipment for marking bales, writing paper and various types of account books for the numerous records that had to be kept, a supply of staves upon which the bale marks were placed (if staves were used at Fort Vancouver in 1845-46), perhaps a desk and stool for the clerk, blocks and tackle, barrows for moving bales, and sticks for beating furs.

Unfortunately, no separate accounting of "articles in use" in the Fur Store was made at Fort Vancouver. The annual depot inventories of "articles in use" contained a subheading, "In Stores," and evidently all the equipment employed in all the depot warehouses was lumped together in that single category. Thus the annual inventories are practically useless as guides to the refurnishing of the Fur Store. But for what they are worth the lists for 1844 and 1845 have been reproduced on pages 258-59 of volume I of this report. Even the fact that "1 wood packing press" is listed does not help much, since there must also have been such a press in the warehouse where trade goods were packed for shipment. The presence of "2 Jack Screws," however, might indicate the existence of a large baling press for furs.

For some unknown reason the inventory made in the spring of 1848 at Fort Vancouver seems to have been much more detailed than the others available. Thus, though it reflects conditions somewhat later than the 1845-46 period, there seems merit in reproducing below the section relating to the warehouses:

—Articles in Use—

--In Stores--

2	large square headed Axes
650	Osnaburgh wheat Bags
1	travelling Basket complete
4	sets Blocks & tackle
7	doz empty Wine bottles
3	hand Brushes
34	fire Buckets
1	spring Cart
1	travelling Case complete
1-1/6	doz Cherries pr ball moulds
10	brass Cocks assd. sizes
3	steering Compasses
1	large fire Engine
1	small fire Engine old
1	fort Flag
1	sheeting Frock
7	tin Funnels assd. sizes
1	wheat Gage [sic]
6	small Gimlets
5	spike Gimlets
2	claw Hammers
2	bronzed Lamp stands
1	Parsonn's new planing Machine
1	Payne's patent salting Machine
1	Marryat's weighing Machines
6	half bushel wooden Measures
3	setts [sic] tin Measures
1	copper bullet Mould
46	Muskets, old
5	Wyeth's seine Nets
2	boarding Pikes
1	Pillow Case
1	Chinese flower Pot
1	large fur Press
1	small baling Press
1	copper spirit Pump
1	Warp Rope
2	cross cut Saws
3	hand Saws
2	prs double jack Screws
6	cotton bed Sheets
3	large iron [weighing] Beams w[ith] scales
2	small iron Beams w copper scales
1	pr blacksmiths Bellows
1	single purchase Block p heaving down
6	double purchase Block
2	large leading Block
1	large snatch Block
6	large treble Block
4	Shovels
2	Spades
3	prs beam Steelyards
2	copper Stills with worms
1	Tellescope [sic]
1	sheeting Tent
3	sets brass Weights f[ro]m 1 lb to 1/2 oz
24	iron Weights fm 56 lbs. to 2 lbs.
1	rope Winch [103]

Among the items in this list, the following could very well have been in the Fur Store:

1 large fur Press

1 large iron [weighing] beam with wooden scales

1 or more sets of blocks and tackle

several fire buckets

1 pair beam steelyards

1 set of brass weights [for scales]

assorted iron weights [for scales]

It is not known, of course, whether some of these articles, those that do not appear on the 1844 and 1845 inventories, were present at Fort Vancouver as early as 1845-46. Even assuming that all were present, it will be seen that a number of items mentioned above as being necessary to the operation of the Fur Store were not included in the inventory. This same situation has been found with regard to the inventories of other structures, and it can only be assumed that "country-made" items such as desks, chairs, stools, etc., were some times not inventoried. The reason for omitting certain imported items, though, is not clear.

It cannot be a function of this report to describe in detail the various furnishings that may have been in the Fur Store. As an assistance to the curators who may be faced with the task of re-creating the interior of the structure, however, a few notes concerning sources of further information are appended below.

Fur press. As far as this writer is aware, only two of the larger, original, screw-type presses operated at Hudson's Bay Company depots are still in existence: one at Moose Factory on Hudson Bay (Plate V), and the other in the restored trade shop at Lower Fort Garry, Manitoba (Plates IV and XV). Whether the "large fur Press" at Fort Vancouver was similar to either of these is not known. It would be a relatively simple matter to make measured drawings of the Fort Garry press and reproduce it.

Little concerning the specifications for fur presses has thus far been found in the records of the Company. The following paragraph from a letter written by Gov. George Simpson from York Factory to the Governor and Committee in London on September 11, 1822, is enlightening, but it would be more so were there a McGillivray on the scene today to explain it:

The packing presses at this place are extremely inconvenient and out of repair, the machinery complex and the operation tedious, eight men being required to pack twenty Bales in one day; we have therefore taken the liberty of Indenting for two new Presses on an improved or more simple principle. The dimensions of the one 5 ft. inside by 30 Inches with two screws to work from the top with double levers; the other 2-1/2 feet by 1-1/2 ft. with one Screw for packing inland Bales--each press to have a spare Screw. There was a press on the principle of the former in the Warehouse at Montreal which was found very convenient, we cannot describe it accurately but if Mr. Willm. McGillivray happens to be in Town it is probable he would point out to the Tradesman the article required. [104]

Scales. Because weight was such an important factor in processing furs for shipment, and because the items to be weighed ranged from half pounds of castoreum to 175-pound bales, more or less, it is quite probable that there were at least two scales in the Fur Store. One may have been a simple weighing beam or balance of the type long used in the fur trade. Given a proper set of weights, this type of scale could weigh items from very light ones to those as heavy as the weights would balance. Plate XVI illustrates such a weighing beam with wooden scales. It must be much like the "large iron Beam with wooden scales" listed in the 1844 and 1848 inventories.

For the heavier bales it is more likely that a steelyard was employed. This device utilized the principle of unequal arm balance, or the lever, and could weigh very heavy items. In the early nineteenth century, steelyards (pronounced "stilyards" in Britain) were hand-forged and generally stamped with the capacity of the scale. [105] A pair of the type used by the Hudson's Bay Company is shown in Plate XVII.

It will also be noted that the inventories of stores from 1844 to 1848 list "1 Marryat's weighing Machine." This writer has not yet found a description of this device, but if it was a type of platform scale it could well have done service in the Fur Store, because it would have been much simpler and much easier on the cords to weigh bales by this means.

Miscellaneous furniture. Plate XVIII shows a corner of the fur loft in the recently restored trade shop at Lower Fort Garry. The table is of a type frequently depicted in nineteenth-century views of the interiors of fur trade and French-Canadian dwellings. Such a table could well have been used as a desk or work surface in the Fort Vancouver Fur Store. Although it is not known that staves were used to carry the marks on outgoing fur bales at the Columbia depot, incoming packs may well have been marked by that means, and the staves may have been kept on hand, possibly for reuse on "pieces" of trade goods. As with the other warehouses, there were no stoves or other means of heating in the fur store.

Recommendations

a. It is suggested that the architects preparing plans and working drawings for the reconstructed fur store give careful attention not only to the structural data provided in this chapter and in Chapters XI and XII, volume I, dealing with other warehouses, but also to the report on the archeological excavations of the Fur Store site.

b. Even with the information provided by the archeological report and by the historic structure report, there will remain several unanswered questions. One of these probably will relate to whether the sills rested directly on the footings at or near ground level or whether the sills were raised somewhat above the footings by wooden blocks. Available pictorial evidence and preliminary archeological findings appear to favor the former alternative. It is suggested, therefore, that the advice of the Technical Services Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Ottawa, Canada, be obtained should the final archeological report not resolve the matter. That organization has made measured drawings of a number of Hudson's Bay Company structures and is in a position to provide accurate technical information concerning typical Company construction practices.

c. Much of the feeling of authenticity required of good restorations results from attention to small details--hardware, stair tread design, door and window trim, etc. A careful, personal study by the architect of H.B.C. artifacts recovered on the building site will help to determine the types of hardware, window glass, nails, etc., employed. But an understanding of how such items were used, of the finish of doors and window sash, of the look of an original hewn timber, etc., can only come through an on-the-spot examination by the architect of surviving Hudson's Bay Company structures. A number of these buildings may be seen today at Fort Nisqually, Fort Langley, Fort St. James, Lower Fort Garry, York Factory, and Norway House. It is suggested that the architect who prepares the plans for the Fur Store--and for all other structures at Fort Vancouver for that matter--be required to study on the ground a reasonably broad sampling of these surviving examples.

d. It is suggested that the architects get in touch with National Heritage Limited, Toronto, Canada, to determine the correct shade during the early 1800s of the paint color known as "Spanish brown." This color should be used for shutters, doors, and window sash. The remainder of the structure, including door and window frames, should be unpainted.

e. The practical considerations that would make it virtually impossible to refurnish the Fur Store as an historical exhibit have been previously discussed. It might be within reason, however, to partition off one end of Building No. 8 as a baling room and furnish it with a large press and the other items needed to prepare skins for overseas shipment. In this case it would be necessary to have only a moderate number of furs actually visible. Such an exhibit would be of great interest. But in view of the high cost of furs and their maintenance, it may be impossible to provide more than one fur storage exhibit at Fort Vancouver, and this probably would be best located in the Indian Trade Shop, where furs were also kept. In this case, the entire interior of the Fur Store would be available for other administrative and interpretive uses.

1. This site is the same as, or is reasonably close to, that designated as Building No. 7 on the present "Site Plan, Historic Fort Area, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site" (see Plate II, vol. I).

2. Thomas Lowe, "Private Journal Kept at Fort Vancouver, Columbia River [1843-1850]," typescript, in Provincial Archives of British Columbia, Victoria, p. 11.

3. J. J. Hoffman and Lester A. Ross, Fort Vancouver Excavations--V: Flagstaff and Belfry (Vancouver, Washington: National Park Service [Fort Vancouver National Historic Site], October 1973), p. 4.

4. In addition to the evidence provided by the Lowe diary entry of December 21, 1844 (which is not necessarily conclusive as regards 1845 and subsequent years), the identification of Building No. 8 as the 1845-period Fur Store rests on a process of elimination, because the remaining three of the four major fort warehouses apparently can be definitely identified as to name and function. See pp. 185-87, 237-39, in vol. I of this report.

5. For a discussion of the evidence on these points, see pp. 185-87 in vol. I of this report.

6. The so-called "Line of Fire Map" of September 1844 (Plate V, vol. I) shows the two warehouses along the western portion of the south palisade wall essentially as they appear on the Vavasour plan of 1845, but due to the small scale of the map and the lack of structure identification, it is not possible to state that the buildings are identical. Very probably, however, the "Line of Fire Map" indicates that the 1845-period Fur Store was standing by the early fall of 1844.

7. H.B.C., Fort Vancouver, Miscellaneous Items, in Hudson's Bay Company Archives (hereafter cited as H.B.C.A.), B.223/z/4, MS, in Beaver House, London. Materials in the Company's archives are used with, and quoted with, the kind permission of the Hudson's Bay Company; E. E. Rich, ed., The Letters of John McLoughlin from Fort Vancouver to the Governor and Committee, Second Series, 1839-44, Publications of the Champlain Society, Hudson's Bay Company Series, vol. 6 (Toronto, 1943), pp. 141-42 (hereafter cited as H.B.S., 6).

8. See pp. 240-41 in vol. I of this report.

9. E. E. Rich, ed., The Letters of John McLoughlin from Fort Vancouver to the Governor and Committee, Third Series, 1844-46, Publications of the Champlain Society, Hudson's Bay Company Series, vol. 7 (Toronto, 1944), p. 87, fn. 3 (hereafter cited as H.B.S., 7).

10. H.B.S., 7:89.

11. Ibid., pp. 85, 143, 145-46, 152; The shipment on board the Cowlitz included furs from Outfits 1842, 1843, 1844, and 1845, with an estimated value of L46,881.9.3. H.B.C., Fort Vancouver, Account Book, 1838-1860, H.B.C.A., B.223/d/212, MS, fol. 94.

12. John A. Hussey, The History of Fort Vancouver and Its Physical Structure ([Tacoma:] Washington State Historical Society, [1957]]), p. 92. The use of a land route in 1848 was due to the Cayuse War, which posed a threat to the regular Columbia River transport. The brigade of that year brought the furs out to Fort Langley.

13. The history of the Columbia District fur trade after the 1845-46 period is outside the scope of this report. See Hussey, History of Fort Vancouver, pp. 97-98; It might be remarked, however, that the flow of furs did not completely cease. In February 1860, Chief Trader James A. Grahame announced that he was preparing to ship to Victoria "what furs we have on hand here" at Fort Vancouver. The returns belonged to Outfits 1858 and 1859 and were worth about £1,600 "at the country valuation." J. A. Grahame to G. Simpson, Vancouver, February 1, 1860, in H.B.C.A., B.223/b/42, MS, fols. 163d-164.

14. Hussey, History of Fort Vancouver, pp. 101-2.

15. H.B.C., Fort Vancouver, Miscellaneous Items, 1845-1866, in H.B.C.A., B.223/z/5, MS, fol. 72; U.S., Congress, House, 31st Cong., 2d sess., Exec. Doc. No. 1, pt. 2 (Serial 595), p. 289.

16. H.B.C.A., B.223/z/5, MS, fol. 74.

17. Ibid., fol. 77.

18. "Proceedings of a board of officers, which convened at Fort Vancouver, W. T., June 15th, 1860," MS, in U.S., War Department, Adjutant General's Office, Oregon Department, Document File 212-S-1860, in War Records Division, National Archives, Washington, D.C. (hereafter cited as A.G.O., Ore. Dept., Doc. File).

19. See sources cited in Hussey, History of Fort Vancouver, pp. 185-86. The map referred to is Plate XVII in that work.

20. H.B.C.A., B.223/z/5, MS, fol. 77

21. "Proceedings of a board of officers, Fort Vancouver, June 15, 1860," A.G.O., Ore. Dept., Doc. File 212-S-1860, in National Archives.

22. The destruction of the fort structures has been treated in Hussey, History of Fort Vancouver, pp. 157-60.

23. "Occurrences at Nisqually House," in Told by the Pioneers, a Washington Pioneer Project, 3 vols. ([Olympia,] 1937-38), 1:56-57.

24. Burt Brown Barker, ed., Letters of Dr. John McLoughlin, Written at Fort Vancouver, 1829-1832 (Portland: Binfords & Mort, 1948), p. 338; Lowe, "Private Journal," pp. 1A, 1, 18.

25. Ninety pounds was for decades the standard weight of fur packs, though for certain occasions and at certain times a weight of eighty pounds was specified, and occasionally packs weighed as much as one hundred pounds. See E. E. Rich, ed., The Letters of John McLoughlin from Fort Vancouver to the Governor and Committee, First Series, 1825-38, Publications of the Champlain Society, Hudson's Bay Company Series, vol. 4 (Toronto, 1941), p. 49 (hereafter cited as H.B.S., 4). See also Martin Hunter, Canadian Wilds: Tells About the Hudson's Bay Company, Northern Indians and Their Modes of Hunting, Trapping, Etc. (Columbus, Ohio: A. R. Harding, Publisher, 1935), p.77, and H. M. Robinson, The Great Fur Land or Sketches of Life in the Hudson's Bay Territory, 5th ed. (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1879), p. 339.

26. Hunter, Canadian Wilds, pp. 77-78.

27. Archibald McDonald, Peace River: A Canoe Voyage from Hudson's Bay to Pacific, by the Late Sir George Simpson . . . in 1828: Journal of the Late Chief Factor Archibald McDonald, ed. Malcolm McLeod, Facsimile ed. (Toronto: Coles Publishing Company, 1970), pp. 57-58; Hunter, Canadian Wilds, p. 81.

28. Isaac Cowie, The Company of Adventurers: A Narrative of Seven Years in the Service of the Hudson's Bay Company during 1867-1874 on the Great Buffalo Plains, with Historical and Biographical Notes and Comments (Toronto: William Briggs, 1913), p. 277.

29. For the use of a wedge press at Fort Simpson in 1835 see Henry Drummond Dee, ed., The Journal of John Work, January to October, 1835, Archives of British Columbia, Memoir no. 10 (Victoria, 1945), pp. 52, 67; The use of a lever press during the early 1860s at Fort Colvile is mentioned in [John Keast Lord], At Home in the Wilderness, Being Full Instructions How to Get Along, and to Surmount All Difficulties by the Way, by "the Wanderer" (London, 1867), p. 62; The presence of a screw press at Fort Vancouver will be documented later in this chapter.

For more information on fur presses, see Charles E. Hanson, Jr., "Robe and Fur Presses," Museum of the Fur Trade Quarterly 3, no. 2 (Summer, 1967), and Carl P. Russell, Firearms Traps, & Tools of the Mountain Men (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967), pp. 156-60.

30. H.B.S., 4:59-60. McLoughlin said at that time that buffalo the only Animal on this side of the Mountains from whose hide we can make any [cords]."

31. Dee, Journal of John Work, pp. 62, 66. The pack cords used in the New Caledonia District were imported annually from east of the Rocky Mountains and may have been of moose hide.

32. J. Douglas and P. S. Ogden to W. F. Tolmie, Fort Vancouver, April 20, 1848, in Fort Vancouver, Correspondence Outward, 1845-1849, Letters Signed by Peter Skene Ogden and James Douglas, MSS, in Provincial Archives of British Columbia.

33. Hunter, Canadian Wilds, p. 80.

34. Lord, At Home in the Wilderness, p. 62. See also Robinson, Great Fur Land, p. 339, where it is stated that at certain posts during the 1870s the outer covering was "buffalo-hide or rawhide."

35. "The Minutes of the Council of the Northern Department of Rupert's Land, 1830 to 1843," in Collections of the State Historical Society of North Dakota, vol. 4 (1910—1912), pp. 789-90; Hunter, Canadian Wilds, p. 78; Pictures of this type of pack, but with the more modern burlap top and bottom covers, may be seen in Plate XI.

36. Hunter, Canadian Wilds, p. 81.

37. Cowie, Company of Adventurers, pp. 277-78.

38. Fort Nisqually, Invoice Book, Feb. 1853-Sept. 1856, FN1263, MS, vol. 1, in Fort Nisqually Collection, in the Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery, San Marino, California, p. [48]. This and all subsequent quotations from manuscripts in the Huntington Library are reproduced by permission of the Huntington Library and Art Gallery; How these marks were applied to the packs in the Columbia Department in 1845-46 is not known for certain. By the 1860s, at many Company posts, all or part of the marks were branded with a hot iron on a wooden slat affixed to each pack. Cowie, Company of Adventurers, p. 278. What appears to be this branding process is shown in a remarkable photograph found in Freeman Tilden, Following the Frontier with F. Jay Haynes, Pioneer Photographer of the Old West (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1964), opp. p. 318.

39. Cowie, Company of Adventurers, p. 278.

40. H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1838-1860 H.B.C.A., B.223/d/212, MS, fol. 168.

41. For pictures and descriptions of seals recovered at Fort Vancouver and other Columbia District sites, see Louis R. Caywood, Final Report, Fort Vancouver Excavations, mimeographed (San Francisco: National Park Service, July 1, 1955), frontispiece and p. 50; G. F. Grabert, The Astor Fort Okanogan: A Final Report on Salvage Archaeology in the Wells Reservoir--Part II, University of Washington Department of Anthropology, Reports on Archaeology no. 2 (Seattle, August 1968), fig. 1 and p. 38 (reported specimen 3.8 cent, in dia.); J. J. Hoffman and Lester A. Ross, Fort Vancouver Excavations--I (Vancouver, Washington: National Park Service [Fort Vancouver National Historic Site], May 1972), figs. 14f, 16a, and p. 56; Hoffman and Ross, Fort Vancouver Excavations--III: 1845 Harness Shop (Vancouver, Washington: National Park Service Fort Vancouver National Historic Site], February 1973), fig. 7m-n and p. 45; Susan Kardas, "The People Bought This and the Clatsop Became Rich": A View of Nineteenth Century Fur Trade Relationships on the Lower Columbia between Chinookan Speakers, Whites, and Kanakas (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1971), p. 308.

42. Also, when furs had to be taken down the Columbia River in boats for one reason or another to be loaded aboard the homeward bound vessel near the mouth of the river, they were put up in eighty pound packs. See John McLoughlin to Governor and Committee, Fort Vancouver, April 11, 1827, in H.B.S., 4:49.

43. George Simpson McTavish, Behind the Palisades: An Autobiography (Victoria: Colonist Printers Limited, 1963), p. 101; In a directive that perhaps applied only to the depot at York Factory, the Council of the Northern Department in 1840 resolved that to prevent "a recurrence of the inaccuracies found of late years in the Depot Fur Packing Accts.," a commissioned gentleman or clerk placed in charge "of that branch of the Depot duties" should in the future "check the accounts of his subordinate by passing every skin through his own hands." "Minutes of the Council of the Northern Department," p. 791.

44. Edward Taylor to George Simpson, Hudson's Bay House, London, May 20, 1840, in H.B.C.A., D.5/5, MS, fols. 275-276.

45. H.B.C.A., D.5/5, MS, fols. 312-312d. See also the instruction of the Council of the Northern Department for 1840, in "Minutes of the Council of the Northern Department," pp. 789-90.

46. H.B.C., Correspondence Book, Fort Vancouver, 1834-1835, H.B.C.A., B.223/b/10, MS, fols. 25-25d.

47. Cowie, Company of Adventurers, p. 277; For a picture of furs airing in a fort yard see Plate X. During the airing and cleaning operations a close watch had to be kept on the furs, because the small and more valuable pelts like marten and mink were a great temptation to Indians and whites alike. Terry Pettus, "Frolic at Fort Nisqually," The Beaver Outfit 292 (Summer, 1961): 12; The poles used for beating, at least at certain posts and at certain times, were about 1-1/2 inches in diameter.

48. Lowe, "Private Journal," pp. 1, 41.

49. H.B.S., 4:106.

50. H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1844, H.B.C.A., B.223/d/154, MS, fols. 2d—l1.

51. Emil Teichmann, A Journey to Alaska in the Year 1868: Being A Diary of the Late Emil Teichmann, ed. Oskar Teichmann (New York: Argosy-Antiquarian Ltd., 1963), p. 108.

52. Alaska Herald (San Francisco), July 1, 1869, p. 2.

53. John Dunn, The Oregon Territory, and the British North American Fur Trade. With An Account of the Habits and Customs of the Principal Native Tribes on the Northern Continent (Philadelphia: G. B. Zieber & Co., 1845), pp. 103-4; In 1825 McLoughlin said that the furs were "repeatedly" beaten during the summer, "particularly before Baling." H.B.S., 4:15; John Kirk Townsend, who reached Fort Vancouver in 1834, recorded that the furs were taken from the warehouses once a week for beating. Narrative of a Journey Across the Rocky Mountains, to the Columbia River, and a Visit to the Sandwich Islands, Chili, &c with a Scientific Appendix, in Reuben Gold Thwaites, ed., Early Western Travels, vol. 21 (Cleveland, 1905), pp. 297-98.

54. H.B.S., 6:171.

55. Lowe, "Private Journal," p. 4.

56. Fort Vancouver, Correspondence Outward, 1850-1858, Letters Signed by Dugald Mactavish, MSS, in Provincial Archives of British Columbia.

57. J. A. Grahame to Thomas Fraser, Vancouver, April 6, 1859, in H.B.C.A., B.223/b/42, MS, fols. 121-122A. It will be noted later in this chapter that jack screws were regularly on inventory in the Fort Vancouver warehouses during 1844 and subsequent years.

58. H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1844, H.B.C.A., B.223/d/154, MS, fols. 2d-10.

59. H.B.S., 4:30. This weight may have been less than usual because McLoughlin was not able to obtain deerskins for wrappers.

60. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/154, MS, fols. 2d-3; Because eight large and four small bearskins together weighed about eighty pounds, a single large skin weighed perhaps seven or eight pounds. Hunter, Canadian Wilds, p. 78.

61. Barker, Letters of Dr. John McLoughlin, p. 22; H.B.S., 4:31, 59-60, 74.

62. McTavish, Behind the Palisades, p. 101; H.B.C.A., D.5/5, MS, fols. 275—276.

63. H.B.S., 4:59 fn.

64. H.B.C.A., D.5/5, MS, fols. 275-276.

65. Ibid. Beaver pelts were not to be used as wrappers, however. Ibid., fols. 312—312d.

66. H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, H.B.C.A., B.223/d/172, fol. 10d.

67. J. Douglas and P. S. Ogden to W. F. Tolmie, Fort Vancouver, April 20, 1848, in Fort Vancouver, Correspondence Outward, 1845-1849, Letters Signed by Peter Skene Ogden and James Douglas, in Provincial Archives of British Columbia.

68. For example, see H.B.S., 4:80; Robinson, Great Fur Land, p. 340.

69. Robinson, Great Fur Land, p. 340; See also George W. Ebbert, "A Trapper's Life in the Rocky Mountains & Oregon, from 1829 to 1839," MS, in the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, p. 40.

70. H.B.S., 4:70, 80. Tobacco was put in the casks in 1829.

71. H.B.C.A., D.5/5, MS, fols. 275-276.

72. For example, see Lowe, "Private Journal," p. 41.

73. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/154, MS, fols. 2d—6.

74. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/154, MS, fols. 2d—11.

75. Lowe, "Private Journal," p. 8. Incidentally, the fact that it was raining "very hard" that day serves to strengthen the hypothesis that the press was located indoors, unless, of course, the otters were being put up in puncheons; The furs sent to Sitka were by no means inconsiderable in number. Each year 2,000 seasoned land otters traded on the west side of the Rockies had to be paid as rent. In addition, up to an additional 2,000 "west side" otters, if available, had to be sold at fixed prices to the Russians, and 3,000 prime "east side" otters were sent across the mountains each fall by the express to be sold at Sitka. "Minutes of the Council of the Northern Department," pp. 772, 788, 820, 853-57.

76. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/154, MS, fols. 2d-10.

77. J. McLoughlin to Captain [Robert] Royal, Fort Vancouver, August 2, 1833, in H.B.C.A., B.223/b/9, fols. 10d-11. Captain Royal on this occasion was taking on the cargo at Fort George instead of at Fort Vancouver, but the procedure undoubtedly was the same.

78. Ibid.; H.B.S., 4:106.

79. See H.B.C., Fort Vancouver, Miscellaneous Items, H.B.C.A., B.223/z/4, MS, passim.

80. For example, see H.B.S. 6:162; H B.C.A., B.223/b/32, MS, fols. 86d-87.

81. For the performance of such service by Thomas Lowe, J. A. Grahame, and William McBean, as well as by Roberts, see Lowe, "Private Journal," pp. 4, 8, 41.

82. British and American Joint Commission for the Final Settlement of the Claims of the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Agricultural Companies, [Papers,] 14 vols. (Washington, D.C. and Montreal, 1865-69), [2:]118—19 (hereafter cited as Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers). For the reasoning leading to the identification of Building No. 8 as one of these "Stores," see pp. 238-39, 251-52, in vol. I of this report.

83. Caywood, Final Report, pp. 10-11, and Map of Archeological Excavations, sheets 2 and 5.

84. J. J. Hoffman, Memorandums to Regional Archeologist, Pacific Northwest Region, National Park Service, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, July 3 and September 1, 1972, MSS, in files of Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Seattle; The exact lengths of the walls, as measured on footing centers in 1972, were: north wall, 99.55 ft.; east wall, 39.35 ft.; south wall, 98.70 ft.; and west wall, 37.85 ft. Because of the size of the corner footings, about 1.0 to 1.5 ft. wide and 4.0 to 4.5 ft. long, Mr. Hoffman is confident that the actual structure was no less than 40 by 100 ft." J. J. Hoffman to J. A, Hussey, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, January 29, 1973.

85. J. J. Hoffman, Memorandums, July 3 and September 1, 1972; J. J. Hoffman to J. A. Hussey, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, December 5, 1973, in possession of the writer.

86. J. J. Hoffman, Memorandum, July 3, 1972.

87. Henry J. Warre, Sketches in North America and the Oregon Territory, By Captain H. Warre, with introd. by Archibald Hanna, Jr. (Barre, Massachusetts: Imprint Society, 1970), Plate 40. The same condition shows, but not as clearly, in the Warre watercolor sketch reproduced as Plate X in vol. I of this report.

88. During the late 1860s, while testimony was being gathered for the adjudication of the Company's claims against the United States, the firm's lawyers attempted to persuade one witness, W. H. Gray, to admit that the upright timbers in the storehouse walls were twenty-two feet long, but he refused to concede that they rose beyond sixteen feet. Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [8:]184.

89. J. J. Hoffman to J. A. Hussey, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, January 29, 1973.

90. See sources cited in Hussey, History of Fort Vancouver, p. 185.

91. A portion of the east face of what seems to be the Fur Store is shown in the Paul Kane pencil sketch of 1846-47 (Plate XIV, vol. I). What appears to be a single window is visible in the center of the second floor wall. Because this evidence contradicts that by Coode and is not supported by the oil painting of ca. 1847-48 (Plate XVI, vol. 1) that shows no window, it must be discounted.

92. The 1854 view by an unknown artist (Plate XX, vol. I) shows at least five windows on each floor across the front of the Fur Store and at least two on the second story of the west wall: This drawing is so unreliable, however, that it cannot be accepted as valid evidence.

93. See sources cited on p. 118 in vol. I of this report.

94. In the requisition of goods for the Columbia District for Outfit 1845, signed on March 19, 1842, Chief Factor Douglas requested from England "4 doz. prs. wrot. iron Hinges & Hold fasts, 24 ins. long, Eye 3/4 ins, in Diam. w[it]h hold fasts whose Dia. will of course suit the Hinge eye, with a sufficient number of nails to fasten the hinges." H.B.C.A., B.223/d/207, MS, fol. 88. Hinges of other sizes, with nails, were also ordered. However, Fort Vancouver inventories reveal that "wood screw Nails" and "wood Screws" were regularly stocked at the depot.

95. For example, see inventory of 1848 in H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1848, H.B.C.A., B.223/d/181, MS, fol. 37.

96. J. A. Hussey, interview with staff of National Heritage Limited, 322 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 14, 1973. A color sample was not available at that time, but it is suggested that architects working on the restoration of Fort Vancouver get in touch with National Heritage Limited on this subject.

97. James Robert Anderson, "Fort Vancouver, Oregon: Description of Interior of Fort by J. R. Anderson, Victoria, B. C., Presented to Mrs. A. H. Cree," typescript, in Provincial Archives of British Columbia, p. 1.

98. H.B.C.A., B.223/z/4, MS. The items in this shipment represent partial returns from Outfits 1842 and 1843 that had a valuation of L36,348.16.2. H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1838-1860, H.B.C.A., B.223/d/212, MS, fol. 69.

99. H.B.S., 7:52.

100. H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1844, H.B.C.A., B.223/d/154, MS, fols. 10d-11. The valuation of the furs in this ship ment was L35,896.17.1. Ibid., fol. 13.

101. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/212, MS, fol. 94; The term "ox" as used in invoices of returns evidently was synonymous with "cattle" or " cow," because 5,729 of them were included in the returns of Fort Vancouver for 1843, and most of them were from California. Fort Vancouver, Fur Trade Returns, Columbia District and New Caledonia, 1825-1857, MS, in Provincial Archives of British Columbia, n.p. However, such large shipments of hides were not counted as furs on the usual invoices. Whether or not they were stored in the Fur Store is not known.

102. See requests from depot personnel to London and subsidiary posts to return or send empty puncheons and casks. H.B.S., 4:80; H.B.C., Correspondence Book, Fort Victoria, 1844-1845, H.B.C.A., B.226/b/1, MS, fol. 31d.

103. H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1848, H.B.C.A., B.223/d/181, MS, fol. 81-81d.

104. R. Harvey Fleming, ed., Minutes of Council Northern Department of Rupert Land, 1821-31, Publications of the Champlain Society, Hudson's Bay Company Series, vol. 3 (Toronto, 1940), p. 380.

105. For general descriptions of weighing beams and steelyards, with references to additional sources of information, see John A. Hussey, Historic Furnishings Report, Bakery, Fort Vancouver (Denver: National Park Service [Denver Service Center], December 1973), pp. 103-5.