OVERLAND: BLOOD FOR BLOOD.
In 1846 Pow-e-shiek came with his band to visit his old home. We were
“early settlers” then, and had built our cabins on the sloping sides of a
bluff overlooking the valley below. From this outpost we descried the
bands of piebald ponies and then the curling smoke, and next the poles of
his wick-e-ups (houses); and soon we saw Pow-e-shiek coming to make known
his wish that he might be permitted to pasture his stock on the fields
which we had already robbed of corn. The recognition in me of one who had
assisted in removing his people seemed to surprise and please him, and for
a moment his eye lit up as if some fond reality of the past had revived
the friendship that had grown out of my sympathy for him in his dark hour
of departure from his home. And when I said, “This is my father, and my
mother, these my sisters and my brothers, and this place is our home,” he
gave to the welcoming hands a friendly grasp in evidence of his good
intentions, and then assured us that no trouble on his part should grow
out of his coming, and that, if his young men should do any dishonest
acts, he would punish them; that he had come back to spend the winter once
again near his haunts of olden times, perhaps to kill the deer that he
thought white men did not care about since they had so many cattle and
swine. We accepted his assurance, and believed him to be just what he
pretended,——a quiet, honest old chief, who would do as he agreed, nor seek
excuse for not doing so.
The dinner hour had passed, but such as we had my mother set before him,
and he did not fail to do full justice to everything upon the table. He
made sure that his pappooses should complete what he began by making a
clean sweep into one corner of his blanket to bear it to his lodge. After
dinner he drew out his pipe, and filling it with Kin-ni-ki-nick (tobacco),
and lighting it with a coal of fire, he first sought to propitiate the
Great Spirit by offering up to him the first puff of smoke; next the
devil, by blowing the smoke downward, and saved the third for himself; and
after that he offered to the fourth person in his calendar, my father, the
privilege of expressing his approval. But, as he was not a smoker himself,
he passed the pipe to his oldest son, intimating his desire that he should
be represented by proxy. I, willing to do his bidding, in friendship for
our guest, _it may be_, or perhaps from other personal motives, soon
reduced the Kin-ni-ki-nick to ashes and handed back the empty pipe to
Pow-e-shiek. I knew not that I had transgressed the rules of politeness
until afterwards, when I offered a pipe to our strange-mannered guest, he,
with dignity, drew a puff or two and then passed it back, with an
expression of countenance which declared unmistakably that it was meant
for reproof.
If I felt resentment for a moment that a savage should presume to teach me
manners, I do not feel that I was the only one who might be greatly
benefited by taking lessons of unsophisticated men and women of other
than white blood; not alone in simple politeness, but also in regard to
right and justice, whose flags of truce are never raised _ostensibly_ to
insure protection, but _really_ to intimidate the weak and defenceless,
who dared to stand up for the God-given rights to home and country.
Pow-e-shiek made preparations to return to his lodge, and we, boy-like,
followed him out of the cabin door, and while he was saying good-by he
espied a fine large dog that we had, named Van, though the name did not
indicate our politics. Pow-e-shiek proposed to trade a pony for “old Van,”
and we were pleased at first, because we thought the pony would do to ride
after the “breaking team” of dewy mornings in the spring. But when we
learned that “Van” was wanted by the chief to furnish the most substantial
part of a feast for his people, we demurred. “Old Van,” too, seemed to
understand the base use to which he was to be put, and reproached us with
sullen side-looks; and the trade was abandoned, and would have been
forgotten only that Van was ever afterward maddened at the sight of
Pow-e-shiek or any of his race.
The winter passed, and our red neighbors had kept their promise, for
although neither the granary nor any other building was ever locked,
nothing had been missed, and our mutual regard seemed stronger than when
the acquaintance was renewed. When spring had fully come, Pow-e-shiek,
punctual to his promise, broke up his camp and went away.
[Illustration: BULL-DOG TRADE.]
Occasionally, for years afterwards, his people came back to visit; but _he
no more_.
Years have passed, and he has joined the great throng in the happy
hunting-grounds.
When the gold fever was at its height, in 1850, in company with others I
journeyed overland to the new Eldorado. While en route, we heard much of
Indians, of their butcheries and cruelties; I think there was good
foundation for the stories. Indeed, we saw so many evidences of their
handiwork, in new-made graves and abandoned wagons demolished, that there
could be no reasonable doubt of their savage treatment of those who came
within their power.
While _I do not now, never have, and never will attempt to justify their
butcheries, yet it is but fair that both sides of the story be told_.
When our party was at “Independence Rock,” in 1850, and no Indians had
disturbed the passing travellers, near where we were then, we “laid over”
a day, and within the time a man came into camp and boasted that he had
“knocked over a _buck_ at a distance of a hundred yards,” and when the
query was made as to the whereabouts of his game he produced a _bloody
scalp_. He gave as an excuse that the Indians had frightened an antelope
he was trying to kill, and that he shot the Indian while the latter was
endeavoring to get away. Is it unreasonable to suppose that the friends of
the murdered Indian, when he came not to the lodge at nightfall, would
hunt him up, and that, when his brother or friend saw his scalpless head,
he should avow to avenge his death?
Doubtless he did avenge both himself and his tribe, and he may have slain
many innocent persons in retaliation for this foul deed.
As to the cause of the Indian troubles on the Humbolt river, during the
summer of 1850, I know nothing. Probably they originated in some lawless
act similar to the one above described. In September following I loaned a
rifle to a miner who was going out on a prospecting tour. On his return he
proposed to buy it, saying that “it was a good one, he knew, because he
tried it on an Indian, shooting from one bluff to another; and,” said this
civilized white man, “I dropped him into the river, and he went where all
good Injuns go.”
Later in the season two friendly Indians came into the town of “Bidwell’s
Bar,” and, although no evidence was produced against them, they were
arrested on “general principles,” it was said; and while threats were made
of hanging them on “general principles” too, _better_ counsels prevailed,
and they were placed in charge of a guard, who were to convey them to
“Long’s Bar,” and turn them over to the sheriff to be held for trial.
_The guard returned in a short time, and reported that the prisoners had
“slipped down a bank and were drowned.”_ It was, however, understood that
they were killed by the guard “to save expense.” Following this accident
several white men were murdered by Indians, it was said, although the
murdered men, it was evident, had met death through _other instrumentality
than bows and arrows_.
A company was raised to go out and punish the offenders. On their return
they reported grand success in finding Indian rancheros, and in the
wholesale butchery they had committed. Do you wonder that twenty or thirty
white men were _riddled with arrows within a short time, after such manly
conduct, by the brave butchers of Indian women and children_?
I have not at hand the data from which to mention in detail the various
Indian wars that harassed the miners of California. Suffice it that they
were of frequent occurrence, and, indeed, continued until the mountain
bands of Indians were broken up. If the truth could be heard from the lips
of both the living and the dead, we should hear many things _unpleasant to
the ears of white men_ as well as Indians, and, perhaps, discreditable to
both. I doubt not such revelation would support the declaration I here
make,——that _bad white men_ have always been the instigators of the bloody
deeds through which so many innocent persons have passed on to the other
life.
The proofs are not wanting in almost every instance in support of this
statement. That the Indian is vindictive, is true; that he is brave,
cunning, and inhuman to his enemies is also true; but that he is faithful
to his compacts, whenever fairly dealt with, is _not less true_.