"Question 7. Have you not ordered beef to the amount of fifteen hundred head, to be delivered between the Fresno and Four creeks, without ever having been m the Four creek region? "Answer. I have never been in the Four creek region, but have ordered the beef. "Question 8. How many Indians do you suppose the Four creek country to contain? "Answer. I do not know. "Question 9. If you did not know, how could you determine the amount of cattle necessary for their subsistence? "Answer. From what the treaties promised them. "Question 10. How do you know that the Indians of the Four creeks ever received any of that beef? "Answer. Nothing further than that I was told so by the traders at Fresno. I have no proof of it. "Question 12. Do you not know that in some instances the traders who issued and the contractors for the supply of the beef were the same? "Answer. I do. "O. M. WOZENCRAFT, U. S. Indian Agent," and the correctness of it certified by Agent Beale. This memorandum illustrates Agent Wozencraft's manner of doing his official business, and your committee are of opinion that this extract, as well as those preceding, require that other evidence should be furnished of the delivery of the beef, and the necessity for the public service, than the mere contract with Wozencraft or his certificate that it had been faithfully executed. General Hitchcock, United States army, in a letter to R. McKee, (see same volume as before,) one of the California agents, says: "Lieutenant Stoneman paid thirteen cents per pound for beef for his escort with Doctor Wozencraft, though Lieutenant Stoneman informed me that Doctor Wozencraft was paying thirty cents per pound at the same time for beef issued to Indians." Your committee are, therefore, constrained to recommend the rejection of this claim, until it can be sustained by evidence to which suspicion cannot justly attach. Nor does the contract made by Sub-agent Adam Johnston. strengthen the claim of the petitioners. He seems, from the document already referred to, to have had a roving propensity, and contracted for supplies of beef in various directions, without the authority of the agents, or even without ever consulting them: It is not pretended that he had any authority to negotiate treaties with the Indians, much less to exercise his discretion in contracting debts in the name of the government. He was vested with no extraordinary power as were his superiors, the agents, and, consequently, his acts cannot be recognized. The committee recommend that the claim be rejected. CASSIUS M. CLAY. [To accompany bill H. R. No. 788.] FEBRUARY 23, 1855. Mr. BOYCE from the Committee on Claims, made the following REPORT. The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of Cassius M. Clay, report: That the petitioner sets up two claims. The first is to receive pay for a judgment recovered against him for an alleged trespass in obedience to the commands of his superior officer. This claim (the particular facts of which appear from the papers accompanying this report) the committee recommend should be paid, for which purpose they have reported the bill now submitted to the House. The second claim is for property lost by the petitioner in Mexico during the war there. The committee report adversely to this claim. The facts appear from the accompanying papers. 2d Session. No. 151. INDIAN DEPREDATIONS INDEMNITY. MARCH 3, 1855.-Laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed. Mr. EASTMAN, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, made the fol lowing REPORT. The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom were referred the petition and claims of certain citizens of the State of Texas, for depredations alleged to have been committed by the Comanche and other Indian tribes on the borders of said State, report: That after a full and thorough investigation of the said claims, and a conference with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs on the subject, they are of the opinion that they are not well founded, and ought not to be allowed or paid, for the reasons, among others, stated in the following letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs relative to them. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Office Indian Affairs, January 30, 1855. SIR: I have the honor to return herewith the petition and other papers relating to certain claims to indemnity for losses sustained by Indian depredations in Texas, which were enclosed in your letter of the 10th instant, and, in compliance with your request, I submit the following statement. The only provision for claims of this description is contained in the act of June 30, 1834, to "regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers."-Statutes at Large, vol. 4, page 729. The first section of that act defines what is Indian country, and the 17th specifies the circumstances under which claims for Indian depredations shall be recognised and paid. They must have been committed within the "Indian country," upon the property of persons lawfully there, or in a State or Territory inhabited by citizens of the United States, by Indians from within the limits of the Indian country, and in all cases by Indians in amity with the United States. The 17th section further prescribes the course of proceeding which must be adopted by the claimants, as well as by the proper officers of the government, in such cases. No portion of Texas being within the Indian country, no such depredation upon her soil would come within the law, unless committed by Indians from within the Indian country, which was not the case with respect to that claimed for by M. Soligson & Sons, whose account and papers were transmitted by you, as a specimen of other cases pending before the committee, a list of which also accompanied your letter. The depredation in the case of those gentlemen was, as they allege, committed by Lipan Indians, who reside in Texas, and not in the Indian country. They have, consequently, no more ground for a valid claim against the United States than citizens of New York or Michigan would have for depredations committed by any of the Indians residing within the limits of those States, no portion of whose territory is within the "Indian country." Were the case different, however, Soligson & Sons have not pursued the course required by the trade and intercourse law, and the evidence in support of their claim, besides being wholly ex parte, is mainly based upon "hearsay.' You will perceive that I have thus confined myself to a brief statement of the bearing of the existing law on the subject of Indian depredations with reference to those committed in Texas. I do not feel at liberty to express an opinion in regard to any equitable right, if any such exists, which the citizens of that State may have to indemnification in such cases, arising out of the circumstances of her admission into the Union, the large number of Indians within her limits, her defenceless condition against their predatory habits, and the general obligation of the United States to protect their citizens from Indian depredations and outrages. There is one thing, however, which I should not omit to state in this connexion. Texas having retained all her lands, and the exclusive jurisdiction over them, it was impossible for the United States to exercise any supervision over the trade and intercourse with her Indians, or the necessary control over the latter, to prevent difficulties between them and the citizens of the State. Under these circumstances, it was not in the power of the government to manage our Indian relations there in as efficient a manner as it might otherwise have done. It was therefore in a position not to be held responsible for any difficulties or depredations which may have arisen out of such a state of things, which was made known from year to year through the annual reports of this office, and the necessity urged of Texas setting apart a district of country for the location and residence of her Indians, and the cession of sufficient jurisdiction over it to enable the government to manage them, and the trade and intercourse of the whites with them, in a more efficient and proper manner. It was not till last year that Texas consented to, and made provision for, such an arrangement. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. BEN C. EASTMAN, Of the Committee on Indian Affairs, Ho. of Reps. Commissioner. |