Page:The Whitman Controversy.pdf/73

 From all testimony, I conclude that the statement of Rev. Crushing Eells is true in every respect; that the special meeting of September, 1842, was called, and did, by its vote, approve of Doctor Whitman's proposed journey, for the purposes mentioned in what Mr. Evans calls the "immense afterthought."

I conclude that the accounts of Messrs. Gray, Spalding, Atkinson, and others, are true in their main features, but shall not complain if the historian shall prune them of the "taunting jeer," and other like I sights of fancy which have been added to "adorn a tale." After this shall have been done, the "romantic fabler "will show about this state of facts: That after the meeting in September had been held, and while Messrs. Eells and Walker had gone 1 home, Dr. Whitman went to Fort Walla Walla, and there learned what caused him—not to determine to go to Washington—but that which caused him to hasten his departure by two days. With regard to the whereabouts of Messrs. Eells and Walker, at the time of this visit of Dr. Whitman to the fort, Mr. W. H. Gray writes: "They had returned (to their mission) and Dr. Whitman was making his arrangements to leave at the appointed time." A sentence from Rev. C. Eell's statement strengthens this view of the case, when he says: "It is possible that transpirings at old Fort Walla Walla hastened his departure two days."

The fact that so many witnesses, giving details of events that have transpired forty years ago, tell them in different language, or with immaterial variation as to main facts, does not impeach these witnesses. It only proves that each has told the story in his own language, and that there has been no collusion between them as to the story they should tell. While I have never doubted Daniel Webster's patriotism, or his wisdom, a quotation from a speech made by him in the Senate three years after Dr. Whitman's visit, proves that he had not yet monopolized all of the latter commodity. In speaking of a little river (a creek compared with the Columbia) down in New Brunswick, called the St. John, he says: "We have heard a vast deal lately of the value and importance of the river Columbia and its navigation; but I will undertake to say that for all purposes of human use the St. John is worth a hundred times as much as the Columbia is, or ever will be."

So I arrive at the final conclusion, that the statements of Dr. Whitman concerning the worth of this country, were of as much more value than those of Mr. Webster as are the statements of Mr. Eells concerning early events in this country than those of the Hon. Elwood Evans.