“To the Board of Managers:
“Gentlemen,—It is my painful duty to make you acquainted with a horrible massacre which took place yesterday at Wailatpu, about which I was first apprised, early this morning, by an American who had escaped, of the name of Hall, and who reached this place half-naked and covered with blood, as he started at the outset; the information I received was not satisfactory. He, however, assured me that the Doctor and another man were killed, but could not tell us the persons who did it, and how it originated. I immediately determined on sending my interpreter and one man to Dr. Whitman to find out the truth, and, if possible, to rescue Mr. Manson’s two sons and any of the survivors. It so happened that, before the interpreter had proceeded half-way, the two boys were met on their way hither, escorted by Nicholas Finlay, it having been previously settled among the Indians that these boys should not be killed [Mr. McBean should have added, as per my instructions]; as also the American women and children [as per Joseph Stanfield’s direction, as he had taken Mrs. Hays for a wife, and several Indians were to have the young women at the station for wives]. Tilokaikt is the chief who recommended this measure. I presume that you are well acquainted that fever and dysentery have been raging here and in the vicinity, in consequence of which a great number of Indians have been swept away, but more especially at the Doctor’s place, where he had attended upon the Indians. About thirty souls of the Cayuse tribe died, one after another, who evidently believed the Doctor poisoned them, and in which opinion they were, unfortunately, confirmed by one of the Doctor’s party. As far as I have been able to learn, this has been the sole cause of the dreadful butchery. In order to satisfy any doubt on that point, it is reported that they requested the Doctor to administer medicine to three of their friends, two of whom were really sick, but the third feigned sickness, and that the three were corpses the next morning. After they were buried, and while the Doctor’s men were employed slaughtering an ox, the Indians came one by one to his house, with their arms concealed under their blankets, and, being all assembled, commenced firing on those slaughtering the animal, and in a moment the Doctor’s house was surrounded; the Doctor, and a young lad brought up by himself, were shot in the house. His lady, Mr. Rogers, and the children had taken refuge in the garret, but were dragged down and dispatched (excepting the children) outside, where their bodies were left exposed.
“It is reported that it was not their intention to kill Mr. Rogers, in consequence of an avowal to the following effect, which he is said to have made, and which nothing but a desire to save his life could have promoted him to do. He said, ‘I was one evening lying down, and overheard the Doctor telling Rev. Mr. Spalding that it was best you should all be poisoned at once, but that the latter told him it was best to continue slowly and cautiously, and between this and spring not a soul would remain, when they would take possession of your lands, cattle, and horses.’
“These are only Indian reports, and no person can believe the Doctor capable of such an action without being as ignorant and brutish as the Indians themselves. One of the murderers, not having been made acquainted with the above understanding, shot Mr. Rogers.”
This confession is made, as the reader will notice, and attributed to Mr. Rogers, in order to give the coloring of truth to Joe Lewis’s statement. There appears, as will be seen by comparing the statements of Vicar-General Brouillet’s Indian council and this of McBean’s, a little doubt which to make the author of that story. Sir James Douglas has adopted McBean’s statement, as the most plausible, in his report, as it is attributed to one of the Doctor’s own party.
The whole thing, as will be seen by the testimony of Miss Bewley, is utterly false, and, as McBean has said, only Indian reports; and, we will add, told to them by Stanfield, Joe Lewis, and Finlay, a Frenchman, an Indian, and a half-breed, all under the influence, and probably in the service, of the Hudson’s Bay Company and priests. And McBean, Sir James Douglas, and Brouillet are more brutish than the Indians, in putting such reports in circulation. If they had no confidence in them, why did they repeat them, giving them the color of truth? And why do they pretend to say “his life would have been spared,” and it was only a mistake that he was shot? Bewley and Sales were brutally murdered the eighth day after Rogers was, for Bewley’s saying he did not believe the stories about poisoning Indians, and that he believed the priests were the cause of it. If the Doctor, and Mr. Spalding, and Mrs. Whitman were the only ones they thought injuring them, why attempt to kill all the Americans at the station? Why make the arrangements as extensive as Vicar-General Brouillet tells Mr. Spalding they were (on page 51 of his narrative, 38 of Ross Browne’s report): “I knew that the Indians were angry with all Americans, and more enraged against Mr. Spalding than any other;”—on 54th page: “I know not; you know the country better than I do. All that I know is, that the Indians say the order to kill Americans has been sent in all directions.”
Without the history of the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Northwest Fur Company before us, we would be quite incapable of comprehending the expressions and statements of this priest to Mr. Spalding. Were we ignorant of that history, and without a knowledge of the statements to which they have made oath in relation to their claims against our government, we could not understand these letters of McBean and Douglas.
We are also in possession of other facts, respecting the treatment of their own countrymen who have unfortunately fallen under their displeasure, which is here repeated upon Dr. Whitman and Mr. Rogers.
We would cut all these communications short, and make a general statement, but we would be charged (as we have already been) with “stringing together statements without facts;” besides, all these Hudson’s Bay documents and statements have had a powerful influence to destroy the characters of good men who are dead, and shield the vile conduct of the guilty, who are still living.
So far as McBean was concerned, he obeyed orders as implicitly as Grant of the Hudson’s Bay Company did, when he sent forty families, in 1846, into the mountains of California, to perish in the snow with cold and hunger. McBean must assist in blackening the character of Whitman, Rogers, and Spalding, to protect that of the “holy fathers, the Catholic priests.”
McBean in his letter further says: “It is well understood that eleven lives were lost and three wounded. It is also rumored that they are to make an attack upon the fort; let them come if they will not listen to reason; though I have only five men at the establishment, I am prepared to give them a warm reception; the gates are closed day and night, and bastions in readiness. In company with Mr. Manson’s two sons was sent a young half-breed lad brought up by Dr. Whitman; they are all here, and have got over their fright.”
This portion of the letter is supposed, by Mr. Hinman, to have been put in by Mr. Douglas in place of that which related to sending parties to destroy Americans at other places; and to show to the world that they were threatened by the Indians, as well as the Americans. The same as Brouillet is careful to tell us that “he was afraid the Indians would kill him,” and that the priests were not safe among them.
“The ringleaders in this horrible butchery are Tilokaikt, his son, Big Belly, Tamsaky, Istacus I am happy to state the Wallawalla chief had no hand in the whole business.”