('lass FV§"6 Hook^ N^776'' PRESRNTlOn BY A REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE'S "TOE WHITMAN LEGEND." By MYRON EELLS, D. D. 2S GENTS A CORY FOR SALE BY THE STATESMAN PUBLISHINQ 00., Walla Walla, Washington. A REPLY To Professor Bourne's "The Wfiitman Legend'' rBYr MYRON EELLS, D. D. 25 cents a Copy WALLA WALLA, WASHINGTON THE STATESMAN PRINTING COMPANY 190Z PREFATORY S. W. Moss, of Oregon City, author of the Prairie Flower, was one of the immigrants of 1842. He was a man who cared at that time but little for religion, and less for missions. In fact he hardly cared to become acquainted with a missionary, for he thought that anybody who was foolish enough to become a missionary, especially to the Indians, was not the kind of man with whom he wished to have anything to do. Hence when he arrived near Dr. Whitman's station In 1842, he went rather past it, without going to it. But it was found that his party needed some provisions or things which could be ob- tained at the Doctor's, and he was detailed to go and procure them. When he met the Doctor however he found him a very different man from what he expected a missionary to the Indians to be, was much pleased with him and their acquaint- ance ripened into real friendship, so that when the Doctor was at Oregon City he made the house of Mr. Moss his home. When Mr. Moss in advanced years, bent with age, was asked what he thought of Dr. Whitman as an American, he straightened up his bent form, his eyes brightened much, so that they spoke as well as his lips, and he said with emphasis and life, "He was an American of Americans." P. Coni;rtsslOflri (;«mmitte«t. A Reply to Professor Bourne's ^ ^^THE WHITMAN LEGEND' ' o By MTRON EELLS, D. D. *" Member of the Washington State Historical Society; Honorary Member of the Oregon Historical Society; Author of Indian Missions on the Pacific Coast, Ten Years at Skokomish, Father Eells, Life of S. H. Marsh. D. D., History of the Congregational Association of Oregon and Washington, The Twana, Clallam and Chemakum Indians, and various pamphlets. Vol. IV THE WHITMAN COLLEGE QUARTERLY No. 3 [Entered at the Post Office at Wa'la Walla as second class matter.] IiS^ THE American Historical Eeview for Jan- uary, 1001, is a paper by Prof. E. G. Bourne, of Yale University, entitled, "The Legend of Mar- cus Whitman," read by him the preyious December at the meeting of the American Historical Association. In the Annual Report of the Historical Association for 1900, Vol. 1, pages 219-236, is a discussion of the above paper by Prof. W, I. Marshall, of Chicago. In September, 1901, Prof. Bourne published a volume entitled "Essays in Historical Criticism.''* In this his paper is revised and enlarged so as to cover 107 pages. These gentlemen attempt to prove that the story that Dr. Whitman saved Oregon or any part of ♦This is one of a series of volumes published by the Pro- fessors and Instructors of Yale University, "as a partial indi- cation of the character of the studies in which the University teachers are engaged." 4 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. it to the United States, or even dispelled any ignor- ance about it, or that he went east in the winter of 1842-3 for this purpose, or that he did anything worth mentioning to stimulate the emigration of 1843 is without foundation. It is perfectly proper that the other side of the question be heard. In this pamphlet the writer will discuss mainly the later essay of Prof. Bourne, it being evidently' the result of his mature study, together with Prof. Marsh- all's pa])er. The figures in parentheses refer to the pages in their publications. In 1883 the writer published a' pamphlet en- titled "Marcus Whitman, M. D. Proofs of his work in saving Oregon to the United States and in promoting the immigration of 1843." This will be referred to as "Eells' Whitman Pamphlet." A short statement of Dr. Whitman's work from 1842 to 1843 is that an order from theAmerican Board to discontinue his station and that of Mr. Spalding had been received by him in the fall of 1842; there vras need felt by the missionaries in Oregon of Chris- tian families to settle near the Indians so as to set them a good example and take from the missionaries most of the secular work ; that Dr. Whitman also learned that influences were at work in the east, es- pecially at Washington, which might cause the United States to lose Oregon, because (according to these representations) it was of very little value, and it was impossible to take emigrant wagons to the Columbia ; REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 5 that hence the Doctor went east during the winter 1S42-3, in company with A. L. Lovejoy most of the way; went to Washington where he found real dan- ger, and where he gave such information to President Tyler, Daniel Webster, secretary of state, and others that he obtained the promise that these negotiations should be suspended until he should prove that he could lead an emigration of wagons through ; that he did all he could to stimulate people to join the emigration already forming and that in this line he accomplished much; that he went to Boston and at- tended to the missionary business, and then that he led the emigration through, thus saving Oregon or an important part of it to the United States. But it is stated that the national object was the chief one which induced the Doctor to go when he did. and that had he gone solely for the other rea- sons, it would have not been until the next spring. This pamphlet will be divided into four parts: (1) A discussion of some points in the publications of Messrs. Bourne and Marshall which affect their re- liability and that of their arguments; (2) points in which the writer agrees with them; (3) points in which he differs from them, (4) the evidence to prove that Dr. Whitman's intent was to save Oregon or a part of it ; that he did do it ; that there was danger of its being traded to England ; that the story was known long previous to its publication in the SacramentD Union in 1864; that Dr. Whitman did much to pro- mote the emigration of 1S43; and that his leading that emigration through was a most important event in saving Oresron. 6 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. I. A discussion of some points in the piihlica- tions of these icriters ivhich affect their reUability and that of their arguments. (a) A criticism of some of the expressions which they use as arguments. Prof. Bourne uses the following : "deceptive confirmation," referring to Dr. C. Eells' letter of 1866 (p 26) ; "fictitious interviews" with Webster and Tyler (26) ; "frenzied statement" (27), and "hodge podge" (30) referring to Mr. Spald- ing's pamphlet; ''rehash of Spalding and Gray over- laden with much irrelevant disquisition" (41) ; "such turhid sources" as Spalding and Gray (40) ; "intermingling inextricably perversions of fact with pure fictions, and enormously distorting the history" of Oregon, referring to Barrows's Oregon (40) ; "spe- cious apologetics" and his "superficial and disingenu- ous method," referring to Dr. Craighead's book (45-46) ; "untrustworthy as history," referring to Dr. Nixon's book (47) ; "the advocate and not the historian," referring to Dr. Mowry (50) ; "flimsy evi- dence" (50) ; "constantly garbles and interpo- lates his quotations," referring to Mr. Spalding ( 61 ) ; "vindictiveness" of Mr. Spalding (64) ; "Spalding's fauxpas" (65) ; "Dr. Craighead has the hardihood to write" (78) ; "stamp or hall mark" of Spalding's in- vention (82) ; "fallaciously summarized" by Myron Eells (96) ; "imaginative perversion" of Barrows (195). Similarly Prof. Marshall writes "totally worth- less book" and "throwing together his Oregon,"^ "never in any proper sense written," referring to Dr. Barrows's book (222) ; the "fool friends of Dr. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 7 Whitman," referriug to Messrs. Barrows, Nixon, Craighead, M. Eells, Laurie, Mowry and Edwards (291) ; "small souled and narrow minded folly" (291) ; "not above a third or fourth rate man," re- ferring to Dr. Whitman (232) ; "fabrications of al- leged authorities" (234) . Was it strange that Profes- sor Fiske wrote him, "I think the force of your argu- ments would be enhanced if your style of expression were now and then a little less vehement?" (230). But in this they only follow the man whom they so much admire and quote, Hon. Elwood Evans, who in 1885 used these expressions "false claim," "falsehood," "unmitigated falsehood," "glaringly false statement," "venerable g•^ntlemen .... who for the nonce doffed their saintly calling," "so called reverends," "doughty champions," "melange of absurdity, nonsense, fiction and falsehood," "rever- end champions of a fable," "baseless fabrications,"' "interject his extravaganza," "wriggling policy of the Eells," "slanders of the dead," "Gulliver, Munchau- sen and Quixote."* Another person whom Prof. Bourne quotes, P. W. Gillette (106-110), calls the statements that have been used to convince people that Dr. Whitman saved Oregon, "fulsome stuff and stupid lies."* Bancroft also uses similar language, calling W. H. Gray, "the Great untruthful and whilom mission builder."* Now every time that these writers use the word fiction, fable, legend, fictitious, and the like in •Oregonian of March 20 and May 21, 1885. ♦Oregonian, February 26, 1900. ♦Bancroft, Hist. Northwest Coast, Vol. 2., p. 537. 8 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. regard to the story, do they not beg the question? for the very question under discussion is whether the story is a legend or true. Calling it false does not make it so. If a man has a case in court in Avhich his neighbor is charged with stealing, is it proper for him to call him a thief until it is so decided by the court, and if he is a gentleman will he do so? He may say he believes him to be a tliief, but to say that he is one before the court decides it to be so is simply begging the ques- tion. And in this case, to the writer it seems that if these persons were simply to say that they believe the story to be a legend or fiction, it would be far more the part of gentlemanly historians than to say that it is so and call nam^s, while the question is under discussion. At least the writer aclmowledges that he shall not try to cope with the professors and honorable gen- tlemen in such arguments. They remind him how- ever of a statement said to have been made by Dr. Lyman Beecher, that when in preaching he had the least to say, he hulloaed the loudest. In the same ar- ticle in which Gov. Evans used his he said, "I aspire to no sanctity of character. I am not a church man. nor had I ever the benefit of a Sunday school train- ing." Whether the other persons can excuse them- selves on the same ground the writer cannot say. He prefers to follow the advice of Prof. Fiske to Prof. Marshall, "It seems to me that there is great value in a quiet form of statement, even approaching to un- derstatement, for it gives the reader a chance to do a little swearing at the enemy on his own account."* *Prof. Marshall's Pamphlet, p. 230. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 9 (b) T]ic iifte oftentimes of the icord '^ prohablif mid its sijuoni/ms as an argninent. In this too Prof. Bourne follows his predecessors of whom he speaks so highly, Ehvood Evans, and Mrs. F. F. Vic- tor. Gov. Evans said that it was most improhahlc that Dr. Whitman asked the approval of his fellow workers on a journey to save Oregon, that it was im- prohuhle that he pledged tlie President that he would show that Oregon was accessible by wagons or that the President promised to await the result. When Gov. A. Kamsey of Minnesota stated that he saw Dr. Whitman in Washington in 18-13, Gov. Evans thought that he probably saw Rev. Jason Lee, who was there in 1811, and Mrs. Victor thought he probably saw Dr. E. White who was there in 1812. Prof. Bourne says that the other witnesses be- sides Mr. Spalding probably derived other features of their evidence from him (8) ; that Dr. Atkinson could hardly have escaped knowledge of the story had it been known in Oregon before 1865* (18) ; that if Anson Dart had heard of it from Mr. Walker he could hardly have failed to note it in his general report (19) ; that one is led to the intrinsically probable conclusion that Amant derived certain of his knowl- edge from the Catholic missionaries (22) ; Dr. Bar- rows seems to have withstood the temptation to con- sult the letters of the Oregon missionaries in Boston (40) ; the reader will not easily avoid the conclusion *Dr. Atkinson says that for some years before 1865 it had been in his mind as a great historical fact. Oregonian, May 21, 1885. 10 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. that P. B. Whitman consulted Gray's History to re- fresh his memory (66) ; the story that any incident occurred at Port Walla Walla in 1842 that affected Dr. Whitman's departure could not have been true, because Rev. C. Eells did not hear of it* (73) ; it is probable that after forty years John Tyler, jr.'s recol- lection of Whitman was more or less affected by Bar- row's narratives (81) ; it is nearly certain that John Tyler saw Dr. White in Washington and not Dr. Whitman (81) ; "it is probable that some of Dr. White's speeches to promote the emigration in 1842. reached the elder Zachary," instead of anything from Dr. Whitman (although the younger Zachary said that it was because of the representations of Dr. Whitman) (95) ; that Mrs. Carey, who said that she came to Oregon because of a pamphlet written by Dr. Whitman was presumably a young girl.* (96). At last liowever Professor Bourne drops all probablys and says "the recollections of those who were children or youth in 1843 that their parents were influenced by Whitman's articles or pamphlets all refer to Dr. White's efforts in 1842" (96) ; which is as much as to say "I know better than any of you what caused your parents to go to Oregon, *Mr. Eells lived 175 miles from there and was not there again for a long time. *The writer obtained this evidence from Mrs. Carey and it is the first time he ever heard that she was a young girl in 1843. It is a supposition of Prof. Bourne, based on no evidence. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 11 although I never saw your parents or Dr. Whitman or Dr. AVhite, or lived in Oregon." "I feel pretty certain that the speech [of the Indians at St. Louis in 1833] was invented by Mr. Spaulding" (105). These are all written by a man who denies state- ments of witnesses made from twenty-five to forty years after the events took place, because they are not scientific. They remind the writer of a book en- titled "Historic Doubts as to Napoleon Bonaparte." It was intended as a satire on the doubts which some have expressed as to the works and existence of Christ. In it the attempt is made to show that many of the acts which it was claimed that Napoleon did were very improbable and that those who testified about them were deceived, mistaken or unreliable, and from such reasoning we may conclude that it is not probable that Napoleon ever lived. Now it is not de- nied that Napoleon did many improbable things, yet the world will believe that he lived and did them, and will not be led to believe the contrary because of the improbability of his acts. (c) Twice Professor Bourne refers to the "crushing attack" of Mrs. Victor and Elwood Evans in 1884-5 (36, 45). How crushing it was may be seen from the Professor's own statements, for he speaks of "the survival if not victory of the fiction" (36) ; and after speaking of the controversy of that time quotes a sentence written hj M. Eells, "We felt that we had gained the victory". Prof. Bourne adds, "The feeling was justified by the event. The real 12 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. spread of the le,:^end, its acceptance by scholars of rep- utation, dates from the period of this controversy" (40). He refers to over thirty books which adopted it; to many newspapers who spread it before hun- dreds of thousands of readers; to the fact that hun- dreds of pulpits proclaimed it; and that at the vote in 1900 as to whose names should be inscribed on the Hall of Fame, Dr. Whitman received eighteen out of a possible ninety-eight votes, as one of the greatest Americans, ranking equally with W. L. Garrison, Wendell Phillips, and James Monroe, and surpass- ing Chief Justice Taney, T. Benton, S. P. Chase and Wintield Scott. Again he says (42) "The result has been that more people know of the Qctitious historj- than the true facts;" and adds "Whether the stream can be returned to its own channel and the history of the Oregon question be restored to its original outlines as they existed before 1S65 is open to question"; (53). and "to judge from the past the prophecy of Rev. W. Barrows iu 1SS3, and the modest proposal of J. Wilder Fairbank in 1901. are quite as likely to attain realization, as the vox clamantis of criticism is to get a respectful hearing" (54). Such was the result of the crushing at- tack by Mrs. Victor and Elwood Evans, ac- REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 13 cording to Prof. Bourne. Surely it was a crusldng attack that did not crush. In fact it did not wholly crush Prof. Bourne. On page 104 he gives a summary of Mr. Evans' conclusions in 1884 in which are five points, and the Professor fully disa- grees with ]Mr. Evans in regard to two of them, name- ly, that there is no evidence that Dr. AYhitman visited Washington City during the Spring of 1843 ; and that his exclusive purpose was to secure the rescinding by the American Board of Foreign Missions of the order of 1841 to abandon the southern stations of Wai-i-lat- pu and Lapwai, for Prof. Bourne says "his business in Washington was to urge government measures to make emigration to Oregon easier and safer" (99). (d) Certain strange statements of these ivriters. Prof. Bourne (27), Prof. Marshall (227), and Elwood Evans in the Tacoma Ledger of January 16, 1885> say that the reason of the invention of the legend (as they call it) was that according to treaty, the Hud- son's Bay company were to receive pa^^ for their prop- erty in Oregon, that the^^ claimed over five million dollars (only however receiving $650,000) and it made the American Board or its missionary angry to think that that company was getting so much while the American Board was receiving nothing for all it had done and lost. Onlv Prof. Bourne refers to any authority for this. He refers to Mr. Spalding's Executive Document, pp. 56-59, 70, 78-80. Having examined this the Avriter finds no mention made in regard to the claims of the Hudson's Baj' Company whatever, much less of this being the reason of Mr. 14 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. Spalding writing the story. As a resident of the Pa- cific coast for over fifty years, intimately acquainted with the old missionaries, son of the one who held the power of attorney for the American Board in regard to its claims on the Pacific Coast, he can say that he never heard of the claims of the Hudson's Bay Com- pany having anything to do in the remotest degree with the claim that Dr. Whitman saved Oregon, except from these gentlemen, and would request them to prove it, and to prove it better than by referring to an old pamphlet, of which but few are in existence to which anyone can refer, but which contains noth- ing to support the assertion. But like the false witnesses who appeared to give evidence against Christ at his trial before the high priest, whose "witness agreed not together," so it is in the present case. Prof. Bourne says that it was Mr. Spalding who invented the legend, angry at the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company, while Mr. Evans says that it was Rev. S. B. Treat, D. D., Secre- tary of the American Board, or the "Great Treat" as he calls him, and plainly states that he does not be- lieve it was Mr. Spalding; that Dr. Treat then sent to the Oregon missionaries to verify it, and "they rushed hastily to the front, without regard to rhyme or reason, or consistencies of date or facts or circum- stances to improve upon Treat's conception." But Prof. Bourne (54) maintains that the other witnesses to sustain the invention of Mr. Spalding agree so har- moniously that "every single extant version is a branch from that parent stem." Again Prof. Bourne refers to Dr. Laurie who REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNS. 15 pars in regard to the order to discontinue the sta- tions of Dr. Whitman and ^[r. Spahiinf? that he will not say how it was but will let Dr. Whitman speak for himself; after which Dr. Laurie quotes Dr. Whit- man's letter. Prof. Bourne adds "Why Dr. Laurie refrains from saying 'how it was' will appear later" (38). But nowhere afterwards can the writer find any reference to this or Dr. Laurie. Likewise in regard to the evidence of Messrs. Geiger, C. Eells, P. B. Whitman, Hinman, Parker and Mrs. E. Walker, Prof. Bourne says that it will he ex- amined in connection with that of Messrs. Gray and Spalding, but nowhere can be found any such exaiiii- nation of any of the last three (37). Again "Greenhow's exhaustive history was being distributed as a public document" early in 1843 (85), but (80) he says, Greenhow's Preface was "dated February 1844."* He writes that for Dr. J. R. Wilson to say that Saint de Amant declared his belief that Whitman was instrumental in saving a valuable portion of the Northwest to the United States is deceptive (21), but gives Amant's writing which says that "Dr. Whit- man became a very active agent of the American in- terests and contributed in no small degree to promote annexation" (106). Again he says that for Presi- dent Penrose to use the words of Eells and Spalding in translating Amant to prove that he was familiar ♦The fact was that the preface was thus dated, and the book published in 1845, but a smaller edition of less than half the size, not the exhaustive history, had been circulated as a public document. 16 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. with their contentions, i. e., of the missionaries, would not be defensible in a trained scholar (22). But the sentence even as translated, which was never called a literal translation, was not used to prove that Amant was familiar with their contentions^ but that the story did not originate withMr. Spalding about 1865. Further he says, "The original account of Whit- man's journey, its causes, purpose and results was first published in a series of articles in the Pacific . ... in the fall of 1865" (8); while (101) he refers to "the earliest printed version of Whitman's political services, in behalf of Oregon, published in the Sacramento Union, Nov. 16, 1864." He states the position of Elwood Evans who says that Dr. AAliitman's "exclusive ynirpose was to have the Board rescind the order to abandon Lapwai and Wai-i-lat-pu" (38), and says that this was "solidly es- tablished" by Mr. Evans (39). Prof. Bourne says also that this was his real purpose (55). But after- wards he says that before Dr. Whitman left Oregon he contemplated going to Washington according to the statements of Mrs. Whitman and Dr. V\liite (75), and the reason of this Avas that "if emigration on a grand scale was to begin the government ought to protect it and establish supply stations" (99-100). Nearly half a page is filled with a description of his work in regard to this (77-8). The writer has been somewhat troubled to learn exactly Prof. Bourne's position on this point, but from what he can gather is inclined to the opinion that if the Professor were asked if he thought that Dr. Whitman's exclusive REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 17 purpose for going east was to save the mission he would say, yes; but on being further questioned would say, that the Doctor also intended before leav- ing his home to go to Washington for the above men- tioned purpose. The writer however will not try to reconcile these two answers. In reply to a statement of Mr. Spalding that Dr. Whitman reached Washington March 3 before the ad- journment of Congress, Prof. Bourne saj^s that the Doctor was at Westport, Mo., February 15, three hundred miles west of St. Louis and that it was "al- most if not quite impossible for him to have reached Washington in fifteen days'' (86). When answering the question why the Doctor went to Washington be- fore he went to Boston, he says that "his plan for pro- tecting and aiding emigration might be seriously diminished by a few days delay after the adjourn- ment of congress" (89). Prof. Bourne condemns Barrows because in his book he rejects the fable of Sir George Simpson being in Washington "with engaging candor, only to insert it five times within fifty pages," "cf. pp. 233, with pp. 153, 158, 202, 203, 204" (40). Now Barrows says "If Sir George Simpson ever visited Washington, the evidence is yet wanting except in rumors" (233), But on p. 153 he writes that Gov. Simpson "is said about that time to have enjoyed protracted social re- lations at Washington with D. Webster;" and on page 158 he quotes what Mr. Spalding said about Gov. Simpson's Avork at AYashington ; and on pages 202-4 in one discussion he tells what was reported about Gov, 18 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. Simpson, and his work in Washington. The fact is he does not reject it and then insert it five times.^ but simply says that the evidence about Gov. Simpson being there is wanting except in rumors, and then inserts the rumors three times on five diiferent pages between pages 153 and 204. Now the question may be properly asked: Is that fair treatment of an oppo- nent who is dead and cannot answer for himself, by a candid historian? Prof. Marshall likewise makes similarly strange statements. He says that S. A. Clarke wrote an ac- count of Dr. Whitman's trip east and the national reasons for it in 1864 in which he says that it was "an incident of our early history never to my knoivledge before given to the public" (232). Afterwards Prof. Marshall says the above mentioned correspondence "explicitly declared that it had never before been given to the public" (234), omitting the words "to my knowledge." Whether it had previously been thus given depends somewhat on what is understood by the words "given to the public." If they mean, "first printed" it is the first time as far a& we yet know. If in a public address they could be thus given, then according to Mrs. G. F. Colbert, of Crawfordsville. Oregon, she heard it in a sermon by Mr. Spalding about 1852.* Prof. Marshall delivered an address on this Whitman subject seventeen years ago last November in Baltimore. If that was making his views public, then he is mistaken when he says what ♦Oregonian, May 21, 1885. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 19 he has, as just quoted, while Mr. Clarke was correct. Certainly it was a serious mistake to make Mr. Clarke say what he did not say. Again, January 13, 1902, Prof. Marshall wrote the author in regard to Mr. Spalding's diary which he has. The Professor says : "You have professed for a number of years to be anxious to have the truth appear in this matter. If sincere in that pro- fession, why do you not publish the diary of Rev. H. H. Spauld- ing, which I understand is in your possession, or turn it over, unmutilated, to the Oregon Historical Society, where historical students can get access to it. That diary must contain a good deal of matter that would be very important in a discussion of the Whitman question, and, so far as I have been able to learn, except 61 words printed by you on page 18 of your pamphlet, "Marcus Whitman, M. D.", you have not published a solitary word from that diary, which is the most convincing proof that there is nothing in it that supports the Saving Ore- gon theorj' of Whitman's ride. It is precisely this policy of concealment of evidence which has caused me to make my criticism of the leading advocates of the myth very severe. I do not think that it is at all necessary now for the establish- ment of the truth in this matter that you should make Spald- ing's diary accessible, but I do think it is indispiensable to your reputation for candor and good faith that you should do this, and you should have done it as soon as it came into your pos- session." As previously the writer has been asked in re- gard to evidence from this diary, he will say that the diary does not include the time under discussion, and that the writer did a few years ago, copy by hand and turn over to Prof. F. G. Young, Secretary of the Ore- gon Historical Society, all that was of public interest. The journal covers 87 pages, ten and a half inches by 20 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. fourteen and a half, and is in a blank book. It is quite full from November 1838, to April 22, 1842. Then there are ten and a half blank pages, as if he was too busy then to write in it, but intended to do so when he should have more time; then there is a page and a half from February 21 to March 7, 1843, and that is the end. It is doubtful whether he kept any more diary anywhere, at least while he was in the mission, as there is then a blank page and a half, after which are sixteen pages of lists of subscribers to the Amer- ican Messenger, Child's Paper, and others, after 1852, when he was in the Willamette valley. That is all there is in the book. The readers can judge from this on what little evidence and knowledge the Professor bases some of his statements. Again he writes (23,) that so many people had written about this subject toitJwut knowing anyiliing about the facts, as Messrs. Barrows, Nixon, Craig- head, M. Eells, Laurie, ^Nlowry and Edwards had done, that he thought one man ought to have the patience to wait until he had thoroughly mastered it before rush- ing into print about it, but that he is now ready to publish the final word about it. In 1888 (222) twelve years before the time just spoken of as "now" he knew that if its falsity were not exposed it would soon be in the school histories and tried to prevent it by offering to read a paper about it before the His- torical Association, but failed; afterwards he found it going into these histories (229) which was most certainly through the arguments of these persons who knew nothing about the facts; and so he con- REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 21 eluded that the best thing he could do was to drive the story from the school books, not by a public dis- cussion, where scholars could read both sides, but by writing privately to the authors of these books. He also says (222) that he was for fifteen years pre- vious to December, 1900, the only one — "the solitary A'oice" — east of the Rocky mountains who cried out against this historical fabrication. Now what do these statements and this evidence show? Is not the following the natural answer? That Mr. Marshall knew of the public discussion on the Pacific coast; that he knew that his side had been worsted b}' those who knew "not anything about the facts" so that he was the only one to defend his side east of the Rockies, while those who believed the evidence presented by those who knew noth- ing, absolutely nothing, were a great number; hence he was afraid to meet his opponents who knew noth- inc: in argument, and concluded about two vears be- fore Prof. Bourne read his paper to write to the au- thors of histories so quietly that his opponents would not know it, and so could not answer him. How much he wrote, the writer does not know, but to Dr. Mow- ry he wrote a letter of 182 pages before the latter published his book, but failed to convince him, for he had studied both sides of the subject.* In this letter he practically characterized the defenders of Dr. Whitman, as Messrs. Atkinson, Barrows, Gray, Spalding, C. Eells and M. Eells, as liars. Thus secret- ly he took opportunity to speak to authors in such a •Letter of Dr. W. A. Mowry to the author. 22 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. way that the above named persons could defend neith- er themselves nor their side of the question. AVas it not a blow in the dark? (3) El wood Evans, too, properly falls under this criticism. In 1883 Dr. C. Eells had stated in regard to the meeting of the mission held in September 1842, that a record of it was made, but that "the book containing the same was in the keeping of the Whit- man family. At the time of their massacre, November 29, 1847, it disappeared." The house of Dr. Eells at the Whitman mission was burned in 1872, a fact which Mr. Evans knew. He had also been furnished with a pamphlet con- taining tlie above statement of Dr. Eells. Yet in 1884 he wrote ; "In 1866 Rev. Gushing Eells had in his possession the minutes of all the missionary meetings. The assertion that those records were destroyed by fire in 1872, will not be accepted as a satis- factory excuse that between 1865 and 1872 those minutes were not appealed to, to settle the question of what transpired at the m.i&sion meeting of 1842."* Gov. P. H. Burnett published in 1880 that "On the 18th of May [1843] the emigrants met at the rendez- vous, held a meeting and appointed a committee to see Dr. Whitman" and he adds that on the 20th at a meeting at the Big •Oregonian, Dec. 26, 1884. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 23 Springs be met the Doctor. This he took from a con- cise journal he kept.* I\Ir. Evans wrote "Dr. Whitman's connection with that immigration commenced with the crossing of the North Platte in June."* ]\Ir. Evans "wrote that cotemporary history establishes the fact that Rev. Jason Lee was in Wash- ington during the winter of 1843-4. Cotemporary his- tory established the fact that he did not leave the Sandwich Islands for the east until February 28, 1844, and sailed in a small schooner to Mexico, which he crossed.* Later history states that he reached New York May 27, and afterwards went to Washing- ton, being there the last half of June.* Mr. Evans wrote that Daniel Webster said in his speech March 30, 1846. "The government of the United States never offered any line south of 49 degrees (with the navigation of the Columbia) and it never will. It behooves all concerned to regard this as a settled point. I said as plainly as I could speak or put down words in writing, that England must not expect anything south of forty- nine degrees. I said so in so many words."* The first two sentences are in that speech. Af- terwards when questioned, he added in regard to what he had just told the Senate, not England, in 1842, ♦Recollections of an Old Pioneer, p. 101. ♦Oregonian, Dec. 26, 1884. *Hines, Oregon, chap. 10. *Hines, Missionary History of the Pacific Northwest, p. 305-6. ♦Oregonian, March 20, 1885. 24 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. "the senator and the senate will do me the justice to admit that I said as plainly as I could and in as short sentence as I could frame that England must not expect anything south of the forty-ninth degree,"* except that there might be friendly negotiation about the navigation of the Columbia, and about cer- tain straits, sounds and islands in the neighboring seas. Mr. Evans's quotation is a strange mixture, and the words ''put down words in writing" were not then used by "Webster. (4) Mrs. F. F. Victor is also another person whose literary accuracy Prof. Bourne honors. She. wrote that the object of Gov. Simpson's journey around the world in 1841-2 w^as "the studj' of the fur trade and not politics." Gov. Simpson did study the fur trade, but he also devoted a part of chapter six to the political situation of Oregon, declared that England needed no more arguments to support her claims than she had, and challenged the Americans to impose "the Atlantic tariff on the ports of the Pacific."* Mrs. Victor wrote that "the first suggestion of a safe and easy road to the Columbia river" through the Blue mountains, "came from a member of the Hudson's Bay Company" and referred to T. J. Farn- ham's book as proof.* But Farnham, although speaking of such a road wrote as he did after his visit to Dr. Whitman's in 1839, and does not refer to the *Webster's Works, Vol. 5, pp. 73, 76, 77. ♦Simpson's Journey round the world, pp. 149-153. ♦Oregonian, Nov. 7, 1884. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 25 Hudson's Bay Company anywhere as his authority on the subject. Mr. Farnham was an "Ardent Am- erican." Dr. Gushing Eells had said that Dr. Whitman had a "cherished object'' in going east, referring to the saving of the mission, but he did not remember that it was mentioned at the meeting of the mission in September, 1842.* Mrs. Victor claimed that Dr. Whitman had a "secret motiye" known to Dr. Eells, but not mentioned, and thinks that it was to obtain an office for himself, i. e.. Dr. Whitman, in Oregon.* She again wrote, "Admitting that he (Dr. W^hit- man) feared the treaty of boundary would draw the line at the Columbia river, leaving him in British territory, could he hope to reach Washington before it was concluded."* But such a line would not have left Dr. Whitman's station in British territory as any map of the state of Washington will show, and Mrs. Victor had visited the Whitman mission station be- fore she wrote this. Referring to the Doctor's visit to Boston, she speaks of his cold reception by the Board but adds that they "did finally consent to permit the Doctor to continue the mission work there begun, should he wish to do so, without further help from them."* Not only is there nowhere any evidence of this state- ment but the Board sustained him and his mission to the day of his death. ♦Eells' Whitman pamphlet, p. 10. *Oregonian, Nov. 7, 1884. ♦Oregonian, Nov. 7, 1884. ♦Bancroft, Oregon, p. 243. 26 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE, Bancroft's history is spoken of by Prof, Bourne as a "great achievement/' (41) and while he does not think it perfect, yet he praises it highly as well as Mrs, Victor, the avowed author of Bancroft's Ore- gon. "The Proceeding of the Society of California Pioneers in reference to the Histories of Hubert Howe Bancroft," a pamphlet of thirty-seven pages published in Feburary, 1894, is an answer to this. Mr. Bancroft was an honorary member of the So- ciety. In October, 1893, charges were made against his histories, especially those of his own state, Cali- fornia, but references are made to other works of his, including the history of Oregon. Some of his statements were charged with being "at variance with historical records," "unworthy the labors of an up- right historian," and as the statements of one "who had strayed far from the domain of an honest writer." His name was by vote accordingly stricken from the roll. At the next meeting of the Society this was re- considered in order to give Mr. Bancroft an oppor- tunity to defend himself and a committee was ap- pointed to take the matter in charge. Seven counts were prej^ared against him, to sustain which his books were the witnesses. In these counts he was charged with having distorted the facts and truths of history," "maligned the memory of many of the men" conspicuous in early events, called those liars who disagreed with him as the briefest way of dis- posing of their narratives, especially those who were dead and could make no answer, and of having a spirit of prejudice and seemingly malignant dislikes and hatreds of the men about whom he had written. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 27 A single illustration is here given from what was prepared for the history of Oregon, and printed, but finally stricken out and a new page printed in its place because of the earnest intercession of some who had become acquainted with the fact. It is in re- gard to President Grant, at one time an officer of the army in Oregon and an honorary member of the Cali- fornia Society. "Among these soldiers was U. S. Grant, a man of mediocre abilities, and somewhat loose habits, subsequently elevated by accident to the head of the army, and twice to the presidency of the United Statesi. Not satisfied to rest with the world's highest honors, he turned and took a downward course; asked again to be president, was refused; begged from poor Mexico important concessions and was refused ; and finally engaged in a business which was disreputably managed and resulted in ignomin- ious failure. So the end of the man was as bad as the beginning." Judge O. C. Pratt, who tried the murderers of Dr. Whitman, also received a severe blow in the History of Oregon. Mr. Bancroft was requested to appear be- fore a committee of the Society and answer the charges. He failed to appear, and another time was set when he also failed to appear. A third time was set, which he likewise ignored, whereupon, Febru- ary 5, 1894, when eighty members of the Society were present, his name was unanimously stricken from the roll of honorary membership of the Society. Is it now proper to ask the question whether persons who make such statements with such styles 28 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. of argumentation and using such expressions are candid, honest, fair, careful, scientific historians? This subject is a matter of history and the writer REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 43 and the place was never the head of navigation or the only port on Hood canal, for Union City, four miles further up the canal, was a port about twenty years before Hoodsport dreamed of having a name. Now when such statements are made the onlj way to show them to be mistakes is to depend on the mem- ories of those who have lived in the region for many years. But according to the scientific historians this is not to be accepted. Still, as stated at first, the writer is willing to accept scientific history where it is truth ; he will re- ject it when he knows that it is not ; and he believes in trying to find the truth of history wherever it can be found. He half believes that the public will agree with him. The reasoning of the editor of the Historical Re- view in regard to the little confidence to be placed on recollections set down long after the events, even when several of them closely agree, seems to be this : "some persons' memories have not been reliable, therefore none are; many coins are counterfeit, therefore all are; much beef was embalmed, there- fore all was." Those on the Pacific coast who were acquainted with the witnesses mentioned in the Eells' Whitman pamphlet have never dared to reject all their testimony, though some who never knew them and have lived three or four thousand miles from them may do so. But it seems as if Prof. Bourne did not believe the position he has thus taken, for he gives in support of his side three pages (106-109) containing inter- 44 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. views with Mrs. A. L. Lovejoy and D. P. Thompson, taken in 1899 or 1900, in which they tell what they remembered that Mr. Lovejoy told them about the af- fair under consideration. Mr. Thompson's interview was of what Mr. Lovejoy told him between early in the fifties and 1861, concerning what occurred in 1842-3 : — a memory after from thirty-six to fifty jears of another memory of from seven to twenty- one years, a total of fifty-seven years after the event. Yet if C. Eells or a number of other persons on the other side state what they remember from twenty- three to forty years after, it is said to be worthless. Can any other conclusion be reached than that Pro- fessor Bourne has decided that memory, even if it be a memory of a memory, fifty-seven years old, is of weight if on his side, but if it is on the other side and a single memory, not half as old, it is of no weight? Does this not break down his whole argument? The reader must decide whether it does not place him where he places Dr. Mowry, "an advocate and not a historian" (50). (d) The writer does not agree that Daniel Web- ster and Lord Ashburton did not take up the Oregon question. Prof. Bourne says : "Nor do such representative papers as Niles' Register and the N. Y. Tribune, in discussing Lord Ashburton's Mission, in- timate that the Oregon boundary was lil^ely to be taken up. See the issues of January 29, 1842. Lord Ashburton arrived April 3 and the next notice in Niles' Register is August 6. The Oregon emigration of 1842 left Independence, Mo., May 16." (68) He inserts this to show that that emigration REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 45 could not have brought word to Dr. Whitman that there was danger of Oregon being traded off. It has already been referred to as a proof that absence of evidence in one place cannot be dei3ended on to prove that a fact did not occur.* Elwood Evans took the same position, even asserting that "the instructions of Lord Ashburton did not permit him to go to the Pacific. He had neither official power nor personal discre- tion on the Oregon question."* In December, 1S41, Lord Aberdeen, British Sec- retary of State for Foreign Affairs, informed Ed- ward Everett, U. S. Minister at London, that his "government had determined to send Lord Ashburton as a spe- cial minister to the United States with full powers to settle the boundary question and all other questions in controversy between the two governments." Lord Ashburton arrived in Washington, April 4, 1842. On April 11, 1842, Mr. Webster wrote Gov. Fairfield of Maine of Lord Ashburton's arrival, and that he was charged with full x>owers "to negotiate and settle different matters in discussion between the two governments.'"* As the emigrants left Independ- ence May 16, forty-two days after Ashburton's ar- rival they could easily have learned of it, for Dr. Whitman went from Westport, Mo., to Washington *See above, p. 34. *Oregonian, March 20, 1S85. ♦Webster's Works, Vol. 6, pp. 270, 272, 273. 46 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. between Feb. 15 and March 28 via Ithaca, N. Y., in forty-one days, when Prof. Bourne says the Missouri river was frozen over. Moreover Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster did discuss the Oregon boundary question, but found that there was so little proba- bility of their coming to an agreement that it was omitted in the treaty for fear it would endanger other matters which were considered to be of more import- ance, and this was spoken of in the President's mes- sage the next December. "Lord Ashburton had come over with specific and detailed in- structions in regard to the northwestern as well as the north- eastern boundary."* (e) The following statement of Professor Bourne's is certainly incorrect. On page 289 he says "that Dr. Whitman's visit dispelled ignorance about Oregon or inspired enthusiasm are equally without foundation. No doubt he could contribute some facts of interest but * * • * « Fremont was under commission to explore the Rockies; * * * * * and Sub-Indian Agent White was writing frequent reports to his superiors at Washington. The ignorance and in- difference of government and the public are fictions of a later day." Here, the writer claims, are three misleading statements, omitting now any reference to what Dr. Whitman did, which will be considered later. (1) As to Fremont, while he may have been under com- *Letters and Times of the Tylers, Vol. 2, p. 260. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 47 mission in March, 1843, he did not leave the frontiers of Missouri until the 29th of May, 1843, did not reach the Rockies, the eastern edge of Oregon, until Au- gust 20th, did not return to St. Louis until August 6, 1844, and did not make his report in full to his superior officer until March 1, 1845.* (2) As to Dr. White. Perhaps he was writing frequent reports in March, 1843, but his book only speaks of four or five between 1842 and 1845, not one of which he says had left Oregon by April 1, 1843* Much ignorance these had dispelled and much en- thusiasm aroused by March, 1843 ! (3) As to the ignorance and indifference of gov- ernment and the public. That a part of both were neither ignorant or indifferent is granted, but that a very important part of both were ignorant and in- different must also be granted. In the United States Senate in 1844 a resolution was offered to give the necessary twelve months' notice to Great Britain for the termination of the treaty which granted to both nations "Joint Occupancy" to the then Oregon. It was lost by a vote of 28 to 18, various reasons being given, — fear of war, a bad effect on negotiations soon to be made, the worthlessness of the country and op- position to expansion. In regard to these latter points Mr. Dayton of New Jersey read from the Christian Advocate of February 7, 1844, as follows: "With, the exception of lands along the Willamette and ♦Fremont's Exploring Expedition, edition of 1S50, pp. 123, 125, 167, 426. ♦White's Thrilling Adventures, pp. 171, 172. 48 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. strips along a few of the water courses the whole country is among the most irreclaimable barren wastes of which we have read, except the desert of Sahara. Nor is this the worst of it. The climate is so unfriendly to human life that the native population has dwindled away under the ravages of its malaria to a degree which defies all history to furnish a parallel in so wide a range of country." Again he read from an article in the Louisville Courier, "Of all the countries on the face of this earth it (Oregon) is the least favored by heaven. It is the mere riddlings of creation. It is almost as barren as the desert of Africa, and quite as unhealthy as the campania of Italy Russia has her Siberia, and England her Botany Bay, and if the United States should ever need a country to which to banish its rogues and scoundrels, the utility of such a region as Oregon would be demonstrated. Until then we are perfectly willing to leave this magnificent country to the Indians, trappers and buffaloes that roam over its sand banks, and by the side of its rushing and unnavigable waters." Mr. Dayton says that this description was some- what below his estimate, yet he had no doubt that the accounts were substantially correct as applied to the country as a whole, though he had no doubt that there were some green spots in it. He then says, "Judging from all sources of authentic information to which I have had access, I should think the territory taken together a very poor region for agricultural purposes, and in that respect unworthy oi consideration of contest at the hands of this gov- ernment. How will the speedy settlement of Oregon affect us? In my judgment it must be injui'iously. The admission of Ore- gon as a state to the Union sems to me as undesirable on the one hand as it is improbable on the other; undesirable because REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 49 that by the aid of representative principles we have already spread ourselves to a vast and almost unwieldiy extent. . . . God forbid that the time should ever come when a state on. the banks of the Pacific with its interests and tendencies of trade all looking toward the Asiatic nations of the east shall add its jarring claims to our already distracted and overburdened country." He then discusses the way of getting to it. Bj water is too far, 18,000 miles. His sport of the over- land trip is comical now. He says, "The power of steam has been suggested. Talk of steam com- munication — a railroad to the mouth of the Columbia — why look at the cost and bankrupt condition of railroads proceeding almost from your capital, traversing your great thoroughfares. A railroad across 2500 miles of prairie of desert and of moun- tain! The smoke of an engine across the terrible fissures o£ that rocky ledge where the smoke of a volcano only has rolled before! Who is to make this vast internal or rather external improvement — the state of Oregon, or the United States? Whence is to come the power? Who supply the means? The mines of Mexico and Peru, disembowelled, would scarcely pay a penny in the pound of the cost. Nothing short of the lamp of Aladdin will suflBce for such an expenditure. The extrava- gance of the suggestion seems to me to outrun everything which we know of modern visionary scheming. The South Sea bubble, the Dutchman's speculations in tulip roots, our own in town lots and multicaulis are all commonplace ploddings in comparison." Other senators said that if we obtained Oregon we could not hold it, as it would set itself up as an independent nation after a time. Mr. Archer said of what he thought to be the only valuable part of Oregon, the Willamette valley, "this was destitute of harborage and could never command any 50 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. by art. The country taken in its whole extent could at no day certainly have a very large production nor any considerable trade."* Senator Winthrop of Massachusetts in 1844 quoted and commended these sentences from Ben- ton's speech in 1825, (although in 1844 Benton had entirely changed his views) : "The ridge of the Rocky mountains may be named as a con- venient natural and everlasting barrier. Along this ridge the western limits of the Republic should be drawn, and the statue of the fabled God Terminus should be erected on its highest peak, never to be thrown down.* Senator McDuffie, in January, 1843, a little be- fore Dr. Whitman reached Washington, after ridicul- ing steam power, said : "I would not for that purpose (of agriculture) give a pinch of snuff for the whole territory. I wish the Rocky mountains were an impassable barrier. If there was an embankment of five feet to be removed I would not consent to expend five dollars to remove it, and enable our population to go there. I thank God for his mercy in placing the Rocky mountains there."* ♦Congressional Globe, Vol. 13, p. 275, etc. *How Marcus Whitman saved Oregon, p. 41. *How Marcus Whitman saved Oregon, p. 42. It is a little refreshing to know that some of these statements were answer- ed by quotations from missionaries, as Messrs. Parker and Spalding, and that Mr. Wentworth of Illinois said January 24, 1844: 'Religious enterprise and missionary zeal has done the most that has been done thus far for the settlement of Oregon.' Cong. Record, Vol. 13, p. 92. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 51 And Mr. Webster, who was Secretary of State when Dr. Whitman was at Washington, said in 1846 when much more information had been scattered, that the St. John river on the northeastern boundary of Maine was, "for all purposes of human use worth a hundred times as much as the Columbia was or ever would be."* Dr. Silas Reed says that when the subject of Oregon was called to the attention of the Senate it was treated with "a smile of indifference and impa- tience."* In addition to these statements of individuals the government was very slow about doing anything. Benton said that so far as the government was con- cerned it operated to endanger our title to the Col- umbia, to prevent emigrants and to incur the loss of the country. * * * * ^'The title to the country being thus endangered by the acts of the government, the saving of it devolved upon the i:)eople and they saved." In saying this he refers first to the emigra- tion of 1S43. "To check these bold adventurers was the object of government; to encourage them was the object of some western members of congress on whom (in conjunction with the people) the task of saving the Columbia evidently devolved."* ♦Webster's speeches, Vol. 1, p. 102. ♦Letters and Times of the Tylers, Vol. 2, p. 697. ♦Benton's Thirty Years, Vol. 2, p. 469. By mistake he calls the emigration of 1843 "1842," and 1844 "1843." The one of 1843 was the one Dr. "Whitman led safely through. 52 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. Says Albert Gallatin in 1846, "It is a remarkable fact that although the convention has now been in force twenty-seven years, congress has actually done nothing for either of these objects (the promotion of emigra- tion, or the protection of our citizens in Oregon). Enterprising individuals have without any aid or encouragement by govern- ment opened a wagon road, eighteen hundred miles in length, through an arid or mountainous region and made settlements on or near the shores of the Pacific without any guaranty for the possession of the land improved by their labors."* The further indifference of government may be seen from the fact that it was more than two years after the treaty of 1846 was made before congress organized the territory of Oregon, notwithstanding the great desires of the people of Oregon to have it done. Because of Dr. Whitman's earnest appeal to the informal provisional Governor of Oregon, as he felt that there was great danger from the Indians unless the government should extend its protection over the people, Governor Abernethy sent J. Q. Thornton in 1847 to Washington to urge speedy ac- tion in the matter. He went by water. Because of the Whitman massacre soon after Judge Thornton left, the legislature of Oregon sent J. L. Meek in the winter of 1S47-S to Washington to still further show the need. The two worked together, and on the last day of the session, August 13, 1848, the territory of Oregon was organized by congress. But even fur- ther, congress showed its great zeal for the Oregon settlers (or more truly indifference) by not passing ♦Oregon Question by Albert Gallatin, p. 36. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 53 any law by means of which these thousands of Ore- gon settlers could have any title to their land for two years longer, until September, 1850. And yet now Professor Bourne says that the ignorance and indifference of the government and the people are fictions of a later day. Surely allow- ance can be made for Mr. Spalding, after going through the intense strain he did, if any can be made for Professor Bourne! The question is not how many pages had been printed by government in regard to Oregon, but what effect this information had had on those in authority. Millions of pages are issued now from the government printing presses, which the Senators never read, of whose contents they or the public know practically nothing, and which have no effect on gov- ernment. IV. In regard to the main question of Dr. Whitman's alleged services to the nation, six objec- tions are brought against it: That Dr. Whitman's chief object in going east was not to save Oregon to the United States, but to save his mission ; that when he was in Washington he accomplished nothing for Oregon; that it was impossible at that time for him or for any one to have done so because there was no danger of losing Oregon ; that the whole story was an immense afterthought gotten up for some special purpose; and that he did nothing worth mentioning 54 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. to increase the immigration of 1843, or to get it through to the Columbia. As Prof. Bourne acknowledges that Dr. Whit- man went to Washington, no space will be given to this i^oint, although much has been written in pre- vious years to prove that he did not go there. A. The first objection is that Dr. Whitman's chief object was not to save Oregon when he went east. In answer, the evidence of several witnesses who saw the Doctor at that time will be introduced. (a) First witness — Rev. C. Eells, a co-worker with Dr. Whitman, who arrived in Oregon in 1838. In 1883 he said : "September, 1842, a' letter, written by Dr. Whitman, ad. dressed to Rev. Messrs. E. Walker and C. Eells at Tshimakain, reached its destination and was received by the persons to whom it was written. By the contents of said letter a meeting of the Oregon Mission of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions was invited to be held at Waiilatpu. The object of said meeting, aa stated in the letter named, was to approve of a purpose formed by Dr. Whitman, that he go east on behalf of Oregon as related to the United States. In the judgment of Mr. Walker and myself that object was foreign to our assigned work. With troubled thoughts we anticipated the proposed meeting On Monday, a. m., we arrived at Waiilatpu, and met the two resident families of Messrs. Whitman and Gray. Rev. H. H. Spalding was there. All the male members of the mission were thus together. In the discussion the opinion of Mr. Walker and myself remained unchanged. The purpose of Dr. Whitman was fixed. In his estimation the saving of Oregon to the United States was of paramount importance, and he would make the attempt to do so, even if he had to withdraw from the mission in order to REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 55 accomplish his purpose. In reply to considerations intended to hold Dr. Whitman to his assigned work, he said: 'I am not ex- patriated by becoming a missionary.' The idea of his with- drawal could not be entertained, therefore to retain him in the mission a vote to approve of his making the perilous endeavor prevailed."* Three points in regard to Dr. Eells's evidence have been advanced to show it to be untrustworthy. (1) That it does not agree with Kev. E. Walker's letter to the Board in 1842, endorsed by Mr. Eells, v.hich pleads strongly that the southern stations in the mission be continued (Bourne 71-2. Marshall 228). This is another instance where, according to these writers the want of evidence in one place proves that the event did not take place. That letter simply discussed the subject which the board controlled and did not discuss v\ith them what was not their busi- ness. Neither did it discuss anything about the trip to Washington, or its relation to the protection of the emigrants, although Dr. Whitman had that in mind and planned to go to Washington before he left Oregon. (2) That this letter does not agree with Mr. Walker's journal, which states that the subject of going east was not discussed until Wednesday morning, the third day of the meeting. But Dr. Eells does not say how much of the meeting was spent in discussing Dr. Whitman's trip east but simply says that a part of two days was spent in con- sultation. If the journal proves anything, it proves ♦Eells-Whitman Pamphlet, p. 9. 56 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. too much for Prof. Bourne's side, as it says no more about Dr. Whitman going east on missionary busi- ness than it does on political business and says noth- ing about his going to Washington. If it proves that he did not go for national objects, it proves also that he did not go on missionary business or to Washing- ton. It is simply another instance of want of evi- dence. If now Dr. Eells or Mr. Walker were to rise from their graves and say that the letter was writ- ten and received as stated by Dr. Eells; that on re- ceiving it they disliked it, yet went to Dr. Whit- man's as requested; that the Doctor said nothing on the subject during the first two days, as Mr. Walker stated, and they said nothing, hoping per- haps that the Doctor had given up the idea; that other business was attended to, and that then on the 28th he submitted to them his ideas of going east, — there would be no contradiction between the two. (The writer has acted that way several times and once escaped serious loss, having been asked previously to go on a bond, by seeming cold on the matter when he disliked to say yes, and disliked almost as much to say no, so that although the person had gone out of his way to ask for the final answer, yet on account of this coldness of the writer he was not asked. The result showed that if he had signed the bond he would have been obliged to pay considerable, the person asking having been appointed postmaster and afterwards proving to be a defaulter.) REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 57 (3) Prof. Marshall says that Dr. Eells stated that Dr. Whitman's "single object" in going east was to save the country. He did, and it was a mistake Tvhich he afterwards corrected. When first asked about the object of the doctor in going east, the na- tional object had so filled Dr. Eells's mind because of its importance that it crowded out the remem- brance of the other objects. Dr. Treat objected to tlie words "single object," but before Dr. Eells learn- ed of this objection, on thinking of the matter he had changed it to the "all controlling object." This the writer has in two papers of his father's, with a copy of a third. The reader will notice the word "expatriated" in Dr. Eells's statement. Prof. Bourne (91) quotes a letter from Dr. Whitman to the board in which he uses the same word — an uncommon one. Dr. Eells wrote his statement in April, 1883, while it was not known on the Pacific coast until September, 1885, that the above mentioned letter of Dr. Whitman's was in existence. Hence Dr. Eells did not copy the word from that letter. Prof. Marshall also says in regard to Rev. C. Eells, "that as late as April, 1865, he denied to Hon. Elwood Evans the historian of Oregon, any knowledge of anything but mis- sionary business ,as impelling Whitman to make that ride." (235-6). The writer has questioned Professor Mar- shall in regard to his authoritv for this statement 58 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. and in his reply the Professor says that Elwood Ev- ans wrote tlie same to him some seventeen years ago, and that he at or about that time printed the same statement in one of his newspaper articles.* In reply the writer declares that he will not be- lieve this statement until some better proof is given than this: for (1) the vrriter has every newspaper article that he ever heard of that Mr. Evans wrote on the subject, especially between 1881 and 1885, and there is not a hint of such a statement in any of these articles. Dr. Eells was then alive and the writer does not think Mr. Evans would have dared then to have made the statement. (2) The writer will not accept Mr. Evans's statement on the subject even if he did make it to Prof. Marshall, for as has already been shown, Mr. Evans made Mr. Eells say something in regard to the destruction of the records of the meeting of Sep- tember, 1812, which he did not say, and also made Mr. Webster say something he did not say. (See above p. 23). The writer calls for the letter, and feels sure that if his father had ever written such a letter he would have heard of it before the year 1902, and also that in newspaper articles which he has by Mr. Evans, when he fully discussed Dr. Eells's evidence, Mr. Evans would have printed this letter. (b) Second witness — Dr. William Geiger, who came to Oregon in 1839, had charge of Dr. Whitman's station all the time he was east, except the first two ♦Letter to writer dated, Feb. 5, 1902. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 59 or three weeks, remained there three weeks after Dr. Whitman's return, was there again in 1845 and 184G, and had many conversations with him on the object of his journey- east. He said ( 1883 ) : "His main object in going east was to save the country to the United States, as he believed there was great danger of its falling into the hands of England. Incidentally he intended to obtain more missionary help."* (e) Third icltncss — Mrs. Mary R. Walker, wife of Eev. E. Walker, another member of the Oregon mission.* She said (1882) : "He [Dr. Whitman] went east in 1842, mainly to save the coun- try 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 will 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.' He was determined to go east on this busi- ness, even if he had to leave the mission to do so."* (d) Fourth ivitncss — Hon. A. Hinman, who came to Oregon in 1844, taught school at Dr. Whit- man's the next winter, went to the Willamette valley with Dr. Whitman the next June, in 1847 at the Doc- tor's request was temporarily in charge of the newly acquired station at The Dalles, is now living at Forest Grove, Oregon, has been a member of the *Mr. Walker died in 1877 before his controversy arose^ hence his testimony was not obtained. *Eells- Whitman Pamphlet, pp. 3, 11. <0 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. Oregon legislature and for twenty years president of the board of trustees of Pacific University. He says (1882) : "Dr. Whitman told me that he went east in 1842 with two ob- jects, one to assist the mission, the other to save the country to the UniteJ States. I do not think that he would have gone that winter had it not been that the danger seemed to him very great that the country would be obtained by England, but would have deferred the journey until Spring."* (e) Fifth loltness — Hon. A. L. Lovejoy, who came to Oregon in 1842, was Dr. Wliitman's travel- ing companion on his journey east, was afterwards a member of the Oregon legislature several times, president of its council (senate), attorney general of the territory, its chief justice, was mayor of Ore- gon City, and a member of the convention that form- ed the state constitution, few of the pioneers doing more than he did. He said (1876), after giving an account of the journey of himself and the Doctor to Bent's Fort: "Here we parted. The Doctor proceeded to Washington, I re- mained at Bent's fort until spring and joined the Doctor the following July near Fort Laramie on his way to Oregon in com- pany with a train of emigrants. He often expressed himself to me about the remainder of his journey, and the manner in which he was received at V/ashington and by the Board of For- eign Missions at Boston. He had several interviews with Pres- ident Tyler, Secretary Webster, and a good many members of congress, congress being in session at that time. He urged the immediate termination of the treaty with Great Britain relative to this country, and begged them to extend the laws *Eells-Whitman Pamphlet, p. 14. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 61 of the United States over Oregon, and asked for liberal induce- ments to emigrants to come to this coast. He was very cor- dially 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."* Mrs. Lovejoy, who came in 1843, "assures us that he was aware of Whitman's aims and motives, knew that his great object in the journey was to save Oregon from British rule, and gives him credit in great part for accom- plishing his patriotic intention."* "The whole burden of Dr. Whitman's speech during the long ride, according to Mr. Lovejoy, was to immediately terminate the treaties of 1818 and 1828, and extend the laws of the United States over Oregon."* These statements will answer Prof. Bourne's quotations from Mrs. Lovejoy and D. P. Thompson made in 1900. (106-109) These were made much earlier and so according to Prof. Bourne's ideas are of much more value. (f) Six-th ivittiess — Hon. W.H. Gray, who was *Biography of Rev. G. H. Atkinson, D. D., p. 275. In the above question the writer is inclined to think that Gen. Lovejoy is mistaken when he says "congress being in session at the time," and that sentence is not in his statement of 1869. It has been very difficult to determine the exact date when Dr. Whitman was at Washington, but from a paper which he left at Boston it appears that he was at Westport, Mo., Feb. 15, and Boston, March 30. Probably he did not reach Washington in sixteen days, and then take twenty-six more to get to Boston. Besides J. M. Porter, with whom the doctor conferred, was not appointed secretary of war until March 8, which was after the adjournment of congress. ♦Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Nov. 17, 1882, copied from The Willamette Farmer. ♦Paper by Miss S. Barlow in Oregon Pioneer Transactions 1895, p. 74. 62 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. a member of the Oregon mission from 1836 to 1842. He savs that as the Doctor mounted his horse to start east he said, ''If the Board dismisses me I will do what I can to save m\ country."* And again, "My life is of but little worth if I can save the country for the American people." Prof. Bourne has learned that there was much ti'ouble between Mr. Gray and Dr. Whitman, and also between jNIr. Bpalding and Dr. Whitman, while they were in the mission together, so that Mr. Gray left it in September, 1812. Now the question may be very naturally asked, "Why then did these two gen- tlemen lie to exalt their enemy. Dr. Whitman, and why, if the story is all a legend, invented by Mr. Spalding, did Mr. Gray lie to support the statements of Mr. Si^alding, with whom he had so much diffi- culty?" (g) Seventh witness — Perrin B. Whitman, who was a nephew of Dr. Whitman, came with him to Oregon in 1813 and lived with him until 1S17, was at The Dalles with Mr. Hiumau at the time of the massacre. He said (1880) : "Dr. Whitman's trip east, in the winter of 1842-43, was for the double purpose of bringing an immigration across the plains, and also to prevent, if possible, the trading off of this north- west coast to the British government. * * * While crossing the plains I repeatedly heard the doctor express himself as being very anxious to succeed in opening a wagon road across the continent to the Columbia river, and thereby stay, if not entirely prevent, the trading of this northwest coast, then pend- *Gray's Histoiy of Oregon, p. 609. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 63 ing between the United States and the British government. In after years the doctor, with much pride and satisfaction, re- verted to his success in bringing the immigration across the plains, and thought it one of the means of saving Oregon to his government." Again (1882) he added: "I heard him say repeatediy, on the journey and after we reached his mission, Waiilatpii-i, that he went to the states in the winter of 1842 and 1S43 for the sole purpose of bringing an immigration with wagons across the plains of Oregon."* Again in the Oregonian of December 4, 1895, is a long statement bv ^Ir. Whitman in wliich he tells Low in 1843 he heard his uncle tell this whole story to the Doctor's mother and Perrin's father in New York state, to Dr. 'Waldo in ^lissouri. and Rev. Mr. Eerrjman, superintendent of a Methodist mission there. (h) EUjliili witness — Eev. W. Barrows, D. D., who was at St. Louis teaching school when Dr. Whit- man arrived on his eastern journey, and boarded *Weekly Astorian, Dec. 17, 1880 and Eells-Whitman Pam- phlet, pp. 12, 13. Prof. Bourne tries to reject the testimony of Mr. Whitman because he was so young, thirteen years, when he came to Oregon. Does the Professor not expect boys of thirteen to remember what they have seen and heard? But he must remember that Perrin Whitman lived with his uncle until he was seventeen and surely many of the Professor's stu- dents are only that age. Professor Bourne tries to reject the testimony of Perrin Whitman because he was too young, and of Dr. Silas Reed because he was too old; and of Dr. Whitman, ■who in 1847 was neither too old nor too young, because by that time he had changed his mind as to his purpose in going east! i. e., that Dr. Whitman did not know five years after he went east why he went so well as the Professor did fifty-seven years after. 64 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. under the same roof with him at Dr. E. Hale's. He "The doctor was in great haste, and could not delay to talk of beaver and Indian goods, and wars, and reservations, and treaties. He had questions and not answers. Was the Ash- burton treaty concluded? Did it cover the northwest? Where and what and whose did it leave Oregon? He was soon answer- ed. Webster and Ashburton had signed that treaty on the 9th of August preceding. ************* Then instantly he had other questions for his St. Louis visitors. Was the Oregon question under discussion in congress? What opinions, projects or bills concerning it were being urged in senate and house? Would anything important be settled before the approaching adjournment on the fourth of March? Could he reach Washington before the adjournment? He must leave at once, and he went."* Prof. Bourne (40) says that Dr. Barrows was living in St. Louis in 1843 and saw Dr. Whitman there. This he must have learned from Dr. Bar- rows. If the professor accepts this statement of the Doctor, why does he not also accept what Dr. Barrows says about Dr. Whitman's object in going east? W^hy accept one of his statements and reject the other? (i) Ninth witness — Dr. Edward Hale. He says (1871): "I had the pleasure of entertaining Dr. Whitman at St. Louis on his last visit eastward to confer with the president and heads of departments in relation to the settlement of the ♦Barrows, Oregon, p. 174, and New York Observer, Dec. 21, 1882. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 6S northeastern boundary question with Great Britain by bartei*- ing away for a song the whole of the northwest Pacific ter- ritory. Also on his return to Oregon, my house was his home while in St. Louis."* (j) Tenth witness — Dr. S. J. Parker of Ithaca, N. Y., a son of the Rev. S. Parker who went to Ore- gon in 1835, and who (the son) was then (in 1843) twenty-four years old. He wrote: "I was at home in the room in which I now write (as I owe the old homestead) when Dr. Whitman unexpectedly arrived in a rather rough, but not as outlandish a dress as some writers say he had on. After the surprise of his arrival was over, he said to my father, 'We must both go at once to Washington, or Oregon is lost, ceded to the English.' "* (k) Eleventh ivitness — John Tyler, jr., son of President John Tyler, and his private secretary. He remembered Dr. Whitman very well, remembered that he was in Washington in 1842-3, full of his pro- ject to carry emigrants to Oregon, that he waited on the president, and received from him the heartiest concurrence in his plan.* (1) Twelfth witness — Dr. Silas Reed. He says^ "The following winter, 1842-3, Dr. Whitman, the Oregoa missionary, returned to the east, and furnished valuable dat* about Oregon and the practicability of a wagon route thereto across the mountains, and emigration thither rapidly increased, ♦Letter to H. H. Spalding, now in possession of the writec. ♦Letter to the writer Feb. 16, 1883. Eells-Whitman Pant- phlet, p. 15. ♦Mowry's Marcus Whitman, p. 172. 66 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. thus aiding in, securing a more speedy passage of Dr. Linn's Oregon bill."* Prof. Bourne thinks that probably this refers to Dr. White, because Linn's bill had passed the sen- ate before Dr. Whitman's arrival. It may be, but it is just as probable that Dr. Reed's memory was at fault in regard to the time of the passage of the bill as that he confounded Dr. White with Dr. Whitman, for Dr. White was not there in 1842-3, and there is no evidence that he furnished any valuable informa- tion about a wagon route across the mountains. (m) Thirteenth witness — Rev. Gustavus Hines, a member of the early Methodist mission of Oregon, who came to Oregon in 1840 and left in 1845. He says in his journal of April 14, 1843: "The arrival of a large party of emigrants about this time [1842] and the sudden departure of Dr. Whitman to the United States, with the avowed intention of bringing back with him as many as he could enlist for Oregon, served to hasten them [the Indians] to the above conclusion," that is, that there was "a deep laid scheme of the whites to destroy them and take pas- session of their country."* (n) Fourteenth ivitness — Dr. Whitman. "April 1, 1847 he wrote to the American board as follows : "It was to open a practical route and safe passage and secure a favorable report of the journey from the emigrants, which in connection with other objects caused me to leave my ♦Letters and Times of the Tylers, Vol. 2, p. 697. *Hines, Oregon, p. 143. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 67 family and brave the toils and dangers of the journey, not- withstanding the unusual severity of the winter and the great depth of snow."* Prof. Bourne tries to get rid of this evidence by saying "as tlie years passed, Dr. Wliitman attached so much importance to his services to the emigra- tion that he evidently came to regard such a service as the purpose of his journey to the east." (97). Yet Prof. Bourne still clings to the idea that it was an incidental and minor purpose. It is singular with what persistence the opponents of the idea that Dr. Whitman did anything to save Oregon cling to their position. First there was no evidence worth con- sidering, and when ten witnesses who were acquaint- ed with the doctor say that he told them that he went with national intent, then they cannot accept this evidence because it is from memory, and wish for scientific testimony — written at the time; and when Dr. Whitman's own statements are produced, "v\hich are scientific, they say that he claimed for himself a purpose five years afterward, that he did not have in 1842, that he told a falsehood because he saw what an advantage it would be to him to make the claim! Prof. Bourne claims to have learned it better fifty-eight years later than Dr. Whitman did five years later. There are five points in addition from cir- cumstantial evidence. ♦Missionary Herald, 1S85, p. 350, 68 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. (o) Dr. Whitman went to Washington before he went to Boston. If his object in going east was sole- ly to save his mission, why did he go to Washington? After the troubles which the American Board had with the government w^hen the Cherokees were re- moved to the Indian territory and one of their mis- sionaries was imprisoned, the Board had just as lit- tle to do with the government as possible. The gov- ernment would not help Dr. Whitman to induce the American Board to rescind any order of theirs. (p) If his main object in going east was to se- cure the rescinding of an order of the Board, why did he go to Washington first? He would certainly have gone to Boston first. When Rev. Jason Lee Avent east in 1838 carrying a petition to government from the citizens of Oregon, he hastened first to report to his home board at New York. Not so Dr. Whitman. One went mainly for missionary pur- poses, the other mainly for national purposes. (q) He left his station October third, when the fifth was the day he told Messrs Walker and Eells that he would go. Letters were to be prepared and forwarded accordingly. They reached his station October fifth, but he was gone. One of these letters is now in the possession of the writer. It is a long, strong plea for the continuance of the southern sta- tions of the mission. Why did he leave that letter, (written by the moderator of the meeting and en- dorsed by its clerk), which would have been of great REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 69 help to him, if his main object had been to secure the rescinding of the above mentioned order? (r) Although the order had been given to dis- continue those stations, yet in view of changed con- ditions the mission had voted to continue them until word could be sent to Boston and a reply received, and did so. Was it necessary for him to risk his life to secure what he had already temporarily se- cured, when his station would have been certainly continued had he waited until spring to go? (s) At first he was not cordially received at Boston. Says Dr. Geiger: "Mr. Hill, treasurer of the Board, said to liim in not a very pleasant way, 'what are you here for, leaving your post?' " Says P. B. Whitman: "The Board censured him in very strong terms for leaving his post of duty; also informed him that they had no money to spend in opening the western country to settlement." Says Dr. Whitman in a letter to the Board dated April 1, 1847 : "I often reflect on the fact that you told me you were sorry I came." (East). After this he speaks of the great value of his services to the emigration, and of the influence that emigration virtually had in securing Oregon to the 70 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. United States. Now why was the Board so sorry he went, if he went solely or mainly to help his mission? With all this evidence the author would con- sider himself unreasonable not to believe that Dr. Whitman went east in order to do what he could to save Oregon. B. The second objection is that Dr. Whitman accomplished nothing at Washington. (a) Says Dr. W. Geiger: "Either himself or brother had been a classmate of the secretary of war, and Dr. Whitman went to him and through him obtained an introduction to Secretary Webster. But Web- ster said that it was too late, that he had signed the papers and given them to the president. He would not introduce him to the president. Dr. Whitman went back to the secretary of war, and through him obtained an introduction to the presi- dent, who heard his statements of the value of Oregon, and the possibility of taking an emigration there. At last the president promised to wait before proceeding further in the business, until Dr. Whitman should see whether he could get the emi- gration through. 'That is all I want,' said Dr. Whitman. He immediately sent back word to Missouri to those who wished to go, and had it published in the papers and in a pamphlet. "If Dr. Whitman told me this once, he told it to me perhaps twenty times. He told it to me first on his return at Mr. Spald- ing's station, as I was there temporarily on account of sickness in Mr. Spalding's family. About the same time he told Mr. Spalding the same. He afterwards told it to us both, and in riding together afterwards on the road he said the same, and these repeated statements, which were always precisely alike, impressed it on my mind, or I might perhaps have forgotten them. As far as I know, he told this only to Mr. Spalding and myself, and said he had his reasons for not telling everybody."* *Eells-Whitmaji Pamphlet, p. 3. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 71 Again Dr. Geiger says : "Dr. Whitman praised the country as of immense value to the United States and said that he had heard that there was a possibility of its being transferred to Great Britain. But Web- ster replied, 'you are too late, doctor, Oregon is already bar- gained away.' " He spoke of the distance, the worth'lessness of the countrj', and of the impossibility of making roads to Oregon. Finally he said that the question had been considered and turned over to Pre^sident Tyler, who could sign Oregon away or refuse to do so, but so far as he had an interest in it, it was already decided and had passed entirely from his hands. 'Through the secretary of war, Dr. Whitman was then introduced to the president and for three or four hours they talked about the country. Finally the president said that if they could get a wagon road across from the western frontier that fact would settle the question, but if it could neither be practically settled by land or by sea, as claimed, it would be better to let the country go than to try to retain, settle and defend it. Dr. Whitman responded, 'Hold on and I will take an emigration and their wagons through next summer.' Ttey talked it all over, and the Doctor explained his plans at length. The president said he had signed no papers and would hold now to see the issue of the Doctor's undertaking. 'If you suc- ceed,' he said, 'we will keep Oregon.' And this was the stimulus which made the Doctor so persevering on that point all the next summer. Dr. Whitman replied most emphatically, bring- ing his hand down most vigorously on his thigh. 'I'll talie them through.' And as Dr. Whitman and Dr. Geiger rode along from Lapwai to Walla Walla, he exultingly added, strik- ing another significant blow with his hand, 'And I have brought them through.'* (b) Says Eev. H. H. Spalding: "The doctor pushed on to Washington, and immediately ♦Article by S. A. Clarke in the Oregonian, June 1, 1895, from information obtained ten years before. n REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE sought an interview with Secretary Webster — both being from the same state — and stated to him the object of his crossing the mountains, and laid before him the great importance of Oregon to the United States. But Mr. Webster lay too near Cape Cod to see things in the same light with his fellow stites- man, who had transferred his worldly interests to the Pacific coast. He awarded sincerity to the missionary, but could not admit for a moment that the short residence of six years could give the doctor the knowledge of the country possessed by Governor Simpson, who had almost grown up in the couatry, and had traveled every part of it, and represents it as one un- Broken waste of sand deserts and impassable mountains, fit only for the beaver, the gray bear and the savage. * * • * "The doctor next sought through Senator Linn an interview with President Tyler, who at once appreciated his solicitude, and his timely representations of Oregon, and especially his disinterested though hazardous undertaking to cross the Rocky mountains in winter to take back a caravan of wagons. He said that although the doctor's representations of the character of the country, and the possibility of reaching it by wagon route, were in direct contradiction to those of Governor Simp- son, his frozen limbs were a suflBcient proof of his sincerity, and his missionary character were a sufiicient guaranty for his honesty, and he would therefore as president rest upon these and act accordingly; would detail Fremont with a military force to escort the doctor's caravan through the mountains; and no more action should be had toward trading off Oregon till he could hear the results of the expedition. If the doctor «ould establish a wagon route through the mountains to the Columbia river, pronounced impassable by Governor Simpson and Ashburton, he would use his influence to hold on to Oregon. The great desire of the doctor's American soul. Christian withal, that is, the pledge of the president that the swapping of Ore- gon with Ehgland for a cod fishery should stop for the present, was attained, although at the risk of life, and through great Bufferings, and unsolicited and without the promise or expec- tation of a dollar's reward from any source. And now, God giving him life and strength, he would do the rest, that is, con- nect the Missouri and Columbia rivers with a wagon track so REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 73 deep and plain that neither national envy nor sectional fanatic- ism would ever blot it out."* (c) Says Hon. W. H. Gray: "I met him in Oregon City in my own home, after his re- turn from Washington. Spent an afternoon and evening with him, and learned of him the result of his visit to Washington, and the treatment he received from Webster and from the Pru- dential Board or Committee of Missions.* "What I learned from Dr. Whitman personally was: Mr. Webster was favorable to making a change of the eastern boundary, and giving the western or Oregon country for what had recently been in dispute, as Mr. Webster thought it would be a good exchange; and was not induced to listen to his (Dr. Whitman's) reasons against such a change. But the president listened more favorably, and said no such change or giving up of Oregon should be made, if he could get wagons and an emi- gration into Oregon. * * * Mr. Webster was strongly in favor of the Newfoundland codflshery. He was held in check by Benton, Adams and others. Benton had a better knowledge of Oregon than Webster, who had been or become unpopular for his yielding on the Eastern or Maine question with Ash- burton. The petition that had been sent by the missionaries, and the statements made by different parties, added to the personal representations made by Dr. Whitman, as to the practicability of a wagon route, and the fact that the doctor's mission in 1836 had taken cows and wagons to Fort Boise, and that they could be taken to the Columbia river, — that fact, as affirmed by Dr. Whitman, stopped all speculations about giving up Oregon, till the practical road question was settled."* *Executive Document No. 37, 41st congress, third session, p. 22. *Eells-Whitman Pamphlet, p. 19. *Pamphlet by W. H. Gray, Did Dr. Whitman save Oregon, p 17. 74 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. (d) Says Perrin B. Whitman: "Secretary Webster received him coolly. He said he al- most 'snubbed him,' but the president, Mr. Tyler, treated him and the possibility of a wagon road across the plains to the Columbia river, with a just consideration. He, the president, gave the doctor a hearing, and promised him that the Ash- burton treaty, then pending [a mistake], would not be signed until he would hear of the success or failure of the doctor in opening a wagon road to the Columbia river."* Again, after speaking of a visit of himself and the Doctor to the Doctor's mother, he added: "He was of course pressed to extend his visit, but he al- ways replied that he would sacrifice not only the pleasure of a visit with his mother, but all else in the world rather than fail to meet an engagement to be on the west side of the Mis- souri river at the appointed time to conduct a party of Am- erican citizens across the plains. He said 'they have my pledges to guide a wagon train to the Columbia river before the summer is over.' During the visit with his mother and my father I heard him say repeatedly that he had been to Wash- ington City, and had had an interview with President Tyler about the colonization of Oregon with American citizens. He " said also that the president promised anxiously to wait for news of the success or failure of the attempt to cross the mountains to the shores of the Columbia with wagons. The success or failure of the effort would in a measure determine the question of title to the Oregon country. I know Dr. Whit- man carried home to the Pacific this promise from President Tj'^ler and that the ambition to save Oregon to the United States spurred him on to great self-sacrifice and labor that re- quired almost more than mortal strength." ****** *Eells-Whitman Pamphlet, p. 13. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 75 Then in speaking of their sojourn at Westport, Missouri, he added : "The doctor remained for a time at the house of Dr. Waldo, a brother of the Oregon pioneer, Hon. Daniel Waldo. He gave Dr. Waldo an account of his trip across the great plains and em- phasized the fact that it was made to save the Pacific northwest to the United States government. His whole soul was in the suc- cess of the wagon journey to the banks of the Columbia and he assured Dr. Waldo that the president had promised him to with- hold the transfer of the territory to the British until he learned whether he succeeded or not. He talked of this object of his visit with the enthusiasm of a sanguine nature, and he had but one object, to save Oregon. While waiting for the large train of immigrants to organize for the journey Dr. Whitman visited for a week with Rev. Berryman, superintendent of the Methodist Indian mission. During that visit I heard him repeat the substance of that interview with the oflBcials in Washington City, ana recite his hopes and fears about the dangers and blessings upon the failure or success of his effort to colonize Oregon with true Americans."* (e) Says Judge J. Otis, after describing an in- terview he had at Buffalo, N. Y., with the Doctor in the spring of 1843: "They [the president and cabinet] were called together and Dr. Whitman spent an evening with the cabinet answer- ing their questions and giving them his views as to the im- portance of Oregon and the steps that needed to be taken in ordei* to secure it for this country."* (f) M. de Saint Amant was an envoy of the French government to Oregon in 1851-2 and pub- *Oregonian, Dec. 4, 1895. ♦Missionary Herald, 1S85, p. 884. 76 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. lished a book "Voyages in California and Oregon" at Paris in 1854. In speaking of Dr. Whitman he says : "Having preceded tlie taking possession of the country by "his fellow citizens he became a very active agent of the Am- erican interests, and contributed in no small degree to annexa- tion, but in spite of all he did for them [the Indians], he did ■Jiot realize that his standing and influence would not always prevail against the consequences of the superstition of the .savages and he fell a victim to it with his family." (pp. 223-4). Prof. Bourne says in regard to this that it has reference to Dr. Whitman's entire work down to 1847 and says nothing about the year 1842-3 ; that he probably derived his information from Bishop Brouillet or some of his missionary colleagues, and that the assertion about the tendency of Whitman's political activity is hardly more than a natural de- duction from such statements as Brouillet made in his pamphlet. But the writer asks, if Dr. Whitman contributed in no small degree to annexation, when he did it, if not during 1842-3. Was it before he went east? or after he had come back, when there was no possible danger of Oregon being lost. If Prof. Bourne be- lieves this, he believes that of which there is not a thousandth part of the proof as compared with the claim that he contributed in 1842-3, but if it is so the writer would be very glad to have him prove it. If Saint Amant learned this from some of the Catholic priests, then it was a matter of public knowledge at .that time. There is a hint here too that the report REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. IT was that Dr. Whitman lost his life because of his political activity. (g) Dr. Whitman wrote November 5, 1846, to Rev. L. P. Judson: "I had adopted Oregon as my country as well as the In- dians for my field of labor, so that I must superintend the im- migration of that year, [1843] which was to lay the foundation for the speedy settlement of the country if prosperously con- ducted and safely carried through; but if it failed i and became- disastrous, the reflex influence would be to discourage for a long time any further attempt to settle the country across the- mountains, which, would be to see it abandoned altogether. * *" * * * * I have returned to my field of labor and in my return brought a large immigration of about a thousand indi- viduals safely through the long, and the last part of it an un- tried route to the western shores of the continent. * * * • • * * It is quite important that such a country as Oregon should not .on one hand fall into the exclusive hands of the Jesuits, nor on the other under the English government."* Again, April 1, 1847, soon after he heard of the treaty which settled the Oregon question, he wrote to his home Board : "I often reflect on the fact that you told me you were sorry I came east. It did not then nor has it since altered my opin- ion in the matter. American interests acquired in the coun- try which the success of the immigration in 1843 alone did and could have secured, have become the foundation of the late treaty between England and the United States in regard to Oregon. ****** it demonstrates what I did in mak- ing my way to the states in the winter of 1842-3, after the third of October. ******* Anyone can see that American interests as now acquired have had more to do in ♦Transactions Oregon Pioneer Association 1893, p. 200. 78 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. securing the treaty than our original rights. From 1835 till now it has been apparent that there was a choice of only two things, (1) the increase of British interests to the exclusion of all other rights lU the country, or (2) the establishment of American interests by citizens" [on the ground.] Again, October 18, 1847, he wrote to the same Board : "Two things, and it is true those which were most import- ant were accomplished by my return to the states. By means of the establishment of the wagon road, which is due to that effort alone, the immigration was secured and saved from disaster in the fall of 1843. Upon that event the present ac- quired rights of the United States by her citizens hung, and not less certain is it that upon the result of that immigra- tion to this country the present existence of Protestantism hung also."* There is no doubt but that Dr. Whitman, after his experience at Washington and with the emigra- tion of 1843, knew what he was saying fully as well as those who from thirty-five to sixty years after- wards, have denied him any national intent or suc- cess. These statements of his fit into those of Messrs. Geiger, Gray, Spalding and P. B. Whitman exactly as a tenon does into a mortise. C. The third objection is that in 1843 it was impossible for Dr. Whitman or any one to have done anything to save Oregon, because it was in no danger •Missionary Herald, Sept. 1885. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 79 of being lost. Here the question very seriously arisa<3, shall we accuse all these witnesses of falsehood and reject all their evidence, that of Messrs. Geiger, Gray, P. B. Whitman, Lovejoy and Marcus Whitman, as well as that of Mr. Spalding, or is there some way of reconciling apparent differences? In the writer's opinion it is not necessary to reject their statements, for he believes that so much light has already been found that no one need be accused of falsehood. It can be shown that in the main their statements and the actual condition of affairs at Washington may be reconciled, although it is true that no evidence has been found that any treaty was then in progress and no state papers have been found which speak of Webster trading Oregon for the Newfoundland cod- fishery. (1) First we will consider Webster's position, because he had already negotiated the Ashburton treaty in which Oregon was considered, because he was in March, 1843, secretary of state, and so a very important factor in whatever might be done in re- gard to the question, and because he was remaining in the cabinet with the hope of being the one who would negotiate the treaty which would settle the Oregon question. The plan of the administration was this: Either a special mission to England on which it was expected that Mr. Webster would be sent in order that he might be better able to negotiate the treaty, or a mission to China to which Mr. Everett then our minister to England, would be transferred, thus allowing Mr. Webster to go to England in Mr. 80 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. Everett's place, where he could still negotiate the treaty. But the special mission to England was voted down in the senate committee, the mission to China passed congress but Mr. Everett declined to go to China and so Mr. Webster failed to go to England. Thus his hopes of reaching England for that pur- pose died, and as this had been his main reason for remaining in the cabinet, he soon resigned, and then passed forever all danger of England gaining even that part of Oregon north of the Columbia and south of the forty-ninth parallel or any more further south.* But in March, 1843, Mr. Webster had not given up these hopes, and so it is very necessary to know his position. True, in 1846, in a speech before the senate, he said that when he made the Ashburton treaty in 1842 he had told Lord Ashburton, "The gov- ernment of the United States has never offered any line south, of forty-nine degrees and it never will.'^ As far as the last sentence "it never will," is con- cerned it was merely his opinion in 1842 and as he was not a prophet it might have been done had cir- cumstances seemed to warrant it. As far as the first sentence is concerned Mr. Benton gives the reason, namely that the two senators from Missouri (Benton and Linn) having been "sounded on th© subject of a conventional divisional line, re- pulsed, the suggestion with an earnestness which put an end to it. If they had yielded the valley of the Columbia would have been divided."* ♦Quarterly, Oregon Historical Society, Sept. 1900, p. 240; Adams Memoirs, Vol. 11, 327, etc., 345 etc.; Sohouler, Vol. 4, 436, etc,, and Letters and Times of the Tylers, Vol. 2, pp. 262-3. ♦Benton's Thirty Years, Vol. 2, p. 476. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 81 Mr. Benton gives as the reason why they were sounded the following: That various senators were sounded on points in which they were greatly inter- ested so that when the vote would be taken in the senate in regard to confirming the treaty a majority would be pledged to vote in favor of it. But this statement shoAvs that in 1842 Mr. Webster was will- ing to yield the country north of the Columbia with- out any equivalent being given to England to it. In fact as regards the navigation of the Columbia and the straits, sounds and islands of Puget Sound, he said publicly that he did not stand firm for this in 1842. His words are, (1846). "the use of the Columbia river by England, permanently or for a number of years, and the use of the straits and sounds in the adjacent sea, and the islands along the coast, would be all mat- ters for friendly negotiation."* Think of our being in a war with England and she by treaty having the use of the Columbia river permanently ! Mr. Webster's idea of the value of Oregon may be gathered from his speech in 1846 (when immense- ly more was known of its value than in 1843) in which he said that the St. John river on the north- east boundary of Maine was for all purposes of hu- man use worth a hundred times as much as the Col- umbia was or ever would be.* *Works of Daniel Webster, Vol. 5, p. 77. ♦Webster's speeches. Vol. 5, p. 102. 82 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. Twiss, an English writer, said in 1846 that Web- ster's anticipations were that Oregon would form at some not very distant day, because of its geograph- ical position, an independent confederation.* This was not an uncommon idea, for Albert Gal- latin argued in favor of its probability and said that Jefferson had had the same idea.* Mr. Webster also wrote to Edward Everett in regard to Oregon, November 25, 1842, "I doubt exceedingly whether it is an inviting country for agricultural settlers. At present there are not above seven hun- dred white persons in the whole territory, both sidesi of the river from California to latitude fifty-four."* Again when there was a proposition before the senate for a mail route from Independence, Mo., to the mouth of the Columbia Mr. Webster, after de- nouncing the measure generally said : "What do you want of that vast and worthless area? this region of savages and wild beasts, of deserts, of shifting sands, and whirlwinds of Just, of cactus and prairie dogs? To what use could we ever hope to put those great deserts, and those endless mountain ranges, impenetrable and covered to their very base with eternal snow? What can we ever hope to do with the western coast, a coast of three thousand miles, rock bound, cheerless, uninviting and not a harbor on it? What use have we for this country?"* *Twiss' History of Oregon, Ed. 1846, p. 264. *Gallatin's Oregon Question, p. 48. *Von Hoist's Constitutional Hist., U. S., Vol. 3, p. 51. *The writer cannot give the book and page where this' is to be found. It is a part of a reply of Mrs. C. S. Pringle to Mrs. F. F. Victor's attack on Dr. Whitman, written Dec. 1, 1884, which the writer has in manuscript. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 83 In 1845 in opposing the admission of Texas he said: "The government is very likely to be endangered in my opinion by a further enlargement of the territorial surfac© al- ready so vast, over which it is extended,"* thus placing himself plainly against expansion after Dr. Whitman went east. Here we have then Mr. Webster's position : Oregon not worth much, not a hundredth part as much as the valley of the St. John's, not wanted because the United States already had as much territory as she ought to have, and be- cause it might set itself up as independent even if the United States should obtain a nominal title to it, and he was ready to yield all north of the Columbia river in 1842. And he was secretary of state, the one to largely influence our business with foreign countries ! (2) But more than this, there was talk of trad- ing off Oregon. In 1827 a resolution had been intro- duced into congress by Mr. Knight of Rhode Island, asking the president to open negotiations with Great Britain to exchange Oregon for Upper Canada. In 1844 Mr. Choate, senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Webster's state (Mr. Webster not then being in the senate) hinted again at equivalents for Oregon. This alarmed Mr. Breese of Illinois, who did not know what was meant unless it might be money, or some- thing like Mr. Knight's idea of 1827. In a speech of Senator D. R. Atchison of Mis- ♦Barrows' Oregon, p. 200. 84 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE, souri as late as February 22, 1844, in congress he said : "Give us the countenance of our government; give us your protection; give us government and laws, and we will soon fill up the country (Oregon); we will take possession of it, and we will keep that possession. Do but assure us that we will not be traded off, that we are not to become British subjects, that we are to remain members of this glorious republic, we will take possession and we will keep that possession in defiance of Brit- ish power."* He would never have said this had he not known that there was danger that Oregon would be traded oflf. Still further in 1844 a bill was introduced be- fore the senate asking for all the correspondence and instructions on the subject of Oregon since March 4, 1841. In January, 1844 Mr. Benton while discussing this bill said : "The senator from Ohio, Mr. Allen, has read you a part of the debate in parliament in February last [1843, just before Dr. Whitman reached Washington,] in which the British minister, Sir Robert Peel, has made a very extraordinary declaration — a declaration in full terms — that President Tyler has made propo- sitions on the subject of Oregon, which would render it impos- sible for him to have signed the bill which passed the senate at the last session, to grant land to the Oregon settlers. His word, is 'impossible.' " The bill before the senate however was lost by a vote of 31 to 14, the correspondence was not obtained and the writer has been unable to learn certainly *See Oregonian, Nov. 26, 1897. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 85 what that communication was by the president to Great Britain. But it is plain from this that some very important paper had at that time been sent to England, the contents of which threatened the pos- session of Oregon by the United States. It may, however have referred to the tri-partite plan, which will soon be explained and which neither England nor the United States could have settled without the consent of Mexico. Other items too are significant. In December, 1842, the senate requested of President Tyler infor- mation about the Oregon question. His reply was that he had in his annual message stated that he should not delay to urge on Great Britain the im- portance of an early settlement. He added : "Measures have been already taken in pursuance of the purpose thus expressed, and under these circumstances I do not ■deem it consistent with the public interest to make any com- munication on the subject."* Yet none of these measures have been found, that is official ones, but simply private letters and papers to some of which reference will here be made. No official ones have been found until October 9, 1843. There was a tripartite plan under considera- tion.* England, Mexico and the United States were toi be the three parties in it. English capitalists had loaned Mexico some ten million pounds, which was secured on lands in Senora, Chihuahua, California ♦Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. 4, p. 211. ♦Letters and Times of the Tylers, Vol. 2, p. 260-1. 86 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. and New Mexico. Because of this England had an influence in Mexican affairs. Texas had then re- cently seceded from Mexico and was trying to estab- lish her independence. Knowing of this influence of Great Britain, President Tyler sought by this "tri- partite treaty to secure the independence of Texas as well as the cession of California to the United States, as far south as thirty-six degrees, on England's contributing a certain sum for its purchase, in return for the line of the Columbia as the boundary of Oregon." England had from 1818 insisted on this line, while the United States had in- sisted on the line of forty-nine degrees. But for some years government had thought of the value of California and had been quietly exploring parts of it. Commodore Wilkes in 1811 had praised the harbor of San Francisco as "one of the fine^it, if not the very best harbor in the world." When Lord Ash- burton was in the United States in the summer of 1812 he had been asked if he thought England v» ould make any objections to the United States obtaining that part of California north of thirty-six degrees and replied that he thought not. The south was will- ing, for she wanted more slave-holding territory. President Tyler was a strong southern man from Vir- ginia, who in 1861 helped to vote his state out of the Union in the state convention. Webster was from the far east and we already know his ideas of Ore- gon. England gave her consent to this tripartite agreement. President Tyler wrote about January, REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 87 1843 to Daniel Webster in regard to this arrange- ment : "The three interests would be united and would satisfy all sections of the country. Texas might not stand alone, nor would the line proposed for Oregon. Texas would reconcile all to the line, while Califoi*nia would reconcile or pacify all to Oregon." Again lie wrote to Mr. Webster a letter marked "private." "A single suggestion as to our conversation this morning. The assent of Mexico to such a treaty is all that is necessary as to all its parts. A surrender of her title is all that will be •wanting. The rest will follow without an effort."* General Almonte, Mexican minister at Washing- ton, was interviewed on the subject. He at first de- clined, but at last gave way. The president so far succeeded as to lay the subject before congress, pro- posing either a special mission to England, with Mr. Webster as the one to fill it, or of a mission to China to which Mr. Everett, then minister to England, was; to go while Mr. Webster was to take his place. This has already been referred to and its failure. But March 27, 1843, J. Q. Adams, chairman of the house committee on foreign relations, called on Mr. Web- ster, who told him that he, Webster, had a private letter from Lord Ashburton. "They will take the line of the Columbia river, and let us stretch south at the expense of Mexico."* As everything in regard to this plan could not ♦Letters and Times of the Tylers, Vol. 2, p. 261. •Adams Memoirs, Vol. 11, p. 345, etc. 88 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. be arranged satisfactorily before the adjournment of congress on March 4, the president's idea was to have congress while in session authorize him, if he should think it best, to carry out the above plan in regard to Mr. Webster after it should adjourn. As we here see the consent of Mexico was not obtained until after congress had adjourned, but Webster Avorked on for the consummation of the plan, for. al- though the senate had refused to allow the special mission to England, yet it had authorized one to China and it was not until Mr. Everett declined to go there that Mr. Webster gave up his hopes of making the Oregon treaty. Still further we read : "Mr. Webster did have a commercial treaty on hand when he left the cabinet, and he did contemplate the cession of the northwestern part of Oregon to the Columbia;" also "there was a decided difference between the president and his secretary of state, as to the extent and nature of the proposed equivalent. Webster might have looked more at the commercial features which were to be the outcome of his negotiations in England, and the president more to the landed consideration Certain it is, however, that Mr. Tyler was very encouraging in his language to Whitman, his project agreeing precisely with the views he held, as to the ultimate settlement of the question and it was partly due to the warm support and en- dorsement of the president that Whitman was enabled to land two hundred wagons in Oregon, and accomplish at once the end contemplated by Linn's bill, and without a breach of treaty."* Prof. Bourne argues that if Dr. Whitman were in Washington he did not have any influence in the ♦Letters and Times of the Tylers, Vol. 2, p. 439. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 89 matter, for he says that Webster revealed it to John Quincj Adams March 25, and about the same time or later approached General Almonte, the Mexican min- ister on the subject, which Prof. Bourne says shows that Dr. Whitman's interview if there was any, had not had the slightest effect. That they had not the slightest effect with Webster is precisely what the evidence of Dr. Geiger and others shows. Hence Webster went on with his plans. Prof. Bourne also says in connection that Dr. Whitman arrived later than March 3 but probably not so late as the 25th. The writer's opinion from the evidence is that he was there about that time. He was at Westport, Mo., February 15, and at Boston March 30, according to a memorandum of his at Boston ; he was at New York March 28, according to a letter of his, now extant, which he wrote from that place to the government in regard to some claims of W. H. Gray against the gov- ernment; and the Weekly Tribune of March 30, speaks of an interview with him. This would evi- dently place him in Washington from the 20th to the 28th of March. It was plainly after March 3, as in the letter which accompanied Dr. Whitman's pro- posed bill which was addressed to James M. Porter, secretary of war, he speaks of having been requested to prepare the bill by the secretary, and Mr. Porter was not appointed to that position until March 8. The above extracts answer plainly a statement made by those who deny that Dr. Whitman saved Oregon, namely that there was no danger of its being lost because there are no ofiflcial papers to be found 90 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. which speak of it. But here we find that there were personal conversations and private letters of great importance going on in reference to government secrets but which were not official and so never laid before congress or made public. This has always been the case with the foreign affairs of our govern- ment. Hon. George H. Williams, of Oregon, at one time attorney general of the United States, was one of the commissioners to negotiate the treaty of Wash- ington in regard to the Alabama claims. When these facts about Dr. Whitman were laid before him he said that the stor^^ was strictly reasonable; that no record is made of a treaty until negotiated and ap- proved by the president, and that cabinet officers and foreign ministers negotiate treaties for the president and congress to approve.* This being so, if a treaty had secretly been under consideration to which Web- ster had given his consent but which the president had not approved, though he was seriously thinking of doing so, and if then the promise of Dr. Whitman to take an emigration with wagons to Oregon stopped the president, no papers in reference to such treaty would probably ever be found. The above has however been found, because John Quincy Adams wormed it out of Mr. Webster during a three hours' interview, or probably it would not now be known. Mr. Adams gives this account of it under date of March 25, 1843, on which day he called on Mr. Webster; he says: *Oregoiuaii, June 1, 1895. REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE. 91 "I spoke of the senate bill for the occupation of the Oregon territory, of Captain Catesby Jones' exploit at Monterey, of the movements in and about Texas, and I suddenly asked him If Waddy Thompson [U. S. minister to Mexico] had been in- structed to negotiate for the acquisition of California. He fal- tered and said he did not know whether he could answer that question consistently with his official duty. I told him his de- clining to answer was enough for me, and we had warm and al- most — not quite angry words. I kept my temper but pressed him more closely, upon his declining to answer my question, than was comfortable to him. He had begun by professing profound confidence in me, and in communicating his own instruction to Edward Everett and Upshur's to Commodore Mat- thew C. Perry, had said he would open to me administration secrets. Why he should now stop short and roil himself up in mystery upon the plea of official duty, he did not explain . . . . . . I said I would not press him to divulge administration secrets that he was inclined to withhold, that he had volunteered the confidence of the administration secrets, and I could not see why it should be tendered on one point of the system of foreign affairs and denied on another." After some more talk on the Texas and the Mexi- can question, Mr. Adams says : "I replied with warmth till at last he told me that he had talked over the Oregon question with Lord Ashburton, [sum- mer of 1842] that England wanted to come down on the coast of the Pacific to the mouth of the Columbia river, and that the question had been put to him whether if a cession from Mexico south of our present boundary of forty-two to include the port of San Francisco could be obtained, England would make any objection to it, and Lord Ashburton thought she would not."* The remark will probably be made that this ac- •AdamB Memoirs, Vol. 11, p. 345. 92 REPLY TO PROFESSOR BOURNE.