CHAPTER LIV.

The Whitman massacres.--Narratives of, by J. B. A. Brouillet and J. Ross Browne.--Extract from the New York _Evangelist._--Statements of Father Brouillet criticised.--Testimony of John Kimzey.--Dr. Whitman at Umatilla.--Returns home.

We have before us two works purporting to give a true and authentic account of the Whitman massacre,--the one prepared by a Jesuit priest, J. B. A. Brouillet; the other by one J. Ross Browne, special agent of the United States revenue department. As this part of our history was written before that of J. Ross Browne (purporting to be an official report to the 35th Congress, 1st session, House of Representatives, Executive Document No. 38) came into our hands, it is proper that we should give this report a passing notice.

Mr. Browne, upon the second page of his report, says: "In view of the fact, however, that objections might be made to any testimony coming from the citizens of the Territory, and believing also that it is the duty of a public agent to present, as far as practicable, _unprejudiced statements_, I did not permit myself to be governed by any representations unsupported by _reliable_ historical data."

One would naturally conclude, from such a statement, that a candid, unprejudiced, and truthful report would be given; but, to our astonishment, we find that fifty-three of the sixty-six pages of this official document are an exact copy of the Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet's work, thus indorsing, and placing in an official document, one of the most maliciously false and unreliable accounts that a prejudiced and deeply implicated sectarian could give, claiming such to be "_reliable historical data_,"--thus showing both his prejudice and ignorance in the conclusion he arrived at as to the causes of the Indian wars.

Had J. Ross Browne been willing to lay aside his unreasonable sectarian prejudice, and listen to the positive testimony then in the country, he could easily have learned who were the prime cause of all the Indian wars in it; or, had he made himself familiar (as he flippantly claims to have done) with the history of the English and American people, the policy of the English political and sectarian powers, and the commercial policy of the Hudson's Bay Company, he would have escaped the folly of placing in an official document such palpable errors, and showing such willful ignorance of the subject he was commissioned to investigate.

He says, on page 2, "It was a war of _destiny_,--bound to take place whenever the causes reached their _culminating point_." The "_destiny_" and culminating point of that war was fixed by the Hudson's Bay Company and the Jesuit priests, as also the second and third wars with the Indians that followed, as we shall show by positive testimony of witnesses who are unimpeachable.

Had J. Ross Browne carefully examined the tissue of statements prepared by Father Brouillet, he could have found statements like this on page 53 (38 of J. R. B.), "_I knew that the Indians were angry with all Americans_;" page 54 (39 of J. R. B.), "_All that I know is that the Indians say the order to kill Americans_ has been sent in all directions."

There was but one party in the country that could issue such an order, which Brouillet well knew, and the testimony we shall give will prove.

On his third page, he says: "The same primary causes existed in every case,--encroachments of a superior upon an inferior race." He then refers to the agitation of the Oregon question in the Senate in 1840-41; to Mr. Thurston's course as a delegate; the treaties with the Indians, etc.,--showing conclusively the sources of his information, and his ignorance of the causes he professed to give a truthful and impartial account of,--barely alluding to the unwarranted assumptions of the British Hudson's Bay Company of an exclusive right to trade with the Indians. In fact, the whole report appears to be a studied effort to cover the prime causes of the difficulty, and of the Indian wars he was commissioned to investigate and report upon.

It is not surprising that with the foreign emissaries then in the country, and the stupid ignorance or malicious bigotry of the United States agent, that such reports should be made; but that the government should adopt, and act upon, or publish them, is indeed surprising; unless, as the history of the late rebellion shows, it was the design of those agents to involve the whole nation in an ultimate dismemberment, and distinct, separate nationalities, under the auspices of African, Indian, and religious slavery. We regret the necessity of prefacing a chapter in this work with so severe a stricture upon a government official, yet his report is so manifestly false and malicious, and without the evidence of truth or candor toward the Protestant missionaries, to whom is due, more than to any other influence, the settlement of the country by the American people,--that, in justice to them, and the truth of history, we can say no less, while we proceed with the account of the murder of Dr. Whitman and those at his station.

The necessity and importance of an extended and particular account becomes still more important from the fact that the Roman Jesuits in the country have succeeded in placing through such an agent their false account of the massacre in a permanent government document,--thus slandering not only the dead, but the living, whose duty it becomes to refute such vile slanders by publishing the whole truth in the case. Besides, the very Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet, in a second edition of his false and absurd production, refers to this report of J. R. Browne as additional official evidence of the truth of his own false statements, previously made through such agents, and such men as Sir James Douglas,--compelling us, in vindicating the truth of history, to place before the reader more of the statements of parties implicated than was our original design.

Since this work has been in press, we have an article in the New York _Evangelist_ of 6th of January, 1870, from the pen of Rev. Mr. Treat, D.D., containing a brief statement of the Whitman massacre, and the following as the result of the investigations as had in several religious bodies in Oregon; the conclusion is as follows:--

"It so happens, however, that men who are more competent to adjudicate the case have not hesitated to do so. The Congregational Association of Oregon adopted a report in June last, which condemns the 'prominent and absolute falsehoods' of Father Brouillet's pamphlet, and expresses the belief, 'from evidence, clear and sufficient to them, that the Roman Catholic priests did themselves instigate violence to the missions, resulting in massacre.' Similar action was taken by the Old School Presbytery, the Cumberland Presbytery, and the U. P. Presbytery. The Methodist Conference, composed of more than seventy preachers, and under the presidency of Bishop Kingsley, adopted a comprehensive and able report, which was published at Portland, September 25, 1869, in which the massacre at Wailatpu is declared to have been 'wholly unprovoked by Dr. Whitman or any other member of the mission,' and to have arisen from the policy of the Hudson's Bay Company 'to exclude American settlers,' and the 'efforts of Roman priests directed against the establishment of Protestantism in the country.' It is believed that the other evangelical denominations in Oregon have spoken with the same distinctness and the same confidence.

"Valuable testimony is borne to the character of the missionaries who survived Dr. Whitman, and who have been residents of Oregon to this day, as also to the fidelity and success of their labors, but there is not space for it in the present article. Suffice it to say, that, while the motives of Hon. J. Ross Browne, in appending Father Brouillet's pamphlet to his 'Letter,' and the reasons of the House of Representative for publishing the same, are open to grave suspicion, facts and opinions have been elicited, which throw additional light upon the manifold bearings and uses of the missionary enterprise."

On page 40 of Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet's "Protestantism in Oregon" and page 33 of J. Ross Browne's report, we find, under date of September 5, 1847, that "the Right Rev. Bishop Blanchet arrived at old Fort Wallawalla (now called Wallula), where he was cordially received by Mr. McBean, clerk in charge of said fort. He was accompanied by the superior of Oblates and two other clergymen. He had the intention of remaining but a few days at the fort, for he knew that Tawatowe (or Young Chief), one of the Cayuse chiefs, had a house which he had designed for the Catholic missionaries, and he intended to go and occupy it without delay; but the absence of the Young Chief, who was hunting buffalo, created a difficulty in regard to the occupation of the house, and in consequence of it he had to wait longer than he wished."

The house here spoken of was erected during the summer of 1837, before any Catholic missionaries were thought of, at least among the Indians, or by the American missionaries, and it was late in the fall of 1838 that Revs. Blanchet and Demerse passed down the Columbia River. These first missionaries of the Society of Jesus, wishing to do Mr. P. C. Pambrun, then clerk of the post, a special favor, baptized the infant son of the Young Chief, for whose benefit and occupation, Mr. Pambrun said, the company had ordered that house to be built. If it was designed for these priests, who was the designer?

Mr. Brouillet, in his narrative, says:--

"On the 23d of September, Dr. Whitman, on his way from the Dalles, stopped at Fort Wallawalla. His countenance bore sufficient testimony to the agitation of his heart. He soon showed by his words that he was deeply wounded by the arrival of the bishop. 'I know very well,' said he, 'for what purpose you have come.' 'All is known,' replied the bishop; 'I come to labor for the conversion of the Indians, and even of Americans, if they are willing to listen to me.' The doctor then continued, in the same tone, to speak of many things. He attributed the coming of the bishop to the Young Chief's influence! made a furious charge against the Catholics, accusing them of having persecuted Protestants and even of having shed their blood wherever they had prevailed. He said he did not like Catholics----that he should oppose the missionaries to the extent of his power.----He spoke against the _Catholic Ladder_![12] and said that he would cover it with blood, to show the persecution of Protestants by Catholics. He refused to sell provisions to the bishop, and protested he would not assist the missionaries unless he saw them in starvation."

[Footnote 12] A picture explaining the principal points of Catholic faith.

It is barely possible that Dr. Whitman said all that this priest says he