CHAPTER LVI.
Comments on Vicar-General Brouillet’s arguments against the Whitman massacre being the act of Catholics.—Joe Stanfield: Brouillet’s story in his favor.—Murders on the second day.—Deposition of Daniel Young.—More murders.
Vicar-General Brouillet, in his narrative of “Protestantism in Oregon,” says: “I could admit that Joseph Lewis, Joseph Stanfield, and Nicholas Finlay, who may have been seen plundering” (as proved on the trial of Stanfield), “were Catholics, without injuring in the least the cause of Catholicism; because, as in good reasoning” (Roman Catholic, of course), “it is never allowed to conclude from one particularity to another particularity, nor to a generality; in like manner, from the guilt of three Catholics it can not be reasonably concluded that other Catholics are guilty, nor, a fortiori, that all Catholics are guilty and Catholicism favorable to the guilt.”
No man, set of men, or sect, not interested in the result of a measure or a crime, will ever use an argument like the one we have quoted from this priest. Dr. Whitman and those about his station had been slaughtered in the most brutal and cowardly manner, by a band of Indians that this priest, his bishop, and associates, backed by the consent and influence of the Hudson’s Bay Company, had brought about through the direct influence of these three men: all of whom knew, and consulted with the Indians as to the commission of the crime. And we have the strongest reason to believe that this priest and his party were, by their conversation, instructions, and direct teachings, adding their influence and approval to that horrid transaction. Besides, when the crime is committed, we find this same band of fur traders and priests protecting, shielding, advising and assisting the murderers to the utmost of their power and influence, both in the country and in their foreign correspondence. If such facts do not implicate a party, we ask what will? The very book from which we are quoting, containing 108 pages, has not a single sentence condemning the course or crime of these men, but every page contains some statement condemning Spalding, Whitman, or some American supposed to belong to, or in favor of, the American settlements or missions.
But let us return to further particulars of this Whitman massacre. We have gathered up the statements and facts on both sides of this question, and with our own knowledge, previous to and since its occurrence, we write with assurance, if not with the best judgment in selecting the facts and evidence to place the truth before the public.
We were in the midst of describing that horrible scene of savage blood and carnage, when we stopped for a moment to inquire after the character of three of the prominent actors, in fact, the leaders in the tragedy.
Brouillet tells us (on page 89 of his narrative, page 56 of Ross Browne) in extenuation of the guilt of Stanfield, that “the following circumstance, if true, speaks very highly in his favor, and shows that if he has at any time forgotten the good principles he had received in his infancy, once, at least, those principles prompted him to an heroic action. It was on the morning of the day that followed the massacre. There were several Indians scattered in the neighborhood of the mission buildings, but especially a crowd of Indian women was standing near the door of the house in which all the white women and children were living. Stanfield, being then at a short distance from the house, Tilokaikt, the chief of the place, came up and asked him if he had something in the house. ‘Yes,’ said Stanfield, ‘I have all my things there.’ ‘Take them away,’ said the Indian to him. ‘Why should I take them away? they are well there.’ ‘Take them off,’ he insisted, a second time. ‘But I have not only my things there; I have also my wife and children.’ ‘Yes,’ replied Tilokaikt, who appeared a little surprised, ‘you have a wife and children in the house! Will you take them off?’ ‘No,’ replied Stanfield, ‘I will not take them away, and I will go and stay myself in the house. I see that you have bad designs; you intend to kill the women and children; well, you will kill me with them. Are you not ashamed? Are you not satisfied with what you have done? Do you want still to kill poor innocent creatures that have never done you any harm?’ ‘I am ashamed,’ replied Tilokaikt, after a moment’s hesitation. ‘It is true, those women and children do not deserve death; they did not harm us; they shall not die.’ And, turning to the Indian women who were standing near the door of the house waiting with a visible impatience for the order to enter and slaughter the people inside, he ordered them to go off. The Indian women then became enraged, and, showing them the knives that they took from beneath their blankets, they insulted him in many different ways, calling him a coward, a woman who would consent to be governed by a Frenchman; and they retired, apparently in great anger for not having been allowed to imbrue their hands in the blood of new victims. The above circumstance was related at Fort Wallawalla to Mr. Ogden, by Stanfield himself, under great emotion, and in presence of the widows, none of whom contradicted him. An action of that nature, if it took place, would be, of itself, sufficient to redeem a great many faults.”
We do not wish to question any good act this Frenchman may have done; but the guilt of knowing that crime was to be committed, and that the Americans were to be killed around him like the ox he had brought to the slaughter, which he knew was to be the signal for its commencement; and the manner he and his two associates conducted themselves on the ground; the influence he had to stop the massacre at any time, and his robbing the widows and orphans in the midst of the slaughter;—these make up a complication of crime that none but the vilest will attempt to excuse.