"MR. EDITOR,--In Mr. Parker's address to the electors of Clackamas

County, delivered at the meeting lately held in Oregon City, as

reported in the _Spectator_ of the 28th of May, I observe that he

is pleased to point out Mr. Douglas, a judge of the County Court,

who, he understood, was in the habit of selling ardent spirits.

This may have suited Mr. Parker's purpose, while attempting to

establish a position which appears to be a favorite with him, 'that

the oath of office binds a man to do just as he pleases!' As it can

not, however, be supposed that I admire the mode of illustration he

has chosen, and as I also happen to entertain a _very different

opinion_ touching the force and propriety of that oath, I hope it

will not be considered a breach of courtesy on my part, to offer,

through the medium of your respectable paper, a direct and

_unqualified denial of this charge of rum-selling_, in the only

sense it is plainly meant to be received, and can be considered at

all applicable to the subject in question. As a particular favor, I

ask Mr. Parker to bring forward a single proof in support of the

assertion he has so wantonly advanced. I refer him to all his

fellow-citizens. I ask him to search the country from one extremity

to another, and to put the question to each individual member of

the community with the absolute certainty that not one person will

be found who ever purchased ardent spirits from Mr. Douglas. A

stranger in the country, evidently unacquainted with its early

history, Mr. Parker may not have been informed that the members of

the Hudson's Bay Company have for many years past uniformly

discouraged intemperance" (by a regular daily allowance of liquor

to their men, as we shall see Mr. Douglas says) "by every means in

their power, and have also made great and repeated pecuniary

sacrifices to prevent the sale of ardent spirits in the country: an

article, moreover, which forms no part of their trade, either with

the white man or the Indian." (See Mr. Dunn's book, in which it is

asserted the company sells to Indians, and Fitzgerald, page 162).

"Mr. Parker does not indeed pretend to speak from his own personal

experience of the fact, but on the authority of others; and should

any doubt still linger in his mind with respect to the correctness

of what I have just said, he may perhaps have no objection to seek

other means of arriving at the truth; suppose, for instance, he was

to try the experiment of negotiating a purchase, I venture to

predict he would soon be convinced that Mr. Douglas is not in the

habit of selling ardent spirits.

"But let us inquire a little further into this matter. What could

have induced a person of character to hazard an observation in

public, which, he must know, would, if false, be as openly exposed.

Mr. Parker must have had some grounds for his assertion; he may

possibly have heard, or he may have supposed that her Majesty's

ship _Modeste_ was daily receiving supplies at Fort Vancouver. If,

with reference to these supplies, he had told his hearers that her

Majesty's ship _Modeste_, now stationed at Fort Vancouver, had,

with other supplies for ship use from the stores of the Hudson's

Bay Company, received several casks of rum; or if, referring to the

company's own ships, he had stated that a _small allowance of

spirits is daily served out to the crews_ of the company's vessels;

and that other classes of the company's servants, according to

long-accustomed usage, receive, on certain _rare occasions_, a

similar indulgence, he would have told the _plain and simple

truth_, and his statement would not this day have been called in

question by me.

"These acts, which I fully admit, and would on no account attempt

to conceal, can not by the fair rules of construction be considered

as infringing upon any law recognized by the _compact which we have

agreed to support_, in common with the other inhabitants of Oregon.

[The same argument is used to justify Mr. Ogden in furnishing

powder and arms to the Indians at the commencement of the Cayuse

war.]

"The framers of these laws, with a decree of wisdom and foresight

which does them honor, never entertained the idea that a person, in

becoming a member of the compact, thereby relinquished his

_distinctive national character_.

"On the contrary, _British subjects_ and citizens of the United

States, casting aside every shadow of illiberal prejudice, extended

to each other the right hand of good-fellowship, for the purpose of

mutual protection, to secure the peace and promote the prosperity

of the country, until protected by their respective governments.

The compact was formed and perfected upon that principle, and can

rest with security upon no other foundation.

"We are pledged, and do faithfully intend to support the organic

laws. They do not bind us to violate pre-existing engagements with

our servants, nor to withhold from the officers of our government

supplies of whatsoever kind the company's stores can provide. _In

the high character of the latter we enjoy the fullest security

against abuse to the detriment of the country._ With all other

parties we have most rigidly, and shall continue to enforce the

prohibitory statutes of Oregon. My wish in addressing you, Mr.

Editor, is to set Mr. Parker right in respect to this matter of

rum-selling, and the people may rest assured that if my wishes

could influence the community, there would never be a drunkard in

Oregon.

"JAMES DOUGLAS."

Mr. Parker's answer, which, like the letter of Mr. Douglas, is addressed

to the _Spectator_, says:--

"MR. EDITOR,--Our friend Mr. Douglas, in the _Spectator_ of the 11th

instant, denies, in the most unqualified terms, the charge of

rum-selling at Vancouver, and challenges me to the proof of the

assertion, by calling individually on all of our fellow-citizens for

testimony; and no other alternative is left me but to proceed in

accordance with his request; he will, I am sure, pardon me if I seek

this among the highest authorities, and I will produce one at least

whose veracity will not, I am sure, be called in question by our

friend.

"When I, in my speech, adverted to the fact that rum was sold at

Vancouver, contrary to law, the statement was based on the

thousand-tongued rumor, and I so qualified my remarks. But in Mr.

Douglas's confession, found in the paper alluded to, the matter of

doubt is settled, and we are now furnished with the authority of no

less a personage than Mr. Douglas himself. Hear his testimony. 'If,'

says he, 'with reference to these supplies, he had told his hearers

that her Majesty's ship _Modeste_, now stationed at Fort Vancouver,

had, with other supplies for ship use from the stores of the

Hudson's Buy Company, received _several casks_ of rum; or if,

referring to the company's own ships, he had stated that a _small

allowance of spirits is daily served out to the crews_ of the

company's vessels; and that other classes of the company's servants,

according to long-accustomed usage, receive, on certain rare

occasions, a similar indulgence, he would have told the plain and

simple truth,' etc.

"These facts, Mr. Douglas, who has charge of the trading-post at

Vancouver, fully admits, and upon his testimony in the matter I

place the most implicit confidence. It was not my intention to

charge our friend with having kept a tippling-shop at Vancouver, and

I wish to correct such, if any there are, who may have come to such

a conclusion; but I confess, I had not supposed that the law in

relation to ardent spirits (and which may be found in the first

number of the _Spectator_) had been so wantonly disregarded. We

know, from personal observation, that rum in considerable quantities

had found its way among our citizens from some quarter, and the

disclosure here made furnishes a key to the mystery, and we are now

broadly told that _casks of this article_ have been furnished to her

Majesty's officers stationed in Oregon, but that _in their high

character we enjoy the fullest security against its abuse, etc._

"And now, my dear sir, having heard much of the hollow and

ceremonious professions and hypocritical grimaces of courts, and men

in high places, and disgusted with every thing that savors of

aristocratical or monarchical parade, and smitten with the love of

republican simplicity and honesty, I can not admit that rank or men

in high places are guaranteed against our laws, nor are they so

framed as to justify such a conclusion. Raised as I was under these

simple institutions, which tend to bring all on an equality, I can

not perceive those _high guaranties_ or _pledges_ which are said to

emanate from rank or station in high places in society. With us, men

give pledges of honor and character, alone from their moral conduct;

and the bacchanalian carousals (one was a most disgraceful drunken

row kept up for several days by the officers of the _Modeste_, in

honor of the Queen's birthday) which came off in the Tualatin Plains

on Vancouver rum, last winter and spring, at the expense of the good

morals of our farming community, gave me abundant and additional

evidence to admire our simple and republican usages, while it serves

as a moral worthy the consideration of a prince, or the strongest

appendage of nobility. Our laws make no distinction in favor of the

officers on board of her Majesty's ship _Modeste_, nor of the

Hudson's Bay Company's servants. If their ships visit our ports, our

laws will protect them, and, according to the usages of all nations,

we expect them to submit to their provisions; but should these

officers, through the plenitude of their power, determine to

disregard our laws, it certainly could find no justification with

one filling the high judicial station which Mr. Douglas occupies. He

has sanctioned our law-making authority by accepting one of the

highest judicial offices under our organization. According to his

own confession, he has disregarded the law, not only by giving in

small quantities, but by selling ardent spirits by the cask; nor can

he find justification by dealing it out under pre-existing contracts

to the servants of the company. To admit that principle, dealers in

this article would only be required, when the prohibitory law was

about being passed, to contract for the supply of all their old

customers, and thus defeat the object and intention of the law by a

pre-existing contract. And as for the argument of long-existing

usages, that pays the poorest tribute of all. Why, the very toper

may plead his long indulgence in the use of this article, with as

much propriety. I should not have noticed the subject again, but for

my anxious desire that the matter should be fairly placed before the

public.

"SAMUEL PARKER."

These two laws, and the two communications we have given, place the

temperance question fully before the reader. The communication of Mr.

Douglas shows the position and feelings of the English and the Hudson's

Bay Company in relation to our laws, as also the liberty they claimed to

violate them whenever it suited their interest or their convenience. Mr.

Douglas says, "_with all other parties we have most rigidly, and shall

continue to enforce the prohibitory statutes of Oregon._" It also shows

another fact. _"The Modeste, now stationed at Fort Vancouver," is our_

(the company's) protection, and you must not attempt to enforce a law

upon English subjects, or English ships that enter the rivers or ports

of the country. To say that many of us did not feel keenly this _taunt_,

and almost despair of securing this vast country from the rapacious

mouth of the crouching lion, whose drunken, beastly representatives were

distributing their rum to every family that would receive them, would

not be true.

When their representatives entered our legislative councils, the most

stupid of its members understood their object. They wished to make laws

for Americans. Their own people needed no laws, and no other government

than such as was provided for them by the Hudson's Bay Company. The

reader is already informed how those laws were enforced.

Dr. Tolmie, who at the present time (1870) stands at the head of the

company in Vancouver Island and British Columbia, presented the

following resolution to the house on the sixth day of the session,

showing the true position of the English element:--

"_Resolved_, That the judiciary committee be discharged from further

duty, as the present Legislature deems it inexpedient to organize

the judiciary at the present time, in any manner different from the

present organization."

By a reference to the journal of the house, we find Dr. Tolmie to be a

member of the judiciary committee. Four days after, we find this same

gentleman presenting another resolution:--

"That the Legislature deems it inexpedient, at the present time, to

legalize the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits."

_Yeas_--_Chamberlain_, _McDonald_, and _Tolmie_--3. _Nays_--Boon, HALL,

Hembree, LOUNSDALE, LOONEY, Meek, _Newell_, _Peers_, Summers, Straight,

T. Vault, Williams and the Speaker--13. Hudson's Bay Company men in

_italics_; doubtful, in SMALL CAPITALS.

On the motion of Newell to lay the bill to regulate the manufacture and

sale of ardent spirits on the table, it stood: _Yeas_--Chamberlain,

Hall, Lounsdale, Looney, McDonald, Newell, and Tolmie--7. _Nays_--Boon,

Hembree, Meek, Summers, Straight, T. Vault, Williams, and the

Speaker--8. Peers absent.

On the final vote to carry this bill over the veto of the governor, we

find Hall, Lounsdale, and Looney changing their votes in favor of

passing the bill over the veto, which is as follows:--

OREGON CITY, Dec. 17, 1846.

GENTLEMEN,--I return to your honorable body the act entitled "An

Act to regulate the manufacture and sale of wine and distilled

spirituous liquors," with my objections to the same.

Previous to our organization as a provisional government, public

sentiment kept liquor from being manufactured or sold in this

Territory. Heretofore, every act of the Legislature has been, as

far as ardent spirits were concerned, prohibitory in character. The

act lying before me is the first act that has in any manner

attempted to legalize the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits.

At the session of the Legislature in June, 1844, an act was passed

entitled "An Act to prevent the introduction, sale, and

distillation of ardent spirits in Oregon," and, as far as my

knowledge extends, the passage of that act gave satisfaction to the

great majority of the people throughout the Territory. At the

session of December, 1845, several amendments were proposed to the

old law, and passed. The new features given to the bill by those

amendments did not accord with the views of the people; the

insertion of the words "give" and "gift," in the first and second

sections of the bill, they thought was taking away their rights, as

it was considered that a man had a right to give away his property

if he chose. There were several other objections to the bill, which

I set forth to your honorable body in my message. I would therefore

recommend that the amendments passed at the December session of

1845 be repealed; and that the law passed on the 24th of June,

1844, with such alterations as will make it agree with the organic

law, if it does not agree with it, be again made the law of the

land. It is said by many that the Legislature has no right to

prohibit the introduction or sale of liquor, and this is probably

the strongest argument used in defense of your bill. But do you not

as effectually prohibit every person who has not the sum of one,

two, three hundred dollars to pay for his license, as does the law

now on the statute-book? Are not your proposed fines and penalties

as great or greater than those of the old law? Where, then, is the

benefit to the people? There is no doubt in my mind, but that the

law will be evaded as easily, and as often, under the new law, as

it was under the old, and, in addition to this, there will be the

legal manufacturers, importers, and sellers, who will be able,

under the sanction of law, to scatter all the evils attendant upon

the use of alcoholic drinks. We are in an Indian country; men will

be found who will supply them with liquor as long as they have

beaver, blankets, and horses to pay for it. If a quantity should be

introduced among the Wallawallas, and other tribes in the upper

country, who can foretell the consequences; there we have families

exposed out, off from the protection of the settlements, and

perhaps, at the first drunken frolic of the Indians in that region,

they may be cut off from the face of the earth. But we need not go

so far; we are exposed in every part of our frontier, and when

difficulties once commence, we can not tell where they will cease.

It has been proved before the House of Commons that one-half of the

insanity, two-thirds of the pauperism, and three-fourths of the

crimes of Great Britain may be directly traced to the use of

alcoholic drink. The testimony of our most eminent judges in the

United States shows that the same proportion of crime is

attributable to ardent spirits in that country. Statistics might be

produced, showing the enormous evil and expense of an

indiscriminate use of liquor.

As to revenue, the small amount received for licenses, instead of

being a revenue, would be swallowed up in the expenses attending

trials for crimes, etc., caused by the crime of these licenses.

But, leaving all other countries out of view, let us consider our

own state. Surrounded by Indians, no military force to aid the

executive and other officers in the discharge of their duties, not

a solitary prison in the land, in which to confine offenders

against the laws, and consequently no way of enforcing the

penalties of the law, I think these things should call for calm and

serious reflection, before passing your final vote on this bill. My

opinion is, the people are opposed to legalizing the introduction

and sale of liquor in this land. I may be mistaken, and therefore

should be in favor of the old law, or something similar should be

adopted, of referring the whole matter to the polls at the next

general election. If the people say "No liquor," continue to

prohibit; if they say, through the ballot-box, "We wish liquor,"

then let it come free, the same as dry-goods, or any other article

imported or manufactured; but, until the people say they want it, I

hope you will use your influence to keep it out of the Territory.

It is with regret that I return any bill unsigned, but I feel that

we both have duties to perform, and when we think duty points out

the way, I trust we may always be found willing to follow it.

GEO. ABERNETHY.

To the Hon. the Legislature of Oregon Territory.

On motion of Mr. Hall, the communication was laid on the table.

AFTERNOON SESSION.--At two o'clock the house met. A call of the house

was made, and the sergeant-at-arms dispatched for the absent members,

who, after a short absence, returned, and reported that the absentees

had been notified, and were now present. Thereupon, the further call of

the house was dispensed with.

The house then reconsidered the bill to regulate the manufacture and

sale of ardent spirits, and, after some deliberation, the question being

put upon the passage of the bill, it was decided affirmatively, by the

following vote:--

_Yeas_--Messrs. Boon, Hall, Hembree, Lounsdale, Looney, Meek, Summers,

Straight, T. Vault, Williams, and the Speaker--11.

_Nays_--Messrs. Chamberlain, McDonald, Newell, Peers, and Dr. W. F.

Tolmie--5.

* * * * *

At St. Josephs, Elizabethtown, Iowa Point, Council Bluffs, and the

Nishnabatona, were 271 wagons for Oregon and California. Allowing five

to the wagon gives us about 1,355 souls that crossed the Missouri at

these points. The quantity of loose stock was estimated at 5,000 head.

From Independence, Missouri, for Oregon, 141 men, 71 women, 109

children, and 128 wagons. From Independence, for California, 98 men, 40

women, 57 children, 320 oxen, and 46 wagons. Total, 1,841 souls, as

stated in Mr. Saxton's pamphlet, 1846. The larger portion of this

immigration found their way into Oregon, notwithstanding the Hudson's

Bay Company and Mr. Hastings did all they could to turn them to

California. A statement by Mr. S. K. Barlow shows that 141 wagons, 1,559

head of horses, mules, and horned cattle, and some 15 head of sheep

passed on his road; seven more teams passed after this report was made.

Besides the number that came over the Mount Hood or Barlow road, there

were some persons, with wagons, who attempted to come in on the

Applegate route, and a number came down the Columbia River.

This year, on the 21st of February, the brig _Henry_, Captain Kilborn,

started from Newburyport for Oregon, with eight passengers, including

women and children; also the _Angelo_, Captain Hastings, from Boston,

made the attempt, but failed. The brig _Henry_ arrived late in 1846.

On Thursday, February 5, 1846, the first newspaper published on the

Pacific coast was issued from the press of the Oregon Printing

Association, at Oregon City. The originators of the Printing-Press

Association were the same that started the Multnomah Circulating

Library, the Wolf Association, and the provisional government, in

1842-3.

_Constitution of the Oregon Printing Association._

PREAMBLE.--In order to promote science, temperance, morality, and

general intelligence,--to establish a printing-press to publish a

monthly, semi-monthly, or weekly paper in Oregon,--the undersigned do

hereby associate ourselves into a body, to be governed by such rules and

regulations as shall from time to time be adopted by a majority of the

stockholders of this compact, in a regularly called and properly

notified meeting.

_Articles of Compact._

ARTICLE 1. This association shall be known by the name of the "Oregon

Printing Association," and shall hold an annual meeting at Oregon City,

on the first Tuesday of December of each year.

ART. 2. Its officers shall be a president, vice-president, secretary,

treasurer, and a Board of three directors, who shall be elected annually

by ballot, and shall hold their offices until their successors are

elected.

ART. 3. It shall be the duty of the president to preside at all the

meetings of the association, to sign all certificates of stock, and

drafts upon the treasurer for the payment of funds, and to preside at

the meetings of the Board of Directors.

ART. 4. It shall be the duty of the vice-president to perform the duties

of the president in case of his absence, by death, or by removal from

office.

ART. 5.----The secretary to attend, and keep a record of all the

meetings of the association, and of the Board of Directors, and to

publish the proceedings of the annual and special meetings of the

association, and such portions of the proceedings of the Board of

Directors as the Board shall direct from time to time; to give one

month's notice of all special meetings of the association.

ART. 6. It shall be the duty of the treasurer to take charge of the

funds of the association, and keep an account of all moneys received and

disbursed, and pay out the same in accordance with drafts drawn on him

by the president, and signed as per third article of this compact; to

give such security to the president as shall be deemed sufficient by the

Board of Directors for the faithful performance of his trust; to report

the state of the treasury to the Board of Directors quarterly, and to

pay over to his successor in office all funds of the association.

ART. 7.----The officers and Board of Directors to manage and

superintend, or procure a suitable person to do so, the entire printing

and publishing association; to employ all persons required in the

printing or editorial departments of the press; to publish a full

statement of their proceedings semi-annually; to draft and adopt such

by-laws as may be deemed proper for their government, provided no by-law

contravenes the spirit of these articles of compact; to declare a

dividend of any profits arising from the printing establishment as often

as they shall deem it expedient; to fill any vacancy that may occur in

their number; three of whom shall constitute a quorum, and be competent

to transact business.

ART. 8. _The press owned by or in connection with this association shall

never be used by any party for the purpose of propagating sectarian

principles or doctrines_, nor for the discussion of exclusive party

politics.

ART. 9. The stock of this association shall consist of shares, of ten

dollars each, payable in cash or its equivalent.

ART. 10. For every ten dollars paid to the treasurer of the association,

the payer thereof shall receive a certificate for the same, signed by

the president and countersigned by the secretary; and for every such

certificate, the holder thereof, or his agent, on presenting to the

Board of Directors satisfactory evidence that he is such, shall be

entitled to one vote in all the annual and special meetings of this

association; shall receive _pro rata_ of all moneys that may accrue from

the profits of the printing establishment, and be allowed to transfer

his stock to any one, by certifying and indorsing his name upon the back

of his certificate.

ART. 11. These articles, _except the 8th_, may be altered or amended at

any annual or special meeting of the association, provided that the

proposed amendment shall have been published in at least two numbers of

the paper published by order of the association.

_Officers of the Association_,

W. G. T. VAULT, President.

J. W. NESMITH, Vice-President.

JOHN P. BROOKS, Secretary.

GEORGE ABERNETHY, Treasurer.

JOHN H. COUCH, }

JOHN E. LONG, } Directors.

R. NEWELL, }

The first editor of this paper was W. G. T. Vault. A man more unfit for

the position could scarcely have been found in the country. He professed

to have been an editor of a paper in Arkansas, and blew and swelled

like the toad in the fable, and whined like a puppy when he gave his

valedictory, in the fifth number of the _Spectator_. He says: "We have

among us a class of _mongrels_, neither American nor anti-American, a

kind of foreign, hypocritical go-betweens,--as we would say in the

States, _fence men_,--whose public declarations are, 'All for the good

of the public, and not a cent for self.' The political sentiments of the

conductors were at variance with his." Mr. T. Vault was led to believe

that Mr. Newell was his only friend, from the fact that he was absent

from the meeting of the Board when his successor was appointed; and

complains of Dr. Long and J. W. Nesmith. Newell and Long acted together.

H. A. G. Lee, who succeeded T. Vault as editor, was far better qualified

for the position, though he did not suit this same Board of Directors,

as Newell was the maneuvering spirit. Lee was too strongly American in

his sentiments, and too intelligent to be a dupe of the influence of

which T. Vault complained.

Mr. Douglas declares the position of the English element in the tenth

number of the _Spectator_. Mr. S. Parker answers him in the eleventh

number; and Mr. Lee, in the fourteenth number, tenders his thanks to the

Board for relieving him. The fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth

numbers, each "run itself," as the expression is.

On the eighteenth number, G. L. Curry, Esq., took charge, to the

twenty-sixth number, which completed the first volume of the paper. He

continued his editorial position till the twenty-fourth number of the

second volume, when he brought his duties to a close by publishing a set

of resolutions calculated to injure J. Q. Thornton, who had gone on to

Washington to have a history of the country published, and, as was

supposed, to secure the best federal appointments for himself and his

friends. One-half of the legislators believing that unfair and improper

means had been used by Mr. Thornton and his friends, the other half not

caring to vote against Mr. Thornton's proceedings, being, perhaps, his

real friends, the resolutions were lost by a tie vote. Mr. Curry, as

editor of the _Spectator_, took sides against Mr. Thornton, and in favor

of the objectionable resolutions, and published them under an editorial

article, notwithstanding he had been requested, as he admits, not to

publish them.

Judge A. E. Wait succeeded Mr. Curry in the editorial department of the

paper, and, by a foolish, vacillating course, continued to hold his

position so as to please the Hudson's Bay Company and the Roman Catholic

and Methodist influences in the country. The paper, by this means,

became of little value to its patrons and the country, and soon getting

involved in its financial affairs, it was sold and lost financially to

the original proprietors.

CHAPTER LIV.

The Whitman massacres.--Narratives of, by J. B. A. Brouillet and J.

Ross Browne.--Extract from the New York _Evangelist._--Statements

of Father Brouillet criticised.--Testimony of John Kimzey.--Dr.

Whitman at Umatilla.--Returns home.

We have before us two works purporting to give a true and authentic

account of the Whitman massacre,--the one prepared by a Jesuit priest,

J. B. A. Brouillet; the other by one J. Ross Browne, special agent of

the United States revenue department. As this part of our history was

written before that of J. Ross Browne (purporting to be an official

report to the 35th Congress, 1st session, House of Representatives,

Executive Document No. 38) came into our hands, it is proper that we

should give this report a passing notice.

Mr. Browne, upon the second page of his report, says: "In view of the

fact, however, that objections might be made to any testimony coming

from the citizens of the Territory, and believing also that it is the

duty of a public agent to present, as far as practicable, _unprejudiced

statements_, I did not permit myself to be governed by any

representations unsupported by _reliable_ historical data."

One would naturally conclude, from such a statement, that a candid,

unprejudiced, and truthful report would be given; but, to our

astonishment, we find that fifty-three of the sixty-six pages of this

official document are an exact copy of the Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet's

work, thus indorsing, and placing in an official document, one of the

most maliciously false and unreliable accounts that a prejudiced and

deeply implicated sectarian could give, claiming such to be "_reliable

historical data_,"--thus showing both his prejudice and ignorance in the

conclusion he arrived at as to the causes of the Indian wars.

Had J. Ross Browne been willing to lay aside his unreasonable sectarian

prejudice, and listen to the positive testimony then in the country, he

could easily have learned who were the prime cause of all the Indian

wars in it; or, had he made himself familiar (as he flippantly claims to

have done) with the history of the English and American people, the

policy of the English political and sectarian powers, and the commercial

policy of the Hudson's Bay Company, he would have escaped the folly of

placing in an official document such palpable errors, and showing such

willful ignorance of the subject he was commissioned to investigate.

He says, on page 2, "It was a war of _destiny_,--bound to take place

whenever the causes reached their _culminating point_." The "_destiny_"

and culminating point of that war was fixed by the Hudson's Bay Company

and the Jesuit priests, as also the second and third wars with the

Indians that followed, as we shall show by positive testimony of

witnesses who are unimpeachable.

Had J. Ross Browne carefully examined the tissue of statements prepared

by Father Brouillet, he could have found statements like this on page 53

(38 of J. R. B.), "_I knew that the Indians were angry with all

Americans_;" page 54 (39 of J. R. B.), "_All that I know is that the

Indians say the order to kill Americans_ has been sent in all

directions."

There was but one party in the country that could issue such an order,

which Brouillet well knew, and the testimony we shall give will prove.

On his third page, he says: "The same primary causes existed in every

case,--encroachments of a superior upon an inferior race." He then

refers to the agitation of the Oregon question in the Senate in 1840-41;

to Mr. Thurston's course as a delegate; the treaties with the Indians,

etc.,--showing conclusively the sources of his information, and his

ignorance of the causes he professed to give a truthful and impartial

account of,--barely alluding to the unwarranted assumptions of the

British Hudson's Bay Company of an exclusive right to trade with the

Indians. In fact, the whole report appears to be a studied effort to

cover the prime causes of the difficulty, and of the Indian wars he was

commissioned to investigate and report upon.

It is not surprising that with the foreign emissaries then in the

country, and the stupid ignorance or malicious bigotry of the United

States agent, that such reports should be made; but that the government

should adopt, and act upon, or publish them, is indeed surprising;

unless, as the history of the late rebellion shows, it was the design of

those agents to involve the whole nation in an ultimate dismemberment,

and distinct, separate nationalities, under the auspices of African,

Indian, and religious slavery. We regret the necessity of prefacing a

chapter in this work with so severe a stricture upon a government

official, yet his report is so manifestly false and malicious, and

without the evidence of truth or candor toward the Protestant

missionaries, to whom is due, more than to any other influence, the

settlement of the country by the American people,--that, in justice to

them, and the truth of history, we can say no less, while we proceed

with the account of the murder of Dr. Whitman and those at his station.

The necessity and importance of an extended and particular account

becomes still more important from the fact that the Roman Jesuits in the

country have succeeded in placing through such an agent their false

account of the massacre in a permanent government document,--thus

slandering not only the dead, but the living, whose duty it becomes to

refute such vile slanders by publishing the whole truth in the case.

Besides, the very Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet, in a second edition of his

false and absurd production, refers to this report of J. R. Browne as

additional official evidence of the truth of his own false statements,

previously made through such agents, and such men as Sir James

Douglas,--compelling us, in vindicating the truth of history, to place

before the reader more of the statements of parties implicated than was

our original design.

Since this work has been in press, we have an article in the New York

_Evangelist_ of 6th of January, 1870, from the pen of Rev. Mr. Treat,

D.D., containing a brief statement of the Whitman massacre, and the

following as the result of the investigations as had in several

religious bodies in Oregon; the conclusion is as follows:--

"It so happens, however, that men who are more competent to

adjudicate the case have not hesitated to do so. The

Congregational Association of Oregon adopted a report in June

last, which condemns the 'prominent and absolute falsehoods' of

Father Brouillet's pamphlet, and expresses the belief, 'from

evidence, clear and sufficient to them, that the Roman Catholic

priests did themselves instigate violence to the missions,

resulting in massacre.' Similar action was taken by the Old School

Presbytery, the Cumberland Presbytery, and the U. P. Presbytery.

The Methodist Conference, composed of more than seventy preachers,

and under the presidency of Bishop Kingsley, adopted a

comprehensive and able report, which was published at Portland,

September 25, 1869, in which the massacre at Wailatpu is declared

to have been 'wholly unprovoked by Dr. Whitman or any other member

of the mission,' and to have arisen from the policy of the

Hudson's Bay Company 'to exclude American settlers,' and the

'efforts of Roman priests directed against the establishment of

Protestantism in the country.' It is believed that the other

evangelical denominations in Oregon have spoken with the same

distinctness and the same confidence.

"Valuable testimony is borne to the character of the missionaries

who survived Dr. Whitman, and who have been residents of Oregon to

this day, as also to the fidelity and success of their labors, but

there is not space for it in the present article. Suffice it to

say, that, while the motives of Hon. J. Ross Browne, in appending

Father Brouillet's pamphlet to his 'Letter,' and the reasons of

the House of Representative for publishing the same, are open to

grave suspicion, facts and opinions have been elicited, which

throw additional light upon the manifold bearings and uses of the

missionary enterprise."

On page 40 of Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet's "Protestantism in Oregon" and

page 33 of J. Ross Browne's report, we find, under date of September 5,

1847, that "the Right Rev. Bishop Blanchet arrived at old Fort

Wallawalla (now called Wallula), where he was cordially received by Mr.

McBean, clerk in charge of said fort. He was accompanied by the superior

of Oblates and two other clergymen. He had the intention of remaining

but a few days at the fort, for he knew that Tawatowe (or Young Chief),

one of the Cayuse chiefs, had a house which he had designed for the

Catholic missionaries, and he intended to go and occupy it without

delay; but the absence of the Young Chief, who was hunting buffalo,

created a difficulty in regard to the occupation of the house, and in

consequence of it he had to wait longer than he wished."

The house here spoken of was erected during the summer of 1837, before

any Catholic missionaries were thought of, at least among the Indians,

or by the American missionaries, and it was late in the fall of 1838

that Revs. Blanchet and Demerse passed down the Columbia River. These

first missionaries of the Society of Jesus, wishing to do Mr. P. C.

Pambrun, then clerk of the post, a special favor, baptized the infant

son of the Young Chief, for whose benefit and occupation, Mr. Pambrun

said, the company had ordered that house to be built. If it was designed

for these priests, who was the designer?

Mr. Brouillet, in his narrative, says:--

"On the 23d of September, Dr. Whitman, on his way from the Dalles,

stopped at Fort Wallawalla. His countenance bore sufficient

testimony to the agitation of his heart. He soon showed by his words

that he was deeply wounded by the arrival of the bishop. 'I know

very well,' said he, 'for what purpose you have come.' 'All is

known,' replied the bishop; 'I come to labor for the conversion of

the Indians, and even of Americans, if they are willing to listen to

me.' The doctor then continued, in the same tone, to speak of many

things. He attributed the coming of the bishop to the Young Chief's

influence! made a furious charge against the Catholics, accusing

them of having persecuted Protestants and even of having shed their

blood wherever they had prevailed. He said he did not like

Catholics----that he should oppose the missionaries to the extent of

his power.----He spoke against the _Catholic Ladder_![12] and said

that he would cover it with blood, to show the persecution of

Protestants by Catholics. He refused to sell provisions to the

bishop, and protested he would not assist the missionaries unless he

saw them in starvation."

[Footnote 12] A picture explaining the principal points of

Catholic faith.

It is barely possible that Dr. Whitman said all that this priest says he

did. In that case, did he forfeit his own and the lives of all that fell

with him? This narrative of _Protestantism_ reveals a dark page in our

history,--one that should be thoroughly investigated as well as

understood by all.

On the 24th page, 33d of Ross Browne's report, this priest says:--

"After such a manifestation of sentiment toward Catholics in general

and priests in particular, the bishop was not astonished in hearing

some hours after that Dr. Whitman, on leaving the fort, went to the

lodge of Piopiomoxmox (Yellow Serpent); that he had spoken a great

deal against the priests; that he had wished to prevail upon this

chief to co-operate with him, in order that by the aid of his

influence with the Cayuses, Des Chutes, and Dalles Indians, he might

be enabled to excite these nations against them, etc."

That Dr. Whitman did as he is represented to have done no one acquainted

with him will believe for a moment. But Bishop Blanchet's letter to

Governor Abernethy is evidence conclusive that he and his priests had

done exactly what they here say Dr. Whitman attempted to do.

"During the months of October and November," Brouillet says, "the

Doctor came to the fort several times to render his professional

services to Mrs. Maxwell and Mr. Thomas McKay; he was a little

more reserved than at the first interview, but it was always

visible enough that the sight of the bishop and his clergy was far

from being agreeable to him."

It will be remembered that Mr. Brouillet is giving this narrative and

speaking of a man whose blood had been shod in the cause of

"_Protestantism in Oregon_," as he calls the title of his work, which he

is writing to correct the impression that he and his associates were in

some way concerned in bringing it about. In his allusions and

statements, he seems to be anxious to prove that Dr. Whitman and all

Protestants and Americans in the country are guilty of the crime laid to

the influence of the priests, and by giving these statements expects

everybody will believe _them_ to be wholly innocent. J. Ross Browne, in

his report, 3d page, agrees with this priest, and refers to supposed

transactions (_that did not occur_) in 1835. At that time there was not

a band or tribe of Indians west of the Rocky Mountains but was ready to

give land to any white man that would come and live in their country.

This land question, as stated by Brouillet and Ross Browne, or the

"_encroachments of a superior upon an inferior race_," had no part in

the matter. It was a foreign national question, as we have already

shown, and we now propose to quote these statements from his narrative,

to show the intimate connection there was between the Jesuit priests,

the Hudson's Bay Company, the Indians, and the Whitman massacre.

According to Brouillet, the bishop and his priests remained at Fort

Wallawalla from the 5th of September till the 26th of October (fifty

days), enjoying the hospitality of Mr. McBean, and seeing Dr. Whitman

occasionally, till, on the 26th, the Young Chief arrived. "The bishop

wished to know of him if he wanted a priest for him and his young men,

telling him that he could only give him one for the whole nation, and if

the Cayuses wished to avail themselves of his services _they would do

well to come to an understanding together concerning_ the location of

the mission. The chief told the bishop he wished a priest, and that he

could have his house and as much land as he wanted." So far this

statement bears the natural impress of truth, but mark the words here

put into the chief's mouth, "_but as a means of reuniting the Cayuses_

who had been heretofore divided, and in order to _facilitate their

religious instruction_, he suggested the idea of establishing the

mission near Dr. Whitman's, at the camp of Tilokaikt."

The previous history of this chief, as given by Revs. Hines, Perkins,

and Dr. White, all goes to prove that he never made such a suggestion,

and no one acquainted with Indian character will believe for a moment

that he did. But the suggestion was without doubt made to him to impress

upon his mind the importance of uniting with other bands of his tribe to

get rid of Dr. Whitman, as shown by this priest in the council that was

held on the 4th of November, by special request of the bishop sent to

Tilokaikt on the 29th October, purporting to be by request of the Young

Chief. The dates show, as per Brouillet, that the Young Chief was with

the bishop on the 26th; on the 29th the bishop sent for Tilokaikt; and

on the 4th of November the council was held, "at the bishop's request,"

who opened the meeting in the fort. At this meeting the proposition is

said to have been made to the bishop to give him Dr. Whitman's station,

first driving him away. Says T. McKay, in his statement to acquit these

priests, speaking of this meeting on the 4th of November: "One of the

chiefs told the bishop that they would send the Doctor off very soon;

they would give him his house if he wished. The bishop answered that he

would not take the Doctor's house, that he did not wish him to send the

Doctor away, and that there was _room enough for two missions_." This

was, as understood by the Indians, "The bishop intends to have a place

near Dr. Whitman's, and he wishes us to dispose of the Doctor in some

way so that he can have a place where all the Cayuses can be instructed

together in his religion."

In accordance with the understanding had with the bishop and Cayuses in

this council on the 4th, this priest says (see p. 44 of Brouillet, 34 of

J. R. Browne): "On the 8th of November I went by order of the bishop to

Wailatpu to look at the land which Tilokaikt had offered; but he had

changed his mind, and refused to show it to me, saying that it was too

small. He told me that he had no place to give me but that of Dr.

Whitman, whom he intended to send away. I declared to him a second time

the same as the bishop had done at the meeting, that I would not have

the place of Dr. Whitman. I then went immediately to the camp of Young

Chief, to notify him that I would take his house, since I was unable to

procure a place from Tilokaikt." He further says he returned to the fort

on the 10th, and on the 11th, an associate, Rev. Mr. Rousseau, left with

his men to repair the house, which was ready by the 26th, and on the

27th of November the bishop and his party started for the house, said to

have been designed for them (of which there is no doubt). On their first

arrival at Wallawalla, it would have been the wiser course for them to

have accepted of it, instead of attempting, through the influence of the

company, to get possession of Dr. Whitman's station, or the consent of

the Indians, as they say they did, to locate near the station. But we

have positive proof of the design of Mr. McBean, the agent of the

company, and the bishop, as given in the testimony of Mr. John Kimzey.

He says: "On my way to this country with my family last fall (1847), I

called at Fort Wallawalla to exchange my team and wagon for horses.

There were at the fort two Roman Catholic priests. During my stay of

about two days, Mr. McBean, in the presence of my wife, said, '_The

fathers have offered to purchase Dr. Whitman's station_, but Dr. Whitman

has refused to sell.' He said they had requested the Doctor to fix his

own price and they would meet it, but the Doctor had refused to sell on

any conditions, I asked him who he meant by the fathers? He said '_The

holy fathers, the Catholic priests._' He said the _holy fathers_ were

about to commence a mission at the mouth of the Umatilla,--one in the

upper part of the Umatilla, one near Dr. Whitman's station, _if they

could not get hold of the station_, one in several other places which I

can not name. They hired Mr. Marsh, whose tools I brought, to do off a

room for the priests at the fort. He said, '_Dr. Whitman had better

leave the country or the Indians would kill him; we are determined to

have his station._' He further said, 'Mr. Spalding will also have to

leave this country soon.' As I was about leaving, Mr. McBean said: 'If

you could pass as an Englishman, the Indians would not injure you; if

they do disturb you, show them the horses and the marks, and they will

know my horses; show them by signs that you are from the fort, and they

will let you pass.' The Indians noticed the marks on the horses and did

not disturb me.

"JOHN KIMZEY."

"Subscribed and sworn to before me, at my office in Tualatin Plains [now

Washington County], this 28th day of August, 1848.

"DAVID T. LENOX, Justice of the Peace."

This is fully confirmed by the oath of R. S. Wilcox, as having heard the

statement from Mr. Kimzey the night after he left the fort, in camp at

the mouth of the Umatilla, before the same justice of the peace. Mr.

Wilcox says Mr. Kimzey was much alarmed, and really believed that it was

the design of the priests' party to kill Dr. Whitman and drive the

American missionaries out of the country. His reply was, "The Catholics

have not got that station yet."

Had we not the best English testimony, Fitzgerald's, and the statements

of P. J. De Smet and Hoikin in their letters to their missionary society

in Brussels, to show the connection of the Hudson's Bay Company with

this transaction, the facts above stated would fasten the conviction of

a strong and outspoken determination to overthrow the Protestant

missions. It will be remembered that these threats and efforts to get

rid of Dr. Whitman were made before the appearance of any sickness or

measles among the Cayuses.

Mr. Brouillet, on the 84th page of his narrative, says, "But I affirm

that such a demand has never been made to Dr. Whitman by any one of us."

We are not disposed to dispute Mr. Brouillet's affirmation, be it true

or false. The truth is all we seek to know.

The reader will not be particularly interested in the long details of

statements made by this priest to show that they had no part in bringing

about the destruction of the Protestant missions and the Whitman

massacre. Mr. McBean and Sir James Douglas have written extensively,

together with P. H. Burnett, Esq., and this Rev. Vicar-General

Brouillet, to show that nobody is responsible for that crime but the

missionaries who were murdered and the Indians, while Rev. Messrs.

Griffin and Spalding have attempted to fasten the whole crime upon the

Roman priests alone. It appears from Mr. Spalding's account that he met

Mr. Brouillet and the bishop at Wallawalla on the 26th of November, and

had a sectarian discussion with them, which he thought was friendly, yet

from the fact that this priest barely alludes to the visit, and not a

word of the discussion is mentioned, we infer that Mr. Spalding had the

best of the argument, and that he was entirely mistaken as to the

friendly manner in which they could conduct their missions in the same

section of country. We will not attempt to reconcile the conflicting

statements of these missionary parties, but will collect the most

reliable facts and particulars of the tragic events in which these

parties and the whole country became so deeply involved,--a part of them

so strongly implicated.

That the massacre was expected to take place in a short time, and that

all the Americans at the station, and all in any way connected with, or

favoring, the Protestant missions and American settlements in the

country, were to be included in the ultimate overthrow of those upper,

or middle Oregon missions, there can be no doubt; as shown in the

quotations we have given from our English Hudson's Bay Company's

historian and Sir Edward Belcher, and the efforts of the company to

colonize the country with English subjects from Red River, instead of

encouraging them to come direct from England.

It appears from the dates and accounts we have, that Dr. Whitman was

sent for to visit Five Crow's lodge on the Umatilla, not far from the

house to be occupied by the bishop and his priests; that Mr. Spalding

accompanied the doctor to visit some of the Protestant Indians in that

vicinity; that the same day (the 27th of November), the bishop and his

priests started from Wallawalla to go to their station and occupy the

house of Young Chief. They arrived at their places and learned that Dr.

Whitman and Mr. Spalding were in the neighborhood. On the next day,

Sunday, 28th, Dr. Whitman made a short call on them, and hastened home

to attend on the sick about his place. While at the lodge of a French

half-breed named Nicholas Finlay, the Indians were holding a council, to

decide and arrange the preliminaries of the massacre, with Joe Lewis, a

Canadian-Indian, and Joe Stanfield, a Frenchman. Of this last-named man,

Mr. Brouillet says: "As to Joseph Stanfield, I admit that he was born

and has been educated a Catholic." He lays great stress on the fact that

this fellow had been tried and acquitted. He says: "Why should we

pretend now to be more enlightened and wiser than the tribunals have

been, and judge him more severely than they have done."

Dr. Whitman arrived at his station about twelve o'clock at night,

attended upon the sick, and retired. That night an Indian had died. In

the morning, the Doctor, as usual, had a coffin and a winding-sheet

prepared, and assisted the friends in burying their dead. He observed,

on returning to the house, that but two or three attended at the grave.

As he returned, great numbers of Indians were seen gathering about the

station; but an ox had been killed, and was being dressed, which was

supposed to be the cause, as the Indians on such occasions always

collected in great numbers, and often from a distance.

CHAPTER LV.

Occupations of the victims immediately before the

massacre.--Description of the mission buildings.--The Doctor called

into the kitchen to be murdered.--Joe Lewis, the leader in the

massacre.--The scene outside.--The Doctor's house plundered.--Mrs.

Whitman shot.--Brutalities to the dead and dying.--Escape of some

and murder of others.--Safety of the French Papists and the

servants of the Hudson's Bay Company.--Fate of Joe Lewis.

Joseph Stanfield had brought in the ox from the plains, and it had been

shot by Francis Sager. Messrs. Kimball, Canfield, and Hoffman were

dressing it between the two houses; Mr. Sanders was in the school, which

he had just called in for the afternoon; Mr. Marsh was grinding at the

mill; Mr. Gillan was on his tailor's bench in the large adobe house, a

short distance from the doctor's; Mr. Hall was at work laying a floor to

a room adjoining the Doctor's house; Mr. Rogers was in the garden; Mr.

Osborn and family were in the Indian room adjoining the Doctor's

sitting-room; young Mr. Sales was lying sick in the family of Mr.

Canfield, who was living in the blacksmith shop; young Mr. Bewley was

sick in the Doctor's house; John Sager was sitting in the kitchen but

partially recovered from the measles; the Doctor and Mrs. Whitman, with

their three sick children, and Mrs. Osborn and her sick child, were in

the dining or sitting room.

The mission buildings occupied a triangular space of ground fronting the

north in a straight line, about four hundred feet in length. The

Doctor's house, standing on the west end, and fronting west, was 18 x 62

feet, adobe walls; library and bedroom on south end; dining and sitting

room in the middle, 18 x 24; Indian room on north end, 18 x 26; kitchen

on the east side of the house, 18 x 26, fireplace in the middle, and

bedroom in rear; schoolroom joining on the east of the kitchen, 18 x 30;

blacksmith shop, 150 feet east; the house called the mansion on the east

end of the angle, 32 x 40 feet, one and a half stories; the mill, made

of wood, standing upon the old site, about four hundred feet from either

house. The east and south space of ground was protected by the mill-pond

and Wallawalla Creek--north front by a ditch that discharged the waste

water from the mill, and served to irrigate the farm in front of the

Doctor's house, which overlooked the whole. To the north and east is a

high knoll, less than one-fourth of a mile distant; and directly to the

north, three-fourths of a mile distant, is Mill Creek. In a military or

defensive question, the premises could be easily protected from

small-arms or cavalry.

While the Doctor was sitting with his family as above stated, several

Indians, who had come into the kitchen, came to the door leading to the

dining-room, and requested him to come into the kitchen. He did so,

taking his bible in his hand, in which he was reading, and shut the door

after him. Edward Sager sat down by his side and asked for medicine.

Tilokaikt commenced a conversation with him, when Tamsaky, an Indian,

called the Murderer, and the one that told the bishop at Wallawalla he

would give him the Doctor's station, came behind him, and, drawing a

pipe tomahawk from under his blanket, struck the Doctor on the back of

his head. The first blow stunned him and his head fell upon his breast,

but the second blow followed instantly upon the top of his head, and

brought him senseless but not lifeless to the floor.

John Sager, rising up, attempted to draw a pistol; the Indians before

him rushed to the door by which they had entered, crying out, "He will

shoot us;" but those behind seized his arms and threw him upon the

floor; at the same time he received shots from several short Hudson's

Bay muskets, which had been concealed under their blankets. He was cut

and gashed terribly with knives, his throat was cut, and a woolen tippet

stuffed into it,--still he lingered. In the struggle, two Indians were

wounded, one in the foot, the other in the hand, by each other.

Mrs. Whitman, as soon as the tumult commenced, overhearing and judging

the cause, began in agony to stamp upon the floor and wring her hands,

crying out, "Oh, the Indians! the Indians! That Joe (referring to Joe

Lewis) has done it all!" Mrs. Osborn stepped into the Indian room with

her child, and in a short time Mr. Osborn and family were secreted under

the floor.

Without coming into the other rooms, the Indians left the kitchen, to

aid in the dreadful destruction without. At this moment Mrs. Hays ran in

from the mansion-house, and, with her assistance, Mrs. Whitman drew her

dying husband into the dining-room, and placed his mangled, bleeding

head upon a pillow, and did all her frightful situation would allow to

stay the blood and revive him, but to no purpose. The dreadful work was

done. To every question that was put to him, he would simply reply,

"No," in a low whisper. After receiving the first blow, he was probably

insensible.

About this time, Mr. Kimball ran into the room through the kitchen, and

rushed up-stairs with a broken arm hanging by his side. He was

immediately followed by Mr. Rogers, who, in addition to a wounded arm,

was tomahawked in the side of the head and covered with blood. He

assisted Mrs. Whitman in making fast all the doors, and in removing the

sick children up-stairs.

Joe Lewis, a Roman Catholic Indian, is asserted, by those who have

traced his course, to have come from Canada with the party of priests

and French that crossed the plains in 1847, and by whom it is affirmed

the measles were brought into the immigrant trains that year. The

priests' party brought him to Boise, and there left him to find his way

to Dr. Whitman's. He attempted to make arrangements with an immigrant

family to come to the Wallamet, but was afterward furnished with a horse

and supplies, and traveled with a Cayuse Indian. While at Boise, making

his arrangements with the immigrant family, he told them there was going

to be a _great overturn at Dr. Whitman's and in the Wallamet_. How or

what the overturn was to be, the party did not learn, but supposed it

might be from immigration or some change in the government of the

country. He arrived at Dr. Whitman's apparently destitute of clothes and

shoes. He made himself at home at once, as he could speak English,

French, and a little Nez Perce. He had been at the station but a few

days, before the Doctor and the two Sager boys learned that he was

making disturbance among the Indians. The Doctor finding some immigrant

families who wanted a teamster, furnished him with shoes and a shirt,

and got him to go with them. He was gone three days, and the second

night ran away from the man he had agreed to go with, and returned about

the station. He spent most of his time in the lodge of Nicholas Finlay,

the common resort of Stanfield and the Indians engaged in the scenes we

are relating; and was the leader in the whole affair. He was seen

several times approaching the windows with a gun, but when Mrs. Whitman

would ask, "Joe, what do you want?" he would ran away.

The scene outside, by this time, had attained the summit of its fury.

The screams of the fleeing women and children, the groans and struggles

of the falling, dying victims, the roar of musketry, the whistling of

balls, the blows of the war-club, the smoke of powder, the furious

riding of naked, painted Indians, the unearthly yells of infuriated

savages, self-maddened, like tigers, by the smell of human blood,--the

legitimate fruits of Romish superstitions faithfully implanted in the

savage mind.

Mrs. Whitman remained by the side of her husband, who was pale and

gasping in death. Two Americans were overpowered and cut down by the

crowd under her window, which drew her attention, and gave an

opportunity for an Indian, that had always been treated kindly by her,

to level his gun. His victim received the ball, through the window, in

her right breast, and fell, uttering a single groan. In a few moments

she revived, rose and went to the settee, and kneeling in prayer was

heard to pray for their adopted children (the Sager family, who had lost

father and mother in crossing the plains, now again to be left orphans),

and for her aged father and mother in the States, that they might be

sustained under this terrible shock (made a thousand-fold more so by the

infamous account of it given by Sir James Douglas in his Sandwich

Islands letter), which the news of her fate must occasion. Soon after

this she was helped into the chamber, where were now collected Mrs.

Whitman, Mrs. Hays, Miss Bewley, Catharine Sager, Messrs. Kimball and

Rogers, and the three sick children.

They had scarcely gained this temporary retreat, when the crash of

windows and doors, and the deafening war-whoop, tore the last hope from

their fainting hearts. The rooms below were plundered of their

property,--the furniture dashed to pieces and cast out. Joe Lewis was

seen to be among the foremost to dash in the windows and bring out the

goods. Here a deed was perpetrated similar to that of the refined and

Christian Catholic people of Burgos, in Spain, when they murdered and

cut up their governor for attempting to obey the law and take an invoice

of church property.

The Cayuse Indian Tilokaikt went into the room where the Doctor lay yet

breathing, and with his hatchet deliberately chopped his face terribly

to pieces, but left him still alive. Some Indian, also, cut the face of

John Sager while he was yet alive.

About this time, Joe Lewis went into the schoolroom and sought out the

children, who were hid in the upper loft, and brought them into the

kitchen to be shot. As Francis passed by his mangled, gasping brother,

he stooped and took the woolen tippet from the gash in his throat, when

John attempted to speak, but immediately expired. Upon this, Francis

turned to his sister and said, "I shall soon follow my brother." The

children were kept in this painful position for some time. Eliza

Spalding was among them, and understood every word spoken by the

Indians, who, having finished their terrible slaughter without, were

filling the room and the doorways, with their guns pointed at the heads

and hearts of the children, constantly yelling, "_Shall we shoot?_"

Eliza says her blood became cold, and she could not stand, but leaned

over upon the sink, covering her face with her apron, that she might not

see them shoot her. From this place they were removed out of the door by

the side of the Indian room, just before Mrs. Whitman was brought out to

be shot.

Immediately after breaking into the house, the Indians called to Mrs.

Whitman and Mr. Rogers to come down, and on receiving no answer, Tamsaky

(the Indian who was the most anxious to have the bishop and his priests

take the Doctor's place), started to go up-stairs, but discovering the

end of an old gun (placed there by Miss Bewley), he desisted, and

entered into conversation with those above. He urged them to come down,

assuring them that no one should hurt them. Mrs. Whitman told him she

was shot, and had not strength to come down, besides she feared they

would kill her. Tamsaky expressed much sorrow on learning that Mrs.

Whitman was wounded, and promised that no one should be hurt if they

would come down. Mrs. Whitman replied, "If you are my friend, come up

and see me." He objected, and said there were Americans hid in the

chamber with arms to kill him. Mr. Rogers, standing at the head of the

stairs, assured him there were none, and very soon he went up and

remained some time, apparently sympathizing with the sufferers, assuring

them that he was sorry for what had taken place, and urged Mrs. Whitman

to come down and be taken over to the other house where the families

were, intimating that the young men might destroy the house in the

night. About this time the cry was heard from Joe Lewis, "We will now

burn."

Mrs. Whitman was assisted down by Mr. Rogers and Mrs. Hays; on reaching

the lower room, becoming faint, she was laid upon a settee, and taken

through the kitchen over the dead body of young Sager, and through a

crowd of Indians. As the settee passed out of the door, the word was

given by the chief not to shoot the children. At this moment Mr. Rogers

discovered their treachery, and had only time to drop the settee, raise

his hands and exclaim, "O my God!" when a volley of guns was fired from

within and without the house, part at Mrs. Whitman and part at himself.

He fell upon his face, pierced with many balls.

An Indian seized Francis Sager from among the children, and Joe Lewis

drew his pistol, and with the expression, "_You bad boy,_" shot him. All

manner of Indian brutality and insult were offered to the mangled bodies

while they lay groaning and dying, till night closed upon the scene, and

the Indians retired to Finlay's and Tilokaikt's lodges to consult as to

further outrage upon the still living and helpless victims.

The Canadian-Indian, Joe Lewis, was as active in abusing the helpless

girls as he had been in selecting the children of the Hudson's Bay

Company's servants to be protected and sent away from such as were to be

abused and slaughtered.

Mr. Kimball, the three sick children, and Catharine Sager remained in

the chamber all night. Mr. Osborn lay under the floor of the Indian room

till the Indians retired. He then made his escape to the fort at

Wallawalla, with his family. The three men at the beef found themselves

surrounded, and in the midst of a volley of balls from pistols and guns

pointed at them. All three were wounded, but neither fell. They fled as

best they could: Mr. Kimball to the house; Mr. Canfield to the

blacksmith shop, and thence to the mansion, where he hid himself, and

remained till night; then fled and reached Lapwai before Mr. Spalding

did. Mr. Hall wrenched a gun, which had missed fire, from an Indian's

hand, and ran for the bushes; reached the fort next morning; was put

across the Columbia River by Mr. McBean's order; and was lost,--starved

to death, or murdered by the Indians, we know not which. Mr. Gillan was

shot upon his bench. Mr. Marsh was shot at the mill; ran a short

distance toward the Doctor's house and fell. Mr. Saunders, hearing the

guns, rushed to the door of the schoolroom, where he was seized by

several Indians, who threw him upon the ground amid a shower of balls

and tomahawks. Being a strong and active man, he rose, though wounded,

and ran some rods, but was overtaken, surrounded, and cut down. Mr.

Hoffman was cut down, after fighting desperately with a knife, his body

cut open, and his heart and liver torn out.

In the midst of all this fury and savage shedding of blood, _no children

or servants of the Hudson's Bay Company, or Roman Catholics, or such as

professed friendship for that faith_, were harmed in the least. Finlay,

a half-breed of the company's, who had formerly kept its horses, was

stopping close to the station, assisting and counseling with the

Indians; Joe Lewis selected the two Manson boys and a half-breed Spanish

boy the Doctor had raised, and arranged to send them to the fort.

Whoever this Indian was, or wherever he was from, he seems to have

understood and acted fully and faithfully his part in the "_great

overturn_" that he said, while at Boise, was to take place at that

station and in the lower country. How he came to know there was to be

any change or overturn is yet a secret only to be guessed at. Mr. McBean

says he returned to Boise and Fort Hall; and Mr. McDonald, that he

killed the guide to a company of United States troops in the mountains,

and was himself shot.

CHAPTER LVI.

Comments on Vicar-General Brouillet's arguments against the Whitman

massacre being the act of Catholics.--Joe Stanfield: Brouillet's

story in his favor.--Murders on the second day.--Deposition of

Daniel Young.--More murders.

Vicar-General Brouillet, in his narrative of "Protestantism in Oregon,"

says: "I could admit that _Joseph Lewis_, _Joseph Stanfield_, and

_Nicholas Finlay_, who may have been seen plundering" (as proved on the

trial of Stanfield), "_were Catholics_, without injuring in the least

the cause of Catholicism; because, as in good reasoning" (Roman

Catholic, of course), "it is never allowed to conclude from one

particularity to another particularity, nor to a generality; in like

manner, from the guilt of three Catholics it can not be reasonably

concluded that other Catholics are guilty, nor, _a fortiori_, that all

Catholics are guilty and Catholicism favorable to the guilt."

No man, set of men, or sect, not interested in the result of a measure

or a crime, will ever use an argument like the one we have quoted from

this priest. Dr. Whitman and those about his station had been

slaughtered in the most brutal and cowardly manner, by a band of Indians

that this priest, his bishop, and associates, backed by the consent and

influence of the Hudson's Bay Company, had brought about through the

direct influence of these three men: all of whom knew, and consulted

with the Indians as to the commission of the crime. And we have the

strongest reason to believe that this priest and his party were, by

their conversation, instructions, and direct teachings, adding their

influence and approval to that horrid transaction. Besides, when the

crime is committed, we find this same band of _fur traders and priests

protecting, shielding, advising and assisting the murderers_ to the

utmost of their power and influence, both in the country and in their

foreign correspondence. If such facts do not implicate a party, we ask

what will? The very book from which we are quoting, containing 108

pages, has not a single sentence condemning the course or crime of these

men, but every page contains some statement condemning Spalding,

Whitman, or some American supposed to belong to, or in favor of, the

American settlements or missions.

But let us return to further particulars of this Whitman massacre. We

have gathered up the statements and facts on both sides of this

question, and with our own knowledge, previous to and since its

occurrence, we write with assurance, if not with the best judgment in

selecting the facts and evidence to place the truth before the public.

We were in the midst of describing that horrible scene of savage blood

and carnage, when we stopped for a moment to inquire after the character

of three of the prominent actors, in fact, the leaders in the tragedy.

Brouillet tells us (on page 89 of his narrative, page 56 of Ross Browne)

in extenuation of the guilt of Stanfield, that "the following

circumstance, if true, speaks very highly in his favor, and shows that

if he has at any time forgotten the good principles he had received in

his infancy, once, at least, those principles prompted him to an heroic

action. It was on the morning of the day that followed the massacre.

There were several Indians scattered in the neighborhood of the mission

buildings, but especially a crowd of Indian women was standing near the

door of the house in which all the white women and children were living.

Stanfield, being then at a short distance from the house, Tilokaikt, the

chief of the place, came up and asked him if he had something in the

house. 'Yes,' said Stanfield, 'I have all my things there.' 'Take them

away,' said the Indian to him. 'Why should I take them away? they are

well there.' 'Take them off,' he insisted, a second time. 'But I have

not only my things there; I have also my wife and children.' 'Yes,'

replied Tilokaikt, who appeared a little surprised, 'you have a wife and

children in the house! Will you take them off?' 'No,' replied Stanfield,

'I will not take them away, and I will go and stay myself in the house.

I see that you have bad designs; you intend to kill the women and

children; well, you will kill me with them. Are you not ashamed? Are you

not satisfied with what you have done? Do you want still to kill poor

innocent creatures that have never done you any harm?' 'I am ashamed,'

replied Tilokaikt, after a moment's hesitation. 'It is true, those women

and children do not deserve death; they did not harm us; they shall not

die.' And, turning to the Indian women who were standing near the door

of the house waiting with a visible impatience for the order to enter

and slaughter the people inside, he ordered them to go off. The Indian

women then became enraged, and, showing them the knives that they took

from beneath their blankets, they insulted him in many different ways,

calling him _a coward, a woman who would consent to be governed by a

Frenchman_; and they retired, apparently in great anger for not having

been allowed to imbrue their hands in the blood of new victims. The

above circumstance was related at Fort Wallawalla to Mr. Ogden, by

Stanfield himself, under great emotion, and in presence of the widows,

none of whom contradicted him. An action of that nature, if it took

place, would be, of itself, _sufficient to redeem a great many faults_."

We do not wish to question any good act this Frenchman may have done;

but the guilt of knowing that crime was to be committed, and that the

Americans were to be killed around him like the ox he had brought to the

slaughter, which he knew was to be the signal for its commencement; and

the manner he and his two associates conducted themselves on the ground;

_the influence he had_ to stop the massacre at any time, and his

_robbing the widows and orphans_ in the midst of the slaughter;--these

make up a complication of crime that none but the vilest will attempt to

excuse.

On the 30th of November, Mr. Kimball and Mr. Young, a young man from the

saw-mill, were killed. Mr. Kimball, in attempting to go from his

concealment in the chamber for water for himself and the sick children,

was shot by a young Indian, who claimed his eldest daughter for a wife

as his lawful pay for killing her father.

We will now give an original deposition which explains the killing of

Mr. Young, and also of two other young men, who escaped the first and

second, and became victims of the third more brutal slaughter.

_Deposition of Mr. Daniel Young relative to the Wailatpu Massacre._

QUESTION.--When, and in what manner, did you learn of the

massacre?

ANSWER.--I was residing with my father's family at Dr. Whitman's

saw-mill, about twenty miles from Wailatpu, where we had gone for

the winter. My brother, a young man about twenty-four years of

age, and about two years older than myself, had gone down to the

station, the Tuesday before, with a load of lumber, and for

provisions, and was expecting to return about the last of the

week. Joseph Smith and family were also living at the saw-mill,

except his oldest daughter, who was at the station. His family was

out of flour and meat, and ours was now out of meat. On Saturday

evening, he proposed to me to go down the next day for provisions.

I did not wish to go down; told him if he wanted provisions he

could go. He said if he had a horse he would go. We offered him a

horse. He still urged me to go, as there was no one, he said, to

stay with his family. I went down on horseback on the Sabbath,

being the next Sabbath after the massacre. I did not go to the

place till about an hour after dark, and learned nothing of the

massacre till after I had got into the house. In the room where I

expected to find my brother, I found them eating supper, with

several Indians in the room. At the table was Mrs. Hays, and

Joseph Stanfield, and Mrs. Hall, with the remnant of her family.

About a couple of minutes after I went in, Joseph Stanfield left

the table and went out of the house (this was some time previous

to the rest leaving the table), and was gone for about three

hours, I knew not where; but after he returned, he said he had

started to go to Nicholas Finlay's, a half-breed's lodge, but had

got lost. Nicholas had come in about half an hour before Stanfield

returned. In the mean time I had learned from the Indian Beardy,

through Eliza Spalding (his interpreter), of the massacre. This

was in short sentences and much confused. Beardy said, however,

that the Doctor was his friend, and he did not know of it until a

good many had been killed, and he was sorry for what had taken

place; he said the Indians said the Doctor was poisoning them, and

that was the reason they did it, _but he_ (Beardy) _did not

believe it_. That he was there to protect the women and children,

and no more should be killed. During the evening I also learned of

the number that had been killed, and of those who had escaped from

the place; but it was not known what had become of them.

I was informed by Stanfield that my brother had met an Indian who

had told him to go back and stay for a week, but another Indian

told him he could safely go on for provisions, and that he would

go with him. He went on to within half a mile of the mission. The

Indians were said to have gone thus far with him. Stanfield said

he there found him dead, shot through the head near one eye, and

there he buried him. _Stanfield said_ also that evening that the

Doctor was poisoning the Indians, which had caused the massacre;

that Joe Lewis had heard from an adjoining room one night the

Doctor and Mrs. Whitman talking of poisoning them, and that the

Doctor had said it was best to destroy them by degrees, but that

Mrs. Whitman said it was best to do it at once, and they would be

rid of them, and have all their land and horses as their own; and

that he (Joe Lewis) had told the Indians this before the massacre.

Stanfield also asked me if I had heard of his being married. I

told him I had heard from my brother that he was going to take

Mrs. Hays for a wife. He said: "We are married, but have not yet

slept together." I said: "Yes, I understand, you pretend to be

married." He said: "We are married; that is enough." I thought it

strange why he was saved unless he was a Catholic, and during the

evening took an occasion, when I thought he would not suspect my

object, to ask Stanfield whether he was a Catholic? He said, "_I

pass for one._"

I slept with Stanfield that night; did not retire till late. Next

morning, Crockett Bewley, a young man about twenty-one or

twenty-two, I should think, who was sick at the time of the first

massacre, and whose clothes had been stolen (by Stanfield), came

into the room wrapped in a blanket or a quilt. _Bewley seemed to

speak of the Doctor's poisoning the Indians as something commonly

reported among them_ as the cause of the massacre, but said he did

not believe any thing of it, _but he believed Joe Lewis was one of

the leaders_, and _the Catholic priests were the cause of it_.

Stanfield replied, "_You need not believe any such thing, and you

had better not let the Indians hear you say that,_" and spoke in a

voice as though _he was somewhat angry_. Soon after this, Bewley

left the room; Stanfield turned to me and said: "_He had better be

careful how he talks; if the Indians get hold of it the Catholics

may hear of it._" As soon as I could do it without being

suspected, I sought an opportunity to caution Bewley about the

danger I thought he was running in speaking thus in the presence

of Stanfield, and asked him if he did not know of Stanfield being

a Catholic? He said he did not. I told him he might have known it

from the fact of most French being Catholics. He replied he did

not know of the French being Catholics more than any other people.

I told him to be cautious hereafter how he spoke, and he said he

would.

Soon after the conversation with Bewley, I told Stanfield I must

return home; he said I must not, the Indian chiefs would be there

after a while and would tell me what I must do; said he did not

think I could get off till the next day.

We now commenced making a coffin for one of the Sager children

that had died the night before. Soon after, the chief Tilokaikt

came. He told me I could not go back till the next day, that he

would then send two Indians back with me. I told Stanfield, in the

chief's presence, that I had told my folks I should be back on

Monday if I came at all. Stanfield told me in reply, that the

chief says, "Then you may go;" Stanfield also said, "The chief

says tell them all to come down and bring every thing down that is

up there; we want them to come down and take care of the families

and tend the mill. Tell them, '_Don't undertake to run away; if

you do, you will be sure to be killed_;' not be afraid, for they

shall not be hurt."

The chief had now done talking. Stanfield now told me to caution

them, our people, at the saw-mill, as to _what they should say_;

if they said any thing on the subject, "say that the Doctor was a

bad man, and was poisoning the Indians." He had also before that

told me the same. I got a piece of meat and asked for some salt;

but he said there was none about the house; afterward I found this

was not the case. I then returned home, and informed our people as

to what had taken place, and my father's first reply was, "_The

Catholics are at the bottom of it._" Mr. Smith admitted it, but

said, immediately, we must all become Catholics for our safety,

and before we left the saw-mill, and afterward, he said he

believed the Doctor was poisoning, and believed it from what Joe

Stanfield had told him before about the Doctor's misusing the

half-breeds and children at his mission. The next day, Tuesday, we

went down to the mission, and arrived after dark; found the young

men, Bewley and Amos Sales, who were sick at the time of the first

massacre, were both killed, and their bodies were lying outside of

the door near the house where they lay during the night, and

Stanfield said he could not bury them until he got the permission

of the Indians. The next day we helped to bury them.

Here I would say that the two Indians the chief wished to send

with me, as he said, to see us safe down, as Stanfield interpreted

to me at the time, were the chief's sons, and he wished me to wait

because Edward, Tilokaikt's son, had gone to the Umatilla to the

_great chief_, to see what to do with the two young men who were

sick. This, Stanfield told me, was the business which Edward

Tilokaikt had gone for, and he would not get back so as to go with

me that day. Three Indians, however, arrived within an hour after

I got to the saw-mill, viz., Clark Tilokaikt, Stikas and one whose

name I never knew, and came down a part of the way with us next

day. I learned from Mrs. Canfield and her daughter, that this same

Edward Tilokaikt, after he returned from the Umatilla, gave the

first blow with his whip, and broke and run out of doors, when

other Indians finished the slaughter of the sick men. While at the

station, Joseph Smith threatened me with the Indians if I did not

obey him. I felt our condition as bad and very dangerous from the

Indians, and feared that Smith would join them. He sometimes

talked of going on to the Umatilla to live with them. His daughter

was taken by the chief's sons (first Clark, and in the second

place, Edward) for a wife. I told Mr. Smith, were I a father, I

would never suffer that, so long as I had power to use an arm; his

reply was, "You don't know what you would do; I would not dare to

say a word if they should take my own wife." I continued to regard

our situation as exceedingly dangerous till we got out of the

country.

After we had arrived at Wallawalla, I said, in the presence of Mr.

McBean, that I supposed there were present some of the Indians who

had killed my brother, and if I knew them I would kill them yet.

Mr. McBean said, "_Take care what you say, the very walls have

ears._" He was very anxious to get us safe to the Wallamet.

Q.--Would you suppose one who was acquainted at that place liable

to get lost in going that evening to Finlay's lodge?

A.--I would not. It was in sight and a plain path to it, and was

not more than twenty-five yards off.

Q.--When did you learn from your brother that Stanfield was going

to take Mrs. Hays as a wife?

A.--Some two or more weeks before the massacre, something was said

as to Mr. Hoffman taking Mrs. Hays. My brother says, "No, I heard

Joe Stanfield say that he was going to take her as a wife."

Q.--Did your brother appear to believe that this was about to take

place?

A.--He did, and my brother talked about it,--made us believe it

was going to take place.

Q.--What opportunity had your brother to know about this, more

than yourself?

A.--He boarded at the station, and was some of the time teaming

from the saw-mill, and Mrs. Hays cooked for him and several others

of the Doctor's hands, among whom was Stanfield.

Q.--Why did you think Stanfield was a Catholic, as a reason for

his being saved?

A.--Because I heard Dr. Whitman say at the mill, that the

Catholics were evidently trying to set the Indians upon him, but

he thought he could keep it down for another year, when he would

be safe. I supposed he expected safety from the government being

extended over the country.

Q.--How did Stanfield seem to know that the chief would be there

after a while, and would tell you what you might do as to going

back to the saw-mill?

A.--I did not know.

Q.--Why did you tell your people that you would be back on Monday,

if at all?

A.--Because we were in an Indian country, and I remembered what I

had heard the Doctor say at the Umatilla, and my brother had not

returned as expected.

Q.--Had you any means of knowing what "_great chief_," at the

Umatilla, Tilokaikt spoke of, where his son Edward had gone to

learn what to do with the sick young men?

A.--I had not.

Q.--Did you know at that time that the bishop was said to be at

Umatilla?

A.--Yes.

Q.--Did you form in your own mind, at that time, any opinion as to

whom Edward had gone to consult?

A.--I thought the term "_great chief_" might have been put in to

deceive me, as Stanfield had told me, the evening before, that the

Catholics were going to establish a mission right away at that

place, and that they would protect the women and children, and _I

thought it might be the Catholics_ he was consulting, or it might

be some great Indian chief. This talk of establishing a station

there continued for more than a week after we got down to the

station. After I found Bewley and Sales were killed, I seemed to

forget much until even after I had got down, and even to the

plains, when the facts again came more clearly to my recollection,

and I spoke of them freely to my parents and to others.

(Signed,) DANIEL YOUNG.

Sworn and subscribed to, before me, this 20th day of January, A.D.

1849, in Tualatin Plains, Oregon Territory.

G. W. COFFINBURY, Justice of the Peace.

CHAPTER LVII.

How the country was saved to the United States.--Article from the

New York _Evening Post_.--Ingratitude of the American

Board.--Deposition of Elam Young.--Young girls taken for Indian

wives.--Statement of Miss Lorinda Bewley.--Sager, Bewley, and Sales

killed.

In taking up our morning _Oregonian_ of November 16, 1866, our eye lit

upon the following article from the New York _Evening Post_, which we

feel assured the reader will not regret to find upon these pages, and

which will explain the desperate efforts made to secure this country to

the United States by Dr. Whitman, the details of whose death we are now

giving from the depositions of parties upon the ground, who were

eye-witnesses and fellow-sufferers at the fall of that good and noble

man whose labors and sacrifices his countrymen are at this late day only

beginning to appreciate. We ask in astonishment: Has the American Board

at last opened its ears, and allowed a statement of that noble martyr's

efforts to save Oregon to his country to be made upon its record? It

has! it has! and here it is:--

"We presume it is not generally known to our citizens on the Pacific

coast, nor to many people in the Atlantic States, how near we came

to losing, through executive incompetence, our just title to the

whole immense region lying west of the Rocky Mountains. Neither has

due honor been accorded to the brave and patriotic man through whose

herculean exertions this great loss and sacrifice was prevented.

"The facts were briefly and freshly brought out during the recent

meeting at Pittsburg of the 'American Board of Commissioners for

Foreign Missions,' in the course of an elaborate paper read by Mr.

Treat, one of the secretaries of the Board, on the 'Incidental

Results of Missions.'

"In the year 1836 the American Board undertook to establish a

mission among the Indians beyond the Rocky Mountains. Two

missionaries, Rev. Mr. Spalding and Dr. Whitman, with their

wives,--the first white women who had ever made that perilous

journey,--passed over the mountains with incredible toil, to reach

Oregon, the field of their labor. After remaining there for a few

years, Dr. Whitman began to understand the object of the

misrepresentations of the Hudson's Bay Company. He saw, contrary to

the reiterated public statements of that company--

"1. That the land was rich in minerals.

"2. That emigrants could cross the Rocky Mountains in wagons, a feat

which they had constantly asserted to be impossible.

"3. That the Hudson's Bay Company was planning to secure the sole

occupancy of the whole of that country, by obtaining a surrender of

the American title into the hands of the British government.

"Seeing these things, but not knowing how very near the British

scheme was to its accomplishment, Dr. Whitman resolved, at every

hazard, to prevent its consummation. He undertook, in 1842, to make

a journey on horseback to Washington, to lay the whole matter

clearly before our government by personal representations. Being a

man of great physical strength and an iron constitution, he

accomplished the long and perilous journey, and reached Washington

in safety. The remainder of the story we will relate in the language

of the Boston _Congregationalist_: Reaching Washington, he sought an

interview with President Tyler and Daniel Webster, then Secretary of

State, and unfolded to them distinctly what was going on. Here he

learned that a treaty was almost ready to be signed, in which all

this northwestern territory was to be given up to England, and we

were to have in compensation greater facilities in catching fish.

Dr. Whitman labored to convince Mr. Webster that he was the victim

of false representations with regard to the character of the region,

and told him that he intended to return to Oregon with a train of

emigrants. Mr. Webster, looking him full in the eye, asked him if he

would pledge himself to conduct a train of emigrants there in

wagons. He promised that he would. Then, said Mr. Webster, this

treaty shall be suppressed. Dr. Whitman, in coming on, had fixed

upon certain rallying-points where emigrants might assemble to

accompany him on his return. He found nearly one thousand ready for

the journey. After long travel, they reached Fort Hall, a British

military station, and the commandant undertook to frighten the

emigrants by telling them that it was not possible for them to go

through with wagons; but Dr. Whitman reassured them, and led them

through to the Columbia, and the days of the supremacy of the

Hudson's Bay Company over Oregon were numbered."

Twenty-four years after that noble, devoted, faithful servant and

missionary of theirs had received a cold reproof, after enduring one of

the severest and most trying journeys of several thousand miles, his

Board at home, and unreasonably cautious associates in Oregon have

consented to acknowledge that they owe to him a debt of respect for

doing, without their consent or approval at the time, a noble,

patriotic, and unselfish act for his country.

And how shall we regard the cold indifference they have manifested to

the present day, in regard to the infamous manner in which his life, and

the lives of his wife and countrymen were taken, and the continued

slanders heaped upon their names? Have they asked for, or even attempted

an explanation, or a refutation of those slanders? Their half-century

volume speaks a language not to be mistaken. Mr. Spalding, his first and

most zealous associate, attempted to bring the facts before the world,

but the caution of those who would whitewash his (Dr. Whitman's)

sepulcher induced Mr. Spalding to give up in despair,--a poor

broken-down wreck, caused by the frightful ending of his

fellow-associates, and of his own missionary labors.

Is this severe, kind reader, upon the Board and a portion of Dr.

Whitman's associates? We intend to tell the truth if it is, as we are

endeavoring to get the truth, the whole truth, and as few mistakes as

possible in these pages. Therefore we will copy another deposition

relative to this massacre.

_Deposition of Mr. Elam Young._

I met Dr. Whitman on the Umatilla, about the 1st of October, 1847. He

engaged me to build a mill for him at his mission. As the lumber was not

handy at the station, I moved up to the saw-mill to do a part of the

work there.

Some time in November, my son James, who was teaming for the Doctor,

went from the saw-mill with a load of lumber for the mission station,

and was to return with provisions for us. This was on Tuesday after the

murder. Shortly after he had gone away, Mr. Smith, who was also at the

saw-mill, appeared to be very uneasy; stated repeatedly that he was sure

something had happened to him; said he had a constant foreboding of some

evil; stated that Dr. Whitman was abusing the children at the mission,

as he had understood by Stanfield; frequently spoke against Dr. Whitman.

The next Sunday, beginning to feel uneasy, I sent my second son Daniel

down to the station, who returned on Monday and brought the news of the

massacre. _It instantly struck my mind that the Catholic priests had

been the cause of the whole of it._ This conviction was caused by

repeated conversations with Dr. Whitman, together with my knowledge of

the principles of the Jesuits. Mr. Smith observed at the same time that

we must all be Jesuits for the time being. Soon after Daniel returned,

three Indians came up and told us we must go down to the station, which

we accordingly did the next day. When we got there it was after night;

we found that Crockett Bewley and Amos Sales had both been killed that

day. The women told us that they had told the Indians, before we came

down, that we were English, and we must not contradict it. The Indians

soon began to question whether I was English. I told them I was of

English parents, but born in the United States.

A few days after we got there two young women were taken as wives for

the Indians, which I opposed, _and was threatened by Mr. Smith_, who was

very anxious that it should take place, and that other little girls

should be given up for wives. Was employed while there in making coffins

and grinding for the Indians.

While there, Miss Bewley was taken off to the Umatilla. Tried to comfort

her as much as I could, believing she would be _safer there at the

Catholic station than where we were_. First ten days we were constantly

told that the Catholics were coming there to establish a mission. Heard

that Mr. Ogden had come up to Wallawalla to rescue us from the Indians.

Went to grinding and preparing provisions for our journey. Smith and

Stanfield, who appeared to be very friendly with each other, had the

management of the teams and loading, took the best teams and lightest

loads, gave us the poorest teams and heaviest loads. On the way to

Wallawalla they drove off and left us. The hindmost teams had to double

in the bad places. Reached the fort perhaps half an hour after Smith and

Stanfield had; met Smith at the gate, who says: "Well, you have got

along?" "Yes." "It is well you did, for the Indians found out that _you

were not an Englishman, and were determined to have your scalp_." I

asked him, "How do you know this?" to which he made no reply. Went into

the fort and met Mr. McBean and the priest; supposed they would all

rejoice at our escape, but their manner was very cold and distant. But

Mr. Ogden greeted us cordially. The next day the Indians came into the

fort in considerable numbers, and their actions were suspicious, and Mr.

McBean seemed to interest himself very much in our behalf, and _told us

to be very quiet and to keep in our own rooms_, and be careful what we

said, as the very walls had ears. [If this does not show the sneaking

dog, what does? Ogden is apparently all friendship, and McBean is all

caution to the captives.]

We arrived on Monday, and Mr. Spalding on Saturday after, and the next

day all took boat for the lower country.

Q.--Did your son give you any caution as to what to say when you reached

the station.

A.--He said Stanfield said we must say the Doctor poisoned the Indians.

Q.--What did you learn about Mr. Rogers as having made a confession.

A.--_Stanfield said that Mr. Rogers had made a confession that the

Doctor had poisoned the Indians._ I replied, "Who knows this?" He said

Mrs. Hays and Mrs. Hall heard it. I afterward asked Mrs. Hays if she did

hear it. She replied, "_We must say so now_." I afterward, at the

station, told Stanfield he had better not mention that to Americans, for

there was not one from Maine to Georgia that would believe it. He

replied, "We must say so." I told him I never would.

Q.--What conversation with the Doctor led you to believe the Catholics

were at the bottom of the whole of it?

A.--That some years before (1841) he had had difficulty with the

Indians, and he had found out satisfactorily where it came from, by

charging the Indians of having been made jealous of a certain man. I do

not recollect the name, but I think he said he was from Canada, and the

Indians acknowledged it. [The difficulty here spoken of was about the

horses given as a present to Rev. Jason Lee, on his way to Wallamet. The

Indians had been told by the company's interpreter, old Toupin, that he

had as good as stolen their horses, as he made them no presents in

return, and they were encouraged to make that a cause of difficulty with

Dr. Whitman.] At that time they had knocked off his hat, etc., but other

Indians would obey him and pick it up, and so long as they would obey,

he was satisfied of his safety; but this had long since passed off. [The

writer was present, and saw the whole performance here alluded to, the

particulars of which are given elsewhere]. And they were never in a

better state until of late, when a body of priests and Jesuits had come

in, and were constantly saying in their ears that this sickness came on

them by the Americans; that the Americans were a very bad people, that

the Good Being had sent on them as a punishment.

Q.--Why did Mr. Smith appear anxious to have the young women given to

the Indians?

A.--I do not know, unless to appease them, and get their affection.

Q.--Did the Doctor appear to wish to remain, against the wish of a

majority of the Indians?

A.--I heard him say repeatedly, if the Indians wished him to leave he

would, but a large majority said he must not, and he thought the times

would soon change. I understood him to expect a change from the

extension of government.

Q.--Did your son Daniel say any thing, before you moved from the

saw-mill, of having cautioned C. Bewley for speaking unadvisedly before

Joe Stanfield?

A.--Yes, he gave that; that amounts to the same as he has given in his

statement.

Q.--Did you have any fears, while at the station, that Mr. Smith was

liable, had the circumstances become more dangerous, to act with the

Indians?

A.--Certainly I did.

Q.--Did you get any reason why Bewley and Sales were killed?

A.--Though I did not get it directly from them, the Indian account was,

the _great chief at the Umatilla said their disease would spread; but I

believe it was because Bewley had spoken before Stanfield unadvisedly_.

(Signed,) ELAM YOUNG.

Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 20th day of January, 1849.

G. W. COFFINBURY, Justice of the Peace.

What shall we say of these depositions, and the facts asserted under the

solemnity of an oath, the witnesses still living, with many others

confirming the one fact, _that Roman priests and Hudson's Bay men,

English and Frenchmen, were all safe and unharmed_ in an Indian--and

that American--territory, _while American citizens were cut down by

savage hands without mercy_? Can we regard the conduct of such men in

any other light than as enemies in peace? Without the aid of religious

bigotry and the appeal to God as sending judgments upon them, not one of

those simple-minded natives would ever have lifted a hand to shed the

blood of their teachers or of American citizens. We see how faithful and

persevering Joe Lewis, Finlay, and Stanfield were in their part, while

the bishop and his priests, and Sir James Douglas, at Vancouver, were

watching at a distance to misrepresent the conduct of the dead, and

excuse and justify their own instruments, as in Mr. Douglas's letters to

Governor Abernethy and the Sandwich Islands; and Vicar-General

Brouillet's narrative, with more recent proceedings, which are given in

another chapter.

We intended to give in this connection the account of this tragedy as

given by Vicar-General Brouillet, but it accords so nearly with that

given by Sir James Douglas in his Sandwich Islands letter to Mr. Castle,

that the impression is irresistibly forced upon the mind that the whole

account is prepared by one and the same person; hence we will not

encumber our pages with more than a liberal amount of extracts,

sufficient to show the full knowledge of the bishop and his priests of

what was expected to take place at the Whitman station, and the brutal

and inhuman part they took in forcing Miss Bewley into the arms of Five

Crows, after that Indian was humane enough to permit her to return to

the house of those, that Mr. Young, and all others who were ignorant of

their vileness, might naturally suppose would be a place of safety from

such treatment. She that was Miss Bewley is now dead, but she has left

on record the statement of her wrongs. We give it a permanent place in

our history, not to persecute or slander the Jesuit fraternity (for

truth is no slander), but to warn Americans against placing their

daughters and sons under any such teachings or influences.

_Statement of Miss Lorinda Bewley._

Q.--What time did the massacre commence?

A.--I think half-past one.

Q.--Who fled to the chamber?

A.--Mrs. Hall, Mrs. Hays, Mrs. Whitman, Mr. Kimball, Mr. Rogers,--the

three last wounded,--myself, Catharine Sager, thirteen years of age, her

sisters Elizabeth, Louisa, and Henrietta, the three half-breed

girls,--Miss Bridger, Mary Ann, and Helen,--last four very sick. After

we got into the chamber the Indians broke in the windows and doors,

filled the house and broke down the stair-door. Mr. Kimball advised to

attempt the appearance of defense at the stairway. Mrs. Whitman and Mr.

Rogers said, let all prepare for death. I found an old gun, and it was

held over the staircase by Mr. Rogers. They appeared cool and deliberate

in ordering all to prepare for death, when they were breaking up the

house. The appearance of the gun appeared to check the Indians from

coming up-stairs. A few words passed between Mr. Rogers and one of the

Indians. Mr. Rogers said, "The Indians wish me to come down." Mrs.

Whitman objected at first; some words passed between Mrs. Whitman and

Mr. Rogers about his going down which I do not recollect; finally Mrs.

Whitman took his hand and said, "The Lord bless you; go!" and he went

nearly to the bottom of the stairs, but his head was all the time above

the stairs; he was not there longer than two or three minutes. A few

words passed between them, but I did not understand the language. Mrs.

Whitman said, "The Indians say you have guns and want to kill us." Mr.

Rogers says, "No, you wish to get us down to kill us." This seemed to be

all they talked about. Mr. Rogers says to Mrs. Whitman, "Shall we let

them come up?" Mrs. Whitman says, "Let one, Tamsaky, come up." Tamsaky

came up and shook hands with us all, and spoke and advised us all to go

down and go over to the other house, for the young men would burn the

house; he led the way down while the Indians were hallooing wildly in

the room below, but when we had got down, the Indians had gone out and

were very still. While we were up-stairs the Doctor's face had been cut

awfully to pieces, but he was yet breathing. Mrs. Whitman saw him and

said she wanted air; they led her to the settee and she lay down. She

appeared to think then, that we were going to be spared, and told us to

get all the things from the press we needed. I put a blanket I had over

her, and got a sheet for myself, and we put a good many clothes from the

press on the settee; Mrs. Hall and Mrs. Hays got their arms full also.

Mr. Rogers was going to take us over to the other house, and then come

back for the sick children. This was Tamsaky's advice, as he said the

Indians were going to burn the house. It was now getting dark. Mr.

Rogers and Joe Lewis carried out the settee, over the bodies of the

Doctor and John Sager, which were dreadfully mangled; they passed

through the kitchen, and through the outside door toward the end of the

house occupied as the Indian room. Here, to our surprise and terror, the

Indians were collected, with their guns ready; the children from the

school were huddled in the corner of the building. When the settee had

gone about its length from the door, Joe Lewis dropped the end he was

holding and the guns were immediately fired. Mr. Rogers had only time to

raise his hands and say, "O my God, save me," and fell. I felt my

fingers numb till next morning, from a ball that passed so near as to

sting them. Mrs. Whitman received two balls when on the settee.

I could not see what was done at the same time on all sides of me. On

turning round I saw Francis Sager down bleeding and groaning. The

children said an Indian hauled him out from among them and Joe Lewis

shot him with a pistol. Mr Rogers fell down by my feet and groaned loud.

All three appeared in great agony, and groaned very loud. The Indian

women were carrying off things, and the Indians were shouting terribly;

the Indians also started and cut Mrs. Whitman's face with their whips

and rolled her into the mud. [This treatment of Mrs. Whitman will be

explained in the statement of Stikas, as given from Mr. McLane's

journal.] At this I attempted to escape to the other house. One of the

Indians from Mrs. Whitman caught me,--I had run about two rods,--when I

screamed and he shook his tomahawk over my head, and I kept screaming,

not knowing that he wanted me to hush; then a great many others came

round, and pointed their guns and shook their hatchets. I finally

discovered they wanted me to be still, and when I was silent, one of

them led me by the hand over to the mansion.

Q.--Was Mr. Rogers wounded when he started into the house?

A.--Yes; shot through the arm and tomahawked in the head.

Q.--Did Mr. Rogers have any interview with the Indians after he got in

until the one on the stairs?

A.--No. As soon as he got in the house was locked, and none got in

after that till we were all up-stairs, when they broke the doors and

windows.

Q.--Did the Indians have an interview with Mr. Rogers after the one on

the stairs, up to the time he was shot?

A.--No; the Indians were not in the room, except Tamsaky and Joe Lewis,

and we were all very still and Mr. Rogers was all the time in my sight,

except as I stepped to the bed for the sheet, and I was very quick.

Q.--Did you hear it reported that Mr. Rogers said he overheard Dr. and

Mrs. Whitman and Mr. Spalding talking at night about poisoning the

Indians?

A.--No; but after being taken to Umatilla, _one_ of the two _Frenchmen

said_ that the Indians' talk was that an Indian who understood English

overheard such conversation.

Q.--Did you consider Mr. Rogers and Mrs. Whitman were meeting their fate

like devoted Christians?

A.--Yes.

Q.--When did the priest arrive?

A.--Wednesday, while the bodies were being prepared for the grave. The

bodies were collected into the house on Tuesday evening.

Q.--Did the Indians bury a vial or bottle of the Doctor's medicine?

A.--They said they did. Joe Stanfield made the box to bury it in, and

the Indians said they buried it.

Q.--Why did they bury it?

A.--They said _the priests said it was poison_. Stanfield and Nicholas

were their interpreters to us.

Q.--How did they obtain this vial?

A.--The Indians said _the priests found it_ among the Doctor's

medicines, and showed it to them, and _told them if it broke it would

poison the whole nation_.

Q.--Was there much stir among the Indians about this bottle?

A.--Yes, a great deal.

Q.--Why did the Indians kill your brother?

A.--Edward Tilokaikt returned from the Umatilla, and told us (after they

had killed him) the _great chief told them their disease would spread_.

Q.--Did your brother make any effort to escape?

A.--He told me the night before he was killed that he was preparing to

make an effort to escape. I told him he must not, he was not able to

walk. He said he had that day agreed with Stanfield to get him a horse,

and assist him away. I said, "What will become of me?" He said, "I know

you have been greatly abused, and all I care for my life is to get

away, and make an effort to save you; but I may be killed before

to-morrow at this time, but, if it is the Lord's will, I am prepared to

die." This was Monday, a week from the first massacre. About three

o'clock the next day my brother and Mr. Sales were killed, and _I have

always thought that Joe Stanfield betrayed them_.

Q.--Did the Indians threaten you all, and treat you with cruelty from

the first?

A.--They did.

Q.--Did they on Tuesday assemble and threaten your lives?

A.--Yes, and frequently threatened our lives afterward. (See statement

of Stanfield by Brouillet, in a previous chapter, confirming the fact of

his unbounded influence over the Indians.)

Q.--When were the young women first dragged out and brutally treated?

A.--Saturday night after the first massacre, and continually after that.

Q.--When were you taken to the Umatilla?

(Miss Bewley will answer this question after we have given Vicar-General

Brouillet an opportunity to state his part in this tragedy.)

CHAPTER LVIII.

Vicar-General Brouillet's statement.--Statement of Istacus.--The

priest finds the poison.--Statement of William Geiger, Jr.--Conduct

of Mr. McBean.--Influence of the Jesuit missions.

We left Vicar-General Brouillet and Bishop Blanchet and his priests on

their way to their station on the Umatilla, where they arrived on

November 27. On the 28th, Brouillet says, page 47: "The next day being

Sunday, we were visited by Dr. Whitman, who remained but a few minutes

at the house, and appeared to be much agitated. Being invited to dine,

he refused, saying that he feared it would be too late, as he had

twenty-five miles to go, and wished to reach home before night. On

parting, he entreated me not to fail to visit him when I would pass by

his mission, which I very cordially promised to do.

"On Monday, 29th, Mr. Spalding took supper with us, and appeared

quite gay. During the conversation, he happened to say that the

Doctor was unquiet; that the Indians were displeased with him on

account of the sickness, and that even he had been informed that the

Murderer (an Indian) intended to kill him; but he seemed not to

believe this, and suspected as little as we did what was taking

place at the mission of the Doctor."

The reader will note and remember the statement which follows: Brouillet

says, on the 48th page of his narrative, the 36th of J. Ross Browne's

report:--

"Before leaving Fort Wallawalla, it had been decided that, after

visiting the sick people of my own mission on the Umatilla, I should

visit those of Tilokaikt's camp, for the purpose of baptizing the

infants and such dying adults as might desire this favor; and the

Doctor and Mr. Spalding having informed me that there were still

many sick persons at their mission, I was confirmed in this

resolution, and made preparations to go as soon as possible.

"After having finished baptizing the infants and adults of my

mission, I left on Tuesday, the 30th of November, late in the

afternoon, for Tilokaikt's camp, where I arrived between seven and

eight o'clock in the evening. It is impossible to conceive my

surprise and consternation when, upon my arrival, I learned that the

Indians the day before had massacred the Doctor and his wife, with

the greater part of the Americans at the mission. I passed the

night without scarcely closing my eyes. Early the next morning I

baptized three sick children, two of whom died soon after, and then

hastened to the scene of death, to offer to the widows and orphans

all the assistance in my power. I found five or six women and over

thirty children in a situation deplorable beyond description. Some

had just lost their husbands, and others their fathers, whom they

had seen massacred before their eyes, and were expecting every

moment to share the same fate. The sight of those persons caused me

to shed tears, which, however, I was obliged to conceal, for I was

the greater part of the day in the presence of the murderers, and

closely watched by them; and if I had shown too marked an interest

in behalf of the sufferers, it would only have endangered their

lives and mine; these, therefore, entreated me to be upon my guard."

The women that lived through that terrible scene inform us that this

priest was as familiar and friendly with the Indians as though nothing

serious had occurred. We have seen and conversed freely with four of

those unfortunate victims, and all affirm the same thing. Their

impression was, that there might be others he expected to be killed, and

he did not wish to be present when it was done. According to the

testimony in the case, Mr. Kimball and James Young were killed while he

was at or near the station. Brouillet continues, on the 49th page:--

"After the first few words that could be exchanged under the

circumstances, I inquired after the victims, and was told they were

yet unburied. Joseph Stanfield, a Frenchman, who was in the employ

of Dr. Whitman, and had been spared by the Indians, was engaged in

washing the corpses, but being alone, he was unable to bury them. I

resolved to go and assist him, so as to render to these unfortunate

victims the last service in my power to offer them. What a sight did

I then behold! Ten dead bodies lying here and there, covered with

blood, and bearing the marks of the most atrocious cruelty,--some

pierced with balls, others more or less gashed by the hatchet. Dr.

Whitman had received three gashes on the face. Three others had

their skulls crushed so that their brains were oozing out.

"I assure you, sir, that, during the time I was occupied in burying

the victims of this disaster, I was far from feeling safe, being

obliged to go here and there gathering up the dead bodies. In the

midst of assassins, whose hands were still stained with blood, and

who, by their manners, their countenances, and the arms which they

still carried, sufficiently announced that their thirst for blood

was yet unsatiated. Assuming as composed a manner as possible, I

cast more than one glance aside and behind at the knives, pistols,

and guns, in order to assure myself whether there were not some of

them directed toward me."

The above extract is from a letter addressed to Colonel Gilliam. The

cause of the priest's alarm is explained in a statement found in the

journal of Mr. McLane, private secretary to Colonel Gilliam, while in

the Cayuse country, taken from the Indians' statement in the winter of

1847-48. He was compelled to find the poison. Brouillet says:--

"The ravages which the sickness had made in their midst, together

with the conviction which a half-breed, named Joseph Lewis, had

succeeded in fixing upon their minds that Dr. Whitman had poisoned

them, were the only motives I could discover which could have

prompted them to this act of murder. This half-breed had imagined a

conversation between Dr. Whitman, his wife, and Mr. Spalding, in

which he made them say that it was necessary to hasten the death of

the Indians in order to get possession of their horses and lands.

'If you do not kill the Doctor,' said he, 'you will be dead in the

spring.'"

_Statement of Istacus, or Stikas._

In the first place, Joe Lewis told the Indians that the Doctor was

poisoning. Tamsaky went to Camaspelo and told him he wanted to kill the

Doctor, and wished him to help. He replied, pointing to his child, that

his child was sick, and that was as much as he could attend to. Tamsaky

then went to Tilokaikt, and he said he would have nothing to do with it.

But his son and young men wished to do it, and they contended so long

that at last he said: "If you are determined to do so, go and kill him."

Afterward, the Indians presented a gun two different times to Tamsaky,

and told him to go and kill the Doctor. He said he would not kill him.

When the priests came, they got to quarreling; the Catholic priests told

them that what the Doctor taught them would take them to the devil, and

the Doctor told them what the priests taught them would take them to the

devil. After the priests told them that, the Indians said they believed

it, for the Doctor did not cure them.