2/18/1850, p. 20
|
No reasonable man would charge the Dept with neglect towards these unfortunate
Indians, for, under the old regulations, the head men of a tribe had the power
to determine who should, and who should not share in the annuity payments, and
no officer of the government had a right to interfere.
It must be well known to all who reside in the vicinity of these Indians, that the Department divided their emigration with a view to their restoration to their position & privileges as Miamies, from which they had been improperly excluded; and that in accordance with such directions, the contractors for the Miami emigration commenced their collection at the emigration camp, where, in conformity with a decision of Judge Cole of Miami county, the Indians were taken out of their custody.
I hope this, with the letter of Feby 25. 1846. will sufficiently explain the relation in position which should be allowed by the one portion of the Miamies to the other, if, however, any further explanation is required of me, I shall cheerfully attend to it.
|
Very respectfully
|
Col Wm Medill
Coms Indian Affs
Washington
D.C.
2/18/1850, p. 21
|
Washington Feb. 16th 1850
Mr Cole,
You ask my opinion of the character & standing of James T. Miller & James Avaline. With the former I have been acquainted many years, & believe him to be an honest & honerable man, & a good citizen. With the latter my acquaintance is comparatively recent & were limited, but I should have confidence in his statements, believing him to be a man of integrity.
|
Respectfully Yours |
2/18/1850, p. 22
|
|
(Copy)
|
Sir,
Permit me to submit the following statement in relation to the Eel River Band of the Miamies.
At the last payment of annuities to the Miamies, after I had paid the money over to the Chiefs and head men of the tribe, including $1.100, stated as the aggregate of four items of permanent annuities to the Eel River (Miamies) as stipulated by 4. Art., of Treaty of August 3d 1795. 3d art of Treaty of August 21st 1805. 3d art. of Treaty of Sept 30th 1809, and a separate treaty of same date, I was requested to assist in dividing the money amongst them, and immediately proceded to make out a list of persons, families and bands who would be entitled to receive a share; this list was, as is usual, made in the presence of the Chiefs & head men of the tribe who determine the right of every one presenting a claim to a participation of the money. During the time I was engaged in making this list, either five or seven women, the remnant 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 those 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 February 11, 1828) and on that account they had determined not to let them have any share of their money. I stated to the Chiefs 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 those 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
2/18/1850, p. 23
|
been allowed to draw with them for the last four years, and that they would not
permit them to do so now- The money having passed into the hands of the Chiefs
and head men of the tribe, it was thought that I had no right to control it,
and the women were excluded. It may be proper to remark that Genl
Tipton who made the treaty with this band in 1828, continued payments to them
while he acted as agent; and by treaty with the Weas, Aug. 11. 1820, it was
stipulated that the annuities arising to them from the treaty of St Mary's
should be paid to them at Kaskaskia, Illinois, notwithstanding the obligation
resting upon them by the 4th Art of Treaty of Aug. 21. 1805, that they would
not sell without the consent of the Miamies & Eel Rivers.
I thought at the time of the payment and still think it most unjust to withhold from these women their portion of annuities, there is not a man of that band living, and the women are objects of charity. My predecessor, Mr Hamilton, furnished them with $200 worth of provisions last winter and I made provision for the payment of his orders at the last payment; I would now arrange for their subsistence with pleasure, if in the opinion of the Dept I would be right in so doing.
I have stated this case I believe fully & fairly, and it remains for the Dept to decide whether these women in the removal and subsequent payments are to be treated as Miamies or not, and if they are to be so treated, will they be entitled to receive at the next payment any portion of the money withheld?
At the last payment the half breeds who are at the Choctaw Academy were excluded from any participation in the annuities, while those remaining here of the same families & blood were permitted to draw their share. One orphan boy (James Columbia) always considered a full blood & received his share as such, was sent by me to the Choctaw Academy; the tribe only allowed him half pay and gave notice that hereafter they would cut him off entirely. I make these statements to explain my reasons for asking the following question. May
2/18/1850, p. 24
|
an Agent exercise a sufficient control over these annuities after it has
been delivered over the Chiefs and head men of the nation, to prevent an
unfair distribution of it? Will he be permitted to interfere after the money is
so paid over & receipted for, in order to secure to all their Just and undoubted
rights?
|
Very respectfully
|
Col W Medill
Coms Ind Affs.
Washington
D C.
5/4/1850, p. 1
|
|
Treasury Department |
Orlando Brown Esqr
Commissr Indn Affairs
Sir,
In reply to your inquiry respecting the payment of the permanent annuity of $1100, for the Eel River Indians, under treaties of 1795-1805 & 1809,- I have respectfully to State that from the year 1817- beyond which the files of this office do not extend- to about the year 1838, this annuity was paid to the Eel river band of Miamies, separately & distinctly from the Miami nation. And that from about that period (1838) it was paid to the Miamies without distinction,- sometimes in payments per capita, but generally to the chiefs.
The payment for 1838 was made to J. B. Richardville- the principal chief of the Miami nation- & 13 other chiefs, some of whom it is well known were not Eel river Indians, although the caption of the receipt runs thus: "We the chiefs of the (Eel River) Band of Miamies acknowledge" &c. And for 1839 payment was made to the same, while the caption runs thus: ['We the chiefs, warriors, & head menÑ" &c.
In a number of instances after 1840, this annuity money appears to have been blended in the payment, with the larger sum due to the Miami nation, & one receipt given for the whole sum.
In the settlement of the account of John Johnston for 1818, it appears that this Eel river annuity for that year was paid in merchandize, forming a part of an invoice amounting to $3-400 sent by the Department. It is called the annuity for "Miami & Eel river Indians;" & is receipted for by six Indians without designation. Among the papers in this same settlement is one which states that this annuity for 1812, was "received at Piqua and issued to the troops & delivered to the Indians as presents.-
|
Very respectfully |
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.