A History of Oregon, 1792-1849

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Signed,)

Lorinda Bewley.

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

G. Walling, Justice of the Peace,

Clackamas County, Oregon Territory.

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

Oregon City, February 7, 1849.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. – Hezekiah (Brouillet’s Achekaia).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lorinda Bewley.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After giving a description of the grand council held at the Catholic mission house by Tawatowe, Tilokaikt, Achekaia, and Camaspelo, Brouillet says, on page 67: “Before taking leave of the chiefs, the bishop said to them all publicly, as he had also done several times privately, that those who had taken American girls should give them up immediately. And then all entreated Five Crows repeatedly to give up the one whom he had taken, but to no purpose.” How does this compare with Miss Bewley’s testimony?

We must ask to be excused from at present commenting further upon the notes and extracts from the statements of these several parties. They are before you, reader, not as fiction or imagination; they are transactions connected with the history we are writing. The statements on the part of this bishop and his priests have been published and extensively circulated, and have been believed, and have had far too much influence in encouraging and sustaining them among their deluded victims; besides mystifying, and causing a public sentiment to be generally entertained derogatory to the Protestant and American missionary influence in Oregon.

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

Brouillet, on the 58th and 61st pages (41st and 43d of Browne), in speaking of the Nez Percés who brought Mr. Spalding’s letter, says: —

“We had reason to be astonished at that confidence of those Indians, as we had had as yet no opportunity of seeing any one of the Nez Percés since our arrival in the country.

“The two Nez Percé chiefs advised the Cayuses to take measures for avoiding a war with Americans. They requested the bishop to write to Governor Abernethy, begging him not to send up an army, but rather to come himself in the spring and make a treaty of peace with the Cayuses, who promised that they would then release the captives of Wailatpu, – promising besides to offer no injury to Americans until they heard the news from Wallamet. The bishop told them that he was glad of their proceeding, and was disposed to assist them to the extent of his power, but that he could not write without knowing the opinion of the Cayuses, and that as soon as he could learn this he would send an express below. He then encouraged them to see all the chiefs about it.”

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

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

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

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

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

The bishop told them “that two Nez Percé chiefs had asked him to write to the great chief of Wallamet (Governor Abernethy) to obtain peace, but that he could not do so without the consent of the Cayuses.”

It will be remembered that up to the arrival of Dr. White, in 1842, as an official spy upon the proceedings of the Hudson’s Bay Company, drawing the pay of a sub-Indian agent, the company had not allowed any effort to combine the Indians; but on the arrival of Dr. White, they at once made use of him, and also of the bishop and his priests, to form just the combinations they wished to make use of, to strike at the settlements at the proper time.

Tawatowe, or Young Chief, was, up to the time of the taking of Fort Nez Percés, considered a head chief; but in consequence of the part he had taken in that affair his power had been broken. His brother, Five Crows, was advanced, and had become the favorite of Dr. Whitman, as well as of Dr. White, and was looked upon as friendly to the mission and the American cause. Miss Bewley’s being forced to become his wife was a part of the scheme to involve him in the war then in contemplation, and to bring about a union of the tribe under the very plausible reason given by this “holy father,” and was one of the most important measures to implicate that humane and Protestant Indian in the war measures now in discussion before this grand Indian council at the house of the bishop. The bishop says “that the propositions which those chiefs wished to send were these: 1st. That Americans should not come to make war; 2d. That they should send up two or three great men to make a treaty of peace; 3d. That when these great men should arrive, all the captives should be released; 4th. That they would offer no offense to Americans before knowing the news from below.

“The bishop then desired them to speak and to say what they thought of these propositions.

“Camaspelo spoke first. He said he was blind and ignorant, and had despaired of the life and salvation of his nation, but that the words of the bishop had opened his eyes, consoled and encouraged him; that he had confidence, and that he approved the propositions.

“The chief Tilokaikt then rose to say that he was not a great speaker, and that his talk would not be long. He then reviewed the history of the nation since the arrival of the whites (French people or Hudson’s Bay Company) in the country down to the present time. He said that before they had been visited by white men the Indians were always at war; that at the place where Fort Wallawalla now stood nothing but blood was continually seen; that they had been taught by the whites that there was a God who forbids men to kill each other.” “A jewel of gold in a swine’s snout.” This is the Indian that assisted in killing Dr. Whitman, and engaged his attention while his companion gave the first blow; and he afterward cut the Doctor’s face horribly with a hatchet, while he was yet alive. But let us continue this “holy father’s” lesson of peace and morality from the mouth of his converted Indian, for we have every reason to believe he is now fully converted to that faith, and has given us a specimen in the practice of the religion he has just commenced to learn. He says, “that since this time they had always lived in peace, and endeavored to persuade others to do the same. He eulogized Mr. Pambrun; spoke of a Nez Percé chief who had been killed when going to the States; afterward of the son of Yellow Serpent, who had been killed by Americans in California; said that they had forgotten all this. He spoke also of Dr. Whitman and Mr. Spalding, and finished by saying that since they had forgotten all, he hoped that the Americans would also forget what had been recently done; that now they were even.”

This priest is careful to make his converted Indian tell a plausible story, as also to eulogize Mr. Pambrun and the Hudson’s Bay Company, and to state that two Indians had been killed while in company with, or by Americans.

As to the killing of the Nez Percé chief (so called), we knew much more of it than this priest or his Indian. The Nez Percé was killed in open fight with the Sioux, at Ash Hollow, on the Platte River, after the party had fought three hours, and killed fifteen and wounded eight of the Sioux. He was no connection of this Cayuse tribe, and is only referred to for effect. The bishop makes Tilokaikt tell a falsehood to shield a crime in himself and associates.

The killing of Elijah, the son of Yellow Serpent, is equally false in the statement of the fact, and relation of the circumstances. Dr. White, sub-Indian agent, etc., was never known to tell the truth when a falsehood would suit his plans and purposes better; as is evident in this case, which is given that the reader may judge of its truth. Mr. Brouillet comments upon Dr. White’s letter to the Department at Washington, April 4, 1845, as follows: “After speaking of some difficulties that occurred in California between the Cayuses and Wallawallas on one part, and the Spaniards and Americans on the other, on account of some stolen horses that the Cayuses and Wallawallas had taken from hostile Indians by fighting them [this is altogether a mistake, as the horses belonged to the Americans and Spaniards and they had their Indians guarding them, and the party here referred to killed the guard and attempted the life of an American], Mr. White passes on to relate a murder there, committed coolly by an American the fall previous upon the person of Elijah, the son of Yellow Serpent, the chief of the Wallawallas, in the following way: ‘The Indians had gone to the fort of Captain Sutter to church, and, after service, Elijah was invited into another apartment, taking with him his uncle, Young Chief, of the Umatilla River, a brave and sensible chief of the age of five and forty.’” This priest, on page 30 (J. Ross Browne, page 28), makes Mr. McKinley say that in the fall of 1844, the Indians, a short time after their return from California, met one day at Fort Wallawalla, seven hundred in number, all armed, and decided to walk down immediately upon the colony of the Wallamet, and that they could be stopped only by the Young Chief, who, by his entreaties, decided them to abandon their undertaking and to go home. We are led to inquire, why did not these Indians, at this time, direct their attention to the American missions in their midst, and take their revenge then, instead of waiting three years, and then, as Brouillet says, making this murder a cause of the massacre? McBean, and Bishop Blanchet and his priests, were not then at the fort, nor among those Indians, to aid them in avenging themselves on the innocent.

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

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