After the Doctor was killed, _the priest told the Young Chief_ that it

was true that the Doctor had given them poison; before that, the Doctor

had given them medicine and they died. After the massacre, all the

Indians went to the priest's house (an Indian lodge near Dr. Whitman's

station), and I said that I was going to ask the priest himself whether

it was true or not, so that I could hear with my own ears. He (the

priest) told them that the priests were sent of God. They did not know

how to answer him. The Five Crows told me _that the priest told him the

Doctor was poisoning them. I then believed it._

They then went and killed the two sick men. I asked the Indians, if he

gave us poison, why did the Americans get sick?

[It is evident that this conversation took place at the camp of

Tilokaikt, where Mr. Brouillet says he spent the night of the 30th of

November.]

Afterward, they went to the Doctor's place, and _the priest was there

too_, and they asked him where the poison was that the Doctor gave them.

After searching some time among the medicines, he found _a vial with

something white in it_, and told them, "_Here it is._" I tell you what I

heard.

The priest then told them that _Mrs. Whitman had a father in the States

that gave poison to the people there_, and that he had given this to

her, to poison them all; then they all believed. I told them that I did

not believe that the Doctor was poisoning them; I said I expected they

brought the sickness with them from California, for many of them died

coming from that place. Joe Lewis told them to make a box, and Beardy

buried the vial in the square box, stating, if they did not, the

Americans would get it and poison them all.

_The head man of the priests told them all these things_, and the priest

took all the best books to his house.

* * * * *

The above is a true extract from the journal of Mr. McLane, private

secretary to Colonel Gilliam, the same as was read in my hearing to

Mungo, the interpreter for Colonel Gilliam, when these statements were

made, and he said it was true and correctly written.

(Signed,) L. H. JUDSON.

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 25th day of November, 1848,

Champoeg County, Oregon Territory.

AARON PURDY, Justice of the Peace.

* * * * *

There are three important facts stated by this Indian which are

confirmed by other testimony.

First. That the priest was upon the ground, or in at the death.

Second. He was ready to overhaul the Doctor's medicines and hunt out

some vial, and tell the Indians, "_Here it is,--the medicine the Doctor

has been killing you with._"

Third. That he told them it was sent to the Doctor by Mrs. Whitman's

father, who poisoned people in the States.

This explains the terrible and brutal treatment of Mrs. Whitman's body,

even after death.

Brouillet says, "_Joseph Lewis had succeeded in fixing upon their minds

that Dr. Whitman had poisoned them_," but Istacus, one of the first and

most truthful Indians we became acquainted with in the country, tells us

that the Indians did not believe Joe Lewis till the priest confirmed his

statements, and this priest was required to show them the poison.

It would not be strange, if, while he is compelled to hunt over the

medicines of Dr. Whitman, to find any that he could call poison, and in

exhibiting such evidence to the deluded murderers about him, that he

should feel himself in danger, yet his whole conduct belies such a

statement, for he well knew the ignorance of those about him as to any

medicine he might select and call _poison_.

This Indian's statement also explains the killing of the two young men,

Sales and Bewley, and that as these priests "were sent of God," the

disease of these young men would spread; in other words, their testimony

would convict the parties implicated.

We find in this same letter to Colonel Gilliam, other statements that

are important in the history we are giving. He says: "_I knew that the

Indians were angry with all Americans, and more enraged against Mr.

Spalding than any other._" If this was the case, why did they not kill

him first? There is certainly some mistake in this statement of Mr.

Brouillet, or else the Indians were too hasty, which is probably the

case. The Indians were not quite as much "_enraged_" against Mr.

Spalding as his reverence, who claimed to know their feelings so well.

Again, on the 54th page (39th of Ross Browne), in answer to Mr.

Spalding's wild, despairing cry, "But where shall I go?" he answers: "I

know not; you know the country better than I; all that I know is that

the Indians say _the order to kill Americans has been sent in all

directions_."

How did this Rev. Father Brouillet know all this? We have yet to learn

that he ever gave a single American, except Mr. Spalding, any

information respecting their danger,--which he certainly could have done

with perfect safety, by sending any one or all of them a written notice

of the "order to kill Americans;" but instead of warning them of their

danger, he was present to show to the Indians a vial of Dr. Whitman's

medicine and tell them it was the _poison_.

The long list of statements collected and given to the world as reliable

historical data, by this priest, and embodied in an official report by

J. Ross Browne, do but show the active part he, with his associate

priests and the Hudson's Bay Company, took to destroy the American

influence and settlements then in the country.

Says the historian Bancroft: "It is the duty of faithful history to

trace events not only to their cause, but to their authors."

We will direct our attention for a short time to the proceedings of Mr.

McBean in charge of Fort Wallawalla (or Fort Nez Perces), in council

with the Indians. From the statement of Mr. Wm. Geiger, Jr., who was at

Dr. Whitman's station during the winter of 1846-7, teaching school, we

learn that the Indians showed some dissatisfaction, and were called

together by Dr. Whitman, to consult and decide what they would do. The

Doctor proposed to them that a majority of the tribe should let him know

definitely, and a vote was taken, and but two or three were found to

favor his leaving. During this council Mr. Geiger and the Doctor learned

that there had been conversation and a council with the Indians at the

fort, by Mr. McBean. That he had informed them of the Mexican war

between the United States and Mexico, and of the prospect of a war

between the United States and England (King George men), and that he was

anxious to know which side the Cayuses would take in the event of such a

war. This question Mr. McBean kept constantly before the Indians

whenever they went to the fort. They would return to the station and say

that Mr. McBean had given them more news of the prospect of war between

the King George people and Americans, and that he wished to know which

side they would take. Tamsaky, Tilokaikt, and one other Indian said they

had told Mr. McBean that they would join the King George. Some said they

had told him their hearts favored the Americans; others professed to be

on the "_back-bone_," _i.e._, hesitating. All matters and causes of

dissatisfaction between the Doctor's mission and the Indians were

amicably settled. The Doctor and Mr. Geiger could not see why Mr. McBean

should beset the Indians on that subject, unless it was to bring about

what had been before, viz., to make allies of the Indians in case of

war.

On account of this dissatisfaction, the Doctor thought of leaving. Mr.

Geiger says, "I told them I thought it their duty to remain. I thought

the Indians as quiet as communities in general; in old places there were

more or less difficulties and excitements."

In the communication signed by Mr. Geiger, he is asked, "What was the

cause of discouragement with the Doctor and Mr. Spalding at that time?"

A.--"The influence of the Roman priests, exercised in talking to the

Indians, and through the French half-breed, Lehai, Tom Hill, a Delaware

Indian, and others."

Q.--"What did the Indians mention was the instruction they received from

Roman Catholics?"

A.--"That the Protestants were leading them in wrong roads, _i.e._,

even to hell. If they followed the _Suapies_ (Americans) they would

continue to die. If they followed the Catholics, it would be otherwise

with them; only now and then one would die of age. That they would get

presents,--would become rich in every thing."

We have a statement made by Brouillet as to their influence among the

Indians on this coast, found on the 87th page of his narrative,

"Protestantism in Oregon" (55th of Ross Browne.) He says:--

"Messrs. Blanchet and Demerse, the first Catholic missionaries that

came to Oregon, had passed Wallawalla in 1838, where they had

stopped a few days, and had been visited by the Indians. In 1839,

Mr. Demerse had spent three weeks in teaching the Indians and

baptizing their children. In 1840, he had made there a mission so

fruitful that the Protestant missionaries had got alarmed, and

feared that all their disciples would abandon them if he continued

his missions among them. Father De Smet, after visiting the

Flatheads in 1840, had come and established a mission among them in

1841; and from that time down to the arrival of the bishop, the

Indians of Wallawalla and of the Upper Columbia had never failed to

be visited yearly, either by Mr. Demerse or by some of the Jesuits,

and those annual excursions had procured every year new children to

the church. Almost every Indian tribe possessed some Catholic

member."

We can bear positive testimony as to the effect and influence of those

teachings up to 1842 among the Upper Columbia Indians; and it is to

illustrate the bearing and result of those teachings, continued for a

series of years upon the savage mind, and the influence of a foreign

monopoly in connection with such teachers, that we bring these

statements before the reader.

The vast influence wielded by this foreign fur and sectarian monopoly

was used to secure Oregon for their exclusive occupation. The testimony

of Rev. Messrs. Beaver and Barnley, and Sir Edward Belcher, as given by

Mr. Fitzgerald, and that of his Reverence Brouillet, as found on the

56th page of his narrative, all affirm the close connection of these two

influences. Leaving out of the question the statement of many others, we

have that of this priest. He says:--

"Some days after an express reached us from the fort, informing us that

our lives were in danger from a portion of the Indians who could not

pardon me for having deprived them of their victim; and this was the

only reason which prevented me from fulfilling the promise which I had

made to the widows and orphans of returning to see them, and obliged me

to be contented with sending my interpreter" to the scene of the murder,

to bring Miss Bewley to be treated as the evidence in the next chapter

will show.

CHAPTER LIX.

Continuation of Miss Bewley's evidence.--The priests refuse her

protection.--Forcibly taken from the bishop's house by Five

Crows.--Brouillet advises her to remain with her Indian

violator.--Indecent question by a priest.--Mr. Brouillet attempts

to get a statement from her.--Two questions.--Note from Mrs.

Bewley.--Bishop Blanchet's letter to Governor Abernethy.--Comments

on the Jesuits' proceedings.--Grand council at the

bishop's.--Policy in forcing Miss Bewley to Five Crows'

lodge.--Speeches by Camaspelo and Tilokaikt.--Killing of Elijah and

the Nez Perce chief commented on.--The true story told.--Dr.

White's report.--The grand council again.--Review of Brouillet's

narrative.--Who were the real authors of the massacre.

_Miss Bewley's Deposition Continued._

Q.--When were you taken to the Umatilla?

A.--Just at night, on Thursday the next week after the first massacre,

having shaken with the ague that day; slept out that night in the

snow-storm.

Q.--Whose horses came after you?

A.--Eliza Spalding said they belonged to her father; this led us to

suppose Mr. Spalding was killed.

Q.--When did you leave Umatilla?

A.--On Monday before the Wednesday on which we all went to Wallawalla.

Q.--When did you reach Wallawalla?

A.--On Wednesday before the Saturday on which Mr. Spalding and company

arrived, and we all started the next day for the lower country.

Q.--Where did you spend your time when at the Umatilla?

A.--Most of the time at the house of the bishop; but the Five Crows

(Brouillet's Achekaia) most of the nights compelled me to go to his

lodge and be subject to him during the night. I obtained the privilege

of going to the bishop's house before violation on the Umatilla, and

_begged_ and _cried to the bishop for protection_ either at his house,

or to be sent to Wallawalla. I told him I would do any work by night and

day for him if he would protect me. _He said he would do all he could._

[The sequel shows that in this promise the bishop meant to implicate and

involve the Five Crows, should a war with the American settlement grow

out of the massacre.] Although I was taken to the lodge, I escaped

violation the first four nights. There were the bishop, three priests,

and two Frenchmen at the bishop's house. The first night the Five Crows

came, I refused to go, and he went away, apparently mad, and _the bishop

told me I had better go_, as he might do us all an injury, and _the

bishop sent an Indian with me_. He took me to the Five Crows' lodge. The

Five Crows showed me the door, and told me I might go back, and take my

clothes, which I did.

Three nights after this, the Five Crows came for me again. _The bishop

finally ordered me to go_; my answer was, I had rather die. After this,

_he still insisted on my going_ as the best thing I could do. I was then

in the bishop's room; the three priests were there. I found I could get

no help, _and had to go, as he told me, out of his room_. The Five Crows

seized me by the arm and jerked me away to his lodge.

Q.--How long were you at the Umatilla?

A.--Two weeks, and from Friday till Monday. I would return early in the

morning to the bishop's house, and be violently taken away at night. The

Bishop provided kindly for me while at his house. On my return one

morning one of the young priests asked me, in a good deal of glee, _how

I liked my companion_. I felt that this would break my heart, and cried

much during the day. When the two Nez Perces arrived with Mr. Spalding's

letter, they held a council in the bishop's room, and the bishop said

they were trying to have things settled. He said Mr. Spalding was trying

to get the captives delivered up; I do not recollect what day this was,

but it was some days before we heard that Mr. Ogden had arrived at

Wallawalla. When the tall priest (Brouillet) that was at the Doctor's at

the first was going to Wallawalla, after hearing of Mr. Ogden's arrival,

he called me out of the door and told me if I went to the lodge any more

I must not come back to his house. I asked him what I should do. He said

I must insist or beg of the Indian to let me stop at his house; if he

would not let me, then I must stay at his lodge. I did not feel well,

and toward night I took advantage of this and went to bed, determined I

would die there before I would be taken away. The Indian came, and, on

my refusing to go, hauled me from my bed and threw my bonnet and shawl

at me, and told me to go. I would not, and at a time when his eyes were

off I threw them under the table and he could not find them. I sat down,

determined not to go, and he pushed me nearly into the fire. The

Frenchmen were in the room, and the bishop and priests were passing back

and forth to their rooms. When the Indian was smoking, I went to bed

again, and when he was through smoking he dragged me from my bed with

more violence than the first time. I told the Frenchman to go into the

bishop's room and ask him what I should do; he came out and told me that

the _bishop said it was best for me to go_. I told him the tall priest

said, if I went I must not come back again to this house; he said the

priests dared not keep women about their house, but if the Five Crows

sent me back again, why come. I still would not go. The Indian then

pulled me away violently without bonnet or shawl. Next morning I came

back and was in much anguish and cried much. _The bishop asked me if I

was in much trouble?_ I told him I was. He said it was not my fault,

that I could not help myself. That I must pray to God and Mary. He asked

me if I did not believe in God; I told him I did.

* * * * *

We will not stop to comment on the simple narrative of this young woman.

No language of mine will more deeply impress the reader with the

debasing character of these "holy fathers, the Catholic priests," that

served the _Honorable_ Hudson's Bay Company and mother church so

faithfully.

It appears that Miss Bewley arrived at the bishop's on the 10th of

December. On the 58th page of Brouillet's narrative (41st of Browne's)

we find the following language:--

"On the 11th of December we had the affliction to _hear_ that one of

the captives had been carried off from the Doctor's house by the

order of Five Crows, and brought to him; and we learned that two

others had been violated at the Doctor's house."

How seriously these holy fathers were afflicted, Miss Bewley has told us

in language not to be misunderstood. Her statement continues:--

* * * * *

Last summer, when I was teaching school near Mr. Bass, the tall priest,

whose name I have learned was Brouillet, called on me, and told me that

Mr. Spalding was trying to ruin my character and his, and said that Mr.

Spalding had said that I had told him (Mr. S.) that the priests had

treated me as bad as the Indians ever had. I told him I had not said so.

He said he wanted to ask me some questions, and would send the Doctor,

who could speak better English; he wished me to write it; I told him I

would rather not do it. When at the Umatilla, the Frenchmen told me that

they were making arrangements to locate the priests,--two at Mr.

Spalding's as soon as Mr. S. got away, and two at the Dalles, and they

were going to the Doctor's next week to build a house. This conversation

was before Mr. Ogden arrived at Wallawalla.

Q.--Did Dr. Whitman wish to have Joe Lewis stop at his place?

A.--He let him stop at first only because he said he had no shoes nor

clothes and could not go on; but when a good many, on account of

sickness, had no drivers, the Doctor furnished Joe with shoes and

shirts, and got him to drive a team. He was gone three days, and came

back, but the Doctor never liked it. I heard Mrs. Whitman and the Sager

boys say that Joe Lewis was making disturbance among the Indians.

Q.--Did you ever hear the Doctor express any fears about the Catholics?

A.--Only once; the Doctor said at the table: "Now I shall have trouble;

these priests are coming." Mrs. Whitman asked: "Have the Indians let

them have land?" He said: "I think they have." Mrs. Whitman said: "It's

a wonder they do not come and kill us." This land was out of sight of

the Doctor's as you come this way (west of the station). When the

Frenchman was talking, at Umatilla, of going to build a house there, he

said it was a prettier station than the Doctor's.

(Signed,) LORINDA BEWLEY.

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 12th day of December, 1848.

G. WALLING, Justice of the Peace,

Clackamas County, Oregon Territory.

We have another original statement of Miss Bewley's, as taken by Rev. J.

S. Griffin, which we will give as a part properly belonging to the above

statement.

OREGON CITY, February 7, 1849.

Questions to Miss Lorinda Bewley, in further examination touching the

Wailatpu massacre:--

Q.--Did the Five Crows, when you were taken to his lodge from the

bishop's house by an Indian, send you back with your things in apparent

anger, or did he appear at that time to pity you?

A.--I thought at the time that I had good evidence, from his manner and

behavior to me at the lodge in giving me up, that he was disposed to

pity me, and not to abuse me.

Q.--Did you anticipate that evening that he would demand you afterward?

A.--No; I did not think he was disposed to.

Q.--What was this Five Crows' English name?

A.--Hezekiah (Brouillet's Achekaia).

Q.--Did you have evidence that it was necessary for Hezekiah to hold you

as a wife to save you from a general abuse by the Indians?

A.--I was overwhelmed with such evidence at Wailatpu, but saw none of it

at the Umatilla.

Q.--What was the order of conversation to you when the priest went to

Wallawalla, after hearing of Mr. Ogden's arrival?

A.--I besought him to do all he could at the fort to obtain my delivery

from bondage, and he said he would. A little after he called me to step

out of the door from the rest, and told me if I went with the Indian I

must not come back to his house any more, when I burst out crying, and

asked him what to do; he said I must insist or beg the Indian to let me

remain, or I must remain there. I begged him, as I was alone there, he

would do everything in his power to get Mr. Ogden to take me away,

whether he could obtain all the prisoners or not.

Q.--Did you know of the priests having baptized any at the time of the

burial at Wailatpu?

A.--I did not; but they were baptizing a great many at the Umatilla,

principally children; two the same day after I went there, and very

frequently afterward. On Christmas day they baptized many.

Q.--Was it understood among the Indians that the families at the mill

were English?

A.--Yes, sir; and Mr. Smith was an Englishman.

Q.--Did the report reach the Indians at Wailatpu before you went to

Umatilla, that the Indians were told at the Fort Wallawalla that they

must not kill any more Americans?

A.--Yes, sir. This seemed to be generally understood.

Q.--Was it made known to you captives what Edward Tilokaikt was gone to

the Umatilla for?

A.--It was made known to us, after a council, that Edward was to go to

the big chief at the Umatilla and see what was to be done with us, and

especially with the young women; and, after his return, he immediately

commenced the massacre of the sick young men, and the next morning

announced to us that the arrangement had been made for Hezekiah to come

and take his choice among the young women, and that Edward and Clark

Tilokaikt were then to take the other two. Hezekiah was a chief [the one

appointed by Dr. White in 1843], and regarded by us, and I believe by

others, as a single man. Edward and Clark were only the sons of a chief.

Hezekiah did not come for me himself, but sent a man [Brouillet says,

page 56 (Ross Browne, 40), the caution he received from Mr. McBean

"obliged me to be content with sending my interpreter"] and a boy for

the young woman that was a member of Mrs. Whitman's family. The contract

between my mother and Mrs. Whitman was, that I was to continue my

studies with Mrs. Whitman, and take part with her in the instruction and

care of the children.

Q.--After Mr. Rogers entered the house wounded, and closed the doors,

did he have any conversation with Nicholas or the Manson boys?

A.--No. Neither of them came into the house.

LORINDA BEWLEY.

Rev. J. S. Griffin says he is ready to testify to the fact that the

above is a true statement, as made by Miss Bewley, and it was his own

oversight at the time that her oath was not attached before a justice of

the peace.

There was no other person living at the time that could positively state

the facts as given by Miss Bewley; others have given their depositions,

which confirm her statements, and show them to be the simple,

unvarnished truth of the whole scene that passed before her, and her

treatment by those "_holy fathers, the bishop and his priests_."

We are forced to confess, that, after studying and copying these old

documents and papers, we dare not trust ourselves to express an opinion,

lest the reader should say our feelings have overcome our better

judgment. Therefore we will simply ask a question or two, and let each

reader answer for himself.

What think you, kind reader, of the Hudson's Bay Company and Roman

Catholic Jesuits, and priests and bishop in Oregon in 1847-8?

Did not Dr. Whitman, his wife, and all at his mission suffer, and many

of them die, to save Oregon as a part of the great American Republic?

We know that a few of the poor miserably deluded Indians belonging to

his mission have suffered an ignominious death by being hung like dogs

(a death, of all others, the most odious to them), and for what? Simply

because they were deceived by those who knew at the time they were

deceiving them; and who have since so managed as to deceive the

Christian world, and bring falsehood to cover their participation in the

transaction.

We would not have been so particular, nor copied documents so

extensively, had we not before us a narrative of 108 pages, written by

one of these "_holy fathers_," Vicar-General Brouillet, purporting to

give the causes both remote and immediate of this horrible massacre;

giving it the title of "_Protestantism in Oregon_, account of the

_murder of Dr. Whitman_, and the ungrateful calumnies of H. H. Spalding,

Protestant missionary," in which he searches back even before the

arrival of Dr. Whitman in the country, and cites Rev. Mr. Parker's first

supposed or imaginary statements to the Indians as a cause of the

massacre, which we know to be false and unfounded from the six years'

early acquaintance we had with those Indians; and also from the personal

allusions he makes to transactions with which we were intimately

acquainted, and know to be false in fact and inference. These statements

of this priest and his associates, McBean and Sir James Douglas, have

induced us to extend the particulars of that massacre beyond our

original design in giving the history of Oregon. As he claims great

credit for himself and associates, Stanfield in particular, in burying

the dead, and showing kindness to the widows and orphans, we will give

another item to show the character of the _thief_, _liar_, and

_accomplice_ in that massacre, whom this priest is so ready in his

narrative to claim as a saint.

Mrs. Catharine Bewley says: "Dr. Prettyman said to me that Joe Stanfield

told him at his own house, when the sheriff had him in custody, that

'the morning of the day when young Bewley was killed, he had gone into

the room and had hid every thing in the room back of the bed he was

upon.' This, the doctor thought, showed that he was the cause of his

being killed."

Under date of Umatilla, December 21, 1847, Father Blanchet, bishop of

Wallawalla, writes to Governor Abernethy as follows:--

"As soon as I had been informed what had happened, I instantly

told the two chiefs near my house that _I hoped the women_ and

children would be spared until they could be sent to the Wallamet.

They answered: 'We pity them,--they shall not be harmed; they

shall be taken care of, as before.' _I have since had the

satisfaction to hear that they have been true to their word_, and

that they have taken care of these poor people."

In Father Brouillet's narrative, page 57 (Ross Browne, page 41), he

says: "On the 3d, the bishop called for the Young Chief and his brother

Five Crows, in order to express to them how deeply he had been pained by

the news of the horrible affair at Wailatpu, and _to recommend to their

care the widows and orphans_, as well as the men who had survived the

massacre. They protested to have given no consent to what had happened

at Wailatpu, and promised to do all in their power for the survivors.

"On the 10th we received the painful intelligence that two other young

men, who, being sick, had been spared by the Indians at the time of the

first massacre, had since been torn from their beds and cruelly

butchered."

The positive testimony in regard to these two young men is already

before the reader. _If this bishop and priest do not act and narrate

falsely, we ask, What is falsehood?_

After giving a description of the grand council held at the Catholic

mission house by Tawatowe, Tilokaikt, Achekaia, and Camaspelo, Brouillet

says, on page 67: "Before taking leave of the chiefs, the bishop said to

them all publicly, as he had also done several times privately, that

those who had taken American girls should give them up immediately. And

then all entreated Five Crows repeatedly to give up the one whom he had

taken, but to no purpose." How does this compare with Miss Bewley's

testimony?

We must ask to be excused from at present commenting further upon the

notes and extracts from the statements of these several parties. They

are before you, reader, not as fiction or imagination; they are

transactions connected with the history we are writing. The statements

on the part of this bishop and his priests have been published and

extensively circulated, and have been believed, and have had far too

much influence in encouraging and sustaining them among their deluded

victims; besides mystifying, and causing a public sentiment to be

generally entertained derogatory to the Protestant and American

missionary influence in Oregon.

We have given an account of this bishop and his priests on the first

commencement of their missionary efforts among the Cayuse Indians, and

have followed them through their _labors_, and their legitimate results,

till we now come to the 16th of December, the day on which they received

a wild, incoherent--not to say injudicious and foolish--letter from Rev.

Mr. Spalding, which they gave, with a flourish of trumpets and shout of

triumph, on their arrival in Wallamet, to be published as evidence of

their extensive influence over the Indians, and to destroy the influence

of Mr. Spalding as a missionary. In this they have succeeded but too

well, and for which we should look closely into their proceedings with

the Indians.

Brouillet, on the 58th and 61st pages (41st and 43d of Browne), in

speaking of the Nez Perces who brought Mr. Spalding's letter, says:--

"We had reason to be astonished at that confidence of those

Indians, as we had had as yet no opportunity of seeing any one of

the Nez Perces since our arrival in the country.

"The two Nez Perce chiefs advised the Cayuses to take measures for

avoiding a war with Americans. They requested the bishop to write

to Governor Abernethy, begging him not to send up an army, but

rather to come himself in the spring and make a treaty of peace

with the Cayuses, who promised that they would then release the

captives of Wailatpu,--promising besides to offer no injury to

Americans until they heard the news from Wallamet. _The bishop

told them that he was glad of their proceeding, and was disposed

to assist them to the extent of his power_, but that he could not

write without knowing the opinion of the Cayuses, and that as soon

as he could learn this he would send an express below. He then

encouraged them to see all the chiefs about it."

From the above and subsequent statements and transactions, we have no

reason to doubt the truth of the bishop's remark, "_that he was glad of

their proceeding_." There can be no question that he did all he could to

help the Indians, and to defeat the provisional troops and government,

as is proved by the evidence already given, and will be seen as we

proceed. He tells the Indians that he could not write, without knowing

the opinion of the Cayuses; he must be satisfied that they are all

united, and when he has learned that fact, he can write with more

assurance and effect to the governor. He extends consolation and

encouragement to Camaspelo on the 18th, and two days after convenes the

council alluded to.

"Accordingly, on Monday, 20th December, 1847, at the Catholic Mission,

the Cayuses assembled in grand council held by Tawatowe (or Young

Chief), Tilokaikt, Achekaia (or Five Crows), and Camaspelo, all the

great chiefs of the Cayuses, in presence of many other great men (second

chiefs) of the nation." This council was held just three months and

three days after. Brouillet says that Bishop Blanchet met Dr. Whitman

at Wallawalla, and said to him, "All is known. I come to labor for the

conversion of Indians, and even of Americans, if they are willing to

listen to me." And we say, to crush and drive the Protestant missions

from the country, including their heretical settlements.

We wish to give these foreign _priests_ the full benefit of their own

statements, as we shall express fully our opinion of them; besides, we

presume that not one in a thousand will be able to understand the

wonderful workings of Jesuitism among the Indians and the people of our

country, without extensive quotations from their books.

The narrative continues: "About ten o'clock in the morning they all

entered the mission house. The bishop was present, together with Messrs.

Rousseau, Leclaire, and myself [Vicar-General Brouillet, the writer of

the narrative we are quoting from]. After a deep silence of some

minutes, the bishop explained to them the object of the meeting. He

began by expressing to them the pleasure he felt in seeing them thus

assembled for the purpose of deliberating on a most important

subject,--that of avoiding war, which is always a great evil. He told

them that in matters of importance they should always hold a council and

consult those who might be best able to give them good advice; that in

giving their advice separately, they were liable to be misunderstood,

and thereby expose themselves and their people to great misfortunes;

that he was persuaded that if the chiefs had deliberated together they

would not now have to deplore the horrible massacre of Wailatpu, nor to

fear its probable consequences."

The reader can understand how sincere these "holy fathers" were in

saying "horrible massacre at Wailatpu," when, instead of calling on Dr.

Whitman, as Brouillet says he "cordially promised to do," he went to an

Indian lodge, learned of the massacre, and remained all night, writing,

the Indians say, this false and infamous account of the transaction, to

slander the dead and clear the guilty; and the next morning baptized

three of the Indian children before going to the assistance of the

widows and orphans.

The bishop told them "that two Nez Perce chiefs had asked him to write

to the great chief of Wallamet (Governor Abernethy) to obtain peace, but

that he could not do so without the consent of the Cayuses."

It will be remembered that up to the arrival of Dr. White, in 1842, as

an official spy upon the proceedings of the Hudson's Bay Company,

drawing the pay of a sub-Indian agent, the company had not allowed any

effort to combine the Indians; but on the arrival of Dr. White, they at

once made use of him, and also of the bishop and his priests, to form

just the combinations they wished to make use of, to strike at the

settlements at the proper time.

Tawatowe, or Young Chief, was, up to the time of the taking of Fort Nez

Perces, considered a head chief; but in consequence of the part he had

taken in that affair his power had been broken. His brother, Five Crows,

was advanced, and had become the favorite of Dr. Whitman, as well as of

Dr. White, and was looked upon as friendly to the mission and the

American cause. _Miss Bewley's being forced to become his wife was a

part of the scheme to involve him in the war then in contemplation, and

to bring about a union of the tribe under the very plausible reason

given by this "holy father," and was one of the most important measures

to implicate that humane and Protestant Indian in the war measures now

in discussion before this grand Indian council at the house of the

bishop._ The bishop says "that the propositions which those chiefs

wished to send were these: 1st. That Americans should not come to make

war; 2d. That they should send up two or three great men to make a

treaty of peace; 3d. That when these great men should arrive, all the

captives should be released; 4th. That they would offer no offense to

Americans before knowing the news from below.

"The bishop then desired them to speak and to say what they thought

of these propositions.

"Camaspelo spoke first. He said he was blind and ignorant, and had

despaired of the life and salvation of his nation, but that the

words of the bishop had opened his eyes, consoled and encouraged

him; that he had confidence, and that he approved the propositions.

"The chief Tilokaikt then rose to say that he was not a great

speaker, and that his talk would not be long. He then reviewed the

history of the nation since the arrival of the whites (French people

or Hudson's Bay Company) in the country down to the present time. He

said that before they had been visited by white men the Indians were

always at war; that at the place where Fort Wallawalla now stood

nothing but blood was continually seen; that they had been taught by

the _whites_ that there was a God who forbids men to kill each

other." "A jewel of gold in a swine's snout." This is the Indian

that assisted in killing Dr. Whitman, and engaged his attention

while his companion gave the first blow; and he afterward cut the

Doctor's face horribly with a hatchet, while he was yet alive. But

let us continue this "holy father's" lesson of peace and morality

from the mouth of his converted Indian, for we have every reason to

believe he is now fully converted to that faith, and has given us a

specimen in the practice of the religion he has just commenced to

learn. He says, "that since this time they had always lived in

peace, and endeavored to persuade others to do the same. He

eulogized Mr. Pambrun; spoke of a Nez Perce chief who had been

killed when going to the States; afterward of the son of Yellow

Serpent, who had been killed by Americans in California; said that

they had forgotten all this. He spoke also of Dr. Whitman and Mr.

Spalding, and finished by saying that since they had forgotten all,

he hoped that the Americans would also forget what had been recently

done; that now they were even."

This priest is careful to make his converted Indian tell a plausible

story, as also to eulogize Mr. Pambrun and the Hudson's Bay Company, and

to state that two Indians had been killed while in company with, or by

Americans.

As to the killing of the Nez Perce chief (so called), we knew much more

of it than this priest or his Indian. The Nez Perce was killed in open

fight with the Sioux, at Ash Hollow, on the Platte River, after the

party had fought three hours, and killed fifteen and wounded eight of

the Sioux. He was no connection of this Cayuse tribe, and is only

referred to for effect. The bishop makes Tilokaikt tell a falsehood to

shield a crime in himself and associates.

The killing of Elijah, the son of Yellow Serpent, is equally false in

the statement of the fact, and relation of the circumstances. Dr. White,

sub-Indian agent, etc., was never known to tell the truth when a

falsehood would suit his plans and purposes better; as is evident in

this case, which is given that the reader may judge of its truth. Mr.

Brouillet comments upon Dr. White's letter to the Department at

Washington, April 4, 1845, as follows: "After speaking of some

difficulties that occurred in California between the Cayuses and

Wallawallas on one part, and the Spaniards and Americans on the other,

on account of some stolen horses that the Cayuses and Wallawallas had

taken from hostile Indians by fighting them [this is altogether a

mistake, as the horses belonged to the Americans and Spaniards and they

had their Indians guarding them, and the party here referred to killed

the guard and attempted the life of an American], Mr. White passes on

to relate a murder there, committed coolly by an American the fall

previous upon the person of Elijah, the son of Yellow Serpent, the chief

of the Wallawallas, in the following way: 'The Indians had gone to the

fort of Captain Sutter to church, and, after service, Elijah was invited

into another apartment, taking with him his uncle, Young Chief, of the

Umatilla River, a brave and sensible chief of the age of five and

forty.'" This priest, on page 30 (J. Ross Browne, page 28), makes Mr.

McKinley say that in the fall of 1844, the Indians, a short time after

their return from California, met one day at Fort Wallawalla, seven

hundred in number, all armed, and decided to walk down immediately upon

the colony of the Wallamet, and that they could be stopped only by the

Young Chief, who, by his entreaties, decided them to abandon their

undertaking and to go home. We are led to inquire, why did not these

Indians, at this time, direct their attention to the American missions

in their midst, and take their revenge then, instead of waiting three

years, and then, as Brouillet says, making this murder a cause of the

massacre? McBean, and Bishop Blanchet and his priests, were not then at

the fort, nor among those Indians, to aid them in avenging themselves on

the innocent.

But let us finish the account of this horrid transaction on the part of

our countrymen, as repeated by Brouillet to excuse the Wailatpu

massacre.

He says the Young Chief went into the room with Elijah, and "while there

in an unarmed and defenseless condition, they commenced menacing him for

things alleged against the River Indians of this upper country, in which

none of them had any participation; called them indiscriminately dogs,

thieves, etc." The truth is, that this party went from the Cayuse

country to California expressly to steal horses and cattle. This same

educated Indian boy was the leader of the party in going to the fort. He

and the Young Chief were both arrested, and tried by a military court;

the chief was acquitted, upon the evidence of the American referred to,

as he saved his life, while Elijah was for killing him. Elijah was

condemned, and shot, to prevent other similar parties from disturbing

the settlements and killing peaceable Indians in California. This is the

reason, as Mr. McKinley doubtless told Brouillet, why the Young Chief

used his influence to prevent any attempt at retaliation.

The narrative continues: "This American then observed, 'Yesterday you

were going to kill me; now you must die,' and drawing a pistol--Elijah,

who had been five or six years at the Methodist Mission, and had learned

to read, write, and speak English respectably, said deliberately, 'Let

me pray a little first;' and kneeling down, at once commenced, and, when

invoking the Divine mercy, was shot through the heart or vitals, dead

upon the spot. Taking for truth an Indian report [which in this case

suited this priest and Dr. White's purposes better than a true statement

of the facts would], this horrible affair created considerable

excitement [which, he tells us in another place, the Young Chief, who

was present, was able to quell], and there is some danger of its

disturbing the friendly relations that hitherto existed between us here

and all those formidable tribes in the region of Wallawalla and Snake

River."

This Indian story or tragedy is useful for three purposes. First, to

show Dr. White's disposition to have his importance known to the

department at Washington. Second, to show the disposition of this "_holy

father, the Catholic priest_," to quote a case of the kind, to justify

the Whitman massacre by the Indians, and deceive his readers and the

world as to the real cause of that transaction; thus aiding us in

bringing home the guilt of a crime where it belongs. Third, to show how

capable he is of misrepresenting and falsifying historical facts, to

excuse a foul murder of American citizens. He continues to quote Dr.

White as follows:--

"Learning from Dr. Whitman, who resides in their midst, how much

they were all excited by reason of the treacherous and violent death

of this educated and accomplished young chief, and, perhaps more

especially by the loss they had sustained, and then, after suffering

so many hardships and encountering so many dangers, losing the

whole, I apprehended there might be much difficulty in adjusting it,

particularly as they lay much stress upon the restless, disaffected

scamps, late from Wallamet to California, loading them with the vile

epithets of dogs, thieves, etc., from which they believed or

affected to believe that the slanderous reports of our citizens

caused all their loss and disasters, and therefore held us

responsible. He, Ellis, the Nez Perce chief, assured me that the

Cayuses, Wallawallas, Nez Perces, Spokans, Ponderays, and Snakes

were all on terms of amity, and that a portion of the aggrieved

party were for raising a party of about two thousand warriors of

those formidable tribes, and march to California at once,[13] and,

nobly revenging themselves on the inhabitants by capture and

plunder, enrich themselves upon the spoils; while others, not

indisposed to the enterprise, wished first to learn how it would be

regarded here, and whether we would remain neutral in the affair. A

third party were for holding us responsible, as Elijah was killed

by an American, and the Americans incensed the Spaniards."[14]

[Footnote 13] Brouillet, in his haste to bring Dr. White to

prove his statements of the causes of the Whitman massacre,

has forgotten that he was assured by Mr. McKinley that they

intended to go to the Wallamet, instead of California.

[Footnote 14] See the whole of Dr. White's report, chapter

50, page 387 _et seq._

The above extract is quoted by Brouillet for so base a purpose, that it

seems necessary, in order to correct the errors of Dr. White and this

priest, to give it in full. We have given the statement of Mr. McKinley,

as quoted by Brouillet, which shows the absurdity of this whole

document. If the Young Chief went into the room and saw Elijah shot down

in the brutal manner represented by Dr. White, he certainly must have

been a very remarkable and forgiving Indian if he used his influence to

prevent his tribe from seeking revenge; besides, we find in the

subsequent history, that even Elijah's own father did not seek to avenge

his death, as stated by this priest on page 30 of this narrative (28th

of Ross Browne's report).

He says: "And in the spring of 1847, the Wallawalla chief himself,

Yellow Serpent, started with a party of Wallawallas and Cayuses for the

purpose of attacking the Americans in California, whom they thought

unsuspicious. But having found them on their guard, and too strong to be

attacked without danger, he took their part against the Spaniards,

offered his services to them, and fought in their ranks."

This, with the statement of Mr. McBean, as will be given in his letter,

shows that this very Rev. Father Brouillet knew nothing of the subject

he was writing about, and was ready to pick up any statement that might

be made, without any regard to its absurdity or plausibility. I query

whether there is a living man well acquainted with Dr. White, who will

state that he believes he would tell the truth, officially or otherwise,

when a falsehood would suit his purposes better; and from a careful

study of the statements and writings of this reverend priest, we are

forced to the same conclusion.

Rev. Mr. Brouillet has filled four pages and a half of his narrative

with the statements of William Craig, in answer to questions asked by

Hon. P. H. Burnett, all of which show that Mr. Craig knew nothing of the

massacre only as he was told, by two Indians, what some other Indian

said that some other Indian had said. We are not surprised that Mr.

Burnett gave up the contest with Mr. Spalding, after examining such a

witness as Mr. Craig, and finding that he knew so little relative to the

subject in question. Suppose Tom Hill and the Indian messenger that

brought the news to Mr. Spalding's station told all they heard of the

matter, did that make their statements true? Or did the repeating of

these Indian statements by Mr. Craig make them true? Rev. Father

Brouillet has showed, in these four pages, a weakness we did not expect

to find in a man with so many sacred titles to his name. In fact, the

greater part of his statements are from persons who make them as coming

second-hand from the Indians. He makes Mr. Craig repent from the mouth

of the Indian messenger the statement first published in Sir James

Douglas's letter to the Sandwich Islands; and then in conclusion says,

on page 29:--

"Now I am satisfied that every impartial and unprejudiced person,

after reading attentively the above documents, will come with me to

the conclusion that the true causes, both remote and immediate, of

the whole evil must have been the following: 1st. The promise made

by Mr. Parker to the Cayuses and Nez Perces of paying for their

lands every year, and the want of fulfillment of that promise."

Which promise Mr. Parker never made, and which the Hudson's Bay Company

and these Roman priests made up to cause difficulty with the Indians and

American missions and settlements.

"2d. The death of the Nez Perce chief, killed on his way to the United

States, when he was in company with Mr. Gray, and in his service." This

Mr. Gray knows to be false, both in statement and inference, as already

explained.

This priest says: "The conclusion is evident, from the circumstances

which preceded that death, and from the proceedings of the Nez Perces

against Mr. Spalding and all the people of his establishment on account

of it, and likewise from the general habit of the Indians in such

cases."

We will here state that we were two years at Mr. Spalding's station, on

returning from the States, and saw the whole Nez Perce tribe, and

employed them for days and months, and worked with them, and explored

their country to select farms for them, and know that the Nez Perces

never, on any occasion, made the least disturbance about the station, or

in any other place, on account of the death of that Indian; and we know

that neither Mr. Spalding nor any of the people at his place were ever

confined in their houses for an hour on account of it; and we further

know that the statement made by Brouillet, as coming from old Toupin, is

false and malicious, and only shows the ignorance and malice of this

priest, who has made these false statements, as he has those about the

killing of Elijah, to cover his own guilt in the infamous crime charged

upon him and his associates.

"3d. The murder committed by an American in California on the person of

Elijah, the son of the Wallawalla chief, in 1844." Answered already.

This priest says of Yellow Serpent: "On his way coming back from

California he lost many of his people from sickness [to which Istacus

alludes in his reasons for not believing that Dr. Whitman was the cause

of the Indians dying by poison], so that he and his young men, when

arrived at home in the fall, felt more ill-disposed than ever toward the

Americans." This priest's fourth reason embraces the tales told by Tom

Hill, Joe Lewis, Finlay, old Toupin, and Stanfield, which are all of the

same class, and have all been learned from the same reverend teachers,

and copied into Sir James Douglas's letter, for the benefit of the

American Board, going by way of the Sandwich Islands.

His fifth reason, about the small-pox, as stated by Craig--the Doctor

and Gray's poisoning melons--the Doctor being a physician, shows that he

is terribly pressed for a plausible reason for the crime he attempts to

excuse. His sixth reason--lack of sincerity. Here he quotes Mr.

Spalding's letter, written soon after his return home, after being

exposed six days and nights to extreme fatigue, hunger, and cold,--his

mind racked with anxiety and fear in regard to himself and family, and

tortured with thoughts of the scene at Wailatpu; being ignorant of any

of the particulars of the massacre, and of the part the bishop and his

priests were taking in it, he wrote as to friends whom he thought would

feel for his situation. He also quotes a letter he received through P.

H. Burnett, signed J. Magone, who says: "I recollect distinctly,

however, that he (Mr. Spalding) was not in favor of killing all the

Cayuses, for he gave me names of some four or five that he knew to be

friendly, and another whom I marked as questionable." (Mr. S. had

learned more of the particulars of the massacre.) Does this letter prove

that he was in favor of killing all the Indians but the ones mentioned,

or does it show his anxiety lest the innocent should perish with the

guilty, which led him to give those names to Major Magone, an officer in

the provisional army?

We have naturally left that deep, silent grand council of Indians,

presided over by his reverence, Bishop Blanchet, and directed our

attention to other important facts and statements relative to the

subject of this chapter.

We now have the touching appeal of Edward Tilokaikt, with whom the

reader has become acquainted in the depositions already given. He is now

brought before us in this grand council at the bishop's house (page 66

of Brouillet; page 44 Ross Browne).

"Edward, the son of Tilokaikt, then came forward, bearing in his

hand the _Catholic Ladder_ stained with blood; he repeated the words

which Dr. Whitman had used when he showed it to them, one or two

weeks before he died: '_You see this blood! it is to show you that

now, because you have the priests among you, the country is going to

be covered with blood! You will have nothing now but blood!_' He

then related what had passed, gave a touching picture of the

afflicted families in seeing borne to the grave a father, a mother,

a brother, or a sister; spoke of a single member of a family who had

been left to weep alone over all the rest, who had disappeared. He

stated how and for what the murder had been committed, entered into

the most minute details, avoiding, however, _to give any knowledge

of the guilty_, repeated the words which _Joseph Lewis_ said had

passed between Dr. Whitman, his wife, and Mr. Spalding, and finally

spoke of the pretended declaration of Mr. Rogers at the moment of

his death: 'that Dr. Whitman had been poisoning the Indians.'"

Reader, need I tell you that the language and sentiment above quoted as

coming from Edward Tilokaikt, never entered his savage Indian brain;

that this speech is the carefully combined and studied production of the

author of the narrative we have quoted it from? It is given in

connection, repeated and combined with a little variation by every

individual who makes a statement favorable to those priests; and in the

whole list of statements this priest Brouillet and McBean are the only

two that could write or translate the Indian ideas into French or

English; so that at the time these Indian speeches were said to have

been made, and purport to have been translated by Brouillet, it is plain

to be seen that he tells his own story to suit the case in hand; and the

letter of Sir James Douglas to the Sandwich Islands shows this priest to

be the author of the statements contained therein. These Indian

assemblies or councils were held to more closely unite the tribe, and

give a coloring of truth to the malicious statements of Joe Lewis and

Edward Tilokaikt.

All these false statements were written out and sent to the Sandwich

Islands under date, Vancouver, 9th December, 1847, while Brouillet says

this Edward Tilokaikt repeated them as a reason for the massacre on the

20th December, 1847, eleven days before they are said to have been

repeated by the Indians.

Many important facts can only be reached by carefully studying the

language of this priest, in connection with the evidence obtained from

the survivors, and their subsequent conduct, and the foreign

correspondence of the parties who were seeking the exclusive occupation

of our country.

From the statement that follows, it will be seen how careful this Jesuit

is to inform us that these propositions come from the Nez Perces.

He says, on page 65: "After having deliberated together, the chiefs

concluded by adding something to the propositions of the Nez Perces,

insisting principally upon the reasons which they pretended ought to

excuse their action, and requested the bishop to send to the governor in

their name the following manifesto."

Before copying this important document and the letter which accompanied

it to the governor of Oregon, we will place before our readers the

"preface" to the book in which we find it, that they may see the full

object of the author of that narrative in publishing it:--

NEW YORK, June, 1853.

"The following interesting narrative was prepared by the very Rev.

Mr. Brouillet, vicar-general of Wallawalla, at the time of the

excitement consequent on the murder of Dr. Whitman by the Indians,

and in answer to Mr. Spalding, and other of Dr. Whitman's former

associates. Although the immediate occasion has passed away, it is

proper, still, to put the _facts of the case_ on record; and these

pages, which appeared recently in the columns of the New York

_Freeman's Journal_, will form an interesting and authentic chapter

in the history of Protestant missions.

"J. A. MCMASTERS."

We will now turn to the 65th page of this false and malicious narrative,

and find a document carefully prepared, _as stated by its author_, in

grand council assembled under the eye of Bishop Blanchet, then bishop of

Wallawalla, by the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet, etc. By a cursory glance at

this narrative and document, it will be seen that it is prepared as

coming from the Indians for the express purpose of blackening the

character of Dr. Whitman, his wife, Mr. Spalding, and Mr. Rogers, and of

charging them with being the cause of their own murder, and the murder

of all who fell at Wailatpu by the hands of their own Indians, the

Cayuses. That it embodies all the foul slanders against those missions

that have been collected for a series of years, and asserts them to be

true, without a single deposition or statement having been made before

any court or justice of peace, known to the laws then in the country.

These statements, from _preface to finis_, go upon the presumption that

the title and professions of the men whose names are attached are

sufficient evidence of the truth of any statements they may make,

however unreasonable or false they may be. The documents above referred

to are as follows (J. R. Browne, page 45):--

"The principal chiefs of the Cayuses, in council assembled, state:

That a young Indian (Joseph Lewis) who understands English, and who

slept in Dr. Whitman's room, heard the Doctor, his wife, and Mr.

Spalding express their desire of possessing the lands and animals of

the Indians; that he stated also that Mr. Spalding said to the

Doctor, 'Hurry giving medicines to the Indians, that they may soon

die;' that the same Indian told the Cayuses, 'If you do not kill the

Doctor soon, you will all be dead before spring;' that they buried

six Cayuses on Sunday, November 28, and three the next day; that

Mr. Rogers, the schoolmaster, stated to them before he died that the

Doctor, his wife, and Mr. Spalding poisoned the Indians; that for

several years past they had to deplore the death of their children;

and that, according to these reports, they were led to believe that

the whites had undertaken to kill them all; and that these were the

motives which led them to kill the Americans. The same chiefs ask at

present--

"1st. That the Americans may not go to war with the Cayuses.

"2d. That they may forget the lately committed murders, as the

Cayuses will forget the murder of the son of the great chief of

Wallawalla, committed in California.

"3d. That two or three great men may come up to conclude peace.

"4th. That as soon as these great men have arrived and concluded

peace, they may take with them all the women and children.

"5th. They give assurance that they will not harm the Americans

before the arrival of these two or three great men.

"6th. They ask that Americans may not travel any more through their

country, as their young men might do them harm.

"(Signed,) "TILOKAIKT.

"CAMASPELO.

"TAWATOWE.

"ACHEKAIA.

"PLACE OF TAWATOWE, UMATILLA, December 20, 1847."

"The bishop accompanied this manifesto with a letter addressed to

the governor, which concluded in these terms: 'It is sufficient to

state that all these speeches went to show, that since they had been

instructed by the whites they abhorred war, and that the tragedy of

the 29th had occurred from an anxious desire of self-preservation,

and that it was the reports made against the Doctor and others which

led them to commit this act. _They desire to have the past forgotten

and to live in peace as before._ Your excellency has to judge of the

value of the documents which I have been requested to forward to

you. _Nevertheless, without having the least intention_ to influence

one way or the other, _I feel myself obliged to tell you_, that by

going to war with the Cayuses, _you will likely have all the Indians

of this country against you. Would it be for the interest of a young

colony to expose herself?_ That you will have to decide with your

council.'"

Reader, you now have before you a full statement of the most important

facts of the Whitman massacre, and of the part taken in it by "_the holy

fathers, the Catholic priests_," as they were styled by Mr. McBean, of

Fort Nez Perces, to Mr. Kimzey and his wife.

The part taken by Mr. McBean, Mr. Ogden, and Sir James Douglas, will be

given in another chapter.

The above manifesto is given as having been made on the 20th of

December, 1847. On the 23d, three days after, when this very Rev. Mr.

Brouillet mounted his horse to go to the fort, he told Miss Bewley that

"if she went to Five Crows' lodge any more she must not come back to his

house." Miss Bewley says: "_The bishop told me I had better go._----The

bishop sent an Indian with me; he took me to Five Crows' lodge.----_The

bishop finally ordered me to go._----_I found I could get no help._"

These are the solemn affirmations of this intelligent young American

lady, who was present at the bishop's house when this manifesto was

prepared.

Were this Bishop Blanchet and his priests true and sincere in what they

said, and in the advice they say they gave to the Indians?

We have now traced what may be termed the missionary account of this

painful tragedy, as given by both parties. Our readers must judge for

themselves as to the guilt or innocence of all the parties involved, and

also of the application to our subject of the extensive extracts we have

given. We will now turn our attention to those whom we conceive to be

the prime movers, and, in consequence, the most deeply implicated in

this tragedy.

We have had occasion to allude to the intimate connection existing

between the Jesuit missions in Oregon and the Hudson's Bay Company. As

early as 1836, that company brought a Protestant Episcopal chaplain to

Vancouver for political reasons, whom they soon dismissed and attempted

to disgrace, as unworthy of belief in any statement he might make. Soon

after, in the fall of 1838, two Roman priests arrived at Vancouver and

took charge of the religious and literary instructions of the members of

the company,--of their children and servants, and, as far as possible,

of all the Indians in the country; and while the company professed

friendship for the American missionaries, they were active and vigilant

to defeat all their efforts to enlighten and civilize the Indians,

enlisting sufficient American influence to distract and divide the

American people, so as to cover up their main object of securing the

country for British Territory. This will be seen by evidence already

quoted from our English authors, Mr. Fitzgerald and Sir Edward Belcher,

and the refusal of Sir James Douglas to aid the provisional government,

or furnish supplies for their troops, and the fact that they did embrace

every opportunity to supply the Indians with guns, powder, and balls,

and sought to combine the whole Indian power and prejudice against the

settlements.

CHAPTER LX.

The Hudson's Bay Company's and the priests' part in the

massacre.--McBean's messenger.--Plot divulged to Hinman, Ogden, and

Douglas.--Douglas's remark to Hinman.--McBean's letter.--His

perversion of facts.--Comments.--Sir James Douglas's letter to

Governor Abernethy.--His Sandwich Islands letter.--Its falsehood

and absurdity.--Mr. Hinman's letter to Governor Abernethy.--The

dates.--Assertion of Robert Newell.--Hudson's Bay Company _v._

United States.

We learn from Mr. McBean's letter, given below, that his horse guard and

interpreter were at Dr. Whitman's mission and saw the dead bodies; and

from Indians we learn that they were kept by the Rev. Mr. Brouillet, and

took his account of the massacre (which he spent most of the night in

preparing) to Mr. McBean. They also reported to him that three parties

of Indians were preparing and about to start, to destroy the remaining

Protestant missions and American settlements in middle Oregon, including

the station at the Dalles; that the women and children were to be held

as hostages, or captives for future disposal; that letters and a

statement were prepared by Mr. McBean, and instructions given to his

messenger that he might inform the Indians on his way down to Vancouver

of what had happened, but he must not give any information to any

American on the way, or at the Dalles. We learn from the Hon. A. Hinman

that this messenger went to him at the Dalles station, and told him that

he was sent by Mr. McBean to Vancouver for men, to replace such as had

died of sickness at Fort Nez Perces. The messenger took dinner with Mr.

Hinman, who went with him to the Indian lodges, where the messenger told

the Indians of the massacre. Mr. Hinman procured a canoe and started

with him to go to Vancouver. They reached Cape Horn, some thirty miles

above that place, and there, while windbound, he informed Mr. Hinman of

what had occurred, making a full confession, that "the _priests_, Mr.

_McBean_, and _he_ were bad in trying to deceive him and have his family

and people killed by the Indians;" told of his instructions, and of what

was expected to be done with all the Americans in the country, and that

he was the bearer of letters to Governor Ogden from Mr. McBean.

We will now go with this express to Vancouver. Says the Hon. A. Hinman,

who is still alive, and has made oath to the truth of his statements:

"We went first to Mr. Ogden's room and informed him of the massacre. He

was shocked, and said: '_Mr. Hinman, you can now see what opposition in

religion will do._' We then went to Mr. Douglas's room and informed him,

and when Mr. Ogden was pacing the room, he said: '_Mr. Douglas, you see

now what opposition in religion does._' After a moment's pause, Mr.

Douglas replied, '_There may be other causes._'"

Reader, will you turn back and read over the chapter on the English

Hudson's Bay Company's effort to secure Oregon, and see if there has not

been a desperate effort made, since Dr. McLaughlin left that company, to

overcome his mistakes and his humane policy toward Americans. Look also

at the chapter on the _English Hudson's Bay Company's policy_ relative

to Rupert's Land and Oregon, and learn fully what Mr. Ogden and Mr. (now

Sir James) Douglas meant by these expressions made to Mr. Hinman, who

says: "Mr. Douglas turned to me, and wished to know why I was not at

home at so perilous a time. I told him I had received no letter from

Wallawalla, and did not learn of the massacre till below the Cascades.

At this he expressed surprise, and said, 'Mr. McBean ought by all means

to have informed you of your danger.'

"After this the express was opened, and Mr. Douglas read, and I listened

to the account as given by Mr. McBean, and also of his account of three

parties, which, Mr. McBean's letter said, Indian report says are fitting

out, one to the saw-mill to kill the Americans at that place, and one to

Rev. Mr. Spalding's station to cut off the Americans at that place, and

one also to the Dalles to cut off those at that station.

"I said to Mr. Douglas, 'How is it possible that Mr. McBean could have

treated me in this way? How is it possible he did not inform me?' Mr.

Douglas, after a little pause, said, '_Mr. Hinman, we must consider that

the poor man was in circumstances of great perplexity, and might not

know what to do._'"

This was not the case, for Mr. McBean did give him positive

instructions, as we learn from Mr. Hinman's statement. He says: "After

hearing this dreadful account from the Canadian, I asked him why he did

not inform me before I left my house. _He said Mr. McBean told him to

say nothing about it to them at the Dalles!_"

Soon after the messenger and Mr. Hinman left the Dalles, the Indians

went to the station and informed P. Whitman, the doctor's nephew, that

his uncle and aunt, and all the Americans at that place, were killed.

This Indian report was not credited; they could not believe that Mr.

McBean would send a messenger, as he had done, and not inform them of

what had actually taken place.

The reader will remember the deposition of Mr. Kimzey in relation to Mr.

McBean's statements about the "holy fathers, the Catholic priests," and

the subsequent instructions to him, to let the Indians know he was from

the fort.

We will now direct our attention to the mutilated letter of William

McBean, as furnished by Sir James Douglas to Governor Abernethy, and

published in the Oregon _Spectator_, December 10, 1849:--

FORT NEZ PERCES, Nov. 30, 1847.

"_To the Board of Managers_:

"GENTLEMEN,--It is my painful duty to make you acquainted with a

horrible massacre which took place yesterday at Wailatpu, about

which I was first apprised, early this morning, by an American who

had escaped, of the name of Hall, and who reached this place

half-naked and covered with blood, as he started at the outset;

the information I received was not satisfactory. He, however,

assured me that the Doctor and another man were killed, but could

not tell us the persons who did it, and how it originated. I

immediately determined on sending my interpreter and one man to

Dr. Whitman to find out the truth, and, if possible, to rescue Mr.

Manson's two sons and any of the survivors. It so happened that,

before the interpreter had proceeded half-way, the two boys were

met on their way hither, escorted by Nicholas Finlay, _it having

been previously settled among the Indians_ that these boys should

not be killed [Mr. McBean should have added, as per my

instructions]; as also the American women and children [as per

Joseph Stanfield's direction, as he had taken Mrs. Hays for a

wife, and several Indians were to have the young women at the

station for wives]. Tilokaikt is the chief who recommended this

measure. I presume that you are well acquainted that fever and

dysentery have been raging here and in the vicinity, in

consequence of which a great number of Indians have been swept

away, but more especially at the Doctor's place, where he had

attended upon the Indians. About thirty souls of the Cayuse tribe

died, one after another, who evidently believed the Doctor

poisoned them, and in which opinion they were, unfortunately,

confirmed by one of the Doctor's party. As far as I have been able

to learn, this has been the sole cause of the dreadful butchery.

In order to satisfy any doubt on that point, it is reported that

they requested the Doctor to administer medicine to three of their

friends, two of whom were really sick, but the third feigned

sickness, and that the three were corpses the next morning. After

they were buried, and while the Doctor's men were employed

slaughtering an ox, the Indians came one by one to his house, with

their arms concealed under their blankets, and, being all

assembled, commenced firing on those slaughtering the animal, and

in a moment the Doctor's house was surrounded; the Doctor, and a

young lad brought up by himself, were shot in the house. His

lady, Mr. Rogers, and the children had taken refuge in the garret,

but were dragged down and dispatched (excepting the children)

outside, where their bodies were left exposed.

"It is reported that it was not their intention to kill Mr.

Rogers, in consequence of an avowal to the following effect, which

he is said to have made, and which nothing but a desire to save

his life could have promoted him to do. He said, 'I was one

evening lying down, and overheard the Doctor telling Rev. Mr.

Spalding that it was best you should all be poisoned at once, but

that the latter told him it was best to continue slowly and

cautiously, and between this and spring not a soul would remain,

when they would take possession of your lands, cattle, and

horses.'

"These are only Indian reports, and no person can believe the

Doctor capable of such an action without being as ignorant and

brutish as the Indians themselves. One of the murderers, not

having been made acquainted with the above understanding, shot Mr.

Rogers."

This confession is made, as the reader will notice, and attributed

to Mr. Rogers, in order to give the coloring of truth to Joe

Lewis's statement. There appears, as will be seen by comparing the

statements of Vicar-General Brouillet's Indian council and this of

McBean's, a little doubt which to make the author of that story.

Sir James Douglas has adopted McBean's statement, as the most

plausible, in his report, as it is attributed to one of the

_Doctor's own party_.

The whole thing, as will be seen by the testimony of Miss Bewley,

is utterly false, and, as McBean has said, only Indian reports;

and, we will add, told to them by _Stanfield_, _Joe Lewis_, and

_Finlay_, a Frenchman, an Indian, and a half-breed, all under the

influence, and probably in the service, of the Hudson's Bay

Company and priests. And McBean, Sir James Douglas, and Brouillet

are more brutish than the Indians, in putting such reports in

circulation. If they had no confidence in them, why did they

repeat them, giving them the color of truth? And why do they

pretend to say "his life would have been spared," and it was only

a mistake that he was shot? Bewley and Sales were brutally

murdered the eighth day after Rogers was, for Bewley's saying he

did not believe the stories about poisoning Indians, and that he

believed the priests were the cause of it. If the Doctor, and Mr.

Spalding, and Mrs. Whitman were the only ones they thought

injuring them, why attempt to kill all the Americans at the

station? Why make the arrangements as extensive as Vicar-General

Brouillet tells Mr. Spalding they were (on page 51 of his

narrative, 38 of Ross Browne's report): "_I knew that the Indians

were angry with all Americans_, and more enraged against Mr.

Spalding than any other;"--on 54th page: "I know not; you know the

country better than I do. All that I know is, that the Indians say

_the order to kill Americans has been sent in all directions_."

Without the history of the Hudson's Bay Company and the Northwest

Fur Company before us, we would be quite incapable of

comprehending the expressions and statements of this priest to Mr.

Spalding. Were we ignorant of that history, and without a

knowledge of the statements to which they have made oath in

relation to their claims against our government, we could not

understand these letters of McBean and Douglas.

We are also in possession of other facts, respecting the treatment

of their own countrymen who have unfortunately fallen under their

displeasure, which is here repeated upon Dr. Whitman and Mr.

Rogers.

We would cut all these communications short, and make a general

statement, but we would be charged (as we have already been) with

"stringing together statements without facts;" besides, all these

Hudson's Bay documents and statements have had a powerful

influence to destroy the characters of good men who are dead, and

shield the vile conduct of the guilty, who are still living.

So far as McBean was concerned, he obeyed orders as implicitly as

Grant of the Hudson's Bay Company did, when _he sent forty

families, in 1846, into the mountains of California, to perish in

the snow with cold and hunger_. McBean must assist in blackening

the character of Whitman, Rogers, and Spalding, to protect that of

the "_holy fathers, the Catholic priests_."

McBean in his letter further says: "It is well understood that eleven

lives were lost and three wounded. It is also rumored that they are to

make an attack upon the fort; let them come if they will not listen to

reason; though I have only five men at the establishment, I am prepared

to give them a warm reception; the gates are closed day and night, and

bastions in readiness. In company with Mr. Manson's two sons was sent a

young half-breed lad brought up by Dr. Whitman; they are all here, and

have got over their fright."

This portion of the letter is supposed, by Mr. Hinman, to have been put

in by Mr. Douglas in place of that which related to sending parties to

destroy Americans at other places; and to show to the world that they

were threatened by the Indians, as well as the Americans. The same as

Brouillet is careful to tell us that "he was afraid the Indians would

kill him," and that the priests were not safe among them.

"The ringleaders in this horrible butchery are Tilokaikt, his son,

Big Belly, Tamsaky, Istacus [a true friend of the Americans, who

was only a witness of the murders], Towmoulisk, etc. I understand

from the interpreter that they were making one common grave for the

dead. The houses were stripped of every thing in the shape of

property; but when they came to divide the spoils, they all fell out

among themselves, and all agreed to put back the property. _I am

happy to state the Wallawalla chief_ had no hand in the whole

business."

If this is true, the killing of the Wallawalla chief's son in California

could not have been one of the causes of the massacre, as alleged in the

narrative of the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet.

"_They were all the Doctor's own people,--the Cayuses._"

This we should expect, as it would enable those who wished to make their

own guilt appear innocence. The Doctor's people alone were to commence

killing the Americans. It is asserted by good authority, that a part of

Mr. Spalding's, and the Indians at the Dalles, were ready to engage in

the same business, from the same advice and orders.

"_One American shot another, and took the Indians' part to save his

own life._"

This statement by McBean is made, as will be seen, to give the

impression that there was a quarrel among the Americans, and that they

were ready to betray and shoot each other and take the part of the

Indians. The reader will recollect that this shooting refers to the

Indian Joe Lewis, in killing one of the Sager boys, and is explained

particularly by Sir James Douglas in his Sandwich Islands letter, for

the information of the American Board of Missions. This fact goes to

show that Sir James had received a more particular and carefully

prepared account than Mr. McBean had; while the one was a summary, the

other was the particulars so arranged as to implicate Dr. Whitman, Mr.

Spalding, Mr. Rogers, Mrs. Whitman, and another American, to show that

they were not only ready to poison the Indians, but to kill and betray

each other to save their own lives; thus showing the intimate connection

and complicity of Sir James with the very rev. vicar-general, in giving

countenance to this infamous slander, and publishing it to the world

over his own signature, and using all his influence to shield and clear

the instigators of the crime.

It can not be urged that Sir James received his particular information

at some other time, for his letters to Governor Abernethy and the

Sandwich Islands were dated, the one to the governor, December 7, 1847,

in which he says, "A copy of Mr. McBean's letter herewith will give you

_all the particulars known to us_ of this indescribably painful event;"

and the one to the Islands, December 9, 1847, in which he gives more

particulars.

The impression is irresistibly fixed in the mind, that Mr. Brouillet

spent most of the night, on arriving at Wailatpu (before the dead were

buried), in Tilokaikt's lodge or camp, arranging and writing those

statements and particulars, so that Sir James Douglas could give his

approval, and that they would go to the American Board of Missions and

the friends of the murdered dead, with the sanction of his name,

implicating the dead as having brought about this horrible massacre.

Another reason for this impression is, that in all the public and

private correspondence between any of these parties, there is, and

always has been, the most intense anxiety shown to prevent the open

discussion of that transaction, as will be seen in the next paragraph in

McBean's letter, and by the promptness with which Mr. Ogden reported to

Bishop Blanchet; Mr. Spalding's injudicious remarks to Major Magone on

the trip down the river; the manner of Mr. Spalding's very unwise and

imprudent letter to the bishop and his priests, was published and

commented upon by them; the promptness of Mr. Douglas to demand an

explanation of Colonel Gilliam's supposed statement; the refusal of the

Hudson's Bay Company to furnish supplies to the provisional troops; and

the fact that the company did supply 1,080 pounds of powder, 1,800

pounds of balls and shot to the priests for the Indians, with three

cases containing thirty-six guns, all of which were seized by Lieutenant

Rogers at the Dalles, and should have been (but were not) confiscated.

We will now ask the attention of the reader to the remainder of this (to

the Hudson's Bay Company and Romanists in general) glorious news of the

complete victory they had obtained over _Protestantism_ and its missions

in Oregon.

Mr. McBean, or Sir James Douglas, we do not know which, says: "Allow me

to _draw a veil over this dreadful affair_ which is too painful to dwell

upon, and which I have explained conformable to information received and

with sympathizing feelings.

"I remain, with much respect, gentlemen,

"Your most obedient humble servant,

"WILLIAM McBEAN."

We can scarcely retain the expressions of Whew! Horrible! etc., as we

give the balance of this important letter, copied and given to the

public of Oregon, under the eye of Sir James Douglas, with the--

"N. B.--I have just learned that the Cayuses are to be here

to-morrow to kill Serpent Jaune, the Wallawalla chief.

"W. McB."

"Names of those who were killed: Dr. Whitman, Mrs. Whitman, Mr.

Rogers, Hoffman, Sanders, Osborn [not killed], Marsh, John and

Francis Sager, Canfield [not killed], and a sailor, besides three

that were wounded more or less--Messrs. Hall, Kimball, and another

whose name I can not learn.

"W. McBEAN."

Could the reader look at the exact original copy of that letter, and of

that as found in the _Spectator_ of December 10, 1847, and hear the

expressions of sentiment and feeling among a portion of the people at

Oregon City; and listen to some of the private consultations, and hear

the opinions there expressed, he would be able to understand the

impression that this, with some other letters published at that time,

made upon the public mind.

There was in one little council of a number of the then representatives

of Oregon, a disposition to let that foul murder pass, without making an

effort to avenge those deaths, or punish the Indians. One of that little

council exclaimed with an oath, "Gentlemen, we must not allow that

murder to pass, without an effort to punish those concerned in it; and

for one, I know that Dr. Whitman did not bring it upon himself. Our own

existence in this country is involved in the action we take in this

matter. It becomes absolutely necessary that we take measures to protect

ourselves and punish the murderers."

FORT VANCOUVER, Dec. 7, 1847.

"_George Abernethy, Esq._:

"SIR,--Having received intelligence last night (on the 4th), by

special express from Wallawalla, of the _destruction_ of the

_missionary settlement_ at Wailatpu _by the Cayuse Indians of that

place_, we hasten to communicate the _particulars_ of that dreadful

event, one of the most atrocious which darkens the annals of Indian

crime.

"Our lamented friend Dr. Whitman, his amiable and accomplished

lady, with nine other persons, have fallen victims to the fury of

those remorseless savages, who appear to have been instigated to

the appalling crime by a horrible suspicion which had taken

possession of their superstitious minds, in consequence of the

number of deaths from dysentery and measles, that Dr. Whitman was

silently working the destruction of their tribe, by administering

poisonous drugs under the semblance of salutary medicines.

"With a goodness of heart and benevolence truly his own, Dr.

Whitman had been laboring incessantly, since the appearance of the

measles and dysentery among _his Indian converts_, to relieve their

sufferings, and _such has been the reward of his generous labors_.

"_A copy of Mr. McBean's letter herewith will give you all the

particulars known to us of this indescribably painful event._

"Mr. Ogden, with a strong party, will leave this place as soon as

possible for Wallawalla, to endeavor to prevent further evil, and

we beg to suggest to you the propriety of taking instant measures

for the protection of the Rev. Mr. Spalding, who, for the sake of

his family, _ought to abandon_ the Clearwater Mission _without

delay_, and retire to a place of safety, as he can not remain at

that isolated station without imminent risk in the present excited

and irritated state of the Indian population.

"I have the honor to be, sir,

"Your most obedient servant,

"JAMES DOUGLAS."

We now give Sir James Douglas's letter to the Sandwich Islands, as found

in the March number of the _Friend_:--

"FORT VANCOUVER, Dec. 9, 1847.

"_S. N. Castle, Esq._:

"SIR,--It is with feelings indescribably painful that I hasten to

communicate to you, _for the information of the Board of Missions_,

intelligence of a disastrous event which lately occurred at the

mission station of Wailatpu. Our esteemed friend Dr. Whitman, his

amiable and accomplished lady, and nine men and youths in the

mission employ, were murdered on the 29th ultimo by the Cayuse

Indians, with circumstances of the most revolting cruelty. The

lives of the women and children, with the exception of the lamented

lady already mentioned, were spared. The mission being situated in

the Cayuse country, they had a peculiar interest in protecting it

from harm, in gratitude for past favors, and for the blessings of

religious instruction so assiduously dispensed to them and to their

families; yet those very people, the objects of so much solicitude,

_were alone concerned in effecting the destruction of the

establishment_ founded solely for their benefit.

"The Cayuses are the most treacherous and untractable of all the

Indian tribes in this country [contradicted by Mr. Ogden], and had

on many former occasions alarmed the inmates of the mission by

their tumultuous proceedings and ferocious threats; but,

unfortunately, these evidences of a brutal disposition were

disregarded by their admirable pastor, and served only to arm him

with a firmer resolution to do them good. He hoped that time and

instruction would produce a change of mind,--a better state of

feeling toward the mission,--and might have lived to see his hopes

realized [had not the Hudson's Bay Company and the Roman priests

determined otherwise], had not the measles and dysentery, following

in the train of emigration from the United States, made fearful

ravages this year in the upper country, many Indians having been

carried off through the violence of the disease, and others through

their own imprudence.

"The Cayuse Indians of Wailatpu being sufferers in the general

calamity, were incensed against Dr. Whitman, [by the tales of Joe

Lewis, Stanfield, and the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet, who afterward

found a vial of white powder and called it poison, and ordered the

Indians to bury it, as per evidence in the case] for not exerting

his supposed supernatural power in saving their lives. They carried

this absurdity beyond that point of folly.

"Their superstitious minds became possessed with the horrible

superstition that he was giving poison to the sick instead of

wholesome medicine, with the view of working the destruction of the

tribe; their former cruelty probably adding strength to their

suspicions. Still some of the more reflecting had confidence in Dr.

Whitman's integrity, and it was agreed to test the effect of the

medicine he had furnished on three of their people, one of whom was

said to be in perfect health."

The absurdity of this statement is so palpable, and so perfectly

improbable in every respect, that, with all my study of Indian

character, I am unable to understand why this statement is repeated by

any of the parties concerned in bringing about that massacre. It can

only be believed by the most stupid, as it has not the plausibility of

truth in it; and Mr. Douglas showed a debasement of mind beyond

comprehension in quoting it to his friend. We quote this whole letter,

that it may be seen how low Sir James felt himself obliged to descend,

to make an absurdity appear reasonable. The idea is started by

Brouillet, increased by McBean, and completed by Douglas, who would give

such accounts to the public to make others equally false appear

probable. He continues:--

"_They unfortunately died, and from that moment it was resolved to

destroy the mission._"

But we have positive testimony that the destruction of that mission,

with Mr. Spalding's, was determined upon, and so stated by McBean before

an Indian was known to be sick in the tribe or at the station. Mr.

Douglas says:--

"It was immediately after burying the remains of these three

persons, that they repaired to the mission one after another, with

their arms hid under their blankets. The Doctor was at the school

with the children, the others were cutting up an ox which they had

just killed. When the Indians were numerous enough to effect their

object, they fell upon the poor victims, some with guns and others

with hatchets, and their blood was soon streaming on all sides.

"Some of the Indians turned their attention toward the Doctor; he

received a pistol-shot in the breast from one, and a blow on the

head from another. He had still strength enough to reach a sofa,

where he threw himself down and expired. Mrs. Whitman was dragged

from the garret and mercilessly butchered at the door. Mr. Rogers

was shot after his life had been granted to him.

"The women and children were also going to be murdered, when a

voice was raised to ask for mercy in favor of those whom they

thought innocent, and their lives were spared.

"It is reported that a kind of deposition made by Mr. Rogers

incensed the fury of this savage mob. Mr. Rogers was seized, was

made to sit down, and then told that his life would be spared if he

made a full discovery of Dr. Whitman's supposed treachery. That

person then told the Indians that the Doctor intended to poison

them; that one night, when Mr. Spalding was at Wailatpu, he heard

them say that the Indians ought to be poisoned, in order that the

Americans might take possession of their lands; that the Doctor

wished to poison them all at once, but Mr. Spalding advised him to

do it gradually. Mr. Rogers, after this deposition, was spared, but

an Indian, who was not present, having seen him, fired at and

killed him.

"An American made a similar deposition, adding that Mrs. Whitman

was an accomplice, and she deserved death as well as her husband.

"It appears that he concluded by saying that he would take the side

of the Indians, and that he detested the Americans. An Indian then

put a pistol into his hand, and said to him, 'If you tell the

truth, you must prove it by shooting that young American;' and this

wretched apostate from his country fired upon the young man shown

to him, and laid him dead at his feet.

"It was upon the evidence of that _American_ that Mrs. Whitman was

murdered, or she might have shared in the mercy extended to the

other females and children.

"_Such are the details, as far as known, of that disastrous event,

and the causes which led to it._

"Mr. Rogers' reported deposition, if correct, is unworthy of

belief, having been drawn from him by the fear of instant death.

The other American, who shed the blood of his own friend, must be a

villain of the darkest dye, and ought to suffer for his aggravated

crime."

There is no evidence that Sir James Douglas ever exerted the least

influence to arrest or punish one of those murderers; on the contrary,

there is evidence that the Hudson's Bay Company assisted them and

facilitated their escape from justice, and supplied the Indians with

arms and ammunition to carry on the war that followed. Particulars of

the whole truth, are given in another chapter. This letter of Sir James

Douglas continues:--

"On the 7th instant, Mr. Ogden proceeded toward Wallawalla with a

strong party of the Hudson's Bay Company's servants, to endeavor to

prevent further evil.

"Accompanying, you will receive a copy of a letter which I

addressed to Governor Abernethy immediately after the arrival of

the melancholy intelligence at this place.

"All that can be collected will be considered important by the

friends of Doctor and Mrs. Whitman in the United States, who will

be anxious to learn every particular concerning their tragic fate.

It will be a satisfaction for them to know that these eminent

servants of God were faithful in their lives, though we have to

deplore the melancholy circumstances which accompanied their

departure from this world of trial.

"I am, sir, your obedient servant,

"JAMES DOUGLAS."

We now have before us the statements of all the parties concerned in the

most inhuman and disgraceful tragedy that has darkened the pages of our

history. The crime itself was most inhuman and brutal, but, being mixed

with religious prejudice and sectarian hate, guided and brought about by

foreign commercial influences under the direction of a British monopoly,

it demands a national investigation.

That Sir James Douglas knew more of the inception and ultimate designs

of that transaction is evident from the prompt and careful manner in

which he answered Mr. Ogden's remark, that it was brought about from

religious causes; he affirmed that "_there might be other causes_;" and

when he had read the dispatches, he said, "_We must consider the poor

man was in great perplexity, and might not know what to do._" These two

expressions of Sir James Douglas to Mr. Ogden and Mr. Hinman are the key

that unlocks the whole mystery in this desperate arrangement to hold

this whole country for the exclusive benefit of that monopoly.

As to the morality of the transaction, the great sympathy of Sir James

and his conclave of bishops and priests, the church assumes all. The

baptizing of three Indian children was of more importance to the church

than all the suffering widows and orphans at that missionary settlement.

The particular account, as given by Sir James, was of more importance

than punishing the murderers, or even casting a suspicion, such as Mr.

Ogden, his associate, had done, upon his accomplices in crime.

These two letters show his duplicity, and the unblushing manner in

which he gives one statement to Governor Abernethy, for Oregon, and

another for the Board of Missions, and how careful he is to state

circumstances and false impressions as to the facts he pretends to give

with so much sympathy and apparent interest in the fate of the murdered

dead.

There are but two other persons who have given us any information of

this tragedy, on the part of the priests and the Hudson's Bay Company.

One of those was, at the time, in charge of Fort Nez Perces. His account

was sent to Sir James,--mutilated, and not as carefully prepared for the

people of Oregon as was this one for the great world beyond. The other

is prepared by the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet, vicar-general of Wallawalla,

and given to the world to form an "_interesting and authentic chapter in

the history of Protestant missions_," and contains all the imaginary

circumstantial statements of the massacre, as given over the name of

James Douglas, and officially in the report of J. Ross Browne, December

4, 1859.

If these statements had first appeared, as they now do, over the name

and by the authority or affirmation of the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet,

etc., all the world, as J. Ross Browne did, would have adopted the idea

of Mr. Ogden, and said truly this was the result of _opposition in

religion_. But Sir James Douglas proves, by his own statements and

letters, and subsequent conduct all through the war that followed, that

it was not "_opposition in religion_ alone." It was a predetermined

arrangement of the "_powerful company, the practical monopoly of the fur

trade_," which, in 1865, he affirmed this company held over the country

in 1846. The profits of that business were not to be lost to his

powerful company by any missionary settlement in it.

Are we correct in these conclusions? The statements are given by the

parties implicated. Were we to allow our personal feelings and sectarian

preferences to influence our conclusions, we would join in the general

conclusion of Mr. Ogden; but a full knowledge of the facts forces us to

believe the statement of Mr. Douglas as being the most correct;

nevertheless, we will not abate one iota of the scathing condemnation

justly due to the foreign sectarianism brought into the country to

effect the object of that corporation, nor of the scorn and infamy due

to the immediate controlling actors--Bishop Blanchet and his

priests--under the garb of religion.

We wish to keep as distinctly as possible before the mind the separate

part each party has performed in this great drama of which we have been

writing. As we have before said, there were four distinct parties or

influences in the country, and the Indian formed the fifth. The Hudson's

Bay Company and the Roman priests combined and formed one; the

missionaries with the settlers formed another; and the Indian was

between them. For a time, the American influence was the most

prominent,--say in 1843, 1844, and 1845. In 1846, Bishop Blanchet was in

Europe, making extensive preparations for missionary operations in

Oregon, corresponding in extent with those made by the Rev. Jason Lee in

1839-40.

"On August 19, 1847, Bishop Blanchet arrived in the mouth of the

Columbia River, in the _Morning Star_, Captain Menes, five and a half

months from Brest, with five priests, three Jesuits, three lay brothers,

two deacons, and seven nuns." In addition to these, we had, overland,

eight priests and two nuns that same year. These, with the priests

already in the country, gave us twenty-five of the Roman clerical order

and fifteen nuns. This was a powerful and extensive effort to recover

the lost foreign influence in the country. How well they succeeded is

now a matter of history, and will enable the reader to understand the

bold and defiant attitude of Mr. Douglas and his efficient co-laborers,

Bishop Blanchet and his priests, among the Indians.

The missionary settlement at Wailatpu was the most important point in

the whole upper country. The influence and position of those Indians

were such, that special efforts were required to commence and carry on

the destruction of all American settlements in the country.

We come now to the letter of Hon. A. Hinman, properly belonging to this

chapter.

FORT VANCOUVER, December 4, 1847.

_Mr. George Abernethy_:

DEAR SIR,--A Frenchman, from Wallawalla, arrived at my place on

last Saturday, and informed me that he was on his way to Vancouver,

and wished me to assist in procuring him a canoe immediately. I was

very inquisitive to know if there was any difficulty above. He said

four Frenchmen had died recently, and he wished to get others to

occupy their places.

I immediately got him a canoe, and concluded to go in company with

him, in order to get some medicine for the Indians, as they were

dying off with measles and other diseases very fast. I was charged

with indifference. They said we were killing in not giving them

medicines, and I found if we were not exposing our lives, we were

our peace, and consequently I set out for this place. This side of

the Cascades I was made acquainted with the horrible massacre that

took place at Wailatpu last Monday. Horrid to relate! Dr. and Mrs.

Whitman, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Osborn, Mr. Sanders, a school-teacher, the

two orphan boys (John and Francis Sager), together with all the men

at that place,--eleven in all. Some are living at the saw-mill,

which is situated about twenty miles from the Doctor's. A party

set out for that place to dispatch them; also a party for Mr.

Spalding's, to dispatch them; and they are not satisfied yet, but a

party is said to have started for my place, and has, if true,

reached them before this time. Oh! had I known it when I was at

home. I can neither sleep nor take any rest, on account of my

family and those with them, viz., my wife and child, the Doctor's

nephew, Dr. Saffron, and Mr. McKinney and wife. If I had ten men I

could defend myself with perfect ease, by occupying the

meeting-house, which is very roomy and close. You see my situation,

as well as Mr. Spalding's. I have perfect confidence in your doing

all you can to get a party to come up and spend the winter there,

and likewise to go to the rescue of the women and children, and Mr.

Spalding, if alive, which I think very doubtful.

Delay not a moment in sending a few men for my protection; a few

moments may save our lives.

I expect to leave to-morrow for home, and perhaps the first

salutation will be a ball. My family is there, and I must return if

it costs my life.

We are in the hands of a merciful God, why should we be alarmed? I

will close by saying again, send a small force immediately without

the delay of one day. Farewell.

Yours truly,

ALANSON HINMAN.

It will be seen that the main facts are given by Mr. Hinman, with the

designs of other Indian parties to cut off the Americans at Mr.

Spalding's, the saw-mill, and at the Dalles, which Mr. Douglas omits in

his letter to Governor Abernethy, but informs him of the Indians'

threatened attack upon Fort Nez Perces (Wallawalla).

That part of Mr. Douglas's letter relating to Mr. Rogers' supposed

statement to the Indians, the brother (still living) has requested Mr.

Douglas to explain; but no explanation has been given. We know, from the

depositions given, that Mr. Douglas made the statement without evidence

of its truth; and it is evident he is too stubborn or proud to

acknowledge or explain his error.

There is one other fact in connection with this transaction that looks

dark on the part of Sir James Douglas.

It is shown in the dates of the several letters. Mr. Hinman's is dated

December 4; Mr. Douglas's, December 7; that to the Sandwich Islands,

December 9. Now, between the 4th and 7th are three days. In a case of so

much importance, and professed sympathy,--as expressed in his

letter,--how is it, that three, or even two days were allowed to pass

without sending a dispatch informing Governor Abernethy of what had

happened, and of what was expected to take place? which last he had left

out of his letter, and the copy of McBean's; but does inform him of the

threatened danger to Fort Nez Perces, as coming from McBean.

Mr. Douglas is prompt to urge the removal of Mr. Spalding, but

unreasonably slow to send an express twenty or thirty miles to notify

the American settlement of its danger.

We wish to say, once for all, that we are not giving the private history

or character of any man or set of men. Their public conduct and

proceedings are a part of our history. Mr. Douglas was, at the time we

are writing, the acknowledged head of the Hudson's Bay Company, and, as

such, acted and controlled the movements of its members. Bishop Blanchet

was the acknowledged head of the Roman Church, and, as such, acted with

Mr. Douglas; for while not one Roman priest, or a servant of either of

these two parties were disturbed or harmed in the least, all Protestant

missionaries and American citizens were either killed, or driven from

the upper country by order of that company. As Robert Newell asserts,

under date of October 25, 1866: "_And they could not have remained in

the country a week_ without the consent and aid of that company, nor

could any mission, in my opinion, in those days have been established in

this (Wallamet) or that (Wallawalla) valley, without the aid and

influence of the Hudson's Bay Company, nor could the settlers have

remained in the country as they did up to 1848, for the same reasons."

This statement is made by a gentleman who professes to know more of, and

has been (without a question) more favored by the Hudson's Bay Company

than any other American in the country. If his statement is true, which

we have no doubt he believes it to be, then who is responsible for all

the murders of American hunters, trappers, missionaries, immigrants, and

settlers on their way to our country and in it. But we will not risk our

conclusions upon the statement of an individual, who is totally ignorant

of the policy of the company he undertakes to defend. We have, in

addition, the sworn statement of Sir James Douglas as to the power and

influence of his company, one year previous to the cutting off of the

missionary settlement at Wailatpu.

He says, under oath: "Their posts were so arranged as to practically

enjoy a monopoly in the fur trade, and they possessed an extraordinary

influence with the nations west of the Rocky Mountains." (Answer to

interrogatory in claim Hudson's Bay Company _v._ United States.)

That this influence was exerted to destroy that mission there can be no

question; and that the same influence has since been exerted to spread,

far and wide, statements originated by them and their associates to

blast the character of the dead, and destroy the influence of the living

in the cause of truth, is equally true.

We find it stated in Brouillet's narrative that the most friendly and

cordial relations existed between the Hudson's Bay Company and his

mission; so much so, that he is present by special invitation at Mr.

Ogden's council for arranging the purchase of the captives. He informs

us, on page 69, "Protestantism in Oregon," that Mr. Ogden told them that

"the Hudson's Bay Company had never deceived them; that he hoped they

would listen to his words; that the company did not meddle with the

affairs of the Americans; that there were _three parties_; the

_Americans_ on one side, the _Cayuses_ on the other, and the _French_

people and the _priests_ in the middle; the company was there to trade

and the priests to teach them their duties; 'Listen to the priests,'

said he, several times; 'listen to the priests; they will teach you how

to keep a good life; the priests do not come to make war; they carry no

arms,--they carry but their crucifixes,[15] and with them they can not

kill.' He _insisted particularly_, and at several times, upon the

_distinction necessary_ to be made between the affairs of the company

and those of the Americans."

[Footnote 15] The Oblates, who constantly carry a crucifix on

their breasts, were present.

The company's interests must not be interfered with. The professions of

sympathy found in Mr. Douglas's letters are all explained, when the

facts are fully developed. The complaint of the company, as stated in

the memorial presented to the commissioners, April 17, 1865 (Hudson's

Bay Company _v._ United States, page 19), states that "among these

circumstances may be specified the aggressive acts and the general

conduct of American citizens, and of persons acting under the authority

of the United States, commencing shortly after the 15th of June, 1846,

and continuing from year to year, by which the rights of the claimants

under that treaty were violated and denied, and their property and

possessions were, in some instances, usurped and taken from them, and,

in others, were necessarily abandoned. This course of conduct was,

perhaps, to be expected, from the anomalous position in which the

company was placed,--a foreign corporation exercising a _quasi_

sovereignty and exclusive rights over territory transferred to a power

whose policy in dealing with such territory was diametrically opposed to

that which the company pursued, and from which they derived their

profits."

This complaint demands careful consideration at the present time. The

statements of Mr. Ogden to the Indians, the memorial of the company, and

the testimony it has produced in support of its claims, the statements

and correspondence of the Jesuit missionaries, all go to prove the

settled policy of the company to maintain its "_quasi_ sovereignty" and

exclusive asserted claims to the country at the time of the Wailatpu

massacre.

That company, with less than half its then powerful influence and

capital, had compelled the more powerful and active French-Canadian

Northwest Company, numerically stronger than itself, to yield and accept

its terms of a union in 1821.

They had driven from the country all American traders. They had, as they

vainly imagined, secured an influence in the provisional American

government sufficient to control all danger from that source, while they

were ready to let loose the Indians upon the settlers, and prepared to

supply them with the means to destroy or drive them from the country.

CHAPTER LXI.

Preliminary events of the Cayuse war.--Message of Governor

Abernethy.--Journal of the house.--Resolutions.--Assembling of the

people at the call of the governor.--Enlisting of men.--Names of

the volunteers.--Names of the officers.--Their flag.--Their

departure.--Letter to Sir James Douglas.--His reply.--Commissioners

return.--Address to the citizens.--Public meeting.--Report of

commissioners to the Legislature.--Messenger sent to

Washington.--Memorial to Congress.--Champoeg County tax.--Strength

of the settlement called for.--Bishop Blanchet's letter to Governor

Abernethy.

_Message of Governor Abernethy._

OREGON CITY, December 8, 1847.

GENTLEMEN,--It is my painful duty to lay the inclosed communications

before your honorable body. They will give you the particulars of the

horrible massacre committed by the Cayuse Indians on the residents at

Wailatpu. This is one of the most distressing circumstances that has

occurred in our Territory, and one that calls for immediate and prompt

action. I am aware that to meet this case funds will be required, and

suggest the propriety of applying to the Hudson's Bay Company and the

merchants of this place for a loan to carry out whatever plan you may

fix upon. I have no doubt but the expense attending this affair will be

promptly met by the United States government.

The wives and children of the murdered persons, the Rev. Mr. Spalding

and family, and all others who may be in the upper country, should at

once be proffered assistance, and an escort to convey them to places of

safety. I have the honor to remain, gentlemen,

Your obedient servant,

GEORGE ABERNETHY.

To the Honorable Legislative Assembly, Oregon.

_Journal of the House, December 8, 1847_

At two o'clock the house met. The sergeant-at-arms announced a special

communication from the governor, which was read by the clerk. It

consisted of letters from Messrs. Douglas and McBean, of the forts on

the Columbia, announcing the horrid murder of Dr. Whitman's family and

others, accompanied by a letter from the governor, praying the immediate

action of the house in the matter.

Mr. Meek moved the reference of the communications to a committee of

the whole house, which was lost. Mr. Nesmith offered the following,

which was adopted:--

"_Resolved_, That the governor be, and is hereby, authorized and

required to raise, arm, and equip a company of riflemen, not to

exceed fifty men, with their captain and subaltern officers, and

dispatch them forthwith to occupy the mission station at the Dalles,

on the Columbia River, and hold possession until re-enforcements can

arrive at that point, or other means be taken, as the government

thinks advisable."

Messrs. Nesmith, Reese, and Crawford were appointed a committee to wait

on the governor and inform him of said resolution.

The communications concerning the Indian depredations were referred to a

committee consisting of Messrs. Ford, Rector, and White.

The committee appointed to wait on the governor concerning the

resolution for raising a company of riflemen, reported that they had

discharged their duty, and received, in answer, that the governor will

use his utmost endeavors to accomplish the object.

* * * * *

The governor called the people together in the evening, and, after the

statements of the object of the meeting, some forcible and earnest

remarks from Judge Nesmith and Messrs. Lee, Barlow, and others, the

enrollment of the first company of Oregon riflemen commenced.

The following true and noble-hearted men sprang to arms, and, in fifteen

hours from the time they had enrolled their names as defenders of

Oregon, were on their way to protect their own and their countrymen's

lives from Hudson's Bay Company, Jesuitical, and Indian savagism.

We will give the names of this noble little band a place in the history

of the country they were so prompt and ready to defend. They are as

follows:--