If this is true, the killing of the Wallawalla chief’s son in California could not have been one of the causes of the massacre, as alleged in the narrative of the very Rev. Mr. Brouillet.
“They were all the Doctor’s own people,—the Cayuses.”
This we should expect, as it would enable those who wished to make their own guilt appear innocence. The Doctor’s people alone were to commence killing the Americans. It is asserted by good authority, that a part of Mr. Spalding’s, and the Indians at the Dalles, were ready to engage in the same business, from the same advice and orders.
“One American shot another, and took the Indians’ part to save his own life.”
This statement by McBean is made, as will be seen, to give the impression that there was a quarrel among the Americans, and that they were ready to betray and shoot each other and take the part of the Indians. The reader will recollect that this shooting refers to the Indian Joe Lewis, in killing one of the Sager boys, and is explained particularly by Sir James Douglas in his Sandwich Islands letter, for the information of the American Board of Missions. This fact goes to show that Sir James had received a more particular and carefully prepared account than Mr. McBean had; while the one was a summary, the other was the particulars so arranged as to implicate Dr. Whitman, Mr. Spalding, Mr. Rogers, Mrs. Whitman, and another American, to show that they were not only ready to poison the Indians, but to kill and betray each other to save their own lives; thus showing the intimate connection and complicity of Sir James with the very rev. vicar-general, in giving countenance to this infamous slander, and publishing it to the world over his own signature, and using all his influence to shield and clear the instigators of the crime.
It can not be urged that Sir James received his particular information at some other time, for his letters to Governor Abernethy and the Sandwich Islands were dated, the one to the governor, December 7, 1847, in which he says, “A copy of Mr. McBean’s letter herewith will give you all the particulars known to us of this indescribably painful event;” and the one to the Islands, December 9, 1847, in which he gives more particulars.
The impression is irresistibly fixed in the mind, that Mr. Brouillet spent most of the night, on arriving at Wailatpu (before the dead were buried), in Tilokaikt’s lodge or camp, arranging and writing those statements and particulars, so that Sir James Douglas could give his approval, and that they would go to the American Board of Missions and the friends of the murdered dead, with the sanction of his name, implicating the dead as having brought about this horrible massacre.
Another reason for this impression is, that in all the public and private correspondence between any of these parties, there is, and always has been, the most intense anxiety shown to prevent the open discussion of that transaction, as will be seen in the next paragraph in McBean’s letter, and by the promptness with which Mr. Ogden reported to Bishop Blanchet; Mr. Spalding’s injudicious remarks to Major Magone on the trip down the river; the manner of Mr. Spalding’s very unwise and imprudent letter to the bishop and his priests, was published and commented upon by them; the promptness of Mr. Douglas to demand an explanation of Colonel Gilliam’s supposed statement; the refusal of the Hudson’s Bay Company to furnish supplies to the provisional troops; and the fact that the company did supply 1,080 pounds of powder, 1,800 pounds of balls and shot to the priests for the Indians, with three cases containing thirty-six guns, all of which were seized by Lieutenant Rogers at the Dalles, and should have been (but were not) confiscated. We will now ask the attention of the reader to the remainder of this (to the Hudson’s Bay Company and Romanists in general) glorious news of the complete victory they had obtained over Protestantism and its missions in Oregon.
Mr. McBean, or Sir James Douglas, we do not know which, says: “Allow me to draw a veil over this dreadful affair which is too painful to dwell upon, and which I have explained conformable to information received and with sympathizing feelings.
“I remain, with much respect, gentlemen,
“Your most obedient humble servant,
“William McBean.”