On Aug 11, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Gary Roberts  wrote:
> Can you get an image of the relevant original entries? [rest snipped,
> per FAQ]

        Yes. But first: I got the list I posted from John A. Hussey,
        _Historic Structure Report, Historical Data, Volume II, Fort
        Vancouver National Historic Site, Washington_, (Denver: National
        Park Service, Denver Service Center, 1976) typescript. Anyone
        interested can download a PDF here: <http://www.nps.gov/fova/hi-
        storyculture/upload/Hussey%20HSR%202.pdf> The inventories of the
        carpenter shop "articles in use" are on pp. 407-11. They date
        from 1844, 1845, 1847, and 1848. "Case plane" and "rubber plane"
        appear only on the list for 1845 (pp.409-10). No "rabbit plane"
        appears in the 1845 list, but that name DOES appear on the lists
        for right before and after 1845. That in itself argues for a
        misreading of the original document when transcribing the 1845
        list, mistaking "rabbit" for "rubber." To answer Gary more
        completely: Hussey did his research in the Hudson's Bay Co.
        Archives in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Since he worked the archives
        have been microfilmed, and a couple of years ago the library at
        Ft. Vancouver NHS acquired what is supposed to be a full
        collection, on film, of materials relating to the Columbia
        Department (the HBC territory west of the Rocky Mountains, of
        which Ft. Vancouver was the HQ from 1824 to 1846). I have
        recently begun working through that sizable collection, and I
        feel confident that the inventories Hussey used are in there
        somewhere. Unfortunately the film rolls are labeled in the most
        general way, and there does not seem to be an index using the
        original archival reference numbers (which appear in Hussey's
        footnotes) pegged to the film rolls. So I might run across the
        original manuscript documents soon, by calculated guessing as to
        which film roll to look at, or it might take a while. In the
        meantime, a consensus seems to be building, reinforced by
        internal evidence (the chronologically contiguous inventories
        mentioned above) and external evidence (virtually assembled
        Porch wisdom that no "rubber plane" existed with that name),
        that the "rubber plane" appearing in the 1845 inventory was a
        misreading of the archival document, resulting in a
        mistranscription in the typed report. Thanks again for your
        interest in this topic, the discussion of which has been most
        helpful. When I have more, I'll report to the group. Tom
        Holloway <http://furfortfunfacts.blogspot.com/>

------------------------------------------------------------------------