he is directed to be governed in his decisions by the provisions of the fourteenth section of the act of March 30, 1802, entitled “An act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers," and by treaty stipulations with any of the tribes mentioned, applicable to any of the cases; provided that no limitation of time for presenting claims under that act shall bar any of the claims mentioned in the said act of the 31st May, 1830. The latter act also contains two clauses, one of them declaring that the amount of each claim, when so established and ascertained, shall be paid to the claimant or claimants out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated; and the other of them requiring that the amount of each claim, when so ascertained and established, shall be reported to Congress, with the evidence in its support, for final decision and allowance.

Understanding that the last clause was introduced as an amendment, it is presumed to have been the design thereof to supersede the other, which authorizes payment; and hence the Auditor has considered his duty, under the law, to be limited to the examining of the claims, with reference to the provisions and treaty stipulations it mentions, and to the making a report to Congress, containing a description of the claims, and of the testimony adduced in their support, and such remarks as have arisen on the investigation thereof,

Before commencing that description, it may be well to insert the section of the law of 1802, by the provisions of which the Auditor is directed to be governed, and which is as follows:

"SEC. 14. And be it further enacted, That if any Indian or Indians, belonging to any tribe in amity with the United States, shall come over or cross the said boundary line into any State or Territory inhabited by citizens of the United States, and there take, steal, or destroy any horse, horses, or other property belonging to any citizen or inhabitant of the United States, or of either of the territorial districts of the United States, or shall commit any murder, violence, or outrage upon any such citizen or inhabitant, it shall be the duty of such citizen or inhabitant, his representative, attorney, or agent, to make application to the superintendent, or such other person as the President of the United States shall authorize for that purpose; who, upon being furnished with the necessary documents and proofs, shall, under the direction or instruction of the President of the United States, make application to the nation or tribe, to which such Indian or Indians shall belong, for satisfaction; and if such nation or tribe shall neglect or refuse to make satisfaction in a reasonable time, not exceeding twelve months, then it shall be the duty of such superintendent, or other person authorized as aforesaid, to make return of his doings to the President of the United States, and forward to him all the documents and proofs in the case, that such further steps may be taken as shall be proper to obtain satisfaction for the injury; and, in the mean time, in respect to the property so taken, stolen, or destroyed, the United States guarantee to the party injured, an eventual indemnification: Provided, always, That if such injured party, his representative, attorney, or agent, shall, in any way, violate any of the provisions of this act, by seeking or attempting to obtain private satisfaction or revenge, by crossing over the line on any of the Indian lands, he shall forfeit all claim upon the United States for such indemnification: And provided, also, That nothing herein contained shall prevent the legal apprehension or arresting, within the limits of any State or district, of any Indian having so offended: And

provided further, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to deduct such sum or sums, as shall be paid for the property taken, stolen, or destroyed by any such Indian, out of the annual stipend, which the United States are bound to pay to the tribe to which such Indian shall belong."

In order, therefore, to bring a claim within the provisions of this section, it became necessary to prove—

That the property, for which remuneration is claimed, was stolen or destroyed by Indians or an Indian, belonging to a tribe in amity with the United States;

That such Indians or Indian crossed the boundary line, and stole or destroyed the property within a State or Territory inhabited by citizens of the United States;

That the property belonged to a citizen or inhabitant of the United States, or of a Territory thereof;

That such citizen or inhabitant made application to the superintendent, and furnished to him the necessary documents and proofs;

That application was made by the superintendent, to the nation or tribe to which such Indian or Indians belonged, for satisfaction;

That the nation or tribe neglected or refused to make it;

And that the injured party, his representative, attorney, or agent, did in no way violate any of the provisions of the law, by seeking or attempting to obtain private satisfaction or revenge, by crossing over the line on any of the Indian lands.

The boundary line referred to, is particularly described in a previous section of the law of 1802, and did not run near the country wherein the beforementioned claims originated, which was not ceded by France to the United States till more than a year after the passage of that law.

1

James Lewis

Remarks,

He claims payment for a mare
The testimony adduced is contained in a note
of Antoine Chenie, dated 1807, and sworn
to 1st June, 1816, declaring that he wintered
above Dog Island, that to his knowledge the
"Son of the Spring," who lived with the
Sacs, and was raised among them, stole a
mare belonging to James Lewis, and some
days afterwards killed her, and that this was
in the month of November; and in a depo-
sition of James Burns, dated 15th August,
1822, wherein he alleges, that in 1807, a bay
mare, belonging to James Lewis, "was
taken, and believes, from information, was
destroyed by a band of the Sac nation of In-
dians, on the Upper Mississippi," and that
the mare was valued by the witness, and
Frederick Dixon, at $70. A remark in Gen.
Clark's report, (see the aforesaid Senate doc-
ument,) expresses, that application was made
to the Sacs for the mare, by William Clark,
their Indian Agent, and that she was not re-
turned, nor any compensation received for
her by the claimant.

$70 00 It does not appear when the applica-
tion for the mare was made, nor
whether or not, any reason was as-
signed by the tribe for withholding
satisfaction.

To establish a claim under the section
before set forth, it was requisite
that necessary documents and
proofs should be furnished. The
want thereof may have caused the
application to be unsuccessful. That
the proofs in this case are not such
as were necessary under the section
referred to, is obvious; they do not.
show the offender to have crossed
over the boundary line, and stole the
mare within any State or Territory
inhabited by citizens of the United
States, nor James Lewis to have been
a citizen or inhabitant of any such
State or Territory. From James
Lewis himself, there is no testimo-
ny whatever, and hence there is
nothing to show either that he had

435 75 The Prophet's party, by whom the
offence is stated to have been com-
mitted, was not in amity with the
United States, and a treaty of peace
having been entered into in 1815,
with the Kickapoo nation, it would
seem that the nation must have been
previously hostile; whether or not
it was so at the time of the offence
does not appear.

Published accounts of the outrage,
dated at St. Louis, on the 15th Feb-
ruary, 1812, and at Kaskaskia, on
the 18th of that month, are wholly
silent as to any robbery, burning,
or destruction of property, and Mr.
Mackay's deposition, it will be per

the morning previously to the murder, and
on the morning following, for the purpose of
collecting and burying the remains of ten of
the family who had been murdered; that on
the latter morning he saw the smoke-house
and corn-crib burned to the ground, the bot-
tom logs being still on fire; that he knew a
large quantity of bacon, perhaps 3,000 lbs.
had been hanging for smoke some weeks,
and did not doubt that it was consumed with
the house, the grease having run many steps
therefrom, and some pieces remaining but
half burned; that although he had no posi-
tive knowledge as to the barrel of pork charg
ed, yet he knew the claimant got in pork
late, and after he had, as the witness thinks,
hung the most of his meat; that he could not
be positive as to the clothing; that he knew
the claimant had a considerable quantity of
hog's lard, about 100 bushels of corn, two
rifle guns and accoutrements, two tea-pots, a
felling axe, a weeding hoe, an adze, a draw-
ing knife, and a bucket; that there might
also be other small articles which he could

ceived, affords no positive evidence
that the property was destroyed or
stolen by Indians, nor any whatever
as to the value of the respective ar-
ticles; and the claim is unsustained
by any deposition of the claimant,
in proof either of its correctness,
of his having received no compen-
sation, or of his not having sought
or attempted to obtain satisfaction
or revenge by crossing over the line
on any of the Indian lands.