A History of Oregon, 1792-1849

As to Messrs. Shepard’s and Olley’s estates, they were both administered by the Methodist Mission, or some one or more of its members. I have never been able to learn the results, but have been informed that, as they were members of the mission, the little property they had was disposed of as per mission usage. In the case of Mr. Young, the settlers found themselves somewhat interested. As to any Frenchman or Roman Catholic, it was taken for granted, if he was not the servant of the Hudson’s Bay Company, his property went to the priest.

The settlers were united in the opinion that some understanding or laws should be adopted to govern the settlement of estates, other than the custom adopted by the Hudson’s Bay Company or the missions; hence they all turned out, and were completely defeated by the operations of the Jesuit and Methodist missions. A resolution was ready, prepared for the occasion: —

“Resolved, That a committee be chosen to form a constitution, and draft a code of laws, and that the following persons compose that committee: Rev. F. N. Blanchet, Rev. Jason Lee, Rev. Gustavus Hines, Rev. Josiah L. Parish; Mr. D. Donpierre, Mr. M. Charlevo, Mr. Robert Moore, Mr. E. Lucia, Mr. Wm. Johnson.”

The committee first named in the resolution contained the names of the three first-named clergymen. This was clerical law and constitution a little too strong. It was then moved to put upon the committee some that were not clergymen. The committee was finally made up of nine. Now comes the test of all, – the governor. Revs. Leslie and Hines, and Drs. Babcock and Bailey were prominent candidates. The prospects were that the three Protestant missionary candidates would divide that influence so that Dr. Bailey would be elected.

It will be borne in mind that Dr. Bailey was a man of strong English prejudices, and opposed to religious societies and religion generally. He could secure the French Catholic vote, and the majority of the settlers. He was present at the meeting, with his Canadian, French, and Hudson’s Bay servant voters, all trained to vote for him for governor. He nominated himself, and so disgusted the American settlers that they joined in the effort to defeat him.

Mr. Hines was the prominent candidate to enter the field, and secure the leading influence in the government. That office was the leading question, – Bailey could not be trusted, and Hines could not be elected; hence the office of governor was discarded, and the committee instructed to prepare a constitution and laws, to be executed without an executive. This was a shrewd and cunning device, to say the least of it, one calculated to make the judicial and executive office one, in the same person; which seemed by common consent to be Dr. I. L. Babcock, a man equally as ambitious and aspiring as Dr. Bailey, but in good standing in the mission, and a stranger to the settlers. This point gained, George W. Le Breton, a young adventurer, who came to the country in the employ of Captain Couch, on the brig Maryland, having a fair education, and generally intelligent and agreeable in conversation, who had been brought up in good society, and was inclined to, or educated in, the Roman faith. This young man was elected to fill the offices of clerk of the court and public recorder, as a compromise with the Jesuits. To harmonize the English element, Wm. Johnson was elected high sheriff. Zavia Ladaroot, Pierre Billique, and Wm. McCarty were chosen constables. Messrs. Gervais, Cannon, Robert Moore, and Rev. L. H. Judson were chosen justices of the peace. Here comes the climax of all wisdom: —

“It was then resolved, that, until a code of laws be drafted by the Legislative Committee and adopted by the people, Ira L. Babcock, the supreme judge, be instructed to act” —just as he pleased. Mr. Hines says in his book, 419th page – “according to the laws of the State of New York.”

I query whether there was a single copy of the laws of that State in the country for ten years after the last resolution was passed. I know there was none at the time, and only a single copy of the laws of Iowa two years after; hence, Ira L. Babcock was law-maker, judge, and executive to the settlement, just as much so as John McLaughlin was to the Hudson’s Bay Company.

To keep up the farce (for the whole proceeding deserves no other name), “it was then resolved to adjourn, to meet the first Thursday in June, at the new building near the Roman Catholic church.” The record proceeds: “Thursday, June 11, 1841. The inhabitants of the Wallamet Valley met according to adjournment, and the meeting was called to order by the chairman, Rev. David Leslie. On motion, the doings of the former meeting were read, on which the committee for drafting a constitution and code of laws was called for, and information was communicated to the meeting by the chairman of the committee, that, in consequence of his not having called the committee together, no report had been prepared.” His Jesuitical Reverence, F. N. Blanchet, was excused from serving on the committee, at his own request. The settlers and uninitiated were informed by his reverence that he was unaccustomed to make laws for the people, and did not understand how to proceed, while divide and conquer, the policy adopted by the Hudson’s Bay Company, was entered into with heart and soul by this Reverend Father Blanchet and his associates. “On motion, it was then resolved, that a person be chosen to fill the place thus vacated in the committee for drafting a constitution and code of laws, and Dr. Wm. J. Bailey was chosen.”

The motion that follows shows that the settlers were suspicious of influences operating against them to deprive them of a voice in their own government, for they then, “on motion, resolved that this committee be instructed to meet for the transaction of their business on the first Monday of August next.” They further instructed this committee to report at a subsequent meeting, “to be held the first Thursday in October next. On motion, resolved, that the committee be advised to confer with the commander of the American exploring squadron now in the Columbia River, concerning the propriety of forming a provisional government in Oregon.”

“Resolved, That the motion to adopt the report of the nominating committee presented at a previous meeting be rescinded.” Were the settlers really in favor of an organization adapted to their wants, and contrary to the wishes of the Hudson’s Bay Company and clerical government then existing? The above resolution shows the fact. They have handsomely relieved the Jesuits of their responsibility, and left them to work with their associates and co-laborers, – the Hudson’s Bay Company and Indians. They, to soften matters, allowed the committee to consider the nature of the government about to be formed, and the officers necessary, and —

“Resolved, That the committee to draft a constitution be instructed to take into consideration the number and kind of officers it will be necessary to create, in accordance with their constitution and code of laws, and to report the same at the next meeting.” It was also resolved that the report of the nominating committee be referred to the Legislative Committee.

Mr. Secretary Hines does not give us the names of the nominating committee and the officers they first reported.

The meeting held at or near the Roman Catholic church on the 11th of June was adjourned to meet at the Methodist Mission at eleven o’clock on the first Thursday in October following. Duly signed, David Leslie, chairman; Gustavus Hines, Sydney Smith, secretaries. The whole humbug had been completed; the Methodist Mission party was safe; the Hudson’s Bay Company and Jesuits only wanted time to carry out their arrangements and drive the whole concern from the country, or make a grand sacrifice for the benefit of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s trade and mother church.

The idea of resisting the American influence was no new one; it was announced as early as 1838. The combinations were ready to be made that, at the proper time, every Hudson’s Bay Company’s man felt certain, would accomplish the object they desired. They were ready and did invest their money upon the issue. It is true other parties came in and formed combinations that they supposed themselves capable of destroying by a single word. They failed; and in 1865 we find them, the petitioners, with a host of those they sought to rob, crying against their injustice. They ask for compensation for attempting to prevent the rightful owners of the country from occupying it. This is in keeping with their whole course. Their impudence may carry them through and win their case, which justice and truth should deny them.

Mr. Hines says, page 240: “I have previously stated that the origin of the attempt to form a kind of provisional government was the removal by death of the late Ewing Young, leaving, as he did, a large and unsettled estate, with no one to administer it, and no law to control its administration. The exigency of this case having been met by the appointment of a judge with probate powers, who entered immediately upon his duties” (giving no bonds to any body), “and disposed of the estate of Ewing Young to the entire satisfaction of the community, and the fact that some of the most influential citizens of the country, and especially some of the Legislative Committee, were adverse to the idea of establishing a permanent organization so long as the peace and harmony of the community could possibly be preserved without it, the subject was permitted to die away and the committee for drafting a constitution and code of laws did not meet according to their instructions, nor did the meeting at which they were expected to report ever take place.”

Mr. Hines, in his account of this affair, is not quite satisfied himself with the reasons he has given, so he goes on to state many facts as connected with the arrival of the exploring squadron of the United States, under command of Captain Wilkes, and says, page 421: “In addition to this, the officers of the squadron were consulted on the subject of organizing the country into a civil compact, and were found to be decidedly opposed to the scheme, and recommended that the subject be allowed to rest. They encouraged the people in the belief that the United States government would probably soon extend jurisdiction over the country.”

To the disgrace of the leader of that squadron, the general impression of all the early settlers of this country is, to the present day, that he understood and tasted the qualities of Dr. McLaughlin’s liquors, and received the polite attentions of the gentlemen of the Hudson’s Bay Company with far more pleasure than he looked into or regarded the wants of this infant settlement of his countrymen. Mr. Hines says “the officers of the squadron decidedly opposed the scheme.” And why did they do it? Simply because the parties named above were opposed. They had absolute control of the persons and property of all in the country, and they scrupled not to keep and use their power to the last.

The unconquerable energy of the Americans was this year manifested in the building of a schooner, of about forty tons burden, on a little island some four miles above the present city of Portland. R. L. Kilborn, of the party of Ewing Young, Charley Matts, P. Armstrong, who was afterward killed in the Indian war on Rogue River, H. Woods, John Green, and George Davis engaged in this enterprise. They employed Felix Hathaway, who was saved from the wreck of the William and Ann, as head carpenter, and commenced their work. To obtain spikes and such irons as were required, they had it reported that they were going to build a ferry-boat to cross the Wallamet River. To obtain rigging, they induced the French farmers to go to Fort Vancouver and get ropes to use in the old Dutch harness for plowing, Dr. McLaughlin having informed them in the start, that he did not approve of their scheme, and would furnish them no supplies. They, however, were not to be deterred in their undertaking. Procuring a whip-saw of the mission, and such tools as they could spare, these men commenced their work; and when Captain Wilkes visited them, and found they had a substantial and sea-worthy craft well under way, he furnished them such articles from his stores as he could spare, and spoke favorably of their enterprise to Dr. McLaughlin, who became more liberal; so that, with the assistance of Captain Wilkes, the mission, and such as they received from Dr. McLaughlin, the vessel was launched and made trips to California, under the command of Captain Joseph Gale, who returned to Oregon in 1843, and was elected one of our Executive Committee, with David Hill and Alanson Beers.

CHAPTER XXVIII

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: —