51
came to the coast in 1835, and with whom Dr. Whitman consulted while on his way to Washington; Rev. William Barrows, D.D., of Massachusetts, who met Dr. Whitman in St. Louis in 1843. In addition to their evidence I found, last summer, among the papers left by Rev. H. H. Spalding, a letter from Edward Hale, a dentist, to Mr. Spalding. Mr. Hale's letter was dated at North Cornwall, Conn., July 19, 1871, when he was seventy years old. He says: "1 had the pleasure of entertaining Dr. Whitman at St. Louis on his last visit eastward to confer with the President and heads of department in relation to the settlement of the northeast boundary question with Great Britain by bartering away for a song the whole of the northwestern Pacific territory. Also on his return to Oregon my house was [his] home while in St. Louis." All of these eleven persons say that Dr. Whitman went East with a political intent to save the country, while Governor Evans says he did not.
It is certainly very strange that these eleven persons should conspire together to impose the story on the public; some of whom have never seen each other, and others of whom said to me they had no idea of the testimony of others until I informed them of it. I doubt whether any of those witnesses now living have ever heard of Mr. Hale before this. If they had concocted the story they would certainly have arranged so that their stories should at least wholly agree—but as it is, one person brings up an item of which the others never heard, as for instance Mr. Hinman's story about Dr. Whitman's interview with Horace Greely on the subject, while in some minor matters, Mr. Spalding, Mr. Gray and Dr. Eells fail to agree. Is it not more strange that these persons should have concocted the story than that Dr. Whitman should have gone East with political as well as missionary intent? Neither have I ever been able to see how this should impugn Mr. Webster's patriotism and character, but only his knowledge; and no man can know everything. In 1844 the renowned lawyer, Mr. Choate, spoke in the senate about "equivalents for Oregon," but his character and patriotism are not impeached. Neither is that of Mr. Dayton, who, February 23 and 24, 1844, gave as bad a description of Oregon as the most one-sided Englishman. The fact is, but very few of us have understood the full value of this country. Old residents have been astonished to see how the sage-brush land of the inland empire has developed. Hence it is not strange if Mr. Webster did not understand its value.
