The part taken by Mr. McBean, Mr. Ogden, and Sir James Douglas, will be given in another chapter.
The above manifesto is given as having been made on the 20th of December, 1847. On the 23d, three days after, when this very Rev. Mr. Brouillet mounted his horse to go to the fort, he told Miss Bewley that “if she went to Five Crows’ lodge any more she must not come back to his house.” Miss Bewley says: “The bishop told me I had better go.⚹ ⚹ ⚹ The bishop sent an Indian with me; he took me to Five Crows’ lodge.⚹ ⚹ ⚹ The bishop finally ordered me to go.⚹ ⚹ ⚹ I found I could get no help.”
These are the solemn affirmations of this intelligent young American lady, who was present at the bishop’s house when this manifesto was prepared.
Were this Bishop Blanchet and his priests true and sincere in what they said, and in the advice they say they gave to the Indians?
We have now traced what may be termed the missionary account of this painful tragedy, as given by both parties. Our readers must judge for themselves as to the guilt or innocence of all the parties involved, and also of the application to our subject of the extensive extracts we have given. We will now turn our attention to those whom we conceive to be the prime movers, and, in consequence, the most deeply implicated in this tragedy.
We have had occasion to allude to the intimate connection existing between the Jesuit missions in Oregon and the Hudson’s Bay Company. As early as 1836, that company brought a Protestant Episcopal chaplain to Vancouver for political reasons, whom they soon dismissed and attempted to disgrace, as unworthy of belief in any statement he might make. Soon after, in the fall of 1838, two Roman priests arrived at Vancouver and took charge of the religious and literary instructions of the members of the company,—of their children and servants, and, as far as possible, of all the Indians in the country; and while the company professed friendship for the American missionaries, they were active and vigilant to defeat all their efforts to enlighten and civilize the Indians, enlisting sufficient American influence to distract and divide the American people, so as to cover up their main object of securing the country for British Territory. This will be seen by evidence already quoted from our English authors, Mr. Fitzgerald and Sir Edward Belcher, and the refusal of Sir James Douglas to aid the provisional government, or furnish supplies for their troops, and the fact that they did embrace every opportunity to supply the Indians with guns, powder, and balls, and sought to combine the whole Indian power and prejudice against the settlements.
CHAPTER LX.
The Hudson’s Bay Company’s and the priests’ part in the massacre.—McBean’s messenger.—Plot divulged to Hinman, Ogden, and Douglas.—Douglas’s remark to Hinman.—McBean’s letter.—His perversion of facts.—Comments.—Sir James Douglas’s letter to Governor Abernethy.—His Sandwich Islands letter.—Its falsehood and absurdity.—Mr. Hinman’s letter to Governor Abernethy.—The dates.—Assertion of Robert Newell.—Hudson’s Bay Company v. United States.