Kitabı oku: «A History of Oregon, 1792-1849», sayfa 40

On the motion of Newell to lay the bill to regulate the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits on the table, it stood: Yeas– Chamberlain, Hall, Lounsdale, Looney, McDonald, Newell, and Tolmie – 7. Nays– Boon, Hembree, Meek, Summers, Straight, T. Vault, Williams, and the Speaker – 8. Peers absent.

On the final vote to carry this bill over the veto of the governor, we find Hall, Lounsdale, and Looney changing their votes in favor of passing the bill over the veto, which is as follows: —

Oregon City, Dec. 17, 1846.

Gentlemen, – I return to your honorable body the act entitled “An Act to regulate the manufacture and sale of wine and distilled spirituous liquors,” with my objections to the same.

Previous to our organization as a provisional government, public sentiment kept liquor from being manufactured or sold in this Territory. Heretofore, every act of the Legislature has been, as far as ardent spirits were concerned, prohibitory in character. The act lying before me is the first act that has in any manner attempted to legalize the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits. At the session of the Legislature in June, 1844, an act was passed entitled “An Act to prevent the introduction, sale, and distillation of ardent spirits in Oregon,” and, as far as my knowledge extends, the passage of that act gave satisfaction to the great majority of the people throughout the Territory. At the session of December, 1845, several amendments were proposed to the old law, and passed. The new features given to the bill by those amendments did not accord with the views of the people; the insertion of the words “give” and “gift,” in the first and second sections of the bill, they thought was taking away their rights, as it was considered that a man had a right to give away his property if he chose. There were several other objections to the bill, which I set forth to your honorable body in my message. I would therefore recommend that the amendments passed at the December session of 1845 be repealed; and that the law passed on the 24th of June, 1844, with such alterations as will make it agree with the organic law, if it does not agree with it, be again made the law of the land. It is said by many that the Legislature has no right to prohibit the introduction or sale of liquor, and this is probably the strongest argument used in defense of your bill. But do you not as effectually prohibit every person who has not the sum of one, two, three hundred dollars to pay for his license, as does the law now on the statute-book? Are not your proposed fines and penalties as great or greater than those of the old law? Where, then, is the benefit to the people? There is no doubt in my mind, but that the law will be evaded as easily, and as often, under the new law, as it was under the old, and, in addition to this, there will be the legal manufacturers, importers, and sellers, who will be able, under the sanction of law, to scatter all the evils attendant upon the use of alcoholic drinks. We are in an Indian country; men will be found who will supply them with liquor as long as they have beaver, blankets, and horses to pay for it. If a quantity should be introduced among the Wallawallas, and other tribes in the upper country, who can foretell the consequences; there we have families exposed out, off from the protection of the settlements, and perhaps, at the first drunken frolic of the Indians in that region, they may be cut off from the face of the earth. But we need not go so far; we are exposed in every part of our frontier, and when difficulties once commence, we can not tell where they will cease.

It has been proved before the House of Commons that one-half of the insanity, two-thirds of the pauperism, and three-fourths of the crimes of Great Britain may be directly traced to the use of alcoholic drink. The testimony of our most eminent judges in the United States shows that the same proportion of crime is attributable to ardent spirits in that country. Statistics might be produced, showing the enormous evil and expense of an indiscriminate use of liquor.

As to revenue, the small amount received for licenses, instead of being a revenue, would be swallowed up in the expenses attending trials for crimes, etc., caused by the crime of these licenses.

But, leaving all other countries out of view, let us consider our own state. Surrounded by Indians, no military force to aid the executive and other officers in the discharge of their duties, not a solitary prison in the land, in which to confine offenders against the laws, and consequently no way of enforcing the penalties of the law, I think these things should call for calm and serious reflection, before passing your final vote on this bill. My opinion is, the people are opposed to legalizing the introduction and sale of liquor in this land. I may be mistaken, and therefore should be in favor of the old law, or something similar should be adopted, of referring the whole matter to the polls at the next general election. If the people say “No liquor,” continue to prohibit; if they say, through the ballot-box, “We wish liquor,” then let it come free, the same as dry-goods, or any other article imported or manufactured; but, until the people say they want it, I hope you will use your influence to keep it out of the Territory.

It is with regret that I return any bill unsigned, but I feel that we both have duties to perform, and when we think duty points out the way, I trust we may always be found willing to follow it.

Geo. Abernethy.

To the Hon. the Legislature of Oregon Territory.

On motion of Mr. Hall, the communication was laid on the table.

Afternoon Session. – At two o’clock the house met. A call of the house was made, and the sergeant-at-arms dispatched for the absent members, who, after a short absence, returned, and reported that the absentees had been notified, and were now present. Thereupon, the further call of the house was dispensed with.

The house then reconsidered the bill to regulate the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits, and, after some deliberation, the question being put upon the passage of the bill, it was decided affirmatively, by the following vote: —

Yeas– Messrs. Boon, Hall, Hembree, Lounsdale, Looney, Meek, Summers, Straight, T. Vault, Williams, and the Speaker – 11.

Nays– Messrs. Chamberlain, McDonald, Newell, Peers, and Dr. W. F. Tolmie – 5.

At St. Josephs, Elizabethtown, Iowa Point, Council Bluffs, and the Nishnabatona, were 271 wagons for Oregon and California. Allowing five to the wagon gives us about 1,355 souls that crossed the Missouri at these points. The quantity of loose stock was estimated at 5,000 head. From Independence, Missouri, for Oregon, 141 men, 71 women, 109 children, and 128 wagons. From Independence, for California, 98 men, 40 women, 57 children, 320 oxen, and 46 wagons. Total, 1,841 souls, as stated in Mr. Saxton’s pamphlet, 1846. The larger portion of this immigration found their way into Oregon, notwithstanding the Hudson’s Bay Company and Mr. Hastings did all they could to turn them to California. A statement by Mr. S. K. Barlow shows that 141 wagons, 1,559 head of horses, mules, and horned cattle, and some 15 head of sheep passed on his road; seven more teams passed after this report was made. Besides the number that came over the Mount Hood or Barlow road, there were some persons, with wagons, who attempted to come in on the Applegate route, and a number came down the Columbia River.

This year, on the 21st of February, the brig Henry, Captain Kilborn, started from Newburyport for Oregon, with eight passengers, including women and children; also the Angelo, Captain Hastings, from Boston, made the attempt, but failed. The brig Henry arrived late in 1846.

On Thursday, February 5, 1846, the first newspaper published on the Pacific coast was issued from the press of the Oregon Printing Association, at Oregon City. The originators of the Printing-Press Association were the same that started the Multnomah Circulating Library, the Wolf Association, and the provisional government, in 1842-3.

Constitution of the Oregon Printing Association

Preamble. – In order to promote science, temperance, morality, and general intelligence, – to establish a printing-press to publish a monthly, semi-monthly, or weekly paper in Oregon, – the undersigned do hereby associate ourselves into a body, to be governed by such rules and regulations as shall from time to time be adopted by a majority of the stockholders of this compact, in a regularly called and properly notified meeting.

Articles of Compact

Article 1. This association shall be known by the name of the “Oregon Printing Association,” and shall hold an annual meeting at Oregon City, on the first Tuesday of December of each year.

Art. 2. Its officers shall be a president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer, and a Board of three directors, who shall be elected annually by ballot, and shall hold their offices until their successors are elected.

Art. 3. It shall be the duty of the president to preside at all the meetings of the association, to sign all certificates of stock, and drafts upon the treasurer for the payment of funds, and to preside at the meetings of the Board of Directors.

Art. 4. It shall be the duty of the vice-president to perform the duties of the president in case of his absence, by death, or by removal from office.

Art. 5. – The secretary to attend, and keep a record of all the meetings of the association, and of the Board of Directors, and to publish the proceedings of the annual and special meetings of the association, and such portions of the proceedings of the Board of Directors as the Board shall direct from time to time; to give one month’s notice of all special meetings of the association.

Art. 6. It shall be the duty of the treasurer to take charge of the funds of the association, and keep an account of all moneys received and disbursed, and pay out the same in accordance with drafts drawn on him by the president, and signed as per third article of this compact; to give such security to the president as shall be deemed sufficient by the Board of Directors for the faithful performance of his trust; to report the state of the treasury to the Board of Directors quarterly, and to pay over to his successor in office all funds of the association.

Art. 7. – The officers and Board of Directors to manage and superintend, or procure a suitable person to do so, the entire printing and publishing association; to employ all persons required in the printing or editorial departments of the press; to publish a full statement of their proceedings semi-annually; to draft and adopt such by-laws as may be deemed proper for their government, provided no by-law contravenes the spirit of these articles of compact; to declare a dividend of any profits arising from the printing establishment as often as they shall deem it expedient; to fill any vacancy that may occur in their number; three of whom shall constitute a quorum, and be competent to transact business.

Art. 8. The press owned by or in connection with this association shall never be used by any party for the purpose of propagating sectarian principles or doctrines, nor for the discussion of exclusive party politics.

Art. 9. The stock of this association shall consist of shares, of ten dollars each, payable in cash or its equivalent.

Art. 10. For every ten dollars paid to the treasurer of the association, the payer thereof shall receive a certificate for the same, signed by the president and countersigned by the secretary; and for every such certificate, the holder thereof, or his agent, on presenting to the Board of Directors satisfactory evidence that he is such, shall be entitled to one vote in all the annual and special meetings of this association; shall receive pro rata of all moneys that may accrue from the profits of the printing establishment, and be allowed to transfer his stock to any one, by certifying and indorsing his name upon the back of his certificate.

Art. 11. These articles, except the 8th, may be altered or amended at any annual or special meeting of the association, provided that the proposed amendment shall have been published in at least two numbers of the paper published by order of the association.

Officers of the Association,

W. G. T. Vault, President

J. W. Nesmith, Vice-President

John P. Brooks, Secretary

George Abernethy, Treasurer

Directors.

John H. Couch,

John E. Long,

R. Newell,

The first editor of this paper was W. G. T. Vault. A man more unfit for the position could scarcely have been found in the country. He professed to have been an editor of a paper in Arkansas, and blew and swelled like the toad in the fable, and whined like a puppy when he gave his valedictory, in the fifth number of the Spectator. He says: “We have among us a class of mongrels, neither American nor anti-American, a kind of foreign, hypocritical go-betweens, – as we would say in the States, fence men, – whose public declarations are, ‘All for the good of the public, and not a cent for self.’ The political sentiments of the conductors were at variance with his.” Mr. T. Vault was led to believe that Mr. Newell was his only friend, from the fact that he was absent from the meeting of the Board when his successor was appointed; and complains of Dr. Long and J. W. Nesmith. Newell and Long acted together. H. A. G. Lee, who succeeded T. Vault as editor, was far better qualified for the position, though he did not suit this same Board of Directors, as Newell was the maneuvering spirit. Lee was too strongly American in his sentiments, and too intelligent to be a dupe of the influence of which T. Vault complained.

Mr. Douglas declares the position of the English element in the tenth number of the Spectator. Mr. S. Parker answers him in the eleventh number; and Mr. Lee, in the fourteenth number, tenders his thanks to the Board for relieving him. The fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth numbers, each “run itself,” as the expression is.

On the eighteenth number, G. L. Curry, Esq., took charge, to the twenty-sixth number, which completed the first volume of the paper. He continued his editorial position till the twenty-fourth number of the second volume, when he brought his duties to a close by publishing a set of resolutions calculated to injure J. Q. Thornton, who had gone on to Washington to have a history of the country published, and, as was supposed, to secure the best federal appointments for himself and his friends. One-half of the legislators believing that unfair and improper means had been used by Mr. Thornton and his friends, the other half not caring to vote against Mr. Thornton’s proceedings, being, perhaps, his real friends, the resolutions were lost by a tie vote. Mr. Curry, as editor of the Spectator, took sides against Mr. Thornton, and in favor of the objectionable resolutions, and published them under an editorial article, notwithstanding he had been requested, as he admits, not to publish them.

Judge A. E. Wait succeeded Mr. Curry in the editorial department of the paper, and, by a foolish, vacillating course, continued to hold his position so as to please the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Roman Catholic and Methodist influences in the country. The paper, by this means, became of little value to its patrons and the country, and soon getting involved in its financial affairs, it was sold and lost financially to the original proprietors.

CHAPTER LIV

The Whitman massacres. – Narratives of, by J. B. A. Brouillet and J. Ross Browne. – Extract from the New York Evangelist.– Statements of Father Brouillet criticised. – Testimony of John Kimzey. – Dr. Whitman at Umatilla. – Returns home.

We have before us two works purporting to give a true and authentic account of the Whitman massacre, – the one prepared by a Jesuit priest, J. B. A. Brouillet; the other by one J. Ross Browne, special agent of the United States revenue department. As this part of our history was written before that of J. Ross Browne (purporting to be an official report to the 35th Congress, 1st session, House of Representatives, Executive Document No. 38) came into our hands, it is proper that we should give this report a passing notice.

Mr. Browne, upon the second page of his report, says: “In view of the fact, however, that objections might be made to any testimony coming from the citizens of the Territory, and believing also that it is the duty of a public agent to present, as far as practicable, unprejudiced statements, I did not permit myself to be governed by any representations unsupported by reliable historical data.”

One would naturally conclude, from such a statement, that a candid, unprejudiced, and truthful report would be given; but, to our astonishment, we find that fifty-three of the sixty-six pages of this official document are an exact copy of the Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet’s work, thus indorsing, and placing in an official document, one of the most maliciously false and unreliable accounts that a prejudiced and deeply implicated sectarian could give, claiming such to be “reliable historical data,” – thus showing both his prejudice and ignorance in the conclusion he arrived at as to the causes of the Indian wars.

Had J. Ross Browne been willing to lay aside his unreasonable sectarian prejudice, and listen to the positive testimony then in the country, he could easily have learned who were the prime cause of all the Indian wars in it; or, had he made himself familiar (as he flippantly claims to have done) with the history of the English and American people, the policy of the English political and sectarian powers, and the commercial policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company, he would have escaped the folly of placing in an official document such palpable errors, and showing such willful ignorance of the subject he was commissioned to investigate.

He says, on page 2, “It was a war of destiny, – bound to take place whenever the causes reached their culminating point.” The “destiny” and culminating point of that war was fixed by the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Jesuit priests, as also the second and third wars with the Indians that followed, as we shall show by positive testimony of witnesses who are unimpeachable.

Had J. Ross Browne carefully examined the tissue of statements prepared by Father Brouillet, he could have found statements like this on page 53 (38 of J. R. B.), “I knew that the Indians were angry with all Americans;” page 54 (39 of J. R. B.), “All that I know is that the Indians say the order to kill Americans has been sent in all directions.”

There was but one party in the country that could issue such an order, which Brouillet well knew, and the testimony we shall give will prove.

On his third page, he says: “The same primary causes existed in every case, – encroachments of a superior upon an inferior race.” He then refers to the agitation of the Oregon question in the Senate in 1840-41; to Mr. Thurston’s course as a delegate; the treaties with the Indians, etc., – showing conclusively the sources of his information, and his ignorance of the causes he professed to give a truthful and impartial account of, – barely alluding to the unwarranted assumptions of the British Hudson’s Bay Company of an exclusive right to trade with the Indians. In fact, the whole report appears to be a studied effort to cover the prime causes of the difficulty, and of the Indian wars he was commissioned to investigate and report upon.

It is not surprising that with the foreign emissaries then in the country, and the stupid ignorance or malicious bigotry of the United States agent, that such reports should be made; but that the government should adopt, and act upon, or publish them, is indeed surprising; unless, as the history of the late rebellion shows, it was the design of those agents to involve the whole nation in an ultimate dismemberment, and distinct, separate nationalities, under the auspices of African, Indian, and religious slavery. We regret the necessity of prefacing a chapter in this work with so severe a stricture upon a government official, yet his report is so manifestly false and malicious, and without the evidence of truth or candor toward the Protestant missionaries, to whom is due, more than to any other influence, the settlement of the country by the American people, – that, in justice to them, and the truth of history, we can say no less, while we proceed with the account of the murder of Dr. Whitman and those at his station.

The necessity and importance of an extended and particular account becomes still more important from the fact that the Roman Jesuits in the country have succeeded in placing through such an agent their false account of the massacre in a permanent government document, – thus slandering not only the dead, but the living, whose duty it becomes to refute such vile slanders by publishing the whole truth in the case. Besides, the very Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet, in a second edition of his false and absurd production, refers to this report of J. R. Browne as additional official evidence of the truth of his own false statements, previously made through such agents, and such men as Sir James Douglas, – compelling us, in vindicating the truth of history, to place before the reader more of the statements of parties implicated than was our original design.

Since this work has been in press, we have an article in the New York Evangelist of 6th of January, 1870, from the pen of Rev. Mr. Treat, D. D., containing a brief statement of the Whitman massacre, and the following as the result of the investigations as had in several religious bodies in Oregon; the conclusion is as follows: —

“It so happens, however, that men who are more competent to adjudicate the case have not hesitated to do so. The Congregational Association of Oregon adopted a report in June last, which condemns the ‘prominent and absolute falsehoods’ of Father Brouillet’s pamphlet, and expresses the belief, ‘from evidence, clear and sufficient to them, that the Roman Catholic priests did themselves instigate violence to the missions, resulting in massacre.’ Similar action was taken by the Old School Presbytery, the Cumberland Presbytery, and the U. P. Presbytery. The Methodist Conference, composed of more than seventy preachers, and under the presidency of Bishop Kingsley, adopted a comprehensive and able report, which was published at Portland, September 25, 1869, in which the massacre at Wailatpu is declared to have been ‘wholly unprovoked by Dr. Whitman or any other member of the mission,’ and to have arisen from the policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company ‘to exclude American settlers,’ and the ‘efforts of Roman priests directed against the establishment of Protestantism in the country.’ It is believed that the other evangelical denominations in Oregon have spoken with the same distinctness and the same confidence.

“Valuable testimony is borne to the character of the missionaries who survived Dr. Whitman, and who have been residents of Oregon to this day, as also to the fidelity and success of their labors, but there is not space for it in the present article. Suffice it to say, that, while the motives of Hon. J. Ross Browne, in appending Father Brouillet’s pamphlet to his ‘Letter,’ and the reasons of the House of Representative for publishing the same, are open to grave suspicion, facts and opinions have been elicited, which throw additional light upon the manifold bearings and uses of the missionary enterprise.”

On page 40 of Rev. J. B. A. Brouillet’s “Protestantism in Oregon” and page 33 of J. Ross Browne’s report, we find, under date of September 5, 1847, that “the Right Rev. Bishop Blanchet arrived at old Fort Wallawalla (now called Wallula), where he was cordially received by Mr. McBean, clerk in charge of said fort. He was accompanied by the superior of Oblates and two other clergymen. He had the intention of remaining but a few days at the fort, for he knew that Tawatowe (or Young Chief), one of the Cayuse chiefs, had a house which he had designed for the Catholic missionaries, and he intended to go and occupy it without delay; but the absence of the Young Chief, who was hunting buffalo, created a difficulty in regard to the occupation of the house, and in consequence of it he had to wait longer than he wished.”

The house here spoken of was erected during the summer of 1837, before any Catholic missionaries were thought of, at least among the Indians, or by the American missionaries, and it was late in the fall of 1838 that Revs. Blanchet and Demerse passed down the Columbia River. These first missionaries of the Society of Jesus, wishing to do Mr. P. C. Pambrun, then clerk of the post, a special favor, baptized the infant son of the Young Chief, for whose benefit and occupation, Mr. Pambrun said, the company had ordered that house to be built. If it was designed for these priests, who was the designer?

Mr. Brouillet, in his narrative, says: —

“On the 23d of September, Dr. Whitman, on his way from the Dalles, stopped at Fort Wallawalla. His countenance bore sufficient testimony to the agitation of his heart. He soon showed by his words that he was deeply wounded by the arrival of the bishop. ‘I know very well,’ said he, ‘for what purpose you have come.’ ‘All is known,’ replied the bishop; ‘I come to labor for the conversion of the Indians, and even of Americans, if they are willing to listen to me.’ The doctor then continued, in the same tone, to speak of many things. He attributed the coming of the bishop to the Young Chief’s influence! made a furious charge against the Catholics, accusing them of having persecuted Protestants and even of having shed their blood wherever they had prevailed. He said he did not like Catholics ⚹ ⚹ ⚹ that he should oppose the missionaries to the extent of his power. ⚹ ⚹ ⚹ He spoke against the Catholic Ladder!¹² and said that he would cover it with blood, to show the persecution of Protestants by Catholics. He refused to sell provisions to the bishop, and protested he would not assist the missionaries unless he saw them in starvation.”

It is barely possible that Dr. Whitman said all that this priest says he did. In that case, did he forfeit his own and the lives of all that fell with him? This narrative of Protestantism reveals a dark page in our history, – one that should be thoroughly investigated as well as understood by all.

On the 24th page, 33d of Ross Browne’s report, this priest says: —

“After such a manifestation of sentiment toward Catholics in general and priests in particular, the bishop was not astonished in hearing some hours after that Dr. Whitman, on leaving the fort, went to the lodge of Piopiomoxmox (Yellow Serpent); that he had spoken a great deal against the priests; that he had wished to prevail upon this chief to co-operate with him, in order that by the aid of his influence with the Cayuses, Des Chutes, and Dalles Indians, he might be enabled to excite these nations against them, etc.”

That Dr. Whitman did as he is represented to have done no one acquainted with him will believe for a moment. But Bishop Blanchet’s letter to Governor Abernethy is evidence conclusive that he and his priests had done exactly what they here say Dr. Whitman attempted to do.

“During the months of October and November,” Brouillet says. “the Doctor came to the fort several times to render his professional services to Mrs. Maxwell and Mr. Thomas McKay; he was a little more reserved than at the first interview, but it was always visible enough that the sight of the bishop and his clergy was far from being agreeable to him.”

It will be remembered that Mr. Brouillet is giving this narrative and speaking of a man whose blood had been shod in the cause of “Protestantism in Oregon,” as he calls the title of his work, which he is writing to correct the impression that he and his associates were in some way concerned in bringing it about. In his allusions and statements, he seems to be anxious to prove that Dr. Whitman and all Protestants and Americans in the country are guilty of the crime laid to the influence of the priests, and by giving these statements expects everybody will believe them to be wholly innocent. J. Ross Browne, in his report, 3d page, agrees with this priest, and refers to supposed transactions (that did not occur) in 1835. At that time there was not a band or tribe of Indians west of the Rocky Mountains but was ready to give land to any white man that would come and live in their country. This land question, as stated by Brouillet and Ross Browne, or the “encroachments of a superior upon an inferior race,” had no part in the matter. It was a foreign national question, as we have already shown, and we now propose to quote these statements from his narrative, to show the intimate connection there was between the Jesuit priests, the Hudson’s Bay Company, the Indians, and the Whitman massacre.

According to Brouillet, the bishop and his priests remained at Fort Wallawalla from the 5th of September till the 26th of October (fifty days), enjoying the hospitality of Mr. McBean, and seeing Dr. Whitman occasionally, till, on the 26th, the Young Chief arrived. “The bishop wished to know of him if he wanted a priest for him and his young men, telling him that he could only give him one for the whole nation, and if the Cayuses wished to avail themselves of his services they would do well to come to an understanding together concerning the location of the mission. The chief told the bishop he wished a priest, and that he could have his house and as much land as he wanted.” So far this statement bears the natural impress of truth, but mark the words here put into the chief’s mouth, “but as a means of reuniting the Cayuses who had been heretofore divided, and in order to facilitate their religious instruction, he suggested the idea of establishing the mission near Dr. Whitman’s, at the camp of Tilokaikt.”