Page:Oregon Historical Quarterly vol. 8.djvu/236

 228 THOMAS M. ANDERSON. the motives and methods of the Catholic and Protestant mis- sionaries. To the first a mission meant a cross raised in the shadow of the woods, the baptism of savages, the saving of souls. To the latter, mission work meant Christianizing by civilizing. A mission was to be an object lesson in industry, sobriety and prayer. Their purpose was really the same; they only differed in their methods. The case came up for trial before the district court at Van- couver at the spring term in 1888. It was argued by District Attorney W. H. White for the government representatives and by Whalley, Bronaugh & Northup, counsel for the church. It was decided by Judge Allyn in favor of the defendants. Ap- peal was then taken to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington, and it came up for hearing in January, 1889. After full argument the court decided that the plaintiff had legal remedies for all wrongs complained of and should not have brought suit in equity; that, properly speaking, it was only open to them to bring an action of ejectment; that the matter was a judicial question and not dependent on decisions of ministerial officers. As to the interpretation of the words of the statute, ' ' Oc- cupied by a religious society as a mission station among the In- dian tribes, ' ' the court held that ' * occupied ' ' meant possession, domain, absolute control. The court held that the Hudson Bay Company held such occupancy and domain, and not the church ; that the present claimant claimed as the representa- tive of the Bishop of Quebec and that the Bishop of Quebec was not the original grantee; that the American missionary societies were incorporated companies; that the Catholic church was not, as a church, a legally incorporated body under our laws at the time of the grant ; that the law was passed to reward American pioneers and not the subjects of another government, which, at the time the Mission of St. James was established, was maintaining an adverse claim of sovereignty. The court also noted the fact that the United States then, by purchase, extinguished the rights of the Hudson Bay Company