Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1851-03-01

W. G. and G. W. Ewing. or any in which they "were in /
teresed partners with others against the Government or
any of the Indian tribes within knowledge, o on caeu
search disclosed by the records Of the department. which was
audcated and decided before into Office and which
has since been reopened and allowed by me-
There in schedule Of the report Of the
of Indian Affairs of November 80, l846, list OF claims
against the Pottowaamie Indians, fifteen in number Among
them claims In favor of W. g. and g. W. Ewing on
national obligations, executed at the time and place
with the treaty. witnessed by the Superintendent OF In
dian Affairs for TO- the other witnessed by the Indan
sub agent for s40277 with credit thereon for Sl22oO
leaving balance due Of S2s OFT. There is also claim Of
Ewing Cymer for 773 made at the time and under
like circumstances These claims with the class TO which
belong for time pending before the Commissioner
Of Indian Affairs, but decided and in his report Of the
above date he says As the claims stand Is impossible
make any safe decision n regard them short OF rejecting
the WHOLE aud under the circumstances the BEST and Proba
only practicable mode making any satisfactory and final
disposition of them would be for Congress to authorize the
appointment Of commissioner TO investigate them on me
spot with testimony and examine witnesses in
order to ascertain satisfactorily how far they should justly be
regarded national individual Liabilities, whether the
charges just and reasonable, and all other facts and cir
cumsances which should be taken into consideration 10 MAX
| ing final decision upon them."
Ths proposition appoint commissioners TO investigate
these claims before committee Of the Senate, accord
ng, who the 9th Of January lS49, reported joint re-
solution g. R. No. 49) providing for the appointment Of
commission these claims and the claims against
the other tribes named in the said schedule.
This resolution did not pass and the claims, still remain
ing undecided were when into office brought before
for decision Not having been audcaed and decided be-
fore came into Office they werenot reopened by and
therefore do not within the call of the committee the
| resolution of the House.
There is named in the REPORT (page 40) also on
schedule E. claim of w. G. & G. w. Ewing against the
Mamies of S524l which is Of class of which the
missioner says (page 42) "The claims twice pre-
sented fully considered and rejected, both by the Depart
ment and the President. This is erroneous.
The records of the Indian Office and the files therein show
that there claims by sundy individuals against
the Mames, Of which the last above named claim Of W. g.
and g. w. Ewing The third article OF the treaty
of November %, 1910, with the Miamies contained prov
that the United States should. Immediately after the a
6caion of the treaty, appoint commissioner commission
who should investigate all claims against any and every
the tribe which had accrued the 9th day Of
November, 1885, which might before the ra6ca-
| tion Of the treaty.
This list Of debts after the ratification Of the treaty
The Indians requested the President appoint commission
to examine and settle them. He declined do because
the did not within the provisions Of the treaty. and
this far be ascertained is Of the incidents
red to in the report of the Commissioner Of Indian Affairs
consideration and rejection Of the claims by the President
The Indians and the traders hereupon appointed their own
commissioners who went and awarded upon the Claims
and their award produced at the office of Indian Afs
the of 1916, by the Hon. g. N. Fitch one OF the
arbrators who requested the commissioner to file in his
office, which he refused to do The Indians afterwards me-
morazed the President the subject which memorial was
presented to the President in September of the same year.
who, the 23d Of that month"; directed to be returned TO
the office Of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs was
accordingly taken the Office and then received and filed
but acted until after Il into Office, any
further than to be named in the report Of November 80,
ls4S in schedule E. II embraced in with the
other the joint resolution reported by the committee
the Senate These cases, therefore, had not been eihe
considered decded but the commissioner had absolutely
Office not only refused to consider Or decide h
cases. but he refused receive and file the papers until they
3 were referred to bis office by the President.
These cases, therefore, reopened They were
considered for the first time by the present Commissioner o
Indian Affairs who reported upon them to the 9th OF
February, 1880 approved The report Of the Commissioner
| as far as he expressed opinion.
There which, for had not been
and awarded upon by the abato of which
q the in which w. G. & G.. w. Ewing were claim
ants On these the Commissioner having in his report to
me- expressed no opinion declined to consider them, but
them back for his defnve action. He has since de-
cided them, what particular state of facts am not ad
vised his decision has not been before for examination
or revision
This case therefore, having been either reopened o
indeed decidedly by me, does within the resolution
the committee and the papers relating it not forwarded
reply particularly to this point (he eopening OF cases
once decided because deem it of any importance what
in the general language in which presented bu
because to be the sign by which the the commit
is in search of is 10 be identified and also, indeed thu
main object to which their investigation is directed.
Appeals lie from the heads Of bureaus the heads of de
partmsns and the right of appeal off by the change
of administration the change OF the head OF department
subsis if such change had taken place
appeal from decision Of the Commissioner Of Indian Attain
made before mode after into Office If hav.
not done so il merely happens that such occurred
would have occurred in proper and will yet occur
| proper case be presented
Heads of departments have right to review and it IL
their duty to review their DECISIONS when proper cases
made; such, for example, would induce court
ri equity to review and reverse their decrees and that right
| not lost by change in the head Of the department
The sound and sensible rules which govern courts OF
ce the subj ct Of appeals and reviews do govern, OF
ought to govern the heads Of departments ALSO except only
when decision in favor Of individual right SC
that right put it of the power OF executive
= officer 10 correct his error
have one occasion reviewed and reversed my de-
cision for what deemed sufficient cause, and would as
readily, (and readly for like cause review and
reverse like decision Of my predecessor u have never
done any CASE arises from the accidental circumstance
that has been presented in which thought the rules
of urisprudeLce required to be done whenever
such shall arise any do arise will thus act up m it.
matter of course unless Congress see h' BY legal en-
actmen hags what conceive be the sound and we'll
rules of practice and decision in the departments as
I, well as IN courts Of jasticee. \.
nj From the language Of the last resolution which had tae
receive from the committee perhaps be infer
red that importance is attached, in their estimation, to the
of The individuals who interested in these
claims. The resolution calls for
Copes Of all papers and records file IN his this ONCE
under bis Imy CONTROL touching claims against the Co.
vernmen the Indian tribes, in which Ewigs were
in their partners with Others which
been reopened and adcaed by the Department OF h
D. lnterior'
With the phraseology OF this resolution, and the
implication which ii might convey and lest i'm
should arise OF the