7/31/1848, p. 1
|
|
Fort Wayne July 31st 1848 |
Sir
On my return from Cincinnati I find your form of 12th Inst. "Saying it is represented there are some twenty Indians residing in" Miami county Inda, who are claimed to be Eel rivers seperate and distinct from the Miamies, &c that the impressions at your office is that it is a mistake In this I fully conceive There are residing in Miami county 12 to 14 We-as- principally, if not altogether Women, They were connected by marriage with that part the Miamies called Eel rivers or Thorantown Miamies, who made a treaty (with Genl Tipton) in 1828= with whom they remained when the We as migrated - During the life time of Fleur (whose Indian name I do not recollect) They may of received monies with the Miamies as a part of his family or band, After his death the chiefs of the Miamies refused to let them draw- In the fall of 1842 or spring of 1843 the attention of the Government, was drawn to them, by Mr Ewing- shewing they were We as, and in distitute circumstances Mr Crawford then instructed me, to contract for their removal to their we ass homes west They refused to go- Owing I think to the influence of some white men, who lived with some of them as husbands. Major Jewett when the Miamies were removed, caused them to be assembled, urged their going they sued out from the circurt court process, and were released shewing they were We as, they are destitute and degraded I most earnestly desire if in your power, you would cause them removed west to their tribe- it will always afford me pleasure in giveing you any information I possess
|
Very respectfully your obt |
Co Mr Medill
Comm
Ind affrs
2/18/1850, p. 1
|
|
Washington City |
Hon 0. Brown
Comr. Ind Affrs.
Sir:
On the 10th day of April 1848 I addressed a communication to your predecessor Mr. Medill on the Subject of Certain annuities due to the Eel River tribe of Indians, in which I Stated among other things that the remnant of Said tribe consisting of about twenty persons constituting the entire tribe then extant resided in the County of Miami in the State of Indiana, that by different treaty Stipulations they were entitled to receive from the Government of the United States permanent annuities amounting the Sum of Eleven hundred dollars per annum, that the appropriations to pay these annuities had been regularly made by Congress, but that for a number of years they had not received any portion of their annuities, but by Some error or inadvertence as it was believed they had been paid over to the Miamies. That during the whole of this time they had been excluded from any participation in the annuities of the Miamies, who at the investigation of Claims, in the year 1840 and ever Since had with the Sanction of the Agents of the Government, refused to recognize them as Miamies or to investigate and pay their debts. And that they had requested me to represent their Case to the President of the United States, and ask that their annuities be paid them.
To that Communication I received no answer untill the 10th of April last when I was again in this City and having again addressed Mr. Medill a note on the Subject; he replied by his letter of that date explaining the reasons why my first letter had not been answered, and requesting me "to State the facts of the case more fully and specifically citing the treaty or treaties under which I considered the Indians referred to as being entitled to Separate annuities, as those of another and wholly distinct tribe from the Miamies Stating who were the principal men or heads of families; and giving such facts and proofs as I might think proper to show that they had been excluded and how, from all benefit of any annuity" or that it I would call at the office he would be glad to Confer with me on the subject.
2/18/1850, p. 2
|
Before leaving the City I accordingly called on Mr. Medill at his office upon
the subject, and at this interview he produced several letters from Mr. Joseph
Sinclear and one from Mr. Allen Hamilton which had received relative to the
matter as Containing all the facts and arguments which the office was in
possession of in opposition to the Claim of the Eel Rivers. It was then agreed
that he should furnish me copies of these letters as he afterwards did (with
the exception of one or two) and that at such time as I might see proper I
could furnish such facts and proofs as I might deem necessary to a proper
understanding of the Case. I have accordingly procured such as I have thought
proper to establish the right of these "Eel Rivers" to their
Annuities.
In determining the matter under consideration there are in my view but three points to be considered
1st Are there any Annuities due to the Eel River tribe of Indians?
Upon this point I presume there can arise no controversy. By the 4th Article of the Treaty of 3d of August 1795 they have a permanent annuity of $500. By the 3d Article of the Treaty of 21st August 1805 they have a further permanent annuity of $250. And by the 3d and the Separate articles of the Treaty of the 30th September 1809, a further permanent Annuity of $350. Making in all the sum of $1100. And this sum as before stated has been regularly appropirated by Congress for the fulfillment of Treaty Stipulations with the "Eel Rivers"
2d Are the Indians I represent, the Eel River tribe?
The affidavit of Mr. James Avaline (to which I invite your particular attention) herewith filed and marked (A) states in substance that he has been acquainted with this tribe for the last twenty Eight years and "that the remnant of said tribe and the whole of said tribe which is now extant Consisting of about twenty persons reside in a band together in said County of Miami. Mr. Avaline also states who are the principal persons at present composing said band and that they are the relative and decendants of the former Chiefs of said tribe.
2/18/1850, p. 3
|
The Affidavit of Mr. James T. Miller which is herewith also submitted marked
(B) also states that he has been acquainted with the "Eel River"
tribe for the last twenty years and that "the remnant of said tribe
consisting principally if not entirely of the families and connexions" of
the Chiefs of said tribe "now reside on deer creek in Said County and that
they reside together as they have always heretofore done in a Separate band or
tribe."
Mr. Hamilton it is true by his letter of July 31. 1848 states to Col Medill that these persons are Weas, but in this he has but fallen into a common error which is fully explained in the depositions alluded to as also the Certificate of Judge Cole herewith submitted (C) and the Statements of Sinclear.
It will be observed from these affidavits and the letters of Mr Sinclear that these persons are not only the Eel River tribe but the identical persons to whom this annuity was formerly separately paid.
In further proof of the identity of these people I may refer to the letter of Mr. Joseph Sinclear dated at the "Office of the Miami & Eel River Sub Agency Fort Wayne 25th Feby. 1846" In that communication he states that at the payment immediately previous to that time "Either five or seven women, the remnants of the Eel river band, presented themselves, and asked the privilege to participate in the annuities of the tribe; to this the chiefs at once objected; I asked them if these women were of the Eel River band and was answered by the principal Chief that they were, but that an agreement had been made in an old treaty (see Art 4 of Treaty of August 21, 1805) that neither the Eel Rivers, Weas, or Miamies should sell any portion of their Country without the consent of the others and that the Eel Rivers had violated that agreement by entering into a treaty with Genl Tipton (See Treaty of Feby 11. 1828) and on that account, they had determined not to let them have any share of their money. I stated to the Chief that $1.100 of their (?) money arose from treaty stipulations with the Eel Rivers, and that they were doing a great wrong by withholding from these women the amount of money they would be entitled to in a fair division but they opposed the claim with much warmth stating that they had not permitted them to draw with them for the last four years and that they would not permit them to do so now" &c. (Exhibit D)
2/18/1850, p. 4
|
These statements seem to furnish a Key to the whole matter. The Miamies alleged
that the Eel Rivers had mistreated them, and the power being allowed them by
the Agent they exercised the Authority to punish this feeble little tribe by
depriving them of the annuities to which the Miamies have not the shadow of a
claim.
By refference to the 4th article of the 21st August 1805 it will be observed that it is the United States that "engage to consider" the Miamies Eel Rivers and Weas "as joint owners of all the Country on the Wabash and its waters" &c "And they do further engagd that they will not purchase any part of said Country without the consent of Each of said tribes" And if this article has been violated the United States are certainly most to blame. If however there has been any violation of this article it occurs to me that the Miamies who by the Treaties of 1838 and 1840 sold to the Government the great Miami reservation- by far the most valuable of all that Country which the United States "engaged to consider" the Miamies, Eel Rivers, and Weas, the "joint owners" of- without any consent of either Eel Rivers or Weas should be the last to complain.
On the 24th of July 1848 Mr. Sinclear again wrote to Mr. Medill stating that he had previously transmitted a list of persons as Weas but that there "Could be no doubt but that most if not all the persons named in the list as Weas are of that portion of the Miamies usually designated as Eel River Miamies and that they are the remnant of the Thorntown party of Eel Rivers which entered into a treaty with Genl. Tipton at the Wyandott village on the 11th February 1828; Ching-Shing-gaw the old Woman of 55 or 60 years of age named in the list was the wife of the principal man of the party"
At the time of writing this letter some new lights appear to have broken in upon Mr. Sinclear and he enters into an argument to prove that although there is no doubt that these persons are Eel Rivers they are nevertheless Miamies; and notwithstanding they have been excluded and deprived of any participation in the annuities of the Miamies because they were Eel Rivers, and not even permitted to draw their own annuities; yet he concludes that they ought nolens volens to be considered as Miamies.
2/18/1850, p. 5
|
Mr Sinclear further says in the Same letter that "By Art. 4 of the Treaty
at Grousland Augt 21, 1805, it was declared that the Miamies Eel
Rivers and Weas, were formerly, and still consider themselves as one Nation and
I know of no act or treaty which can be regarded as dissolving this Connexion
between the Miamies and Eel Rivers; the Weas by treaty of August 11. 1820, 3d
article withdrew! from the Connexion and agreed to receive their
annuities at Kaskaskia in the State of Illinois" (Exhibit E)
I contend that there is nothing in the treaty of August 21. 1805 to Justify any such construction as that placed upon it by Mr. Sinclear. In every article in that treaty the Miamies, Eel Rivers and Weas, are mentioned and treated as Separate tribes, and in the 3d article a permanent annuity is granted by name to each of these tribes, and they are treated in every respect as distinct as are the Potawatamies who are also a party to the same treaty.
The 4th article of this treaty to which Mr. Sinclear refers merely states by way of inducement to the engagement of the United States before referred to that "As the tribes now called the Miamies, Eel Rivers and Weas, were formerly and still consider themselves as one nation and as they have determined that neither of these tribes shall dispose of any part of the Country which they hold in common; in order to quiet their minds on that head, the United States do hereby engage to consider as Joint owners &c" "And do further engage that they will not purchase any part of said Country without the consent of Each of said tribes"
So far from there being any "Connexion" formed by this treaty the very opposite appears in almost every article. I am sustained in this view by every treaty or transaction which the Government has had with the Eel Rivers since that time. They were treated with as a separate tribe and a further separate annuity was granted them by the treaty of the 30th September 1809 four years after this pretended "Connexion" that Mr. Sinclear is entitled to the honor of first discovering after a lapse of thirty years; and finally they were treated with as a Separate tribe in 1828 by Genl Tipton and always received their separate annuities untill they became too feeble to maintain their rights against the power and influence of the Miamies and through some means the Miamies were permitted to receive their annuities and exclude them
2/18/1850, p. 6
|
It is a fact of which Mr. Sinclear is not aware, that, it is nothing new for the Government to treat separately with and recognize as distinct organizations, different tribes or bands even of the same nation and yet I believe there is no precedent where one of these bands have been although of the same nation, knowingly permitted to interfere with the treaties of another unless by mutual consent and agreement.
Mr. Sinclear further says that the Weas by treaty of August 11. 1820 3d article withdrew from the Connexion! &c Upon examination of this treaty I can find nothing intimating any thing like a withdrawal from any connexion. The Wea tribe cede to the United States a tract of land reserved to said tribe by a previous treaty, and as the Wea tribe contemplate removing from the Wabash it is agreed that the "Annuity secured to the Weas by the treaty of St. Marys" shall be paid at Kaskaskia Illinois. This is the whole of it and no connexion is mentioned and none existed or was dreamed of at the time. And to continue otherwise is a violation of common reason and common sense. That the Weas could withdraw, if there had been a previous connexion, without the consent of either of the other "high contracting parties" is something new in the law of contracts or history of treaties.
If the argumentation of Mr. Sinclear were adopted how would the case stand so far as these Eel Rivers are concerned? They would have been entitled according to his showing to an equal pro rata participation in the annuities of the Miamies for the last twelve years at least that they have been excluded. Taking into consideration the large annuities which the Miamies have received during that period, and the large amounts which have been appropriated to pay their debts, I feel safe in saying that the sum to which they would be entitled as Miamies would more than double the regular Eel River Annuities; and it is quite certain that they are entitled to the back annuities either as Eel Rivers or Miamies. The policy however seems to have been to consider them Miamies untill their money could be paid to the Miami Chiefs and then to consider them Eel Rivers, and exclude them; and because they had been excluded once it was sufficient to justify the chiefs forever afterwards although the agent knew that the Chiefs were doing a "great wrong" in so doing.
2/18/1850, p. 7
|
I wish however to be distinctly understood as contending that they are the Eel River tribe. I think the proofs conclusive upon this point and I have in my possession sundrie parchments and papers, the same that are referred to in the affidavit of Mr. Avaline, some of which are under the hand of the first President, which they have preserved; and which show more conclusively if possible their identity. If these Indians are not the "Eel Rivers" the tribe is extinct, and there is no justice in distributing their annuities to the Miamies, for it is not, contended that there are any Eel Rivers among them.
The 3d and last question is; has this tribe of Eel Rivers been deprived of their annuities and how long? It is not denied that this tribe has received no annuities for a number of years but there is some difficulty in arriving at the precise time when they last received them. The latest period named is that by Sinclear which is 1838 or 1839. The affidavits of Avaline and Miller would show that their last payment must have been received two or three years earlier. When their rights are recognized the questions of time and amounts can be easily arranged. I enclose my power of attorney signed by the principal persons of the tribe including the only two adult males, giving me full authority to act in the premises, but which I wish to reserve the right of withdrawing in case I think necessary to do so at any time hereafter.
I have procured the affidavits of Messrs Avaline and Miller because I believe that there are not two other white men living who are as well acquainted with these peoples. They are both honorable men and men of integrity as stated by Dr Fitch (exhibit F) and as will be attested by the entire community where they are known.
I am aware that Mr. Sinclear has attempted to injure the reputation of Mr. Avaline by certain private letters written to Mr. Medill but I feel free under the circumstances to state upon my own responsibility that Mr. Avaline sustains a character at home for integrity and veracity, and in every other respect which will not suffer in comparison with that of Mr. Sinclear to say the least.
2/18/1850, p. 8
|
I have only to say in conclusion that this little tribe of Eel Rivers are poor
but honest and industrious and that they have been grossly imposed upon and
their rights outraged. I ask on their behalf that these treaty stipulations-
the supreme laws of the land, may be carried out, and these annuities paid them
in future, as also those that they have been heretofore deprived of. Having the
utmost confidence in the disposition of the President "to faithfully
execute the laws" I hope that this matter will engage your early and
serious attention and that what is just and proper may be done in the premises.
|
Very Respectfully your obt servt |
2/18/1850, p. 9
|
State of Indiana
Miami County SS
I Albert Cole late one of the Associate Judges of the Miami Circuit Court in and for said County do certify that on or before the 30th day of July AD 1847 certain Indians residing upon Deer Creek in this county were brought before me upon a writ of habeas corpus which was directed to Alexis Coguillard whom it was alleged detained said Indians in his custody claiming them to be Miamies for the purpose of removing them West of the Mississippi. It appeared conclusively from the Testimony that they were not Miamies and had not been recognized by the Miami Nation as belonging to that tribe. The Indians alluded to were among the Whites sometimes and perhaps most frequently called Weas and formerly lived near the Wea country but I became convinced from the proof and from other reliable sources that this little band of Indians were what was formerly known as the "Eel River Tribe" and formerly inhabited the upper Eel River Country and were understood to be such by the Miamies and Weas and the earlier Settlers of the Country who were acquainted with the Indians.
I directed them to be discharged on the ground that they were not Miamies and not that they were Weas for I did not consider that the case required me to decide any thing further than that they were not members of the Miami tribe
|
Peru Nov 23rd 1849 |
Albert Cole |
Continue to
next page
Continue
to Dft. Ex. 129.
Return
to Docket 317 Table of Contents
Return to Ohio Valley -
Great Lakes Ethnohistory Archive Menu
Return to Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology List of Publications
Return to Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology Home
Last updated: 2
October 2000
Comments: webmaster@www.gbl.indiana.edu
Copyright 1997, Glen Black Laboratory of Archaeology and The Trustees of Indiana University.