57
sey to contradict his former statement as to the identity of Dr. Whitman. One thing, however, Mr. Evans tells us that he did write to Mr. Ramsey, viz., the question "Whether he saw at Washington City in the month of March, 1843, Dr. Marcus Whitman." Mr. Ramsey replied: "As I wrote you before, I have a strong impression that I saw Dr. Whitman at Washington, and that we were made acquainted with each other by Joshua R. Giddings. It is barely possible that instead of being Dr. Whitman himself, it may have been some one else connected with the Oregon mission. I have a strong impression that after the massacre we, in our regrets, commented upon our recollections of the doctor and his party. It is possible that Mr. Tilden may have some recollection of the matter, and I would have you write him." Accordingly, Mr. Evans wrote, and Mr. Tilden replied: "Your letter of the 15th inst. is received, and I regret to say I have no recollection of the gentleman to whom you refer. I concluded from your letter that Dr. Whitman was a clergyman. Many of these made calls upon Mr. Giddings, but I am not able to recall the names of any of them. I was not in Washington in the spring of 1843, and not until the assembling of Congress in December of that year." Now, were we trying the question of fact in court as to whether or not Dr. Whitman was in Washington in the spring of 1843, I would rest the case on these three letters introduced by Mr. Evans and let the jury say on which side was the preponderance of evidence. Because Mr. Tilden can not recall the names of any of the clergymen whom he saw in Washington, Mr. Evans seems to argue that this fact strengthens his assumption that neither Mr. Tilden nor Mr. Ramsey has identified Dr. Whitman. But Mr. Tilden says that he was not in Washington in the spring of 1843. Does not that strike you, Mr. Evans, as a good and sufficient reason why he can not say that he saw Dr. Whitman there at that time? Mr. Ramsey affirms and reaffirms with as much certainty as could be expected of any man, his belief that he saw Dr. Whitman in Washington. There are few men who could, under the circumstances, after the lapse of thirty-nine years, speak more positively as to the identity of a comparative stranger. Mr. Ramsey has left yet better marks by which to identify the missionary whom he met in Washington, when he says he recollects lamenting the death of the man whom he met there, when he heard of the massacre. The mascre occurred less than five years after the time that Dr. Whitman is claimed to have been in Washington, and Mr. Ramsey recollects,
