Fort Vancouver Historic Structures Report

History and location

One of the principal reasons for moving the Columbia District depot inland from Fort George to the site of the new Fort Vancouver during the winter of 1824-25 was to be in a location suitable for raising Indian corn and grain. Governor George Simpson was determined to reduce operating expenses west of the Rockies by, among other measures, eliminating practically all importation of food from Europe and greatly increasing the amount of grain, vegetables, and fruit grown in the country. In fact, he even envisioned producing enough "Beef Pork Fish Corn Butter &c &c" to develop an export trade in those items. "It has been said that Farming is no branch of the Fur Trade," he noted in his journal, "but I consider every pursuit tending to leighten [sic] the Expence of the Trade is a branch thereof." [1]

Coincident with the first blows of the axe that marked the start of construction at Fort Vancouver, sod was broken on the upper prairie adjoining the building site, and a field was laid out for potatoes and other vegetables. But evidently it was not until early in 1826 that McLoughlin planted two bushels of spring wheat, an act generally held to mark the beginning of wheat-growing in the present State of Washington. At the same time he planted two bushels of barley, one bushel of oats, some Indian corn, and a quart of timothy. These grains yielded well. After the harvest McLoughlin could tell the London directors that it would no longer be necessary to import Indian corn into the Columbia District, and he predicted that after 1828 the wheat grown at Fort Vancouver would supply all the flour needed in the Company's establishments west of the Rockies.

By saving and replanting the greater part of the grain yields, McLoughlin was able to make his forecast come true. The wheat crop of 1828 amounted to between 800 and 1,000 bushels, the kernels "full and plump, and making good flour." In November of that year, Governor Simpson was able to boast that "we have now a two years stock of Grain on hand, so that we shall not require either Flour or Grain from England in future." [2]

During the next decade the farm at Fort Vancouver was greatly expanded. By April 1836 McLoughlin could predict that the crop that year would include 4,000 bushels of wheat, 1,200 bushels of barley, and 1,000 bushels of oats despite a severe drought. [3] By that time, also, the production of grains at other posts, such as Nisqually and Colvile, had reduced the percentage of Vancouver's yield required for internal use, and it became possible to think of surpluses for reserve stocks and exports.

Another factor contributed to the supply of grain accumulating at Vancouver. About 1829 Chief Factor McLoughlin agreed to assist a few freemen and furloughed Company servants who wished to establish farms in the Willamette Valley, and soon his helping hand, in the form of seed, implements, and credit, was also extended to the American settlers who began drifting into the region during the next decade. This largesse virtually obligated the Hudson's Bay Company to purchase the wheat raised by these farmers, because only through the sale of their crops could they liquidate their debts, and there was no other market in Oregon.

By 1835 the amount of wheat raised by the Willamette settlers was reaching substantial proportions. Early in the next year McLoughlin told a friend that these farmers had "amongst them" about 3,000 bushels of wheat. [4] During 1836 the settlers produced 1,000 bushels beyond the amount needed for their own sustenance, and all of this surplus was bought by the Company. [5] The next year the Willamette farms were reported to be capable of exporting 5,500 bushels. [6]

In 1838 Chief Factor James Douglas, in charge at Fort Vancouver during McLoughlin's absence in Europe, told the London directors, "I am now buying up the crop of this season, to clear the market and leave nothing in store for casual visitors, a policy that ought not to be neglected." [7] In other words, the Company was buying up the surplus crops as one additional means of making Oregon unattractive and unprofitable for fur trade rivals.

As early as 1836 McLoughlin had anticipated that the resale of Willamette Valley wheat in foreign markets could be made a profitable branch of the Company's business. The grain could be bought at Fort Vancouver for fifty or sixty cents a bushel; in 1837 it was reported that the Russians at Sitka were paying $1.50 a bushel for California wheat. [8] There also appeared to be a promising market in the Hawaiian Islands where by 1838 the Company was already shipping farm produce. [9]

All of these factors combined to make the storage of grain at the depot a matter of major consideration. In March 1838 James Douglas informed Governor Simpson: "The prosperity of the general business, is so intimately connected with the agricultural operations, and depends, so much upon the possession of an ample and regular supply of Provisions, that it long since became a desederatum with us to secure independently of the rising crop, a full years provisions in advance, and it is now attained, as our barns contain a sufficient quantity of the more useful kinds of grains to meet the home and outward demand, at a reasonable calculation, for the next eighteen months." [10]

Evidently the storage conditions at that time, however, were something less than ideal. At least the Company's chaplain, the Reverend Mr. Herbert Beaver, wondered during the same month what advantage there was to "having so many thousand bushels in store (unthrashed)" when the grain, "after lying for several years in stack, not to reckon the quantity destroyed by vermin, becomes from dirt almost unfit for use." He recommended that the grain be thrashed and "kept in granaries." [11]

Chief Factor Douglas was well aware of these deficiencies, but there was not much he could do about them at the moment. It will be recalled from previous chapters that late 1837 and all of 1838 was a period of much construction at the depot, with such high priority buildings as the new Big House and the Bachelors' Quarters commanding the services of the available carpenters.

Seemingly it was not until very late in 1838 or very early in 1839 that Douglas was able to start construction of a proper granary within the pickets. The site selected was near the north stockade wall in the old, or western, half of the fort. Very probably this location had not been available until shortly before March 1838 when the old "great house" was demolished. [12]

On March 5, 1839, Douglas informed Governor Simpson: "We have also put up the shell of a two story building 50 x 40 feet, intended as a store house for grain." [13] Progress seems not to have been continuous, however, because not until October could Douglas announce that "we have since harvest completed the new Granary, which may contain about 18 thousand Bushels of Grain." [14]

This Wheat Store, as the building was also known, was not finished any too soon, for the demands upon Fort Vancouver's wheat supplies had already been much increased. On February 6, 1839, the Company leased the coastal strip of southeastern Alaska from the Russian American Company. As part of the payment for this important concession, it agreed to furnish the Russian settlements in Alaska with wheat, barley, peas, butter, beef, ham, and other supplies.

The amounts of wheat involved were substantial. In 1843, for instance, the Company expected to require 15,300 bushels for its own use in the Columbia District and for export to Alaska, and it intended to sell an additional 10,000 bushels in the Hawaiian Islands. To meet this total demand of 25,300 bushels it had in storage 7,300 bushels, and the production of its own farms would bring in 8,000 more. The balance of 10,000 bushels was to be obtained from the Willamette settlers. [15] Clearly the Granary was an important cog in what could be described as (considering the time and place) a large-scale agricultural and exporting enterprise.

Lieutenant Charles Wilkes of the United States Exploring Expedition was taken through the Granary by James Douglas in 1841. Unfortunately he had little to say about it other than that it contained wheat, flour, barley, and buckwheat. Oats, he reported, did not thrive at Fort Vancouver. [16]

About the time of Wilkes's visit, the following amounts of wheat, listed under the heading "Purchased from Settlers," were stored at the Fort Vancouver depot in addition to the grain produced on the Company's farms:

Around June 1, 1845, the following items of "country produce," which may have been stored in the Granary, were on hand at the Fort Vancouver Depot: 460 barrels of fine flour, 121-100/112 hundredweight of fine flour, and 24,300 bushels of wheat. [18] A year later, in the spring of 1846, there were 18,429 bushels of wheat in store at Fort Vancouver, but counting the grain stored at the post's subestablishments, such as the Willamette Falls and Champoeg stations, the Company had 26,969 bushels of wheat on hand in the Columbia District depot. [19]

It can be seen from these figures that by mid-1845 the wheat in storage exceeded the capacity of the Granary as estimated by James Douglas. This embarrassing situation evidently first developed during 1844. As late as November 20 of that year Dr. McLoughlin optimistically informed the Governor and Committee that the Willamette settlers "will sell us this year 20,000 bushels of Wheat at least, and as they are extending their farms, they will have a great deal more next year." [20] But the crop must have been better than expected, and something of a glut developed. Seemingly the Company, its granaries full, had to refuse to accept more wheat before the end of November 1844. [21

By the middle of 1845 James Douglas foresaw the end of the time when the Company could buy all the settlers' wheat. "What are the poor farmers to do then?" he asked his friend Dr. W. F. Tolmie. [22]

As a matter of fact, that time had already arrived, although Douglas could not yet have known it. The curtailment in purchases finally came not so much as the result of abundant supplies as from a change in Company policy. On June 16, 1845, Governor Simpson informed McLoughlin, Douglas, and Peter Skene Ogden, who together were to form a Board of Management to direct Columbia District affairs during Outfit 1845, of the Company's belief that the produce of its own farms, together with the yield from the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company and the grain received from settlers in payment of past debts, would suffice to meet the service's own needs and the Russian contract and still leave a reserve to provision passing ships of the Royal Navy. Beyond that, said Simpson, a trade in wheat is not "an object deserving our attention." In other words, purchases from settlers were to be ended. [23]

McLoughlin replied to the London directors on November 20, 1845, that the district would "unavoidably" have 6,000 barrels of flour to send to market in the Hawaiian Islands during the next year, but that purchases of wheat had already been curtailed. "At present," he stated, "we purchase Wheat . . . only from a few good customers whom out of policy we cannot cast off." [24]

Lieutenant Neil M. Howison of the United States Navy noted by personal observation in 1846 that the granaries of Oregon were "surcharged with wheat" and that, despite an "abundant" harvest at Fort Vancouver, the managers of the Columbia District by November of that year had purchased about 12,000 bushels from settlers, "chiefly in payment of debts." [25] But fortunately for both the Company and the settlers, the hostilities between Americans and Mexicans in California somewhat increased the market for grain, and the arrival of the large emigration of 1847 quickly produced a scarcity of wheat. Close on the heels of these incidents came the California gold rush, which provided a ready market for all Oregon produce for several years. [26]

But the same bonanza lured away most of the depot servants, and by 1849 squatters had invaded the Company's fields. Thus after that date production on the Fort Vancouver farms dwindled rapidly. Statistics for the years following 1846 have not been analyzed because they lie outside the scope of this study, but it is safe to say that, allowing for fluctuations, the bins in the Fort Vancouver Granary became emptier and emptier as the Company's business on the lower Columbia gradually faded away during the 1850s.

But before those sad days arrived, the Wheat Store seemingly had a brief fling of official glory. Early in 1846 the House of Representatives of the Provisional Government of Oregon Territory passed an act providing for the collection of revenues. Among other and more usual forms of legal tender acceptable for the payment of taxes was "good merchantable wheat." Residents of Vancouver County--the region north of the Columbia River--who paid their taxes in wheat were required to deliver it to the Hudson's Bay Company warehouses at Cowlitz or Fort Vancouver. Very probably the building to which the wheat was to be brought at Vancouver was the Granary, although there seems to be no precise evidence upon this point. [27]

It might also be mentioned that the Oregon Provisional Government in 1845 made wheat orders on solvent merchants and treasury notes legal tender along with gold and silver for the payments of debts. Orders on merchants were merely certificates for stipulated amounts, which represented the value of wheat deposited in designated ware houses belonging to merchants. The orders issued by the Hudson's Bay Company were considered the most reliable and usually were redeemed at par. This use of wheat certificates as legal tender was ended on March 4, 1848, due to an increased supply of cash in Oregon, but for more than two years the Fort Vancouver Wheat Store served an important role in easing a severe economic crisis. [28]

A longtime resident of Fort Vancouver testified that in 1849 the Granary was still in fairly sound condition. The roof and the bins inside were "good," he said, but the exterior of the building had "opened in places by the settling of the foundation." [29] An arrival at the post in 1853 found the Wheat Store to be "large and well fitted up" and still two stories high. [30]

Beginning on April 15, 1856, the United States Army rented, among other structures, a "Granary & Sugar Store" from the Company at Fort Vancouver. [31] There is no certainty that this building was the Wheat Store within the pickets, but such probably was the case. How long this use continued is unknown.

As is attested by the 1860 photograph, the Granary was in reasonably good condition at that time, though evidences of sagging are plain (see Plate LXIII). The board of army officers that inspected the fort buildings on June 15 of that year, however, pronounced the structure "entirely unsuitable for public service." [32] Its subsequent fate is unknown, but it surely was either torn down or burned within several years after the post was turned over to the military authorities. [33]

The exact site of the Granary was determined in 1950 and 1952 when archeological excavations uncovered many of the footings. The building stood about twenty feet south of the northernmost palisade wall and about eighty-seven feet west of the New Office. Its location is today identified as Building No. 9 on the site plan of Fort Vancouver National Historic Site.

Construction details

a. Dimensions and footings. As has been seem, James Douglas told Governor Simpson on March 5, 1839, that a two-story Granary, fifty by forty feet, was under construction at that time. On one of the original copies of Vavasour's plan of 1845, the Wheat Store appears to scale out to about fifty-two by forty feet (Plate VI, vol. I); on the other it seems to measure about fifty-two by forty-three feet (Plate VII, vol. I). The 1846-47 inventory made by the Company lists the structure as "1 Granary, 50 x 40 [feet]." [34] In 1849 Major D. H. Vinton, U.S.A., judged it to be fifty by fifty feet. [35]

Archeologists in 1950 and 1952 found all four corner footings of the Wheat Store as well as most of those along the north, east, and west walls. The south wall was not completely excavated. According to Mr. Louis R. Caywood, who supervised the work, "east and west the corner footings were 52 feet from center to center," while "north and south the measurement was 40.5 feet." But on the detailed excavation plans the dimensions of the building appear to be shown as about fifty by forty-one feet. [36]

In view of this apparent, though not necessarily actual, conflict, a careful examination of the original field drawings might be in order. Probably the exteriors of the walls extended somewhat beyond the centers of the footings, so that an outside measurement of about fifty-two by forty-one feet for the Wheat Store would not have been unlikely.

As revealed by the archeological excavations the footings under the sills were spaced approximately ten feet apart on centers--the typical pattern for Canadian-type construction. Although the footings were not described in detail in the archeological report, they appear from the drawings to have been wooden slabs identical in size and spacing to those found on the sites of most other structures at Fort Vancouver.

b. General construction. The underlying structure of the Wheat Store is not visible in available pictures due to the board sheathing that completely covered the exteriors of the walls. On the basis of the footings and of precedent--the original Hudson's Bay Company granary at Fort Nisqually still survives (see Plate CXI, vol. I)--one might be inclined to assume that the building was constructed in the usual Canadian or post-on-sill fashion. However, in 1841 Lieutenant Wilkes was taken into the Wheat Store by James Douglas and seemingly examined it quite carefully. The Granary, he wrote, was "a frame building of two stories, and the only one, the rest being of logs." [37]

At several places throughout this study, notice has been taken of testimony by one or two other witnesses who also stated, generally erroneously it would appear, that certain structures were not built of squared timbers. But Wilkes is the only person known to have said that the Wheat Store was not constructed in the usual Canadian style. His words cannot be taken lightly, because he was a trained observer and made a particular point of explaining that the Granary was not built of logs. It must be admitted, however, that the general configuration appears to be that of a post-on-sill structure, but seemingly there is no way to be certain (see Plate LXIII).

Under these circumstances, a compromise may prove to be the best course for reconstruction, and actually it may turn out to be not far from the fact if the real structure is ever determined. A frame might be erected in the usual fashion with heavy sills, massive upright timbers, and plates, but the uprights would not be grooved. Additional bracing timbers, both horizontal and diagonal, would be required to provide the rigidity ordinarily supplied by the infill timbers. Knee braces, such as those found on wooden ships, were sometimes employed at eastern posts in place of diagonal bracing, which was little used in Hudson's Bay Company construction. Oak knee braces employed in this manner may be observed in the blockhouse at Fort Nisqually in Tacoma, but because this building is a reconstruction it is not absolutely certain that this technique was used in the original bastion. The roof would be framed in the same manner as those of the other warehouses.

The outside of the frame would be covered by vertical planks, possibly double thickness. There do not appear to be battens over the joints as the Wheat Store is pictured in the 1860 photograph, but it seems impossible to be entirely certain on this point. Evidently the walls were not lined on the inside, because otherwise Wilkes probably would not have been impressed by the type of framing.

Parts of the Wheat Store are visible in several drawings of Fort Vancouver in addition to the 1860 photograph (for examples see Plates XIV, XV, XVI, XVIII, XX-XXI, and XXVI, vol. I). All show the structure as a rather tall, box-like building with a hipped roof, the ridge of which ran east and west. It obviously was a full two stories in height.

Walls. The type of wall construction most likely used in building the Wheat Store has been described in the preceding section. If this style was actually employed, there undoubtedly was a major upright timber over each of the six footings (counting the corners) in the east-west walls. The pattern would have been different in the north south walls, however. There the centered doors and windows on the east and west sides of the Wheat Store would have precluded the use of center posts, although archeology has shown that there was a center footing under at least the east wall.

The walls evidently were about twenty feet high from the tops of the sills to the tops of the plates, but once architects have determined the heights of the door and window openings it will be possible to estimate the wall height more precisely. As shown by the ramp leading to the east entry, the sills probably were raised on wooden blocks slightly above ground level, but the outer board sheathing extended to the ground (except perhaps on the east and west; see Plate LXIII). Probably the main wall timbers were hand hewn.

Roof. The design of the hipped roof is perfectly evident from the 1860 photograph. The basic framing and construction undoubtedly were the same as those employed for the other large warehouses in the fort. Almost certainly there was solid horizontal plank sheathing immediately over the rafters.

Both the 1860 photograph (Plate LXIII) and archeological evidence prove conclusively that the Wheat Store roof was covered with interlocking metal shingles. During excavations in 1950 and 1952 archeologists found "a mass of iron sheets" on the site of this structure. "These," reported Mr. Caywood, "had been fastened to wood by the use of small, well-made, square nails about an inch in length. Many of these metal sheets were still interlocked." [38] Unfortunately, the salvaged shingles have since been lost, and thus additional excavation to recover enough examples to provide guidance for reproductions is virtually essential. Meanwhile, however, the data on metal shingles provided in Chapter III on the Powder Magazine should suffice for planning purposes.

No gutters are visible in the 1860 photograph, except for a short one placed close under the eaves over the east window and door. Although it is impossible to be positive, the photograph seems to indicate that this gutter was of metal. It dipped slightly toward the south, and some of the water running from it hit the siding as it fell and stained the boards. Probably there was a similar gutter at the west end of the building. There were no chimneys in the Wheat Store.

Doors. The Emmons ground plan of 1841 (Plate III, vol. I) depicts the "Grainery" as having two doors, one centered in both the east and west walls. [39] In the 1860 photograph only the eastern door is visible, but undoubtedly that on the west was its exact duplicate. Very probably the Wheat Store was planned to permit carts to drive in one end, load or unload, and then drive out the other end.

As pictured in the photograph (Plate LXIII) the east door was a large, double-leaved affair with an arched top. It undoubtedly was constructed of heavy planks. The design of this type of door has already been adequately discussed in the chapters on the warehouses and Blacksmith's Shop. It should be noted, however, that very faint indications of what may be paneling on the doors seem to be evident in the 1860 photograph, perhaps pointing to a different type of door than the usual one made of vertical planks. If at all possible, an enlargement should be obtained directly from the original glass negative in England with a view to bringing out the maximum amount of detail in regard to this special point.

The photograph further shows that the east door, at least, was fronted by a heavy plank and timber ramp that permitted vehicles to surmount the heavy sill. Probably the west door was approached on a similar structure.

Windows. Only one window is visible in the 1860 photograph, and it was on the second floor, centered over the door in the east wall. The south wall clearly had no windows whatever. An assumption that the west wall had a single window identical to that on the east end of the building is supported by several drawings of the 1840s and 1850s in which such an opening is visible (see Plates XIV, XVIII, XX-XXI, and XXVI, vol. I). [40]

The north wall presents more of a problem. At least two later drawings (Plates XXI and XXVI, vol. I) appear to show two windows on the north side of the Wheat Store. Neither of these views is notable for accuracy in small details, however, and the writer is inclined to follow the highly reliable Gibbs drawing of 1851 (Plate XVIII, vol. I) in which no windows are visible on the north side of the Granary. In other words, the north wall probably was a duplicate of the south wall.

The design of the east-wall window is not easily determined from the 1860 photograph. To a degree it appears to be a double-hung window with twelve panes in the upper section and eight in the lower, but it also could have been a side-hung window of twenty panes. Windows of the former type were not unusual at Hudson's Bay Company posts (see Plate LX), but the latter type was also used (see Plate LIX).

It is difficult to understand the apparent paucity of windows in the Wheat Store. One of the basic principles of good granary management in the nineteenth century was that adequate ventilation should be provided. In British granaries, wrote a leading authority of the period, "every apartment is also furnished with windows, which are opened in dry weather, for the benefit of ventilation." [41] If any other means of ventilation than the two doors and the two known windows was provided at Fort Vancouver, its nature is not yet evident.

Exterior finish. The exterior siding on the Wheat Store has already been discussed. The 1847-48 painting of Fort Vancouver by an unknown artist clearly shows that by that date the Wheat Store was painted white (Plate XV, vol. I). By 1860 most of this decorative coat apparently had worn off, but enough remained to demonstrate that the door frames, at least, were white. Apparently the window frames and sash were also white. The doors themselves were a very dark color, probably Spanish brown.

c. Interior finish and arrangement. Nothing in the available historical record provides any specific information about the interior of the Wheat Store beyond the fact that there were two stories and that there were bins. And as has been pointed out, the evidence tends to indicate that the interior was unlined. All else must be designed on the basis of comparative data, and thus far little has surfaced.

The placement of the doors would appear to indicate the presence of a wide center aisle running the entire length of the building on the ground floor. If standard British granary construction was employed at Fort Vancouver, a departure from ordinary fur trade building practice was involved, in that there were upright posts supporting the ceiling beams. While describing a typical English grain store, A. Edlin in his 1805 Treatise on the Art of Bread-Making stated that "to support the great extent of the floor, and such a weight of grain, there are several very large and solid wooden pillars placed in every room, which pass from top to bottom." [42] If such "pillars" existed at Fort Vancouver, they probably were positioned on each side of the center aisle. The bins perhaps were also ranged on each side of center aisles, both downstairs and up.

According to Edlin, fresh grain was only stored in layers about six inches deep for the first two months, being turned about twice a week during that period. Thereafter the depth was gradually increased, while the turning became less frequent. After a year it could be "laid" 2-1/2 or 3 feet deep and turned over only about once a month. Evidently this depth was about the maximum employed, but the turning could be reduced to once in two months after two years. [43] These facts would appear to indicate that the bins were relatively shallow.

What little is known about grain bins at Hudson's Bay Company posts would appear to support such a conclusion. The granary at Fort Nisqually still survives, though it was moved from its original location and partly reconstructed. Whether the bins now in the building are originals or reconstructions the writer has not ascertained. At any rate, the original bins could not have been much over three feet deep because the windows, which are in the exterior bin walls, were only about that height from the floor. [44]

Unfortunately the Historic American Buildings Survey measured drawings of the Fort Nisqually granary provide no useful information on the construction of the bins. A reexamination of this building by an architect knowledgeable in Hudson's Bay Company construction techniques would be desirable.

The floors at both levels were undoubtedly the same heavy, three inch planks used in the other warehouses. In this instance, however, they may have been tongued and grooved and possibly more smoothly finished than those employed elsewhere. Otherwise considerable quantities of grain would have been lost through the open cracks that sooner or later developed in the usual warehouse floors. Also, the process of cleaning the grain as it was received in the Wheat Store evidently involved tossing the kernels with shovels back and forth across considerable distances of open floor, the dust and other impurities falling out in the process. [45] It would seem that a floor capable of being swept clean would be a requirement for such an operation.

Because no provisions for hauling sacks of grain up to the second story are visible on the outside of the building, it probably should be assumed that this process was conducted inside. The usual open-tread stairs, trapdoors, and bracing for block and tackle assemblies were most likely present.

Furnishings

No inventories of articles in use have been found specifically for the Wheat Store. And the lists headed "In Stores" do not appear to contain many items suitable for employment in a granary, except blocks and tackle. But under the major heading of "Farm Utensils &c" are found a few articles that appear to pertain to the Wheat Store. For example, in the long list in the spring, 1844, inventory are the following items:

2 small 4 wheeled hand Carts pr Granary
3 Imperial 1/2 Bush[el] Measures
1 Imperial 1 Bush[el] Measures
4 Shovels [46]

It is assumed that shovels were kept in the Granary, because they were employed in the usual British process for cleaning and turning the grain. Edlin also mentions the use of screens in connection with these operations, but he does not describe them. [47]

From material cited earlier in this chapter, it would appear that flour as well as grain was stored in the Granary. Flour was ordinarily packed in barrels at Fort Vancouver.

Recommendations

a. It is suggested that the entire site of the Wheat Store be excavated, particularly with a view to checking the exact dimensions of the building and to determining if there were supports under the uprights that are assumed to have supported the ceiling beams. It is also possible that enough traces can be found of the ramps in front of the doors to permit a determination of the dimensions. Also urgently needed are samples of the metal shingles that covered the roof.

b. Because the Wheat Store was a key element in the historic scene at Fort Vancouver and because it played such an important role in the economic history of both the Columbia District and of Oregon, it is recommended that this building be reconstructed. Insofar as the documentary and pictorial data presented in the body of this chapter provide firm guidance, they should be heeded in planning the re construction.

c. It is recommended that a special study of the construction and equipping of nineteenth-century British and Canadian granaries be conducted in an attempt to fill in the many gaps in the specific data available relating to the Wheat Store. In particular, more information is required on the design of the bins commonly employed during the 1830s. This study should include a fresh architectural examination of the surviving Hudson's Bay Company granary from Fort Nisqually, now located in Point Defiance Park, Tacoma.

d. It is suggested that the interior of the Granary, at least on the ground floor, be refitted with bins and refurnished with implements, flour barrels, and perhaps even a certain quantity of grain in order to re-create as nearly as possible the appearance and smell of a wheat store. Properly interpreted, this exhibit could do much to explain the part played by the Hudson's Bay Company in the development of Oregon.

1. Frederick Merk, ed., Fur Trade and Empire; George Simpson's Journal: Remarks Connected with the Fur Trade in the Course of a Voyage from York Factory to Fort George and back to York Factory, 1824-1825: together with Accompanying Documents, Harvard Historical Studies, vol. 31 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931), pp. 50, 78.

2. This account of the beginnings of grain culture at Fort Vancouver is based on sources cited in Hussey, History of Fort Vancouver, pp. 34, 37-38, 43-52.

3. H.B.S., 4:143.

4. Washington Historical Quarterly, 2:165-66.

5. H.B.S., 4:241.

6. Oregon Historical_Quarterly, 13:197.

7. H.B.S., 4:241.

8. Oregon Historical Quarterly, 13:198.

9. H.B.S., 4:276.

10. Ibid., p. 284.

11. Beaver, Reports and Letters, p. 79.

12. Ibid., p. 82.

13. James Douglas to George Simpson, Fort Vancouver, March 5, 1839, in H.B.C.A., D.5/5, MS, fol. 110.

14. James Douglas to Governor and Committee, Fort Vancouver, October 14, 1839, in H.B.S., 6:224.

15. H.B.S., 6:124—25.

16. Wilkes, Narrative, 4:333-34. In 1845, however, the Fort Vancouver farms produced about 5,000 bushels of oats, about 1,000 bushels more than the wheat crop of that year. H.B.S., 7:148.

17. H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1840-41 [Country Produce Inventories], H.B.C.A., B.223/d/137, MS, p. 13.

18. H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1844-1845, H.B.C.A., B.223/d/158, MS, pp. 102—3.

19. H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1845-1846 [Abstracts, Cost and Charges of Goods Received], H.B.C.A., B.223/d/161, MS, p. 121. In the fall of 1845 the Company had about 30,000 bushels of wheat in store at Vancouver, Willamette Falls, and Champoeg, with about 10,000 more at Cowlitz. The wheat crop at Vancouver that year was about 4,000 bushels. H.B.S., 7:148.

20. H.B.S., 7:33.

21. Margaret J. Bailey, "French Prairie Farm, 1839-1850," in Marion County History, vol. 5 (1959), p. 45.

22. James Douglas to W. F. Tolmie, Cowlitz Farm, June 23, 1845, in Fort Vancouver, Correspondence Outward, 1830-1849, Letters Signed by James Douglas, in Provincial Archives of British Columbia.

23. H.B.S., 7:139-40.

24. Ibid., pp. 124, 148.

25. Neil M. Howison, "Report of Lieutenant Neil M. Howison on Oregon, 1846," Oregon Historical Quarterly 14 (March, 1913): 40; H.B.C.A, B.223/b/34, MS, fols. 1-13.

26. Arthur L. Throckmorton, Oregon Argonauts: Merchant Adventurers on the Western Frontier (Portland: Oregon Historical Society, 1961), pp. 61-63, 85-106.

27. Oregon Spectator (Oregon City), March 4 [5], 1846.

28. Throckmorton, Oregon Argonauts, pp. 59-60, 63.

29. Testimony of Lloyd Brooke, August 8, 1866, in Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers [8:]128.

30. Testimony of H. A. Tuzo, in ibid., [2:]1 76-77, 184.

31. H.B.C., Fort Vancouver Miscellaneous Items, 1845-1866, H.B.C.A., B.223/z/5, MS, fol. 75d.

32. Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers [9:]75-77.

33. During archeological excavation of the Wheat Store site in 1950 and 1952, remains of metal shingles were found "on top of burned wood," suggesting that fire may have been involved in the final destruction of this building. Caywood, Final Report, p. 12.

34. H.B.C.A., B.223/z/5, MS, fol. 265d.

35. D. H. Vinton to P. F. Smith, Fort Vancouver, October 1, 1849, in Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [9:]133.

36. Caywood, Final Report, p. 12, and Excavation Drawings, sheet 8.

37. Wilkes, Narrative, 4:332.

38. Caywood, Final Report, p. 12.

39. It should be noted here that the sizes and locations of the "Grainery" shown by Emmons and of the "Wheat Store" on Vavasour's map of 1845 do not coincide. In fact, the differences are considerable. Yet the same building undoubtedly was intended in each case Emmons, as a guest of the Company, evidently did not feel free to make measurements, and thus his plan is only an approximate diagram in several respects.

40. The Sohon drawing of 1854 (Plate XXI, vol. I) shows two windows in the upper story of the west wall, but this picture contains certain known inaccuracies.

41. A. Edlin, A Treatise on the Art of Bread-Making: Wherein the Mealing Trade, Assize Laws, and Every Circumstance Connected with the Art, Is Particularly Examined (London: Printed by J. Wright for Vernor and Hood, Poultry, 1805), p. 20.

42. Ibid., p. 20.

43. Ibid., p. 21. No attempt is made here to describe the cleaning process the grain kernels underwent upon their arrival at the Granary or the screening that accompanied the periodic turning of the grain.

44. Historic American Buildings Survey, Fort Nisqually Granary, Point Defiance Park, Tacoma, Washington, Measured Drawings, 2 sheets, in Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

45. Edlin, A Treatise on the Art of Bread-Making, pp. 20-21.

46. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, pp. 166-68. The 1845 inventory adds nothing of significance to the 1844 items listed here.

47. Edlin, A Treatise on the Art of Bread-Making, pp. 20-21.