# Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 5/Recollections and Opinions of an Old Pioneer, part 3

Continued from Recollections and Opinions of an Old Pioneer, part 2, concluded in Recollections and Opinions of an Old Pioneer, part 4.
RECOLLECTIONS AND OPINIONS OF AN OLD PIONEER"~~CONTINUED.
By PETER H. BURNETT.
CHAPTER V.
The Act in Regard to Slavery and Free Negroes and Mulattoes—Misrepresentations of W. H. Gray.
Mr. Gray, in speaking of the legislative committee of 1844. says:
"There was one inhuman act passed by this legislative committee, which should stamp the names of its supporters with disgrace and infamy." (Page 378.)
"The principal provisions of this bill were, that in case a colored man was brought to the country by any master of a vessel, he must give bonds to take him away again or be fined; and in case the negro was found, or came here from any quarter, the sheriff was to catch him and flog him forty lashes at a time, till he left the country." (Page 278.)
"The principles of Burnett's bill made it a crime for a white man to bring a negro to the country, and a crime for a negro to come voluntarily; so that in any case, if he were found in the country he was guilty of a crime, and punishment or slavery was his doom." (Page 379.)
"At the adjourned session in December we find the executive urging the legislative committee ... to amend their act relative to the corporal punishment of the blacks, etc." (Page 379.)
"To the honor of the country, Peter H. Burnett's negro-whipping law was never enforced in a single instance against a white or black man, as no officer of the provisional government felt it incumbent upon himself to attempt to enforce it." (Page 383.)
​This is all the information given by Mr. Gray as to the provisions of this act, and nothing is said as to its amendment. The act is as follows:
An Act in Regard to Slavery and Free Negroes and Mulattoes.
Be it enacted by the legislative committee of Oregon as follows:
Section 1. That slavery and involuntary servitude shall be forever prohibited in Oregon.
Sec. 2. That in all cases where slaves shall have been, or shall hereafter be brought into Oregon, the owners of such slaves respectively shall have the term of three years from the introduction of such slaves to remove them out of the country.
Sec. 3. That if such owners of slaves shall neglect or refuse to remove such slaves from the country within the time specified in the preceding section, such slaves shall be free.
Sec. 4. That when any free negro or mulatto shall have come to Oregon, he or she (as the case may be), if of the age of eighteen or upward, shall remove from and leave the country within the term of two years for males and three years for females from the passage of this act; and that if any free negro or mulatto shall hereafter come to Oregon, if of the age aforesaid, he or she shall quit or leave the country within the term of two years for males and three years for females from his or her arrival in the country.
Sec. 5. That if such free negro or mulatto be under the age aforesaid, the terms of time specified in the preceding section shall begin to run when he or she shall arive at such age.
Sec. 6. That if any such free negro or mulatto shall fail to quit the country as required by this act, he or she may be arrested upon a warrant issued by some justice of the peace, and, if guilty upon trial before such justice, shall receive upon his or her bare back not less than twenty nor more than thirty-nine stripes, to be inflicted by the constable of the proper county.
Sec. 7. That if any free negro or mulatto shall fail to quit the country within the term of six months after receiving such stripes, he or she shall again receive the same punishment once in every six months until he or she shall quit the country.
​SEC. 8. That when any slave shall obtain his or her freedom, the time specified in the fourth section shall begin to run from the time when such freedom shall be obtained.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
    STATE OF OREGON,
       SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
SALEM, June 10th, 1878.
I, S. F. Chadwick, Secretary of the State of Oregon, do hereby certify that I am the custodian of the great seal of the State of Oregon. That the foregoing copy of original bill for an act in regard to slavery and free negroes and mulattoes passed the legislative committee of the Territory of Oregon June 26, 1844, has been by me compared with the original bill for an act, etc., on file in this office, and said copy is a correct transcript therefrom, and of the whole and of the original bill.
In witness whereof, I have hereto set my hand and affixed the Great Seal of the State of Oregon, the day and year above written.
[SEAL] S. F. CHADWICK,
Secretary of the State of Oregon.
By THOMAS B. JACKSON,
Assistant Secretary of State.
The executive committee, in their communication to the legislative committee, dated December 16, 1844, made this recommendation:
"We would recommend that the act passed by this assembly in June last, relative to blacks and mulattoes, be so amended as to exclude corporal punishment, and require bonds for good behavior in its stead." (Oregon Laws and Archives, 58.)
At the December session I introduced the following bill, which was passed December 19, 1844:
AN ACT AMENDATORY OF AN ACT PASSED JUNE 28. 1844, IN REGARD TO SLAVERY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Be it Enacted by the Legislative Committee of Oregon as follows:
Section 1. That the sixth and seventh sections of said act are hereby repealed.
​Sec. 2. That if any such free negro or mulatto shall fail to quit and leave the country, as required by the act to which this is amendatory, he or she may lie arrested upon a warrant issued by some justice of the peace; and if guilty upon trial before such justice had, the said justice shall issue his order to any officer competent to execute process, directing said officer to give ten days' public notice, by at least four written or printed advertisements, that he will publicly hire out such free negro or mulatto to the lowest bidder, on a day and at a place therein specified. On the day and at the place mentioned in said notice, such officer shall expose such free negro or mulatto to public hiring; and the person who will obligate himself to remove such free negro or mulatto from the country for the shortest term of service, shall enter into a bond, with good and sufficient security to Oregon, in a penalty of at least one thousand dollars, binding himself to remove said negro or mulatto out of the country within six months after such service shall expire; which bond shall be filed in the clerk's office in the proper county: and upon failure to perform the conditions of said bond, the attorney prosecuting for Oregon shall commence suit upon a certified copy of such bond in the circuit court against such delinquent and his sureties.
It will be readily seen how much the original act differs from Mr. Gray's statement of its substance.
Not a word is said in the original act about the criminality of the master of a vessel in bringing a colored man into the country. The assertion that "the sheriff was to catch the negro and flog him forty lashes at a time until he left the country," is not only untrue, but the statement conveys the idea that the sheriff was himself to be the sole judge, both as to the guilt of the negro and as to how often the flogging should be repeated. The act, on the contrary, required a judicial trial before a justice of the peace, and that the punishment should only be afflicted in obedience to his order by a constable. The general right of appeal to a higher court existed in these, as in other cases, under Section 3, Article II., of the "Act regulating the judiciary and for other purposes."
The statement that the principles the original act "made it a crime for a white man to bring a negro to the country" is equally untrue as will be readily seen. A crime ​is an offense for which the party may be arrested, tried, convicted, and punished; and there is no provision in the act authorizing the arrest of a white man for any act whatever.
It is perfectly clear that Mr. Gray either willfully misrepresented the original act, or attempted to state its substance from memory; and if the latter be true, then, as his memory was bad and his prejudices great, he misrepresented the measure, and made it much worse than it really was. There can be no excuse for the misrepresentation of an act by a grave historian, especially one that he condemns in the harshest language, when he has easy access to the act itself.
But he not only essentially misrepresents the original act itself, but entirely ignores the amendatory bill; and does it in such a way as to increase the censure of the legislative committee of 1844. There are two modes of falsehood; false statement of fact, and false suppression of the truth. The historian first misrepresents the substance of the original act, then informs the reader that the executive urged its amendment, and then suppresses the fact that the act was amended. This mode of historical misstatement and suppression left the reader to say to himself: "These men first passed an act containing objectionable provisions, and then obstinately refused to amend, when their attention was urgently called to the error." Throughout his history of this act he represents it as unamended and as in full force according to its own terms; and his last words in regard to it are that "Burnett's negro- whipping law was never enforced in a single instance against a white or black man, as no officer of the provisional government felt it incumbent upon himself to attempt to enforce it."
It will be seen by an inspection of the original act itself that it was prospective, and that not a single case could possibly arise under it until the expiration of two years after its passage; and that no officer was required to act until he was commanded to do so by the regular warrant or order of a justice of the peace. In the meantime, and eighteen months before a single case could possibly arise under the act, it was ​amended by the very same body that passed the original bill, and at the instance of the very same member who introduced it.
An act that is simply prospective, and does not take effect until two years after the date of its passage, is an incomplete measure, liable to be amended at any time before it goes into operation; and, if amended before any one suffers any injury from its erroneous provisions, those provisions are as if they never had been. It is like a bill imperfect when first introduced by a member of a legislative body, and so amended by the author, before its final passage, as to remove its objectionable features. In such case no sensible man would censure the introducer for mistakes he himself had corrected. All that could be said is, that the second sober thought of the member was better than his first hasty thought.
It was substantially so in this ease. In the hurry of the June session of 1844 I could not think of any other mode of enforcing the act but the one adopted; but by the December session of 1844 I had found another and less objectionable remedy, and promptly adopted it. This remedy was not the one urged by the executive committee, as will easily be seen. Neither myself nor the other members who voted for the original bill are responsible for the objectionable features of the measure, because we ourselves corrected the error. I maintain as true this general proposition: that a person who commits a mistake, and then corrects it himself, before any one suffers in consequence of it, deserves a commendation instead of a censure; because the act of correction shows a love of justice, and a magnanimous willingness to admit and correct error. All the intense indignation of the historian is, therefore, thrown away upon an imaginary evil, about which he is as much mistaken as the girl that wept over the imaginary death of her imaginary infant.
On page 378 the historian gives, professedly from the Journal, the yeas and nays upon the final passage of the original bill, as follows: "Yeas, Burnett, Gilmore, Keizer, Waldo, Newell, and Mr. Speaker MeCarver—8; nays, Love​joy and Hill—2." He then informs us, as already stated, that the executive urged the amendment of the act at the December session, 1844; and then, on pages 380–3, gives the communication of the executive committee in full. Now, as he had the Journal before him, why did he not follow it up to the short December session, and ascertain what the legislative committee had done, if anything, in regard to amending this act?
His history of the proceedings of the committee of 1844 is very short; but, concise as it is, it is full of flagrant misrepresentations. There was one act, however, that he affirmatively approved; and yet, so great was his prejudice, that he wrongfully imputes a bad motive for a confessedly good act. He says, on page 379: "Mr. Burnett claimed great credit for getting up a prohibitory liquor law, and made several speeches in favor of sustaining it, that being a popular measure among a majority of the citizens."
All our legislation under the provisional government was based upon the settled conviction that Oregon would be the first American State on the Pacific. We considered ourselves as the founders of a new State of the great American Union.
At the time this measure was passed, each State had the constitutional right to determine who should be citizens and who residents. Any person born on the soil of a State had the natural, moral, and legal right to a residence within the State, while conducting himself properly; because the place of one's birth is an accidental circumstance, over which he can have no control. But, for the very reason that every human being has the right of domicile in the place of his nativity, he is not, as a matter of right, entitled to a residence in another community. If that other community denies him the privilege of such residence, it denies him no right, natural or acquired, but only refuses a favor asked. The territory of a State belongs to its people, as if they constituted one family; and no one not a native has a right to complain that he is not allowed to form one of this family. Although every one, under the broad and enlarged principles of law ​and justice, has the right to quit his original domicile at his pleasure, he has not the equal right to acquire a new residence in another community against its consent. "The bird has the right to leave its parent-nest," but has not for that reason, the equal right to occupy the nest of another bird. A man may demand his rights, and justly complain when they are denied; but he can not demand favors, and can not reasonably complain when they are refused.
The principle is no doubt correct that when a State, for reasons satisfactory to itself, denies the right of suffrage and office to a certain class, it is sometimes the best humanity also to deny the privilege of a residence. If the prejudices or the just reasons of a community are so great that they can not or will not trust a certain class with those privileges that are indispensable to the improvement and elevation of such class, it 1s most consistent in some cases to refuse that class a residence. Placed in a degraded and subordinate political and social position, which continually reminds them of their inferiority, and of the utter hopelessness of all attempts to improve their condition as a class, they are left without adequate motive to, [or?] waste their labor for, that improvement which, when attained, brings them no reward. To have sueh a class of men in their midst is injurious to the dominant class itself, as such a degraded and practically defenseless condition offers so many temptations to tyrannical abuse. One of the great objections to the institution of slavery was its bad influence upon the governing race.
Had I foreseen the civil war, and the changes it has produced, I would not have supported such a measure. But at the time I did not suppose such changes could be brought about; and the fundamental error was then found in the organic laws of Oregon adopted in 1843. Article IV., Section 2 of those laws conferred the right to vote and hold office upon every free male descendant of a white man, inhabitant of Oregon Territory, of the age of 21 years and upward. ("Gray's Oregon," 354.) While the organic laws of 1843 professedly admitted all of the disfranchised class ​to reside in the Territory, they were so framed as to effectually exclude the better portion; for surely every intelligent and independent man of color would have scorned the pitiful boon offered him of a residence under conditions so humiliating.
For years I had been opposed to slavery, as injurious to both races. While I resided in Tennessee and Missouri there was no discussion upon the subject of manumitting the slaves in those States. I was not then in circumstances that made it proper to discuss the question. But when I arrived in Oregon, the first opportunity I had I voted against slavery while a member of the legislative committee of 1844. I presided at a public meeting at Sacramento City January 8, 1849, that unanimously voted for a resolution opposing slavery in California. This was the first public meeting in this country that expressed its opposition to that institution. A public meeting was held in San Francisco February 17, 1849, which endorsed the resolution against slavery passed at Sacramento. ("Alta California," February 22, 1849.)
As already stated, one of the objects I had in view in coming to this coast was to aid in building up a great American community on the Pacific; and, in the enthusiasm of my nature, I was anxious to aid in founding a State superior in several respects to those east of the Rocky Mountains. I therefore labored to avoid the evils of intoxication and of mixed races, one of which was disfranchised.
W. H. Gray—Criticism Upon the History of Oregon
It is more charitable to impute Mr. Gray's misrepresentations to inveterate prejudice than to deliberate malice. Some men seem to become the slaves of prejudice from long indulgence, until it grows into a chronic habit; and it is about as easy to make an angel of a goat as an impartial historian of a prejudiced man. His book, in my best judgment, is a bitter, prejudiced, sectarian, controversial work, in the form of history ; wherein the author acts as historian, controvertist, and witness.
​I readily admit that circumstances may place a good man in this unpleasant position; but, if so, he should fully comprehend the extreme delicacy of the situation, and should rise with the occasion to the dignity of temperate and impartial history. He should make no appeals to prejudice, and should not. in advance, load down with derisive epithets those he, in his own opinion, is finally compelled to condemn; but should err. if at all, on the side of charity, and not against it.
The great Dr. Samuel Johnson, in speaking of Burnett's "History of his own Times," said: "I do not believe that Burnett intentionally lied; but he was so much prejudiced that he took no pains to find out the truth. He was like a man who resolves to regulate his time by a certain watch, but will not inquire whether the watch is right or not." (Boswell's "Life of Johnson." vol. II., p. 264.)
I think this opinion applicable to Gray's "History." I know he has done myself and the legislative committee of 1844 great injustice; and I have every reason to believe that he has been equally unjust to others.
For example, the historian gives the letter of Mr. McBean, written at Fort Nez Perces, dated November 30, 1847, and addressed to the hoard of managers of the Hudson's Bay Company at Fort Vancouver, and the letters of Mr. Douglas and Mr. Hinman to Governor Abernethy (pages 519, 524 and 530). I will give so much of these last two letters as may be necessary to the point I make:
Fort Vancouver, December 7, 1847.
George Abernethy. Esq.—Sir: Having received intelligence last night (on the 4th), by special express from Walla Walla, of the destruction of the missionary settlement at Wailatpu by the Cayuse Indians of that place, we hasten to communicate the particulars of that dreadful event, one of the most atrocious which darken the annals of Indian crime.
James Douglas.
Fort Vancouver, December 4, 1847.
Mr. George Abernethy—Dear Sir: A Frenchman from Walla Walla arrived at my place on last Saturday, and informed me that he was on his way to Vancouver, and wished ​me to assist, in procuring him a canoe immediately. I was very inquisitive to know if there was any difficulty above. He said four Frenchmen had died recently, and he wished to get others to occupy their places.
I immediately got him a canoe, and concluded to go in company with him in order to get some medicine for the Indians, as they are dying off with measles and other diseases very fast. I was charged with indifference. They said we were killing in not giving them medicines, and I found, if we were not exposing our lives, we were our peace, and consequently I set out for this place. This side of the Cascades I was made acquainted with the horrible massacre that took place at Wailatpu last Monday. * * *
ALANSAN HINMAN.
The words "(on the 4th)" are put into the letter of Mr. Douglas by the historian to call the attention of his readers to the discrepancy in the dates of the two letters. Upon these two letters he makes the following comments, among others (page 531):
There is one other fact in connection with this transaction that looks dark on the part of Sir James Douglas. It is shown in the dates of the several letters. Mr. Hinman's is dated December 4th; Mr. Douglas's, December 7th; that to the Sandwich Islands, December 9th. Now, between the fourth and seventh are three days. In a case of so much importance and professed sympathy, as expressed in his letter, how is it that three, or even two, days are allowed to pass without sending a dispatch informing Governor Abernethy of what had happened, and of what was expected to take place?
The distance from Wailatpu (Dr. Whitman's mission) to Walla Walla (Fort Nez Perces) was about twenty-five miles, and from Walla Walla to Wascopum (Mr. Hinman's place at the Dalles) about one hundred and forty miles. The massacre took place on the afternoon of Monday, November 29, 1847. Mr. McBean states in his letter, dated Tuesday, the last day of November, 1847, that he was first apprised of the massacre early that morning by Mr. Hall, who arrived half naked and covered with blood. As Mr. Hall started at the outset, his information was not satisfactory; and he ​(McBean) sent his interpreter and another man to the mission. As the two messengers had to travel twenty-five miles to the mission and the same distance back again. Mr. McBean's letter must have been written late on Tuesday night: and the messenger he sent to Vancouver must have left on Wednesday morning. December 1. This messenger must have traveled the one hundred and forty miles from Walla Walla to the Dalles on one horse, and could not have reached there before late on Friday, December 3. To do this he would have to travel about forty-six miles a day. To go from the Dalles to Vancouver in a canoe, and be "wind-bound" at Cape Horn (as Mr. Gray states on page 517), in much less time than three days, would be very difficult indeed. No one knew any better than Mr. Gray the distance traveled, and the time it would occupy under the then existing circumstances.
The historian, on page 535, gives the communication of Governor Abernethy to the legislative assembly of Oregon, dated December 8. 1847. How. then, could Mr. Hinman be at Vancouver on Saturday, December 4, 1847! And. had he written his letter there on that day. why did it not reach Governor Abernethy two or three days in advance of that of Mr. Douglas, dated December 7? But there is on the face of Mr. Hinman's letter itself conclusive evidence that his date, as given, is an error. He says: "A Frenchman from Walla Walla arrived at my place on last Saturday." Now, if his letter had been correctly dated December 4, 1847, then the "last Saturday" mentioned would have been November 27, two days before the massacre took place. It seems plain that Mr. Hinman and the Frenchman arrived at Vancouver Monday evening, December 6, and that Mr. Hinman wrote his letter that evening, and Mr. Douglas his the next day, as he states. Upon this supposition Mr. I tinman could correctly say, "the horrible massacre that took place at Wailatpu last Monday." It may be that the figure 6 in Mr. Hinman's letter was mistaken for the figure 4; or it may have been a typographical error in publishing the letter; or Mr. Hinman. ​in the excitement of the moment, may have mistaken the date. That there was a mistake in the date of Mr. Hinman's letter, as given by the historian, is quite certain.
Would an impartial historian have made so gross a mistake as this against any man of respectable standing, whom he accused of the most atrocious crime? Would he have seized upon this discrepancy in dates as evidence, without careful investigation? An impartial historian will put himself on the side of the accused when weighing and scrutinizing testimony, however guilty he may think him to be. He will not form an opinion that the accused is guilty unless he, the impartial historian, thinks the good and legitimate evidence amply sufficient; and therefore, in his view, he need not rely, even in part, upon false testimony; and he will be the more cautious and careful, in proportion to the gravity of the crime charged. The massacre being a most noted event, and its date being Monday, November 29, and Mr. Hinman's letter December 4, it was easy to see that the latter day was Saturday. But the historian "was so much prejudiced that he took no pains to find out the truth."
It seems that a public meeting was held in Oregon on the 18th of February, 1841, at which a committee of nine persons was chosen "to form a constitution and draft a code of laws;" and that the Rev. F. N. Blanchet was one of this committee. At an adjourned meeting, June 11, 1841, the historian says:
   His Jesuitical Reverence, F. N. Blanchet,, was excused from serving on the committee, at his own request. The settlers and uninitiated were informed by his reverence that he was unaccustomed to make laws for the people, and did not understand how to proceed; while divide and conquer, the policy adopted by the Hudson's Bay Company, was entered into with heart and soul by this Reverend Father Blanchet and his associates. (Pages 199, 200 and 202.)
Now, with regard to the question of motive, why should the historian apply derisive epithets to the accused at any stage of the inquiry, and more especially before the author ​had submitted his proofs? In other words, would an im- partial and enlightened historian seek, by the use of such epithets, to prejudice his readers against the accused in advance, and before the testimony was submitted? It will be seen that the writer emphasi/es the phrase, "His Jesuitical Reverence." so that the reader may not forget this derisive and bitter expression. A decent respect for the feelings of others, as well as a due regard to the dignity of history, would have restrained the impartial historian from the use of such language at every stage of the investigation. Whenever either a good or a bad motive may plausibly be given for the same act, the historian is very apt to impute the bad motive, as he did in this case. I do not think a single instance can be found in the whole book of 624 pages whew the author has erred on the side of charity. He is not one of those noble and exalted natures that would magnanimously state the case more clearly in behalf of the accused than the accused would be able to do himself.
In reference to the act in regard to slavery, free negroes, and mulattoes, I find these entries in the journal of the House of Representatives, July 1 and 3, 1845 ("Oregon Laws and Archives," pages 83 and 85):
   Mr. Garrison introduced a bill to repeal the several acts in regard to negroes in Oregon. . . .
   The House went into committee of the whole. Mr. Straight in the chair.
   When the committee rose, the chairman reported that the committee had had under consideration:
   The bill to divorce M. J. Rice;
   The act to repeal the several acts on slavery;
   An act to fix the time and place of the sittings of the Legislature;
   An act to divorce F. Hathaway; also
   The report of the committee on revision, which had been adopted.
   Report was received, and the bill to divorce F. Hathaway was read a third time and passed; also, the bill to divorce M. J. Rice; also, the bill concerning acts on slavery.
   ​Thus, the act which Mr. Gray asserts could not be executed was repealed about one year before it could have taken effect in a single case, Mr. Gray being present when the repealing act was passed. The historian seems to have had about as vague a conception of the matter he was treating as a man with a distorted vision would have of the country represented.
ELECTED JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT STRANGE RESOLUTION—JESSE APPLEGATE.
On the 18th of August, 1845, I was elected by the House of Representatives Judge of the Supreme Court of Oregon.
On the 4th of December, 1845, the House, on motion of Mr. Gray, passed this resolution:
Resolved, That the Supreme Judge be called upon to inform the House whether he had examined the laws enacted by the previous legislature of this territory; also, to inform the House how many of said laws are incompatible with the organic articles of compact, adopted by the people on the 25th of July, 1845, if any there be. ("Oregon Laws and Archives." 127.)
To this strange and singular resolution I made a firm but respectful answer, declining to decide in advance, and before proper cases came up before the court, whether an entire code of laws was constitutional or not.
On the 12th of December, 1845, the speaker informed the House that he had communications from the Supreme Judge, which he had been requested to present to the House. The communications were read and referred to the committee on the judiciary. On the same day Mr. McCarver, from the judiciary committee, reported back the communications from the Supreme Judge, which were then referred to a select committee of five, consisting of Messrs. Gray, Hendrick, Garrison, McClure. and McCarver. ("Oregon Laws and Archives," 140-41.)
There is no further mention of these communications in the journal, as no report was ever made by this select committee. There was not a single lawyer among the members ​of 1845; and it is quite probable that this committee found it very difficult to coerce a Supreme Court to decide questions of law before cases were properly brought before it.
My extracts from the laws of 1844 are taken from "Oregon Laws and Archives, by L. F. Grover, Commissioner," except the act in regard to slavery, and the fourth section of the act (in ways and means, which latter is found in Gray's "Oregon," 395, as part of Dr. White's report to the Secretary of War. These two acts are not found in Grover's compilation. The act in regard to slavery, free negroes, and mulattoes is a certified copy from the original on file in the office of the Secretary of State. My reference to the journals of 1844 and 1845 are to the same compilation.
In the summer and early fall of 1846 Jesse Applegate, at his own expense as I then understood, opened a new wagon road into the Willamette Valley at its southern end. He met the emigrants at Fort Hall and induced a portion of them to come by that route. They suffered great hardships before they reached the end of their journey. This was caused mainly by their own mistakes. Though he was much censured by many of them, he was not to blame. He had performed one of the most noble and generous acts, and deserved praise rather than censure. I traveled with him across the plains in 1S4.J. and I can testify that he was a noble, intellectual, and generous man; and his character was so perfect as to bear any and all tests, under any and all circumstances. The Hon. J. W. Nesmith. in his address before the Oregon pioneers in June, 1875, paid a glowing tribute to the character of "Uncle Jesse Applegate." I knew him long and well, and shall never cease to love him so long as I live.
I left him in Oregon in 1848. He was then a rich man, for that time and that country. I did not see him again until 1872. a period of nearly twenty-four years. In the meantime he had become a gray-haired old man. He and myself are near the same age, he being about two years the younger. One day. without my knowing that he was in California, he walked into the Pacific Bank in San Francisco. I knew, ​Jss PETER H. BURNETT. from the serious expression of his face, that he was an old friend ; but, for the moment, I could not place him or call his name. He was so much affected that his eyes filled with tears, and he could not speak. I shook his hand cordially invited him to sit down, and sat down by him, looking him full in the face one moment, when it came into my mind that he was my old friend, and I exclaimed, ' ' Applegate ! " and we embraced like brothers. We talked about one hour, and in this conversation he gave me his history since I left Oregon. He removed to the Umpqua Valley, where for a time he had fine lands, stock, and other property. At length he determined to go into the mercantile business, for which he had little or no capacity Said he: "To make a long story short, I did business upon this theory. I sold my goods on credit to those who needed them most, not to those who were able to pay, lost $30,000, and quit the business." Any one knowing Jesse Applegate as I do would at once recognize the truth of this statement. It was just like the man. His fine intellect and his experience in life said no; but his generous heart said yes; and that kind heart of his overruled his better judgment. In his old age his fortune is gone ; but his true friends only admire and love him the more in the hour of misfortune. In starting from Missouri to come to this country in 1843, Mr. Applegate announced to his traveling companions, as we have been credibly informed, that he meant to drive the Hudson's Bay Company from the country. To reach the country independent of them, he had sold or mortgaged his cattle to get supplies at Walla Walla. On arriving at Van- couver, he found Dr. McLoughlin to be much of a gentleman, and disposed to aid him in every way he could. The doctor advised him to keep his cattle, and gave him employment as a surveyor, and credit for all he required. This kind treatment closed Mr. Applegate 's open statements of opposition to the company, and secured his friendship and his influence to keep his Missouri friends from doing violence to them. He carried this kind feeling for them into the legislative committee. (Gray, pages 421-422.) ​RECOLLECTIONS OF AN OLD PIONEER. 289 As already stated, a portion of the immigrants left their cattle at Walla Walla, This they did under an agreement with Mr. Me K inlay, thru in charge of the fort, that we should have the same munber and description of cattle in the Wil- lamette Valley from tin- herds of the Hudson's Bay Company. When we arrived at Vancouver, Dr. McLoughlin and Mr. Douglas candidly stated to us that our American tame cattle would suit us much better than the cattle of the company, and they advised us to bring our cattle from Walla Walla during the next spring. The same advice was given to all the immigrants who left their cattle at Walla Walla. We all saw at once that this advice was not only generous, but practically sound. Mr. Applegate, as I understood at the time, made the same arrangement with Mr. McKinlay that others of us did. That Mr. Applegate sold or mortgaged his cattle at Walla Walla for supplies must be a mistake. He needed but little if anything in that line; and to have mort- gaged so many cattle for so small an amount would have been the greatest of folly. He could not have needed provisions, so far as I can remember, as he must have purchased wheat and potatoes from Dr. Whitman like most of us. On arriving at Vancouver. Mr. Applegate, no doubt, found a very different state of things from what he anticipated when starting from Missouri. He did find Dr. McLoughlin and Mr. Douglas to be much of gentlemen; for it was very difficult indeed for any man. who was himself a gentleman, to keep tin- company of those two men and not find out that they were both gentlemen in the true sense of that term. Mr. Apple- u r ate no doubt concluded that, if these men were really op- posed to American immigrants, they took the most extraor- dinary way of showing it. That Mr. Applegate purchased of the company at Vancouver some supplies on credit is very probable, because he was amply gcxKl for all he engaged to pay. He was honesty personified, and was an admirable worker, both as a farmer and surveyor. lie also had a fine band of American cattle; and such cattle were then the most valuable pri perty in Oregon. .Jesse Applegate and Daniel ​290 PETER H. BURNETT. Waldo were the owners of more cattle than any other two men in our immigration. THE ACT TO PROHIBIT THE INTRODUCTION, MANUFACTURE, SALE. AND BARTER OF ARDENT SPIRITS. I have already mentioned the happy condition of society in Oregon, and the causes which produced it. This only con- tinued until the beginning of 1847. The act of 1844 to prohibit the introduction, manufacture, sale, and barter of ardent spirits was amended by the House of Representatives of 1845. The same body drew up and submitted to the people, for their approval or rejection, a new and amended organic law, which was adopted, and which conferred upon the legislature the power to pass laws to regu- late the introduction, manufacture, and sale of ardent spirits. This amendatory bill was reported by W. H. Gray from the committee on ways and means, and was passed December 6, 1845, by the following vote: Yeas, Gray, Garrison, Hen- dricka, H. Lee. McClure, and McCarver 7. Nays, Foisy, Hill, Straight, and Newell 4. On the 8th a motion to re- consider was lost by the following tie vote : Yeas, Hendricks, Hill, B. Lee, Smith, Straight, and Newell ; nays. Foisy, Gray, Garrison, H. Lee, McCarver, and McClure. (Gray's "Ore- gon," page 440.) The amendatory act is incorrectly given by Mr. Gray on pages 440-41, by omitting the first section entirely. The first section of the original act was amended by inserting the word "give" after the word "barter" in two places; and the sec- ond section was amended by inserting the word "give" after the word "barter" in one place, and the word "gift" after the word "barter" in the second place. Section 4 of the original act was as follows: SEC. 4. That it shall be the duty of all sheriffs, judges, justices of the peace, constables, and other officers, when they have reason to believe that this act has been violated, to give notice thereof to some justice of the peace or judge of a court, who shall immediately issue his warrant and cause the offend- ing party to be arrested; and if such officer has jurisdiction ​RECOLLECTIONS OF AN OLD PIONEER. 291 of such ease, he shall proceed to try such offender without delay, and irive jndirment accordingly, hut if such officer hnvc no jurisdiction to try such case, lie shall, if the party be guilty, bind him over to appear before the next circuit court. This section was stricken out, and the following inserted in its stead: SKC. 4. Win-never it shall come to the knowledge of any oflicer of this government, or any private citizen, that any kind of spirituous liquors are being distilled or manufactured in Oregon, they are hereby authorized and required to proceed to the place where such illicit manufacture is known to exist, and sei/e the distilling apparatus, and deliver the same to the nearest district .in dire or justice of the peace, whose duty it shall be immediately to issue his warrant, and cause the house and premises of the person against whom such warrant shall be issued to be further searched; and in case any kind of spirituous liquors are found in or about said premises, or any implements or apparatus that have the appearance of having been used or constructed for the purpose of manufacturing any kind of spirituous liquors, and deliver the same to the judge or justice of the peace who issued the said warrant. Said officer shall also arrest the person or persons in or about whose premises such apparatus, implements, or spirituous liquors are found, and conduct him or them to said judge or justice of the peace, whose duty it shall be to proceed against said criminal or criminals, and dispose of the articles seized according to law. It will be readily seen that these amendments radically cha ntred the original act. ii, several most material respects. My the amendment to the second section of the act, it was made a criminal offence to give away ardent, spirits. This would prevent the master of a ship entering the waters of On-iron from irivinir his seamen their usuaj daily allowance of liquor while the vessel remained within our jurisdiction. So, a private citi/.en. without tin advice of a physician, could not give the article to any one. for any purpose, or under any ircumstances. Hy the provision of the fourth section as amended, all officers, and even private citi/ens. were not only authori/ed. ​292 PETER H. BURNETT. but required (without any warrant having been issued first by a court or judicial officer) to seize the distilling apparatus; and in such case each officer and each private citizen was to be himself the judge of both the fact and law, so far as the duty to seize the apparatus was concerned. This was giving to each individual citizen of Oregon a most extraordinary power, and making its exercise obligatory. The fifth section of the amendatory act, as given by the his- torian, was as follows : SECTION 5. All the fines or penalties recovered under this act shall go, one-half to the informant and witnesses, and the other half to the officers engaged in arresting and trying the criminal or criminals ; and it shall be the duty of all officers in whose hands such fines and penalties may come to pay over as directed in this section. This was a most unusual and extraordinary provision. To give a portion of the penalty recovered to the informant and arresting officer was not very improper; but to give another portion of such penalty to the witnesses and judges, thus making them interested in condemning the accused, is indeed most extraordinary; and I apprehend that such a provision never before occurred in the history of legislation among civil- ized men. The author of this fifth section must have had great confidence in the power of money. These objectionable features were so great, in the view of Governor Abernethy, that he recommended a revision of the amendatory act, in his message to the House of Repre- sentatives, December 4, 1846. ( Gray, 442. ) The House of Representatives, at the December session, 1846, passed an act^ entitled "An Act to regulate the manu- facture and sale of wine and distilled spirituous liquors." This act Governor Abernethy returned to the House with his objec- tions, as set forth in his veto message of December 17, 1846. In this message he said, among other things : 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 introduc​UKCOLLECTIONS OF AN OLD PIONEER. _".'. tittn. sale and distillation of ardent spirits in Oregon"; and, as far as my knowledge extends, the passage of that act gave ireneral 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. Tin- 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. The bill was passed over the veto of the Governor by the following vote: Yeas, Messrs. Boon, Hall, Hembree, Louns- clalf. Loony, Meek, Summers. Straight, T'Vault, Williams, and the Speaker, 11 ; nays, Messrs. Chamberlain, McDonald, Newell, Peers, and Dr. W. F. Tolmie, 5. Mr. Parker, in a public address to the voters of Clackamas County, in May, 1846, charged that rum was sold at Van- couver contrary to law. This charge was based upon rumor. Mr. Douglas, in a communication to the "Oregon Spectator," published June 11, 1846. among other things says: If, with reference to these supplies, Mr. Parker had told his hearers that her majesty's ship Modeste. now stationed at Fort Vancouver, had, with other supplies for ship use from the stores of the Hudson's Bay Company, received several casks of rum; or if. referring to the company's own ships, he had stated that a small allowance of sjririts is daily served out to tin crews of the company's vessels, and that other classes of the company's servants, according to long accustomed usage, receive on certain rare occasions a similar indulgence, he would have told the i>lain and stimplf truth, and his statement would not this .lay have been called in question by me. These acts ​294 PKTER H. BURNETT. which I fully admit, and would on no account attempt to con- ceal, can not by the fair rules of construction be considered as infringing upon any law recognized by the compact which we have agreed to support, in common with the other inhabitants of Oregon. (Gray, 447.) It seems perfectly plain from Mr. Gray's own history that the final overthrow of this measure was mainly brought about by the following causes: 1. The extremely harsh and erroneous amendments of 1845. 2. The mistake of the same body in using the word "regu- late" instead of "prohibit" in the organic law of that year. 3. The sale of rum to the Modeste by the Hudson's Bay Company. This last act, however excusable it may be considered under the then existing circumstances, gave the opponents a plausible ground for objection. That the original act was approved by the people is shown by the following extract from the message of Governor Aber- nethy, dated February 5th, 1849: The proposed amendments to the organic law will come before you for final action: to amend the oath of office, to make the clerks of the different counties recorders of land claims, etc., and to strike out the word "regulate" and insert the word "prohibit" in the clause relating to the sale of ardent spirits. The last amendment came before the people for a direct vote, and I am happy to say that the people of this territory decided through the ballot-box, by a majority of the votes given, that the word "prohibit" should be inserted. This makes the question a very easy one for you to decide upon. ("Oregon Laws and Archives," pages 273-4.) Jesse Applegate was a member of the House of Representa- tives in 1845, but his name does not appear as voting upon the final passage of the amendatory bill, he having previously re- signed his seat. TREATY OF JUNE 15, 1846 POLICY OF THE HUDSON'S BAY COM- PANY H. A. G. LEE INDIAN CHARACTER. On the 15th of June, 1846, a treaty was concluded between Great Britain and the United States which acknowledged the ​I: i -MI i .1 :, TIONS OP AN OLD PIONKKR. 295 Noereii:nty nf our country over that portion of Oregon lying smith of tin- 4!th parallel of north latitude. This was known in Oregi n .-IN ai-ly as December of that year, ns the fact is menti( .!!(! in (Jovernor Aheniethy's message, dated December 1. lMi. ("Oregon Laws and Archives." 158.) The final settlement of the conflicting claims of the two governments in this manner did not surprise any sensible man in Oregon, so far as I remember. It was what we had every reason to expect. We knew, to a moral certainty, that the moment we brought our families, cattle, teams, and loaded wagr.ns to the banks of the Columbia River in 1843, the ques- tion was practically decided in our favor. Oregon was not only accessible by land from our contiguous territory, but we bad any desirable number of brave, hardy people who were fond of adventure, and perfectly at home in the settlement of new countries. We could bring into the country ten immi- grants for e( ry colonist Great Britain could induce to settle there. We were masters of the situation, and fully compre- hended our position. This the gentlemen of the company understood as well as we did. In repeated conversations with Dr. MeLoughlin. soon after my arrival in Oregon, he assured me that he had for some years been convinced that Oregon was destined soon to be occupied by a civilized people. The reasons f< r this conclusion were most obvious. The country, with its fertile soil, extensive valleys, magnificent forests, and mild climate, was admirably fitted for a civili/ed and dense popula- tion. Its lcal position on the shores of the Pacific marked it ax a tit abode for a cultivated race of men. Besides, the natives had almost entirely disappeared from the lower section of On-iron. Only a small and diseased remnant was left. The coloni/.ation of the country, either by British or Amer- icans, would iqually destroy the fur trade, the only legitimate business of th unpany. No doubt the gentlemen connected with that company thought the title of their own government to Ore iron was superior to ours; while we Americans believed we had the better title. I read carefully the discussion between Mr. Buchanan, our Secretary of State, and the British Nfin​PETER H. BURNETT. ister; and while I thought our country had the better title, neither claim could be properly called a plain, indisputable right, because much could be and was said on both sides of the question. But, while our title might be disputed, there was no possible doubt as to the main fact, that we had settled the country. When the managers of the company had arrived at the conclusion that Oregon must be inhabited by a civilized race of men, they undoubtedly determined to do all they could reasonably and justly to colonize it with their own people. These gentlemen were as loyal in their allegiance to their own country as we were to ours, and were prepared to go as far as enlightened love of country would lead them, and n.o farther. It is very true that the company, by expending the larger portion if not all of its large capital, could have colon- ized the country in advance of the Americans. But, what proper inducement had the company thus to sacrifice the property of its stockholders? Colonization was not its legiti- mate business. Why, then, should a mere mercantile corpora- tion waste its means and ruin its business to settle Oregon? If the settlement of the country was of national importance to Great Britain, then the expense should have been borne by that government itself, and not by the few subjects who happen to be stockholders of the company. Any one well acquainted with all the facts and circumstances, and who will carefully and thoroughly examine the subject, must see that the only motive the managers of the company had to settle Oregon with British subjects, in preference to American citizens, was one of patriotism or love of country. In a pecuniary point of view, the company saved more money for its stockholders by the treaty than it could have done had the country fallen to Great Britain. But while the managers of the Company, as British sub- jects, preferred to colonize Oregon with their own people, they were not, as enlightened and Christian men, prepared to use criminal means to accomplish that purpose. In the address of ​RKCOLLKCTIONS OF AN OLD PIONKKR. 297 John McLouirhlin and James Douglas to the citizens of Oregon in March. lS4f>. they say, among other things: The Hudson's Bay Company made their settlement at Fort Vane* -iiver under the authority of a license from the British government, in confi rniity with the provisions of the treaty between (Jr. at Britain and the United States of America, which Drives them the right of occupying as much land as they require for the operation of their business. On the faith of that treaty they have made a settlement on the north bank of the Columbia River, they have opened roads and made other improvements at a great outlay of capital; they have held unmolested possession of their improvements for many years, unquestioned by the public officers of either government, who have since the existence of their settlement repeatedly visited it ; they have carried on business with manifest advantage to the country; they have given the protection of their influence over the native tribes to every person who required it without distinction of nation or party; and they have afforded every assistance in their power toward developing the resources of the country, and promoting the industry of its inhabit-* ants. . . . Permit ns to assure you, gentlemen, that it is our earnest wish to maintain a irood understanding and to live on friendly terms with every person in the country. We entertain the highest respect for the provisional organixation ; and knowing the '_ r iv;it i_ r ood it has effected, as well as the evil it has pre- vented, we wish it every success, and hope, as we desire, to continue to live in the exercise and interchange of good offices with the framers of that useful institution. This address was inclosed with the following letter to the exeentiv mmittee of Oregon: VANCOVEB, March 18, 1845. ( ieiitlenien : I am sorry to inform you that Mr. Williamson is surveying a piece of land occupied by the Hudson's Bay Company, alongside of this establishment, with a view of taking it as a claim ; and. as he is an American citizen, I feel bound, as a matter of courtesy, to make the same known to you, trusting that you will feel justified in taking measures to have him removed from the Hudson's Bay Company's premises, in order that the unanimity now happily subsisting between the American citi/ens and British subjects residing in this country may not be disturbed or interrupted. I Iwg to inclose you a ​298 PETER H. BURNETT. copy of an address to the citizens of Oregon, which will explain to you our situation and the course we are bound to pursue in the event of your declining to interfere. I am, gentlemen, your obedient humble servant, J. McLouGHLiN. WILLIAM DAILY, OSBORN RUSSELL, P. G. STEWART, Executive Committee of Oregon. To this letter, the majority of the executive committee of Oregon, acting for the whole, made this reply : OREGON CITY, March 21, 1845. Sir: We beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letters one dated llth of March and the other 12th of March accom- panied with an address to the citizens of Oregon. We regret to hear that unwarranted liberties have been taken by an American citizen upon the Hudson's Bay Com- pany's premises, and it affords us great pleasure to learn that the offender, after due reflection, desisted from the insolent and rash measure. As American citizens, we beg leave to offer you and your esteemed colleague our most grateful thanks for the kind and candid manner in which you have treated this matter, as we are aware that an infringement on the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company in this country, by a.n American citizen, is a breach of the laws of the United States, by setting at naught her most solemn treaties with Great Britain. As representatives of the citizens of Oregon, we beg your acceptance of our sincere acknowledgments of the obligations we are under to yourself and your honorable associate for the high regard you have manifested for the authorities of our provisional government, and the special anxiety you have ever shown for our peace and prosperity ; and we assure you that we consider ourselves in duty bound to use every exertion in our power to put down every cause of disturbance, as well as to promote the amicable intercourse and kind feelings hitherto existing between ourselves and the gentlemen of the Hudson's Bay Company, until the United States shall extend its jurisdic- tion over us, and our authority ceases to exist. We have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servants, OSBORN RUSSELL, JOHN MCLOUGHLIN, ESQ. P.. G. STEWART.
​These papers appear in Gray's "Oregon," pages 409-11, as a portion of Dr. White's report to the Secretary of War.
This attempt to locate a claim in the vicinity of Vancouver was made by Williamson and Alderman. Williamson was apparently a modest and respectable vomit: man. while Alderman was a most notorious eliaraeter. He was well known in Oregon from his violent and unprincipled conduct. He was always in trouble with somebody. He went to California in the summer or fall of 1848, and was killed in the latter portion of that year, at Sutter's Fort, under justifiable circumstances.
I have given these extracts from the address to the citizens of Ore-run, that the then managers of the Hudson's Bay Company might speak for themselves; and I have given the reply of Messrs. Russell and Stewart, of the executive committee, to show the opinion of those intelligent, calm and faithful American officers upon the general subject.
That the facts stated in the address are true there can be no reasonable doubt. The facts were all within the personal knowledge of Dr. McLoughlin and Mr. Douglas, and they could not be mistaken about them. If untrue, then they deliberately and knowingly made false statements. To make statements that could be so readily contradicted by the people of Oregon, if untrue, would have been the greatest folly. Besides the high character of these gentlemen, especially that of Dr. McLoughlin, forbids such inference. Dr. Mcloughlin. during his long and active life, pave such conclusive proofs of the possession of the most exalted virtue that no man of spectable ability and good character would at this late day question his integrity or doubt his statement of facts within his own knowledge. He voluntarily became, and afterward died, an American citizen.
But the truth of their statements, especially that one which declares that "they had given the protection of their influence over the native tribes to every person who required it, without distinction of nation or party," is shown by the fact that no American immigrant as killed by the Indians in ​Oregon until late in the fall of 1847 seventeen months after the treaty between Great Britain and the United States settled the question of sovereignty over that portion of Oregon south of the 49th parallel of north latitude in our favor, and twelve months after that fact was known in that country, and when the company could not have had any adequate motive to oppose American immigration to acknowledged American territory.
It is true, some thefts were committed by the Indians upon the immigrants; but I apprehend that these were not more numerous or common than usual with Indians under like circumstances. While it is not my intention to enter at large into the subject, I will give an extract from the long letter of H. A. G. Lee to Dr. E. White, assistant Indian agent, dated Oregon City, March 4, 1845. It is, in my judgment, the most sensible and just description of Indian character I have ever seen in so few words. After stating, among other things, that "avarice is doubtless the ruling passion of most Indians," the writer goes on to say:
The lawless bands along the river, from Fort Walla Walla to The Dalles, are still troublesome to the immigrants; and the immigrants are still very imprudent in breaking up into small parties, just when they should remain united. The Indians are tempted by the unguarded and defenseless state of the immigrants, and avail themselves of the opportunity to gratify their cupidity. Here allow me to suggest a thought. These robbers furnish us a true miniature likeness of the whole Indian population whenever they fail to obtain such things as they wish in exchange for such as they have to give. These are robbers now, because they have nothing to give; all others will be robbers when, with what they have to give, they can not procure what they wish. I am satisfied of the correctness of this conclusion from all that I have witnessed of Indian character, even among the praiseworthy Nez Perces. And should the government of the United States withhold her protection from her subjects in Oregon, they will be under the necessity of entering into treaty stipulations with the Indians, in violation of the laws of the United States, as preferable to a resort to force of arms.
Hitherto the immigrants have had no serious difficulty in passing through the territory of these tribes; but that ​RECOLLECTIONS OF AN OLD PIONKER. 301 their passage is becoming more and more a subject of interest to thr Indians is abundantly manifest. They collect about the road from every part of the country, and have looked on with ama/eiMPiit : but the novelty of the scene is fast losing its power to hold in check their baser passions. The next immigration will, in all probability, call forth developments of Indian character which have been almost denied an exist- encc among these pet pie. Indeed, sir, had you not taken the precaution to conciliate their good feelings and friendship toward the whites just at the time they were meeting each other, it is to be doubted whether there had not been some serious difficulties. Individuals on both sides have been mutu- ally provoked and exasperated during the passage of each immigration, and these eases are constantly multiplying. Much prudence is required on the part of the whites and unfortunately they have very little by the time they reach the Columbia Valley. Some of the late immigrants, losing their horses and very naturally supposing them stolen by the Indian*, went to the bands of horses owned by the Indians and took as many as they wished. You are too well acquainted with Indians to suppose that such a course can be persisted in without producing serious results. (Gray's "Oregon," pages 414-416.) (iovernor Abernethy, in his message to the Legislative Assembly of Oregon, under date of December 7, 1847. says: Our relation with the Indians becomes every year more embarrassing. They see the white man occupy their lands, rapidly filling up the country, and they put in a claim for pay. They have been told that a chief would come out from the United States and treat with them for their lands; but they ha ve been told this so often that they begin to doubt the truth of it. At all events, they say: "He will not come till we are all dead. ;md then what good will blankets do us? We vant something now." This leads to trouble between the Driller and the Indians about him. Some plan should be devised by which a fund can be raised, and presents made to the Indians of sufficient, value to keep them quiet, until an a ire nt arrives from the United States. A number of rob- beries have been committed by the Indians in the upper coun- try upon the emigrants as they were passing through their territory. This should nut be allowed to pass. An appropria- tion should be made by you sufficient to enable the Superin- tendent of Indian Affairs to take a small party in the spring. ​302 PETER H. BURNETT. and demand restitution of the property, or its equivalent in horses. Without an appropriation, a sufficient party would not be induced to go up there, as the trip is an expensive one. ("Oregon Laws and Archives," page 210:) Ve were delicately situated in Oregon up to near the clase of 1846, when news of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States reached us. We knew that under former treaties the citizens and subjects of both governments were privileged to occupy the country jointly ; but that joint occupation of the territory did not mean joint occupation of the same tract of land or of the same premises but the pnrty first in possession was entitled to continue it until the ques- tion of sovereignty should be settled. .Our community vns composed of American citizens and British subjects, inter- mingled together as neighbors, with all their respective na- tional attachments, manners and prejudices; and we had our full share of reckless adventurers and other bad men. The extremists and ultras of both sides would have brought us into armed conflict, and perhaps involved the two countries in war, but for the manly good sense of our leading men, sup- ported by the great majority of the people. It was most fortunate for us that the executive office of our little provisional government was at all times filled, not only by Americans, but by these who were well fitted for that position, both as to capacity and conciliatory firmness. T have already spoken of Osborn Russell and P. G. Stewart who acted as the executive committee during part of the years 1844 and 1845. They were admirable men for that position. They were succeeded by George Abernethy, who filled the position until the provisional organization was superseded by the regular territorial government, under the act of Con- gress of August 14, 1848. Governor Abernethy was precisely fitted for the position in every respect. Though he had no regular legal education, he was a man of admirable good sense, of calm, dispassionate disposition, of amiable, gentle manners, and above the influ- ences of passion and prejudice. He did his duty most faith​RECOLLECTIONS OF AN OLD PIONKKI: 303 fully to the utmost of his ability; and his ability was ample for that time and that country, lit- fully comprehended tin 1 exact situation, and acted upon the maxim, "Make haste slowly," believing that such was not only the best policy, but the best justice. Time amply vindicated the wisdom and efficiency of the course he pursued. We attained all our hopes and wishes by peaceful means. "Peace hath her tri- umphs." greater than those of war, because ihe triumphs of peace cost so much less-. It is a matter of doubt whether, in the settlement of any portion of America by the whites, any greater wisdom, forbearance, and pood sense have been shown, except in the celebrated case of William Penn. MASSACRE OP DR. WHITMAN AND OTHKRS INDIAN WAR- ITS RESULT. On Monday, November 29, 1847, the most horrible massacre of Dr. Marcus Whitman, his lady, and others, by the Cayuse Indians, took place; which event, in the just language of Mr. Douglas, was "one of the most atrocious which darken the annals of Indian crime." Within a few days other peaceful Americans were slaughtered, until the whole number of victims amounted to from twelve to fifteen. This painful event was made known at Oregon City on De- cember S, 1847, as already stated. I knew Dr. Whitman well ; I first saw him at the rendez- vous near the western line of Missouri, in May. 1843; saw him again at Kort Hall: and airain at his own mission in th- fall of that, year, as already stated. I remember that the h'rst. I heard of the false ami un_rrateful charge made by a portion of our immigrants (an account of which I have already given) was from his own lips. I was standing near his house when he came to me with the painful expression of deep concern upon his countenance, and aske 1 me to come with him to his room. I did so, and found one or two other gentlemen there. He was deeply wouiuleil. as he had ample cause to be, by this unjustifiable conduct of some of our p. pie. He stated to us the facts. I again saw him at my ​304 PETER H. BURNETT. home on the Tualatin Plains in 1844. He called at my house. and, finding I was in the woods at work, he came to me there. This was the last time I ever saw him. Our relations were of the most cordial and friendly character, and I had the greatest respect for him. I consider Dr. Whitman to have been a brave, kind, devoted, and intrepid spirit, without malice and without re- proach. In my best judgment, he made greater sacrifices, endured more hardships, and encountered more perils for Oregon than any other one man; and his services were prac- tically more efficient than those of any other, except perhaps those of Dr. Linn, United States Senator from Missouri. I say perhaps, for I am in doubt as to which of these two men did more in effect for Oregon. The news of this bloody event thrilled and roused our people at once; and within a very short time, considering the season and other circumstances, we raised an army of some five hundred brave and hardy men, and marched them into the enemy's country. Several battles were fought, the result of which is well and concisely stated by Governor Aber nethy, in his message to the Legislative Assembly of Oregon, under date of February 5, 1849: I am happy to inform you that, through aid of the terri- tory to go in pursuit of the murderers and their allies, and of those who contributed so liberally to the support of our fellow citizens in the field, the war has been brought to a successful termination. It is true that the Indians engaged in the massacre were not captured and punished ; they were, however, driven from their homes, their country taken pos- session of, and they made to understand that the power of the white man is far superior to their own. The Indians have a large scope of country to roam over, all of which they were well acquainted with, knew every pass, and by this knowledge could escape the punishment they so justly merited. In view of this the troops were recalled and dis- banded early in July last, leaving a small force under the command of Captain Martin to keep possession of the post at Wailatpu, and a few men at Wascopum. Captain Martin remained at Wailatpu until the middle of September, when ​RKCOLLK- TIONS 01 AN Ou> I'IONKKR. 305 the time for which his men had enlisted expired. He, how- ever, before leaving, sent a party to bring in the last com- pany of emigrants. The appearance of so many armed men among the Indians in their own country had a very salutary effect on them; this is seen by their refusing to unite with the Cayuse Indians, by their profession of friendship to the Americans, and by the safety with which the immigration passed through the Indian country the past season. Heretofore robberies have been committed and insults offered to Americans as they pass along, burdened with their families and -roods, and worn down with the fatigues of a lonir .journey, and this was on the increase; each successive yea i- no molestation was offered in any way. On the con- immiirration suffered more than the preceding one. But. this trary. every assistance was rendered by the Indians in cross- ing rivers, for a reasonable compensation. Having learned the power and ability of the Americans, I trust the mvessity of calling on our citizens to punish them hen-after will be obviated. ("Oregon Laws and Archives," pa.ire. 272.) This attack of the Indians was attributed by some persons, ami especially by Mr. Spaulding, to the instigation of the Catholic missionaries in that country. I thought the charge most unjust, and think so still. The charge was too horrible in its very nature to be believed unless the evidence was conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt. There were most ample grounds upon which to account for the massacre, with- out accusing these missionaries of that horrible crime. Mr. Spaulding and myself agreed to discuss the matter thron-rli the columns of a small semi-monthly newspaper, published by Mr. (Iriflin. and several numbers were written and pub- lished by each of us; but the discovery of the gold mines in California put a stop to the discussion.