CHAPTER LIV.

While the Hudson’s Bay Company yielded aquasiassent to the organization, and had their representatives in the Legislature, they were using their influence to curtail the privileges of American citizens. They were ready to vote against the manufacture and sale of liquors,while they were constantly bringing it to the country in their ships, and distributing it to suit their trade.

The composition of the house was peculiarly American and antagonistic to the Hudson’s Bay Company. Any measure that gave to the company any advantage, such as it was urged the prohibitory law did, could not stand. Hence the friends of prohibition had to yield the point, on the ground of self-defense for national rights, and not from a disposition to consider the law unjust or improper. In other words, they licensed and sustained a great evil, to combat a privilege of equal evil, claimed and used by a foreign monopoly in our midst.

When we take into account the facts as stated by the governor in his message, the actual condition of the country, the temporary nature of our government, and all the combinations that were forming at the time the license law was passed, I think all will join with me in condemning the course of the men who cursed the country with such a law. It is asserted that the organic law provided that the Legislature shouldregulatethis traffic. Very true; which they did by placing it in the hands of the practicing physician, where it belongs, and nowhere else. But these wise Solons of 1846 came to the conclusion that three, two, or one hundred dollars was ample pay to the country for the loss of any man in it. That for three hundred dollars the whole country might be filled with poisonousrot-gut, and for two hundred the wholesale business might go on, while for one hundred the miserable victims of the business could be turned loose to degrade themselves and blight the hopes of kindred and friends. I can count a hundred victims who have lost one hundred dollars’ worth of property for every dollar received by the Territory, besides their own lives, in consequence of this traffic. I can count five hundred families that have suffered poverty and want, insult and abuse, purely chargeable to thisregulatinglaw of these men.

We read in histories of the church, that the pope of Rome sold indulgences to commit certain sins which by the common law would be considered crimes, such as adultery, theft, and even murder. The price of the indulgence was according to the crime to be committed. This law proceeds upon the principle of the amount of profits in the business, while its nature and effect upon the community is lost sight of. Or, in other words, the government sells the indulgence to commit the crime proposed by the manufacturer or wholesale and retail dealer. While the former law admitted that liquor as a medicine might be useful, and placed it in the hands of the practicing physician, the license law puts each seller under a one thousand dollar bond to keep a quiet house. They were ready to licensehellsall overthe land, provided the keepers would bind themselves not to violate the sanctity of the Sabbath. The morality and political economy of the business is forced to be satisfied with the amount paid as per law provided.

This act, as a matter of course, opened all the liquor shops of the Hudson’s Bay Company and of all the unprincipled men in the country. To give a better idea of this liquor question, a letter of James Douglas, found in No. 10, volume 1, of theOregon Spectator, June 11, 1846, is given. Mr. Parker, in his stump speech, alluded to the liquor law, and asserted that it was daily violated by the Hudson’s Bay Company. Mr. Douglas attempts to refuse the charge and sustain the law. The italics in the following letter are the author’s:—

“Mr. Editor,—In Mr. Parker’s address to the electors of Clackamas County, delivered at the meeting lately held in Oregon City, as reported in theSpectatorof the 28th of May, I observe that he is pleased to point out Mr. Douglas, a judge of the County Court, who, he understood, was in the habit of selling ardent spirits. This may have suited Mr. Parker’s purpose, while attempting to establish a position which appears to be a favorite with him, ‘that the oath of office binds a man to do just as he pleases!’ As it can not, however, be supposed that I admire the mode of illustration he has chosen, and as I also happen to entertain avery different opiniontouching the force and propriety of that oath, I hope it will not be considered a breach of courtesy on my part, to offer, through the medium of your respectable paper, a direct andunqualified denial of this charge of rum-selling, in the only sense it is plainly meant to be received, and can be considered at all applicable to the subject in question. As a particular favor, I ask Mr. Parker to bring forward a single proof in support of the assertion he has so wantonly advanced. I refer him to all his fellow-citizens. I ask him to search the country from one extremity to another, and to put the question to each individual member of the community with the absolute certainty that not one person will be found who ever purchased ardent spirits from Mr. Douglas. A stranger in the country, evidently unacquainted with its early history, Mr. Parker may not have been informed that the members of the Hudson’s Bay Company have for many years past uniformly discouraged intemperance” (by a regular daily allowance of liquor to their men, as we shall see Mr. Douglas says) “by every means in their power, and have also made great and repeated pecuniary sacrifices to prevent the sale of ardent spirits in the country: an article, moreover, which forms no part of their trade, either with the white man or the Indian.” (See Mr. Dunn’s book, in which it is asserted thecompany sells to Indians, and Fitzgerald, page 162). “Mr. Parker does not indeed pretend to speak from his own personal experience of the fact, but on the authority of others; and should any doubt still linger in his mind with respect to the correctness of what I have just said, he may perhaps have no objection to seek other means of arriving at the truth; suppose, for instance, he was to try the experiment of negotiating a purchase, I venture to predict he would soon be convinced that Mr. Douglas is not in the habit of selling ardent spirits.“But let us inquire a little further into this matter. What could have induced a person of character to hazard an observation in public, which, he must know, would, if false, be as openly exposed. Mr. Parker must have had some grounds for his assertion; he may possibly have heard, or he may have supposed that her Majesty’s shipModestewas daily receiving supplies at Fort Vancouver. If, with reference to these supplies, he had told his hearers that her Majesty’s shipModeste, now stationed at Fort Vancouver, had, with other supplies for ship use from the stores of the Hudson’s Bay Company, received several casks of rum; or if, referring to the company’s own ships, he had stated that asmall allowance of spirits is daily served out to the crewsof the company’s vessels; and that other classes of the company’s servants, according to long-accustomed usage, receive, on certainrare occasions, a similar indulgence, he would have told theplain and simple truth, and his statement would not this day have been called in question by me.“These acts, which I fully admit, and would on no account attempt to conceal, can not by the fair rules of construction be considered as infringing upon any law recognized by thecompact which we have agreed to support, in common with the other inhabitants of Oregon. [The same argument is used to justify Mr. Ogden in furnishing powder and arms to the Indians at the commencement of the Cayuse war.]“The framers of these laws, with a decree of wisdom and foresight which does them honor, never entertained the idea that a person, in becoming a member of the compact, thereby relinquished hisdistinctive national character.“On the contrary,British subjectsand citizens of the United States, casting aside every shadow of illiberal prejudice, extended to each other the right hand of good-fellowship, for the purpose of mutual protection, to secure the peace and promote the prosperity of the country, until protected by their respective governments. The compact was formed and perfected upon that principle, and can rest with security upon no other foundation.“We are pledged, and do faithfully intend to support the organiclaws. They do not bind us to violate pre-existing engagements with our servants, nor to withhold from the officers of our government supplies of whatsoever kind the company’s stores can provide.In the high character of the latter we enjoy the fullest security against abuse to the detriment of the country.With all other parties we have most rigidly, and shall continue to enforce the prohibitory statutes of Oregon. My wish in addressing you, Mr. Editor, is to set Mr. Parker right in respect to this matter of rum-selling, and the people may rest assured that if my wishes could influence the community, there would never be a drunkard in Oregon.“James Douglas.”

“But let us inquire a little further into this matter. What could have induced a person of character to hazard an observation in public, which, he must know, would, if false, be as openly exposed. Mr. Parker must have had some grounds for his assertion; he may possibly have heard, or he may have supposed that her Majesty’s shipModestewas daily receiving supplies at Fort Vancouver. If, with reference to these supplies, he had told his hearers that her Majesty’s shipModeste, now stationed at Fort Vancouver, had, with other supplies for ship use from the stores of the Hudson’s Bay Company, received several casks of rum; or if, referring to the company’s own ships, he had stated that asmall allowance of spirits is daily served out to the crewsof the company’s vessels; and that other classes of the company’s servants, according to long-accustomed usage, receive, on certainrare occasions, a similar indulgence, he would have told theplain and simple truth, and his statement would not this day have been called in question by me.

“These acts, which I fully admit, and would on no account attempt to conceal, can not by the fair rules of construction be considered as infringing upon any law recognized by thecompact which we have agreed to support, in common with the other inhabitants of Oregon. [The same argument is used to justify Mr. Ogden in furnishing powder and arms to the Indians at the commencement of the Cayuse war.]

“The framers of these laws, with a decree of wisdom and foresight which does them honor, never entertained the idea that a person, in becoming a member of the compact, thereby relinquished hisdistinctive national character.

“On the contrary,British subjectsand citizens of the United States, casting aside every shadow of illiberal prejudice, extended to each other the right hand of good-fellowship, for the purpose of mutual protection, to secure the peace and promote the prosperity of the country, until protected by their respective governments. The compact was formed and perfected upon that principle, and can rest with security upon no other foundation.

“We are pledged, and do faithfully intend to support the organiclaws. They do not bind us to violate pre-existing engagements with our servants, nor to withhold from the officers of our government supplies of whatsoever kind the company’s stores can provide.In the high character of the latter we enjoy the fullest security against abuse to the detriment of the country.With all other parties we have most rigidly, and shall continue to enforce the prohibitory statutes of Oregon. My wish in addressing you, Mr. Editor, is to set Mr. Parker right in respect to this matter of rum-selling, and the people may rest assured that if my wishes could influence the community, there would never be a drunkard in Oregon.

“James Douglas.”

Mr. Parker’s answer, which, like the letter of Mr. Douglas, is addressed to theSpectator, says:—

“Mr. Editor,—Our friend Mr. Douglas, in theSpectatorof the 11th instant, denies, in the most unqualified terms, the charge of rum-selling at Vancouver, and challenges me to the proof of the assertion, by calling individually on all of our fellow-citizens for testimony; and no other alternative is left me but to proceed in accordance with his request; he will, I am sure, pardon me if I seek this among the highest authorities, and I will produce one at least whose veracity will not, I am sure, be called in question by our friend.“When I, in my speech, adverted to the fact that rum was sold at Vancouver, contrary to law, the statement was based on the thousand-tongued rumor, and I so qualified my remarks. But in Mr. Douglas’s confession, found in the paper alluded to, the matter of doubt is settled, and we are now furnished with the authority of no less a personage than Mr. Douglas himself. Hear his testimony. ‘If,’ says he, ‘with reference to these supplies, he had told his hearers that her Majesty’s shipModeste, now stationed at Fort Vancouver, had, with other supplies for ship use from the stores of the Hudson’s Buy Company, receivedseveral casksof rum; or if, referring to the company’s own ships, he had stated that asmall allowance of spirits is daily served out to the crewsof the company’s vessels; and that other classes of the company’s servants, according to long-accustomed usage, receive, on certain rare occasions, a similar indulgence, he would have told the plain and simple truth,’ etc.“These facts, Mr. Douglas, who has charge of the trading-post at Vancouver, fully admits, and upon his testimony in the matter I place the most implicit confidence. It was not my intention to charge our friend with having kept a tippling-shop at Vancouver, and I wish to correct such, if any there are, who may have come to such a conclusion;but I confess, I had not supposed that the law in relation to ardent spirits (and which may be found in the first number of theSpectator) had been so wantonly disregarded. We know, from personal observation, that rum in considerable quantities had found its way among our citizens from some quarter, and the disclosure here made furnishes a key to the mystery, and we are now broadly told thatcasks of this articlehave been furnished to her Majesty’s officers stationed in Oregon, but thatin their high character we enjoy the fullest security against its abuse, etc.“And now, my dear sir, having heard much of the hollow and ceremonious professions and hypocritical grimaces of courts, and men in high places, and disgusted with every thing that savors of aristocratical or monarchical parade, and smitten with the love of republican simplicity and honesty, I can not admit that rank or men in high places are guaranteed against our laws, nor are they so framed as to justify such a conclusion. Raised as I was under these simple institutions, which tend to bring all on an equality, I can not perceive thosehigh guarantiesorpledgeswhich are said to emanate from rank or station in high places in society. With us, men give pledges of honor and character, alone from their moral conduct; and the bacchanalian carousals (one was a most disgraceful drunken row kept up for several days by the officers of theModeste, in honor of the Queen’s birthday) which came off in the Tualatin Plains on Vancouver rum, last winter and spring, at the expense of the good morals of our farming community, gave me abundant and additional evidence to admire our simple and republican usages, while it serves as a moral worthy the consideration of a prince, or the strongest appendage of nobility. Our laws make no distinction in favor of the officers on board of her Majesty’s shipModeste, nor of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s servants. If their ships visit our ports, our laws will protect them, and, according to the usages of all nations, we expect them to submit to their provisions; but should these officers, through the plenitude of their power, determine to disregard our laws, it certainly could find no justification with one filling the high judicial station which Mr. Douglas occupies. He has sanctioned our law-making authority by accepting one of the highest judicial offices under our organization. According to his own confession, he has disregarded the law, not only by giving in small quantities, but by selling ardent spirits by the cask; nor can he find justification by dealing it out under pre-existing contracts to the servants of the company. To admit that principle, dealers in this article would only be required, when the prohibitory law was about being passed, to contract for the supply of all their old customers, andthus defeat the object and intention of the law by a pre-existing contract. And as for the argument of long-existing usages, that pays the poorest tribute of all. Why, the very toper may plead his long indulgence in the use of this article, with as much propriety. I should not have noticed the subject again, but for my anxious desire that the matter should be fairly placed before the public.“Samuel Parker.”

“When I, in my speech, adverted to the fact that rum was sold at Vancouver, contrary to law, the statement was based on the thousand-tongued rumor, and I so qualified my remarks. But in Mr. Douglas’s confession, found in the paper alluded to, the matter of doubt is settled, and we are now furnished with the authority of no less a personage than Mr. Douglas himself. Hear his testimony. ‘If,’ says he, ‘with reference to these supplies, he had told his hearers that her Majesty’s shipModeste, now stationed at Fort Vancouver, had, with other supplies for ship use from the stores of the Hudson’s Buy Company, receivedseveral casksof rum; or if, referring to the company’s own ships, he had stated that asmall allowance of spirits is daily served out to the crewsof the company’s vessels; and that other classes of the company’s servants, according to long-accustomed usage, receive, on certain rare occasions, a similar indulgence, he would have told the plain and simple truth,’ etc.

“These facts, Mr. Douglas, who has charge of the trading-post at Vancouver, fully admits, and upon his testimony in the matter I place the most implicit confidence. It was not my intention to charge our friend with having kept a tippling-shop at Vancouver, and I wish to correct such, if any there are, who may have come to such a conclusion;but I confess, I had not supposed that the law in relation to ardent spirits (and which may be found in the first number of theSpectator) had been so wantonly disregarded. We know, from personal observation, that rum in considerable quantities had found its way among our citizens from some quarter, and the disclosure here made furnishes a key to the mystery, and we are now broadly told thatcasks of this articlehave been furnished to her Majesty’s officers stationed in Oregon, but thatin their high character we enjoy the fullest security against its abuse, etc.

“And now, my dear sir, having heard much of the hollow and ceremonious professions and hypocritical grimaces of courts, and men in high places, and disgusted with every thing that savors of aristocratical or monarchical parade, and smitten with the love of republican simplicity and honesty, I can not admit that rank or men in high places are guaranteed against our laws, nor are they so framed as to justify such a conclusion. Raised as I was under these simple institutions, which tend to bring all on an equality, I can not perceive thosehigh guarantiesorpledgeswhich are said to emanate from rank or station in high places in society. With us, men give pledges of honor and character, alone from their moral conduct; and the bacchanalian carousals (one was a most disgraceful drunken row kept up for several days by the officers of theModeste, in honor of the Queen’s birthday) which came off in the Tualatin Plains on Vancouver rum, last winter and spring, at the expense of the good morals of our farming community, gave me abundant and additional evidence to admire our simple and republican usages, while it serves as a moral worthy the consideration of a prince, or the strongest appendage of nobility. Our laws make no distinction in favor of the officers on board of her Majesty’s shipModeste, nor of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s servants. If their ships visit our ports, our laws will protect them, and, according to the usages of all nations, we expect them to submit to their provisions; but should these officers, through the plenitude of their power, determine to disregard our laws, it certainly could find no justification with one filling the high judicial station which Mr. Douglas occupies. He has sanctioned our law-making authority by accepting one of the highest judicial offices under our organization. According to his own confession, he has disregarded the law, not only by giving in small quantities, but by selling ardent spirits by the cask; nor can he find justification by dealing it out under pre-existing contracts to the servants of the company. To admit that principle, dealers in this article would only be required, when the prohibitory law was about being passed, to contract for the supply of all their old customers, andthus defeat the object and intention of the law by a pre-existing contract. And as for the argument of long-existing usages, that pays the poorest tribute of all. Why, the very toper may plead his long indulgence in the use of this article, with as much propriety. I should not have noticed the subject again, but for my anxious desire that the matter should be fairly placed before the public.

“Samuel Parker.”

These two laws, and the two communications we have given, place the temperance question fully before the reader. The communication of Mr. Douglas shows the position and feelings of the English and the Hudson’s Bay Company in relation to our laws, as also the liberty they claimed to violate them whenever it suited their interest or their convenience. Mr. Douglas says, “with all other parties we have most rigidly, and shall continue to enforce the prohibitory statutes of Oregon.” It also shows another fact.“The Modeste, now stationed at Fort Vancouver,” is our(the company’s) protection, and you must not attempt to enforce a law upon English subjects, or English ships that enter the rivers or ports of the country. To say that many of us did not feel keenly thistaunt, and almost despair of securing this vast country from the rapacious mouth of the crouching lion, whose drunken, beastly representatives were distributing their rum to every family that would receive them, would not be true.

When their representatives entered our legislative councils, the most stupid of its members understood their object. They wished to make laws for Americans. Their own people needed no laws, and no other government than such as was provided for them by the Hudson’s Bay Company. The reader is already informed how those laws were enforced.

Dr. Tolmie, who at the present time (1870) stands at the head of the company in Vancouver Island and British Columbia, presented the following resolution to the house on the sixth day of the session, showing the true position of the English element:—

“Resolved, That the judiciary committee be discharged from further duty, as the present Legislature deems it inexpedient to organize the judiciary at the present time, in any manner different from the present organization.”

By a reference to the journal of the house, we find Dr. Tolmie to be a member of the judiciary committee. Four days after, we find this same gentleman presenting another resolution:—

“That the Legislature deems it inexpedient, at the present time, to legalize the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits.”

Yeas—Chamberlain,McDonald, andTolmie—3.Nays—Boon,Hall, Hembree,Lounsdale,Looney, Meek,Newell,Peers, Summers, Straight, T. Vault, Williams and the Speaker—13. Hudson’s Bay Company men initalics; doubtful, inSMALL CAPITALS.

On the motion of Newell to lay the bill to regulate the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits on the table, it stood:Yeas—Chamberlain, Hall, Lounsdale, Looney, McDonald, Newell, and Tolmie—7.Nays—Boon, Hembree, Meek, Summers, Straight, T. Vault, Williams, and the Speaker—8. Peers absent.

On the final vote to carry this bill over the veto of the governor, we find Hall, Lounsdale, and Looney changing their votes in favor of passing the bill over the veto, which is as follows:—

Oregon City, Dec. 17, 1846.Gentlemen,—I return to your honorable body the act entitled “An Act to regulate the manufacture and sale of wine and distilled spirituous liquors,” with my objections to the same.Previous to our organization as a provisional government, public sentiment kept liquor from being manufactured or sold in this Territory. Heretofore, every act of the Legislature has been, as far as ardent spirits were concerned, prohibitory in character. The act lying before me is the first act that has in any manner attempted to legalize the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits. At the session of the Legislature in June, 1844, an act was passed entitled “An Act to prevent the introduction, sale, and distillation of ardent spirits in Oregon,” and, as far as my knowledge extends, the passage of that act gave satisfaction to the great majority of the people throughout the Territory. At the session of December, 1845, several amendments were proposed to the old law, and passed. The new features given to the bill by those amendments did not accord with the views of the people; the insertion of the words “give” and “gift,” in the first and second sections of the bill, they thought was taking away their rights, as it was considered that a man had a right to give away his property if he chose. There were several other objections to the bill, which I set forth to your honorable body in my message. I would therefore recommend that the amendments passed at the December session of 1845 be repealed; and that the law passed on the 24th of June, 1844, with such alterations as will make it agree with the organic law, if it does not agree with it, be again made the law of the land. It is said by many that the Legislature has no right to prohibit the introduction or sale of liquor, and this is probably the strongest argument used in defense of your bill. But do you not as effectually prohibit every person who has not the sum of one, two,three hundred dollars to pay for his license, as does the law now on the statute-book? Are not your proposed fines and penalties as great or greater than those of the old law? Where, then, is the benefit to the people? There is no doubt in my mind, but that the law will be evaded as easily, and as often, under the new law, as it was under the old, and, in addition to this, there will be the legal manufacturers, importers, and sellers, who will be able, under the sanction of law, to scatter all the evils attendant upon the use of alcoholic drinks. We are in an Indian country; men will be found who will supply them with liquor as long as they have beaver, blankets, and horses to pay for it. If a quantity should be introduced among the Wallawallas, and other tribes in the upper country, who can foretell the consequences; there we have families exposed out, off from the protection of the settlements, and perhaps, at the first drunken frolic of the Indians in that region, they may be cut off from the face of the earth. But we need not go so far; we are exposed in every part of our frontier, and when difficulties once commence, we can not tell where they will cease.It has been proved before the House of Commons that one-half of the insanity, two-thirds of the pauperism, and three-fourths of the crimes of Great Britain may be directly traced to the use of alcoholic drink. The testimony of our most eminent judges in the United States shows that the same proportion of crime is attributable to ardent spirits in that country. Statistics might be produced, showing the enormous evil and expense of an indiscriminate use of liquor.As to revenue, the small amount received for licenses, instead of being a revenue, would be swallowed up in the expenses attending trials for crimes, etc., caused by the crime of these licenses.But, leaving all other countries out of view, let us consider our own state. Surrounded by Indians, no military force to aid the executive and other officers in the discharge of their duties, not a solitary prison in the land, in which to confine offenders against the laws, and consequently no way of enforcing the penalties of the law, I think these things should call for calm and serious reflection, before passing your final vote on this bill. My opinion is, the people are opposed to legalizing the introduction and sale of liquor in this land. I may be mistaken, and therefore should be in favor of the old law, or something similar should be adopted, of referring the whole matter to the polls at the next general election. If the people say “No liquor,” continue to prohibit; if they say, through the ballot-box, “We wish liquor,” then let it come free, the same as dry-goods, or any other article imported or manufactured; but, until the people say they want it, I hope you will use your influence to keep it out of the Territory.It is with regret that I return any bill unsigned, but I feel that we both have duties to perform, and when we think duty points out the way, I trust we may always be found willing to follow it.Geo. Abernethy.To the Hon. the Legislature of Oregon Territory.

Oregon City, Dec. 17, 1846.

Gentlemen,—I return to your honorable body the act entitled “An Act to regulate the manufacture and sale of wine and distilled spirituous liquors,” with my objections to the same.

Previous to our organization as a provisional government, public sentiment kept liquor from being manufactured or sold in this Territory. Heretofore, every act of the Legislature has been, as far as ardent spirits were concerned, prohibitory in character. The act lying before me is the first act that has in any manner attempted to legalize the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits. At the session of the Legislature in June, 1844, an act was passed entitled “An Act to prevent the introduction, sale, and distillation of ardent spirits in Oregon,” and, as far as my knowledge extends, the passage of that act gave satisfaction to the great majority of the people throughout the Territory. At the session of December, 1845, several amendments were proposed to the old law, and passed. The new features given to the bill by those amendments did not accord with the views of the people; the insertion of the words “give” and “gift,” in the first and second sections of the bill, they thought was taking away their rights, as it was considered that a man had a right to give away his property if he chose. There were several other objections to the bill, which I set forth to your honorable body in my message. I would therefore recommend that the amendments passed at the December session of 1845 be repealed; and that the law passed on the 24th of June, 1844, with such alterations as will make it agree with the organic law, if it does not agree with it, be again made the law of the land. It is said by many that the Legislature has no right to prohibit the introduction or sale of liquor, and this is probably the strongest argument used in defense of your bill. But do you not as effectually prohibit every person who has not the sum of one, two,three hundred dollars to pay for his license, as does the law now on the statute-book? Are not your proposed fines and penalties as great or greater than those of the old law? Where, then, is the benefit to the people? There is no doubt in my mind, but that the law will be evaded as easily, and as often, under the new law, as it was under the old, and, in addition to this, there will be the legal manufacturers, importers, and sellers, who will be able, under the sanction of law, to scatter all the evils attendant upon the use of alcoholic drinks. We are in an Indian country; men will be found who will supply them with liquor as long as they have beaver, blankets, and horses to pay for it. If a quantity should be introduced among the Wallawallas, and other tribes in the upper country, who can foretell the consequences; there we have families exposed out, off from the protection of the settlements, and perhaps, at the first drunken frolic of the Indians in that region, they may be cut off from the face of the earth. But we need not go so far; we are exposed in every part of our frontier, and when difficulties once commence, we can not tell where they will cease.

It has been proved before the House of Commons that one-half of the insanity, two-thirds of the pauperism, and three-fourths of the crimes of Great Britain may be directly traced to the use of alcoholic drink. The testimony of our most eminent judges in the United States shows that the same proportion of crime is attributable to ardent spirits in that country. Statistics might be produced, showing the enormous evil and expense of an indiscriminate use of liquor.

As to revenue, the small amount received for licenses, instead of being a revenue, would be swallowed up in the expenses attending trials for crimes, etc., caused by the crime of these licenses.

But, leaving all other countries out of view, let us consider our own state. Surrounded by Indians, no military force to aid the executive and other officers in the discharge of their duties, not a solitary prison in the land, in which to confine offenders against the laws, and consequently no way of enforcing the penalties of the law, I think these things should call for calm and serious reflection, before passing your final vote on this bill. My opinion is, the people are opposed to legalizing the introduction and sale of liquor in this land. I may be mistaken, and therefore should be in favor of the old law, or something similar should be adopted, of referring the whole matter to the polls at the next general election. If the people say “No liquor,” continue to prohibit; if they say, through the ballot-box, “We wish liquor,” then let it come free, the same as dry-goods, or any other article imported or manufactured; but, until the people say they want it, I hope you will use your influence to keep it out of the Territory.

It is with regret that I return any bill unsigned, but I feel that we both have duties to perform, and when we think duty points out the way, I trust we may always be found willing to follow it.

Geo. Abernethy.

To the Hon. the Legislature of Oregon Territory.

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

Afternoon Session.—At two o’clock the house met. A call of the house was made, and the sergeant-at-arms dispatched for the absent members, who, after a short absence, returned, and reported that the absentees had been notified, and were now present. Thereupon, the further call of the house was dispensed with.

The house then reconsidered the bill to regulate the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits, and, after some deliberation, the question being put upon the passage of the bill, it was decided affirmatively, by the following vote:—

Yeas—Messrs. Boon, Hall, Hembree, Lounsdale, Looney, Meek, Summers, Straight, T. Vault, Williams, and the Speaker—11.

Nays—Messrs. Chamberlain, McDonald, Newell, Peers, and Dr. W. F. Tolmie—5.

At St. Josephs, Elizabethtown, Iowa Point, Council Bluffs, and the Nishnabatona, were 271 wagons for Oregon and California. Allowing five to the wagon gives us about 1,355 souls that crossed the Missouri at these points. The quantity of loose stock was estimated at 5,000 head. From Independence, Missouri, for Oregon, 141 men, 71 women, 109 children, and 128 wagons. From Independence, for California, 98 men, 40 women, 57 children, 320 oxen, and 46 wagons. Total, 1,841 souls, as stated in Mr. Saxton’s pamphlet, 1846. The larger portion of this immigration found their way into Oregon, notwithstanding the Hudson’s Bay Company and Mr. Hastings did all they could to turn them to California. A statement by Mr. S. K. Barlow shows that 141 wagons, 1,559 head of horses, mules, and horned cattle, and some 15 head of sheep passed on his road; seven more teams passed after this report was made. Besides the number that came over the Mount Hood or Barlow road, there were some persons, with wagons, who attempted to come in on the Applegate route, and a number came down the Columbia River.

This year, on the 21st of February, the brigHenry, Captain Kilborn, started from Newburyport for Oregon, with eight passengers, including women and children; also theAngelo, Captain Hastings, from Boston, made the attempt, but failed. The brigHenryarrived late in 1846.

On Thursday, February 5, 1846, the first newspaper published on the Pacific coast was issued from the press of the Oregon Printing Association, at Oregon City. The originators of the Printing-Press Association were the same that started the Multnomah Circulating Library, the Wolf Association, and the provisional government, in 1842-3.

Constitution of the Oregon Printing Association.

Preamble.—In order to promote science, temperance, morality, and general intelligence,—to establish a printing-press to publish a monthly, semi-monthly, or weekly paper in Oregon,—the undersigned do hereby associate ourselves into a body, to be governed by such rules and regulations as shall from time to time be adopted by a majority of the stockholders of this compact, in a regularly called and properly notified meeting.

Articles of Compact.

Article1. This association shall be known by the name of the “Oregon Printing Association,” and shall hold an annual meeting at Oregon City, on the first Tuesday of December of each year.

Art.2. Its officers shall be a president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer, and a Board of three directors, who shall be elected annually by ballot, and shall hold their offices until their successors are elected.

Art.3. It shall be the duty of the president to preside at all the meetings of the association, to sign all certificates of stock, and drafts upon the treasurer for the payment of funds, and to preside at the meetings of the Board of Directors.

Art.4. It shall be the duty of the vice-president to perform the duties of the president in case of his absence, by death, or by removal from office.

Art.5.——The secretary to attend, and keep a record of all the meetings of the association, and of the Board of Directors, and to publish the proceedings of the annual and special meetings of the association, and such portions of the proceedings of the Board of Directors as the Board shall direct from time to time; to give one month’s notice of all special meetings of the association.

Art.6. It shall be the duty of the treasurer to take charge of the funds of the association, and keep an account of all moneys received and disbursed, and pay out the same in accordance with drafts drawn on him by the president, and signed as per third article of this compact; to give such security to the president as shall be deemed sufficient by the Board of Directors for the faithful performance of his trust; to report the state of the treasury to the Board of Directors quarterly, and to pay over to his successor in office all funds of the association.

Art.7.——The officers and Board of Directors to manage and superintend, or procure a suitable person to do so, the entire printing and publishing association; to employ all persons required in the printing or editorial departments of the press; to publish a full statement of their proceedings semi-annually; to draft and adopt such by-laws as may be deemed proper for their government, provided no by-law contravenes the spirit of these articles of compact; to declare a dividend of any profits arising from the printing establishment as often as they shall deem it expedient; to fill any vacancy that may occur in their number; three of whom shall constitute a quorum, and be competent to transact business.

Art.8.The press owned by or in connection with this association shall never be used by any party for the purpose of propagating sectarian principles or doctrines, nor for the discussion of exclusive party politics.

Art.9. The stock of this association shall consist of shares, of ten dollars each, payable in cash or its equivalent.

Art.10. For every ten dollars paid to the treasurer of the association, the payer thereof shall receive a certificate for the same, signed by the president and countersigned by the secretary; and for every such certificate, the holder thereof, or his agent, on presenting to the Board of Directors satisfactory evidence that he is such, shall be entitled to one vote in all the annual and special meetings of this association; shall receivepro rataof all moneys that may accrue from the profits of the printing establishment, and be allowed to transfer his stock to any one, by certifying and indorsing his name upon the back of his certificate.

Art.11. These articles,except the 8th, may be altered or amended at any annual or special meeting of the association, provided that the proposed amendment shall have been published in at least two numbers of the paper published by order of the association.

Officers of the Association,W. G. T. Vault, President.J. W. Nesmith, Vice-President.John P. Brooks, Secretary.George Abernethy, Treasurer.

Directors.}

Directors.

}

John H. Couch,John E. Long,R. Newell,

The first editor of this paper was W. G. T. Vault. A man more unfit for the position could scarcely have been found in the country. He professed to have been an editor of a paper in Arkansas, and blewand swelled like the toad in the fable, and whined like a puppy when he gave his valedictory, in the fifth number of theSpectator. He says: “We have among us a class ofmongrels, neither American nor anti-American, a kind of foreign, hypocritical go-betweens,—as we would say in the States,fence men,—whose public declarations are, ‘All for the good of the public, and not a cent for self.’ The political sentiments of the conductors were at variance with his.” Mr. T. Vault was led to believe that Mr. Newell was his only friend, from the fact that he was absent from the meeting of the Board when his successor was appointed; and complains of Dr. Long and J. W. Nesmith. Newell and Long acted together. H. A. G. Lee, who succeeded T. Vault as editor, was far better qualified for the position, though he did not suit this same Board of Directors, as Newell was the maneuvering spirit. Lee was too strongly American in his sentiments, and too intelligent to be a dupe of the influence of which T. Vault complained.

Mr. Douglas declares the position of the English element in the tenth number of theSpectator. Mr. S. Parker answers him in the eleventh number; and Mr. Lee, in the fourteenth number, tenders his thanks to the Board for relieving him. The fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth numbers, each “run itself,” as the expression is.

On the eighteenth number, G. L. Curry, Esq., took charge, to the twenty-sixth number, which completed the first volume of the paper. He continued his editorial position till the twenty-fourth number of the second volume, when he brought his duties to a close by publishing a set of resolutions calculated to injure J. Q. Thornton, who had gone on to Washington to have a history of the country published, and, as was supposed, to secure the best federal appointments for himself and his friends. One-half of the legislators believing that unfair and improper means had been used by Mr. Thornton and his friends, the other half not caring to vote against Mr. Thornton’s proceedings, being, perhaps, his real friends, the resolutions were lost by a tie vote. Mr. Curry, as editor of theSpectator, took sides against Mr. Thornton, and in favor of the objectionable resolutions, and published them under an editorial article, notwithstanding he had been requested, as he admits, not to publish them.

Judge A. E. Wait succeeded Mr. Curry in the editorial department of the paper, and, by a foolish, vacillating course, continued to hold his position so as to please the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Roman Catholic and Methodist influences in the country. The paper, by this means, became of little value to its patrons and the country, and soon getting involved in its financial affairs, it was sold and lost financially to the original proprietors.

The Whitman massacres.—Narratives of, by J. B. A. Brouillet and J. Ross Browne.—Extract from the New YorkEvangelist.—Statements of Father Brouillet criticised.—Testimony of John Kimzey.—Dr. Whitman at Umatilla.—Returns home.

We have before us two works purporting to give a true and authentic account of the Whitman massacre,—the one prepared by a Jesuit priest, J. B. A. Brouillet; the other by one J. Ross Browne, special agent of the United States revenue department. As this part of our history was written before that of J. Ross Browne (purporting to be an official report to the 35th Congress, 1st session, House of Representatives, Executive Document No. 38) came into our hands, it is proper that we should give this report a passing notice.

Mr. Browne, upon the second page of his report, says: “In view of the fact, however, that objections might be made to any testimony coming from the citizens of the Territory, and believing also that it is the duty of a public agent to present, as far as practicable,unprejudiced statements, I did not permit myself to be governed by any representations unsupported byreliablehistorical data.”

One would naturally conclude, from such a statement, that a candid, unprejudiced, and truthful report would be given; but, to our astonishment, we find that fifty-three of the sixty-six pages of this official document are an exact copy of the Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet’s work, thus indorsing, and placing in an official document, one of the most maliciously false and unreliable accounts that a prejudiced and deeply implicated sectarian could give, claiming such to be “reliable historical data,”—thus showing both his prejudice and ignorance in the conclusion he arrived at as to the causes of the Indian wars.

Had J. Ross Browne been willing to lay aside his unreasonable sectarian prejudice, and listen to the positive testimony then in the country, he could easily have learned who were the prime cause of all the Indian wars in it; or, had he made himself familiar (as he flippantly claims to have done) with the history of the English and American people, the policy of the English political and sectarian powers, and the commercial policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company, he would have escaped the folly of placing in an official document such palpable errors, and showing such willful ignorance of the subject he was commissioned to investigate.

He says, on page 2, “It was a war ofdestiny,—bound to take place whenever the causes reached theirculminating point.” The “destiny” and culminating point of that war was fixed by the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Jesuit priests, as also the second and third wars with the Indians that followed, as we shall show by positive testimony of witnesses who are unimpeachable.

Had J. Ross Browne carefully examined the tissue of statements prepared by Father Brouillet, he could have found statements like this on page 53 (38 of J. R. B.), “I knew that the Indians were angry with all Americans;” page 54 (39 of J. R. B.), “All that I know is that the Indians say the order to kill Americanshas been sent in all directions.”

There was but one party in the country that could issue such an order, which Brouillet well knew, and the testimony we shall give will prove.

On his third page, he says: “The same primary causes existed in every case,—encroachments of a superior upon an inferior race.” He then refers to the agitation of the Oregon question in the Senate in 1840-41; to Mr. Thurston’s course as a delegate; the treaties with the Indians, etc.,—showing conclusively the sources of his information, and his ignorance of the causes he professed to give a truthful and impartial account of,—barely alluding to the unwarranted assumptions of the British Hudson’s Bay Company of an exclusive right to trade with the Indians. In fact, the whole report appears to be a studied effort to cover the prime causes of the difficulty, and of the Indian wars he was commissioned to investigate and report upon.

It is not surprising that with the foreign emissaries then in the country, and the stupid ignorance or malicious bigotry of the United States agent, that such reports should be made; but that the government should adopt, and act upon, or publish them, is indeed surprising; unless, as the history of the late rebellion shows, it was the design of those agents to involve the whole nation in an ultimate dismemberment, and distinct, separate nationalities, under the auspices of African, Indian, and religious slavery. We regret the necessity of prefacing a chapter in this work with so severe a stricture upon a government official, yet his report is so manifestly false and malicious, and without the evidence of truth or candor toward the Protestant missionaries, to whom is due, more than to any other influence, the settlement of the country by the American people,—that, in justice to them, and the truth of history, we can say no less, while we proceed with the account of the murder of Dr. Whitman and those at his station.

The necessity and importance of an extended and particular accountbecomes still more important from the fact that the Roman Jesuits in the country have succeeded in placing through such an agent their false account of the massacre in a permanent government document,—thus slandering not only the dead, but the living, whose duty it becomes to refute such vile slanders by publishing the whole truth in the case. Besides, the very Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet, in a second edition of his false and absurd production, refers to this report of J. R. Browne as additional official evidence of the truth of his own false statements, previously made through such agents, and such men as Sir James Douglas,—compelling us, in vindicating the truth of history, to place before the reader more of the statements of parties implicated than was our original design.

Since this work has been in press, we have an article in the New YorkEvangelistof 6th of January, 1870, from the pen of Rev. Mr. Treat, D. D., containing a brief statement of the Whitman massacre, and the following as the result of the investigations as had in several religious bodies in Oregon; the conclusion is as follows:—

“It so happens, however, that men who are more competent to adjudicate the case have not hesitated to do so. The Congregational Association of Oregon adopted a report in June last, which condemns the ‘prominent and absolute falsehoods’ of Father Brouillet’s pamphlet, and expresses the belief, ‘from evidence, clear and sufficient to them, that the Roman Catholic priests did themselves instigate violence to the missions, resulting in massacre.’ Similar action was taken by the Old School Presbytery, the Cumberland Presbytery, and the U. P. Presbytery. The Methodist Conference, composed of more than seventy preachers, and under the presidency of Bishop Kingsley, adopted a comprehensive and able report, which was published at Portland, September 25, 1869, in which the massacre at Wailatpu is declared to have been ‘wholly unprovoked by Dr. Whitman or any other member of the mission,’ and to have arisen from the policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company ‘to exclude American settlers,’ and the ‘efforts of Roman priests directed against the establishment of Protestantism in the country.’ It is believed that the other evangelical denominations in Oregon have spoken with the same distinctness and the same confidence.“Valuable testimony is borne to the character of the missionaries who survived Dr. Whitman, and who have been residents of Oregon to this day, as also to the fidelity and success of their labors, but there is not space for it in the present article. Suffice it to say, that, while the motives of Hon. J. Ross Browne, in appending Father Brouillet’s pamphlet to his ‘Letter,’ and the reasons of the House of Representative for publishing the same, are open to grave suspicion, facts and opinionshave been elicited, which throw additional light upon the manifold bearings and uses of the missionary enterprise.”

“Valuable testimony is borne to the character of the missionaries who survived Dr. Whitman, and who have been residents of Oregon to this day, as also to the fidelity and success of their labors, but there is not space for it in the present article. Suffice it to say, that, while the motives of Hon. J. Ross Browne, in appending Father Brouillet’s pamphlet to his ‘Letter,’ and the reasons of the House of Representative for publishing the same, are open to grave suspicion, facts and opinionshave been elicited, which throw additional light upon the manifold bearings and uses of the missionary enterprise.”

On page 40 of Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet’s “Protestantism in Oregon” and page 33 of J. Ross Browne’s report, we find, under date of September 5, 1847, that “the Right Rev. Bishop Blanchet arrived at old Fort Wallawalla (now called Wallula), where he was cordially received by Mr. McBean, clerk in charge of said fort. He was accompanied by the superior of Oblates and two other clergymen. He had the intention of remaining but a few days at the fort, for he knew that Tawatowe (or Young Chief), one of the Cayuse chiefs, had a house which he had designed for the Catholic missionaries, and he intended to go and occupy it without delay; but the absence of the Young Chief, who was hunting buffalo, created a difficulty in regard to the occupation of the house, and in consequence of it he had to wait longer than he wished.”

The house here spoken of was erected during the summer of 1837, before any Catholic missionaries were thought of, at least among the Indians, or by the American missionaries, and it was late in the fall of 1838 that Revs. Blanchet and Demerse passed down the Columbia River. These first missionaries of the Society of Jesus, wishing to do Mr. P. C. Pambrun, then clerk of the post, a special favor, baptized the infant son of the Young Chief, for whose benefit and occupation, Mr. Pambrun said, the company had ordered that house to be built. If it was designed for these priests, who was the designer?

Mr. Brouillet, in his narrative, says:—

“On the 23d of September, Dr. Whitman, on his way from the Dalles, stopped at Fort Wallawalla. His countenance bore sufficient testimony to the agitation of his heart. He soon showed by his words that he was deeply wounded by the arrival of the bishop. ‘I know very well,’ said he, ‘for what purpose you have come.’ ‘All is known,’ replied the bishop; ‘I come to labor for the conversion of the Indians, and even of Americans, if they are willing to listen to me.’ The doctor then continued, in the same tone, to speak of many things. He attributed the coming of the bishop to the Young Chief’s influence! made a furious charge against the Catholics, accusing them of having persecuted Protestants and even of having shed their blood wherever they had prevailed. He said he did not like Catholics ⚹ ⚹ ⚹ that he should oppose the missionaries to the extent of his power. ⚹ ⚹ ⚹ He spoke against theCatholic Ladder![12]and said that he would cover it with blood, to show the persecution of Protestants by Catholics. He refusedto sell provisions to the bishop, and protested he would not assist the missionaries unless he saw them in starvation.”

[12]A picture explaining the principal points of Catholic faith.

It is barely possible that Dr. Whitman said all that this priest says he did. In that case, did he forfeit his own and the lives of all that fell with him? This narrative ofProtestantismreveals a dark page in our history,—one that should be thoroughly investigated as well as understood by all.

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

“After such a manifestation of sentiment toward Catholics in general and priests in particular, the bishop was not astonished in hearing some hours after that Dr. Whitman, on leaving the fort, went to the lodge of Piopiomoxmox (Yellow Serpent); that he had spoken a great deal against the priests; that he had wished to prevail upon this chief to co-operate with him, in order that by the aid of his influence with the Cayuses, Des Chutes, and Dalles Indians, he might be enabled to excite these nations against them, etc.”

That Dr. Whitman did as he is represented to have done no one acquainted with him will believe for a moment. But Bishop Blanchet’s letter to Governor Abernethy is evidence conclusive that he and his priests had done exactly what they here say Dr. Whitman attempted to do.

“During the months of October and November,” Brouillet says. “the Doctor came to the fort several times to render his professional services to Mrs. Maxwell and Mr. Thomas McKay; he was a little more reserved than at the first interview, but it was always visible enough that the sight of the bishop and his clergy was far from being agreeable to him.”

It will be remembered that Mr. Brouillet is giving this narrative and speaking of a man whose blood had been shod in the cause of “Protestantism in Oregon,” as he calls the title of his work, which he is writing to correct the impression that he and his associates were in some way concerned in bringing it about. In his allusions and statements, he seems to be anxious to prove that Dr. Whitman and all Protestants and Americans in the country are guilty of the crime laid to the influence of the priests, and by giving these statements expects everybody will believethemto be wholly innocent. J. Ross Browne, in his report, 3d page, agrees with this priest, and refers to supposed transactions (that did not occur) in 1835. At that time there was not a band or tribe of Indians west of the Rocky Mountains but was ready to give land to any white man that would come and live in their country. This land question, as stated by Brouillet and Ross Browne, or the “encroachments of a superior upon an inferior race,” had no part in thematter. It was a foreign national question, as we have already shown, and we now propose to quote these statements from his narrative, to show the intimate connection there was between the Jesuit priests, the Hudson’s Bay Company, the Indians, and the Whitman massacre.

According to Brouillet, the bishop and his priests remained at Fort Wallawalla from the 5th of September till the 26th of October (fifty days), enjoying the hospitality of Mr. McBean, and seeing Dr. Whitman occasionally, till, on the 26th, the Young Chief arrived. “The bishop wished to know of him if he wanted a priest for him and his young men, telling him that he could only give him one for the whole nation, and if the Cayuses wished to avail themselves of his servicesthey would do well to come to an understanding together concerningthe location of the mission. The chief told the bishop he wished a priest, and that he could have his house and as much land as he wanted.” So far this statement bears the natural impress of truth, but mark the words here put into the chief’s mouth, “but as a means of reuniting the Cayuseswho had been heretofore divided, and in order tofacilitate their religious instruction, he suggested the idea of establishing the mission near Dr. Whitman’s, at the camp of Tilokaikt.”

The previous history of this chief, as given by Revs. Hines, Perkins, and Dr. White, all goes to prove that he never made such a suggestion, and no one acquainted with Indian character will believe for a moment that he did. But the suggestion was without doubt made to him to impress upon his mind the importance of uniting with other bands of his tribe to get rid of Dr. Whitman, as shown by this priest in the council that was held on the 4th of November, by special request of the bishop sent to Tilokaikt on the 29th October, purporting to be by request of the Young Chief. The dates show, as per Brouillet, that the Young Chief was with the bishop on the 26th; on the 29th the bishop sent for Tilokaikt; and on the 4th of November the council was held, “at the bishop’s request,” who opened the meeting in the fort. At this meeting the proposition is said to have been made to the bishop to give him Dr. Whitman’s station, first driving him away. Says T. McKay, in his statement to acquit these priests, speaking of this meeting on the 4th of November: “One of the chiefs told the bishop that they would send the Doctor off very soon; they would give him his house if he wished. The bishop answered that he would not take the Doctor’s house, that he did not wish him to send the Doctor away, and that there wasroom enough for two missions.” This was, as understood by the Indians, “The bishop intends to have a place near Dr. Whitman’s, and he wishes us to dispose of the Doctor in some way so that he can have a place where all the Cayuses can be instructed together in his religion.”

In accordance with the understanding had with the bishop and Cayuses in this council on the 4th, this priest says (see p. 44 of Brouillet, 34 of J. R. Browne): “On the 8th of November I went by order of the bishop to Wailatpu to look at the land which Tilokaikt had offered; but he had changed his mind, and refused to show it to me, saying that it was too small. He told me that he had no place to give me but that of Dr. Whitman, whom he intended to send away. I declared to him a second time the same as the bishop had done at the meeting, that I would not have the place of Dr. Whitman. I then went immediately to the camp of Young Chief, to notify him that I would take his house, since I was unable to procure a place from Tilokaikt.” He further says he returned to the fort on the 10th, and on the 11th, an associate, Rev. Mr. Rousseau, left with his men to repair the house, which was ready by the 26th, and on the 27th of November the bishop and his party started for the house, said to have been designed for them (of which there is no doubt). On their first arrival at Wallawalla, it would have been the wiser course for them to have accepted of it, instead of attempting, through the influence of the company, to get possession of Dr. Whitman’s station, or the consent of the Indians, as they say they did, to locate near the station. But we have positive proof of the design of Mr. McBean, the agent of the company, and the bishop, as given in the testimony of Mr. John Kimzey.

He says: “On my way to this country with my family last fall (1847), I called at Fort Wallawalla to exchange my team and wagon for horses. There were at the fort two Roman Catholic priests. During my stay of about two days, Mr. McBean, in the presence of my wife, said, ‘The fathers have offered to purchase Dr. Whitman’s station, but Dr. Whitman has refused to sell.’ He said they had requested the Doctor to fix his own price and they would meet it, but the Doctor had refused to sell on any conditions, I asked him who he meant by the fathers? He said ‘The holy fathers, the Catholic priests.’ He said theholy fatherswere about to commence a mission at the mouth of the Umatilla,—one in the upper part of the Umatilla, one near Dr. Whitman’s station,if they could not get hold of the station, one in several other places which I can not name. They hired Mr. Marsh, whose tools I brought, to do off a room for the priests at the fort. He said, ‘Dr. Whitman had better leave the country or the Indians would kill him; we are determined to have his station.’ He further said, ‘Mr. Spalding will also have to leave this country soon.’ As I was about leaving, Mr. McBean said: ‘If you could pass as an Englishman, the Indians would not injure you; if they do disturb you, show them the horses and the marks, and they will know my horses; show them by signs that you are from the fort,and they will let you pass.’ The Indians noticed the marks on the horses and did not disturb me.

“John Kimzey.”

“Subscribed and sworn to before me, at my office in Tualatin Plains [now Washington County], this 28th day of August, 1848.

“David T. Lenox, Justice of the Peace.”

This is fully confirmed by the oath of R. S. Wilcox, as having heard the statement from Mr. Kimzey the night after he left the fort, in camp at the mouth of the Umatilla, before the same justice of the peace. Mr. Wilcox says Mr. Kimzey was much alarmed, and really believed that it was the design of the priests’ party to kill Dr. Whitman and drive the American missionaries out of the country. His reply was, “The Catholics have not got that station yet.”

Had we not the best English testimony, Fitzgerald’s, and the statements of P. J. De Smet and Hoikin in their letters to their missionary society in Brussels, to show the connection of the Hudson’s Bay Company with this transaction, the facts above stated would fasten the conviction of a strong and outspoken determination to overthrow the Protestant missions. It will be remembered that these threats and efforts to get rid of Dr. Whitman were made before the appearance of any sickness or measles among the Cayuses.

Mr. Brouillet, on the 84th page of his narrative, says, “But I affirm that such a demand has never been made to Dr. Whitman by any one of us.” We are not disposed to dispute Mr. Brouillet’s affirmation, be it true or false. The truth is all we seek to know.

The reader will not be particularly interested in the long details of statements made by this priest to show that they had no part in bringing about the destruction of the Protestant missions and the Whitman massacre. Mr. McBean and Sir James Douglas have written extensively, together with P. H. Burnett, Esq., and this Rev. Vicar-General Brouillet, to show that nobody is responsible for that crime but the missionaries who were murdered and the Indians, while Rev. Messrs. Griffin and Spalding have attempted to fasten the whole crime upon the Roman priests alone. It appears from Mr. Spalding’s account that he met Mr. Brouillet and the bishop at Wallawalla on the 26th of November, and had a sectarian discussion with them, which he thought was friendly, yet from the fact that this priest barely alludes to the visit, and not a word of the discussion is mentioned, we infer that Mr. Spalding had the best of the argument, and that he was entirely mistaken as to the friendly manner in which they could conduct their missionsin the same section of country. We will not attempt to reconcile the conflicting statements of these missionary parties, but will collect the most reliable facts and particulars of the tragic events in which these parties and the whole country became so deeply involved,—a part of them so strongly implicated.

That the massacre was expected to take place in a short time, and that all the Americans at the station, and all in any way connected with, or favoring, the Protestant missions and American settlements in the country, were to be included in the ultimate overthrow of those upper, or middle Oregon missions, there can be no doubt; as shown in the quotations we have given from our English Hudson’s Bay Company’s historian and Sir Edward Belcher, and the efforts of the company to colonize the country with English subjects from Red River, instead of encouraging them to come direct from England.

It appears from the dates and accounts we have, that Dr. Whitman was sent for to visit Five Crow’s lodge on the Umatilla, not far from the house to be occupied by the bishop and his priests; that Mr. Spalding accompanied the doctor to visit some of the Protestant Indians in that vicinity; that the same day (the 27th of November), the bishop and his priests started from Wallawalla to go to their station and occupy the house of Young Chief. They arrived at their places and learned that Dr. Whitman and Mr. Spalding were in the neighborhood. On the next day, Sunday, 28th, Dr. Whitman made a short call on them, and hastened home to attend on the sick about his place. While at the lodge of a French half-breed named Nicholas Finlay, the Indians were holding a council, to decide and arrange the preliminaries of the massacre, with Joe Lewis, a Canadian-Indian, and Joe Stanfield, a Frenchman. Of this last-named man, Mr. Brouillet says: “As to Joseph Stanfield, I admit that he was born and has been educated a Catholic.” He lays great stress on the fact that this fellow had been tried and acquitted. He says: “Why should we pretend now to be more enlightened and wiser than the tribunals have been, and judge him more severely than they have done.”

Dr. Whitman arrived at his station about twelve o’clock at night, attended upon the sick, and retired. That night an Indian had died. In the morning, the Doctor, as usual, had a coffin and a winding-sheet prepared, and assisted the friends in burying their dead. He observed, on returning to the house, that but two or three attended at the grave. As he returned, great numbers of Indians were seen gathering about the station; but an ox had been killed, and was being dressed, which was supposed to be the cause, as the Indians on such occasions always collected in great numbers, and often from a distance.

Occupations of the victims immediately before the massacre.—Description of the mission buildings.—The Doctor called into the kitchen to be murdered.—Joe Lewis, the leader in the massacre.—The scene outside.—The Doctor’s house plundered.—Mrs. Whitman shot.—Brutalities to the dead and dying.—Escape of some and murder of others.—Safety of the French Papists and the servants of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—Fate of Joe Lewis.

Joseph Stanfield had brought in the ox from the plains, and it had been shot by Francis Sager. Messrs. Kimball, Canfield, and Hoffman were dressing it between the two houses; Mr. Sanders was in the school, which he had just called in for the afternoon; Mr. Marsh was grinding at the mill; Mr. Gillan was on his tailor’s bench in the large adobe house, a short distance from the doctor’s; Mr. Hall was at work laying a floor to a room adjoining the Doctor’s house; Mr. Rogers was in the garden; Mr. Osborn and family were in the Indian room adjoining the Doctor’s sitting-room; young Mr. Sales was lying sick in the family of Mr. Canfield, who was living in the blacksmith shop; young Mr. Bewley was sick in the Doctor’s house; John Sager was sitting in the kitchen but partially recovered from the measles; the Doctor and Mrs. Whitman, with their three sick children, and Mrs. Osborn and her sick child, were in the dining or sitting room.

The mission buildings occupied a triangular space of ground fronting the north in a straight line, about four hundred feet in length. The Doctor’s house, standing on the west end, and fronting west, was 18 × 62 feet, adobe walls; library and bedroom on south end; dining and sitting room in the middle, 18 × 24; Indian room on north end, 18 × 26; kitchen on the east side of the house, 18 × 26, fireplace in the middle, and bedroom in rear; schoolroom joining on the east of the kitchen, 18 × 30; blacksmith shop, 150 feet east; the house called the mansion on the east end of the angle, 32 × 40 feet, one and a half stories; the mill, made of wood, standing upon the old site, about four hundred feet from either house. The east and south space of ground was protected by the mill-pond and Wallawalla Creek—north front by a ditch that discharged the waste water from the mill, and served to irrigate the farm in front of the Doctor’s house, which overlooked the whole. To the north and east is a high knoll, less than one-fourth of a mile distant; and directly to the north, three-fourths of a mile distant, is MillCreek. In a military or defensive question, the premises could be easily protected from small-arms or cavalry.

While the Doctor was sitting with his family as above stated, several Indians, who had come into the kitchen, came to the door leading to the dining-room, and requested him to come into the kitchen. He did so, taking his bible in his hand, in which he was reading, and shut the door after him. Edward Sager sat down by his side and asked for medicine. Tilokaikt commenced a conversation with him, when Tamsaky, an Indian, called the Murderer, and the one that told the bishop at Wallawalla he would give him the Doctor’s station, came behind him, and, drawing a pipe tomahawk from under his blanket, struck the Doctor on the back of his head. The first blow stunned him and his head fell upon his breast, but the second blow followed instantly upon the top of his head, and brought him senseless but not lifeless to the floor.

John Sager, rising up, attempted to draw a pistol; the Indians before him rushed to the door by which they had entered, crying out, “He will shoot us;” but those behind seized his arms and threw him upon the floor; at the same time he received shots from several short Hudson’s Bay muskets, which had been concealed under their blankets. He was cut and gashed terribly with knives, his throat was cut, and a woolen tippet stuffed into it,—still he lingered. In the struggle, two Indians were wounded, one in the foot, the other in the hand, by each other.

Mrs. Whitman, as soon as the tumult commenced, overhearing and judging the cause, began in agony to stamp upon the floor and wring her hands, crying out, “Oh, the Indians! the Indians! That Joe (referring to Joe Lewis) has done it all!” Mrs. Osborn stepped into the Indian room with her child, and in a short time Mr. Osborn and family were secreted under the floor.

Without coming into the other rooms, the Indians left the kitchen, to aid in the dreadful destruction without. At this moment Mrs. Hays ran in from the mansion-house, and, with her assistance, Mrs. Whitman drew her dying husband into the dining-room, and placed his mangled, bleeding head upon a pillow, and did all her frightful situation would allow to stay the blood and revive him, but to no purpose. The dreadful work was done. To every question that was put to him, he would simply reply, “No,” in a low whisper. After receiving the first blow, he was probably insensible.

About this time, Mr. Kimball ran into the room through the kitchen, and rushed up-stairs with a broken arm hanging by his side. He was immediately followed by Mr. Rogers, who, in addition to a woundedarm, was tomahawked in the side of the head and covered with blood. He assisted Mrs. Whitman in making fast all the doors, and in removing the sick children up-stairs.

Joe Lewis, a Roman Catholic Indian, is asserted, by those who have traced his course, to have come from Canada with the party of priests and French that crossed the plains in 1847, and by whom it is affirmed the measles were brought into the immigrant trains that year. The priests’ party brought him to Boise, and there left him to find his way to Dr. Whitman’s. He attempted to make arrangements with an immigrant family to come to the Wallamet, but was afterward furnished with a horse and supplies, and traveled with a Cayuse Indian. While at Boise, making his arrangements with the immigrant family, he told them there was going to be agreat overturn at Dr. Whitman’s and in the Wallamet. How or what the overturn was to be, the party did not learn, but supposed it might be from immigration or some change in the government of the country. He arrived at Dr. Whitman’s apparently destitute of clothes and shoes. He made himself at home at once, as he could speak English, French, and a little Nez Percé. He had been at the station but a few days, before the Doctor and the two Sager boys learned that he was making disturbance among the Indians. The Doctor finding some immigrant families who wanted a teamster, furnished him with shoes and a shirt, and got him to go with them. He was gone three days, and the second night ran away from the man he had agreed to go with, and returned about the station. He spent most of his time in the lodge of Nicholas Finlay, the common resort of Stanfield and the Indians engaged in the scenes we are relating; and was the leader in the whole affair. He was seen several times approaching the windows with a gun, but when Mrs. Whitman would ask, “Joe, what do you want?” he would ran away.

The scene outside, by this time, had attained the summit of its fury. The screams of the fleeing women and children, the groans and struggles of the falling, dying victims, the roar of musketry, the whistling of balls, the blows of the war-club, the smoke of powder, the furious riding of naked, painted Indians, the unearthly yells of infuriated savages, self-maddened, like tigers, by the smell of human blood,—the legitimate fruits of Romish superstitions faithfully implanted in the savage mind.

Mrs. Whitman remained by the side of her husband, who was pale and gasping in death. Two Americans were overpowered and cut down by the crowd under her window, which drew her attention, and gave an opportunity for an Indian, that had always been treated kindly by her, to level his gun. His victim received the ball, through the window, in her right breast, and fell, uttering a single groan. In a few momentsshe revived, rose and went to the settee, and kneeling in prayer was heard to pray for their adopted children (the Sager family, who had lost father and mother in crossing the plains, now again to be left orphans), and for her aged father and mother in the States, that they might be sustained under this terrible shock (made a thousand-fold more so by the infamous account of it given by Sir James Douglas in his Sandwich Islands letter), which the news of her fate must occasion. Soon after this she was helped into the chamber, where were now collected Mrs. Whitman, Mrs. Hays, Miss Bewley, Catharine Sager, Messrs. Kimball and Rogers, and the three sick children.

They had scarcely gained this temporary retreat, when the crash of windows and doors, and the deafening war-whoop, tore the last hope from their fainting hearts. The rooms below were plundered of their property,—the furniture dashed to pieces and cast out. Joe Lewis was seen to be among the foremost to dash in the windows and bring out the goods. Here a deed was perpetrated similar to that of the refined and Christian Catholic people of Burgos, in Spain, when they murdered and cut up their governor for attempting to obey the law and take an invoice of church property.

The Cayuse Indian Tilokaikt went into the room where the Doctor lay yet breathing, and with his hatchet deliberately chopped his face terribly to pieces, but left him still alive. Some Indian, also, cut the face of John Sager while he was yet alive.

About this time, Joe Lewis went into the schoolroom and sought out the children, who were hid in the upper loft, and brought them into the kitchen to be shot. As Francis passed by his mangled, gasping brother, he stooped and took the woolen tippet from the gash in his throat, when John attempted to speak, but immediately expired. Upon this, Francis turned to his sister and said, “I shall soon follow my brother.” The children were kept in this painful position for some time. Eliza Spalding was among them, and understood every word spoken by the Indians, who, having finished their terrible slaughter without, were filling the room and the doorways, with their guns pointed at the heads and hearts of the children, constantly yelling, “Shall we shoot?” Eliza says her blood became cold, and she could not stand, but leaned over upon the sink, covering her face with her apron, that she might not see them shoot her. From this place they were removed out of the door by the side of the Indian room, just before Mrs. Whitman was brought out to be shot.

Immediately after breaking into the house, the Indians called to Mrs. Whitman and Mr. Rogers to come down, and on receiving no answer, Tamsaky (the Indian who was the most anxious to have the bishopand his priests take the Doctor’s place), started to go up-stairs, but discovering the end of an old gun (placed there by Miss Bewley), he desisted, and entered into conversation with those above. He urged them to come down, assuring them that no one should hurt them. Mrs. Whitman told him she was shot, and had not strength to come down, besides she feared they would kill her. Tamsaky expressed much sorrow on learning that Mrs. Whitman was wounded, and promised that no one should be hurt if they would come down. Mrs. Whitman replied, “If you are my friend, come up and see me.” He objected, and said there were Americans hid in the chamber with arms to kill him. Mr. Rogers, standing at the head of the stairs, assured him there were none, and very soon he went up and remained some time, apparently sympathizing with the sufferers, assuring them that he was sorry for what had taken place, and urged Mrs. Whitman to come down and be taken over to the other house where the families were, intimating that the young men might destroy the house in the night. About this time the cry was heard from Joe Lewis, “We will now burn.”

Mrs. Whitman was assisted down by Mr. Rogers and Mrs. Hays; on reaching the lower room, becoming faint, she was laid upon a settee, and taken through the kitchen over the dead body of young Sager, and through a crowd of Indians. As the settee passed out of the door, the word was given by the chief not to shoot the children. At this moment Mr. Rogers discovered their treachery, and had only time to drop the settee, raise his hands and exclaim, “O my God!” when a volley of guns was fired from within and without the house, part at Mrs. Whitman and part at himself. He fell upon his face, pierced with many balls.

An Indian seized Francis Sager from among the children, and Joe Lewis drew his pistol, and with the expression, “You bad boy,” shot him. All manner of Indian brutality and insult were offered to the mangled bodies while they lay groaning and dying, till night closed upon the scene, and the Indians retired to Finlay’s and Tilokaikt’s lodges to consult as to further outrage upon the still living and helpless victims.

The Canadian-Indian, Joe Lewis, was as active in abusing the helpless girls as he had been in selecting the children of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s servants to be protected and sent away from such as were to be abused and slaughtered.

Mr. Kimball, the three sick children, and Catharine Sager remained in the chamber all night. Mr. Osborn lay under the floor of the Indian room till the Indians retired. He then made his escape to the fort at Wallawalla, with his family. The three men at the beef found themselvessurrounded, and in the midst of a volley of balls from pistols and guns pointed at them. All three were wounded, but neither fell. They fled as best they could: Mr. Kimball to the house; Mr. Canfield to the blacksmith shop, and thence to the mansion, where he hid himself, and remained till night; then fled and reached Lapwai before Mr. Spalding did. Mr. Hall wrenched a gun, which had missed fire, from an Indian’s hand, and ran for the bushes; reached the fort next morning; was put across the Columbia River by Mr. McBean’s order; and was lost,—starved to death, or murdered by the Indians, we know not which. Mr. Gillan was shot upon his bench. Mr. Marsh was shot at the mill; ran a short distance toward the Doctor’s house and fell. Mr. Saunders, hearing the guns, rushed to the door of the schoolroom, where he was seized by several Indians, who threw him upon the ground amid a shower of balls and tomahawks. Being a strong and active man, he rose, though wounded, and ran some rods, but was overtaken, surrounded, and cut down. Mr. Hoffman was cut down, after fighting desperately with a knife, his body cut open, and his heart and liver torn out.

In the midst of all this fury and savage shedding of blood,no children or servants of the Hudson’s Bay Company, or Roman Catholics, or such as professed friendship for that faith, were harmed in the least. Finlay, a half-breed of the company’s, who had formerly kept its horses, was stopping close to the station, assisting and counseling with the Indians; Joe Lewis selected the two Manson boys and a half-breed Spanish boy the Doctor had raised, and arranged to send them to the fort. Whoever this Indian was, or wherever he was from, he seems to have understood and acted fully and faithfully his part in the “great overturn” that he said, while at Boise, was to take place at that station and in the lower country. How he came to know there was to be any change or overturn is yet a secret only to be guessed at. Mr. McBean says he returned to Boise and Fort Hall; and Mr. McDonald, that he killed the guide to a company of United States troops in the mountains, and was himself shot.

Back to Index Next