The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-05-11
The R EPU BLIC.

break. can show the Senate by reference 10 1
letter of one OF the commissioners, what was The
condition of things which called for prompt and
\ energetic proceedings.
In letter dated January 9Th, 1852, he says:
1--WE found the lniians M open war with the whites In
many parts OF the Satr and, with hut few exceptions,
believe IN the southern portion of the State they were
hosie and The between them and the whites charac
teled ny those acts OF rapne and murder sua ~ iha
warfare The country called for relief rom such
state OF affairs. The miners had been driven ron the
goh mDrs and every day almost some outrage or INJURY
was done 10 the person property OF the citizens, and IN
ffn many otle indians were killed and their stores OF
! provisions destroyed
Such was the condition of things Which required
4 that the collector at San Francisco, dlsregarding
the strict Instructions of the Treasury Depart
ment, should advance money to the Quartermas-
ter's Department to fit out escorts for the Indian
| Commissioners, who might pacliy the Indians,
ana protect the people OF the State. Let me add,
! that the Quarlermaster's Department here being
IN funds at the time promptly repaid the advance
Of Sl50,000
The Senator from California then alludes to the
course of action pursued by these commissioners.
/ Afler the negotiation of treaties with the Indians
they did not look 10 the instructions which had
| been sent to them, but went far beyond them, and
the known constitutional rule, and disregarded
| the rights Of the Executive and the Senate. They
made treaties with the Indians, not, 10 be sure,
yolative of instructions, (slnce the nature of the
stipulations could not be foreseen or dictated in
\ Washington but they made treaties IN which
4 they stipulated to furnish the Indians with sup
| plies Of food particularly beef cattle, to very
large amount. Having made these stipuianons,
| they did not wait until the treaties were sent to the
| Executive, and ratified by the Senate; but they
| justified themselves or attempted to Justify them
! selves, for furnishing these supplies III advance Of
| the ratification of the treaties, on the ground Of
4 tile imperative necessity of doing something to
/ keep the Indians quiet, and protect the people of
the State. They said that the extraordinary con-
dion Of things there demanded that they should
% beyond their instructions, and beyond the law.
| Whether this il so or not we shall, perhaps, as
certain hereafter They did this, however, with
out the knowledge Of the Administration, and the
| Senator complains that they were not Immediately
dismissed for so doing.
| Mr. GWIN say that the Administration
ought either 10 have approved or disapproved Of
their acts. If they approved them, the President
should have sent tie treaties TO the Senate; but if
he did not he ought to have disavowed the policy
adopted by the agents, and appointed others to
carry out the exact views of the Administration.
| Mr.. PEARCE. This is what the Senator said
| in his speech:
sfle (meaning the Commissioner Indian Aair,) says
thu these agents had authority exceed the cunt OF
the appropriation. Why, them they not dismissed
Here is acknowledgment that they have exceeded their
authority under the law, yet they are permitted TO go I'M
| punished, nc,
| % llle lSefOlOT goes OIL Let rue now Sltle 70
| the Senate what the facts are. Not one of the
original treaties made by the joint board or by
| Mr. Barbour, had been received by the Executive
| up to the oath day of January last, though some
| OF Mr.. Wozencrolt's had reached the Indian
office during the year 1851, and none Of them
were Submitted TO the President till the last month.
! Mr.. Barbour one Of the Indian commissioners,
arrived at New Orleans, 1 believe, sometime during
the last winter, and instead ofcomng directly to
! Washington, went to Kentucky, where he brought
| with him the treaties made by himself and by the
| Board, He there received letter in which he was
! strongly rebuked by the Commissioner OF Indian
Affairs for this violation ofduty in undertaking to
carry out the stipuatons Of treaties before the EX
| ecutive and the Senate had acted upon them. He
answered the letter and defended himself. That
answer is dated on the 9Th day of January, OF
this wear; but he did not come on TO Washington
until after the Oath Of January. Then he brought
| some Of the treaties with him. Now is the EX-
ecutiye to be blamed as the Senator has blamed
him, for not submitting these treaties instaner 10
the Senate for ratification, and TO be charged with
covering M the transactions of the Commissioner
| by Withholding the treates' Does not the Senator
know that we may desire to be furnished with
more accurate information in regard to themi Does
1 he not think that we ought 10 know the truth Of
! the allegations made by the Indian Commission
ers before we say whether the Government shall
or shall not honor their drafis' lsnot the Execu-
| tive to be furnished with this information as well
as we; Ought not the President 20 be furnished
with it before submitting TO the Senate treaties so
! important; Ought not the President TO have full
] time for consideration, aud ought he not 30 he
| allowed the opportunity To- obtain from California
! the information which is necessary To enable him
! To art properly on the subject Whether the
treaties are to be confirmed or rejected, 1t is just
| as important that the Executive should have the
Information on the subject that the Senate should
have il. | would not willingly do the Senator
/ any injustice, but ! suppose my opinion in this
respect does not differ from his, unless he changed
it about the time he made his speech; for am in
\ formed that the Senator from California expressed
| 10 the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and io the
Secretary Of the Interior desire that the treaties
should not now be sent to the Senate, but that
! they should be retained until the information was
had
/ Mr.. GWIN. Il is altogether a mistake.
never made any such declaration to anybody
| Mr. PEARCE. There may have been a mis-
understanding between the Senator and these func-
tionaries, but, undoubtedly, they so understood
him.
Mr.. GwIN. This is a matter Of some import
ance to myself personally and will state the facts.
The delegation from California had an interview
with the Commissioner Of In liam Affairs. NV
colleagues of the other House are conversant with
the discussions that occurred on that occasion.
The Secretary Of the Interior was 10 have been
present. but was hnhNoiqtily pfeNenteu from nj
tending then stated explicitly that the Admin
istraiion must take the responsibility either of APP
proving or disappearing Of the treaties; that. by
withholding them from The Senate, they were he
coming the fixed policy Of the country The
Commissioner said he would assume no such re-
sponsibity; that five wanted the treaties we must
rall for them One of my colleagues in the other
House prepared q resolution calling for the inform
alton, based upon this declaration Of the Com
missioner | will state, furthermore, that we all
understood At the time that the Department did
MOI intend to assume this responsibility, and that
they did not intend send these treaties here until
they were called for by The delegation from Cali
farlis. Ny colleague. Mr.. WELLER,l who hRd
not then taken his seat ~ the Senate, has offered
resolution in Executive session, calling Cor these
treaties II is certainly a mistake that advised
that they should be withheld
Mr.. pEhRCE. That was my understanding.
He said that IL they were sent 10 they would be
rejected promptly. ! wrote to the Secretary Of
the Interior on the subject, and received in reply
the following letter:
WAsuiNoro~, .aprh %. 1862.
DE,R sra: IN % Your inquiry, have 10
Thai senator Owls and myself have had repeated
saiiJns the subject 0f the treaties with the California
Indians which uniformly expressed himself Oh.
p14ed i6ir ratification ard objected their