Page:Oregon Historical Quarterly vol. 5.djvu/294

 in the excitement of the moment, may have mistaken the date. That there was a mistake in the date of Mr. Hinman's letter, as given by the historian, is quite certain.

Would an impartial historian have made so gross a mistake as this against any man of respectable standing, whom he accused of the most atrocious crime? Would he have seized upon this discrepancy in dates as evidence, without careful investigation? An impartial historian will put himself on the side of the accused when weighing and scrutinizing testimony, however guilty he may think him to be. He will not form an opinion that the accused is guilty unless he, the impartial historian, thinks the good and legitimate evidence amply sufficient; and therefore, in his view, he need not rely, even in part, upon false testimony; and he will be the more cautious and careful, in proportion to the gravity of the crime charged. The massacre being a most noted event, and its date being Monday, November 29, and Mr. Hinman's letter December 4, it was easy to see that the latter day was Saturday. But the historian "was so much prejudiced that he took no pains to find out the truth."

It seems that a public meeting was held in Oregon on the 18th of February, 1841, at which a committee of nine persons was chosen "to form a constitution and draft a code of laws;" and that the Rev. F. N. Blanchet was one of this committee. At an adjourned meeting, June 11, 1841, the historian says:

"His Jesuitical Reverence, F. N. Blanchet,, was excused from serving on the committee, at his own request. The settlers and uninitiated were informed by his reverence that he was unaccustomed to make laws for the people, and did not understand how to proceed; while divide and conquer, the policy adopted by the Hudson's Bay Company, was entered into with heart and soul by this Reverend Father Blanchet and his associates. (Pages 199, 200 and 202.)"

Now, with regard to the question of motive, why should the historian apply derisive epithets to the accused at any stage of the inquiry, and more especially before the author