Chapter V: Part 5

In 1859 an informal convention was entered into between the high-contracting parties by which the laws and civil officers of both nations were excluded from the territory in dispute; the islands in the meantime were to remain in the joint military occupation of the two nations. Hence, there was a British military post, and also an American military post, on San Juan Island, fully garrisoned. This informal understanding had not the dignity or force of a treaty, and was therefore binding on the courts only as a matter of policy and comity. It was binding only in the court of honor. Such being the facts, a man by the name of Charles Watts, an American citizen, foully murdered another American citizen near the military post of the United States. Watts was arrested by the Federal military authorities and held in confinement. There was a good deal of feeling and excitement over the matter. When I went to Port Townsend to hold Court, I issued a warrant, directed to the United States Marshal, to arrest said Watts and to bring him to Port Townsend for indictment and trial. He was readily delivered by the United States military authorities to the United States Marshal, and brought to Port Townsend. He was indicted by the grand jury for murder in the first degree, and tried and convicted at that term. He was sentenced by me to be hanged until he was dead. An appeal was taken from the final judgment in the case to the Supreme Court of the Territory; and, upon hearing, a majority of the Supreme Court, consisting of Judges Greene and Kennedy, reversed the judgment on the ground that the Federal side of the Court had no jurisdiction. To the general reader, it may be well to state that the Territorial Court had all the jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts of the United States, and such jurisdiction constituted what was called, the Federal side of the Court. It also had all the jurisdiction arising under the Territorial laws, and the common law suited to the conditions; and this constituted the Territorial side. Watts was indicted and tried on the Federal side of the Court, and the Supreme Court held that he ought to have been indicted and tried on the Territorial side of the Court--hence the reversal. I delivered a dissenting opinion which, as the case assumed a national importance, I give in full:

OPINION.

"As I cannot assent to the conclusion reached by the majority
of the Court in this case, I will state as briefly as possible
the conclusion of my own mind upon the question of jurisdiction
involved in the case, with my reasons therefor.

"I have come to the conclusion that the United States side of
the Court had jurisdiction, and for the following reasons:--

"1. We all agree that the phrase 'sole and exclusive
jurisdiction,' as used in the Crime Act of A. D. 1790, 1 Stat.
113, has no reference to a claim of jurisdiction made by any
foreign power, but to State and Federal jurisdiction, or, as we
are situated, to Federal, as contra-distinguished from
Territorial jurisdiction. We also agree that it is the duty of
the judiciary to extend the jurisdiction of the laws of the
United States as far as the political department of the
government extends the territorial area.

"2. In my judgment it is the duty of the courts to construe all
such conventions as that entered into between the government of
the United States and Great Britain, with reference to the
Island of San Juan, so as to avert the evil apprehended, and
sought to be prevented.

"When the convention was entered into there was imminent danger
of a conflict of arms. That danger arose from two causes--the
action of the military commanders of this department and the
enforcement of the laws of Washington Territory over the
disputed domain. The first danger was removed by a change of
commanders. The second, by the exclusion of the laws of the
Territory, and that exclusion has been enforced by the
military power of the government ever since.

"3. Was it the intention then of the high-contracting parties,
to exclude all law from San Juan Island, and to make it a
secure asylum for thieves and murderers? I think not. Possibly
there might be some ground for the recognition of the
distinction between acts _malum in se_ and _malum prohibitum_,
acts which under every law, human and divine, are criminal, and
those acts which are only criminal by virtue of some positive
statute making them such. I infer that two civilized nations
would not directly or indirectly, concur to create any such
asylum.

"It was the design, then, that some laws should exist and be
enforced on that island. That it was the design of the
government to exclude the laws of the Territory is manifest by
the proceedings of the convention and the action of the
government from the date of the convention down to the present
time. It was so understood by the military department;
acquiesced in by the other departments of the government, and
recognized as a fact by the courts of the Territory, and by the
legislature, as is evidenced by the release of the county of
Whatcom, within whose limits the island was included by a prior
act of the legislature, from the payment of all costs for the
prosecution of persons committing crime on said island.

"Whatever jurisdiction might have been claimed by the Territory
prior to the last-cited act, was virtually abandoned by it.

"The exclusion of the territorial laws since the date of the
convention has been open, manifest, and palpable, and I believe
rightful. Then, if I am correct in my conclusions, no other
laws were in force on the island for the punishment of persons
guilty of murder (not connected with the military), but the
laws of the United States. In fact, it would follow as a
logical sequence, that if the territorial laws were excluded it
would be a place 'under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of
the United States,' hence, the laws of the United States would
be operative there.

"I can see many cogent reasons why it was desirable to exclude
territorial laws and territorial officials from the island. The
territorial legislature represented but a small fraction of the
American people and was far removed from the power which was
responsible for a state of peace or war, and before measures
could be disapproved by Congress a conflict might be
precipitated. Territorial officers were not responsible,
directly at least, to the supreme power. It had no control over
their official conduct. All will agree that such control ought
to be directly with the responsible power. That could only
exist legitimately, but by the exclusion of the local
jurisdiction and the operation of the national jurisdiction,
modified by express convention or necessary implication.

"It might be very competent and very proper in the
accomplishment of the object in view, for the treaty-making
power to suspend the operations of all laws for the punishment
of offenders save in the cases where the acts were crimes, by
the universal judgment of mankind. The power to suspend or
modify must exist somewhere, or in the case of disputed
jurisdiction, there could be no treaty or conventions.

"All such conventions are founded on the mutual concessions of
the high contracting parties. After the convention has been
signed, the supreme power in our government, in order to secure
its honest and faithful execution, took possession of the
disputed Territory, segregated from its former local
jurisdiction, and administers, modifies, or suspends its own
laws by its own military or judicial agents. The supreme power
acts through its own functions and not through that of an
inferior jurisdiction. It administers its own laws so far as
such administration is not in conflict with the convention. Its
power is ample and it need not borrow from the inferior
jurisdiction.

"It can not be argued successfully that because San Juan Island
is within the limits of Washington Territory, that, therefore,
it can only be subject to its laws. Puget Sound, Admiralty
Inlet, and one-half of the Straits of Fuca are within the
territorial boundaries, but still many of the criminal laws of
the United States extend over them. Neither can the joint
possession of the United States and Great Britain effect the
question.

"The high seas are in the joint possession of all the nations,
and yet every nation punishes its own subjects for crimes
committed there. Watts is an American citizen, and the victim
of his violence was also.

"4. I am unable to convince myself that, if one general law of
the Territory went to that Island, but what all general laws
went there. That they were not and are not permitted to go
there is a fact too palpable for argument. The alternative then
is presented, either that their exclusion by force has been
rightful, or that the military department has been guilty of a
gross usurpation.

"The latter branch of the alternative ought not to be received
without the clearest and most indubitable proof of its
correctness. I am not contending for the doctrine that a
military order is absolutely conclusive upon the courts, but
it is always entitled to respectful consideration and will be
presumed lawful until the contrary is shown. Especially, should
such be the case when the order emanates from the highest
functionary of the military department, and has been long
sanctioned, at least by the acquiescence of every other
department of government.

"To have permitted all the laws of the territorial legislature
to have gone to the island would have resulted in the
nullification of the convention. It would in fact have given
the territorial legislature a veto on the treaty-making power
of the government. Could this convention have stood for a day
with the extension of the taxing power of this territory over
that island? Every one knows that it could not. If the
territorial jurisdiction extended there, it had the right to
tax the property of the inhabitants thereof for territorial and
other legitimate purposes. Taxes are not levied upon citizens,
only, but inhabitants, property-holders, residents within the
jurisdiction. The rightful exercise of such a power would have
been decisive of the controversy, or rather it would have been
exclusive of any rightful claim to controversy. Its attempted
exercise would have been resisted with all the power of Great
Britain. Reverse the circumstances and let British Columbia
attempt to extend its taxing power over that island, and our
government would resist the insult with all its military power.

"On what principle could a part of the general laws of the
Territory go to that island, and a part not? It is of the very
essence of general laws, at least, that they should be uniform
and universal. If the territorial jurisdiction extended at all,
it is complete and entire. It reaches all rightful subjects of
legislation, and is supreme within those limits.

"For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that Watts was
rightfully indicted under section 4 of the Crime Act of 1790,
which reads as follows: 'If a person or persons, within any
fort, arsenal, dockyard, magazine, or in any other place, or
district or country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction
of the United States, commit the crime of wilful murder, such
person or persons, on being thereof convicted, shall suffer
death.'

"But if there is a doubt as to whether San Juan Island was
within the Third Judicial District or not, then the last clause
of section 28 of the Crime Act of 1790 would apply, for Watts
was first brought into the Third Judicial District and
delivered to the marshal of the Territory by the order of the
Secretary of War."

Immediately after the reversal I called a special term of the Court at Port Townsend, at which Watts was re-indicted on the Territorial side of the Court, tried, and again convicted and sentenced to be hung. He again appealed to the Supreme Court, but the judgment was affirmed; he then sued out a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States, and it was allowed, and it came up for hearing while I was Delegate from the Territory. The Court was informed that Watts had escaped from jail and was at large, and the Supreme Court refused to hear his writ of error. He has never been recaptured.

After all this had transpired, the German Emperor decided that the Canal de Haro was the true boundary line under the Treaty. The British troops were withdrawn from San Juan Island, and peace and friendship prevailed.

While I have always been in favor of liberty regulated by law, and have believed that order and security were the sure resultants of law's vigorous enforcement, yet there may be times and conditions, in frontier communities, when the suspension of the general rule, like the suspension of the great writ of Habeas Corpus, may be justified in the forum of reason and morals. Especially, is this true when the furore of the populace is not based on race, or class prejudice, or the frenzy of religion, or party madness; but has only for its ultimate, the security of person, property and habitation.

Hold-ups on the streets, with pistol accompaniments, were frequent in the City of Seattle; burglaries were the regular order of business; no man was safe in the streets after nightfall; in fact, fear had become so intensified that in the visitation of one neighbor to another's house after dark, the visitant, after proper precautions, was received with pistol in hand. Such were the conditions, I am sorry to say, existing in the embryo city of Seattle in January, 1882, and such had been the conditions for several months previous to that time. The town was full of thugs and criminals. Such a situation was intolerable. During its continuance one George Reynolds, a young and popular business man, was shot down in cold blood, between seven and eight o'clock in the evening, while going down Marion Street to his place of business on Front Street, now First Avenue. He was held up by two ruffians between what are now called Third, and Fourth Avenues. His money and his other valuables were demanded by them, and upon his refusal to deliver up, he was assassinated.

I have never been a believer in Divine interposition or impulsions, but I must confess that on that fatal evening, and on a few other occasions my rationalism was somewhat shaken. My usual route from my residence on Fourth Avenue to my office on James Street was down Marion Street. On that evening, arriving at Marion Street, under the influence of some occult force, or power, I stopped, looked down Marion Street, and saw the assassins of George Reynolds standing near the west end of the block and leaning against the wall of the Stacy premises. Impelled by this mysterious force, I involuntarily went on to Columbia Street, and, when nearly opposite on the block to the south, heard the report of the shot that ended the life of Reynolds. Soon after I arrived at my office, I was informed that Reynolds had been shot and that he was dying; that many citizens were assembling at the engine-house, and that my attendance was requested. I accompanied my informant to the engine-house and found there assembled from seventy to a hundred men, greatly excited and determined. We quickly formed ourselves into a Committee of Ways and Means, and resolved to spare no expense, nor to omit any means for the apprehension and punishment of the guilty parties. I was elected Chairman of that meeting. We also immediately sent out twenty-five armed men to patrol the streets leading out of town, and to guard, in boats, the water front. We soon after added to the patrol twenty-five more men; soon after, fifty more; and within an hour-and-one-half after the firing of the fatal shot, we had at least one hundred armed men, and detectives in the field, besides the active, vigilant, willing and intelligent regular police-force of the town. In addition, a select committee, headed by the Honorable William H. White, was appointed to investigate the circumstances of the shooting, and to ascertain, as nearly as possible, the facts and circumstances identifying the guilty parties. I remained in the engine-house until after one o'clock, listening to the reports, made by patrolmen concerning suspicious characters, which were summarily examined and in most cases were dismissed as unfounded; but in a few cases the order was made to keep these suspects under strict surveillance, awaiting further developments. Between one and two o'clock a. m. the report came in that the guilty parties had been arrested, delivered to the sheriff and by him locked up in the County jail. They had been found concealed under bales of hay on Harrington's wharf. One had in his possession a pistol, but recently discharged. There were two of them. The news of their capture spread like wildfire. The patrolmen and other citizens came rushing in to the engine-house; and when the captors gave an account of their success, they were angrily asked, why they had delivered them to the sheriff, and why they had not brought them to the engine-house? The question was ominous. They were told that the captives were in the proper custody; and they were asked what they wanted the captives brought to the engine-house for? The reply was, that they wanted to look at them. This was still more ominous. I saw that so firm was the conviction that the parties arrested and in the rightful custody of the sheriff, were the guilty parties, that if the populace could get hold of them they would be strung up, without examination or trial. To this threatened act I was opposed, and I left the meeting and went down to my office. The light was still burning in the front room; I extinguished it, and, leaving the front door unlocked, went to the rear or consultation-room, locked the door and sat in a chair to meditate in the darkness on the situation, or condition of affairs. I had not been there long before two persons whom I recognized by their voices came into the front room and called me by name. I did not answer. They then came to the door of the consultation-room, rapped on the door, called me by my name and gave their own names. I finally admitted them. They told me that they had just left the crowd at the engine-house, and that the determination was fast approaching unity, and, if its culmination was not prevented, the captured men would be taken out of the jail and hung that night. They thought that I might prevent such an unnecessary and unwarranted ending of our grand and successful work. Knowing that the sheriff was a man of nerve and courage, and fearless in the discharge of his official duty I dreaded the result of such an undertaking, and I finally consented to go.

Upon arriving at the engine-house I found it filled by an excited yet joyous crowd. I made my way through this crowd to the rear of the large assembly-room, and while working my way through, received something of an ovation. While yet standing, someone said: "Judge, we thought you had thrown off on us." "Never," I replied. "But to illustrate my position," I said, "let me tell a story: Three negroes, passionately fond of hunting, and whose ambition in that regard was not fully satisfied by the capture of deer, turkey and quail in their native State, decided on a hunting-trip in the Rocky Mountains, to add the capture of larger and more dangerous game to their trophies. Being fully equipped, they bought tickets for a recommended point in the mountains. Arriving there, they left the train and went up into the dark woods, the sunless canyon, the silent coves and snow-crowned mountains, where the denizens of the wild were supposed to dwell. On the second day of their camping-trip, they came upon a large grizzly bear in a mountain cove. They fired at the grizzly and wounded him. Then the scene changed, and the bear commenced to hunt them fiercely. Two of them succeeded in climbing trees, but were unable to take their guns up with them. Sam, the other, was pushed so closely that he was unable to tree. He ran in a circle, with the bear in close and hot pursuit. His companions, safely perched in their tree, halloed to him to run. 'Sam, for God's sake, run.' One of the companions slipped down from the tree and, as Sam and the bear approached him, made a successful shot and finished the race so far as bruin was concerned. Sam, as soon as he could get his breath, says: 'What did you niggers mean by crying out to me, run Sam, for God's sake, run? did you suppose I was such an enormous fool as to throw off on that race?'" I told two more of the most ludicrous and laughable stories that I could think of; the object being manifest: I wanted time for the sober second thought to assert itself. I continued somewhat thus: "Are you afraid that the sheriff will send away the prisoners tonight, or that they will escape? If so, that can be prevented by sending twenty-five or fifty, or if you please, one hundred men, to keep watch and guard until nine o'clock tomorrow morning, when the justice has promised me to hold a public examination of the prisoners in the Pavilion, where all may come and see them and hear the examination." The Honorable William H. White, who was present, made a clear, earnest and forcible speech in favor of the proposition, and it was carried by a good majority.

The Pavilion was on the Southeast corner of Front and Cherry Streets. It was used as a church, as a Court House, as a theater, and for all public meetings. It was over a hundred feet in length and about thirty feet in width. Its entrance was from Front Street.

At the appointed time Justice Samuel Coombs was in his seat and the prisoners were present. They both pleaded not guilty. Honorable William H. White and myself acted as prosecuting attorneys. A Mr. Holcomb, a lawyer of good standing and ability, appeared for the prisoners and sharply cross-examined the witnesses sworn on the part of the Territory. The Pavilion was full of spectators, among them was his Honor Roger S. Greene, the then Chief Justice of the Territory. When the evidence was all in, the Territory waived its opening, but the prisoners' counsel made a brief argument in their behalf. The Territory waived its right to reply. During the progress of the examination, the windows in the rear of the Pavilion had been quietly removed.

The Justice, after a few moments of reflection, declared that the evidence of the prisoners' guilt was clear and convincing beyond a reasonable doubt, and the order of the Court was, that they be held for trial without bail. When the Justice had ceased speaking, someone--I have never learned who it was--slapped his hands together three or four times; and that immense audience rushed with one accord to the open windows in the rear, taking the prisoners along with them. Judge Greene, at first, seemed dazed by this sudden rush, but in a short time he started to follow the crowd. A man standing near seized him as he attempted to go, pulled down the theater curtain, threw it over the Judge's head, and securely held him until the crowd was nearly all out of the building, whereupon James McNaught quietly said: "Let him go." The Judge quickly rushed out of the building and down the alley to where the hanging was taking place. He seized one of the ropes and attempted to cut it, but he was soon hustled out of the crowd. Governor Elisha P. Ferry then advised him, as he could do nothing, to go home. This he did. The man who had thrown the theater-curtain over the Judge's head was asked why he did so; his answer was, that Justice ought to be blind, on such an occasion especially.

There were on the north side of James Street two large-sized maple shade trees standing eight or ten feet apart. It was in these trees that a strong scantling had been placed, to which the prisoners were hung. As soon as the two men had been swung up, someone in the crowd cried out: "Our work is not yet completed; let us hang the murderer of old man Sires to the same scantling." The idea was immediately seconded, and about one-half of the crowd went up to the County jail, broke down its doors, took the murderer who was awaiting his trial, put a rope about his neck and quickly returned with him to the fatal scantling. The rope was thrown over it, and he was swung into eternity.

I left the Pavilion soon after the crowd had retired, and walked slowly down to James Street. I arrived there just as the crowd was running down the hill with the murderer of Sires. A gentleman rushed up to me as I was slowly walking across James Street and said: "Judge, how do you feel about this proceeding?" I answered: "As a member of Judge Greene's Court, I feel terribly indignant; but as a private citizen, I think that I will recover."

Sires, who had been killed about a month before by a ruffian of the name of Payne, was an aged pioneer. His life for many years had been a rough one, and slightly bordering on toughness; but he had reformed and joined the church; and as he was a man of good ability, he occasionally preached. Confidence in his sincerity and genuine reform was general. He was poor, and, to aid in his support, he was given the office of policeman. While in the discharge of his duties as such, he was shot down by Payne. There was no doubt of Payne's guilt.

A coronor's jury on the hanging was summoned. Of this body I was a member and its foreman. We examined, I think, twelve witnesses. They all testified that John Doe and Richard Roe and Payne came to their death by hanging. Who were present, aiding, or abetting, or counselling, or advising, or actually doing the said hanging, or in any manner participating in the same, they all swore that they did not know. Finding that other and further investigation would be futile, we ceased taking testimony and joined in a verdict embodying what has been stated, with the addition that while we regretted the mode of their taking-off, yet we were certain in the death of the prisoners that the Territory had lost no desirable citizens, and Heaven had gained no subjects.

Court convened in a few days and Judge Greene gave the grand jury a well-prepared, able and elaborate charge, stating that everyone who participated in, or counselled, or advised, or actually performed the acts resulting in the death of these three men was at least guilty of manslaughter. He earnestly urged the grand jury to fearlessly investigate the matter, and if they were convinced that any person participated in the hanging of the three persons in any way spoken of by him, they ought to find indictments accordingly. Everybody honored the Judge for the faithful, fearless and full discharge of his duty in the matter; but his brave charge resulted in nothing. Thus ended the second, most tragic event in the history of the City of Seattle.

Whatever we may think of the mode of the taking-off of these three men, everyone admits that the result was beneficial. Security in person, property and habitation was again enjoyed. The criminal classes silently left the town, and peace and order reigned.

Chinese Riots

The next tragic chapter in the history of Seattle occured in the winter of 1886, and is known as the Chinese Riots. It is not my purpose to give a detailed statement of either the cause or the facts attending them. They had no substantial cause. They sprang from race prejudice and political madness. There had been no actual or threatened invasion by the Chinamen, of the rights of persons, or of property, or of personal security. In fact, the Chinamen were a quiet and peaceable folk, engaged in the more humble occupations of life. They did not interfere in politics, or in the social or civic concerns of society. In numbers they were a small body as compared with the dominant race. In these circumstances it was resolved by quite a large but irresponsible faction that the Chinese must go; and a notice was served upon them fixing the time of their required departure. They paid no attention to it, but continued in their peaceful avocations. At the appointed time, a large committee--headed, I am sorry to say, by two lawyers who were backed up by promise of support of their fellow conspirators--went to the Chinese quarters, and, with threat of the use of force if they did not obey, compelled them to pack up their portable effects and to go to a designated wharf where they could go aboard of a steamer bound for San Francisco. There was a strong line of assistants to speed their progress to the wharf, and to guard them after their arrival there. Many thus, were deported. The Courts soon interfered. Writs of Habeas Corpus were granted to the Chinamen, and, no cause for their restraint appearing, they were discharged. His Excellency, Governor Watson C. Squire, being in town, ordered out the Militia, which under the command of the bold and fearless Col. J. C. Haines, who was ably assisted by General E. M. Carr and others, did effective work. The _posse comitatus_ was also summoned, and it quickly responded. In the afternoon of that fatal day a conflict occurred between the opposing forces near the Old New England Hotel; shots were fired by both parties, and two of the rioters were seriously wounded. The flow of blood seemed to have a cooling effect on the rioters, and they slowly departed for their homes, disappointed, defeated in their purpose, and with smothered feelings of vengeance.

The Governor, wisely considering the actual and threatened danger existing, proclaimed martial law, suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus until further orders, and by telegraph requested the President of the United States to send a Federal military force adequate to preserve order, to vindicate the supremacy of the treaties of the United States and the honor of the Government. That military force soon appeared under the command of General Gibbons, and for two weeks or more the town was under martial law. Peace and order having been restored, and the sober second thought having asserted its dominion, the troops were withdrawn and all was well. Thus ended the third chapter of tragedy in the history of the town (now City) of Seattle.

Battle at Seattle

After my arrival in Seattle in the summer of 1869, I became much interested in Seattle's local history. I had known and read of the Indian war of 1855-6, and of the attack on the town of Seattle by the Indians on January 16th, 1856, in which two white men were killed; but of the details of that attack, and of the ensuing battle, I knew nothing. I wrote to Lieutenant Phelps, who was an officer on the warship "Decatur" at the time, and who had written and published an account of the battle, to send me his pamphlet containing such descriptive account, and he promptly and courteously complied with my request. In addition to that official statement, I obtained from many of the leading residents at the time further details, facts and information hereinafter stated.

I ought possibly to state that at the request of Hillory Butler, a dear friend and pioneer, who was present and participated in the fight, I wrote his biography, from which the following is taken. Further to understand the situation, it ought to be remembered that the side-hill fronting the bay from the east line of Second Street (now Avenue) eastward was a dense copse of fern and brush, logs and tree tops, as well as standing timber to the top of the ridge and beyond, affording an excellent cover, or ambuscade for the Indians.

"In the fall of 1855 the Indian tribes east of the mountains
became hostile. A small force under Major Haller was sent into
the Yakima country to reduce the hostiles to subjection. This
force was defeated and driven back to The Dalles. This but
aggravated the discontent of the Indians and well-nigh
precipitated a general uprising. A feeling of dread and
insecurity among the settlers was everywhere present. As
precautionary measures, block-houses were built and stockades
constructed, in many cases none too soon. A block-house was
built in Seattle near where the Boyd building now stands.
Hostile emisseries were known to be at work among the Puget
Sound tribes. Some of the tribes were known to be wavering in
their allegiance to the whites and many individuals of all these
tribes had joined the ranks of the hostiles. The people of
Seattle, however, felt quite secure for the 'Decatur,' a
thirty-gun United States war-ship, under the command of Capt.
Gansworth, lay at anchor in the harbor. Her crew consisted of
150 men. There was aboard of her also a company of marines,
under the immediate command of Lieut. Morris. Notwithstanding
all this, the evidence of an impending attack, became from day
to day more convincing to those who calmly studied the
situation, and had an accurate knowledge of the Indian
character. They were, however, the few; the large majority were
unbelievers, and the block-house was tenantless. On the morning
of the 7th day of February, 1856, friendly Indians brought the
dire intelligence that the town was entirely surrounded with a
force of from five to eight hundred hostile Indians, under the
command of Leschi, and other hostile chiefs. Even then, no other
attention was paid to this startling information than the
sending word to the commander of the 'Decatur.' He, however,
immediately acted on the information and sent Lieut. Morris,
with the company of marines and one of the ship's guns, to the
shore. They landed on the point a short distance south of where
the New England Hotel now stands. It was about seven o'clock in
the morning. Not an Indian was to be seen. All work had ceased.
Silence reigned supreme. Men, women and children quietly went to
the block-house, or stood in the door-way, or beside their
cabins, watching the movement of the soldiers. Lieut. Morris
loaded his cannon with a shell and directed aim to be taken at
an abandoned cabin, situate on the point a short distance beyond
where the gas works now are. The aim was accurate. The shell
struck the cabin, exploded, and demolished it. That shot of
defiance was immediately answered by the Indians, by a volley
from, three to five hundred rifles. Then followed a general
stampede of men, women and children for the block-house or the
friendly protection of the shore bank--and had it not been for
the fact, that the rifles in the hands of the Indians had been
generally emptied by the first volley, many of the inhabitants
would have fallen on their way to the sheltering bank or
block-house. The Indians were here, and skepticism was at an
end. The smoke from the rifles indicated clearly that the front
line held by the Indians extended along where Third Street or
Avenue now is until Marion Street was past, where it curved
towards the bay. It was a complete semi-circle, and every part
of the then town was within easy rifle range, from said line.

"The 'Decatur' opened with solid shot and shells--alternating
with canister and grape. All day long the roar of the Decatur's
cannon continued. The ground beyond Third Street was torn up by
exploding shells--huge logs and trees were splintered by solid
shot--and seemingly every space covered by showers of grape and
canister, but still Leschi's warriors held their lines. They
kept up a desultory firing all day and continued the same until
about midnight, when they withdrew as noiselessly as they came.
Three whites were killed during the day--Young Holgate was
struck by a bullet between the eyes, while he was standing in
the block-house door, and was instantly killed. The others were
killed in the attempt to go, or return from their cabins. Every
house was struck by Indian bullets. Strange to say, no one was
hit by the first general volley fired by the Indians. How many
Indians, if any were killed or wounded, during the fight, has
never been known.

"When the first gun was fired Mr. Butler and his wife were just
sitting down to breakfast. They both jumped from the table and
went to the door. The bullets from the answering volley struck
all around them. Mrs. Butler hastened to the block-house and
safely reached it. Butler gathered up a few valuables and
followed in a short time. He, however, sought the friendly
protection of logs and stumps, for the Indian rifles were now
reloaded and the closeness of the whizzing bullets indicated
that the Indians were watching his stealthy flight. He returned
to his house in the same manner during the day for some portable
valuables. While there, he went up stairs, but the bullets were
rattling around in a manner a little too spiteful and plentiful,
and he did not stay long. Those of the men who had rifles, took
positions behind some protecting log or friendly stump, and
fired at the spot where the puff of a rifle indicated an Indian
warrior concealed. Whether these shots were effective or not, is
unknown--they often caused a cessation of firing from that
ambuscade. As full of terror as were the events of that February
day, the duration of its effect on the minds of the pioneer
settlers of the embryo city was but brief. It was but a
thrilling passage in the unwritten history of pioneer life.
After the roar of the Decatur's cannon and the sharp crack of
the rifle had ceased, all returned to cabins and homes, and
soundly slept and sweetly dreamed of the good time coming. Such
is pioneer life, and such the mental conditions, and characters
it begets. Still we cannot disguise the fact that had it not
been for the presence of the war-ship Decatur, with her
complement of guns and fighting men, the town would have been
plundered and burned, and its inhabitants would have perished in
a terrible massacre.

"During that fated morning Chief Seattle with many of his tribe
lay under the cover of the friendly shore-banks, silent and
stolid spectators of the raging battle. During a lull in the
firing, he, to the astonishment of all, leaped upon the bank and
with arms flying, and voice roaring defiance, commenced a
bending, bounding and contortion war-dance of the most
intensified order. The hostiles quickly got the range, but as
soon as the bullets commenced to sing around him in dangerous
proximity, Seattle's feet flashed in air as he made a headlong
plunge down the bank. Seattle's war-dance was over, and he
attempted no repetition of the performance on that gloomy day.
Many who witnessed this strange performance supposed that the
old chieftain had received a mortal shot, but he had escaped
without a scratch.

"The Indians, in giving an account afterwards, of the firing
from the ship, said that they were not afraid of the solid shot
and grape and canister, but the guns that 'poohed' (or shot)
twice were a mystery and terror to them. This was their
description of the firing and explosion of shells.

"This was in harmony with the idea of the Indians on the plains
in their first intercourse with the immigrants. The first
immigrants' trains had with them mountain howitzers mounted on
strong gun carriages. The Indians spoke of the Bostons as a
tribe of men who could shoot their wagons at them.

"A kindred idea was entertained by the Mexicans, of the
Spaniards when Cortez first invaded Mexico. The Mexican had no
written, but a pictorial language. The Spaniard on his horse was
pictured as one animal with two heads, four legs and two arms.
This was the description which the correspondents of those days
first sent to the Halls of Montezuma for the inspection of an
affrighted monarch.

"We have already stated that during the battle a large number of
shells fell upon the benches between Third Street and the bluff
beyond. Most of them exploded when they struck the ground, or a
log, or a tree. Some of them, however, did not, but buried
themselves in the earth or under the roots of huge trees,
retaining all their latent forces. It is said that our friend
Dextor Horton on one of his tours of inspection of the
improvements going on in his loved city one chilly day, passed
by the lots on which Mr. Colman's fine residence now stands.
Noticing a crater of fire burning in the center of a mammoth
cedar stump, he drew near to it to enjoy the genial heat. As is
always characteristic of man, he turned his back to the fire,
parted his coat tails, and was comfortable. As the day,
although cold, was clear and the bright waters of the Sound were
before him--the dark forests beyond and still beyond, the
Olympic Range with its ragged ridges then snow-crowned--as he
was drinking in this scene of beauty and grandeur, lo! a
terrific explosion occurred. Impelled by the impetus of the
explosion he made a quick start and very fast time, for a short
distance. Convinced, however, that the shooting was over, he
stopped and turned to see what had happened. The stump was gone,
the fire extinguished, and he left with the mournful remark,
that he had no idea the durn stump was loaded."

My Religious Belief

I believe in that system of religion which produces, in its practical operation, the best man and the best woman, the best husbands and the best wives, the best fathers and the best mothers, the most affectionate and obedient children, and the more honest and patriotic citizens and public functionaries. I care not what you may call it; by its fruit or practical results it should be judged. This is the Bible rule, and it is eminently practical and just.

I further believe in the existence of an allwise Creator of all things--the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. I do not believe in him as a Supreme Ruler located at some distant point in an immense Universe, but as an omnipresent God.

I believe in the immortality of man--not of his physical nature, but of that divine emanation breathed into the nostrils of man by his Creater that made him a living soul. It was an emanation from God and cannot die.

I do not intend to state more than one reason among many for my belief in the existence of God; but the immortality of man, founded on reason, outside of the Scriptural declarations, I shall present more elaborately.

When I take a survey of the Universe and find all things running in the rhythm of order and harmony, I ask myself the question: What is it that produces this universal order and harmony? No answer can be given other than that it is the result of law. Now, we can have no more conception of law outside of a lawmaker, than we can have of an agent without a principal or an agency. Law and lawmaker, as well as agent and principal, are inseparably interlocked. The one cannot exist without the other. Therefore since we must admit the existence of law, the existence of a lawmaker is a necessary logical sequence: that lawmaker, is God. As to the immortality of the soul, I offer the following reason, founded principally on grounds outside of the Bible's declaration of the fact.

Ever since the poetic Job uttered the profound question, "If a man die shall he live again?" the inquiry has been ringing down the pathway of time with increasing interest. Man's immortality is usually proven by the declarations of the Bible, which are supposed to reveal it as an ultimate truth. The immortality of the soul is susceptable not of demonstration, but of reasonable proof by reason itself. If we concede the existence of God with the attributes usually ascribable to such a being, and which He must necessarily possess in order to be God, such as infinite wisdom, goodness and Almighty power, and if we concede further that He is the Creator of man, man's immortality results as a logical sequence from such concessions. The desire of immortality, if not universal among all conditions of men, at least approaches universality. This universal desire may be called an innate property, or attribute of man's moral constitution implanted in him by his Creator. It can not be true that a being with the attributes which we ascribe to God, could create man with such a desire, to tantalize him through life, and to disappoint him in death. Consider the fact that nowhere in nature, from the highest to the lowest, was an instinct, an impulse, a desire implanted, but that ultimately were found the conditions and opportunities for its fullest realization. Consider the wild fowl that, moved by some mysterious impulse, start on their prodigious migrations from the frozen fens of the Pole and reach at last the shining South and summer seas; the fish that from tropic gulfs seek their spawning-grounds in the cool, bright rivers of the North; the bees that find in the garniture of fields and forests the treasure with which they store their cells; and even the wolf, the lion, and the tiger that are provided with their prey. Look in this connection to the brevity of life; its incompleteness; its aimless, random, and fragmentary carreers; tragedies; its injustices; its sorrows and separations. Then consider the insatiable hunger for knowledge; the efforts of the unconquerable mind to penetrate the mysteries of the future; its capacity to comprehend infinity and eternity; its desire for the companionship of the departed; its unquenchable aspirations for immortality--and let me ask: "Why should God keep faith with the beast, the bee, the fish, and the fowl, and cheat only man?" But the logical sequence from the concessions mentioned above is not the argument in proof of man's immortality which I desire to present.

The account of the creation of man as given in the Bible is remarkable for its statement of the distinguishing difference between man and the rest of creation. When man was created, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. He created the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, the fishes in the sea and the creeping things on the earth, but none of these became living souls. This language, whether inspired or not, states the difference which now exists and which has ever existed between man and the other created things. What do we understand by soul? By soul is meant the power to think, to reflect, and to judge of the moral quality of actions and thoughts. Let me take the sceptic's standard of what we should believe, and what we should not believe; that is, we ought not to believe that of which we have no evidence, and for which we can give no satisfactory reason. I proceed by a process of elimination, as will be readily seen. My first proposition, interrogatively stated, is this. Is the power to think and reflect and to judge of the moral quality of thoughts and actions, a property of matter or not? If it is a property of matter, then the sands and rocks and the earth think and reflect and judge of the moral quality of actions and thoughts; but we have no reason to believe that sand, or rock, or earth thinks, or that either possesses the ability to judge of the moral quality of actions or thoughts; hence we ought not to believe it. Thus we see that the general proposition is not true, and ought not to be believed.

Secondly--Is thought and the power to judge of the moral qualities of thoughts and actions a property of organized matter? The grass and shrubs and trees are organized matter; but we have no reason to believe, and no evidence upon which such a belief can be founded, that the grass, or trees, or shrubs think, or possess any power to judge of the moral quality of things; therefore, according to the standard which we have adopted, we ought not to believe it; hence the more limited proposition is not true.

Thirdly--Is the power to think, to reflect and to judge of the moral quality of actions and thoughts a property of animal organization? If it be, clams and oysters as animal organizations think; possess the power to reflect and to judge of the moral quality of thoughts and actions, but we have no evidence that they possess any of these powers, and consequently we ought not to believe it.

Fourthly--Are the powers we have been considering essential to the existence of soul-life, possessed by the higher animal organizations, such as lions and tigers and domestic animals?

Here an important distinction must be noted. There is a thing, universally recognized as existing, called instinct. All of the actions of animals and many of the actions of human beings spring from instinct. Instinct was given for self-preservation and defense. It is a sort of semi-intellect, and sometimes in the perfection of its action is equal to the highest development of soul-power; for instance, the action of a bee, purely the result of instinct, in the economy of space in the fitness of all its contrivances in making the comb, is wonderful; no improvement can be made upon it by the highest development of inventive genius. How does instinct act as contra distinguished from actions based upon the exercise of soul-power? Instinct acts in a straight or direct line with its object. As an illustration,--a tiger is hungry, a man is hungry; the tiger sees a lamb--the man sees a loaf of bread in the baker's window; both, left to the impulse of instinct, would go directly to the object desired by each; the man, although cruelly hungry, as he approaches the object of his desires, says to himself, "This bread does not belong to me; it is the property of another, and I have no right to take it without his consent." Here we see, in the case of the man, a soul-power acting at right angles with the impulse of instinct and controlling and governing the action of the man. It is only when men are controlled by soul-power, as against instinct, that they really are men in the higher sense of the term.

With this principle thus briefly stated, and carefully separating the actions of men as well as animals springing from instinct from the actions of men springing from the soul-power, we are prepared to make the declaration that the tiger is incapable of acting on the considerations that influenced the action of the man; the rightfulness or wrongfulness of his act in seizing the lamb did not, nor could it enter at all into his action; he was affected by no consideration of right or wrong, and indeed could not be; hence we are prepared for the conclusion that the power to think, to reflect and to judge of the moral quality of acts and thoughts, is not possessed by the higher animal organization, or, in other words, that they have no soul such as we have defined it. Having thus briefly shown by a process of elimination that man alone possesses the power that we have described as soul-power, we have established the first part of our argument.