# The Whitman Controversy/5. Ed. C. Ross

[From the Sunday Oregonian of February 15, 1885.]
The Whitman Controversy.
Prescott, Walla Walla Co., W. T., Feb. 2.
To the Editor of the Oregonian:
My apology for not having written sooner is that by reason of the obstruction of the mail service, and the general bottled-up condition of the country, it has been impossible, in some instances, to get replies to letters of inquiry from persons whose testimony I wished to use in this article. My communication in The Oregonian of December 12 was written more for the purpose of repelling unjust charges, as I believed them to be, made by Mrs. Victor against the lamented Dr. Whitman, than with a view of establishing a historical fact. The Hon. Elwood Evans has replied, and had he not, in so doing, seen fit to question the veracity of the honorable living and the honored dead, I would not carry the controversy further. In so doing he exculpates Dr. Whitman from the blame that Mrs. Victor would lay him under, and then attacks the veracity of the late Rev. H. H. Spalding and other gentlemen, among whom is the Rev. Cushing Eells.
In what I shall say in reference to Mr. Evans' article, it will be my aim to avoid falling into one of the errors that he has committed, viz.: that of misrepresenting what my opponent has said. For instance—Mr. Evans says that I assume that Daniel Webster underrated Oregon and "might be able to trade it off for codfish," while my article as printed in The Oregonian makes no mention of any kind of trade or any kind of fish. Again, Mr. Evans represents me as saying—"Dr. Whitman was inspired at once with a thought of 'saving Oregon to the United States,' and angered by glorious Daniel Webster being the Amerisan Secretary of State." Again the print fails to show any mention by me of Dr. Whitman being "inspired at once," neither does it show any mention of his having been "angered by Daniel Webster." I have known lawyers ​before who would misconstrue the meaning of language, but, in justice to the profession, will say that the instances are rare in which they will misstate the contents of a plainly printed page. Nor are these the only instances in which I am misrepresented, but as it is not myself whom I write to defend, these will suffice, and ought to make Mr. Evans a little more careful in charging "patriotic fables" and "immense afterthoughts "to men whose whole lives have been one long self-denial.
No person well acquainted with Rev. Cushing Eells has failed to notice that he has one of the most tenacious memories for minute details, and that he is always punctiliously exact in all his statements. In my boyhood, while attending his school, this characteristic of the man impressed itself on me, and with a more or less intimate acquaintance with him ever since, I have never heard a charge like the one made against him by Mr. Evans. Had he known the gentleman better he would have never made the charge.
The matter in controversy is—Did Dr. Whitman go to Washington City in the winter of 1842-43, from his mission station in Walla Walla Valley, for the purpose of aiding in saving the then Oregon to the United States?
Mr. Evans denies that Dr. Whitman went from here for that purpose, and further denies that he went to Washington City at all; denies that the doctor ever said he was going there; denies that he ever said he had been there. Mr. Evans says Dr. Whitman's errand East that winter was missionary business and not political business; that the doctor's objective point was Boston, not Washington.
To disprove the assumption that Dr. Whitman was in Washington City in March, 1843, Mr. Evans prints two letters from Hon. Alexander Ramsey, written to Mr. Evans. As these letters have lately been published in The Oregonian, I will simply make extracts. Mr. Ramsey says: "It is difficult to say just when it was that I saw Dr. Whitman in Washington," and "I have a recollection of how I lamented his untimely death, when I subsequently heard of the massacre of the missionary party. I have an impression that this was Dr. Whitman. I have long been under that impression." This answer evidently did not suit Mr. Evans, so, contrary to correct practice, he proceeds to cross-examine his own witness by writing him another letter. Just what he wrote is impossible for me to tell, but his evident design was to get Mr. ​Ramsey to contradict his former statement as to the identity of Dr. Whitman. One thing, however, Mr. Evans tells us that he did write to Mr. Ramsey, viz., the question "Whether he saw at Washington City in the month of March, 1843, Dr. Marcus Whitman." Mr. Ramsey replied: "As I wrote you before, I have a strong impression that I saw Dr. Whitman at Washington, and that we were made acquainted with each other by Joshua R. Giddings. It is barely possible that instead of being Dr. Whitman himself, it may have been some one else connected with the Oregon mission. I have a strong impression that after the massacre we, in our regrets, commented upon our recollections of the doctor and his party. It is possible that Mr. Tilden may have some recollection of the matter, and I would have you write him." Accordingly, Mr. Evans wrote, and Mr. Tilden replied: "Your letter of the 15th inst. is received, and I regret to say I have no recollection of the gentleman to whom you refer. I concluded from your letter that Dr. Whitman was a clergyman. Many of these made calls upon Mr. Giddings, but I am not able to recall the names of any of them. I was not in Washington in the spring of 1843, and not until the assembling of Congress in December of that year." Now, were we trying the question of fact in court as to whether or not Dr. Whitman was in Washington in the spring of 1843, I would rest the case on these three letters introduced by Mr. Evans and let the jury say on which side was the preponderance of evidence. Because Mr. Tilden can not recall the names of any of the clergymen whom he saw in Washington, Mr. Evans seems to argue that this fact strengthens his assumption that neither Mr. Tilden nor Mr. Ramsey has identified Dr. Whitman. But Mr. Tilden says that he was not in Washington in the spring of 1843. Does not that strike you, Mr. Evans, as a good and sufficient reason why he can not say that he saw Dr. Whitman there at that time? Mr. Ramsey affirms and reaffirms with as much certainty as could be expected of any man, his belief that he saw Dr. Whitman in Washington. There are few men who could, under the circumstances, after the lapse of thirty-nine years, speak more positively as to the identity of a comparative stranger. Mr. Ramsey has left yet better marks by which to identify the missionary whom he met in Washington, when he says he recollects lamenting the death of the man whom he met there, when he heard of the massacre. The mascre occurred less than five years after the time that Dr. Whitman is claimed to have been in Washington, and Mr. Ramsey recollects, ​at that time, of having commented on his recollection of the doctor. Then, if the missionary whom Mr. Ramsey saw in Washington in the spring of 1843, and who was afterwards murdered at the massacre, was not Dr. Whitman, who was he? Let Mr. Evans stand up and tell us what other Oregon missionary was murdered about that time. Will he still tell us that the missionary whom Mr. Ramsey met in Washington in the spring of 1843, and who was afterwards murdered, was Rev. Jason Lee, because, as Mr. Evans tells us, Mr. Lee was in Washington a year after that time? After Mr. Evans shall have selected his victim, then let him contribute to history the name and time of murder of the missionary that he will have in Dr. Whitman's stead. Perhaps he will prefer to ignore the fact that the person whom Mr. Ramsey saw was afterwards murdered. Then I would suggest that he and Mrs. Victor compromise—drop both Lee and White, and settle on Colonel Joe Meek, who was in Washington only a few years afterwards, as his buckskins "tallied."
Thus far I have been reviewing the testimony introduced by Mr. Evans, and if he does not prove just the opposite to what he would have it do, then my scales for weighing testimony are out of order. But there is another letter from Mr. Ramsey, which Mr. Evans has not seen fit to print with the others. He was familiar with the contents, too, for this was the letter that opened the correspondence between Mr. Evans and Mr. Ramsey, and brought out the letters which Mr. Evans has published. This letter explains away Mr. Evans' intimation that Mr. Ramsey could not have seen Dr. Whitman in the spring of 1843, because, as Mr. Evans says, Mr. Ramsey did not take his seat in congress until December, 1843. Mr. Ramsey admits this in the letter, and goes °n and explains how he happened to be in Washington in the Winter of 1842-43, by saying: "I visited Washington and called upon Mr. Joshua Giddings, * * * When so visiting, Mr. Giddings introduced me to Dr. Whitman, who talked to me and others of the difficulties of his journey, of the character of the county, Indian affairs, British encroachments, etc." So we see that Mr. Ramsey does not claim that he was a member of congress at the time he saw Dr. Whitman—he was only a visitor. The missionary talked about the difficulties of his journey; what other Oregon missionary went east about that time who encountered any particular difficulties? I have learned to believe that Rev. Jason Lee went east not long after Dr. Whitman went, but Mr. Lee went by water, and I never heard that he had any difficulty in ​making the voyage. The thing that must have been nearest to Dr. Whitman's heart, and the thing that had caused him to imperil his life in making that winter's journey.
Mr. Evans argues that because he did not find Dr. Whitman's name mentioned in some chronicle Congressional Globe, or the debates in congress, therefore the doctor could not have been there. Would Mr. Evans have us believe that a private citizen cannot visit Washington without having his name so appear? I will venture to assert that there is not one private citizen out of a hundred who visits Washington, and leaves any printed or written record of his visit, other than by ornamenting some hotel register with his sign manual. Had Mr. Evans gone to Washington to work in the interest of the Hudson's Bay Company in presenting their claims against our government, could he not have appeared and pressed those claims to his heart's content and then disapeared without his name ever having found its way into the Globe or having become a subject of debate in congress? I would like to know in what chronicle one would expect to find the name of each private citizen who had forty years ago interviewed the president or the secretary of state?
I never have, nor will now, attempt to reconcile all the statements of detail made by different persons, such as are characterized as the "taunting jeer," the "foaming steed "and the "buckskin clothes." I neither assent to or deny the recitals in which these recitals occur—it seems of little importance whether Dr. Whitman wore buckskin or broadcloth. Daniel Webster would not guage the value of a man's opinion by the cut of his coat or by the material that entered into the make-up of his trowsers; while Dr. Whitman was a man whose presence would command respect in any place, from the wickiup to the White House.
The journey of Dr. Whitman, made in the winter of 1842-3, from his station in Walla Walla valley to the states, was one of the most perilous, daring and remarkable feats ever accomplished by any traveler. When he undertook it, he knew what dangers he had to face, what difficulties he would have to contend with. His practical good sense would have held him back had he not been urged forward by some powerful motive, and the motive is the very thing upon which this controversy, as it now stands, must hang and hinge. In my other article I answered, whether to her satisfaction or not I cannot say, Mrs. Victor's assignment of motive. That answer seemed satisfactory to Mr. Evans, however, for while ​he comes forward as her champion, I presume, he entirely ignores, and virtually disputes her position as to the actuating force that sent Dr. Whitman across the continent on that memorable winter's ride. Nevertheless her "speculations "were a more ingenious theory than that advanced by Mr. Evans. Mrs. Victor thinks that the object of Dr. Whitman was to get an office, and at the same time get his hand into Uncle Sam's pocket. Mr. Evans thinks that he went back on purely missionary business. Mrs. Victor believes that there was a meeting of the missionary board in September, 1842. Mr. Evans denies this, and in so doing calls in question the veracity of every member of that board now living. Without pointing out any other of the differences between these two historical scullers I would suggest, as they both row in the same boat, they would make more headway were they to keep stroke and both pull in the same direction.
As Mr. Evans has seen fit to propound a few questions to me as tests of my knowledge of United States history, I will take the liberty of asking if he does not know that when negotiations for settling the Oregon boundary were opened in London our Plenipotentiary took his instructions from our Government? Does he not know that those instructions were not perfected or acted upon until after the time that Dr. Whitman is said to have had his interviews with Daniel Webster and President Tyler? It seems to me quite probable that Mr. Webster may have signed these papers and have given them to the President, and that after hearing Dr. Whitman those instructions may have been withheld and others prepared. In short, whatever effect Dr. Whitman's representations of the value of this country had on the President and Secretary, that effect was not produced too late to have its full weight in shaping the subsequent negotiations concerning the Oregon boundary. Thus we see that Dr. Whitman did not arrive too late, as is claimed by those who deny that he was in time to be, in any degree, the savior of Oregon. Our Government was seeking information at the hands of traders, trappers and travelers concerning this country, but Dr. Whitman was the first farmer who had ever visited Washington from the present "Inland Empire." Would a deaf ear have been turned after an audience had once been accorded him?
"The Oregon Mission of the A. B. C. F. M., accrediting Marcus Whitman as delegate to Washington City, to make a desperate effort to save the then Oregon to the United States of America," is what Mr. Evans characterizes as the "immense afterthought"of ​Rev. C. Eells. As no such sentence occurs in Mr. Eells' statement, it must be an immense "chimera of a diseased brain," and Mr. Evans must stand its "sponsor." Mr. Eells says, in substance, that the mission voted an approval of Dr. Whitman making the attempt to go to Washington for the purpose of doing what he could to save the then Oregon to the United States, but says nothing about "accrediting Dr. Whitman as delegate." Mr. Eells also says that it was expected that the doctor would attend to some business relating to the mission. As a proof that Mr. Eells' memory is not reliable as to events transpiring thirty-six years before he made his statement regarding the special meeting of the mission in September, 1842, in which statement Mr. Eells says Mr. Gray was present at the meeting, Mr. Evans tells us that "It is certain that he [Mr. Gray] was not at Waiilatpu after June, 1842," also "Gray had removed to the Wallamet Valley as early in 1842 as he could find conveyance to the Wallamet." In reply to these assertions of Mr. Evans, let us see what the only two survivors of the male members of that mission say as to whether Mr. Eells was right in saying that Mr. Gray was present, or as to Mr. Evans being correct in saying Mr. Gray was absent. In a letter to the writer hereof, dated January 15, 1885, written by Rev. Cushing Eells, that gentleman says: "If the statement has been, is, or shall be made, that Mr. W. H. Gray had become disconnected with the Oregon Mission of the A. B. C. F. M. in the spring of 1842, I affirm that to be a false statement; to my certain knowledge Mr. Gray was present, and participated in the meeting of the mission held at Wai-i-lat-pu, September, 1842." This letter was written at Cheney. Below I give an extract from a letter from Hon. W. H. Gray, written on the same day as that of Mr. Eells, and each in answer to letters written to these gentlemen only five days before. Mr. Gray writes from Astoria. As that place and Cheney are four hundred miles apart Mr. Evans will probably not conclude that the coincidence of dates, indicate collusion between the witnesses. Mr. Gray says he "left Waiilatpu to go to the Willamette the first of September, 1842. Returned to the station for my family on the 21st of September. I was at the annual meeting in June, 1842. There was a special called at Dr. Whitman's station in September to consult about Dr. Whitman's proposition to go to Washington to inform our Government of the proceedings and designs of the Hudson's Bay Company, first made known to me by Frank Ermatinger at what was known as Horse Plains, the usual place to meet the ​head tribe, I think in May, 1837. On that occasion Ermatinger got drunk on Hudson's Bay Company rum, and, as per bargain we made, he (Ermatinger) was to drink the rum and Gray the water. On that occasion the rum became patriotic for the company and England, the water for Uncle Sam. To close the argument he said: "Pooh! what can your Government do? All the company has to do is to arm their eight hundred half-breeds and they can control the Indians and drive back any troops your Government can send across the mountains. Our navy can protect the coast." I gave up the question, but never forgot the threat, and told Dr. Whitman about it when we met the next year. "The meeting" [September, 1842], "was divided. Revs. Walker and Eells thought it not proper for him (Dr. Whitman) to leave his place for the purpose of attending to political affairs. Rev. Spalding and Gray approved his object and design, being more fully informed of the designs of the Hudson's Bay Company than the two opposing members of the mission."
Here we have the testimony of the only two surviving members of that meeting, each positively asserting that Mr. Gray was present at this special meeting in September, 1842, while Mr. Evans says that there was no meeting at that time; and that Mr. Gray was not present at any such meeting. Shall we believe the testimony of two venerable gentlemen, each of equal credibility with Mr. Evans—each of whom speak from their own personal knowledge—or shall we believe Mr. Evans, who can only speak from hearsay? At the time these two gentlemen with their associates were discussing matters which seemed to them of great importance, things not likely to ever be forgotten by them, little Elwood Evans was struggling to master the "combination" of his first pair of pants, or wondering if the chestnuts on the hills of his native Pennsylvania were not ripe, and never dreaming that the day would come when he would be able to tell these old missionaries more of their doings out here than they had ever known themselves. Have you, Mr. Evans, in this, your own chosen instance, successfully impeached the memory of Mr. Eells? Is not the preponderance of evidence with him and against you? To my mind this settles the question of credibility in favor of Mr. Eells, if, indeed, there ever has been such a question in the mind of any, other than Mr. Evans. To prove that there was no special meeting held in September, and that no meeting had been held later than the annual meeting in June, Mr. Evans quotes from a letter written by Rev. ​H. H. Spalding, January 9, 1843, this sentence: "By a vote of our mission, which went home in June, I continue at my station till we hear from the board." This is a most unfortunate quotation for Mr. Evans to make, and leaves the impression that, for the moment, he forgot which side of the case he was on. If the action of the meeting in June was what sent Dr. Whitman East, then why did he wait all summer and start only at the near approach of winter? (October 3.)
Mrs. Victor truly says that Dr. Whitman was "quick to think and act." It never took him four months—from June until October—to get ready. His determination to go would soon have been followed by his going. Even Mr. Evans will not deny that it was determined by a vote of the mission that he should go East, and I think he will have to agree with me that it was a later one than the annual meeting in June, held very shortly before the time of his starting; and, in short, the "immense afterthought" is the only tenable ground. The special meeting of September must have been held and its approving vote of the doctor's wish to make the attempt to go East, must have been his warrant for going. Nothing appears to have transpired relating to the missionary business since June, at which time they had under consideration the order from the home board to vacate the two southern stations. Then, what new business could it have been that caused this special meeting and the doctor's hasty departure? It must have been the political aspect—not the missionary business. Mr. Evans says that "no living person in Oregon or Washington prior to July 4, 1865, ever heard national motives or political influence attributed to the winter journey of Dr. Whitman in 1842-43." This is so broad an assertion that I hardly know where to take hold of it. Before me is a letter written by Rev. Horace Lyman, of Forest Grove, Oregon, dated January 16, 1885, from which I take the following extract: "I came to the coast, or rather, to Portland, in November, 1849, and although I can not state the exact date, nor the conversation in which I first heard the claim made that Dr. Whitman went East that winter—1842-43—to make the effort to save Oregon to the United States; yet this decided impression was made upon my mind within one or two years after my coming here, i. e., with my first acquaintance with Mr. Gray, Mr. Spalding, Mr. Eells, and Mr. Walker, that this was one of his great objects in going East, and the main one. In other words, the idea was infused into my mind by various conversations in the earliest years of my Oregon ​life." Here is the testimony of a gentleman who has resided in Oregon continuously for more than thirty-five years, if we except a short residence in Walla Walla while in charge of the Whitman seminary. During all this time the writer has known, and known of, Mr. Lyman, a part of the time as student under Professor Lyman, and during all this time has never seen the person who would hint that he was not a gentlemen, truthful and reliable in every sense of the word. Yet, Mr. Lyman is at direct issue with Mr. Evans, for he dates back fifteen or sixteen years beyond the time set by Mr. Evans as the period back of which no person ever heard "political motives," etc., attributed to Dr. Whitman's visit East. Again, in Eells' pamphlet, we find a letter from Mrs. Mary R. Walker, widow of the late Rev. Elkanah Walker. Mr. and Mrs. Walker, and Mr. and Mrs. Eells were missionaries who came to this country in 1838. They were stationed on Walker's Prairie, in the Spokane Country, about one hundred and twenty-five miles from Whitman's station, and were there at the time of the famous winter ride, and still remained at their station at the time of the cruel Whitman massacre. Extracts from Mrs. Walker's letter read thus: "In answer to your inquiries about Dr. Whitman, I will say that he went East in 1842 mainly to save the country from falling into the hands of England, as he believed there was great danger of it. He had written Mr. Walker several times before about it. One expression I well remember he wrote, about as follows: 'This country will soon be settled by the whites. It belongs to the Americans. It is a great and rich country. What a country this would be for Yankees! Why not tell them of it?'" * * * "Mr. Walker and associates felt that Dr. Whitman, in leaving his missionary work and going on this business, was likely also to bring disgrace on the cause, and were so afraid of it that for a long time they would hardly mention the object of Dr. Whitman's journey publicly." Here we have the testimony of a woman who, at a time before I was born, left home, friends, early associations, and civilization behind her, and came here to teach and civilize. If such as she are not to be believed, then to whom can we look for the truth? The statements of Mr. Gray and the Rev. C. Eells, are to the same effect. Mr. Spalding, before he died, left the same substantially on record. Every member of the mission alive at the time that these matters came into controversy, have agreed as to the main and material facts. But, there are other witnesses, and enough of them to establish the facts as represented by the missionaries. Yet I will ​admit that, for many years, the matter was kept by the missionaries well among themselves, and Mrs. Walker's letters, above quoted, gives a very good reason— because it was feared that the doctor would bring disgrace on the missionary cause by leaving his post on business so foreign to the duties of a missionary—as such. Neither is it probable that they scattered many letters about, making mention of facts about which they hardly dared speak. With a full knowledge of these reasons for secrecy, Mr. Evans calls loudly for written proof in the shape of autograph letters, or editorials in Oregon journals, or the Missionary Herald. Because Mr. Eells does not produce the minutes of the meeting held at Dr. Whitman's station in 1842, at which the vote of approval of Dr. Whitman's plan for going East was cast, Mr. Evans argues that no such meeting was ever held. And he so writes, a year after the Rev. Cushing Eells had made and published his affidavit, an ex tract from which reads as follows:
"Record of the date and acts of the meeting was made. The book containing the same was in the keeping of the Whitman family. At the time of the massacre—November 29, 1847—it disappeared."
Here, the loss of a record has been accounted for and its contents proven. When did you learn that, under such circumstances, oral testimony could not be allowed to supply the place of a writing, Mr. Evans? He calls upon those setting up this claim for Dr. Whitman to produce an exemplification of the record that has been made up from their proceedings here and forwarded on to Boston. If such record should be brought forward it is not probable that a matter so utterly foreign to the object of the mission here would figure very conspicuously—as to that, however, I merely " speculate."
Mr. Evans denies that Dr. Whitman did, even in the most re mote degree, stimulate the great immigration of 1843; says the doctor's connection with the immigration commenced with the crossing of the North Platte river in June, where he overtook the train; "was escorted by the train to Oregon." When it comes to making a broad superstructure of assertion, on a narrow or no foundation of truth, the gentleman from New Tacoma is the "boss." When he wrote this, Mr. Evans knew that Rev. Myron Eells had written to all of the emigrants of 1843 that he could hear of, and had received and published the answers of fourteen persons. Out of this number four said they were influenced by Dr. Whitman to ​come to Oregon; the other ten said that they were not. I know no reason why we may not suppose that the doctor's influence ran through the whole number of immigrants of that year in about the same proportion. If so, we will have to give him credit for influencing nearly one-third of that year's immigration, even if Mr. Evans does say nay. It seems from the answer of some of these emigrants, that Dr. Whitman had been writing newspaper articles and had published a pamphlet descriptive of Oregon, all of which, coming from a man who actually lived here, must have had influence with those men who were so anxious to leave Missouri, Illinois, and other Western States and Territories. He was helping men to buy teams and giving them counsel; stayed back until after a portion of the emigration had started, and then came on, although we are told that his connection commenced with the emigration at the North Platte in June, and that he was "escorted" across the plains by the emigration! Would Mr. Evans have us to understand that the man who had made his way across the plains the winter before, needed an escort to bring him home in the summer? Up to this time no wagon train had ever passed Fort Hall. Had Dr. Whitman not been with the train, I will not undertake to say whether the wagons would have come farther or not. As it was, Grant, the Hudson's Bay trader at that post, tried to induce the immigrants to leave their wagons, as all others had done up to that time. But the doctor insisted on taking the wagons on. Had the wagons been abandoned it is not probable that another emigrant would have tried to cross the plains for years, if ever. A letter now before me from Rev. J. S. Griffin, of Hillsboro, Oregon, tells how Dr. Whitman related this circumstance to Mr. Griffin in 1845. A letter from Hon. John Minto, of Salem, Oregon, who crossed the plains in 1844, says: "I heard Captain Grant * * * tell how he had tried to persuade the immigrants of last year (1843) that they could not get their wagons through." So it seems that Dr. Whitman was an important factor, both in stimulating the emigration of that year as well as of great service in aiding in the successful accomplishment of the undertaking. That emigration, more than any one thing, settled the Oregon question. It drew attention this way: the campaign watchword of 1844 became "Fifty-four forty, or fight," and although it was mostly buncombe, it seated Polk in the presidential chair, and thoroughly committed his administration on the Oregon question.
​There is a cloud of witnesses outside of the members of the mission, whose testimony leads to the irresistible conclusion that Dr. Whitman did go to Washington, as is claimed by his associates. The late Honorable A. L. Lovejoy, who brought the news to the doctor which he considered of so much importance as to cause him to start East, and which Mr. Lovejoy thought sufficiently important to cause him to accompany the doctor, says of that journey: "Here we parted [ at Bent's Fort.] The doctor proceeded to Washington. * * * He [ Dr. Whitman ] often expressed himself to me about the remainder of his journey, and the manner in which he was received at Washington and by the board of foreign missions at Boston. * * * He was very cordially and kindly received by the president and members of congress, and without doubt the doctor's interviews resulted greatly to the benefit of Oregon and to this coast." Dr. Wm. Barrows was teaching in St. Louis in the spring of 1843. He says: "It was my good fortune that he (Dr. Whitman) should be quartered at St. Louis as a guest under the same roof, and at the same table with myself. * * * He was happy to meet men of the army and of commerce and fur, but he must hasten on to see Daniel Webster. Exchanging saddle for stage, for the river was closed with ice, he pressed on, and arrived at Washington March 3d." We next find the doctor in the state of New York at the house of the Rev. Samuel J. Parker, whom Dr. Whitman had accompanied to the Rocky Mountains in 1835. A son of the Rev. Mr. Parker, represents Dr. Whitman as saying to his father: "I have come on a very important errand. We must both go at once to Washington or Oregon is lost, ceded to the English. * * * * I know that Dr. Whitman went, either the next day or a day or two after he came to see my father. * * * Dr. Whitman came to see my father (again) after his return from Washington, and described his interview with the President and others there." Dr. William Geiger, who was left in charge of Whitman station during the doctor's absence in 1842-3, gives the account of the visit to Washington and the interviews with Mr. Webster and President Tyler substantially as it has been given by so many others, and says that "the doctor told him of it so often that he could not forget it." And still, with all this testimony before him, Mr. Evans denies that the trip to Washington was made; denies that the doctor ever set up any such claim during "his practical and useful life." ​From all testimony, I conclude that the statement of Rev. Crushing Eells is true in every respect; that the special meeting of September, 1842, was called, and did, by its vote, approve of Doctor Whitman's proposed journey, for the purposes mentioned in what Mr. Evans calls the "immense afterthought."
I conclude that the accounts of Messrs. Gray, Spalding, Atkinson, and others, are true in their main features, but shall not complain if the historian shall prune them of the "taunting jeer," and other like I sights of fancy which have been added to "adorn a tale." After this shall have been done, the "romantic fabler "will show about this state of facts: That after the meeting in September had been held, and while Messrs. Eells and Walker had gone 1 home, Dr. Whitman went to Fort Walla Walla, and there learned what caused him—not to determine to go to Washington—but that which caused him to hasten his departure by two days. With regard to the whereabouts of Messrs. Eells and Walker, at the time of this visit of Dr. Whitman to the fort, Mr. W. H. Gray writes: "They had returned (to their mission) and Dr. Whitman was making his arrangements to leave at the appointed time." A sentence from Rev. C. Eell's statement strengthens this view of the case, when he says: "It is possible that transpirings at old Fort Walla Walla hastened his departure two days."
The fact that so many witnesses, giving details of events that have transpired forty years ago, tell them in different language, or with immaterial variation as to main facts, does not impeach these witnesses. It only proves that each has told the story in his own language, and that there has been no collusion between them as to the story they should tell. While I have never doubted Daniel Webster's patriotism, or his wisdom, a quotation from a speech made by him in the Senate three years after Dr. Whitman's visit, proves that he had not yet monopolized all of the latter commodity. In speaking of a little river (a creek compared with the Columbia) down in New Brunswick, called the St. John, he says: "We have heard a vast deal lately of the value and importance of the river Columbia and its navigation; but I will undertake to say that for all purposes of human use the St. John is worth a hundred times as much as the Columbia is, or ever will be."
So I arrive at the final conclusion, that the statements of Dr. Whitman concerning the worth of this country, were of as much more value than those of Mr. Webster as are the statements of Mr. Eells concerning early events in this country than those of the Hon. Elwood Evans.