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, and begged and cried to the bishop for protection either at his house, or to be sent to Wallawalla. I told him I would do any work by night and day for him if he would protect me. He said he would do all he could. [The sequel shows that in this promise the bishop meant to implicate and involve the Five Crows, should a war with the American settlement grow out of the massacre.] Although I was taken to the lodge, I escaped violation the first four nights. There were the bishop, three priests, and two Frenchmen at the bishop’s house. The first night the Five Crows came, I refused to go, and he went away, apparently mad, and the bishop told me I had better go, as he might do us all an injury, and the bishop sent an Indian with me. He took me to the Five Crows’ lodge. The Five Crows showed me the door, and told me I might go back, and take my clothes, which I did.

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

Q.—How long were you at the Umatilla?

A.—Two weeks, and from Friday till Monday. I would return early in the morning to the bishop’s house, and be violently taken away at night. The Bishop provided kindly for me while at his house. On my return one morning one of the young priests asked me, in a good deal of glee, how I liked my companion. I felt that this would break my heart, and cried much during the day. When the two Nez 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 Frenchman to go into the bishop’s room and ask him what I should do; he came out and told me that the bishop said it was best for me to go. I told him the tall priest said, if I went I must not come back again to this house; he said the priests dared not keep women about their house, but if the Five Crows sent me back again, why come. I still would not go. The Indian then pulled me away violently without bonnet or shawl. Next morning I came back and was in much anguish and cried much. The bishop asked me if I was in much trouble? I told him I was. He said it was not my fault, that I could not help myself. That I must pray to God and Mary. He asked me if I did not believe in God; I told him I did.

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

(Signed,)
Lorinda Bewley.

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

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

---

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

Oregon City, February 7, 1849.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A.—Hezekiah (Brouillet’s Achekaia).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lorinda Bewley.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After giving a description of the grand council held at the Catholic mission house by Tawatowe, Tilokaikt, Achekaia, and Camaspelo, Brouillet says, on page 67: “Before taking leave of the chiefs, the bishop said to them all publicly, as he had also done several times privately, that those who had taken American girls should give them up immediately. And then all entreated Five Crows repeatedly to give up the one whom he had taken, but to no purpose.” How does this compare with Miss Bewley’s testimony?We must ask to be excused from at present commenting further upon the notes and extracts from the statements of these several parties. They are before you, reader, not as fiction or imagination; they are transactions connected with the history we are writing. The statements on the part of this bishop and his priests have been published and extensively circulated, and have been believed, and have had far too much influence in encouraging and sustaining them among their deluded victims; besides mystifying, and causing a public sentiment to be generally entertained derogatory to the Protestant and American missionary influence in Oregon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bishop told them “that two Nez 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 stood nothing but blood was continually seen; that they had been taught by the whites that there was a God who forbids men to kill each other.” “A jewel of gold in a swine’s snout.” This is the Indian that assisted in killing Dr. Whitman, and engaged his attention while his companion gave the first blow; and he afterward cut the Doctor’s face horribly with a hatchet, while he was yet alive. But let us continue this “holy father’s” lesson of peace and morality from the mouth of his converted Indian, for we have every reason to believe he is now fully converted to that faith, and has given us a specimen in the practice of the religion he has just commenced to learn. He says, “that since this time they had always lived in peace, and endeavored to persuade others to do the same. He eulogized Mr. Pambrun; spoke of a Nez 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 the guard and attempted the life of an American], Mr. White passes on to relate a murder there, committed coolly by an American the fall previous upon the person of Elijah, the son of Yellow Serpent, the chief of the Wallawallas, in the following way: ‘The Indians had gone to the fort of Captain Sutter to church, and, after service, Elijah was invited into another apartment, taking with him his uncle, Young Chief, of the Umatilla River, a brave and sensible chief of the age of five and forty.’” This priest, on page 30 (J. Ross Browne, page 28), makes Mr. McKinley say that in the fall of 1844, the Indians, a short time after their return from California, met one day at Fort Wallawalla, seven hundred in number, all armed, and decided to walk down immediately upon the colony of the Wallamet, and that they could be stopped only by the Young Chief, who, by his entreaties, decided them to abandon their undertaking and to go home. We are led to inquire, why did not these Indians, at this time, direct their attention to the American missions in their midst, and take their revenge then, instead of waiting three years, and then, as Brouillet says, making this murder a cause of the massacre? McBean, and Bishop Blanchet and his priests, were not then at the fort, nor among those Indians, to aid them in avenging themselves on the innocent.

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

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

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

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

“Learning from Dr. Whitman, who resides in their midst, how much they were all excited by reason of the treacherous and violent death of this educated and accomplished young chief, and, perhaps more especially by the loss they had sustained, and then, after suffering so many hardships and encountering so many dangers, losing the whole, I apprehended there might be much difficulty in adjusting it, particularly as they lay much stress upon the restless, disaffected scamps, late from Wallamet to California, loading them with the vile epithets of dogs, thieves, etc., from which they believed or affected to believe that the slanderous reports of our citizens caused all their loss and disasters, and therefore held us responsible. He, Ellis, the Nez 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 party were for holding us responsible, as Elijah was killed by an American, and the Americans incensed the Spaniards.”[14]

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

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

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

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

“Now I am satisfied that every impartial and unprejudiced person, after reading attentively the above documents, will come with me to the conclusion that the true causes, both remote and immediate, of the whole evil must have been the following: 1st. The promise made by Mr. Parker to the Cayuses and Nez 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 cause of the Indians dying by poison], so that he and his young men, when arrived at home in the fall, felt more ill-disposed than ever toward the Americans.” This priest’s fourth reason embraces the tales told by Tom Hill, Joe Lewis, Finlay, old Toupin, and Stanfield, which are all of the same class, and have all been learned from the same reverend teachers, and copied into Sir James Douglas’s letter, for the benefit of the American Board, going by way of the Sandwich Islands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the statement that follows, it will be seen how careful this Jesuit is to inform us that these propositions come from the Nez 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 the facts of the case on record; and these pages, which appeared recently in the columns of the New York Freeman’s Journal, will form an interesting and authentic chapter in the history of Protestant missions.

“J. A. McMasters.”

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

“The principal chiefs of the Cayuses, in council assembled, state: That a young Indian (Joseph Lewis) who understands English, and who slept in Dr. Whitman’s room, heard the Doctor, his wife, and Mr. Spalding express their desire of possessing the lands and animals of the Indians; that he stated also that Mr. Spalding said to the Doctor, ‘Hurry giving medicines to the Indians, that they may soon die;’ that the same Indian told the Cayuses, ‘If you do not kill the Doctor soon, you will all be dead before spring;’ that they buried six Cayuses on Sunday, November 28, and three the next day; that Mr. Rogers, the schoolmaster, stated to them before he died that the Doctor, his wife, and Mr. Spalding poisoned the Indians; that for several years past they had to deplore the death of their children; and that, according to these reports, they were led to believe that the whites had undertaken to kill them all; and that these were the motives which led them to kill the Americans. The same chiefs ask at present—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---