A History of Oregon, 1792-1849 Part 58

"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 ma.s.sacre, 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 Perces 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 Perces since our arrival in the country.

"The two Nez Perce 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 a.s.sist 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 a.s.surance 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 a.s.sembled 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 a.s.sembled 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 ma.s.sacre of Wailatpu, nor to fear its probable consequences."

The reader can understand how sincere these "holy fathers" were in saying "horrible ma.s.sacre 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 ma.s.sacre, 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 a.s.sistance of the widows and orphans.

The bishop told them "that two Nez Perce 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 Perces, 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 G.o.d who forbids men to kill each other." "A jewel of gold in a swine's snout." This is the Indian that a.s.sisted 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 Perce 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 Perce chief (so called), we knew much more of it than this priest or his Indian. The Nez Perce 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 a.s.sociates.

The killing of Elijah, the son of Yellow Serpent, is equally false in the statement of the fact, and relation of the circ.u.mstances. 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 pa.s.ses 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 ma.s.sacre? 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 ma.s.sacre.

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 partic.i.p.ation; 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 ma.s.sacre 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 Perce chief, a.s.sured me that the Cayuses, Wallawallas, Nez Perces, 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, n.o.bly 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]

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

[Footnote 14] See the whole of Dr. White's report, chapter 50, page 387 _et seq._

The above extract is quoted by Brouillet for so base a purpose, that it seems necessary, in order to correct the errors of Dr. White and this priest, to give it in full. We have given the statement of Mr. McKinley, as quoted by Brouillet, which shows the absurdity of this whole doc.u.ment. 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 ma.s.sacre 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 t.i.tles 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 doc.u.ments, 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 Perces 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 Perce 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 circ.u.mstances which preceded that death, and from the proceedings of the Nez Perces 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 Perce 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 Perces 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 a.s.sociates.

"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 cla.s.s, 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 ma.s.sacre, 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 ma.s.sacre.) 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 pa.s.sed, 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 pa.s.sed 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 a.s.semblies 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.