CHAPTER LVI.

Comments on Vicar-General Brouillet’s arguments against the Whitman massacre being the act of Catholics.—Joe Stanfield: Brouillet’s story in his favor.—Murders on the second day.—Deposition of Daniel Young.—More murders.

Vicar-General Brouillet, in his narrative of “Protestantism in Oregon,” says: “I could admit thatJoseph Lewis,Joseph Stanfield, andNicholas Finlay, who may have been seen plundering” (as proved on the trial of Stanfield), “were Catholics, without injuring in the least the cause of Catholicism; because, as in good reasoning” (Roman Catholic, of course), “it is never allowed to conclude from one particularity to another particularity, nor to a generality; in like manner, from the guilt of three Catholics it can not be reasonably concluded that other Catholics are guilty, nor,a fortiori, that all Catholics are guilty and Catholicism favorable to the guilt.”

No man, set of men, or sect, not interested in the result of a measure or a crime, will ever use an argument like the one we have quoted from this priest. Dr. Whitman and those about his station had been slaughtered in the most brutal and cowardly manner, by a band of Indians that this priest, his bishop, and associates, backed by the consent and influence of the Hudson’s Bay Company, had brought about through the direct influence of these three men: all of whom knew, and consulted with the Indians as to the commission of the crime. And we have the strongest reason to believe that this priest and his party were, by their conversation, instructions, and direct teachings, adding their influence and approval to that horrid transaction. Besides, when the crime is committed, we find this same band offur traders and priests protecting, shielding, advising and assisting the murderersto the utmost of their power and influence, both in the country and in their foreign correspondence. If such facts do not implicate a party, we ask what will? The very book from which we are quoting, containing 108 pages, has not a single sentence condemning the course or crime of these men, but every page contains some statement condemning Spalding, Whitman, or some American supposed to belong to, or in favor of, the American settlements or missions.

But let us return to further particulars of this Whitman massacre. We have gathered up the statements and facts on both sides of thisquestion, and with our own knowledge, previous to and since its occurrence, we write with assurance, if not with the best judgment in selecting the facts and evidence to place the truth before the public.

We were in the midst of describing that horrible scene of savage blood and carnage, when we stopped for a moment to inquire after the character of three of the prominent actors, in fact, the leaders in the tragedy.

Brouillet tells us (on page 89 of his narrative, page 56 of Ross Browne) in extenuation of the guilt of Stanfield, that “the following circumstance, if true, speaks very highly in his favor, and shows that if he has at any time forgotten the good principles he had received in his infancy, once, at least, those principles prompted him to an heroic action. It was on the morning of the day that followed the massacre. There were several Indians scattered in the neighborhood of the mission buildings, but especially a crowd of Indian women was standing near the door of the house in which all the white women and children were living. Stanfield, being then at a short distance from the house, Tilokaikt, the chief of the place, came up and asked him if he had something in the house. ‘Yes,’ said Stanfield, ‘I have all my things there.’ ‘Take them away,’ said the Indian to him. ‘Why should I take them away? they are well there.’ ‘Take them off,’ he insisted, a second time. ‘But I have not only my things there; I have also my wife and children.’ ‘Yes,’ replied Tilokaikt, who appeared a little surprised, ‘you have a wife and children in the house! Will you take them off?’ ‘No,’ replied Stanfield, ‘I will not take them away, and I will go and stay myself in the house. I see that you have bad designs; you intend to kill the women and children; well, you will kill me with them. Are you not ashamed? Are you not satisfied with what you have done? Do you want still to kill poor innocent creatures that have never done you any harm?’ ‘I am ashamed,’ replied Tilokaikt, after a moment’s hesitation. ‘It is true, those women and children do not deserve death; they did not harm us; they shall not die.’ And, turning to the Indian women who were standing near the door of the house waiting with a visible impatience for the order to enter and slaughter the people inside, he ordered them to go off. The Indian women then became enraged, and, showing them the knives that they took from beneath their blankets, they insulted him in many different ways, calling hima coward, a woman who would consent to be governed by a Frenchman; and they retired, apparently in great anger for not having been allowed to imbrue their hands in the blood of new victims. The above circumstance was related at Fort Wallawalla to Mr. Ogden, by Stanfield himself, under great emotion, and in presence of the widows, none of whomcontradicted him. An action of that nature, if it took place, would be, of itself,sufficient to redeem a great many faults.”

We do not wish to question any good act this Frenchman may have done; but the guilt of knowing that crime was to be committed, and that the Americans were to be killed around him like the ox he had brought to the slaughter, which he knew was to be the signal for its commencement; and the manner he and his two associates conducted themselves on the ground;the influence he hadto stop the massacre at any time, and hisrobbing the widows and orphansin the midst of the slaughter;—these make up a complication of crime that none but the vilest will attempt to excuse.

On the 30th of November, Mr. Kimball and Mr. Young, a young man from the saw-mill, were killed. Mr. Kimball, in attempting to go from his concealment in the chamber for water for himself and the sick children, was shot by a young Indian, who claimed his eldest daughter for a wife as his lawful pay for killing her father.

We will now give an original deposition which explains the killing of Mr. Young, and also of two other young men, who escaped the first and second, and became victims of the third more brutal slaughter.

Deposition of Mr. Daniel Young relative to the Wailatpu Massacre.

Question.—When, and in what manner, did you learn of the massacre?Answer.—I was residing with my father’s family at Dr. Whitman’s saw-mill, about twenty miles from Wailatpu, where we had gone for the winter. My brother, a young man about twenty-four years of age, and about two years older than myself, had gone down to the station, the Tuesday before, with a load of lumber, and for provisions, and was expecting to return about the last of the week. Joseph Smith and family were also living at the saw-mill, except his oldest daughter, who was at the station. His family was out of flour and meat, and ours was now out of meat. On Saturday evening, he proposed to me to go down the next day for provisions. I did not wish to go down; told him if he wanted provisions he could go. He said if he had a horse he would go. We offered him a horse. He still urged me to go, as there was no one, he said, to stay with his family. I went down on horseback on the Sabbath, being the next Sabbath after the massacre. I did not go to the place till about an hour after dark, and learned nothing of the massacre till after I had got into the house. In the room where I expected to find my brother, I found them eating supper, with several Indians in the room. At the table was Mrs. Hays, and Joseph Stanfield, and Mrs. Hall, with the remnant of her family.About a couple of minutes after I went in, Joseph Stanfield left the table and went out of the house (this was some time previous to the rest leaving the table), and was gone for about three hours, I knew not where; but after he returned, he said he had started to go to Nicholas Finlay’s, a half-breed’s lodge, but had got lost. Nicholas had come in about half an hour before Stanfield returned. In the mean time I had learned from the Indian Beardy, through Eliza Spalding (his interpreter), of the massacre. This was in short sentences and much confused. Beardy said, however, that the Doctor was his friend, and he did not know of it until a good many had been killed, and he was sorry for what had taken place; he said the Indians said the Doctor was poisoning them, and that was the reason they did it,but he(Beardy)did not believe it. That he was there to protect the women and children, and no more should be killed. During the evening I also learned of the number that had been killed, and of those who had escaped from the place; but it was not known what had become of them.I was informed by Stanfield that my brother had met an Indian who had told him to go back and stay for a week, but another Indian told him he could safely go on for provisions, and that he would go with him. He went on to within half a mile of the mission. The Indians were said to have gone thus far with him. Stanfield said he there found him dead, shot through the head near one eye, and there he buried him.Stanfield saidalso that evening that the Doctor was poisoning the Indians, which had caused the massacre; that Joe Lewis had heard from an adjoining room one night the Doctor and Mrs. Whitman talking of poisoning them, and that the Doctor had said it was best to destroy them by degrees, but that Mrs. Whitman said it was best to do it at once, and they would be rid of them, and have all their land and horses as their own; and that he (Joe Lewis) had told the Indians this before the massacre.Stanfield also asked me if I had heard of his being married. I told him I had heard from my brother that he was going to take Mrs. Hays for a wife. He said: “We are married, but have not yet slept together.” I said: “Yes, I understand, you pretend to be married.” He said: “We are married; that is enough.” I thought it strange why he was saved unless he was a Catholic, and during the evening took an occasion, when I thought he would not suspect my object, to ask Stanfield whether he was a Catholic? He said, “I pass for one.”I slept with Stanfield that night; did not retire till late. Next morning, Crockett Bewley, a young man about twenty-one or twenty-two, I should think, who was sick at the time of the first massacre, and whose clothes had been stolen (by Stanfield), came into the roomwrapped in a blanket or a quilt.Bewley seemed to speak of the Doctor’s poisoning the Indians as something commonly reported among themas the cause of the massacre, but said he did not believe any thing of it,but he believed Joe Lewis was one of the leaders, andthe Catholic priests were the cause of it. Stanfield replied, “You need not believe any such thing, and you had better not let the Indians hear you say that,” and spoke in a voice as thoughhe was somewhat angry. Soon after this, Bewley left the room; Stanfield turned to me and said: “He had better be careful how he talks; if the Indians get hold of it the Catholics may hear of it.” As soon as I could do it without being suspected, I sought an opportunity to caution Bewley about the danger I thought he was running in speaking thus in the presence of Stanfield, and asked him if he did not know of Stanfield being a Catholic? He said he did not. I told him he might have known it from the fact of most French being Catholics. He replied he did not know of the French being Catholics more than any other people. I told him to be cautious hereafter how he spoke, and he said he would.Soon after the conversation with Bewley, I told Stanfield I must return home; he said I must not, the Indian chiefs would be there after a while and would tell me what I must do; said he did not think I could get off till the next day.We now commenced making a coffin for one of the Sager children that had died the night before. Soon after, the chief Tilokaikt came. He told me I could not go back till the next day, that he would then send two Indians back with me. I told Stanfield, in the chief’s presence, that I had told my folks I should be back on Monday if I came at all. Stanfield told me in reply, that the chief says, “Then you may go;” Stanfield also said, “The chief says tell them all to come down and bring every thing down that is up there; we want them to come down and take care of the families and tend the mill. Tell them, ‘Don’t undertake to run away; if you do, you will be sure to be killed;’ not be afraid, for they shall not be hurt.”The chief had now done talking. Stanfield now told me to caution them, our people, at the saw-mill, as towhat they should say; if they said any thing on the subject, “say that the Doctor was a bad man, and was poisoning the Indians.” He had also before that told me the same. I got a piece of meat and asked for some salt; but he said there was none about the house; afterward I found this was not the case. I then returned home, and informed our people as to what had taken place, and my father’s first reply was, “The Catholics are at the bottom of it.” Mr. Smith admitted it, but said, immediately, we must all become Catholics for our safety, and before we left the saw-mill, and afterward, he said he believed the Doctor was poisoning, and believed it from what Joe Stanfield had told him before about the Doctor’s misusing the half-breeds and children at his mission. The next day, Tuesday, we went down to the mission, and arrived after dark; found the young men, Bewley and Amos Sales, who were sick at the time of the first massacre, were both killed, and their bodies were lying outside of the door near the house where they lay during the night, and Stanfield said he could not bury them until he got the permission of the Indians. The next day we helped to bury them.Here I would say that the two Indians the chief wished to send with me, as he said, to see us safe down, as Stanfield interpreted to me at the time, were the chief’s sons, and he wished me to wait because Edward, Tilokaikt’s son, had gone to the Umatilla to thegreat chief, to see what to do with the two young men who were sick. This, Stanfield told me, was the business which Edward Tilokaikt had gone for, and he would not get back so as to go with me that day. Three Indians, however, arrived within an hour after I got to the saw-mill, viz., Clark Tilokaikt, Stikas and one whose name I never knew, and came down a part of the way with us next day. I learned from Mrs. Canfield and her daughter, that this same Edward Tilokaikt, after he returned from the Umatilla, gave the first blow with his whip, and broke and run out of doors, when other Indians finished the slaughter of the sick men. While at the station, Joseph Smith threatened me with the Indians if I did not obey him. I felt our condition as bad and very dangerous from the Indians, and feared that Smith would join them. He sometimes talked of going on to the Umatilla to live with them. His daughter was taken by the chief’s sons (first Clark, and in the second place, Edward) for a wife. I told Mr. Smith, were I a father, I would never suffer that, so long as I had power to use an arm; his reply was, “You don’t know what you would do; I would not dare to say a word if they should take my own wife.” I continued to regard our situation as exceedingly dangerous till we got out of the country.After we had arrived at Wallawalla, I said, in the presence of Mr. McBean, that I supposed there were present some of the Indians who had killed my brother, and if I knew them I would kill them yet. Mr. McBean said, “Take care what you say, the very walls have ears.” He was very anxious to get us safe to the Wallamet.Q.—Would you suppose one who was acquainted at that place liable to get lost in going that evening to Finlay’s lodge?A.—I would not. It was in sight and a plain path to it, and was not more than twenty-five yards off.Q.—When did you learn from your brother that Stanfield was going to take Mrs. Hays as a wife?A.—Some two or more weeks before the massacre, something was said as to Mr. Hoffman taking Mrs. Hays. My brother says, “No, I heard Joe Stanfield say that he was going to take her as a wife.”Q.—Did your brother appear to believe that this was about to take place?A.—He did, and my brother talked about it,—made us believe it was going to take place.Q.—What opportunity had your brother to know about this, more than yourself?A.—He boarded at the station, and was some of the time teaming from the saw-mill, and Mrs. Hays cooked for him and several others of the Doctor’s hands, among whom was Stanfield.Q.—Why did you think Stanfield was a Catholic, as a reason for his being saved?A.—Because I heard Dr. Whitman say at the mill, that the Catholics were evidently trying to set the Indians upon him, but he thought he could keep it down for another year, when he would be safe. I supposed he expected safety from the government being extended over the country.Q.—How did Stanfield seem to know that the chief would be there after a while, and would tell you what you might do as to going back to the saw-mill?A.—I did not know.Q.—Why did you tell your people that you would be back on Monday, if at all?A.—Because we were in an Indian country, and I remembered what I had heard the Doctor say at the Umatilla, and my brother had not returned as expected.Q.—Had you any means of knowing what “great chief,” at the Umatilla, Tilokaikt spoke of, where his son Edward had gone to learn what to do with the sick young men?A.—I had not.Q.—Did you know at that time that the bishop was said to be at Umatilla?A.—Yes.Q.—Did you form in your own mind, at that time, any opinion as to whom Edward had gone to consult?A.—I thought the term “great chief” might have been put in to deceive me, as Stanfield had told me, the evening before, that the Catholics were going to establish a mission right away at that place, and thatthey would protect the women and children, andI thought it might be the Catholicshe was consulting, or it might be some great Indian chief. This talk of establishing a station there continued for more than a week after we got down to the station. After I found Bewley and Sales were killed, I seemed to forget much until even after I had got down, and even to the plains, when the facts again came more clearly to my recollection, and I spoke of them freely to my parents and to others.(Signed,)Daniel Young.Sworn and subscribed to, before me, this 20th day of January,A. D.1849, in Tualatin Plains, Oregon Territory.G. W. Coffinbury, Justice of the Peace.

Question.—When, and in what manner, did you learn of the massacre?

Answer.—I was residing with my father’s family at Dr. Whitman’s saw-mill, about twenty miles from Wailatpu, where we had gone for the winter. My brother, a young man about twenty-four years of age, and about two years older than myself, had gone down to the station, the Tuesday before, with a load of lumber, and for provisions, and was expecting to return about the last of the week. Joseph Smith and family were also living at the saw-mill, except his oldest daughter, who was at the station. His family was out of flour and meat, and ours was now out of meat. On Saturday evening, he proposed to me to go down the next day for provisions. I did not wish to go down; told him if he wanted provisions he could go. He said if he had a horse he would go. We offered him a horse. He still urged me to go, as there was no one, he said, to stay with his family. I went down on horseback on the Sabbath, being the next Sabbath after the massacre. I did not go to the place till about an hour after dark, and learned nothing of the massacre till after I had got into the house. In the room where I expected to find my brother, I found them eating supper, with several Indians in the room. At the table was Mrs. Hays, and Joseph Stanfield, and Mrs. Hall, with the remnant of her family.About a couple of minutes after I went in, Joseph Stanfield left the table and went out of the house (this was some time previous to the rest leaving the table), and was gone for about three hours, I knew not where; but after he returned, he said he had started to go to Nicholas Finlay’s, a half-breed’s lodge, but had got lost. Nicholas had come in about half an hour before Stanfield returned. In the mean time I had learned from the Indian Beardy, through Eliza Spalding (his interpreter), of the massacre. This was in short sentences and much confused. Beardy said, however, that the Doctor was his friend, and he did not know of it until a good many had been killed, and he was sorry for what had taken place; he said the Indians said the Doctor was poisoning them, and that was the reason they did it,but he(Beardy)did not believe it. That he was there to protect the women and children, and no more should be killed. During the evening I also learned of the number that had been killed, and of those who had escaped from the place; but it was not known what had become of them.

I was informed by Stanfield that my brother had met an Indian who had told him to go back and stay for a week, but another Indian told him he could safely go on for provisions, and that he would go with him. He went on to within half a mile of the mission. The Indians were said to have gone thus far with him. Stanfield said he there found him dead, shot through the head near one eye, and there he buried him.Stanfield saidalso that evening that the Doctor was poisoning the Indians, which had caused the massacre; that Joe Lewis had heard from an adjoining room one night the Doctor and Mrs. Whitman talking of poisoning them, and that the Doctor had said it was best to destroy them by degrees, but that Mrs. Whitman said it was best to do it at once, and they would be rid of them, and have all their land and horses as their own; and that he (Joe Lewis) had told the Indians this before the massacre.

Stanfield also asked me if I had heard of his being married. I told him I had heard from my brother that he was going to take Mrs. Hays for a wife. He said: “We are married, but have not yet slept together.” I said: “Yes, I understand, you pretend to be married.” He said: “We are married; that is enough.” I thought it strange why he was saved unless he was a Catholic, and during the evening took an occasion, when I thought he would not suspect my object, to ask Stanfield whether he was a Catholic? He said, “I pass for one.”

I slept with Stanfield that night; did not retire till late. Next morning, Crockett Bewley, a young man about twenty-one or twenty-two, I should think, who was sick at the time of the first massacre, and whose clothes had been stolen (by Stanfield), came into the roomwrapped in a blanket or a quilt.Bewley seemed to speak of the Doctor’s poisoning the Indians as something commonly reported among themas the cause of the massacre, but said he did not believe any thing of it,but he believed Joe Lewis was one of the leaders, andthe Catholic priests were the cause of it. Stanfield replied, “You need not believe any such thing, and you had better not let the Indians hear you say that,” and spoke in a voice as thoughhe was somewhat angry. Soon after this, Bewley left the room; Stanfield turned to me and said: “He had better be careful how he talks; if the Indians get hold of it the Catholics may hear of it.” As soon as I could do it without being suspected, I sought an opportunity to caution Bewley about the danger I thought he was running in speaking thus in the presence of Stanfield, and asked him if he did not know of Stanfield being a Catholic? He said he did not. I told him he might have known it from the fact of most French being Catholics. He replied he did not know of the French being Catholics more than any other people. I told him to be cautious hereafter how he spoke, and he said he would.

Soon after the conversation with Bewley, I told Stanfield I must return home; he said I must not, the Indian chiefs would be there after a while and would tell me what I must do; said he did not think I could get off till the next day.

We now commenced making a coffin for one of the Sager children that had died the night before. Soon after, the chief Tilokaikt came. He told me I could not go back till the next day, that he would then send two Indians back with me. I told Stanfield, in the chief’s presence, that I had told my folks I should be back on Monday if I came at all. Stanfield told me in reply, that the chief says, “Then you may go;” Stanfield also said, “The chief says tell them all to come down and bring every thing down that is up there; we want them to come down and take care of the families and tend the mill. Tell them, ‘Don’t undertake to run away; if you do, you will be sure to be killed;’ not be afraid, for they shall not be hurt.”

The chief had now done talking. Stanfield now told me to caution them, our people, at the saw-mill, as towhat they should say; if they said any thing on the subject, “say that the Doctor was a bad man, and was poisoning the Indians.” He had also before that told me the same. I got a piece of meat and asked for some salt; but he said there was none about the house; afterward I found this was not the case. I then returned home, and informed our people as to what had taken place, and my father’s first reply was, “The Catholics are at the bottom of it.” Mr. Smith admitted it, but said, immediately, we must all become Catholics for our safety, and before we left the saw-mill, and afterward, he said he believed the Doctor was poisoning, and believed it from what Joe Stanfield had told him before about the Doctor’s misusing the half-breeds and children at his mission. The next day, Tuesday, we went down to the mission, and arrived after dark; found the young men, Bewley and Amos Sales, who were sick at the time of the first massacre, were both killed, and their bodies were lying outside of the door near the house where they lay during the night, and Stanfield said he could not bury them until he got the permission of the Indians. The next day we helped to bury them.

Here I would say that the two Indians the chief wished to send with me, as he said, to see us safe down, as Stanfield interpreted to me at the time, were the chief’s sons, and he wished me to wait because Edward, Tilokaikt’s son, had gone to the Umatilla to thegreat chief, to see what to do with the two young men who were sick. This, Stanfield told me, was the business which Edward Tilokaikt had gone for, and he would not get back so as to go with me that day. Three Indians, however, arrived within an hour after I got to the saw-mill, viz., Clark Tilokaikt, Stikas and one whose name I never knew, and came down a part of the way with us next day. I learned from Mrs. Canfield and her daughter, that this same Edward Tilokaikt, after he returned from the Umatilla, gave the first blow with his whip, and broke and run out of doors, when other Indians finished the slaughter of the sick men. While at the station, Joseph Smith threatened me with the Indians if I did not obey him. I felt our condition as bad and very dangerous from the Indians, and feared that Smith would join them. He sometimes talked of going on to the Umatilla to live with them. His daughter was taken by the chief’s sons (first Clark, and in the second place, Edward) for a wife. I told Mr. Smith, were I a father, I would never suffer that, so long as I had power to use an arm; his reply was, “You don’t know what you would do; I would not dare to say a word if they should take my own wife.” I continued to regard our situation as exceedingly dangerous till we got out of the country.

After we had arrived at Wallawalla, I said, in the presence of Mr. McBean, that I supposed there were present some of the Indians who had killed my brother, and if I knew them I would kill them yet. Mr. McBean said, “Take care what you say, the very walls have ears.” He was very anxious to get us safe to the Wallamet.

Q.—Would you suppose one who was acquainted at that place liable to get lost in going that evening to Finlay’s lodge?

A.—I would not. It was in sight and a plain path to it, and was not more than twenty-five yards off.

Q.—When did you learn from your brother that Stanfield was going to take Mrs. Hays as a wife?

A.—Some two or more weeks before the massacre, something was said as to Mr. Hoffman taking Mrs. Hays. My brother says, “No, I heard Joe Stanfield say that he was going to take her as a wife.”

Q.—Did your brother appear to believe that this was about to take place?

A.—He did, and my brother talked about it,—made us believe it was going to take place.

Q.—What opportunity had your brother to know about this, more than yourself?

A.—He boarded at the station, and was some of the time teaming from the saw-mill, and Mrs. Hays cooked for him and several others of the Doctor’s hands, among whom was Stanfield.

Q.—Why did you think Stanfield was a Catholic, as a reason for his being saved?

A.—Because I heard Dr. Whitman say at the mill, that the Catholics were evidently trying to set the Indians upon him, but he thought he could keep it down for another year, when he would be safe. I supposed he expected safety from the government being extended over the country.

Q.—How did Stanfield seem to know that the chief would be there after a while, and would tell you what you might do as to going back to the saw-mill?

A.—I did not know.

Q.—Why did you tell your people that you would be back on Monday, if at all?

A.—Because we were in an Indian country, and I remembered what I had heard the Doctor say at the Umatilla, and my brother had not returned as expected.

Q.—Had you any means of knowing what “great chief,” at the Umatilla, Tilokaikt spoke of, where his son Edward had gone to learn what to do with the sick young men?

A.—I had not.

Q.—Did you know at that time that the bishop was said to be at Umatilla?

A.—Yes.

Q.—Did you form in your own mind, at that time, any opinion as to whom Edward had gone to consult?

A.—I thought the term “great chief” might have been put in to deceive me, as Stanfield had told me, the evening before, that the Catholics were going to establish a mission right away at that place, and thatthey would protect the women and children, andI thought it might be the Catholicshe was consulting, or it might be some great Indian chief. This talk of establishing a station there continued for more than a week after we got down to the station. After I found Bewley and Sales were killed, I seemed to forget much until even after I had got down, and even to the plains, when the facts again came more clearly to my recollection, and I spoke of them freely to my parents and to others.

(Signed,)Daniel Young.

Sworn and subscribed to, before me, this 20th day of January,A. D.1849, in Tualatin Plains, Oregon Territory.

G. W. Coffinbury, Justice of the Peace.

How the country was saved to the United States.—Article from the New YorkEvening Post.—Ingratitude of the American Board.—Deposition of Elam Young.—Young girls taken for Indian wives.—Statement of Miss Lorinda Bewley.—Sager, Bewley, and Sales killed.

In taking up our morningOregonianof November 16, 1866, our eye lit upon the following article from the New YorkEvening Post, which we feel assured the reader will not regret to find upon these pages, and which will explain the desperate efforts made to secure this country to the United States by Dr. Whitman, the details of whose death we are now giving from the depositions of parties upon the ground, who were eye-witnesses and fellow-sufferers at the fall of that good and noble man whose labors and sacrifices his countrymen are at this late day only beginning to appreciate. We ask in astonishment: Has the American Board at last opened its ears, and allowed a statement of that noble martyr’s efforts to save Oregon to his country to be made upon its record? It has! it has! and here it is:—

“We presume it is not generally known to our citizens on the Pacific coast, nor to many people in the Atlantic States, how near we came to losing, through executive incompetence, our just title to the whole immense region lying west of the Rocky Mountains. Neither has due honor been accorded to the brave and patriotic man through whose herculean exertions this great loss and sacrifice was prevented.“The facts were briefly and freshly brought out during the recent meeting at Pittsburg of the ‘American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions,’ in the course of an elaborate paper read by Mr. Treat, one of the secretaries of the Board, on the ‘Incidental Results of Missions.’“In the year 1836 the American Board undertook to establish a mission among the Indians beyond the Rocky Mountains. Two missionaries, Rev. Mr. Spalding and Dr. Whitman, with their wives,—the first white women who had ever made that perilous journey,—passed over the mountains with incredible toil, to reach Oregon, the field of their labor. After remaining there for a few years, Dr. Whitman began to understand the object of the misrepresentations of the Hudson’s Bay Company. He saw, contrary to the reiterated public statements of that company—“1. That the land was rich in minerals.“2. That emigrants could cross the Rocky Mountains in wagons, a feat which they had constantly asserted to be impossible.“3. That the Hudson’s Bay Company was planning to secure the sole occupancy of the whole of that country, by obtaining a surrender of the American title into the hands of the British government.“Seeing these things, but not knowing how very near the British scheme was to its accomplishment, Dr. Whitman resolved, at every hazard, to prevent its consummation. He undertook, in 1842, to make a journey on horseback to Washington, to lay the whole matter clearly before our government by personal representations. Being a man of great physical strength and an iron constitution, he accomplished the long and perilous journey, and reached Washington in safety. The remainder of the story we will relate in the language of the BostonCongregationalist: Reaching Washington, he sought an interview with President Tyler and Daniel Webster, then Secretary of State, and unfolded to them distinctly what was going on. Here he learned that a treaty was almost ready to be signed, in which all this northwestern territory was to be given up to England, and we were to have in compensation greater facilities in catching fish. Dr. Whitman labored to convince Mr. Webster that he was the victim of false representations with regard to the character of the region, and told him that he intended to return to Oregon with a train of emigrants. Mr. Webster, looking him full in the eye, asked him if he would pledge himself to conduct a train of emigrants there in wagons. He promised that he would. Then, said Mr. Webster, this treaty shall be suppressed. Dr. Whitman, in coming on, had fixed upon certain rallying-points where emigrants might assemble to accompany him on his return. He found nearly one thousand ready for the journey. After long travel, they reached Fort Hall, a British military station, and the commandant undertook to frighten the emigrants by telling them that it was not possible for them to go through with wagons; but Dr. Whitman reassured them, and led them through to the Columbia, and the days of the supremacy of the Hudson’s Bay Company over Oregon were numbered.”

“The facts were briefly and freshly brought out during the recent meeting at Pittsburg of the ‘American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions,’ in the course of an elaborate paper read by Mr. Treat, one of the secretaries of the Board, on the ‘Incidental Results of Missions.’

“In the year 1836 the American Board undertook to establish a mission among the Indians beyond the Rocky Mountains. Two missionaries, Rev. Mr. Spalding and Dr. Whitman, with their wives,—the first white women who had ever made that perilous journey,—passed over the mountains with incredible toil, to reach Oregon, the field of their labor. After remaining there for a few years, Dr. Whitman began to understand the object of the misrepresentations of the Hudson’s Bay Company. He saw, contrary to the reiterated public statements of that company—

“1. That the land was rich in minerals.

“2. That emigrants could cross the Rocky Mountains in wagons, a feat which they had constantly asserted to be impossible.

“3. That the Hudson’s Bay Company was planning to secure the sole occupancy of the whole of that country, by obtaining a surrender of the American title into the hands of the British government.

“Seeing these things, but not knowing how very near the British scheme was to its accomplishment, Dr. Whitman resolved, at every hazard, to prevent its consummation. He undertook, in 1842, to make a journey on horseback to Washington, to lay the whole matter clearly before our government by personal representations. Being a man of great physical strength and an iron constitution, he accomplished the long and perilous journey, and reached Washington in safety. The remainder of the story we will relate in the language of the BostonCongregationalist: Reaching Washington, he sought an interview with President Tyler and Daniel Webster, then Secretary of State, and unfolded to them distinctly what was going on. Here he learned that a treaty was almost ready to be signed, in which all this northwestern territory was to be given up to England, and we were to have in compensation greater facilities in catching fish. Dr. Whitman labored to convince Mr. Webster that he was the victim of false representations with regard to the character of the region, and told him that he intended to return to Oregon with a train of emigrants. Mr. Webster, looking him full in the eye, asked him if he would pledge himself to conduct a train of emigrants there in wagons. He promised that he would. Then, said Mr. Webster, this treaty shall be suppressed. Dr. Whitman, in coming on, had fixed upon certain rallying-points where emigrants might assemble to accompany him on his return. He found nearly one thousand ready for the journey. After long travel, they reached Fort Hall, a British military station, and the commandant undertook to frighten the emigrants by telling them that it was not possible for them to go through with wagons; but Dr. Whitman reassured them, and led them through to the Columbia, and the days of the supremacy of the Hudson’s Bay Company over Oregon were numbered.”

Twenty-four years after that noble, devoted, faithful servant and missionary of theirs had received a cold reproof, after enduring one of the severest and most trying journeys of several thousand miles, his Board at home, and unreasonably cautious associates in Oregon have consented to acknowledge that they owe to him a debt of respect for doing, without their consent or approval at the time, a noble, patriotic, and unselfish act for his country.

And how shall we regard the cold indifference they have manifested to the present day, in regard to the infamous manner in which his life, and the lives of his wife and countrymen were taken, and the continued slanders heaped upon their names? Have they asked for, or even attempted an explanation, or a refutation of those slanders? Their half-century volume speaks a language not to be mistaken. Mr. Spalding, his first and most zealous associate, attempted to bring the facts before the world, but the caution of those who would whitewash his (Dr. Whitman’s) sepulcher induced Mr. Spalding to give up in despair,—a poor broken-down wreck, caused by the frightful ending of his fellow-associates, and of his own missionary labors.

Is this severe, kind reader, upon the Board and a portion of Dr. Whitman’s associates? We intend to tell the truth if it is, as we are endeavoring to get the truth, the whole truth, and as few mistakes as possible in these pages. Therefore we will copy another deposition relative to this massacre.

Deposition of Mr. Elam Young.

I met Dr. Whitman on the Umatilla, about the 1st of October, 1847. He engaged me to build a mill for him at his mission. As the lumber was not handy at the station, I moved up to the saw-mill to do a part of the work there.

Some time in November, my son James, who was teaming for the Doctor, went from the saw-mill with a load of lumber for the mission station, and was to return with provisions for us. This was on Tuesday after the murder. Shortly after he had gone away, Mr. Smith, who was also at the saw-mill, appeared to be very uneasy; stated repeatedly that he was sure something had happened to him; said he had a constant foreboding of some evil; stated that Dr. Whitman was abusing the children at the mission, as he had understood by Stanfield; frequently spoke against Dr. Whitman. The next Sunday, beginning to feel uneasy, I sent my second son Daniel down to the station, who returned on Monday and brought the news of the massacre.It instantly struck my mind that the Catholic priests had been the cause of the whole of it.This conviction was caused by repeated conversations with Dr. Whitman, together with my knowledge of the principles of the Jesuits. Mr. Smith observed at the same time that we must all be Jesuits for the time being. Soon after Daniel returned, three Indians came up and told us we must go down to the station, which we accordingly did the next day. When we got there it was after night; we found that Crockett Bewley and Amos Sales had both been killed that day. The women told us that they had told the Indians, before wecame down, that we were English, and we must not contradict it. The Indians soon began to question whether I was English. I told them I was of English parents, but born in the United States.

A few days after we got there two young women were taken as wives for the Indians, which I opposed,and was threatened by Mr. Smith, who was very anxious that it should take place, and that other little girls should be given up for wives. Was employed while there in making coffins and grinding for the Indians.

While there, Miss Bewley was taken off to the Umatilla. Tried to comfort her as much as I could, believing she would besafer there at the Catholic station than where we were. First ten days we were constantly told that the Catholics were coming there to establish a mission. Heard that Mr. Ogden had come up to Wallawalla to rescue us from the Indians. Went to grinding and preparing provisions for our journey. Smith and Stanfield, who appeared to be very friendly with each other, had the management of the teams and loading, took the best teams and lightest loads, gave us the poorest teams and heaviest loads. On the way to Wallawalla they drove off and left us. The hindmost teams had to double in the bad places. Reached the fort perhaps half an hour after Smith and Stanfield had; met Smith at the gate, who says: “Well, you have got along?” “Yes.” “It is well you did, for the Indians found out thatyou were not an Englishman, and were determined to have your scalp.” I asked him, “How do you know this?” to which he made no reply. Went into the fort and met Mr. McBean and the priest; supposed they would all rejoice at our escape, but their manner was very cold and distant. But Mr. Ogden greeted us cordially. The next day the Indians came into the fort in considerable numbers, and their actions were suspicious, and Mr. McBean seemed to interest himself very much in our behalf, andtold us to be very quiet and to keep in our own rooms, and be careful what we said, as the very walls had ears. [If this does not show the sneaking dog, what does? Ogden is apparently all friendship, and McBean is all caution to the captives.]

We arrived on Monday, and Mr. Spalding on Saturday after, and the next day all took boat for the lower country.

Q.—Did your son give you any caution as to what to say when you reached the station.

A.—He said Stanfield said we must say the Doctor poisoned the Indians.

Q.—What did you learn about Mr. Rogers as having made a confession.

A.—Stanfield said that Mr. Rogers had made a confession that theDoctor had poisoned the Indians.I replied, “Who knows this?” He said Mrs. Hays and Mrs. Hall heard it. I afterward asked Mrs. Hays if she did hear it. She replied, “We must say so now.” I afterward, at the station, told Stanfield he had better not mention that to Americans, for there was not one from Maine to Georgia that would believe it. He replied, “We must say so.” I told him I never would.

Q.—What conversation with the Doctor led you to believe the Catholics were at the bottom of the whole of it?

A.—That some years before (1841) he had had difficulty with the Indians, and he had found out satisfactorily where it came from, by charging the Indians of having been made jealous of a certain man. I do not recollect the name, but I think he said he was from Canada, and the Indians acknowledged it. [The difficulty here spoken of was about the horses given as a present to Rev. Jason Lee, on his way to Wallamet. The Indians had been told by the company’s interpreter, old Toupin, that he had as good as stolen their horses, as he made them no presents in return, and they were encouraged to make that a cause of difficulty with Dr. Whitman.] At that time they had knocked off his hat, etc., but other Indians would obey him and pick it up, and so long as they would obey, he was satisfied of his safety; but this had long since passed off. [The writer was present, and saw the whole performance here alluded to, the particulars of which are given elsewhere]. And they were never in a better state until of late, when a body of priests and Jesuits had come in, and were constantly saying in their ears that this sickness came on them by the Americans; that the Americans were a very bad people, that the Good Being had sent on them as a punishment.

Q.—Why did Mr. Smith appear anxious to have the young women given to the Indians?

A.—I do not know, unless to appease them, and get their affection.

Q.—Did the Doctor appear to wish to remain, against the wish of a majority of the Indians?

A.—I heard him say repeatedly, if the Indians wished him to leave he would, but a large majority said he must not, and he thought the times would soon change. I understood him to expect a change from the extension of government.

Q.—Did your son Daniel say any thing, before you moved from the saw-mill, of having cautioned C. Bewley for speaking unadvisedly before Joe Stanfield?

A.—Yes, he gave that; that amounts to the same as he has given in his statement.

Q.—Did you have any fears, while at the station, that Mr. Smith was liable, had the circumstances become more dangerous, to act with the Indians?

A.—Certainly I did.

Q.—Did you get any reason why Bewley and Sales were killed?

A.—Though I did not get it directly from them, the Indian account was, thegreat chief at the Umatilla said their disease would spread; but I believe it was because Bewley had spoken before Stanfield unadvisedly.

(Signed,)Elam Young.

Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 20th day of January, 1849.

G. W. Coffinbury, Justice of the Peace.

What shall we say of these depositions, and the facts asserted under the solemnity of an oath, the witnesses still living, with many others confirming the one fact,that Roman priests and Hudson’s Bay men, English and Frenchmen, were all safe and unharmedin an Indian—and that American—territory,while American citizens were cut down by savage hands without mercy? Can we regard the conduct of such men in any other light than as enemies in peace? Without the aid of religious bigotry and the appeal to God as sending judgments upon them, not one of those simple-minded natives would ever have lifted a hand to shed the blood of their teachers or of American citizens. We see how faithful and persevering Joe Lewis, Finlay, and Stanfield were in their part, while the bishop and his priests, and Sir James Douglas, at Vancouver, were watching at a distance to misrepresent the conduct of the dead, and excuse and justify their own instruments, as in Mr. Douglas’s letters to Governor Abernethy and the Sandwich Islands; and Vicar-General Brouillet’s narrative, with more recent proceedings, which are given in another chapter.

We intended to give in this connection the account of this tragedy as given by Vicar-General Brouillet, but it accords so nearly with that given by Sir James Douglas in his Sandwich Islands letter to Mr. Castle, that the impression is irresistibly forced upon the mind that the whole account is prepared by one and the same person; hence we will not encumber our pages with more than a liberal amount of extracts, sufficient to show the full knowledge of the bishop and his priests of what was expected to take place at the Whitman station, and the brutal and inhuman part they took in forcing Miss Bewley into the arms of Five Crows, after that Indian was humane enough to permit her to return to the house of those, that Mr. Young, and all others who were ignorant of their vileness, might naturally suppose would be a place of safety from such treatment. She that was Miss Bewley is now dead, but she has left on record the statement of her wrongs. We give it a permanent place in our history, not to persecute or slander the Jesuit fraternity (for truth is no slander), but to warn Americans against placing their daughters and sons under any such teachings or influences.

Statement of Miss Lorinda Bewley.

Q.—What time did the massacre commence?

A.—I think half-past one.

Q.—Who fled to the chamber?

A.—Mrs. Hall, Mrs. Hays, Mrs. Whitman, Mr. Kimball, Mr. Rogers,—the three last wounded,—myself, Catharine Sager, thirteen years of age, her sisters Elizabeth, Louisa, and Henrietta, the three half-breed girls,—Miss Bridger, Mary Ann, and Helen,—last four very sick. After we got into the chamber the Indians broke in the windows and doors, filled the house and broke down the stair-door. Mr. Kimball advised to attempt the appearance of defense at the stairway. Mrs. Whitman and Mr. Rogers said, let all prepare for death. I found an old gun, and it was held over the staircase by Mr. Rogers. They appeared cool and deliberate in ordering all to prepare for death, when they were breaking up the house. The appearance of the gun appeared to check the Indians from coming up-stairs. A few words passed between Mr. Rogers and one of the Indians. Mr. Rogers said, “The Indians wish me to come down.” Mrs. Whitman objected at first; some words passed between Mrs. Whitman and Mr. Rogers about his going down which I do not recollect; finally Mrs. Whitman took his hand and said, “The Lord bless you; go!” and he went nearly to the bottom of the stairs, but his head was all the time above the stairs; he was not there longer than two or three minutes. A few words passed between them, but I did not understand the language. Mrs. Whitman said, “The Indians say you have guns and want to kill us.” Mr. Rogers says, “No, you wish to get us down to kill us.” This seemed to be all they talked about. Mr. Rogers says to Mrs. Whitman, “Shall we let them come up?” Mrs. Whitman says, “Let one, Tamsaky, come up.” Tamsaky came up and shook hands with us all, and spoke and advised us all to go down and go over to the other house, for the young men would burn the house; he led the way down while the Indians were hallooing wildly in the room below, but when we had got down, the Indians had gone out and were very still. While we were up-stairs the Doctor’s face had been cut awfully to pieces, but he was yet breathing. Mrs.Whitman saw him and said she wanted air; they led her to the settee and she lay down. She appeared to think then, that we were going to be spared, and told us to get all the things from the press we needed. I put a blanket I had over her, and got a sheet for myself, and we put a good many clothes from the press on the settee; Mrs. Hall and Mrs. Hays got their arms full also. Mr. Rogers was going to take us over to the other house, and then come back for the sick children. This was Tamsaky’s advice, as he said the Indians were going to burn the house. It was now getting dark. Mr. Rogers and Joe Lewis carried out the settee, over the bodies of the Doctor and John Sager, which were dreadfully mangled; they passed through the kitchen, and through the outside door toward the end of the house occupied as the Indian room. Here, to our surprise and terror, the Indians were collected, with their guns ready; the children from the school were huddled in the corner of the building. When the settee had gone about its length from the door, Joe Lewis dropped the end he was holding and the guns were immediately fired. Mr. Rogers had only time to raise his hands and say, “O my God, save me,” and fell. I felt my fingers numb till next morning, from a ball that passed so near as to sting them. Mrs. Whitman received two balls when on the settee.

I could not see what was done at the same time on all sides of me. On turning round I saw Francis Sager down bleeding and groaning. The children said an Indian hauled him out from among them and Joe Lewis shot him with a pistol. Mr Rogers fell down by my feet and groaned loud. All three appeared in great agony, and groaned very loud. The Indian women were carrying off things, and the Indians were shouting terribly; the Indians also started and cut Mrs. Whitman’s face with their whips and rolled her into the mud. [This treatment of Mrs. Whitman will be explained in the statement of Stikas, as given from Mr. McLane’s journal.] At this I attempted to escape to the other house. One of the Indians from Mrs. Whitman caught me,—I had run about two rods,—when I screamed and he shook his tomahawk over my head, and I kept screaming, not knowing that he wanted me to hush; then a great many others came round, and pointed their guns and shook their hatchets. I finally discovered they wanted me to be still, and when I was silent, one of them led me by the hand over to the mansion.

Q.—Was Mr. Rogers wounded when he started into the house?

A.—Yes; shot through the arm and tomahawked in the head.

Q.—Did Mr. Rogers have any interview with the Indians after he got in until the one on the stairs?

A.—No. As soon as he got in the house was locked, and none gotin after that till we were all up-stairs, when they broke the doors and windows.

Q.—Did the Indians have an interview with Mr. Rogers after the one on the stairs, up to the time he was shot?

A.—No; the Indians were not in the room, except Tamsaky and Joe Lewis, and we were all very still and Mr. Rogers was all the time in my sight, except as I stepped to the bed for the sheet, and I was very quick.

Q.—Did you hear it reported that Mr. Rogers said he overheard Dr. and Mrs. Whitman and Mr. Spalding talking at night about poisoning the Indians?

A.—No; but after being taken to Umatilla,oneof the twoFrenchmen saidthat the Indians’ talk was that an Indian who understood English overheard such conversation.

Q.—Did you consider Mr. Rogers and Mrs. Whitman were meeting their fate like devoted Christians?

A.—Yes.

Q.—When did the priest arrive?

A.—Wednesday, while the bodies were being prepared for the grave. The bodies were collected into the house on Tuesday evening.

Q.—Did the Indians bury a vial or bottle of the Doctor’s medicine?

A.—They said they did. Joe Stanfield made the box to bury it in, and the Indians said they buried it.

Q.—Why did they bury it?

A.—They saidthe priests said it was poison. Stanfield and Nicholas were their interpreters to us.

Q.—How did they obtain this vial?

A.—The Indians saidthe priests found itamong the Doctor’s medicines, and showed it to them, andtold them if it broke it would poison the whole nation.

Q.—Was there much stir among the Indians about this bottle?

A.—Yes, a great deal.

Q.—Why did the Indians kill your brother?

A.—Edward Tilokaikt returned from the Umatilla, and told us (after they had killed him) thegreat chief told them their disease would spread.

Q.—Did your brother make any effort to escape?

A.—He told me the night before he was killed that he was preparing to make an effort to escape. I told him he must not, he was not able to walk. He said he had that day agreed with Stanfield to get him a horse, and assist him away. I said, “What will become of me?” He said, “I know you have been greatly abused, and all I care for my lifeis to get away, and make an effort to save you; but I may be killed before to-morrow at this time, but, if it is the Lord’s will, I am prepared to die.” This was Monday, a week from the first massacre. About three o’clock the next day my brother and Mr. Sales were killed, andI have always thought that Joe Stanfield betrayed them.

Q.—Did the Indians threaten you all, and treat you with cruelty from the first?

A.—They did.

Q.—Did they on Tuesday assemble and threaten your lives?

A.—Yes, and frequently threatened our lives afterward. (Seestatement of Stanfield by Brouillet, in a previous chapter, confirming the fact of his unbounded influence over the Indians.)

Q.—When were the young women first dragged out and brutally treated?

A.—Saturday night after the first massacre, and continually after that.

Q.—When were you taken to the Umatilla?

(Miss Bewley will answer this question after we have given Vicar-General Brouillet an opportunity to state his part in this tragedy.)

Vicar-General Brouillet’s statement.—Statement of Istacus.—The priest finds the poison.—Statement of William Geiger, Jr.—Conduct of Mr. McBean.—Influence of the Jesuit missions.

We left Vicar-General Brouillet and Bishop Blanchet and his priests on their way to their station on the Umatilla, where they arrived on November 27. On the 28th, Brouillet says, page 47: “The next day being Sunday, we were visited by Dr. Whitman, who remained but a few minutes at the house, and appeared to be much agitated. Being invited to dine, he refused, saying that he feared it would be too late, as he had twenty-five miles to go, and wished to reach home before night. On parting, he entreated me not to fail to visit him when I would pass by his mission, which I very cordially promised to do.

"“On Monday, 29th, Mr. Spalding took supper with us, and appeared quite gay. During the conversation, he happened to say that the Doctor was unquiet; that the Indians were displeased with him on account of the sickness, and that even he had been informed that the Murderer (an Indian) intended to kill him; but he seemed not to believe this, and suspected as little as we did what was taking place at the mission of the Doctor.”

The reader will note and remember the statement which follows: Brouillet says, on the 48th page of his narrative, the 36th of J. Ross Browne’s report:—

“Before leaving Fort Wallawalla, it had been decided that, after visiting the sick people of my own mission on the Umatilla, I should visit those of Tilokaikt’s camp, for the purpose of baptizing the infants and such dying adults as might desire this favor; and the Doctor and Mr. Spalding having informed me that there were still many sick persons at their mission, I was confirmed in this resolution, and made preparations to go as soon as possible.“After having finished baptizing the infants and adults of my mission, I left on Tuesday, the 30th of November, late in the afternoon, for Tilokaikt’s camp, where I arrived between seven and eight o’clock in the evening. It is impossible to conceive my surprise and consternation when, upon my arrival, I learned that the Indians the day before had massacred the Doctor and his wife, with the greater part of the Americans at the mission. I passed the night without scarcely closing my eyes. Early the next morning I baptized three sick children, two of whom died soon after, and then hastened to the scene of death, to offer to the widows and orphans all the assistance in my power. I found five or six women and over thirty children in a situation deplorable beyond description. Some had just lost their husbands, and others their fathers, whom they had seen massacred before their eyes, and were expecting every moment to share the same fate. The sight of those persons caused me to shed tears, which, however, I was obliged to conceal, for I was the greater part of the day in the presence of the murderers, and closely watched by them; and if I had shown too marked an interest in behalf of the sufferers, it would only have endangered their lives and mine; these, therefore, entreated me to be upon my guard.”

“After having finished baptizing the infants and adults of my mission, I left on Tuesday, the 30th of November, late in the afternoon, for Tilokaikt’s camp, where I arrived between seven and eight o’clock in the evening. It is impossible to conceive my surprise and consternation when, upon my arrival, I learned that the Indians the day before had massacred the Doctor and his wife, with the greater part of the Americans at the mission. I passed the night without scarcely closing my eyes. Early the next morning I baptized three sick children, two of whom died soon after, and then hastened to the scene of death, to offer to the widows and orphans all the assistance in my power. I found five or six women and over thirty children in a situation deplorable beyond description. Some had just lost their husbands, and others their fathers, whom they had seen massacred before their eyes, and were expecting every moment to share the same fate. The sight of those persons caused me to shed tears, which, however, I was obliged to conceal, for I was the greater part of the day in the presence of the murderers, and closely watched by them; and if I had shown too marked an interest in behalf of the sufferers, it would only have endangered their lives and mine; these, therefore, entreated me to be upon my guard.”

The women that lived through that terrible scene inform us that this priest was as familiar and friendly with the Indians as though nothing serious had occurred. We have seen and conversed freely with four of those unfortunate victims, and all affirm the same thing. Their impression was, that there might be others he expected to be killed, and he did not wish to be present when it was done. According to the testimony in the case, Mr. Kimball and James Young were killed while he was at or near the station. Brouillet continues, on the 49th page:—

“After the first few words that could be exchanged under the circumstances, I inquired after the victims, and was told they were yet unburied. Joseph Stanfield, a Frenchman, who was in the employ of Dr. Whitman, and had been spared by the Indians, was engaged in washing the corpses, but being alone, he was unable to bury them. I resolved to go and assist him, so as to render to these unfortunate victims the last service in my power to offer them. What a sight did I then behold! Ten dead bodies lying here and there, covered with blood, and bearing the marks of the most atrocious cruelty,—some pierced with balls, others more or less gashed by the hatchet. Dr. Whitman had received three gashes on the face. Three others had their skulls crushed so that their brains were oozing out.“I assure you, sir, that, during the time I was occupied in burying the victims of this disaster, I was far from feeling safe, being obliged to go here and there gathering up the dead bodies. In the midst of assassins, whose hands were still stained with blood, and who, by their manners, their countenances, and the arms which they still carried, sufficiently announced that their thirst for blood was yet unsatiated. Assuming as composed a manner as possible, I cast more than one glance aside and behind at the knives, pistols, and guns, in orderto assure myself whether there were not some of them directed toward me.”

“I assure you, sir, that, during the time I was occupied in burying the victims of this disaster, I was far from feeling safe, being obliged to go here and there gathering up the dead bodies. In the midst of assassins, whose hands were still stained with blood, and who, by their manners, their countenances, and the arms which they still carried, sufficiently announced that their thirst for blood was yet unsatiated. Assuming as composed a manner as possible, I cast more than one glance aside and behind at the knives, pistols, and guns, in orderto assure myself whether there were not some of them directed toward me.”

The above extract is from a letter addressed to Colonel Gilliam. The cause of the priest’s alarm is explained in a statement found in the journal of Mr. McLane, private secretary to Colonel Gilliam, while in the Cayuse country, taken from the Indians’ statement in the winter of 1847-48. He was compelled to find the poison. Brouillet says:—

“The ravages which the sickness had made in their midst, together with the conviction which a half-breed, named Joseph Lewis, had succeeded in fixing upon their minds that Dr. Whitman had poisoned them, were the only motives I could discover which could have prompted them to this act of murder. This half-breed had imagined a conversation between Dr. Whitman, his wife, and Mr. Spalding, in which he made them say that it was necessary to hasten the death of the Indians in order to get possession of their horses and lands. ‘If you do not kill the Doctor,’ said he, ‘you will be dead in the spring.’”

Statement of Istacus, or Stikas.

In the first place, Joe Lewis told the Indians that the Doctor was poisoning. Tamsaky went to Camaspelo and told him he wanted to kill the Doctor, and wished him to help. He replied, pointing to his child, that his child was sick, and that was as much as he could attend to. Tamsaky then went to Tilokaikt, and he said he would have nothing to do with it. But his son and young men wished to do it, and they contended so long that at last he said: “If you are determined to do so, go and kill him.” Afterward, the Indians presented a gun two different times to Tamsaky, and told him to go and kill the Doctor. He said he would not kill him.

When the priests came, they got to quarreling; the Catholic priests told them that what the Doctor taught them would take them to the devil, and the Doctor told them what the priests taught them would take them to the devil. After the priests told them that, the Indians said they believed it, for the Doctor did not cure them.

After the Doctor was killed,the priest told the Young Chiefthat it was true that the Doctor had given them poison; before that, the Doctor had given them medicine and they died. After the massacre, all the Indians went to the priest’s house (an Indian lodge near Dr. Whitman’s station), and I said that I was going to ask the priest himself whether it was true or not, so that I could hear with my own ears. He (the priest) told them that the priests were sent of God. They did not know how to answer him. The Five Crows told methat the priest told him the Doctor was poisoning them. I then believed it.

They then went and killed the two sick men. I asked the Indians, if he gave us poison, why did the Americans get sick?

[It is evident that this conversation took place at the camp of Tilokaikt, where Mr. Brouillet says he spent the night of the 30th of November.]

Afterward, they went to the Doctor’s place, andthe priest was there too, and they asked him where the poison was that the Doctor gave them. After searching some time among the medicines, he founda vial with something white in it, and told them, “Here it is.” I tell you what I heard.

The priest then told them thatMrs. Whitman had a father in the States that gave poison to the people there, and that he had given this to her, to poison them all; then they all believed. I told them that I did not believe that the Doctor was poisoning them; I said I expected they brought the sickness with them from California, for many of them died coming from that place. Joe Lewis told them to make a box, and Beardy buried the vial in the square box, stating, if they did not, the Americans would get it and poison them all.

The head man of the priests told them all these things, and the priest took all the best books to his house.

The above is a true extract from the journal of Mr. McLane, private secretary to Colonel Gilliam, the same as was read in my hearing to Mungo, the interpreter for Colonel Gilliam, when these statements were made, and he said it was true and correctly written.

(Signed,)L. H. Judson.

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 25th day of November, 1848, Champoeg County, Oregon Territory.

Aaron Purdy, Justice of the Peace.

There are three important facts stated by this Indian which are confirmed by other testimony.

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

Second. He was ready to overhaul the Doctor’s medicines and hunt out some vial, and tell the Indians, “Here it is,—the medicine the Doctor has been killing you with.”

Third. That he told them it was sent to the Doctor by Mrs. Whitman’s father, who poisoned people in the States.

This explains the terrible and brutal treatment of Mrs. Whitman’s body, even after death.

Brouillet says, “Joseph Lewis had succeeded in fixing upon theirminds that Dr. Whitman had poisoned them,” but Istacus, one of the first and most truthful Indians we became acquainted with in the country, tells us that the Indians did not believe Joe Lewis till the priest confirmed his statements, and this priest was required to show them the poison.

It would not be strange, if, while he is compelled to hunt over the medicines of Dr. Whitman, to find any that he could call poison, and in exhibiting such evidence to the deluded murderers about him, that he should feel himself in danger, yet his whole conduct belies such a statement, for he well knew the ignorance of those about him as to any medicine he might select and callpoison.

This Indian’s statement also explains the killing of the two young men, Sales and Bewley, and that as these priests “were sent of God,” the disease of these young men would spread; in other words, their testimony would convict the parties implicated.

We find in this same letter to Colonel Gilliam, other statements that are important in the history we are giving. He says: “I knew that the Indians were angry with all Americans, and more enraged against Mr. Spalding than any other.” If this was the case, why did they not kill him first? There is certainly some mistake in this statement of Mr. Brouillet, or else the Indians were too hasty, which is probably the case. The Indians were not quite as much “enraged” against Mr. Spalding as his reverence, who claimed to know their feelings so well.

Again, on the 54th page (39th of Ross Browne), in answer to Mr. Spalding’s wild, despairing cry, “But where shall I go?” he answers: “I know not; you know the country better than I; all that I know is that the Indians saythe order to kill Americans has been sent in all directions.”

How did this Rev. Father Brouillet know all this? We have yet to learn that he ever gave a single American, except Mr. Spalding, any information respecting their danger,—which he certainly could have done with perfect safety, by sending any one or all of them a written notice of the “order to kill Americans;” but instead of warning them of their danger, he was present to show to the Indians a vial of Dr. Whitman’s medicine and tell them it was thepoison.

The long list of statements collected and given to the world as reliable historical data, by this priest, and embodied in an official report by J. Ross Browne, do but show the active part he, with his associate priests and the Hudson’s Bay Company, took to destroy the American influence and settlements then in the country.

Says the historian Bancroft: “It is the duty of faithful history to trace events not only to their cause, but to their authors.”

We will direct our attention for a short time to the proceedings of Mr. McBean in charge of Fort Wallawalla (or Fort Nez Percés), in council with the Indians. From the statement of Mr. Wm. Geiger, Jr., who was at Dr. Whitman’s station during the winter of 1846-7, teaching school, we learn that the Indians showed some dissatisfaction, and were called together by Dr. Whitman, to consult and decide what they would do. The Doctor proposed to them that a majority of the tribe should let him know definitely, and a vote was taken, and but two or three were found to favor his leaving. During this council Mr. Geiger and the Doctor learned that there had been conversation and a council with the Indians at the fort, by Mr. McBean. That he had informed them of the Mexican war between the United States and Mexico, and of the prospect of a war between the United States and England (King George men), and that he was anxious to know which side the Cayuses would take in the event of such a war. This question Mr. McBean kept constantly before the Indians whenever they went to the fort. They would return to the station and say that Mr. McBean had given them more news of the prospect of war between the King George people and Americans, and that he wished to know which side they would take. Tamsaky, Tilokaikt, and one other Indian said they had told Mr. McBean that they would join the King George. Some said they had told him their hearts favored the Americans; others professed to be on the “back-bone,”i. e., hesitating. All matters and causes of dissatisfaction between the Doctor’s mission and the Indians were amicably settled. The Doctor and Mr. Geiger could not see why Mr. McBean should beset the Indians on that subject, unless it was to bring about what had been before, viz., to make allies of the Indians in case of war.

On account of this dissatisfaction, the Doctor thought of leaving. Mr. Geiger says, “I told them I thought it their duty to remain. I thought the Indians as quiet as communities in general; in old places there were more or less difficulties and excitements.”

In the communication signed by Mr. Geiger, he is asked, “What was the cause of discouragement with the Doctor and Mr. Spalding at that time?”

A.—“The influence of the Roman priests, exercised in talking to the Indians, and through the French half-breed, Lehai, Tom Hill, a Delaware Indian, and others.”

Q.—“What did the Indians mention was the instruction they received from Roman Catholics?”

A.—“That the Protestants were leading them in wrong roads,i. e., even to hell. If they followed theSuapies(Americans) they wouldcontinue to die. If they followed the Catholics, it would be otherwise with them; only now and then one would die of age. That they would get presents,—would become rich in every thing.”

We have a statement made by Brouillet as to their influence among the Indians on this coast, found on the 87th page of his narrative, “Protestantism in Oregon” (55th of Ross Browne.) He says:—

“Messrs. Blanchet and Demerse, the first Catholic missionaries that came to Oregon, had passed Wallawalla in 1838, where they had stopped a few days, and had been visited by the Indians. In 1839, Mr. Demerse had spent three weeks in teaching the Indians and baptizing their children. In 1840, he had made there a mission so fruitful that the Protestant missionaries had got alarmed, and feared that all their disciples would abandon them if he continued his missions among them. Father De Smet, after visiting the Flatheads in 1840, had come and established a mission among them in 1841; and from that time down to the arrival of the bishop, the Indians of Wallawalla and of the Upper Columbia had never failed to be visited yearly, either by Mr. Demerse or by some of the Jesuits, and those annual excursions had procured every year new children to the church. Almost every Indian tribe possessed some Catholic member.”

We can bear positive testimony as to the effect and influence of those teachings up to 1842 among the Upper Columbia Indians; and it is to illustrate the bearing and result of those teachings, continued for a series of years upon the savage mind, and the influence of a foreign monopoly in connection with such teachers, that we bring these statements before the reader.

The vast influence wielded by this foreign fur and sectarian monopoly was used to secure Oregon for their exclusive occupation. The testimony of Rev. Messrs. Beaver and Barnley, and Sir Edward Belcher, as given by Mr. Fitzgerald, and that of his Reverence Brouillet, as found on the 56th page of his narrative, all affirm the close connection of these two influences. Leaving out of the question the statement of many others, we have that of this priest. He says:—

“Some days after an express reached us from the fort, informing us that our lives were in danger from a portion of the Indians who could not pardon me for having deprived them of their victim; and this was the only reason which prevented me from fulfilling the promise which I had made to the widows and orphans of returning to see them, and obliged me to be contented with sending my interpreter” to the scene of the murder, to bring Miss Bewley to be treated as the evidence in the next chapter will show.

Continuation of Miss Bewley’s evidence.—The priests refuse her protection.—Forcibly taken from the bishop’s house by Five Crows.—Brouillet advises her to remain with her Indian violator.—Indecent question by a priest.—Mr. Brouillet attempts to get a statement from her.—Two questions.—Note from Mrs. Bewley.—Bishop Blanchet’s letter to Governor Abernethy.—Comments on the Jesuits’ proceedings.—Grand council at the bishop’s.—Policy in forcing Miss Bewley to Five Crows’ lodge.—Speeches by Camaspelo and Tilokaikt.—Killing of Elijah and the Nez Percé chief commented on.—The true story told.—Dr. White’s report.—The grand council again.—Review of Brouillet’s narrative.—Who were the real authors of the massacre.

Miss Bewley’s Deposition Continued.

Q.—When were you taken to the Umatilla?

A.—Just at night, on Thursday the next week after the first massacre, having shaken with the ague that day; slept out that night in the snow-storm.

Q.—Whose horses came after you?

A.—Eliza Spalding said they belonged to her father; this led us to suppose Mr. Spalding was killed.

Q.—When did you leave Umatilla?

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

Q.—When did you reach Wallawalla?

A.—On Wednesday before the Saturday on which Mr. Spalding and company arrived, and we all started the next day for the lower country.

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

A.—Most of the time at the house of the bishop; but the Five Crows (Brouillet’s Achekaia) most of the nights compelled me to go to his lodge and be subject to him during the night. I obtained the privilege of going to the bishop’s house before violation on the Umatilla, andbeggedandcried to the bishop for protectioneither at his house, or to be sent to Wallawalla. I told him I would do any work by night and day for him if he would protect me.He said he would do all he could.[The sequel shows that in this promise the bishop meant to implicate and involve the Five Crows, should a war with the American settlement grow out of the massacre.] Although I was takento the lodge, I escaped violation the first four nights. There were the bishop, three priests, and two Frenchmen at the bishop’s house. The first night the Five Crows came, I refused to go, and he went away, apparently mad, andthe bishop told me I had better go, as he might do us all an injury, andthe bishop sent an Indian with me. He took me to the Five Crows’ lodge. The Five Crows showed me the door, and told me I might go back, and take my clothes, which I did.

Three nights after this, the Five Crows came for me again.The bishop finally ordered me to go; my answer was, I had rather die. After this,he still insisted on my goingas the best thing I could do. I was then in the bishop’s room; the three priests were there. I found I could get no help,and had to go, as he told me, out of his room. The Five Crows seized me by the arm and jerked me away to his lodge.

Q.—How long were you at the Umatilla?

A.—Two weeks, and from Friday till Monday. I would return early in the morning to the bishop’s house, and be violently taken away at night. The Bishop provided kindly for me while at his house. On my return one morning one of the young priests asked me, in a good deal of glee,how I liked my companion. I felt that this would break my heart, and cried much during the day. When the two Nez Percés arrived with Mr. Spalding’s letter, they held a council in the bishop’s room, and the bishop said they were trying to have things settled. He said Mr. Spalding was trying to get the captives delivered up; I do not recollect what day this was, but it was some days before we heard that Mr. Ogden had arrived at Wallawalla. When the tall priest (Brouillet) that was at the Doctor’s at the first was going to Wallawalla, after hearing of Mr. Ogden’s arrival, he called me out of the door and told me if I went to the lodge any more I must not come back to his house. I asked him what I should do. He said I must insist or beg of the Indian to let me stop at his house; if he would not let me, then I must stay at his lodge. I did not feel well, and toward night I took advantage of this and went to bed, determined I would die there before I would be taken away. The Indian came, and, on my refusing to go, hauled me from my bed and threw my bonnet and shawl at me, and told me to go. I would not, and at a time when his eyes were off I threw them under the table and he could not find them. I sat down, determined not to go, and he pushed me nearly into the fire. The Frenchmen were in the room, and the bishop and priests were passing back and forth to their rooms. When the Indian was smoking, I went to bed again, and when he was through smoking he dragged me from my bed with more violence than the first time. I told the Frenchmanto go into the bishop’s room and ask him what I should do; he came out and told me that thebishop said it was best for me to go. I told him the tall priest said, if I went I must not come back again to this house; he said the priests dared not keep women about their house, but if the Five Crows sent me back again, why come. I still would not go. The Indian then pulled me away violently without bonnet or shawl. Next morning I came back and was in much anguish and cried much.The bishop asked me if I was in much trouble?I told him I was. He said it was not my fault, that I could not help myself. That I must pray to God and Mary. He asked me if I did not believe in God; I told him I did.

We will not stop to comment on the simple narrative of this young woman. No language of mine will more deeply impress the reader with the debasing character of these “holy fathers, the Catholic priests,” that served theHonorableHudson’s Bay Company and mother church so faithfully.

It appears that Miss Bewley arrived at the bishop’s on the 10th of December. On the 58th page of Brouillet’s narrative (41st of Browne’s) we find the following language:—

“On the 11th of December we had the affliction tohearthat one of the captives had been carried off from the Doctor’s house by the order of Five Crows, and brought to him; and we learned that two others had been violated at the Doctor’s house.”

How seriously these holy fathers were afflicted, Miss Bewley has told us in language not to be misunderstood. Her statement continues:—

Last summer, when I was teaching school near Mr. Bass, the tall priest, whose name I have learned was Brouillet, called on me, and told me that Mr. Spalding was trying to ruin my character and his, and said that Mr. Spalding had said that I had told him (Mr. S.) that the priests had treated me as bad as the Indians ever had. I told him I had not said so. He said he wanted to ask me some questions, and would send the Doctor, who could speak better English; he wished me to write it; I told him I would rather not do it. When at the Umatilla, the Frenchmen told me that they were making arrangements to locate the priests,—two at Mr. Spalding’s as soon as Mr. S. got away, and two at the Dalles, and they were going to the Doctor’s next week to build a house. This conversation was before Mr. Ogden arrived at Wallawalla.

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

A.—He let him stop at first only because he said he had no shoes nor clothes and could not go on; but when a good many, on account ofsickness, had no drivers, the Doctor furnished Joe with shoes and shirts, and got him to drive a team. He was gone three days, and came back, but the Doctor never liked it. I heard Mrs. Whitman and the Sager boys say that Joe Lewis was making disturbance among the Indians.

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

A.—Only once; the Doctor said at the table: “Now I shall have trouble; these priests are coming.” Mrs. Whitman asked: “Have the Indians let them have land?” He said: “I think they have.” Mrs. Whitman said: “It’s a wonder they do not come and kill us.” This land was out of sight of the Doctor’s as you come this way (west of the station). When the Frenchman was talking, at Umatilla, of going to build a house there, he said it was a prettier station than the Doctor’s.

(Signed,)Lorinda Bewley.

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

G. Walling, Justice of the Peace,Clackamas County, Oregon Territory.

We have another original statement of Miss Bewley’s, as taken by Rev. J. S. Griffin, which we will give as a part properly belonging to the above statement.

Oregon City, February 7, 1849.

Questions to Miss Lorinda Bewley, in further examination touching the Wailatpu massacre:—

Back to Index Next