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 Company v. 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 “the priests, Mr. McBean, and he were 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 see what 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 the English Hudson’s Bay Company’s policy relative 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 Catholic priests,” 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 Oregon Spectator, 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 Indians that 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 young lad 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 the Doctor’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 by Stanfield, Joe Lewis, and Finlay, 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 say the 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, when he 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 was only 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 chief had 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 you all the particulars known to us of 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. Brouillet spent 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 over Protestantism and its missions in Oregon.

Mr. McBean, or Sir James Douglas, we do not know which, says: “Allow me to draw a veil over this dreadful affair which 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.”

“Names of those who were killed: Dr. Whitman, Mrs. Whitman, Mr. Rogers, Hoffman, Sanders, Osborn [not killed], Marsh, John and Francis 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.”

Could the reader look at the exact original copy of that letter, and of that as found in the Spectator of 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 the destruction of the missionary settlement at Wailatpu by the Cayuse Indians of that place, we hasten to communicate the particulars of 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 among his Indian converts, to relieve their sufferings, and such 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 abandon the Clearwater Mission without 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 the Friend:—

“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 establishment founded 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 United States, 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 that American that 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.”

There is no evidence that Sir James Douglas ever exerted the least influence to arrest or punish one of those murderers; on the contrary, there is evidence that the Hudson’s Bay Company assisted them and facilitated their escape from justice, and supplied the Indians with arms and ammunition to carry on the war that followed. Particulars of the whole truth, are given in another chapter. This letter of Sir James Douglas continues:—

“On the 7th instant, Mr. Ogden proceeded toward Wallawalla with a strong party of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s servants, to endeavor to prevent further evil.

“Accompanying, you will receive a copy of a letter which I addressed to Governor Abernethy immediately after the arrival of the melancholy intelligence at this place.

“All that can be collected will be considered important by the friends of Doctor and Mrs. Whitman in the United States, who will be anxious to learn every particular concerning their tragic fate. It will be a satisfaction for them to know that these eminent servants of God were faithful in their lives, though we have to deplore the melancholy circumstances which accompanied their departure from this world of trial.

“I am, sir, your obedient servant,
“James Douglas.”

We now have before us the statements of all the parties concerned in the most inhuman and disgraceful tragedy that has darkened the pages of our history. The crime itself was most inhuman and brutal, but, being mixed with religious prejudice and sectarian hate, guided and brought about by foreign commercial influences under the direction of a British monopoly, it demands a national investigation.

That Sir James Douglas knew more of the inception and ultimate designs of that transaction is evident from the prompt and careful manner in which he answered Mr. Ogden’s remark, that it was brought about from religious causes; he affirmed that “there might be other causes;” and when he had read the dispatches, he said, “We must consider the poor man was in great perplexity, and might not know what to do.” These two expressions of Sir James Douglas to Mr. Ogden and Mr. Hinman are the key that unlocks the whole mystery in this desperate arrangement to hold this whole country for the exclusive benefit of that monopoly.

As to the morality of the transaction, the great sympathy of Sir James and his conclave of bishops and priests, the church assumes all. The baptizing of three Indian children was of more importance to the church than all the suffering widows and orphans at that missionary settlement.

The particular account, as given by Sir James, was of more importance than punishing the murderers, or even casting a suspicion, such as Mr. Ogden, his associate, had done, upon his accomplices in crime.

These two letters show his duplicity, and the unblushing manner in which he gives one statement to Governor Abernethy, for Oregon, and another for the Board of Missions, and how careful he is to state circumstances and false impressions as to the facts he pretends to give with so much sympathy and apparent interest in the fate of the murdered dead.

There are but two other persons who have given us any information of this tragedy, on the part of the priests and the Hudson’s Bay Company. One of those was, at the time, in charge of Fort Nez PercÉs. His account was sent to Sir James,—mutilated, and not as carefully prepared for the people of Oregon as was this one for the great world beyond. The other is prepared by the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet, vicar-general of Wallawalla, and given to the world to form an “interesting and authentic chapter in the history of Protestant missions,” and contains all the imaginary circumstantial statements of the massacre, as given over the name of James Douglas, and officially in the report of J. Ross Browne, December 4, 1859.

If these statements had first appeared, as they now do, over the name and by the authority or affirmation of the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet, etc., all the world, as J. Ross Browne did, would have adopted the idea of Mr. Ogden, and said truly this was the result of opposition in religion. But Sir James Douglas proves, by his own statements and letters, and subsequent conduct all through the war that followed, that it was not “opposition in religion alone.” It was a predetermined arrangement of the “powerful company, the practical monopoly of the fur trade,” which, in 1865, he affirmed this company held over the country in 1846. The profits of that business were not to be lost to his powerful company by any missionary settlement in it.

Are we correct in these conclusions? The statements are given by the parties implicated. Were we to allow our personal feelings and sectarian preferences to influence our conclusions, we would join in the general conclusion of Mr. Ogden; but a full knowledge of the facts forces us to believe the statement of Mr. Douglas as being the most correct; nevertheless, we will not abate one iota of the scathing condemnation justly due to the foreign sectarianism brought into the country to effect the object of that corporation, nor of the scorn and infamy due to the immediate controlling actors—Bishop Blanchet and his priests—under the garb of religion.

We wish to keep as distinctly as possible before the mind the separate part each party has performed in this great drama of which we have been writing. As we have before said, there were four distinct parties or influences in the country, and the Indian formed the fifth. The Hudson’s Bay Company and the Roman priests combined and formed one; the missionaries with the settlers formed another; and the Indian was between them. For a time, the American influence was the most prominent,—say in 1843, 1844, and 1845. In 1846, Bishop Blanchet was in Europe, making extensive preparations for missionary operations in Oregon, corresponding in extent with those made by the Rev. Jason Lee in 1839-40.

“On August 19, 1847, Bishop Blanchet arrived in the mouth of the Columbia River, in the Morning Star, Captain Menes, five and a half months from Brest, with five priests, three Jesuits, three lay brothers, two deacons, and seven nuns.” In addition to these, we had, overland, eight priests and two nuns that same year. These, with the priests already in the country, gave us twenty-five of the Roman clerical order and fifteen nuns. This was a powerful and extensive effort to recover the lost foreign influence in the country. How well they succeeded is now a matter of history, and will enable the reader to understand the bold and defiant attitude of Mr. Douglas and his efficient co-laborers, Bishop Blanchet and his priests, among the Indians.

The missionary settlement at Wailatpu was the most important point in the whole upper country. The influence and position of those Indians were such, that special efforts were required to commence and carry on the destruction of all American settlements in the country.

We come now to the letter of Hon. A. Hinman, properly belonging to this chapter.

Fort Vancouver, December 4, 1847.

Mr. George Abernethy:

Dear Sir,—A Frenchman, from Wallawalla, arrived at my place on last Saturday, and informed me that he was on his way to Vancouver, and wished me to assist in procuring him a canoe immediately. I was very inquisitive to know if there was any difficulty above. He said four Frenchmen had died recently, and he wished to get others to occupy their places.

I immediately got him a canoe, and concluded to go in company with him, in order to get some medicine for the Indians, as they were dying off with measles and other diseases very fast. I was charged with indifference. They said we were killing in not giving them medicines, and I found if we were not exposing our lives, we were our peace, and consequently I set out for this place. This side of the Cascades I was made acquainted with the horrible massacre that took place at Wailatpu last Monday. Horrid to relate! Dr. and Mrs. Whitman, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Osborn, Mr. Sanders, a school-teacher, the two orphan boys (John and Francis Sager), together with all the men at that place,—eleven in all. Some are living at the saw-mill, which is situated about twenty miles from the Doctor’s. A party set out for that place to dispatch them; also a party for Mr. Spalding’s, to dispatch them; and they are not satisfied yet, but a party is said to have started for my place, and has, if true, reached them before this time. Oh! had I known it when I was at home. I can neither sleep nor take any rest, on account of my family and those with them, viz., my wife and child, the Doctor’s nephew, Dr. Saffron, and Mr. McKinney and wife. If I had ten men I could defend myself with perfect ease, by occupying the meeting-house, which is very roomy and close. You see my situation, as well as Mr. Spalding’s. I have perfect confidence in your doing all you can to get a party to come up and spend the winter there, and likewise to go to the rescue of the women and children, and Mr. Spalding, if alive, which I think very doubtful.

Delay not a moment in sending a few men for my protection; a few moments may save our lives.

I expect to leave to-morrow for home, and perhaps the first salutation will be a ball. My family is there, and I must return if it costs my life.

We are in the hands of a merciful God, why should we be alarmed? I will close by saying again, send a small force immediately without the delay of one day. Farewell.

Yours truly,
Alanson Hinman.

It will be seen that the main facts are given by Mr. Hinman, with the designs of other Indian parties to cut off the Americans at Mr. Spalding’s, the saw-mill, and at the Dalles, which Mr. Douglas omits in his letter to Governor Abernethy, but informs him of the Indians’ threatened attack upon Fort Nez PercÉs (Wallawalla).

That part of Mr. Douglas’s letter relating to Mr. Rogers’ supposed statement to the Indians, the brother (still living) has requested Mr. Douglas to explain; but no explanation has been given. We know, from the depositions given, that Mr. Douglas made the statement without evidence of its truth; and it is evident he is too stubborn or proud to acknowledge or explain his error.

There is one other fact in connection with this transaction that looks dark on the part of Sir James Douglas.

It is shown in the dates of the several letters. Mr. Hinman’s is dated December 4; Mr. Douglas’s, December 7; that to the Sandwich Islands, December 9. Now, between the 4th and 7th are three days. In a case of so much importance, and professed sympathy,—as expressed in his letter,—how is it, that three, or even two days were allowed to pass without sending a dispatch informing Governor Abernethy of what had happened, and of what was expected to take place? which last he had left out of his letter, and the copy of McBean’s; but does inform him of the threatened danger to Fort Nez PercÉs, as coming from McBean.

Mr. Douglas is prompt to urge the removal of Mr. Spalding, but unreasonably slow to send an express twenty or thirty miles to notify the American settlement of its danger.

We wish to say, once for all, that we are not giving the private history or character of any man or set of men. Their public conduct and proceedings are a part of our history. Mr. Douglas was, at the time we are writing, the acknowledged head of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and, as such, acted and controlled the movements of its members. Bishop Blanchet was the acknowledged head of the Roman Church, and, as such, acted with Mr. Douglas; for while not one Roman priest, or a servant of either of these two parties were disturbed or harmed in the least, all Protestant missionaries and American citizens were either killed, or driven from the upper country by order of that company. As Robert Newell asserts, under date of October 25, 1866: “And they could not have remained in the country a week without the consent and aid of that company, nor could any mission, in my opinion, in those days have been established in this (Wallamet) or that (Wallawalla) valley, without the aid and influence of the Hudson’s Bay Company, nor could the settlers have remained in the country as they did up to 1848, for the same reasons.”

This statement is made by a gentleman who professes to know more of, and has been (without a question) more favored by the Hudson’s Bay Company than any other American in the country. If his statement is true, which we have no doubt he believes it to be, then who is responsible for all the murders of American hunters, trappers, missionaries, immigrants, and settlers on their way to our country and in it. But we will not risk our conclusions upon the statement of an individual, who is totally ignorant of the policy of the company he undertakes to defend. We have, in addition, the sworn statement of Sir James Douglas as to the power and influence of his company, one year previous to the cutting off of the missionary settlement at Wailatpu.

He says, under oath: “Their posts were so arranged as to practically enjoy a monopoly in the fur trade, and they possessed an extraordinary influence with the nations west of the Rocky Mountains.” (Answer to interrogatory in claim Hudson’s Bay Company v. United States.)

That this influence was exerted to destroy that mission there can be no question; and that the same influence has since been exerted to spread, far and wide, statements originated by them and their associates to blast the character of the dead, and destroy the influence of the living in the cause of truth, is equally true.

We find it stated in Brouillet’s narrative that the most friendly and cordial relations existed between the Hudson’s Bay Company and his mission; so much so, that he is present by special invitation at Mr. Ogden’s council for arranging the purchase of the captives. He informs us, on page 69, “Protestantism in Oregon,” that Mr. Ogden told them that “the Hudson’s Bay Company had never deceived them; that he hoped they would listen to his words; that the company did not meddle with the affairs of the Americans; that there were three parties; the Americans on one side, the Cayuses on the other, and the French people and the priests in the middle; the company was there to trade and the priests to teach them their duties; ‘Listen to the priests,’ said he, several times; ‘listen to the priests; they will teach you how to keep a good life; the priests do not come to make war; they carry no arms,—they carry but their crucifixes,[15] and with them they can not kill.’ He insisted particularly, and at several times, upon the distinction necessary to be made between the affairs of the company and those of the Americans.”

The company’s interests must not be interfered with. The professions of sympathy found in Mr. Douglas’s letters are all explained, when the facts are fully developed. The complaint of the company, as stated in the memorial presented to the commissioners, April 17, 1865 (Hudson’s Bay Company v. United States, page 19), states that “among these circumstances may be specified the aggressive acts and the general conduct of American citizens, and of persons acting under the authority of the United States, commencing shortly after the 15th of June, 1846, and continuing from year to year, by which the rights of the claimants under that treaty were violated and denied, and their property and possessions were, in some instances, usurped and taken from them, and, in others, were necessarily abandoned. This course of conduct was, perhaps, to be expected, from the anomalous position in which the company was placed,—a foreign corporation exercising a quasi sovereignty and exclusive rights over territory transferred to a power whose policy in dealing with such territory was diametrically opposed to that which the company pursued, and from which they derived their profits.”

This complaint demands careful consideration at the present time. The statements of Mr. Ogden to the Indians, the memorial of the company, and the testimony it has produced in support of its claims, the statements and correspondence of the Jesuit missionaries, all go to prove the settled policy of the company to maintain its “quasi sovereignty” and exclusive asserted claims to the country at the time of the Wailatpu massacre.

That company, with less than half its then powerful influence and capital, had compelled the more powerful and active French-Canadian Northwest Company, numerically stronger than itself, to yield and accept its terms of a union in 1821.

They had driven from the country all American traders. They had, as they vainly imagined, secured an influence in the provisional American government sufficient to control all danger from that source, while they were ready to let loose the Indians upon the settlers, and prepared to supply them with the means to destroy or drive them from the country.

---