There are three important facts stated by this Indian which are confirmed by other testimony.

First. That the priest was upon the ground, or in at the death.

Second. He was ready to overhaul the Doctor's medicines and hunt out some vial, and tell the Indians, "_Here it is,--the medicine the Doctor has been killing you with._"

Third. That he told them it was sent to the Doctor by Mrs. Whitman's father, who poisoned people in the States.

This explains the terrible and brutal treatment of Mrs. Whitman's body, even after death.

Brouillet says, "_Joseph Lewis had succeeded in fixing upon their minds that Dr. Whitman had poisoned them_," but Istacus, one of the first and most truthful Indians we became acquainted with in the country, tells us that the Indians did not believe Joe Lewis till the priest confirmed his statements, and this priest was required to show them the poison.

It would not be strange, if, while he is compelled to hunt over the medicines of Dr. Whitman, to find any that he could call poison, and in exhibiting such evidence to the deluded murderers about him, that he should feel himself in danger, yet his whole conduct belies such a statement, for he well knew the ignorance of those about him as to any medicine he might select and call _poison_.

This Indian's statement also explains the killing of the two young men, Sales and Bewley, and that as these priests "were sent of G.o.d," the disease of these young men would spread; in other words, their testimony would convict the parties implicated.

We find in this same letter to Colonel Gilliam, other statements that are important in the history we are giving. He says: "_I knew that the Indians were angry with all Americans, and more enraged against Mr.

Spalding than any other._" If this was the case, why did they not kill him first? There is certainly some mistake in this statement of Mr.

Brouillet, or else the Indians were too hasty, which is probably the case. The Indians were not quite as much "_enraged_" against Mr.

Spalding as his reverence, who claimed to know their feelings so well.

Again, on the 54th page (39th of Ross Browne), in answer to Mr.

Spalding's wild, despairing cry, "But where shall I go?" he answers: "I know not; you know the country better than I; all that I know is that the Indians say _the order to kill Americans has been sent in all directions_."

How did this Rev. Father Brouillet know all this? We have yet to learn that he ever gave a single American, except Mr. Spalding, any information respecting their danger,--which he certainly could have done with perfect safety, by sending any one or all of them a written notice of the "order to kill Americans;" but instead of warning them of their danger, he was present to show to the Indians a vial of Dr. Whitman's medicine and tell them it was the _poison_.

The long list of statements collected and given to the world as reliable historical data, by this priest, and embodied in an official report by J. Ross Browne, do but show the active part he, with his a.s.sociate priests and the Hudson's Bay Company, took to destroy the American influence and settlements then in the country.

Says the historian Bancroft: "It is the duty of faithful history to trace events not only to their cause, but to their authors."

We will direct our attention for a short time to the proceedings of Mr.

McBean in charge of Fort Wallawalla (or Fort Nez Perces), in council with the Indians. From the statement of Mr. Wm. Geiger, Jr., who was at Dr. Whitman's station during the winter of 1846-7, teaching school, we learn that the Indians showed some dissatisfaction, and were called together by Dr. Whitman, to consult and decide what they would do. The Doctor proposed to them that a majority of the tribe should let him know definitely, and a vote was taken, and but two or three were found to favor his leaving. During this council Mr. Geiger and the Doctor learned that there had been conversation and a council with the Indians at the fort, by Mr. McBean. That he had informed them of the Mexican war between the United States and Mexico, and of the prospect of a war between the United States and England (King George men), and that he was anxious to know which side the Cayuses would take in the event of such a war. This question Mr. McBean kept constantly before the Indians whenever they went to the fort. They would return to the station and say that Mr. McBean had given them more news of the prospect of war between the King George people and Americans, and that he wished to know which side they would take. Tamsaky, Tilokaikt, and one other Indian said they had told Mr. McBean that they would join the King George. Some said they had told him their hearts favored the Americans; others professed to be on the "_back-bone_," _i.e._, hesitating. All matters and causes of dissatisfaction between the Doctor's mission and the Indians were amicably settled. The Doctor and Mr. Geiger could not see why Mr. McBean should beset the Indians on that subject, unless it was to bring about what had been before, viz., to make allies of the Indians in case of war.

On account of this dissatisfaction, the Doctor thought of leaving. Mr.

Geiger says, "I told them I thought it their duty to remain. I thought the Indians as quiet as communities in general; in old places there were more or less difficulties and excitements."

In the communication signed by Mr. Geiger, he is asked, "What was the cause of discouragement with the Doctor and Mr. Spalding at that time?"

A.--"The influence of the Roman priests, exercised in talking to the Indians, and through the French half-breed, Lehai, Tom Hill, a Delaware Indian, and others."

Q.--"What did the Indians mention was the instruction they received from Roman Catholics?"

A.--"That the Protestants were leading them in wrong roads, _i.e._, even to h.e.l.l. If they followed the _Suapies_ (Americans) they would continue to die. If they followed the Catholics, it would be otherwise with them; only now and then one would die of age. That they would get presents,--would become rich in every thing."

We have a statement made by Brouillet as to their influence among the Indians on this coast, found on the 87th page of his narrative, "Protestantism in Oregon" (55th of Ross Browne.) He says:--

"Messrs. Blanchet and Demerse, the first Catholic missionaries that came to Oregon, had pa.s.sed Wallawalla in 1838, where they had stopped a few days, and had been visited by the Indians. In 1839, Mr. Demerse had spent three weeks in teaching the Indians and baptizing their children. In 1840, he had made there a mission so fruitful that the Protestant missionaries had got alarmed, and feared that all their disciples would abandon them if he continued his missions among them. Father De Smet, after visiting the Flatheads in 1840, had come and established a mission among them in 1841; and from that time down to the arrival of the bishop, the Indians of Wallawalla and of the Upper Columbia had never failed to be visited yearly, either by Mr. Demerse or by some of the Jesuits, and those annual excursions had procured every year new children to the church. Almost every Indian tribe possessed some Catholic member."

We can bear positive testimony as to the effect and influence of those teachings up to 1842 among the Upper Columbia Indians; and it is to ill.u.s.trate the bearing and result of those teachings, continued for a series of years upon the savage mind, and the influence of a foreign monopoly in connection with such teachers, that we bring these statements before the reader.

The vast influence wielded by this foreign fur and sectarian monopoly was used to secure Oregon for their exclusive occupation. The testimony of Rev. Messrs. Beaver and Barnley, and Sir Edward Belcher, as given by Mr. Fitzgerald, and that of his Reverence Brouillet, as found on the 56th page of his narrative, all affirm the close connection of these two influences. Leaving out of the question the statement of many others, we have that of this priest. He says:--

"Some days after an express reached us from the fort, informing us that our lives were in danger from a portion of the Indians who could not pardon me for having deprived them of their victim; and this was the only reason which prevented me from fulfilling the promise which I had made to the widows and orphans of returning to see them, and obliged me to be contented with sending my interpreter" to the scene of the murder, to bring Miss Bewley to be treated as the evidence in the next chapter will show.

CHAPTER LIX.

Continuation of Miss Bewley's evidence.--The priests refuse her protection.--Forcibly taken from the bishop's house by Five Crows.--Brouillet advises her to remain with her Indian violator.--Indecent question by a priest.--Mr. Brouillet attempts to get a statement from her.--Two questions.--Note from Mrs.

Bewley.--Bishop Blanchet's letter to Governor Abernethy.--Comments on the Jesuits' proceedings.--Grand council at the bishop's.--Policy in forcing Miss Bewley to Five Crows'

lodge.--Speeches by Camaspelo and Tilokaikt.--Killing of Elijah and the Nez Perce chief commented on.--The true story told.--Dr.

White's report.--The grand council again.--Review of Brouillet's narrative.--Who were the real authors of the ma.s.sacre.

_Miss Bewley's Deposition Continued._

Q.--When were you taken to the Umatilla?

A.--Just at night, on Thursday the next week after the first ma.s.sacre, having shaken with the ague that day; slept out that night in the snow-storm.

Q.--Whose horses came after you?

A.--Eliza Spalding said they belonged to her father; this led us to suppose Mr. Spalding was killed.

Q.--When did you leave Umatilla?

A.--On Monday before the Wednesday on which we all went to Wallawalla.

Q.--When did you reach Wallawalla?

A.--On Wednesday before the Sat.u.r.day on which Mr. Spalding and company arrived, and we all started the next day for the lower country.

Q.--Where did you spend your time when at the Umatilla?

A.--Most of the time at the house of the bishop; but the Five Crows (Brouillet's Achekaia) most of the nights compelled me to go to his lodge and be subject to him during the night. I obtained the privilege of going to the bishop's house before violation on the Umatilla, and _begged_ and _cried to the bishop for protection_ either at his house, or to be sent to Wallawalla. I told him I would do any work by night and day for him if he would protect me. _He said he would do all he could._ [The sequel shows that in this promise the bishop meant to implicate and involve the Five Crows, should a war with the American settlement grow out of the ma.s.sacre.] Although I was taken to the lodge, I escaped violation the first four nights. There were the bishop, three priests, and two Frenchmen at the bishop's house. The first night the Five Crows came, I refused to go, and he went away, apparently mad, and _the bishop told me I had better go_, as he might do us all an injury, and _the bishop sent an Indian with me_. He took me to the Five Crows' lodge. The Five Crows showed me the door, and told me I might go back, and take my clothes, which I did.

Three nights after this, the Five Crows came for me again. _The bishop finally ordered me to go_; my answer was, I had rather die. After this, _he still insisted on my going_ as the best thing I could do. I was then in the bishop's room; the three priests were there. I found I could get no help, _and had to go, as he told me, out of his room_. The Five Crows seized me by the arm and jerked me away to his lodge.

Q.--How long were you at the Umatilla?

A.--Two weeks, and from Friday till Monday. I would return early in the morning to the bishop's house, and be violently taken away at night. The Bishop provided kindly for me while at his house. On my return one morning one of the young priests asked me, in a good deal of glee, _how I liked my companion_. I felt that this would break my heart, and cried much during the day. When the two Nez Perces arrived with Mr. Spalding's letter, they held a council in the bishop's room, and the bishop said they were trying to have things settled. He said Mr. Spalding was trying to get the captives delivered up; I do not recollect what day this was, but it was some days before we heard that Mr. Ogden had arrived at Wallawalla. When the tall priest (Brouillet) that was at the Doctor's at the first was going to Wallawalla, after hearing of Mr. Ogden's arrival, he called me out of the door and told me if I went to the lodge any more I must not come back to his house. I asked him what I should do. He said I must insist or beg of the Indian to let me stop at his house; if he would not let me, then I must stay at his lodge. I did not feel well, and toward night I took advantage of this and went to bed, determined I would die there before I would be taken away. The Indian came, and, on my refusing to go, hauled me from my bed and threw my bonnet and shawl at me, and told me to go. I would not, and at a time when his eyes were off I threw them under the table and he could not find them. I sat down, determined not to go, and he pushed me nearly into the fire. The Frenchmen were in the room, and the bishop and priests were pa.s.sing back and forth to their rooms. When the Indian was smoking, I went to bed again, and when he was through smoking he dragged me from my bed with more violence than the first time. I told the Frenchman to go into the bishop's room and ask him what I should do; he came out and told me that the _bishop said it was best for me to go_. I told him the tall priest said, if I went I must not come back again to this house; he said the priests dared not keep women about their house, but if the Five Crows sent me back again, why come. I still would not go. The Indian then pulled me away violently without bonnet or shawl. Next morning I came back and was in much anguish and cried much. _The bishop asked me if I was in much trouble?_ I told him I was. He said it was not my fault, that I could not help myself. That I must pray to G.o.d and Mary. He asked me if I did not believe in G.o.d; I told him I did.

We will not stop to comment on the simple narrative of this young woman.

No language of mine will more deeply impress the reader with the debasing character of these "holy fathers, the Catholic priests," that served the _Honorable_ Hudson's Bay Company and mother church so faithfully.

It appears that Miss Bewley arrived at the bishop's on the 10th of December. On the 58th page of Brouillet's narrative (41st of Browne's) we find the following language:--