The writer has seen liquor given and sold to the Indians at every post of the company, from the mouth of the Columbia to Fort Hall, including Fort Colville, and by the traveling traders of the company; so that whatever pretensions the company make to the contrary, the proof is conclusive, that they traffic in liquors, without any restraint or hinderance, all over the Indian countries they occupy. That they charge this liquor traffic to renegade Americans I am fully aware; at the same time I know they have supplied it to Indians, when there were no Americans in the country that had any to sell or give. In the narrative of the Rev. Mr. King, it is stated that "the agents of the Hudson's Bay Company are not satisfied with putting so insignificant value upon the furs, that the more active hunters only can gain a support, which necessarily leads to the death of the more aged and infirm by starvation and cannibalism, but they encourage the intemperate use of ardent spirits." Says Mr. Alexander Simpson, one of the company's own chief traders: "That body has assumed much credit for the discontinuance of the sale of spirituous liquors at its trading establishments, but I apprehend that in this matter it has both claimed and received more praise than is its due. The issue of spirits has not been discontinued by it on principle, indeed it has not been discontinued at all when there is a possibility of diminution of trade through the Indians having the power to resent this deprivation of their accustomed and much-loved annual jollification, by carrying their furs to another market." This means simply that Mr. Greenhow and all other admirers of the Hudson's Bay Company's manner of treating Indians have been humbugged by their professions of "_humanity and policy_." We are inclined to return Mr. Greenhow's compliment to the Rev. Samuel Parker in his own language, as found on the 361st page of his work. He says: "Mr. Samuel Parker, whose journal of his tour beyond the Rocky Mountains, though highly interesting and instructive, would have been much more so had he confined himself to the results of his own experience, and not wandered into the region of history, diplomacy, and cosmogony, in all of which he is evidently a stranger." So with Mr. Greenhow, when he attempts to reconcile the conduct of the Hudson's Bay Company with "_humanity_," and admires their policy, and gives them credit for honorable treatment of "Indians, missionaries, and settlers," he leaves his legitimate subject of history and diplomacy, and goes into the subject of the Hudson's Bay Company's moral _policy_, to which he appears quite as much a "stranger" as Mr. Samuel Parker does to those subjects in which Mr. Greenhow found him deficient.