Page:The History of Oregon Bancroft 1888.djvu/104

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
86
LANE'S ADMINISTRATION.

for harbors and suitable places for light-houses and defences.[1] The result of these examinations was the approval of the selections of Vancouver and Steilacoom. Of the "acquisition of the rights and property reserved, and guaranteed by the terms of the treaty," Smith spoke with the utmost respect for the claims of the companies, saying they were specially confirmed by the treaty, and that the public interest demanded that the government should purchase them;[2] a sentiment which the reader is aware was not in accord with the ideas of a large class in Oregon.

It had been contemplated establishing a post on the upper Willamette for the protection of companies travelling to California, but the danger that every soldier would desert, if placed directly on the road to the gold mines, caused Smith to abandon that idea. He made arrangements, instead, for Hathaway's command to remove to Astoria as early in the spring as the men could work in the forest, cutting timber for the erection of the required buildings, and for stationing the riflemen at Vancouver and The Dalles, as well as recommending the abandonment of Fort Hall, or Cantonment Loring, owing to the climate and unproductive nature of the soil, and the fact that immigrants were taking a more southerly route than formerly. Smith seemed to have the welfare of the territory at heart, and recommended to the government many things which the people desired, among others fortifications at the mouth of the Columbia, in preparation for which he marked off reservations at Cape Disappointment and Point Adams. He also suggested the survey of the Rogue, Umpqua, Alseya, Yaquina, and Siletz rivers, and Shoalwater Bay; and the erection of light-houses at Cape Disappointment, Cape Flattery, and Protection Island, representing that it was a military as well as commercial necessity,

  1. 31st Cong., 1st Sess., S. Doc. 47, viii. 108–16; Rep. Com. Ind. Aff., 1865, 107–9.
  2. 31st Cong., 1st Sess., S. Doc. 47, viii. 104.