goldfields

In the last post I published a letter from the Themis of December 21, 1889, in which John Bidwell writes “You ask if I can throw any light on the killing of “The White Horse?””

So, who or what was “The White Horse”? What happened to him? In the November 23, 1889 issue of Themis the incident is described. The letters “k” and “q” refer to the map of the fort. The room designated “k” was formerly a granary and is now, I think, where the Sutter’s Fort Trade Post (gift shop) is located. “q” is the open spot on the north side by the slough, where “White Horse” was killed.

The White Horse Story

“k” Room on west side of fort, next north of blacksmith. 40 x 17, was from 1842 to the fall of 1848 used by Sutter as a storehouse for wheat in bulk.

In the fall of 1848 it was rented to James Cary, and he fitted it up as a boarding-house. In this house was held a celebrated trial, the circumstances of which are worthy to be recorded. We get them from an eyewitness.

Late in October or early in November, 1848, a resident of the fort, an immigrant from Oregon, known to our informant only by the name of “The White Horse,” undertook to fence in an open space in the fort shown in diagram, and marked q.  C. E. Picket, also a resident at the fort, and since a well-known character in the State, claimed the open space, and, taking the law into his own hands, knocked down the fence put up by the other. “White Horse” started to rebuild his fence and Picket interfered, an altercation occurred, and Picket shot and killed his antagonist. There were then some 200 white men at the fort. There was a man at the fort named Tanner who was there acting as sheriff by appointment of Captain Sutter. He took Picket in charge, detaining him as a prisoner. Picket refused to submit, but Tanner was a stalwart, courageous officer, fitted for his place, and he disarmed his prisoner and compelled him to submit.

The white people at the fort had some knowledge of common law proceedings and determined that Picket should be tried for murder. Accordingly, they assembled in room marked k on plat and proceeded to elect by ballot a judge to sit at the trial. Sutter had some votes for that responsible position, but a large majority voted for Sam Brannan and he took his seat on the bench. A jury of eight was empanelled to try the case. Our informant can only remember the names of three of them: Thomas Shaddon, Martin Murphy and John Ames.

Picket plead his own case, and Brannan acted as Judge Advocate.  The trial came off the afternoon of the day of the killing. Picket insisted that he was an American citizen and, as such, entitled to bear arms, and Brannan decided that his two revolvers should be returned to him, and they were placed on the table during the trial. Picket was very nervous during the trial, as the Court, including the jury, were mainly strangers, and he was not wholly without fault.  Brannan charged the jury that this was a country governed by law and that breaches of the law should be punished. But he said if the jury found the prisoner guilty and determined to punish by imprisonment, there was no prison in which he could be confined.  The case was submitted to the jury about 10 P. M., and they deliberated till near morning, when they returned a verdict of not guilty, and Picket was discharged.

The following letter appeared in the December 21, 1889 issue of Themis, a weekly compendium of political and cultural news published in Sacramento. The paper ran a series about early days at Sutter’s Fort, which drew this comment from General Bidwell about the ground plan and bird’s eye view they had published in the November 23, 1889 issue.

Themis, Nov. 23, 1889, p. 2.

SUTTER’S FORT.  Letter from General John Bidwell — His Estimate of the Descriptions of the Old Fort published in “Themis.”

General John Bidwell, of Chico, was one of the first of the American companions of Captain Sutter after the establishment of the fort. The General occupied for some time a position of importance at the fort, and was, before 1848, and ever since has been prominently identified with the history of the State. We deem the following letter from him of great importance, for, as there seems now a disposition to restore the fort as it was originally, and in any event to effect a partial restoration, any data that can be obtained should be preserved. There are few men living who are better able than General Bidwell to recall the scenes of those early years :

Chico, Dec. 19, 1889.  It is nearly a month since the receipt of your letter, with a copy of Themis. You ask if I can throw any light on the killing of “The White Horse?” or “any other reminiscence mentioned therein?” Being in the mines on Feather river at the time, I can say nothing of my own knowledge. Of course, everybody heard of the fact that C. E. Picket killed the man, and that he was tried and acquitted. I had, I think, known the man — think his name was Coryell. Of this, however, I cannot be positive, for in trying to recall the events alone from memory, I may confound the killing of a man by Coryell — McDowell, the gunsmith.  The birdseye view and ground plan of Sutter’s fort are remarkably correct. The bastions, to my mind, should appear just a little higher — and they had not gable roofs, but hip roofs — that is, sloped equally from an apex. At least this was the shape of the roofs when first made.  Sutter’s business office, where his accounts were kept and all his business transacted, was in the northeast corner of the second story of the building, marked “A.” [Referring to the building now standing. — Eds.] His private office, however, is correctly marked “g.” Said building “A” was made in 1841, and, when I saw it last of November of that year, had simply walls and roof — no doors, stairs, floors or windows. In comparison with the thatched huts which surrounded it, this was an imposing edifice at that date.  In one of the small buildings, I never knew which — Sutter had managed to distil brandy from the wild grapes that same year — 1841 — for he offered us brandy to drink, and told us he had made it from wild grapes. I did not taste it, but those of our party who did, pronounced it excellent. But I cannot recall the fact that any distillery was ever used at Sutter’s fort from that date till the fall of 1845, when Sutter established one, and made whisky from barley, which was a great curse and caused more trouble than anything he ever did. Sutter may have had some of the brandy made in 1841, as he kept it mostly for his private use, and only offered it on rare occasions to visitors, when Fremont first arrived in 1844.

Yours, very truly,  John Bidwell