CHAPTER LX.

Q.—Did the Five Crows, when you were taken to his lodge from the bishop’s house by an Indian, send you back with your things in apparent anger, or did he appear at that time to pity you?

A.—I thought at the time that I had good evidence, from his manner and behavior to me at the lodge in giving me up, that he was disposed to pity me, and not to abuse me.

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

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

Q.—What was this Five Crows’ English name?

A.—Hezekiah (Brouillet’s Achekaia).

Q.—Did you have evidence that it was necessary for Hezekiah to hold you as a wife to save you from a general abuse by the Indians?

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

Q.—What was the order of conversation to you when the priest went to Wallawalla, after hearing of Mr. Ogden’s arrival?

A.—I besought him to do all he could at the fort to obtain my delivery from bondage, and he said he would. A little after he called me to step out of the door from the rest, and told me if I went with the Indian I must not come back to his house any more, when I burst out crying, and asked him what to do; he said I must insist or beg the Indian to let me remain, or I must remain there. I begged him, as I was alone there, he would do everything in his power to get Mr. Ogden to take me away, whether he could obtain all the prisoners or not.

Q.—Did you know of the priests having baptized any at the time of the burial at Wailatpu?

A.—I did not; but they were baptizing a great many at the Umatilla, principally children; two the same day after I went there, and very frequently afterward. On Christmas day they baptized many.

Q.—Was it understood among the Indians that the families at the mill were English?

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

Q.—Did the report reach the Indians at Wailatpu before you went to Umatilla, that the Indians were told at the Fort Wallawalla that they must not kill any more Americans?

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

Q.—Was it made known to you captives what Edward Tilokaikt was gone to the Umatilla for?

A.—It was made known to us, after a council, that Edward was to go to the big chief at the Umatilla and see what was to be done with us, and especially with the young women; and, after his return, he immediately commenced the massacre of the sick young men, and the next morning announced to us that the arrangement had been made for Hezekiah to come and take his choice among the young women, and that Edward and Clark Tilokaikt were then to take the other two. Hezekiah was a chief [the one appointed by Dr. White in 1843], and regarded by us, and I believe by others, as a single man. Edward and Clark were only the sons of a chief. Hezekiah did not come for me himself, but sent a man [Brouillet says, page 56 (Ross Browne, 40), the caution he received from Mr. McBean “obliged me to be content with sending my interpreter”] and a boy for the young woman that was a member of Mrs. Whitman’s family. The contract between my mother and Mrs. Whitman was, that I was to continue my studies with Mrs. Whitman, and take part with her in the instruction and care of the children.

Q.—After Mr. Rogers entered the house wounded, and closed the doors, did he have any conversation with Nicholas or the Manson boys?

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

Lorinda Bewley.

Rev. J. S. Griffin says he is ready to testify to the fact that the above is a true statement, as made by Miss Bewley, and it was his own oversight at the time that her oath was not attached before a justice of the peace.

There was no other person living at the time that could positively state the facts as given by Miss Bewley; others have given their depositions, which confirm her statements, and show them to be the simple, unvarnished truth of the whole scene that passed before her, and her treatment by those “holy fathers, the bishop and his priests.”

We are forced to confess, that, after studying and copying these old documents and papers, we dare not trust ourselves to express an opinion, lest the reader should say our feelings have overcome our better judgment. Therefore we will simply ask a question or two, and let each reader answer for himself.

What think you, kind reader, of the Hudson’s Bay Company and Roman Catholic Jesuits, and priests and bishop in Oregon in 1847-8?

Did not Dr. Whitman, his wife, and all at his mission suffer, and many of them die, to save Oregon as a part of the great American Republic?

We know that a few of the poor miserably deluded Indians belonging to his mission have suffered an ignominious death by being hung like dogs (a death, of all others, the most odious to them), and for what? Simply because they were deceived by those who knew at the time they were deceiving them; and who have since so managed as to deceive the Christian world, and bring falsehood to cover their participation in the transaction.

We would not have been so particular, nor copied documents so extensively, had we not before us a narrative of 108 pages, written by one of these “holy fathers,” Vicar-General Brouillet, purporting to give the causes both remote and immediate of this horrible massacre; giving it the title of “Protestantism in Oregon, account of themurder of Dr. Whitman, and the ungrateful calumnies of H. H. Spalding, Protestant missionary,” in which he searches back even before the arrival of Dr. Whitman in the country, and cites Rev. Mr. Parker’s first supposed or imaginary statements to the Indians as a cause of the massacre, which we know to be false and unfounded from the six years’ early acquaintance we had with those Indians; and also from the personal allusions he makes to transactions with which we were intimately acquainted, and know to be false in fact and inference. These statements of this priest and his associates, McBean and Sir James Douglas, have induced us to extend the particulars of that massacre beyond our original design in giving the history of Oregon. As he claims great credit for himself and associates, Stanfield in particular, in buryingthe dead, and showing kindness to the widows and orphans, we will give another item to show the character of thethief,liar, andaccomplicein that massacre, whom this priest is so ready in his narrative to claim as a saint.

Mrs. Catharine Bewley says: “Dr. Prettyman said to me that Joe Stanfield told him at his own house, when the sheriff had him in custody, that ‘the morning of the day when young Bewley was killed, he had gone into the room and had hid every thing in the room back of the bed he was upon.’ This, the doctor thought, showed that he was the cause of his being killed.”

Under date of Umatilla, December 21, 1847, Father Blanchet, bishop of Wallawalla, writes to Governor Abernethy as follows:—

“As soon as I had been informed what had happened, I instantly told the two chiefs near my house thatI hoped the womenand children would be spared until they could be sent to the Wallamet. They answered: ‘We pity them,—they shall not be harmed; they shall be taken care of, as before.’I have since had the satisfaction to hear that they have been true to their word, and that they have taken care of these poor people.”

In Father Brouillet’s narrative, page 57 (Ross Browne, page 41), he says: “On the 3d, the bishop called for the Young Chief and his brother Five Crows, in order to express to them how deeply he had been pained by the news of the horrible affair at Wailatpu, andto recommend to their care the widows and orphans, as well as the men who had survived the massacre. They protested to have given no consent to what had happened at Wailatpu, and promised to do all in their power for the survivors.

“On the 10th we received the painful intelligence that two other young men, who, being sick, had been spared by the Indians at the time of the first massacre, had since been torn from their beds and cruelly butchered.”

The positive testimony in regard to these two young men is already before the reader.If this bishop and priest do not act and narrate falsely, we ask, What is falsehood?

After giving a description of the grand council held at the Catholic mission house by Tawatowe, Tilokaikt, Achekaia, and Camaspelo, Brouillet says, on page 67: “Before taking leave of the chiefs, the bishop said to them all publicly, as he had also done several times privately, that those who had taken American girls should give them up immediately. And then all entreated Five Crows repeatedly to give up the one whom he had taken, but to no purpose.” How does this compare with Miss Bewley’s testimony?

We must ask to be excused from at present commenting further upon the notes and extracts from the statements of these several parties. They are before you, reader, not as fiction or imagination; they are transactions connected with the history we are writing. The statements on the part of this bishop and his priests have been published and extensively circulated, and have been believed, and have had far too much influence in encouraging and sustaining them among their deluded victims; besides mystifying, and causing a public sentiment to be generally entertained derogatory to the Protestant and American missionary influence in Oregon.

We have given an account of this bishop and his priests on the first commencement of their missionary efforts among the Cayuse Indians, and have followed them through theirlabors, and their legitimate results, till we now come to the 16th of December, the day on which they received a wild, incoherent—not to say injudicious and foolish—letter from Rev. Mr. Spalding, which they gave, with a flourish of trumpets and shout of triumph, on their arrival in Wallamet, to be published as evidence of their extensive influence over the Indians, and to destroy the influence of Mr. Spalding as a missionary. In this they have succeeded but too well, and for which we should look closely into their proceedings with the Indians.

Brouillet, on the 58th and 61st pages (41st and 43d of Browne), in speaking of the Nez Percés who brought Mr. Spalding’s letter, says:—

“We had reason to be astonished at that confidence of those Indians, as we had had as yet no opportunity of seeing any one of the Nez Percés since our arrival in the country.“The two Nez Percé chiefs advised the Cayuses to take measures for avoiding a war with Americans. They requested the bishop to write to Governor Abernethy, begging him not to send up an army, but rather to come himself in the spring and make a treaty of peace with the Cayuses, who promised that they would then release the captives of Wailatpu,—promising besides to offer no injury to Americans until they heard the news from Wallamet.The bishop told them that he was glad of their proceeding, and was disposed to assist them to the extent of his power, but that he could not write without knowing the opinion of the Cayuses, and that as soon as he could learn this he would send an express below. He then encouraged them to see all the chiefs about it.”

“We had reason to be astonished at that confidence of those Indians, as we had had as yet no opportunity of seeing any one of the Nez Percés since our arrival in the country.

“The two Nez Percé chiefs advised the Cayuses to take measures for avoiding a war with Americans. They requested the bishop to write to Governor Abernethy, begging him not to send up an army, but rather to come himself in the spring and make a treaty of peace with the Cayuses, who promised that they would then release the captives of Wailatpu,—promising besides to offer no injury to Americans until they heard the news from Wallamet.The bishop told them that he was glad of their proceeding, and was disposed to assist them to the extent of his power, but that he could not write without knowing the opinion of the Cayuses, and that as soon as he could learn this he would send an express below. He then encouraged them to see all the chiefs about it.”

From the above and subsequent statements and transactions, we have no reason to doubt the truth of the bishop’s remark, “that he was glad of their proceeding.” There can be no question that he did all he could to help the Indians, and to defeat the provisional troops and government, as is proved by the evidence already given, and willbe seen as we proceed. He tells the Indians that he could not write, without knowing the opinion of the Cayuses; he must be satisfied that they are all united, and when he has learned that fact, he can write with more assurance and effect to the governor. He extends consolation and encouragement to Camaspelo on the 18th, and two days after convenes the council alluded to.

“Accordingly, on Monday, 20th December, 1847, at the Catholic Mission, the Cayuses assembled in grand council held by Tawatowe (or Young Chief), Tilokaikt, Achekaia (or Five Crows), and Camaspelo, all the great chiefs of the Cayuses, in presence of many other great men (second chiefs) of the nation.” This council was held just three months and three days after. Brouillet says that Bishop Blanchet met Dr. Whitman at Wallawalla, and said to him, “All is known. I come to labor for the conversion of Indians, and even of Americans, if they are willing to listen to me.” And we say, to crush and drive the Protestant missions from the country, including their heretical settlements.

We wish to give these foreignprieststhe full benefit of their own statements, as we shall express fully our opinion of them; besides, we presume that not one in a thousand will be able to understand the wonderful workings of Jesuitism among the Indians and the people of our country, without extensive quotations from their books.

The narrative continues: “About ten o’clock in the morning they all entered the mission house. The bishop was present, together with Messrs. Rousseau, Leclaire, and myself [Vicar-General Brouillet, the writer of the narrative we are quoting from]. After a deep silence of some minutes, the bishop explained to them the object of the meeting. He began by expressing to them the pleasure he felt in seeing them thus assembled for the purpose of deliberating on a most important subject,—that of avoiding war, which is always a great evil. He told them that in matters of importance they should always hold a council and consult those who might be best able to give them good advice; that in giving their advice separately, they were liable to be misunderstood, and thereby expose themselves and their people to great misfortunes; that he was persuaded that if the chiefs had deliberated together they would not now have to deplore the horrible massacre of Wailatpu, nor to fear its probable consequences.”

The reader can understand how sincere these “holy fathers” were in saying “horrible massacre at Wailatpu,” when, instead of calling on Dr. Whitman, as Brouillet says he “cordially promised to do,” he went to an Indian lodge, learned of the massacre, and remained all night, writing, the Indians say, this false and infamous account of the transaction, to slander the dead and clear the guilty; and the next morning baptized three of the Indian children before going to the assistance of the widows and orphans.

The bishop told them “that two Nez Percé chiefs had asked him to write to the great chief of Wallamet (Governor Abernethy) to obtain peace, but that he could not do so without the consent of the Cayuses.”

It will be remembered that up to the arrival of Dr. White, in 1842, as an official spy upon the proceedings of the Hudson’s Bay Company, drawing the pay of a sub-Indian agent, the company had not allowed any effort to combine the Indians; but on the arrival of Dr. White, they at once made use of him, and also of the bishop and his priests, to form just the combinations they wished to make use of, to strike at the settlements at the proper time.

Tawatowe, or Young Chief, was, up to the time of the taking of Fort Nez Percés, considered a head chief; but in consequence of the part he had taken in that affair his power had been broken. His brother, Five Crows, was advanced, and had become the favorite of Dr. Whitman, as well as of Dr. White, and was looked upon as friendly to the mission and the American cause.Miss Bewley’s being forced to become his wife was a part of the scheme to involve him in the war then in contemplation, and to bring about a union of the tribe under the very plausible reason given by this “holy father,” and was one of the most important measures to implicate that humane and Protestant Indian in the war measures now in discussion before this grand Indian council at the house of the bishop.The bishop says “that the propositions which those chiefs wished to send were these: 1st. That Americans should not come to make war; 2d. That they should send up two or three great men to make a treaty of peace; 3d. That when these great men should arrive, all the captives should be released; 4th. That they would offer no offense to Americans before knowing the news from below.

“The bishop then desired them to speak and to say what they thought of these propositions.“Camaspelo spoke first. He said he was blind and ignorant, and had despaired of the life and salvation of his nation, but that the words of the bishop had opened his eyes, consoled and encouraged him; that he had confidence, and that he approved the propositions.“The chief Tilokaikt then rose to say that he was not a great speaker, and that his talk would not be long. He then reviewed the history of the nation since the arrival of the whites (French people or Hudson’s Bay Company) in the country down to the present time. He said that before they had been visited by white men the Indians were always at war; that at the place where Fort Wallawalla now stoodnothing but blood was continually seen; that they had been taught by thewhitesthat there was a God who forbids men to kill each other.” “A jewel of gold in a swine’s snout.” This is the Indian that assisted in killing Dr. Whitman, and engaged his attention while his companion gave the first blow; and he afterward cut the Doctor’s face horribly with a hatchet, while he was yet alive. But let us continue this “holy father’s” lesson of peace and morality from the mouth of his converted Indian, for we have every reason to believe he is now fully converted to that faith, and has given us a specimen in the practice of the religion he has just commenced to learn. He says, “that since this time they had always lived in peace, and endeavored to persuade others to do the same. He eulogized Mr. Pambrun; spoke of a Nez Percé chief who had been killed when going to the States; afterward of the son of Yellow Serpent, who had been killed by Americans in California; said that they had forgotten all this. He spoke also of Dr. Whitman and Mr. Spalding, and finished by saying that since they had forgotten all, he hoped that the Americans would also forget what had been recently done; that now they were even.”

“The bishop then desired them to speak and to say what they thought of these propositions.

“Camaspelo spoke first. He said he was blind and ignorant, and had despaired of the life and salvation of his nation, but that the words of the bishop had opened his eyes, consoled and encouraged him; that he had confidence, and that he approved the propositions.

“The chief Tilokaikt then rose to say that he was not a great speaker, and that his talk would not be long. He then reviewed the history of the nation since the arrival of the whites (French people or Hudson’s Bay Company) in the country down to the present time. He said that before they had been visited by white men the Indians were always at war; that at the place where Fort Wallawalla now stoodnothing but blood was continually seen; that they had been taught by thewhitesthat there was a God who forbids men to kill each other.” “A jewel of gold in a swine’s snout.” This is the Indian that assisted in killing Dr. Whitman, and engaged his attention while his companion gave the first blow; and he afterward cut the Doctor’s face horribly with a hatchet, while he was yet alive. But let us continue this “holy father’s” lesson of peace and morality from the mouth of his converted Indian, for we have every reason to believe he is now fully converted to that faith, and has given us a specimen in the practice of the religion he has just commenced to learn. He says, “that since this time they had always lived in peace, and endeavored to persuade others to do the same. He eulogized Mr. Pambrun; spoke of a Nez Percé chief who had been killed when going to the States; afterward of the son of Yellow Serpent, who had been killed by Americans in California; said that they had forgotten all this. He spoke also of Dr. Whitman and Mr. Spalding, and finished by saying that since they had forgotten all, he hoped that the Americans would also forget what had been recently done; that now they were even.”

This priest is careful to make his converted Indian tell a plausible story, as also to eulogize Mr. Pambrun and the Hudson’s Bay Company, and to state that two Indians had been killed while in company with, or by Americans.

As to the killing of the Nez Percé chief (so called), we knew much more of it than this priest or his Indian. The Nez Percé was killed in open fight with the Sioux, at Ash Hollow, on the Platte River, after the party had fought three hours, and killed fifteen and wounded eight of the Sioux. He was no connection of this Cayuse tribe, and is only referred to for effect. The bishop makes Tilokaikt tell a falsehood to shield a crime in himself and associates.

The killing of Elijah, the son of Yellow Serpent, is equally false in the statement of the fact, and relation of the circumstances. Dr. White, sub-Indian agent, etc., was never known to tell the truth when a falsehood would suit his plans and purposes better; as is evident in this case, which is given that the reader may judge of its truth. Mr. Brouillet comments upon Dr. White’s letter to the Department at Washington, April 4, 1845, as follows: “After speaking of some difficulties that occurred in California between the Cayuses and Wallawallas on one part, and the Spaniards and Americans on the other, on account of some stolen horses that the Cayuses and Wallawallas had taken from hostile Indians by fighting them [this is altogether a mistake, as the horses belonged to the Americans and Spaniards and they had their Indians guarding them, and the party here referred to killed theguard and attempted the life of an American], Mr. White passes on to relate a murder there, committed coolly by an American the fall previous upon the person of Elijah, the son of Yellow Serpent, the chief of the Wallawallas, in the following way: ‘The Indians had gone to the fort of Captain Sutter to church, and, after service, Elijah was invited into another apartment, taking with him his uncle, Young Chief, of the Umatilla River, a brave and sensible chief of the age of five and forty.’” This priest, on page 30 (J. Ross Browne, page 28), makes Mr. McKinley say that in the fall of 1844, the Indians, a short time after their return from California, met one day at Fort Wallawalla, seven hundred in number, all armed, and decided to walk down immediately upon the colony of the Wallamet, and that they could be stopped only by the Young Chief, who, by his entreaties, decided them to abandon their undertaking and to go home. We are led to inquire, why did not these Indians, at this time, direct their attention to the American missions in their midst, and take their revenge then, instead of waiting three years, and then, as Brouillet says, making this murder a cause of the massacre? McBean, and Bishop Blanchet and his priests, were not then at the fort, nor among those Indians, to aid them in avenging themselves on the innocent.

But let us finish the account of this horrid transaction on the part of our countrymen, as repeated by Brouillet to excuse the Wailatpu massacre.

He says the Young Chief went into the room with Elijah, and “while there in an unarmed and defenseless condition, they commenced menacing him for things alleged against the River Indians of this upper country, in which none of them had any participation; called them indiscriminately dogs, thieves, etc.” The truth is, that this party went from the Cayuse country to California expressly to steal horses and cattle. This same educated Indian boy was the leader of the party in going to the fort. He and the Young Chief were both arrested, and tried by a military court; the chief was acquitted, upon the evidence of the American referred to, as he saved his life, while Elijah was for killing him. Elijah was condemned, and shot, to prevent other similar parties from disturbing the settlements and killing peaceable Indians in California. This is the reason, as Mr. McKinley doubtless told Brouillet, why the Young Chief used his influence to prevent any attempt at retaliation.

The narrative continues: “This American then observed, ‘Yesterday you were going to kill me; now you must die,’ and drawing a pistol—Elijah, who had been five or six years at the Methodist Mission, and had learned to read, write, and speak English respectably, saiddeliberately, ‘Let me pray a little first;’ and kneeling down, at once commenced, and, when invoking the Divine mercy, was shot through the heart or vitals, dead upon the spot. Taking for truth an Indian report [which in this case suited this priest and Dr. White’s purposes better than a true statement of the facts would], this horrible affair created considerable excitement [which, he tells us in another place, the Young Chief, who was present, was able to quell], and there is some danger of its disturbing the friendly relations that hitherto existed between us here and all those formidable tribes in the region of Wallawalla and Snake River.”

This Indian story or tragedy is useful for three purposes. First, to show Dr. White’s disposition to have his importance known to the department at Washington. Second, to show the disposition of this “holy father, the Catholic priest,” to quote a case of the kind, to justify the Whitman massacre by the Indians, and deceive his readers and the world as to the real cause of that transaction; thus aiding us in bringing home the guilt of a crime where it belongs. Third, to show how capable he is of misrepresenting and falsifying historical facts, to excuse a foul murder of American citizens. He continues to quote Dr. White as follows:—

“Learning from Dr. Whitman, who resides in their midst, how much they were all excited by reason of the treacherous and violent death of this educated and accomplished young chief, and, perhaps more especially by the loss they had sustained, and then, after suffering so many hardships and encountering so many dangers, losing the whole, I apprehended there might be much difficulty in adjusting it, particularly as they lay much stress upon the restless, disaffected scamps, late from Wallamet to California, loading them with the vile epithets of dogs, thieves, etc., from which they believed or affected to believe that the slanderous reports of our citizens caused all their loss and disasters, and therefore held us responsible. He, Ellis, the Nez Percé chief, assured me that the Cayuses, Wallawallas, Nez Percés, Spokans, Ponderays, and Snakes were all on terms of amity, and that a portion of the aggrieved party were for raising a party of about two thousand warriors of those formidable tribes, and march to California at once,[13]and, nobly revenging themselves on the inhabitants by capture and plunder, enrich themselves upon the spoils; while others, not indisposed to the enterprise, wished first to learn how it would be regarded here, and whether we would remain neutral in the affair. A third partywere for holding us responsible, as Elijah was killed by an American, and the Americans incensed the Spaniards.”[14]

[13]Brouillet, in his haste to bring Dr. White to prove his statements of the causes of the Whitman massacre, has forgotten that he was assured by Mr. McKinley that they intended to go to the Wallamet, instead of California.

[14]See the whole of Dr. White’s report, chapter 50,page 387et seq.

The above extract is quoted by Brouillet for so base a purpose, that it seems necessary, in order to correct the errors of Dr. White and this priest, to give it in full. We have given the statement of Mr. McKinley, as quoted by Brouillet, which shows the absurdity of this whole document. If the Young Chief went into the room and saw Elijah shot down in the brutal manner represented by Dr. White, he certainly must have been a very remarkable and forgiving Indian if he used his influence to prevent his tribe from seeking revenge; besides, we find in the subsequent history, that even Elijah’s own father did not seek to avenge his death, as stated by this priest on page 30 of this narrative (28th of Ross Browne’s report).

He says: “And in the spring of 1847, the Wallawalla chief himself, Yellow Serpent, started with a party of Wallawallas and Cayuses for the purpose of attacking the Americans in California, whom they thought unsuspicious. But having found them on their guard, and too strong to be attacked without danger, he took their part against the Spaniards, offered his services to them, and fought in their ranks.”

This, with the statement of Mr. McBean, as will be given in his letter, shows that this very Rev. Father Brouillet knew nothing of the subject he was writing about, and was ready to pick up any statement that might be made, without any regard to its absurdity or plausibility. I query whether there is a living man well acquainted with Dr. White, who will state that he believes he would tell the truth, officially or otherwise, when a falsehood would suit his purposes better; and from a careful study of the statements and writings of this reverend priest, we are forced to the same conclusion.

Rev. Mr. Brouillet has filled four pages and a half of his narrative with the statements of William Craig, in answer to questions asked by Hon. P. H. Burnett, all of which show that Mr. Craig knew nothing of the massacre only as he was told, by two Indians, what some other Indian said that some other Indian had said. We are not surprised that Mr. Burnett gave up the contest with Mr. Spalding, after examining such a witness as Mr. Craig, and finding that he knew so little relative to the subject in question. Suppose Tom Hill and the Indian messenger that brought the news to Mr. Spalding’s station told all they heard of the matter, did that make their statements true? Or did the repeating of these Indian statements by Mr. Craig make them true? Rev. Father Brouillet has showed, in these four pages, a weakness wedid not expect to find in a man with so many sacred titles to his name. In fact, the greater part of his statements are from persons who make them as coming second-hand from the Indians. He makes Mr. Craig repent from the mouth of the Indian messenger the statement first published in Sir James Douglas’s letter to the Sandwich Islands; and then in conclusion says, on page 29:—

“Now I am satisfied that every impartial and unprejudiced person, after reading attentively the above documents, will come with me to the conclusion that the true causes, both remote and immediate, of the whole evil must have been the following: 1st. The promise made by Mr. Parker to the Cayuses and Nez Percés of paying for their lands every year, and the want of fulfillment of that promise.”

Which promise Mr. Parker never made, and which the Hudson’s Bay Company and these Roman priests made up to cause difficulty with the Indians and American missions and settlements.

“2d. The death of the Nez Percé chief, killed on his way to the United States, when he was in company with Mr. Gray, and in his service.” This Mr. Gray knows to be false, both in statement and inference, as already explained.

This priest says: “The conclusion is evident, from the circumstances which preceded that death, and from the proceedings of the Nez Percés against Mr. Spalding and all the people of his establishment on account of it, and likewise from the general habit of the Indians in such cases.”

We will here state that we were two years at Mr. Spalding’s station, on returning from the States, and saw the whole Nez Percé tribe, and employed them for days and months, and worked with them, and explored their country to select farms for them, and know that the Nez Percés never, on any occasion, made the least disturbance about the station, or in any other place, on account of the death of that Indian; and we know that neither Mr. Spalding nor any of the people at his place were ever confined in their houses for an hour on account of it; and we further know that the statement made by Brouillet, as coming from old Toupin, is false and malicious, and only shows the ignorance and malice of this priest, who has made these false statements, as he has those about the killing of Elijah, to cover his own guilt in the infamous crime charged upon him and his associates.

“3d. The murder committed by an American in California on the person of Elijah, the son of the Wallawalla chief, in 1844.” Answered already.

This priest says of Yellow Serpent: “On his way coming back from California he lost many of his people from sickness [to which Istacus alludes in his reasons for not believing that Dr. Whitman was the causeof the Indians dying by poison], so that he and his young men, when arrived at home in the fall, felt more ill-disposed than ever toward the Americans.” This priest’s fourth reason embraces the tales told by Tom Hill, Joe Lewis, Finlay, old Toupin, and Stanfield, which are all of the same class, and have all been learned from the same reverend teachers, and copied into Sir James Douglas’s letter, for the benefit of the American Board, going by way of the Sandwich Islands.

His fifth reason, about the small-pox, as stated by Craig—the Doctor and Gray’s poisoning melons—the Doctor being a physician, shows that he is terribly pressed for a plausible reason for the crime he attempts to excuse. His sixth reason—lack of sincerity. Here he quotes Mr. Spalding’s letter, written soon after his return home, after being exposed six days and nights to extreme fatigue, hunger, and cold,—his mind racked with anxiety and fear in regard to himself and family, and tortured with thoughts of the scene at Wailatpu; being ignorant of any of the particulars of the massacre, and of the part the bishop and his priests were taking in it, he wrote as to friends whom he thought would feel for his situation. He also quotes a letter he received through P. H. Burnett, signed J. Magone, who says: “I recollect distinctly, however, that he (Mr. Spalding) was not in favor of killing all the Cayuses, for he gave me names of some four or five that he knew to be friendly, and another whom I marked as questionable.” (Mr. S. had learned more of the particulars of the massacre.) Does this letter prove that he was in favor of killing all the Indians but the ones mentioned, or does it show his anxiety lest the innocent should perish with the guilty, which led him to give those names to Major Magone, an officer in the provisional army?

We have naturally left that deep, silent grand council of Indians, presided over by his reverence, Bishop Blanchet, and directed our attention to other important facts and statements relative to the subject of this chapter.

We now have the touching appeal of Edward Tilokaikt, with whom the reader has become acquainted in the depositions already given. He is now brought before us in this grand council at the bishop’s house (page 66 of Brouillet; page 44 Ross Browne).

“Edward, the son of Tilokaikt, then came forward, bearing in his hand theCatholic Ladderstained with blood; he repeated the words which Dr. Whitman had used when he showed it to them, one or two weeks before he died: ‘You see this blood! it is to show you that now, because you have the priests among you, the country is going to be covered with blood! You will have nothing now but blood!’ He then related what had passed, gave a touching picture of the afflictedfamilies in seeing borne to the grave a father, a mother, a brother, or a sister; spoke of a single member of a family who had been left to weep alone over all the rest, who had disappeared. He stated how and for what the murder had been committed, entered into the most minute details, avoiding, however,to give any knowledge of the guilty, repeated the words whichJoseph Lewissaid had passed between Dr. Whitman, his wife, and Mr. Spalding, and finally spoke of the pretended declaration of Mr. Rogers at the moment of his death: ‘that Dr. Whitman had been poisoning the Indians.’”

Reader, need I tell you that the language and sentiment above quoted as coming from Edward Tilokaikt, never entered his savage Indian brain; that this speech is the carefully combined and studied production of the author of the narrative we have quoted it from? It is given in connection, repeated and combined with a little variation by every individual who makes a statement favorable to those priests; and in the whole list of statements this priest Brouillet and McBean are the only two that could write or translate the Indian ideas into French or English; so that at the time these Indian speeches were said to have been made, and purport to have been translated by Brouillet, it is plain to be seen that he tells his own story to suit the case in hand; and the letter of Sir James Douglas to the Sandwich Islands shows this priest to be the author of the statements contained therein. These Indian assemblies or councils were held to more closely unite the tribe, and give a coloring of truth to the malicious statements of Joe Lewis and Edward Tilokaikt.

All these false statements were written out and sent to the Sandwich Islands under date, Vancouver, 9th December, 1847, while Brouillet says this Edward Tilokaikt repeated them as a reason for the massacre on the 20th December, 1847, eleven days before they are said to have been repeated by the Indians.

Many important facts can only be reached by carefully studying the language of this priest, in connection with the evidence obtained from the survivors, and their subsequent conduct, and the foreign correspondence of the parties who were seeking the exclusive occupation of our country.

From the statement that follows, it will be seen how careful this Jesuit is to inform us that these propositions come from the Nez Percés.

He says, on page 65: “After having deliberated together, the chiefs concluded by adding something to the propositions of the Nez Percés, insisting principally upon the reasons which they pretended ought to excuse their action, and requested the bishop to send to the governor in their name the following manifesto.”

Before copying this important document and the letter which accompanied it to the governor of Oregon, we will place before our readers the “preface” to the book in which we find it, that they may see the full object of the author of that narrative in publishing it:—

“New York, June, 1853.“The following interesting narrative was prepared by the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet, vicar-general of Wallawalla, at the time of the excitement consequent on the murder of Dr. Whitman by the Indians, and in answer to Mr. Spalding, and other of Dr. Whitman’s former associates. Although the immediate occasion has passed away, it is proper, still, to put thefacts of the caseon record; and these pages, which appeared recently in the columns of the New YorkFreeman’s Journal, will form an interesting and authentic chapter in the history of Protestant missions.“J. A. McMasters.”

“New York, June, 1853.

“The following interesting narrative was prepared by the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet, vicar-general of Wallawalla, at the time of the excitement consequent on the murder of Dr. Whitman by the Indians, and in answer to Mr. Spalding, and other of Dr. Whitman’s former associates. Although the immediate occasion has passed away, it is proper, still, to put thefacts of the caseon record; and these pages, which appeared recently in the columns of the New YorkFreeman’s Journal, will form an interesting and authentic chapter in the history of Protestant missions.

“J. A. McMasters.”

We will now turn to the 65th page of this false and malicious narrative, and find a document carefully prepared,as stated by its author, in grand council assembled under the eye of Bishop Blanchet, then bishop of Wallawalla, by the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet, etc. By a cursory glance at this narrative and document, it will be seen that it is prepared as coming from the Indians for the express purpose of blackening the character of Dr. Whitman, his wife, Mr. Spalding, and Mr. Rogers, and of charging them with being the cause of their own murder, and the murder of all who fell at Wailatpu by the hands of their own Indians, the Cayuses. That it embodies all the foul slanders against those missions that have been collected for a series of years, and asserts them to be true, without a single deposition or statement having been made before any court or justice of peace, known to the laws then in the country. These statements, frompreface to finis, go upon the presumption that the title and professions of the men whose names are attached are sufficient evidence of the truth of any statements they may make, however unreasonable or false they may be. The documents above referred to are as follows (J. R. Browne, page 45):—

“The principal chiefs of the Cayuses, in council assembled, state: That a young Indian (Joseph Lewis) who understands English, and who slept in Dr. Whitman’s room, heard the Doctor, his wife, and Mr. Spalding express their desire of possessing the lands and animals of the Indians; that he stated also that Mr. Spalding said to the Doctor, ‘Hurry giving medicines to the Indians, that they may soon die;’ that the same Indian told the Cayuses, ‘If you do not kill the Doctor soon, you will all be dead before spring;’ that they buried six Cayuses onSunday, November 28, and three the next day; that Mr. Rogers, the schoolmaster, stated to them before he died that the Doctor, his wife, and Mr. Spalding poisoned the Indians; that for several years past they had to deplore the death of their children; and that, according to these reports, they were led to believe that the whites had undertaken to kill them all; and that these were the motives which led them to kill the Americans. The same chiefs ask at present—“1st. That the Americans may not go to war with the Cayuses.“2d. That they may forget the lately committed murders, as the Cayuses will forget the murder of the son of the great chief of Wallawalla, committed in California.“3d. That two or three great men may come up to conclude peace.“4th. That as soon as these great men have arrived and concluded peace, they may take with them all the women and children.“5th. They give assurance that they will not harm the Americans before the arrival of these two or three great men.“6th. They ask that Americans may not travel any more through their country, as their young men might do them harm.“(Signed,)“Tilokaikt.“Camaspelo.“Tawatowe.“Achekaia.“Place of Tawatowe, Umatilla, December 20, 1847.”

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

“2d. That they may forget the lately committed murders, as the Cayuses will forget the murder of the son of the great chief of Wallawalla, committed in California.

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

“4th. That as soon as these great men have arrived and concluded peace, they may take with them all the women and children.

“5th. They give assurance that they will not harm the Americans before the arrival of these two or three great men.

“6th. They ask that Americans may not travel any more through their country, as their young men might do them harm.

“(Signed,)“Tilokaikt.“Camaspelo.“Tawatowe.“Achekaia.

“Place of Tawatowe, Umatilla, December 20, 1847.”

“The bishop accompanied this manifesto with a letter addressed to the governor, which concluded in these terms: ‘It is sufficient to state that all these speeches went to show, that since they had been instructed by the whites they abhorred war, and that the tragedy of the 29th had occurred from an anxious desire of self-preservation, and that it was the reports made against the Doctor and others which led them to commit this act.They desire to have the past forgotten and to live in peace as before.Your excellency has to judge of the value of the documents which I have been requested to forward to you.Nevertheless, without having the least intentionto influence one way or the other,I feel myself obliged to tell you, that by going to war with the Cayuses,you will likely have all the Indians of this country against you. Would it be for the interest of a young colony to expose herself?That you will have to decide with your council.’”

Reader, you now have before you a full statement of the most important facts of the Whitman massacre, and of the part taken in it by “the holy fathers, the Catholic priests,” as they were styled by Mr. McBean, of Fort Nez Percés, to Mr. Kimzey and his wife.

The part taken by Mr. McBean, Mr. Ogden, and Sir James Douglas, will be given in another chapter.

The above manifesto is given as having been made on the 20th of December, 1847. On the 23d, three days after, when this very Rev. Mr. Brouillet mounted his horse to go to the fort, he told Miss Bewley that “if she went to Five Crows’ lodge any more she must not come back to his house.” Miss Bewley says: “The bishop told me I had better go.⚹ ⚹ ⚹ The bishop sent an Indian with me; he took me to Five Crows’ lodge.⚹ ⚹ ⚹The bishop finally ordered me to go.⚹ ⚹ ⚹I found I could get no help.”

These are the solemn affirmations of this intelligent young American lady, who was present at the bishop’s house when this manifesto was prepared.

Were this Bishop Blanchet and his priests true and sincere in what they said, and in the advice they say they gave to the Indians?

We have now traced what may be termed the missionary account of this painful tragedy, as given by both parties. Our readers must judge for themselves as to the guilt or innocence of all the parties involved, and also of the application to our subject of the extensive extracts we have given. We will now turn our attention to those whom we conceive to be the prime movers, and, in consequence, the most deeply implicated in this tragedy.

We have had occasion to allude to the intimate connection existing between the Jesuit missions in Oregon and the Hudson’s Bay Company. As early as 1836, that company brought a Protestant Episcopal chaplain to Vancouver for political reasons, whom they soon dismissed and attempted to disgrace, as unworthy of belief in any statement he might make. Soon after, in the fall of 1838, two Roman priests arrived at Vancouver and took charge of the religious and literary instructions of the members of the company,—of their children and servants, and, as far as possible, of all the Indians in the country; and while the company professed friendship for the American missionaries, they were active and vigilant to defeat all their efforts to enlighten and civilize the Indians, enlisting sufficient American influence to distract and divide the American people, so as to cover up their main object of securing the country for British Territory. This will be seen by evidence already quoted from our English authors, Mr. Fitzgerald and Sir Edward Belcher, and the refusal of Sir James Douglas to aid the provisional government, or furnish supplies for their troops, and the fact that they did embrace every opportunity to supply the Indians with guns, powder, and balls, and sought to combine the whole Indian power and prejudice against the settlements.

The Hudson’s Bay Company’s and the priests’ part in the massacre.—McBean’s messenger.—Plot divulged to Hinman, Ogden, and Douglas.—Douglas’s remark to Hinman.—McBean’s letter.—His perversion of facts.—Comments.—Sir James Douglas’s letter to Governor Abernethy.—His Sandwich Islands letter.—Its falsehood and absurdity.—Mr. Hinman’s letter to Governor Abernethy.—The dates.—Assertion of Robert Newell.—Hudson’s Bay Companyv.United States.

We learn from Mr. McBean’s letter, given below, that his horse guard and interpreter were at Dr. Whitman’s mission and saw the dead bodies; and from Indians we learn that they were kept by the Rev. Mr. Brouillet, and took his account of the massacre (which he spent most of the night in preparing) to Mr. McBean. They also reported to him that three parties of Indians were preparing and about to start, to destroy the remaining Protestant missions and American settlements in middle Oregon, including the station at the Dalles; that the women and children were to be held as hostages, or captives for future disposal; that letters and a statement were prepared by Mr. McBean, and instructions given to his messenger that he might inform the Indians on his way down to Vancouver of what had happened, but he must not give any information to any American on the way, or at the Dalles. We learn from the Hon. A. Hinman that this messenger went to him at the Dalles station, and told him that he was sent by Mr. McBean to Vancouver for men, to replace such as had died of sickness at Fort Nez Percés. The messenger took dinner with Mr. Hinman, who went with him to the Indian lodges, where the messenger told the Indians of the massacre. Mr. Hinman procured a canoe and started with him to go to Vancouver. They reached Cape Horn, some thirty miles above that place, and there, while windbound, he informed Mr. Hinman of what had occurred, making a full confession, that “thepriests, Mr.McBean, andhewere bad in trying to deceive him and have his family and people killed by the Indians;” told of his instructions, and of what was expected to be done with all the Americans in the country, and that he was the bearer of letters to Governor Ogden from Mr. McBean.

We will now go with this express to Vancouver. Says the Hon. A. Hinman, who is still alive, and has made oath to the truth of his statements: “We went first to Mr. Ogden’s room and informed him of the massacre. He was shocked, and said: ‘Mr. Hinman, you can now seewhat opposition in religion will do.’ We then went to Mr. Douglas’s room and informed him, and when Mr. Ogden was pacing the room, he said: ‘Mr. Douglas, you see now what opposition in religion does.’ After a moment’s pause, Mr. Douglas replied, ‘There may be other causes.’”

Reader, will you turn back and read over the chapter on the English Hudson’s Bay Company’s effort to secure Oregon, and see if there has not been a desperate effort made, since Dr. McLaughlin left that company, to overcome his mistakes and his humane policy toward Americans. Look also at the chapter on theEnglish Hudson’s Bay Company’s policyrelative to Rupert’s Land and Oregon, and learn fully what Mr. Ogden and Mr. (now Sir James) Douglas meant by these expressions made to Mr. Hinman, who says: “Mr. Douglas turned to me, and wished to know why I was not at home at so perilous a time. I told him I had received no letter from Wallawalla, and did not learn of the massacre till below the Cascades. At this he expressed surprise, and said, ‘Mr. McBean ought by all means to have informed you of your danger.’

“After this the express was opened, and Mr. Douglas read, and I listened to the account as given by Mr. McBean, and also of his account of three parties, which, Mr. McBean’s letter said, Indian report says are fitting out, one to the saw-mill to kill the Americans at that place, and one to Rev. Mr. Spalding’s station to cut off the Americans at that place, and one also to the Dalles to cut off those at that station.

“I said to Mr. Douglas, ‘How is it possible that Mr. McBean could have treated me in this way? How is it possible he did not inform me?’ Mr. Douglas, after a little pause, said, ‘Mr. Hinman, we must consider that the poor man was in circumstances of great perplexity, and might not know what to do.’”

This was not the case, for Mr. McBean did give him positive instructions, as we learn from Mr. Hinman’s statement. He says: “After hearing this dreadful account from the Canadian, I asked him why he did not inform me before I left my house.He said Mr. McBean told him to say nothing about it to them at the Dalles!”

Soon after the messenger and Mr. Hinman left the Dalles, the Indians went to the station and informed P. Whitman, the doctor’s nephew, that his uncle and aunt, and all the Americans at that place, were killed. This Indian report was not credited; they could not believe that Mr. McBean would send a messenger, as he had done, and not inform them of what had actually taken place.

The reader will remember the deposition of Mr. Kimzey in relation to Mr. McBean’s statements about the “holy fathers, the Catholicpriests,” and the subsequent instructions to him, to let the Indians know he was from the fort.

We will now direct our attention to the mutilated letter of William McBean, as furnished by Sir James Douglas to Governor Abernethy, and published in the OregonSpectator, December 10, 1849:—

“Fort Nez Percés, Nov. 30, 1847.

“To the Board of Managers:“Gentlemen,—It is my painful duty to make you acquainted with a horrible massacre which took place yesterday at Wailatpu, about which I was first apprised, early this morning, by an American who had escaped, of the name of Hall, and who reached this place half-naked and covered with blood, as he started at the outset; the information I received was not satisfactory. He, however, assured me that the Doctor and another man were killed, but could not tell us the persons who did it, and how it originated. I immediately determined on sending my interpreter and one man to Dr. Whitman to find out the truth, and, if possible, to rescue Mr. Manson’s two sons and any of the survivors. It so happened that, before the interpreter had proceeded half-way, the two boys were met on their way hither, escorted by Nicholas Finlay,it having been previously settled among the Indiansthat these boys should not be killed [Mr. McBean should have added, as per my instructions]; as also the American women and children [as per Joseph Stanfield’s direction, as he had taken Mrs. Hays for a wife, and several Indians were to have the young women at the station for wives]. Tilokaikt is the chief who recommended this measure. I presume that you are well acquainted that fever and dysentery have been raging here and in the vicinity, in consequence of which a great number of Indians have been swept away, but more especially at the Doctor’s place, where he had attended upon the Indians. About thirty souls of the Cayuse tribe died, one after another, who evidently believed the Doctor poisoned them, and in which opinion they were, unfortunately, confirmed by one of the Doctor’s party. As far as I have been able to learn, this has been the sole cause of the dreadful butchery. In order to satisfy any doubt on that point, it is reported that they requested the Doctor to administer medicine to three of their friends, two of whom were really sick, but the third feigned sickness, and that the three were corpses the next morning. After they were buried, and while the Doctor’s men were employed slaughtering an ox, the Indians came one by one to his house, with their arms concealed under their blankets, and, being all assembled, commenced firing on those slaughtering the animal, and in a moment the Doctor’s house was surrounded; the Doctor, and a younglad brought up by himself, were shot in the house. His lady, Mr. Rogers, and the children had taken refuge in the garret, but were dragged down and dispatched (excepting the children) outside, where their bodies were left exposed.“It is reported that it was not their intention to kill Mr. Rogers, in consequence of an avowal to the following effect, which he is said to have made, and which nothing but a desire to save his life could have promoted him to do. He said, ‘I was one evening lying down, and overheard the Doctor telling Rev. Mr. Spalding that it was best you should all be poisoned at once, but that the latter told him it was best to continue slowly and cautiously, and between this and spring not a soul would remain, when they would take possession of your lands, cattle, and horses.’“These are only Indian reports, and no person can believe the Doctor capable of such an action without being as ignorant and brutish as the Indians themselves. One of the murderers, not having been made acquainted with the above understanding, shot Mr. Rogers.”

“To the Board of Managers:

“Gentlemen,—It is my painful duty to make you acquainted with a horrible massacre which took place yesterday at Wailatpu, about which I was first apprised, early this morning, by an American who had escaped, of the name of Hall, and who reached this place half-naked and covered with blood, as he started at the outset; the information I received was not satisfactory. He, however, assured me that the Doctor and another man were killed, but could not tell us the persons who did it, and how it originated. I immediately determined on sending my interpreter and one man to Dr. Whitman to find out the truth, and, if possible, to rescue Mr. Manson’s two sons and any of the survivors. It so happened that, before the interpreter had proceeded half-way, the two boys were met on their way hither, escorted by Nicholas Finlay,it having been previously settled among the Indiansthat these boys should not be killed [Mr. McBean should have added, as per my instructions]; as also the American women and children [as per Joseph Stanfield’s direction, as he had taken Mrs. Hays for a wife, and several Indians were to have the young women at the station for wives]. Tilokaikt is the chief who recommended this measure. I presume that you are well acquainted that fever and dysentery have been raging here and in the vicinity, in consequence of which a great number of Indians have been swept away, but more especially at the Doctor’s place, where he had attended upon the Indians. About thirty souls of the Cayuse tribe died, one after another, who evidently believed the Doctor poisoned them, and in which opinion they were, unfortunately, confirmed by one of the Doctor’s party. As far as I have been able to learn, this has been the sole cause of the dreadful butchery. In order to satisfy any doubt on that point, it is reported that they requested the Doctor to administer medicine to three of their friends, two of whom were really sick, but the third feigned sickness, and that the three were corpses the next morning. After they were buried, and while the Doctor’s men were employed slaughtering an ox, the Indians came one by one to his house, with their arms concealed under their blankets, and, being all assembled, commenced firing on those slaughtering the animal, and in a moment the Doctor’s house was surrounded; the Doctor, and a younglad brought up by himself, were shot in the house. His lady, Mr. Rogers, and the children had taken refuge in the garret, but were dragged down and dispatched (excepting the children) outside, where their bodies were left exposed.

“It is reported that it was not their intention to kill Mr. Rogers, in consequence of an avowal to the following effect, which he is said to have made, and which nothing but a desire to save his life could have promoted him to do. He said, ‘I was one evening lying down, and overheard the Doctor telling Rev. Mr. Spalding that it was best you should all be poisoned at once, but that the latter told him it was best to continue slowly and cautiously, and between this and spring not a soul would remain, when they would take possession of your lands, cattle, and horses.’

“These are only Indian reports, and no person can believe the Doctor capable of such an action without being as ignorant and brutish as the Indians themselves. One of the murderers, not having been made acquainted with the above understanding, shot Mr. Rogers.”

This confession is made, as the reader will notice, and attributed to Mr. Rogers, in order to give the coloring of truth to Joe Lewis’s statement. There appears, as will be seen by comparing the statements of Vicar-General Brouillet’s Indian council and this of McBean’s, a little doubt which to make the author of that story. Sir James Douglas has adopted McBean’s statement, as the most plausible, in his report, as it is attributed to one of theDoctor’s own party.

The whole thing, as will be seen by the testimony of Miss Bewley, is utterly false, and, as McBean has said, only Indian reports; and, we will add, told to them byStanfield,Joe Lewis, andFinlay, a Frenchman, an Indian, and a half-breed, all under the influence, and probably in the service, of the Hudson’s Bay Company and priests. And McBean, Sir James Douglas, and Brouillet are more brutish than the Indians, in putting such reports in circulation. If they had no confidence in them, why did they repeat them, giving them the color of truth? And why do they pretend to say “his life would have been spared,” and it was only a mistake that he was shot? Bewley and Sales were brutally murdered the eighth day after Rogers was, for Bewley’s saying he did not believe the stories about poisoning Indians, and that he believed the priests were the cause of it. If the Doctor, and Mr. Spalding, and Mrs. Whitman were the only ones they thought injuring them, why attempt to kill all the Americans at the station? Why make the arrangements as extensive as Vicar-General Brouillet tells Mr. Spalding they were (on page 51 of his narrative, 38 of Ross Browne’s report): “I knew that the Indians were angry with all Americans, and more enraged against Mr. Spalding than any other;”—on 54th page: “I know not; you know the country better than I do. All that I know is, that the Indians saythe order to kill Americans has been sent in all directions.”

Without the history of the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Northwest Fur Company before us, we would be quite incapable of comprehending the expressions and statements of this priest to Mr. Spalding. Were we ignorant of that history, and without a knowledge of the statements to which they have made oath in relation to their claims against our government, we could not understand these letters of McBean and Douglas.

We are also in possession of other facts, respecting the treatment of their own countrymen who have unfortunately fallen under their displeasure, which is here repeated upon Dr. Whitman and Mr. Rogers.

We would cut all these communications short, and make a general statement, but we would be charged (as we have already been) with “stringing together statements without facts;” besides, all these Hudson’s Bay documents and statements have had a powerful influence to destroy the characters of good men who are dead, and shield the vile conduct of the guilty, who are still living.

So far as McBean was concerned, he obeyed orders as implicitly as Grant of the Hudson’s Bay Company did, whenhe sent forty families, in 1846, into the mountains of California, to perish in the snow with cold and hunger. McBean must assist in blackening the character of Whitman, Rogers, and Spalding, to protect that of the “holy fathers, the Catholic priests.”

McBean in his letter further says: “It is well understood that eleven lives were lost and three wounded. It is also rumored that they are to make an attack upon the fort; let them come if they will not listen to reason; though I have only five men at the establishment, I am prepared to give them a warm reception; the gates are closed day and night, and bastions in readiness. In company with Mr. Manson’s two sons was sent a young half-breed lad brought up by Dr. Whitman; they are all here, and have got over their fright.”

This portion of the letter is supposed, by Mr. Hinman, to have been put in by Mr. Douglas in place of that which related to sending parties to destroy Americans at other places; and to show to the world that they were threatened by the Indians, as well as the Americans. The same as Brouillet is careful to tell us that “he was afraid the Indians would kill him,” and that the priests were not safe among them.

“The ringleaders in this horrible butchery are Tilokaikt, his son, Big Belly, Tamsaky, Istacus [a true friend of the Americans, who wasonly a witness of the murders], Towmoulisk, etc. I understand from the interpreter that they were making one common grave for the dead. The houses were stripped of every thing in the shape of property; but when they came to divide the spoils, they all fell out among themselves, and all agreed to put back the property.I am happy to state the Wallawalla chiefhad no hand in the whole business.”

If this is true, the killing of the Wallawalla chief’s son in California could not have been one of the causes of the massacre, as alleged in the narrative of the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet.

“They were all the Doctor’s own people,—the Cayuses.”

This we should expect, as it would enable those who wished to make their own guilt appear innocence. The Doctor’s people alone were to commence killing the Americans. It is asserted by good authority, that a part of Mr. Spalding’s, and the Indians at the Dalles, were ready to engage in the same business, from the same advice and orders.

“One American shot another, and took the Indians’ part to save his own life.”

This statement by McBean is made, as will be seen, to give the impression that there was a quarrel among the Americans, and that they were ready to betray and shoot each other and take the part of the Indians. The reader will recollect that this shooting refers to the Indian Joe Lewis, in killing one of the Sager boys, and is explained particularly by Sir James Douglas in his Sandwich Islands letter, for the information of the American Board of Missions. This fact goes to show that Sir James had received a more particular and carefully prepared account than Mr. McBean had; while the one was a summary, the other was the particulars so arranged as to implicate Dr. Whitman, Mr. Spalding, Mr. Rogers, Mrs. Whitman, and another American, to show that they were not only ready to poison the Indians, but to kill and betray each other to save their own lives; thus showing the intimate connection and complicity of Sir James with the very rev. vicar-general, in giving countenance to this infamous slander, and publishing it to the world over his own signature, and using all his influence to shield and clear the instigators of the crime.

It can not be urged that Sir James received his particular information at some other time, for his letters to Governor Abernethy and the Sandwich Islands were dated, the one to the governor, December 7, 1847, in which he says, “A copy of Mr. McBean’s letter herewith will give youall the particulars known to usof this indescribably painful event;” and the one to the Islands, December 9, 1847, in which he gives more particulars.

The impression is irresistibly fixed in the mind, that Mr. Brouilletspent most of the night, on arriving at Wailatpu (before the dead were buried), in Tilokaikt’s lodge or camp, arranging and writing those statements and particulars, so that Sir James Douglas could give his approval, and that they would go to the American Board of Missions and the friends of the murdered dead, with the sanction of his name, implicating the dead as having brought about this horrible massacre.

Another reason for this impression is, that in all the public and private correspondence between any of these parties, there is, and always has been, the most intense anxiety shown to prevent the open discussion of that transaction, as will be seen in the next paragraph in McBean’s letter, and by the promptness with which Mr. Ogden reported to Bishop Blanchet; Mr. Spalding’s injudicious remarks to Major Magone on the trip down the river; the manner of Mr. Spalding’s very unwise and imprudent letter to the bishop and his priests, was published and commented upon by them; the promptness of Mr. Douglas to demand an explanation of Colonel Gilliam’s supposed statement; the refusal of the Hudson’s Bay Company to furnish supplies to the provisional troops; and the fact that the company did supply 1,080 pounds of powder, 1,800 pounds of balls and shot to the priests for the Indians, with three cases containing thirty-six guns, all of which were seized by Lieutenant Rogers at the Dalles, and should have been (but were not) confiscated. We will now ask the attention of the reader to the remainder of this (to the Hudson’s Bay Company and Romanists in general) glorious news of the complete victory they had obtained overProtestantismand its missions in Oregon.

Mr. McBean, or Sir James Douglas, we do not know which, says: “Allow me todraw a veil over this dreadful affairwhich is too painful to dwell upon, and which I have explained conformable to information received and with sympathizing feelings.

“I remain, with much respect, gentlemen,“Your most obedient humble servant,“William McBean.”

We can scarcely retain the expressions of Whew! Horrible! etc., as we give the balance of this important letter, copied and given to the public of Oregon, under the eye of Sir James Douglas, with the—

“N. B.—I have just learned that the Cayuses are to be here to-morrow to kill Serpent Jaune, the Wallawalla chief.“W. McB.”

“N. B.—I have just learned that the Cayuses are to be here to-morrow to kill Serpent Jaune, the Wallawalla chief.

“W. McB.”

“Names of those who were killed: Dr. Whitman, Mrs. Whitman, Mr. Rogers, Hoffman, Sanders, Osborn [not killed], Marsh, John andFrancis Sager, Canfield [not killed], and a sailor, besides three that were wounded more or less—Messrs. Hall, Kimball, and another whose name I can not learn.“W. McBean.”

“W. McBean.”

Could the reader look at the exact original copy of that letter, and of that as found in theSpectatorof December 10, 1847, and hear the expressions of sentiment and feeling among a portion of the people at Oregon City; and listen to some of the private consultations, and hear the opinions there expressed, he would be able to understand the impression that this, with some other letters published at that time, made upon the public mind.

There was in one little council of a number of the then representatives of Oregon, a disposition to let that foul murder pass, without making an effort to avenge those deaths, or punish the Indians. One of that little council exclaimed with an oath, “Gentlemen, we must not allow that murder to pass, without an effort to punish those concerned in it; and for one, I know that Dr. Whitman did not bring it upon himself. Our own existence in this country is involved in the action we take in this matter. It becomes absolutely necessary that we take measures to protect ourselves and punish the murderers.”

“Fort Vancouver, Dec. 7, 1847.“George Abernethy, Esq.:“Sir,—Having received intelligence last night (on the 4th), by special express from Wallawalla, of thedestructionof themissionary settlementat Wailatpuby the Cayuse Indians of that place, we hasten to communicate theparticularsof that dreadful event, one of the most atrocious which darkens the annals of Indian crime.“Our lamented friend Dr. Whitman, his amiable and accomplished lady, with nine other persons, have fallen victims to the fury of those remorseless savages, who appear to have been instigated to the appalling crime by a horrible suspicion which had taken possession of their superstitious minds, in consequence of the number of deaths from dysentery and measles, that Dr. Whitman was silently working the destruction of their tribe, by administering poisonous drugs under the semblance of salutary medicines.“With a goodness of heart and benevolence truly his own, Dr. Whitman had been laboring incessantly, since the appearance of the measles and dysentery amonghis Indian converts, to relieve their sufferings, andsuch has been the reward of his generous labors.“A copy of Mr. McBean’s letter herewith will give you all the particulars known to us of this indescribably painful event.“Mr. Ogden, with a strong party, will leave this place as soon as possible for Wallawalla, to endeavor to prevent further evil, and we beg to suggest to you the propriety of taking instant measures for the protection of the Rev. Mr. Spalding, who, for the sake of his family,ought to abandonthe Clearwater Missionwithout delay, and retire to a place of safety, as he can not remain at that isolated station without imminent risk in the present excited and irritated state of the Indian population.“I have the honor to be, sir,“Your most obedient servant,“James Douglas.”

“Fort Vancouver, Dec. 7, 1847.

“George Abernethy, Esq.:

“Sir,—Having received intelligence last night (on the 4th), by special express from Wallawalla, of thedestructionof themissionary settlementat Wailatpuby the Cayuse Indians of that place, we hasten to communicate theparticularsof that dreadful event, one of the most atrocious which darkens the annals of Indian crime.

“Our lamented friend Dr. Whitman, his amiable and accomplished lady, with nine other persons, have fallen victims to the fury of those remorseless savages, who appear to have been instigated to the appalling crime by a horrible suspicion which had taken possession of their superstitious minds, in consequence of the number of deaths from dysentery and measles, that Dr. Whitman was silently working the destruction of their tribe, by administering poisonous drugs under the semblance of salutary medicines.

“With a goodness of heart and benevolence truly his own, Dr. Whitman had been laboring incessantly, since the appearance of the measles and dysentery amonghis Indian converts, to relieve their sufferings, andsuch has been the reward of his generous labors.

“A copy of Mr. McBean’s letter herewith will give you all the particulars known to us of this indescribably painful event.

“Mr. Ogden, with a strong party, will leave this place as soon as possible for Wallawalla, to endeavor to prevent further evil, and we beg to suggest to you the propriety of taking instant measures for the protection of the Rev. Mr. Spalding, who, for the sake of his family,ought to abandonthe Clearwater Missionwithout delay, and retire to a place of safety, as he can not remain at that isolated station without imminent risk in the present excited and irritated state of the Indian population.

“I have the honor to be, sir,“Your most obedient servant,“James Douglas.”

We now give Sir James Douglas’s letter to the Sandwich Islands, as found in the March number of theFriend:—

“Fort Vancouver, Dec. 9, 1847.“S. N. Castle, Esq.:“Sir,—It is with feelings indescribably painful that I hasten to communicate to you,for the information of the Board of Missions, intelligence of a disastrous event which lately occurred at the mission station of Wailatpu. Our esteemed friend Dr. Whitman, his amiable and accomplished lady, and nine men and youths in the mission employ, were murdered on the 29th ultimo by the Cayuse Indians, with circumstances of the most revolting cruelty. The lives of the women and children, with the exception of the lamented lady already mentioned, were spared. The mission being situated in the Cayuse country, they had a peculiar interest in protecting it from harm, in gratitude for past favors, and for the blessings of religious instruction so assiduously dispensed to them and to their families; yet those very people, the objects of so much solicitude,were alone concerned in effecting the destruction of the establishmentfounded solely for their benefit.“The Cayuses are the most treacherous and untractable of all the Indian tribes in this country [contradicted by Mr. Ogden], and had on many former occasions alarmed the inmates of the mission by their tumultuous proceedings and ferocious threats; but, unfortunately, these evidences of a brutal disposition were disregarded by their admirable pastor, and served only to arm him with a firmer resolution to do them good. He hoped that time and instruction would produce a change of mind,—a better state of feeling toward the mission,—and might have lived to see his hopes realized [had not the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Roman priests determined otherwise], had not the measles and dysentery, following in the train of emigration from the UnitedStates, made fearful ravages this year in the upper country, many Indians having been carried off through the violence of the disease, and others through their own imprudence.“The Cayuse Indians of Wailatpu being sufferers in the general calamity, were incensed against Dr. Whitman, [by the tales of Joe Lewis, Stanfield, and the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet, who afterward found a vial of white powder and called it poison, and ordered the Indians to bury it, as per evidence in the case] for not exerting his supposed supernatural power in saving their lives. They carried this absurdity beyond that point of folly.“Their superstitious minds became possessed with the horrible superstition that he was giving poison to the sick instead of wholesome medicine, with the view of working the destruction of the tribe; their former cruelty probably adding strength to their suspicions. Still some of the more reflecting had confidence in Dr. Whitman’s integrity, and it was agreed to test the effect of the medicine he had furnished on three of their people, one of whom was said to be in perfect health.”

“Fort Vancouver, Dec. 9, 1847.

“S. N. Castle, Esq.:

“Sir,—It is with feelings indescribably painful that I hasten to communicate to you,for the information of the Board of Missions, intelligence of a disastrous event which lately occurred at the mission station of Wailatpu. Our esteemed friend Dr. Whitman, his amiable and accomplished lady, and nine men and youths in the mission employ, were murdered on the 29th ultimo by the Cayuse Indians, with circumstances of the most revolting cruelty. The lives of the women and children, with the exception of the lamented lady already mentioned, were spared. The mission being situated in the Cayuse country, they had a peculiar interest in protecting it from harm, in gratitude for past favors, and for the blessings of religious instruction so assiduously dispensed to them and to their families; yet those very people, the objects of so much solicitude,were alone concerned in effecting the destruction of the establishmentfounded solely for their benefit.

“The Cayuses are the most treacherous and untractable of all the Indian tribes in this country [contradicted by Mr. Ogden], and had on many former occasions alarmed the inmates of the mission by their tumultuous proceedings and ferocious threats; but, unfortunately, these evidences of a brutal disposition were disregarded by their admirable pastor, and served only to arm him with a firmer resolution to do them good. He hoped that time and instruction would produce a change of mind,—a better state of feeling toward the mission,—and might have lived to see his hopes realized [had not the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Roman priests determined otherwise], had not the measles and dysentery, following in the train of emigration from the UnitedStates, made fearful ravages this year in the upper country, many Indians having been carried off through the violence of the disease, and others through their own imprudence.

“The Cayuse Indians of Wailatpu being sufferers in the general calamity, were incensed against Dr. Whitman, [by the tales of Joe Lewis, Stanfield, and the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet, who afterward found a vial of white powder and called it poison, and ordered the Indians to bury it, as per evidence in the case] for not exerting his supposed supernatural power in saving their lives. They carried this absurdity beyond that point of folly.

“Their superstitious minds became possessed with the horrible superstition that he was giving poison to the sick instead of wholesome medicine, with the view of working the destruction of the tribe; their former cruelty probably adding strength to their suspicions. Still some of the more reflecting had confidence in Dr. Whitman’s integrity, and it was agreed to test the effect of the medicine he had furnished on three of their people, one of whom was said to be in perfect health.”

The absurdity of this statement is so palpable, and so perfectly improbable in every respect, that, with all my study of Indian character, I am unable to understand why this statement is repeated by any of the parties concerned in bringing about that massacre. It can only be believed by the most stupid, as it has not the plausibility of truth in it; and Mr. Douglas showed a debasement of mind beyond comprehension in quoting it to his friend. We quote this whole letter, that it may be seen how low Sir James felt himself obliged to descend, to make an absurdity appear reasonable. The idea is started by Brouillet, increased by McBean, and completed by Douglas, who would give such accounts to the public to make others equally false appear probable. He continues:—

“They unfortunately died, and from that moment it was resolved to destroy the mission.”

But we have positive testimony that the destruction of that mission, with Mr. Spalding’s, was determined upon, and so stated by McBean before an Indian was known to be sick in the tribe or at the station. Mr. Douglas says:—

“It was immediately after burying the remains of these three persons, that they repaired to the mission one after another, with their arms hid under their blankets. The Doctor was at the school with the children, the others were cutting up an ox which they had just killed. When the Indians were numerous enough to effect their object, they fell upon the poor victims, some with guns and others with hatchets, and their blood was soon streaming on all sides.“Some of the Indians turned their attention toward the Doctor; he received a pistol-shot in the breast from one, and a blow on the head from another. He had still strength enough to reach a sofa, where he threw himself down and expired. Mrs. Whitman was dragged from the garret and mercilessly butchered at the door. Mr. Rogers was shot after his life had been granted to him.“The women and children were also going to be murdered, when a voice was raised to ask for mercy in favor of those whom they thought innocent, and their lives were spared.“It is reported that a kind of deposition made by Mr. Rogers incensed the fury of this savage mob. Mr. Rogers was seized, was made to sit down, and then told that his life would be spared if he made a full discovery of Dr. Whitman’s supposed treachery. That person then told the Indians that the Doctor intended to poison them; that one night, when Mr. Spalding was at Wailatpu, he heard them say that the Indians ought to be poisoned, in order that the Americans might take possession of their lands; that the Doctor wished to poison them all at once, but Mr. Spalding advised him to do it gradually. Mr. Rogers, after this deposition, was spared, but an Indian, who was not present, having seen him, fired at and killed him.“An American made a similar deposition, adding that Mrs. Whitman was an accomplice, and she deserved death as well as her husband.“It appears that he concluded by saying that he would take the side of the Indians, and that he detested the Americans. An Indian then put a pistol into his hand, and said to him, ‘If you tell the truth, you must prove it by shooting that young American;’ and this wretched apostate from his country fired upon the young man shown to him, and laid him dead at his feet.“It was upon the evidence of thatAmericanthat Mrs. Whitman was murdered, or she might have shared in the mercy extended to the other females and children.“Such are the details, as far as known, of that disastrous event, and the causes which led to it.“Mr. Rogers’ reported deposition, if correct, is unworthy of belief, having been drawn from him by the fear of instant death. The other American, who shed the blood of his own friend, must be a villain of the darkest dye, and ought to suffer for his aggravated crime.”

“Some of the Indians turned their attention toward the Doctor; he received a pistol-shot in the breast from one, and a blow on the head from another. He had still strength enough to reach a sofa, where he threw himself down and expired. Mrs. Whitman was dragged from the garret and mercilessly butchered at the door. Mr. Rogers was shot after his life had been granted to him.

“The women and children were also going to be murdered, when a voice was raised to ask for mercy in favor of those whom they thought innocent, and their lives were spared.

“It is reported that a kind of deposition made by Mr. Rogers incensed the fury of this savage mob. Mr. Rogers was seized, was made to sit down, and then told that his life would be spared if he made a full discovery of Dr. Whitman’s supposed treachery. That person then told the Indians that the Doctor intended to poison them; that one night, when Mr. Spalding was at Wailatpu, he heard them say that the Indians ought to be poisoned, in order that the Americans might take possession of their lands; that the Doctor wished to poison them all at once, but Mr. Spalding advised him to do it gradually. Mr. Rogers, after this deposition, was spared, but an Indian, who was not present, having seen him, fired at and killed him.

“An American made a similar deposition, adding that Mrs. Whitman was an accomplice, and she deserved death as well as her husband.

“It appears that he concluded by saying that he would take the side of the Indians, and that he detested the Americans. An Indian then put a pistol into his hand, and said to him, ‘If you tell the truth, you must prove it by shooting that young American;’ and this wretched apostate from his country fired upon the young man shown to him, and laid him dead at his feet.

“It was upon the evidence of thatAmericanthat Mrs. Whitman was murdered, or she might have shared in the mercy extended to the other females and children.

“Such are the details, as far as known, of that disastrous event, and the causes which led to it.

“Mr. Rogers’ reported deposition, if correct, is unworthy of belief, having been drawn from him by the fear of instant death. The other American, who shed the blood of his own friend, must be a villain of the darkest dye, and ought to suffer for his aggravated crime.”

Back to Index Next