Fort Vancouver Historic Structures Report

History and location

South and southeast of the sale shop there stood in 1845-1846 two large warehouses which were so much alike in function and appearance that it seems desirable to treat them together. They were the building presently designated as no. 5 on the Site Plan, Historic Structures Report, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site (plate II of this report), which was known in Company days as the "Store," or "New Store;" and the structure now called Building no. 7, known to the employees of the Honorable Company as "Stores," or "Receiving Store."

As was seen in the last chapter, these structures were erected during the period from about 1843 to 1845 to replace, or at least reconstruct, earlier buildings of approximately the same sizes which stood on or near the same sites. In 1841 the building which stood where the "New Store" was located in 1845 was described by Lieutenant George Foster Emmons as a "General Store House -- provisions, Dry goods, Hardware, &c." The site of the 1845 "Receiving Store" was occupied in 1841 by the "Building for Furs &c." [1]

Evidently not long after Emmons drew his ground plan in 1841 it was decided that more warehouse space was required for the large stocks of trade goods, provisions, maritime stores, and other items kept on hand at the Fort Vancouver Depot, the supply point for the far-flung posts of the Columbia Department. By the end of 1844 the Fur Store no longer occupied the site of Building no. 7; it had been moved to the eastward a few feet into the structure now designated as Building no. 8. [2] The area thus left free was utilized for a new warehouse, known as the "Receiving Store," the present Building no. 7.

Seemingly it was somewhat later, in the spring of 1844, that the former "General Store House," the more southerly of the two warehouses along the west palisade, was demolished, entirely or in part, and work started on its replacement, the present Building no. 5, the "New Store."

The little that is known about the histories of these two new warehouses may be summarized as follows:

Building no. 5, the "New Store." In his journal for September 10, 1844, Clerk Thomas Lowe made the following notation: "Baron and a party of men employed at the New Store adjoining the Sale Shop which was commenced last Spring." [3] On October 15 he again mentioned this building: "Baron with a few men began to shingle the new Store next [to] the Sale Shop." [4]

Though these words are few, they tell a great deal. First, they indicate that the "New Store" was begun in the spring of 1844 and completed about the end of October that same year. Second, by describing the new structure as adjoining the sale shop they fix its location precisely, for the only building standing in such a position was the one presently called Building no. 5, which stood directly to the south of the trading store. In fact, on two versions of the Vavasour ground plan of 1845 and in the Coode water color of 1846-1847, the "New Store" is shown linked to the sale shop by structural elements of undeterminable nature (see plates VI, VII and XI).

The "New Store" seems to have been one of the two warehouses which were not torn down by the army during the two or three weeks of destruction which followed the military takeover of the Company's establishment on June 14, 1860. It probably fell prey to firewood scavengers, to decay, and perhaps to fire during the next several years. [5]

Building no. 7, the "Receiving Store." On July 23, 1844, Thomas Lowe noted in his diary: "Mr. Roberts putting up some articles for the N. W. Coast in the Store." [6] When one begins to speculate as to which building this particular "Store" was, one reaches an interesting conclusion. This "Store" undoubtedly was not the present Building no. 4, which Lowe consistently called the "Sale Shop." It certainly was not Building no. 5, because as we have just seen, this "New Store" had not been completed by July, 1844. And it probably was not Building no 8, which Lowe called the "Fur Store." Therefore, since "the Store" of July 23, 1844, must have been one of the four large warehouses then in the fort, it almost certainly was the present Building no. 7.

A year later, on June 5, 1845, Lowe entered the words, "began to shingle the Receiving Store," in his journal. [7] This "Receiving Store" clearly was not Building no. 5, the "New Store," because that building had been shingled the preceding fall. Neither was it, in all probability, Building no. 4, the "Sale Shop," or Building no. 8, the "Fur Store" since, as we have seen, Lowe seems always to have referred to those structures by name. Also, the sale shop is known to have been shingled just prior to June 5, 1845. Therefore, the "Receiving Store" very probably was the one presently called Building no. 7.

If this reasoning is correct, the "Receiving Store" had been completed and was in use by mid-1844. At that time it probably had a plank roof which was replaced by a shingled one during the summer of the next year.

Building no. 7 was situated parallel with the south palisade, east of and at right angle to the south end of Building no. 5. It was among the structures turned over to the army in mid-1860, and its fate seems to have been the same as that of the "New Store.

It will he noted that this building was near the west gate in the south palisade. This entrance provided the closest access into the fort from the wharf, and a warehouse almost adjacent to it would have been advantageously located for receiving cargo imported from London.

Warehouse operations In a sense, the warehouses or "stores" at Fort Vancouver were the very heart of the Company's business in the entire area west of the Rocky Mountains, from Mexican California on the south to Russian Alaska on the north. To a degree, Fort Vancouver operated as any other headquarters post for a fur-trading district. Through its own Indian sale shop and the subsidiary posts of Fort George and Fort Umpqua as well other trading activities, it collected peltries in return for goods of various types. This activity was segregated in the Company's account books under the heading "Fort Vancouver Fur Trade."

By far the more important aspect of the post's affairs, however, was that conducted under the heading "Fort Vancouver Depot." Into this category fell all the activities having to do with Vancouver's position as administrative headquarters, supply point, and shipping port for the vast Columbia Department. The office, the principal warehouses, the mills, the farm, the bakery, the boat sheds and shipyard, and the several shops for artisans were primarily depot facilities.

To the depot the annual supply ships from England brought the trade goods and other necessities for the Company's operations west of the Rockies, and from there, in turn, the goods were distributed by coastal vessel, river boat, and pack train to the far-flung posts of the department. And to Fort Vancouver each year were brought the fur returns from the entire region. Here they were packed and shipped off to the auctions in London.

By late 1845, the period in which we are primarily interested for purposes of this study, the importance of Fort Vancouver as a depot had begun to decline. The Company for years had desired to find a more central location on the Northwest Coast for its depot, one which would eliminate the need to risk each year the entire departmental supplies and returns in crossing the dangerous bar at the mouth of the Columbia River. The unsettled boundary question and the growing agressiveness of American settlers in the Oregon Country also caused apprehension. Dr. McLoughlin was long able to delay such a move by pointing out that the Columbia River offered the only practicable route for getting supplies into the vast interior area.

But Governor George Simpson ordered the construction of a new depot on Vancouver Island in 1842, and the post, known as Fort Victoria, was built during the next year. The arrival of the "great immigration" of American settlers in 1843 and the formation of the Oregon Provisonal Government made it clear that Great Britain might not be able to maintain its position in Oregon, at least south of the 49th parallel.

The uncertainty surrounding the future of Fort Vancouver was recognized by the Governor and Committee in London. Late in 1844 they instructed the captain of the annual supply ship Vancouver to proceed directly to Fort Victoria rather than to the Columbia. The vessel reached Victoria in February, 1845, and there landed the portion of her cargo destined for the Northwest Coast. Late in March she visited Fort Vancouver to discharge the supplies for the Columbia and the inland posts. [8]

In January, 1845, Simpson warned McLoughlin of the large immigration expected to reach Oregon from the United States during the year. In order to "guard against lawless aggression," the Governor recommended that no more goods be kept at Fort Vancouver than absolutely necessary to meet immediate demands. The "reserved outfit" for the Columbia River posts -- that maintained for a year in advance as a protection in case of a disaster to the supply ships -- should be kept at Fort Victoria along with all the supplies for the Northwest Coast. Furthermore, said Simpson, the furs for the entire Columbia Department should be collected at Victoria instead of Fort Vancouver, and the vessels sailing for England with the annual returns should take their departure from the new post. In other words, the departmental depot was to remain at Fort Vancouver no longer. [9]

During the spring of 1845, McLoughlin took the first step to effect the change by ordering the furs from the coast to be left at Fort Victoria. On July 19 of that year he promised the Governor and Committee that the returns from the interior would he sent there as soon as a vessel was available. [10]

Thus the warehouses as reconstructed at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site should reflect in their furnishings a certain diminution in activity. However, the effects of the new policy on the stocks of warehoused goods probably were slight before the departure of the inland brigade in the summer of 1846. Evidently the first complete departmental reserve stock of goods to be placed in storage at Fort Victoria was that for Outfit 1847, which did not arrive there until the spring of 1846. [11] It should be remembered that the great bulk of the trade goods for the Columbia Department, including New Caledonia (the present inland British Columbia), still had to be transported laboriously up the Columbia River by modified York boats, known as Columbia boats, to such posts as Fort Walla Walla, Fort Okanogan, and Fort Colvile, from whence they were sent by pack animal to the still-more-distant outposts. Thus the amount of goods kept on hand at Fort Vancouver, at least until the departure of all the inland boats, would have been impressive even without the reserve outfit.

It was the function of the New Store and the Receiving Store, the two buildings we are concerned with in this chapter, to house the precious cargoes of imported goods which were the lifeblood of the Company's western fur trade. Although information on the subject is slight, it seems to have been the practice to house in one store the "goods opened for the current year's business, that is, to sell to their men and to send off to the various stations" and in the other the advance supplies for the following year. [12] From its name, one would suppose that the Receiving Store was the latter.

The business conducted in the two warehouses was essentially a wholesale operation. The goods received from London were charged by the Northern Department to the account of the Columbia District. [13] It was the duty of the clerk in charge of the stores -- who from July, 1844, to December, 1846, was George B. Roberts -- to check the supplies against the bills of lading. He also opened the goods for the current year's operations, sorted them according to the orders from the different posts, and packed them for shipment. The items going to the outlying establishments and to Vancouver's own sale shop were charged against the accounts of the posts "as if they belonged to outsiders." [14]

The process by which goods reached the warehouses started several years before their actual arrival. First the individual post commander or the district chief trader, sometimes nearly four years in advance, made out orders for the supplies he would need for a particular year or outfit. These were then consolidated by Dr. McLoughlin three years in advance to make up a requisition or "indent" for the entire Columbia Department.

The ordering of these goods was perhaps the most important responsibility of the Company's field officers. There was little room for error, because once one of the more distant posts received its outfit it had to be "as self-sufficient as a ship at sea" for an entire year. [15] The whole prosperity of the trade depended upon the receipt of the right types of goods in the right quantities.

The indent which Dr. McLoughlin prepared for Outfit 1838, for example, was signed by him at Fort Vancouver on March 2, 1835. This requisition was carried by the Company's express across the continent to the great depot at York Factory on Hudson Bay, from whence it was sent by ship to England. A duplicate order was dispatched later in the year directly to London in the vessel conveying the annual fur returns. Sometimes patterns or samples of certain desired goods were sent along in an attempt to assure the receipt of items of desired size and quality.

The order was filled by the firm's London office after review, and evidently sometimes after minor changes, by the officers of the Northern Department at York Factory and by the home office staff. [16] Purchases usually were made directly from the manufacturers, sometimes based upon the Company's own specifications.

But such measures did not always assure the receipt of high quality products. In March, 1846, for instance, Chief Factors Peter Skene Ogden and James Douglas complained "in the strongest terms" of the cotton goods purchased from Laurie, Hamilton & Co. "They are of the worst quality, and the colors invariably fade, in washing, or exposure to the light," the factors told the Governor and Committee. "Some cases of the Navy blues, have been utterly destroyed, we presume in the dying. Any such found in future we will return." [17]

It was McLoughlin's intention, when he made out his order on March 2, 1835, that the requested goods should be shipped from London in the fall of 1836, since that season was the usual one for the departure of the annual supply vessel to the Columbia. There was some delay in chartering a ship, however, and it was about the end of January, 1837, before the Sumatra sailed with the supplies for Outfit 1838. She did not reach Fort Vancouver until the fall of 1837, several months later than was customary. But McLoughlin did not complain. The cargo was in "excellent order," and it was transferred to the warehouses for use during the trading year which would begin on June 1, 1838. [18]

The bulging warehouses of Fort Vancouver were always objects of interest to visitors. Mrs. Whitman, in 1836, was among those who, as she wrote in her diary, "went to the stores & found them filled with the cargos of the two ships both above & below, all in unbroken bails." [19] Lieutenant Emmons of the Wilkes party found "quite a large variety & quantity of stores and Furs on hand -- much order and system in the general arrang[e]ment. . . ." [20]

The great bulk of the incoming cargo arrived from London in "huge bales" and large boxes and barrels of various types. Most of the bales consisted of blankets, drygoods, and clothing. In 1847 the Columbia Department factors asked that the bales of moleskin be "wrapped in blankets and each piece to be put up in stout paper, to prevent injury or stain from the effects of the voyage." [21] By the 1860's "tarred inside wrappers" were being used to protect the bales. [22] It is assumed that the bales of the early 1840's had some type of protective wrapping, but its nature has not yet been learned by the present writer. These bales and large containers were routinely unpacked in the stores and made up into smaller bundles for shipment to the individual posts.

Another part of the cargo consisted of what were known as "whole pieces" -- smaller bales, cases, boxes, and kegs of suitable weight and size for inland transport and, particularly, for portaging on the backs of voyageurs. These smaller units were made up in London with a view to saving repacking. They generally weighed a hundredweight or less.

Typical "whole pieces" were small bales of blankets and cloth; "tin-lined cases of small hardware; kegs of gunpowder (sixty-six and two-thirds pounds net) and sugar, chests of tea (of one hundred weight and half a hundredweight net); rolls and 'serons' of tobacco, done up in red-painted canvas, and weighing one hundredweight; double canvas bags of ball and shot, each one hundredweight; cases of yellow soap and long cases of Indian flintlock guns." [23]

Each bundle, bale, and box in the cargo bore a shipping mark, indicating the outfit and the destination for which it was intended. For instance, most of the goods received at Vancouver by the barque Brothers in June, 1844, were marked 45/_C, meaning they were for use during Outfit 1845 in the Columbia District. Some, however, were marked 45/_NS indicating that they contained naval stores for use during that trading year. Still others, bearing the symbol 45/_B were destined for use on the Company's steamer, Beaver, which operated on the Northwest Coast. [24]

During March of 1845 the barque Vancouver landed the goods marked intended for use on the Northwest Coast during Outfit 1846, at Fort Victoria. Then she proceeded to the Columbia River and Fort Vancouver to land the cargo marked 46/_C. [25]

It will be noted that in this section of the report no attempt is made to give a detailed list of the types and quantities of goods received in the shipments from England and housed in the stores. Such exact inventories will be found in the later section of this chapter headed "Furnishings." The purpose of the present section is to outline the functions of the warehouses and to give a general idea of the sizes, shapes, and appearance of the goods housed there so that architects and curators can plan interior layouts and perhaps arrangements of goods and equipment which might illustrate key activities.

It should be made clear at this point that not only imported goods were stored in the warehouses. The Company also gathered in for its own use at the posts and for the conduct of its operations, as well as for sale to Indians, employees, and settlers, a considerable quantity of what was termed "country produce." Such items included the products of its own farms, such as wheat, dried peas, salt beef and pork, and even vegetable seeds. Also coming under this heading were such fruits of hunting and fishing as pickled salmon, deer skins, elk skins, and "Cape Flattery Oil." These goods, if of suitable type, were stored in bags and barrels manufactured at Fort Vancouver or at the post which produced the goods.

Another class of locally produced goods was called "country made articles." Under this heading came items fabricated in the Columbia Department's own tradesmen's shops, generally from imported raw materials. So classified were axe heads, canvas shot bags, tin boxes, tin candlesticks, garden hoes, beaver traps, and many other articles.

It is apparent from such sources as Clerk Thomas Lowe's journal that trade goods and supplies flowed out from the depot warehouses to the subordinate posts at intervals throughout the business year, often as special needs had to be met or as transportation was available. On July 23, 1844, for instance, Clerk George B. Roberts was busy "putting up some articles for the N. W. Coast in the Store." During the first half of 1846, two boats left Vancouver on February 1 with part of the Colvile outfit. On March 5 goods for the interior to be left at Walla Walla, were sent forward in four boats. Early in April two more boats left for The Dalles laden with flour, "part of the Snake Country Outfit." On June 5 the vessel Columbia sailed with supplies for Stikine and the steamer Beaver. Then, on June 30, the big depletion of the stores came when the interior Brigade of nine boats started its usual mid-summer journey up stream for the upper Columbia and New Caledonia. [26]

It was the responsibility of the clerk in charge of the stores to assemble the articles called for by the requisition from each post and to pack them into bundles or "pieces" of about 90 pounds each which could be stowed in small boats, carried by pack animals, and portaged by voyageurs. This process consisted of more than simply opening bales and bundling up, say, so many blankets and so many pieces of cloth, and then augmenting the smaller packages with an assortment of "whole pieces" from London. Care had to be taken to distribute goods and articles of the same type throughout a number of bundles which would be shipped in different boats so that in case of upset in the river or other accident a post's entire yearly supply of, say, capotes would not be lost.

Also, breakable articles, glassware, had to be protected or other drygoods. No packing such as bottles of medicine and by being wrapped in sashes, blankets, in paper, straw, or other waste material that would add weight or bulk was permitted. Since space in the boats was at a premium, articles were "nested" wherever possible. [27]

The Company's clerks had many "tricks of the trade" by which they made sure that fragile items survived the rigors of the long and difficult journeys to the outposts. Window glass suffered a high casualty rate until someone thought of dipping the panes into heated molasses before packing them in boxes. When the "black strap" cooled it firmly glued the panes together into a shock-resistant mass. After the cargo reached its destination, hot water was applied to dissolve the molasses, which was salvaged by the employees to sweeten their tea. It is small wonder that the clerks considered making up the outfits for the subordinate districts and posts to be "an art of calculation and accuracy." [28]

Not everyone was as charmed with these "perfect packages" as were the clerks who assembled them, however. When J. W. Dease complained in 1827 that some articles in his post's requisition had not been received, McLoughlin admitted: "It may be that some other place has these things and got mixed with theirs in the Baling Room." [29] And protests against the practices that permitted goods such as crockery and pipes to arrive broken at their destinations were not infrequent. [30]

Evidently the final wrapping and tieing of each piece, at least those which were not made up of rigid boxes and which could stand some degree of compression, were performed in a press. The type of protective covering used at Fort Vancouver during the 1840's is not known.

The invariable final touch on each piece was the mark to indicate the outfit, the destination, and the number of the bale or box in the shipment. At certain times and places this mark was placed on a board or slat which was lashed to the bundle with the wrapping cord (see plate CIX). [31] At other times and places it was placed directly on the wrapper or cover with marking pencil or perhaps some type of ink or paint (plate CX). The method used at Fort Vancouver during the 1840's is not known.

But something is known of the marks themselves. Seemingly in the 1840's it was the custom to place the year of the outfit over the symbol for the post. Thus 43/_FN #1 stood for Outfit 1843, destination Fort Nisqually, bale number 1 of the shipment. [32] By the mid-1850's, on the other hand, all the elements of the mark seem to have been placed on a single level, thus: 54 C #2 meaning Outfit 1854, destination Fort Colvile, bale number 2. [33]

From the two sources cited in the paragraph immediately above and from a scattering of other primary materials, a partial list of post symbols used in packing marks has been assembled. Unfortunately these symbols varied from time to time, so it does not seem possible to be sure which ones were in use at Fort Vancouver in 1845-1846. At any rate, some of those which are known to have been used during the 1840's and 1850's are as follows:

The departure of a supply brigade involved a vast amount of paper work. Not only were detailed inventories kept of the outfits going to each post, but exact lists were kept of what was in each piece or bundle of each outfit. One copy of this list, called a packing account, went to the receiving post. If the same practice was followed as in shipping furs, a piece of paper was tucked into each bundle bearing a list of its contents and a copy of the mark, thus providing a means of identification should the outside marking be lost or damaged in transit. [34]

Due to the feeling for history possessed by a long-time Company employee, some of the highly ephemeral packing accounts associated with the Fort Vancouver stores have been preserved. One, for a shipment of "sundries" sent from Fort Vancouver to Fort Nisqually on September 26, 1843, seems worth reproducing at least in part:

Construction details

a. Dimensions and footings. Building no. 5 scales out on the Vavasour ground plan of late 1845 to measure about 38 feet wide and 93 feet long (plate VII). The inventory of 1846-1847 lists a "Store No. 2" with dimensions of 90 feet by 40 feet. [36] This structure, through a process of comparing the measurements of all the warehouses listed with the sizes of the warehouses as shown on the Vavasour plan, can be identified beyond reasonable doubt as the structure presently known as Building no. 5. Archeological excavations in 1952 uncovered the footings at three corners of this "New Store" and most of the wall footings. According to the footings, as plotted by Mr. Caywood, the building was about 40 feet wide and 92.5 feet long. [37] As usual, the footings were spaced 10 feet between centers.

Building no. 7 was depicted on the Vavasour map as being about 40 feet by 98 feet. The 1846-1847 lists two warehouses, "Stores Nos. 3 & 4," of which Building no. 7 certainly was one, as measuring 40 feet by 100 feet. All four corners were located by archeologists in 1952. According to their findings, the building dimensions were very close to those in the inventory, 40' x 100'. The footings were spaced as in the other warehouses. [38]

b. General construction. The two stores here under discussion were built in the same general manner as was the sale shop described in the previous chapter except that, being longer, they had more 10-foot sections or bays in their front and rear walls. The general appearance and construction of such massive timber structures so typical of Hudson's Bay Company posts are well illustrated by two photographs of the so-called "Athabasco Building" at Fort Edmonton, Alberta (plates LXXXVIII and LXXXIX). Both were two-story structures with the usual "Hudson Bay" hipped roofs. They were not weather-boarded, and most probably the timbers of which they were made were sawed not hand-hewn. No chinking is visible in the 1860 photograph which shows part of the "New Store." The roofs were shingled, probably with boards at the ridges.

From the 1860 photograph it appears that Building no. 5 may have been slightly higher than the sale shop, but the eaves seem to have been at about the same level on both structures. No available picture permits one to judge the relative height of Building no. 7 beyond the fact that it was a two-story structure.

The fact that there were no stoves or fireplaces, and hence no chimneys, in Company warehouses has already been mentioned in connection with the treatment of the sale shop. This point seems to require reiteration here. [39]

Doors. The only knowledge we have of the doors in these buildings comes from the Coode sketch of 1846-1847 (plate XI). This drawing shows one door in the center of the front wall of each structure. These doors seem to be wider than that on the front of the sale shop, and they have arched tops. One can almost be certain that they were double doors.

Fortunately, an excellent example of this type of double, arched door and arched door frame survives in the original granary at the restored Fort Nisqually, Tacoma, Washington, (see plate CXI). There are H.A.B.S. measured drawings of this latter structure.

Probably the door in the front or north wall of Building no. 7 was the only exterior door in the receiving store. But in the case of the "New Store," Building no. 5, there undoubtedly was at least one other exterior door besides that visible in the Coode sketch. As has been observed, this building was linked to its neighbor on the north, the sale shop, by a roofed passage way or platform of some sort. Almost certainly there were doors in both structures to permit the transfer of goods from one to the other.

Very probably a ramp rather than stairs led from the yard level to the threshold of the front door to facilitate the movement of heavy bales and barrels. Such a ramp at Fort Vancouver may be seen at the entrance to the granary in one of the 1860 photographs (plate XXVIII).

Windows. The windows in the two warehouses under consideration here pose several difficult problems. It will simplify matters to treat each structure separately.

(1) Building no. 5, the "New Store." The Coode water color of 1845-1846 pictures almost all of the front wall of this structure. Assuming that the most southerly window on the first floor is hidden behind the corner of Building no. 7, the sketch seems to indicate that there were six windows on the lower floor and three windows on the upper floor (plate XI).

But most of the northern half of Building no. 5 is visible in the photograph of the northwest corner of the fort enclosure taken in May, 1860 (plate XXVIII). This picture shows the four northern 10-foot bays in the front wall, and in the center of each bay there is a window. Since this building had nine bays across its entire front, one of which contained the door, there must have been eight windows across the lower story front if the same window spacing was used in the southern half as was employed in the northern. As can be seen from pictures of the warehouses at Fort Edmonton (plates LXXXVIII and LXXXIX) and the structures at Fort Langley (plate XXXVII), it was common Company practice to place windows in the centers of each bay across the fronts of major buildings.

Therefore, the present writer is inclined toward the conclusion that Coode erred in this instance as he seems to have in others. The alternative, that the number of windows was changed from six to eight between 1847 and 1860, does not seem so probable.

On the other hand, the 1860 photograph seems to confirm the information given by Coode to the effect that there were three windows across the second story front of the "New Store." The photograph shows one upper-story window, in the third bay from the north end of the building. If this same spacing was followed in the southern half of the wall, and if there was one window in the center over the door as shown by Coode, the total number of windows on the second story would have been three.

Turning to the rear or west wall of Building no. 5, we find no picture which shows the first-floor windows. One can only assume that there were nine windows, one in the center of each bay to match those in the front wall. Undoubtedly such openings were heavily barred and shuttered. When it comes to the second story, however, there is a plethora of conflicting information. One sketch said to have been drawn in 1854 shows six upper-story windows (plate XX); the Sohon lithograph of 1854 and the very similar Covington view of the next year show four windows (plates XXI and XXII); and a drawing by an army officer about 1860 shows five (plate XXVI). Because the Sohon and Covington drawings agreed with the very accurate Gibbs sketch in the case of the sale shop (the "New Store" windows are obscured in the Gibbs picture), the present writer is inclined to credit their evidence.

No known picture shows the windows on the south wall of the "New Store," and only one, the 1854 drawing by an unidentified artist, depicts the windows on the north wall, and then only for the second story. According to this view, there were four windows upstairs in the north wall (plate XX). This sketch contains many inaccuracies, and it is particularly suspect with regard to the "New Store" because it does not show the roof linking that structure to the sale shop. Nevertheless, in view of what is known about the windows on the end walls of the Receiving Store, as will be brought out under the next heading, one is inclined to accept the evidence given by the 1854 picture.

In fact, if one were to guess, as one must in this case, one might suspect that there were four windows on each floor in the south wall, four on the second floor in the north wall, and three windows and a door at the main floor level in the north wall.

As shown by the 1860 photograph, the windows in the "New Store" were smaller than those in the sale shop. From the prints available one cannot make out the number of panes or ascertain whether the windows were double-hung or casement in type. It is clear, however, that the openings were protected by large, single shutters which opened toward the south.

(2) Building no. 7, the "Receiving Store." Only two pictures thus far known give any information about the windows in the Receiving Store. The Coode water color shows this structure as having only two windows, in addition to the door, on the lower story of the front or north wall and three windows on the second story. It will be recalled that this wall was about 100 feet long. Although it scarcely seems possible that such a lengthy wall would have had so few windows, there seems no choice but to accept Coode's evidence, which is all there is.

The credibility of Coode's sketch is enhanced by what he shows of the east wall of the Receiving Store. Although only a small sector of the wall is visible, it is evident from the spacing of the windows shown that there were four windows on each floor. In other words, there was a window in the center of each bay on each story of the east wall. Such an arrangement would have gone far to compensate for the lack of light through front wall openings.

A drawing of Fort Vancouver by Lieutenant J. W. Hopkins about 1860 provides a distant and indistinct view of the west end of the Receiving Store. Only one window is shown (plate XXVI). Probably, however, the west wall was much the same as the east wall.

No view showing the windows on the south wall is known. It can only be assumed that the arrangement was similar to that on the front wall, that is three windows on the upper floor and three windows on the lower (in place of the two windows and one door in the north wall).

Exterior finish. The outside walls of these two warehouses were unpainted. However, the Coode water color shows the doors and windows as being much darker than the walls and reddish brown in color. The 1860 photograph which includes the northern part of the "New Store" also seems to indicate that the shutters were darker than the walls. Thus it is possible that the doors and shutters on these buildings were painted the "Spanish brown" color so widely favored at fur-trade establishments.

Although the structural details of the "New Store" are rather indistinctly visible in the 1860 photograph, a careful study of the best prints available fails to produce any signs of chinking between the timbers. Here again we must conclude that the practice in this regard differed from that at many other Company posts. Sawed timbers evidently did not require visible chinking.

e. Interior finish and arrangement. As was discussed in the previous chapter on the sale shop, practically nothing is known about the interior finish and room arrangement of the Fort Vancouver warehouses. But we can be certain that Buildings nos. 5 and 7 differed from the sale shop only in being somewhat cruder and in lacking the counters and other equipment of the trading room itself. Perhaps one end of the "New Store" was partitioned off to make a baling room, but otherwise these large structures probably were without interior walls. The plank floors, the exposed beams, the deal siding, and the open-tread stairs without handrails were as described in the previous chapter.

One feature of the interior finish seldom mentioned in written sources are the inscriptions often found on the walls and beams inside the warehouses. Speaking of the interior of the great store at York Factory in 1879, George Simpson McTavish wrote: "The names of many officers and workers with the weights of their respective persons were inscribed on the walls." [40] In 1967 Mr. A. Lewis Koue and the writer found pencilled lists of furs on the deals lining the walls in the loft of the abandoned warehouse at Fort St. James. What seem to be chalked markings indicating the locations of various types of goods can be seen in a 1923 photograph of the depot at York Factory (see plate CXII). It seems likely that a practice in vogue by 1879 and later so widespread was known in the 1840's.

d. Connection with stockade. One version of the Vavasour ground plan of late 1845 (plate VI) indicates that the southeast corner of Building no. 7 was linked to the south palisade wall by a fence or barrier of some type. This connection, which undoubtedly was a line of pickets, was shown by Vavasour as running at an angle southwesterly to join the main stockade directly west of the opening for the southwest fort gate. What appears to be the same connecting barrier is also shown on the "Line of Fire" map of September, 1844, though on such a small scale as to provide no structural information (plate V).

Furnishings

As with the sale shop, the principal "furnishings" of the warehouses were the goods stored there. But there was also a certain amount of equipment kept on hand to facilitate business both in and on behalf of the warehouses and, evidently, to protect the goods in them.

In the lists of "Articles in Use" which appeared in the annual Fort Vancouver inventories, there was a subheading for items employed "In Stores." Unfortunately, all of the warehouses seem to have been lumped into this one category, including the sale shop, the fur store, and evidently even such structures as the granary and the beef store. Thus it seems impossible to identify those articles which may have been in the "New Store" and the Receiving Store.

For what it is worth as an indication of the kinds of equipment that may have been in those two structures, however, the list for 1844 is given below:

Articles In Use

In Stores

The list of articles in use "in Stores" in the inventory for the spring of 1845 is very similar to that for 1844. A few changes and additions were noted, however, and they may be summarized as follows:

But the real furnishings of the warehouses were the bales, boxes, and barrels of bulk goods, imported and domestic, and the "whole pieces" which were ranged row after row in the cavernous interiors. There are several types of source materials which might be used to gain an idea of the types and quantities of these goods. First, there are the requisitions or indents from the Columbia Department ordering the annual "outfits" from London. These may be found in the Company's archives in the York Factory Indent Books (up to 1838), in the B.239/n/ series. Later requisitions are in the A.11/70 series, and some in the B.223/d/ series. Perhaps even better than the requisitions, however, are the lists of goods actually received found in the Account Books, Fort Vancouver [Abstracts, cost and charges of goods received], in the B.223/d/ series.

Also extremely valuable are the annual depot inventories. These, also, are in the B.223/d/ series under the heading Account Books, Fort Vancouver [Inventories]. While not as complete as the lists of goods actually received, since they indicate only the items remaining on hand in the spring of each year, they nevertheless give a fine picture of what was actually in the warehouses at a given time. In other words, they list not only goods received but goods remaining from previous years. The picture becomes even more complete when the depot inventories, which generally covered only imported goods and livestock, are supplemented by the annual district inventories of "country produce and country made articles" remaining on hand in the spring of each year. These are also in the B.223/d/ series.

In the belief that the annual depot inventories would prove to be the most useful guides for possible refurnishing of the warehouses, there is reproduced below that part of the Fort Vancouver inventory for 1844 which relates to goods most probably kept in the stores. This list is supplemented by extracts from other inventories and by inventories of country produce and country made articles on hand at the depot.

Naval Stores at Fixed Prices

Articles at fixed Prices

Irons pr. winnowing Machine

Machinery & Farming Utensils at fixed Prices

Machinery for a flour Mill Complete

Machinery for a barley Mill Complete

Plough Furniture vizt.

Sundries pr. Steamer Beaver

Wyeth

American Goods

Damaged

Medicines

[Inventory of medicines is not copied here as it is given below in chapter XIV on the Indian Trade Shop and Dispensary.]

[Inventory of medical apparatus is not copied here as it is given below in chapter XIV on the Indian Trade Shop and Dispensary.]

New Stores

In addition to the imported articles, the Fort Vancouver Depot kept in stock rather impressive amounts of locally produced provisions and items fabricated at the post. An account book labelled "Columbia District, Country Produce & Country Made Articles Inventories, Outfit 1840/41" is available in the Company's archives. The part of the inventory having to do with the Fort Vancouver Depot is as follows:

Fort Vancouver Depot Outfit 1840

[Country Produce & Country made articles remaining on hand Spring 1841.]

Country Produce

. . . . . . .

Country Made

Another list, headed "Outfit 1846 Dr. To Columbia District, for Inventories of Country Made Articles and Country Produce remaining on hand at the different Posts in the Columbia District Spring 1846, transferred for the Use of that Outfit, viz.," gives a more extensive view of the locally produced items in stock at the Fort Vancouver Depot. It was not possible to copy this list in its entirety, but the following entries illustrate the range and quantity of the goods on hand in the post storehouses at that time:

Recommendations

a. When excavating in the vicinity of Building no. 7 archeologists should attempt to find traces of the barrier that linked this structure to the south palisade wall. Remnants of pickets or posts could tell much of the nature of this barrier.

b. Undoubtedly it would be difficult and extremely costly to assemble enough original and replica mid-nineteenth century artifacts to fill these two very large structures, even though many bales, barrels, kegs, and boxes could be displayed unopened and, therefore, empty. Although to "refurnish" these two warehouses completely undoubtedly would convey to visitors in vivid fashion the importance of the Fort Vancouver Depot in the western fur trade, such a vast and expensive project, which would require periodic maintenance, cleaning, and protection from insects, does not appear practicable.

Also, there is a need for administrative and interpretive facilities at the fort site. These two structures, together with the neighboring Building no. 8, appear to be those most suitable for such purposes. They are all large, and all would be extremely difficult to refurnish as historic house exhibits in any meaningful manner.

It is suggested, therefore, that a portion of the "New Store" 7 (Building no. 5) be set aside for a baling room exhibit. This area should be large enough so that, when "refurnished," it would convey an impression of the quantities and types of goods stored in the depot.

Since the National Park Service almost certainly could never obtain enough furs to maintain a meaningful fur storage exhibit in Building no. 8 (a structure 40' x 100' loaded with furs on both floors would present a tremendous mothproofing and maintenance problem even if the furs could be obtained), all displays of furs might well be confined to the Indian trade shop, where furs were also kept.

With these two steps taken, most of Building no. 5 and all of Buildings nos. 7 and 8 would be free for internal adaptation to administrative and interpretive uses. The exteriors, of course, should retain their historic appearance.

1. Emmons, Journal, MS, III, entry for July 25, 1841.

2. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 11.

3. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 4. Charles Diamare dit Baron was the depot carpenter. His wages during Outfit 1844 were L30 per annum. H.B.C.A., B.239/1/15, MS, 60.

4. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 7.

5. Hussey, History of Fort Vancouver, 158-160.

6. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 2.

7. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 17.

8. 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. VII, Toronto, 1944) (hereafter cited as H.B.S., VII), 177-191. These goods were the "reserved outfit," for Outfit 1846. See H.B.C.A., B.223/d/161, MS, 6-38, 43-54.

9. H.B.S., VII, p. 87, note 3.

10. H.B.S., VII, 75-94.

11. H.B.S., VII, 124 note. Lieutenant Henry J. Warre, who visited Fort Vancouver in late 1845 and early 1846, said that the warehouses at the post then contained the supplies both for the current year and the succeeding year. Warre, Travel and Sport, MS, 104.

12. Parker, Journal, 174.

13. H.B.C., Account Books, Fort Vancouver 1845-46 [Abstracts, costs and charges of goods received], H.B.C.A., B.223/d/161, MS, 6-38, 43-54

14. Roberts, "The Round Hand of George B. Roberts, in OHQ, LXIII (June-September, 1967), 204, 228.

15. Cowie, The Company of Adventurers, 105.

16. For a complaint by McLoughlin that the rope he had ordered had been "curtailed," see H.B.S., IV, 143.

17. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/164, MS, 7.

18. This account of the processing of the Outfit 1838 indent is based largely upon the indent itself, which is to be found in H.B. C., York Factory Indent Books, 1823-38, H.B.C.A., B.239/n/71, MS, fols. 156d-164; and upon H.B.S., IV, 194. See also Barker, The Letters of Dr. John McLoughlin, 337-338.

19. Drury, First White Women, I, 103.

20. Emmons, Journal, MS, III, entry for July 26, 1841.

21. Requisition for Columbia District, Outfit 1850, H.B.C.A., A.l1/70, MS, fol. 246d.

22. Cowie, The Company of Adventurers, 76, 106.

23. Cowie, The Company of Adventurers, 106. See also George Simpson McTavish, Behind the Palisades: An Autobiography (Victoria, B. C., 1963), 84.

24. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/158, MS, 1-32.

25. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/161, MS, 6-38, 43-54.

26. Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 2, 33, 35, 37, 40-41, 42.

27. Cowie, The Company of Adventurers, 106-107.

28. McTavish, Behind the Palisades, 83, 85.

29. H.B.C.A., B.223/b/3, MS, fols. 18-19.

30. For example, see Glazebrook, The Hargrave Correspondence, 318-329.

31. Cowie, The Company of Adventurers, 277.

32. Packing Account, Sundries P. Fort Nisqually, September 26, 1843, in FN 1265, MS, in Fort Nisqually Collection, in The Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery.

33. Fort Nisqually, Invoice Book, Feb. 1853-Sept. 1860, FN 1263, MS, vol. 2, p.[16], in Fort Nisqually Collection.

34. Cowie, The Company of Adventurers, 278.

35. FN 1265, MS, in Fort Nisqually Collection.

36. Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [II], 118-119.

37. Caywood, Final Report, 10-11, and Map of Archeological Excavations, sheets 1 and 4.

38. Caywood, Final Report, 10-11, and Map of Archeological Excavations, sheets 1, 2, 4, 5.

39. For additional testimony concerning the lack of heat in stores, see McTavish, Behind the Palisades, 53, 83.

40. McTavish, Behind the Palisades, 83.

41. H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1844 [Inventories], H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 143-144..

42. H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1845 [Inventories], H.B.C.A., B.223/d/160, MS, 130-131.

43. In Account Book, Port Vancouver, 1844. [Inventories], H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 93-142.

44. H.B.C., Account Books, Fort Vancouver, 1840-41 [Country Produce Inventories], H.B.C.A., B.223/d/137, 11-13.

45. H.B. C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver 1845-46 [Abstracts, Cost and Charges of goods received], H.B.C.A., B.223/d/161, MS, 119-121. The extracts given above reproduce only part of the list, and entries are not always in the exact form of the originals.