Lee and Hines explore the Umpqua River.—Hines tells a story.—Massacre and plunder of Smith’s party by the Indians.—Sympathy of the Hudson’s Bay Company.—Extract from the San Francisco Bulletin.

The reader is requested to note the statements that follow, as they show influences operating that tell how active the enemies of the Protestant missions had been. Mr. Hines admits that he owed his own and Mr. Lee’s life to the wife of Guinea. (See his journal, page 109.) He says: “During the evening Mr. Guinea came to us considerably excited, and warmly congratulated us on the safe guardianship his wife had exercised over us in our absence. He said that in all probability we should have been robbed of all we had, if we had not lost our lives, had it not been for the faithfulness of his wife and her brother. He told us that one of the chiefs of the clan we had visited was at the fort. Learning that we designed to visit his people on the coast, excited with the utmost fear, he hastened down the river and reported many evil things about us, intending thereby to instigate the Indians to prevent us from going among them.”

Mr. Hines, can you vouch for the truth of this statement? I believe sincerely you have told the truth, for you even attempt to excuse the Indian for his fears, and have not the least suspicion of the sources from which the Indian received his instruction and is made to believe that you and Mr. Jason Lee had come with your medicine bag to destroy them. Let us hear Mr. Hines’ excuse for the Indian’s fears, in his own words. He says: “Mr. Lee had brought a fowling-piece with him, and had in his possession a patent shot-pouch. This was the thing that had alarmed the chief. One story he told was, that we had brought medicine in a bag that Mr. Lee wore on his neck, for the purpose of killing them all off; and that if we were permitted to come among them the fatal bag would be opened and they would all be destroyed.”

How did these Indians learn about the missionary medicine bag? Our good friend, Guinea, Mr. Hines tells us, is from Montreal, and of a good family,—a Frenchman. This trip, it seems, was made in 1840, about the 26th day of October. Dr. Whitman had not yet gone to the States, but the medicine-bag story is tried with the Indians on the Umpqua. Guinea has a little too much sense of moral responsibility to allow his Indians to commence the slaughter of Lee and Hines, as Dr. White had come with them and seen them safe at the fort, and had returned to the settlement. The medicine man of the Methodist Mission had escaped, and it was not best to commence on these preachers. Madam Siwash Guinea must accompany them, to watch and explain matters and protect them.

Mr. Hines says, page 100: “We had been informed by Mr. Guinea that there would be great danger in our going among them alone, and indeed he appeared to stand in the utmost fear of them, of their hostility to the whites, and especially to the Americans.”

Can a reasonable man read this simple narrative with the light of history, and facts piled on facts, with the stains of the blood of our countrymen all over the country, and not trace the cause of these foul murders to their true source? While none but American traders and hunters were in the country, it was an easy matter to dispose of them, but when the American missionary comes among the natives, another element of opposition must be introduced; moral teachings must be met by religious superstitions, to secure the victim, to advance the interests of an unscrupulous trade. Let us take another statement from Mr. Hines before we proceed with his political history. On page 106, in speaking of the closing remarks of the chief at the mouth of the Umpqua, he tells us, the chief “said he was very glad we had come to see them; that their hearts toward us were like our hearts toward them; that he wanted us to continue with them another day and tell them about God; that they had heard about us, and had been told that we were a bad people.” Who told these wild Indians this? Was it an American that had been living among them and teaching them that his countrymen were a bad people? “That they were glad to see us for themselves, and were convinced that what they had heard was a lie; that they now believe us to be good, and that they meant to be good also.”

Mr. Hines tells a story, as he received it from the Hudson’s Bay Company gentlemen, to show that these Indians are very treacherous and not to be relied upon, especially those on the coast. It relates to a company of fur hunters composed of Smith, Sublet, and Jackson. At page 110 of his book, he says: “In this division Smith was to take the country extending from the Platte River by the way of Santa FÉ to California; then turn north along the Pacific Ocean as far as the Columbia River, and thence back into the interior to join the other partners of the company. The country was in the wildest state, but few white men having ever passed through it. But, nothing daunted, Smith and his companions marched through to California, and thence along the coast north as far as the Umpqua River, collecting in their course all the valuable furs they could procure, until they had loaded several pack animals with the precious burden [forty packs of furs]. On arriving here, they encamped on the borders of the river near the place where they intended to cross, but, on examination, found it would be dangerous, if not impossible, to effect the passage of the river at that place. Accordingly, Smith took one of his men [he had two] and proceeded up the river on foot, for the purpose of finding a better place to cross. In his absence, the Indians, instigated by one of the savage-looking chiefs whom we saw at the mouth of the river, rushed upon the party with their muskets [the same furnished by the Hudson’s Bay Company for that purpose], bows and arrows, tomahawks, and scalping-knives, and commenced the work of death.” Just as they were expected to do with all intruders in this fur traders’ empire. “From the apparent kindness of the Indians previously, the party had been thrown entirely off their guard, and consequently were immediately overpowered by their ferocious enemies, and but one of the twelve in camp escaped from the cruel massacre. Scarcely knowing which way he fled, this one fell in with Smith, who was on his return to the camp, and who received from the survivor the shocking account of the murder of eleven of his comrades. Smith seeing all was lost, resolved upon attempting nothing further than to do his best to secure his own personal safety, with that of his surviving companions. The Indians had secured all the furs, horses, mules, baggage, and every thing the company had. The three immediately crossed the river and made the best of their way through a savage and inhospitable country toward Vancouver, where, after traveling between two and three hundred miles, and suffering the greatest deprivations, they finally arrived in safety.”

Rev. Mr. Hines’ savage-looking chief was no less a personage than a slave of a Frenchman by the name of Michel, or rather belonging to Michel’s Umpqua wife. This slave had learned, from the statements and talk he had heard at Vancouver, that in case the Indians killed and robbed the Boston men, there would be no harm to them; that neither the Hudson’s Bay Company nor the English or French would take any notice of it. Hence, the Indians were taught to regard the killing of a Boston man (American) as doing something that pleased the Hudson’s Bay Company. Under this instruction it is said this slave ran away from Vancouver, and went back to his people, and was the cause of the massacre of Smith’s party. He is again present, doing all he can to induce his people to rob and take the lives of Lee and Hines. Mr. Guinea, then in charge of the fort, is aware of his instructions and his object. He dare not tell Lee and Hines of their full danger, yet he knows all about it.

They were determined to visit the Indians and see for themselves. Guinea’s Indian wife and her brother must go with them. This is considered sufficient protection. The story of the Indian slave’s part in the massacre of Smith’s party is related to us by Mrs. Smith, the wife of S. H. Smith, an intelligent and much respected native woman, a neighbor of ours for near twenty years, and by one of the men that accompanied McKay to recover the property; corresponding exactly to another event of the same kind that occurred in 1847, which will be given in detail as stated by eye-witnesses under the solemnity of an oath.

Mr. Hines, of course, believes the following statement, because the gentlemen of the company told it to him; just as I did the first time I heard it from them. It is said, Smith and companions, “rehearsing the story of their wonderful escape and subsequent sufferings to the members of the Hudson’s Bay Company, the utmost sympathy was excited in their behalf, and a strong party was fitted out to go and rescue the property from the savage robbers, and restore it to its surviving owners. The vigor and perseverance of this party were equal to the promptitude with which it was fitted out. They proceeded to the scene of blood, and after committing the mangled bodies of Smith’s murdered companions to the grave, compelled the Indians to relinquish the property they had taken,” by giving them presents of blankets and powder, and such things as the Indians wished, as stated to us by a Frenchman, a servant of the company, who was one of McKay’s party that went to get the furs. They found no bodies to bury, and had no fight with the Indians about the property, as stated by Mr. Smith also. But, as the Hudson’s Bay Company tells the story through Mr. Hines, they “spread terror through the tribes.” Was this the case in the Whitman massacre in 1847? the Samilkamean massacre in 1857? the Frazer River murder of American citizens in 1858? No: Governor Douglas told the committee that asked him for protection, or for arms, to protect themselves; that “if they [the Americans] molested her Majesty’s subjects he would send a force to punish them.” Mr. Hines says his Umpqua party “returned in triumph to Vancouver.” And well they might, for they had made the best season’s hunt they ever made, in getting those furs and the property of Smith, which paid them well for the expedition, as there was no market for Smith, except London, through the hypocritical kindness of Mr. Simpson. By this time, Mr. Smith had learned all he wished to of this company. He preferred giving them his furs at their own price to being under any further obligations to them, Mr. Sublet, Mr. Smith’s partner, did not speak as though he felt under much obligation to Mr. Simpson or the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1836, which was not long after the transaction referred to.

I do not know how the company regard these statements of Mr. Hines, yet I regard them as true so far as Mr. Hines is concerned, but utterly false as regards the company. As old Toupin says Mr. Parker told the Indians, “It is their fashion” of taking credit to themselves for doing all they could against the Americans occupying the country in any way.

According to the testimony given in the case of The Hudson’s Bay Company v. United States, the amount of furs seized by the company at that time was forty packs, worth at the time $1,000 each, besides the animals and equipments belonging to the party, a large portion of which was given to the Indians, to compensate them for their services rendered to the company, in destroying Smith’s expedition and killing his men, corresponding with transactions of recent date, as stated in an article found in the San Francisco Bulletin:—

“Hudson’s Bay Company and the Indians.—A gentleman from Victoria gives us the following facts concerning the Indian outrages on the northern coast, and their allies, the Hudson’s Bay Company: Captain D. Warren said to M. A. Foster and William McCurdy, that, on returning to Victoria and reporting the circumstances of the attack of the Indians upon his sloop, Thornton, to the first lieutenant of the ship Zealous, he was the next day arrested and put under $2,000 bonds. The Sparrowhawk was to leave last Wednesday, but had not yet gone to inquire into the matter. It is known that the same Indians murdered Captain Jack Knight and partner but a short time before. The same crowd or band of Indians robbed the Nanaimo packet. Since thus attacked, Captain Warren, the captain of the Ocean Queen, informed them that a friendly Indian chief told him to leave; the Indians were hostile; they were preparing for war with the neighboring tribes.

“From a statement found in the Chronicle, of the 27th of June, we learn that Captain Mowatt, of the Hudson’s Bay Company, is in charge of Fort Rupert. We also learn that Captain Mowatt’s prejudices and feelings are peculiarly hostile to all American fur traders, and not any too friendly to those claiming to be English. The facts indicate a strong Hudson’s Bay Company Indian war influence against American or other traders in behalf of that company. It is evident from the statement of the two gentlemen above named that her Majesty’s naval officers are inclined, and more than probably instructed, to protect the Hudson’s Bay Company’s people in encouraging the Indian hostility and murder of all outside venturers upon their trading localities, as they are prompt to insinuate and affirm that the whites are the aggressors, and to arrest them for punishment.”

It is difficult to understand why our American government is so tolerant and generous to a foreign monopoly that has invariably sought and accomplished the destruction of its fur trade on its western borders, and used its entire influence against American institutions and citizens; not hesitating to incite the Indians to the most inhuman and brutal murders.