33d CoNGREss, ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. } Ex. Doc.
2d Session. : No. 66.
CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS.
LETTER
SE CRET A R Y 0 F T H E IN TER I 0 R,
A report in reference to the claim of the Brotherton tribe of Indians.
February 10, 1855–Laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.
DEPARTMENT of THE INTERIOR,
º Washington, February 9, 1855.
sº. By the ninth section of the act of Congress approved July 31,
1854, the Secretary of the Interior was “authorized to investigate the
claim of the Brotherton tribe of Indians against the United States, and
report the facts to Congress at its next session, or earlier if practicable,
together with an estimate for such amount as may be found justly due
the said Indians.”
The investigation thus ordered has been made, and the facts are
embodied in the accompanying report of the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs. I have carefully examined that report, and, finding it sus-
tained by the documentary evidence referred to, am uſable to perceive
that any amount is justly due said tribe of Indians by the United
States.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
R. McCLELLAND,
- Secretary.
Hon. LINN Boyd,
Speaker of House of Representatives.
DEPARTMENT of THE INTERIon,
Office Indian Affairs, January 25, 1855.
Stº Having received your letter of the 22d November last, asking
for a report in relation to a claim of the Brotherton Indians against
the United States, mentioned in the ninth section of the act of Congress
of the 31st July last, inasmuch as there was not on file here any claim
2 CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS.-
such as appeared to be referred to in the law, I addressed a letter to
the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and received from him, on
the 24th , the memorial which had been presented to the House
of Representatives, at the last session of Congress, by William Fowler,
delegate of the Brotherton tribe.
The memorial presents the case of these Indians in a light very
favorable to them, and with great skill and brevity. I therefore quote
it entire, as follows:
“To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States in Congress assembled.
“The memorial of the Brotherton tribe of Indians, by the under-
signed, their legally authorized agent, respectfully represents:
“That, in the year 1821, the Six Nations, St. Regis, Stockbridge,
and Munsee tribes, residing in New York, purchased of the Menom-
onees 707,280 acres, by metes and bounds, by a treaty negotiated
under the superintendence of C. C. Trowbridge, an agent appointed
and paid by the United States; said treaty having been permitted,
authorized, and encouraged, by Mr. Crawford, Secretary of War, in
his letter dated February 12, 1816, and by Mr. Calhoun, in his letters
of the 9th February, 1820, and 21st June, 1821, (the originals of which
are on file in the Indian bureau.) The treaty thus made was approved
by President Monroe on the 9th of February, 1822, and the original,
with the endorsed approval, returned to the New York Indians by the
Secretary of War, in his letter of the 13th February, 1822.
“That, in the year 1822, another treaty was made between the same
parties, John Sergeant, being the United States agent to conduct and
superintend the negotiation, and Mr. Calhoun having sanctioned the
same in his letters of February 13, 1822, and May 8, 1822, by which
treaty 691,200 acres were bought. This treaty was approved by
President Monroe on the 13th March, 1823, and by Mr. Calhoun in his
letter of October 27, 1823, who, in answer to a request that the treaties
might be laid before the Senate for their approval, wrote as follows:
“I am much pleased that the delegates have succeeded in the mis-
sion to their brethren in the vicinity of Green Bay. The treaty con-
cluded by the delegates with the Menomonees and Winnebagoes, is
approved by the President, which is all the ratification that is neces-
sary, as those treaties only to which the United States are a party require
the addition of the sanction of the Senate.’ -
“Your memorialists further represent that on the 8th day of January,
1825, the Brotherton Indians bought, by treaty, of the Six Nations, St.
Regis, Stockbridge, and Munsee tribes, a tract 30 miles long by eight
miles wide—tlie Six Nations, &c., &c., reserving to each one a tract
of equal extent, and ceding to the Brothertons an equal undivided inter-
est in all the balance of all the lands bought of the Menomonees and Winne-
bagoes; that from this date—viz.: January 8, 1825–the Brothertons have
been recognised by the United States as a portion of the New York Indians,
owning lands and interests arising from the treaties of 1821 and 1822.
(Wide treaties of 1831, 1832, and 1888.)


CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS. 3
“Your memorialists beg respectfully to call your attention to the fact
that this claim of the New York Indians, by purchase from the Menom-
onees and Winnebagoes, is recognised in every law and treaty refer-
ring to the subject since 1822; and that the Brothertons, als stated,
bought in, and have also been recognised. Else why it. might be
asked, was a township given them in 1832, and special provision made
in Gillet's treaty, at Buffalo, in 1838? Your memorialists ask your
earnest attention also to another fact, viz: that, by the treaty of 1827,
the United States bought of the Menomonees the very tract sold in
1825 by the Six Nations, &c., &c., to the Brothertons. -
“Your memorialists representfurther, that, by the treaties of 1831 and
1832, (so far as the Brothertons were concerned,) the United States
acquired from the Menomonees all the Brotherton estate, with the ex-
ception of one township on Lake Winnebago, which township they
were compelled to take, in consequence of a proposition made to them
without any alternative. They were driven to accept this proposition
by the joint action of the Menomonees and the United States, in oppo-
sition to the action of Monroe, Crawford, and Calhoun, and in viola-
tion of treaties, which were known to exist, made between the Indian
tribes under the superintendence of agents of the United States. (See
appendix to the treaty of 1832) Your memorialists declare that they
did not ask the Senate to give them, in their amendment to the treaty
of 1831, the one township; that they did not take it until forced to do
so, (see accompanying statements and affidavits of J. W. Quinney and
others:) and that they have in no act absolved the United States from
indebtedness from this wrongful seizure of their land. The land was
originally purchased of the Menomonees by permission, and under the
superintendence of the United States agents, and ratified by the Presi-
dent; and your memorialists submit that if the treaties of 1821 and
1S22 were in violation of the just rights of the Menomonees, the United
States were particeps criminis.
“Your memorialists further state that the treaty of 1831 gave to the
Six Nations Indians 500,000 acres. The Harris treaty of 1838 grants
to the Oneida tribe (numbering, according to the census taken in 1827,
and appended to Gillet's treaty at Buffalo in 1838, six hundred souls)
65,000 acres; while to the Brothertons, having an equal interest with
the Oneidas, (and numbering, by the same census, three hundred and
eighty) only 23,000 acres were given. And by the third article of the
Harris treaty of 1838 $33,500 were given to the Oneidas in reim-
bursement of moneys paid and expended in acquiring and securing the title
ºf the Menomonºes. By the act of 1846 the United States paid the Stock-
bridge tribe $5,000, as indemnification for their expenses and outlays
for these Menomonee purchases and their interest in them; and by the
treaty of 1848 the same tribe received on the same account $28,000.
“The Stockbridge tribe, numbering (by admission of the United
States in 1838) 217, get one township, while the Brothertons, number-
ing 360 souls, get the same quantity.
“The Brothertons have never received a dollar, save $1,600 given by
the treaty of 1832 to three individuals for improvements. Thus, the
United States give them one-third less in land than the Stockbridges,

4. CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS.
and two-thirds less than the Oneidas, although holding an equal claim
to the land; and, while the Oneidas get $30,000, and the Stockbridges
$30,000 indemnity, the Brothertons have not received one cent, not-
withstanding their exertions in acquiring and securing the title from the
Menomonees, and the payment by them of their proportion of the
original consideration to the Menomonees under the treaties of 1821
and 1822.
“Your memorialists now pray that they may be placed in as good a
condition as they were in New York and before they bought their lands,
nearly every dollar which they received therefor having been expended
in expeditions to explore Green bay lands, in paying expenses of treat-
ies, buying the land and removing to it. But if Congress in its wisdom
shall not think proper to do this, your memorialists pray that they may
be placed upon an equal footing with their neighbors, the Oneidas and
Stockbridges, for whom provision has been made as stated above, and
that a final settlement may now be made in order that they may not be
under the necessity of applying to Congress again for a settlement of
their just rights.
“Your memorialists respectfully state, that they have not the pecuniary
ability to press their claims year after year at their own expense.
They believe their claims to be just, and they submit them now to
Congress for final action.
“And your memorialists will ever pray.
“WILLIAM FOWLER,
“Delegate from the Brotherton Indians.
“ WASHINGTON, D. C., May 3, 1854.”
The ninth section of the act of 31st July, 1854, referred to above,
requires from you a report of the facts in relation to this claim; and it
shall be my object, in this communication, to spread them out with
such fullness as to give a fair exhibit of the entire case, and refer you
to such sources of information for further details as will assist you in the
discharge of the duty imposed by the act.
In the year 1815, the sachems and chiefs of the Six Nations of New
York presented a memorial to the Department of War, in reference to
their removal fºom the State of New York “to a more distant part of
the country;” alluding in the memorial to the “repeated proofs of their
friendship and attachment to the United States,” and expressing the
“hope that the representations they will be able to make to their west:
ern brethren, of the friendly disposition of the people (of the United
States) to the natives under their protection, and of the honor and goºd
faith always observed by the government in its dealings with us. will
greatly tend to render their friendship permanent, and their fidelity
secure.” - - - - -
“The object of this memorial.” (say the memorialists) “is, therefore,
to inquire, First, whether the government will, consent, to our leaving
our present habitations, and removing into the neighborhood of our
western brethren. - -
* Secondly, whether, if we should obtain, by gift or purchase from
our western friends, a seat on their lands, the government will acknowl-

CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS. 5
edge our title in the same manner as they now acknowledge it in those
from whom we receive it. And, thirdly, whether our removal will be
considered as changing, in any manner, the relations now subsisting
between our tribes and the government.”
To this memorial Secretary Wm. H. Crawford replied on the 12th
February, 1816 :
“Brothers of the Six NATIONs: The memorial which you have
sent to your Great Father, the President, by your friends General Por:
ter and Mr. Granger, has been presented by them. In this memorial
you made known to your Great Father your desire to remove from
your present settlements in New York, with a view to settle upon lands
in the West, and wish to be informed whether the government will
consent to it; whether, if you obtain a seat upon the lands of your
western brethren, your title will be acknowledged by the government
in the same manner that it now does that of those from whom you re-
ceive it; and whether your removal will, in any manner, change
the relations now subsisting between your several tribes and the gov-
ernment; whether existing treaties will still remain in force, and the
annuities be paid as heretofore.
“Brothers: Your Great Father, the President, having duly consid-
ered all your requests, and extremely desirous of giving to his children
of the Six Nations a particular mark of his friendship, and attention to
their interests, has directed me to inform the sachems of the Six Na-
tions that all their requests are granted.” " * * *
The attention of the New York Indians being thus directed to a set-
tlement in the West, in the winter of 1819–20, the Rev. Eleazer Williams,
on their behalf, made arrangements at Washington city to receive the
assistance of the government, in sending a delegation to explore the
region of country around Green Bay, with a view to making arrange-
ments with the Indians there for a seat among them for the New York
tribes. Secretary Calhoun, on the 20th January, 1820, addressed a
letter to Mr. Williams, and another to Governor Cass and General
Macomb, at Detroit, by which directions were given for furnishing an
exploring party of ten persons, during the coming summer, with rations
at military posts, blankets, powder, and lead, and $300 in money. By
a letter of the 21st of June, 1821, the previous order was enlarged,
and the Commissary General of Subsistence instructed to direct the
assistant commissaries at Detroit, Mackinac, and Green Bay to turnish
provisions to Mr. Williams and his party, not exceeding fourteen rations
per day. On the 21st June, 1821, Solomon U. Hendricks and his
three companions were provided for by a similar order of the Secre-
tary of War, as delegates for the Stockbridge Indians, and provision
was likewise made for one Munsee delegate.
The deputies, on arriving, in the summer of 1821, at Detroit, were
there joined by C. C. Trowbridge, who had been appointed to super-
intend and assist in the negotiations, and thence the party proceeded
to Green Bay, in the then Territory of Michigan, and held a council
with the chiefs and headmen of the Menomonee and Winnebago tribes
residing in that vicinity, which resulted in the execution of articles
under date of the 18th August, 1821, by which the Menomonees and

6 CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS.
Winnebago nations, in consideration of two thousand dollars, agreed to
“cede, release, and quit claim to the Six Nations, and the St. Regis,
Stockbridge, and Munsee tribes,” a tract of country lying on both sides
of the Fox river, in the present State of Wisconsin, described by the
following boundaries:
“Beginning at the foot of the rapids on the Fox river, usually called
the Grand Kaccalin; thence up said river to the rapids at the Winne-
bago lake, and from the river extending back, in this width, on each
side to the northwest and to the southeast, equidistant with the lands
claimed by the Menomonee and Winnebago nations;” the said last-
named tribes reserving the right to hunt and fish within these limits,
but agreeing to abstain from waste and depredations on said lands.
(See Senate document 189, 2d session 27th Congress, page 15; series
of Senate documents 1841–42, vol. 3.) The tract embraced within
these boundaries is estimated to be of about 800,000 acres in extent,
having bases along and on both sides of Fox river, of about eighteen
miles.
These articles were approved, in a qualified manner, by President
Monroe, but never submitted to the Senate for its action. The ap-
proval of President Monroe is in these words:
“The within arrangement entered into between the Six Nations, the
St. Regis, Stockbridge, and Munsee nations, of the one part, and the
Menomonees and Winnebagoes of the other, is approved, with the ex-
press understanding that the lands thereby conveyed to the Six Na-
tions, the St. Regis, Stockbridge, and Munsee nations, are to be held
by them in the same manner as they were previously held by the Me-
nomonees and Winnebagoes. February 9, 1822. James Monroe.”
The New York tribes being dissatisfied, as it appears, with the tract
thus provided for their occupancy, solicited, through Solomon U. Hen-
dricks, permission for another deputation to visit Green Bay, with a
view to procure an extension of the limits of the tract described in the
articles of August 18, 1821; and on the 13th of February, 1822, the
Secretary of War addressed a letter to Mr. Hendricks, granting the
permission desired. I quote from his letter, as follows:
“I regret that any portion of the Six Nations is dissatisfied with the
treaty; but as one of the causes of dissatisfaction appears to be the
distance of the country ceded thereby from Green Bay, and may be
obviated by procuring an extension of the cession as proposed, the
permission which is solicited for another deputation from the Stock-
bridge and other tribes of the Six Nations to visit the country again for
that purpose, is granted. -
“The country the Six Nations have, or may acquire from the Me-
nomonees and Winnebagoes, will be held by them in the same manner as
it was by the Indians who previously owned it. The deputies that may
be appointed to make the arrangement, (not exceeding six in number.)
will be provided with letters similar to those given to them last year;
and orders will be given for them to be furnished with one ration each
while on their journey, and engaged in effecting the object of their
visit.”
A deputation accordingly proceeded in the summer of 1822 to De-
troit, and thence, with John Sergeant, jr., to Green Bay, he having

CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS. 7
been appointed by Governor Cass to “superintend” the contemplated
negotiations. - - -
On the 23d day of September, 1822, additional articles were entered
into by the deputies of the New York tribes, and the chiefs of the Me-
nomonees. By these articles the Menomonees, in consideration of
$3,000, stipulated to “cede, release, and quit claim " to the said New
York tribes “all the lands and islands” comprehended within the fol-
lowing boundaries, exclusive of any embraced therein that might have
been theretofore ceded to the United States; that is, “beginning at
the foot of the rapids on Fox river, usually called the Grand Kaccalin;
thence southeast, (or on the lower line of the lands last season ceded
by the Menomonee and Winnebago nations of Indians to the Six Na-
tions, St. Regis, Stockbridge, and Munsee nations.) to, or equidistant
with, the Manawahkia river emptying into Lake Michigan; thence on
an easterly course to and down said river to its mouth; thence north-
erly on the borders of Lake Michigan to and across the mouth of Green
bay, so as to include all the islands of the Grand Traverse; thence
from the mouth of Green bay aforesaid, a northerly course to a place
on the northwest shore of Lake Michigan, generally known and dis-
tinguished by the name of Weyohqua-tolik by the Indians, and Bayde
Nogue by the French; thence a westerly course on the height of land
separating the waters running into Lake Superior, and those running
into Lake Michigan, to the head of the Monomonee river; thence con-
tinuing nearly the same course until it strikes the northeastern boundary
line of the lands ceded, as aforesaid, by the Menomonee and Winne-
bago nations to the Six Nations, St. Regis, Stockbridge, and Munsee
nations of Indians, in eighteen hundred and twenty-one; thence south-
erly to the place of beginning”—the said Menomonees receiving the
right of occupying and residing on the tract, but agreeing not to in-
fringe on the settlements and improvements of the said New York
tribes.
The region within the boundaries just quoted embraced all the lands
on Green bay and Lake Michigan claimed by the Menomonees, and
not within the boundaries specified in the articles of 1821; an extent
of country, indeed, greater than was then, or has since been conceded
as properly belonging to the Menomonees, and which is estimated to
exceed 6,000,000 of acres of land.
On the submission of these “articles” to President Monroe, he, on
the 13th March, 1823, approved them with the same restrictions as to
title (“that the lands are to be held by them in the same manner as
they were held by the Menomonees”) as he had approved the former
articles; and with an additional restriction as to limits, confining his
approval to the conveyance in the manner as above of that part of the
tract “which lies between Sturgeon bay, Green bay, Fox river, that
part of the former purchase made on the 18th August, 1821, which
lies south of Fox river, and a line drawn from the southwestern ex-
tremity of said purchase to the head of Sturgeon bay, and no further,
that quantity being deemed sufficient for the use of the first before-
mentioned (New York) tribes and nations of Indians.” (See Doc. last
quoted, pages 19 and 20.)

8 CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS.
Secretary Calhoun seems to have regarded, at the time, the acquisi-
tion of the New York tribes to have been valid to the extent of the
Menomonee claim to the entire tract described, as against the Menom-
onees; but not as a valid title against the United States, having in
mind, no doubt, that provision of the law of 30th March, 1802, then
in force, whereby “purchases or other conveyances of lands, or of any
title or claim thereto, from any Indian or nation, or tribe of Indians,
within the bounds of the United States,” were declared to be of no
“validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or con-
vention, entered into pursuant to the constitution.” (See Doc. last
quoted, page 23; and U. S. Statues at Large, vol. 2, page 143, sec. 12.)
The object of the government seemed, then, to be to aid the New
York tribes in obtaining a location among the western Indians, but to
restrict the former to the acquisition of a mere right of occupancy
there for the time being.
The grasping policy of the New York tribes, in regard to acquisi-
tions west, appeared thus early to excite the suspicion of the very ad-
ministration that had aided their deputies with provisions and money
to make arrangements for the removal of their tribes from New York,
and their settlement among the western Indians. Hence the refusal of
President Monroe to approve the settlement of those tribes except
within the limits of the purchase of 1821, or on that part of the pur-
chase of 1822 between Sturgeon bay, Green bay, Fox river, &c.;
which is but a small part of the tract within the boundaries mentioned
in the body of the conveyance of September, 1822.
With these arrangements in this condition, (the articles of agreement
between the tribes as above not having been submitted to the Senate.)
parties from the New York tribes, particularly the First Christian party
of Oneidas and the Stockbridges, commenced removing to the lands
in the vicinity of Fox river and the head of Green bay. -
The Menomonees, however, became dissatisfied soon after this emi-
gration set in. In 1824 their chiefs protested against its continuance,
and repudiated the agreements of 1821 and 1822. On the 16th of
June, 1824, they signed a memorial to the President on the subject,
and accompanied it with affidavits tending to show that the Menomo-
nees who signed the articles of August, 1821, were not the chiefs
of the nation; that the principal chief sent in a protest against them
to the council at which they were signed; and that the articles were
not properly interpreted to the Menomonees at the time. (See series of
“Senate Docs.-Indian removals,” 1833–34, vol. 8, pages 536, 537,
538, 539.) The dissatisfaction between the Indians on the opposite
sides of this controversy became such as to elicit the attention of the
citizens of Green Bay; and in September of the same year (1824)
twenty-two citizens of that region also addressed a letter to the Presi-
dent of the United States, in which they say that the principal chiefs
of the Menomonees alleged that they had made no sale of their lands,
and refused to receive goods offered by the New York Indians in part
payment of stipulations of 1822; and that said goods were delivered
to persons of no note among the Menomonees; and that the chiefs
then protested against the articles of 1821 and 1822

CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS. 9
-
The excitement became so great between the friends of the parties
opposed in interest, as to lead to an order from the Adjutant General,
in March, 1825, for the “commanding officer at Green Bay to co-
operate with the Indian agent at that place, should it be necessary, in
carrying into effect the instructions he has received,” &c.
Whilst this dissatisfaction was existing, the Brotherton Indians, by
articles dated at New Stockbridge, Hogansburg, and , On
the Sth and 27th days of January, and the day of August, 1825,
º their interest in the claim which the other New York tribes
ad acquired by the articles of 1822. By the articles between the
Brothertons, on the one part, and the Oneida, Stockbridge, St. Regis,
Tuscarora, and Munsee tribes, on the other part, the first party for a
consideration of $950 to be paid, stipulated with the second party for
a tract on the southeast side of Fox river, below the Grand Kaccalin,
having a base of eight miles along the river, and extending thirty miles
therefrom in a southeast course; which tract is included within the
limits set forth in the articles of 1822. After reserving to the Oneida,
Stockbridge, St. Regis, and Tuscarora tribes, each, a tract of land equal
to that granted to the Brothertons, to be located in any part of the
country granted by the articles of 1822, the party of the second part
also sold to the Brothertons an undivided interest of one-half in all
the residue of the cession of 1822. (See Senate Doc. 189, second
session 27th Congress, page 25, volume 3 of series.)
If I have read this document and the articles of 1821 and 1822 aright,
the Brothertons took, by the conveyance to them, an interest only in
the tract described in the articles of 1822; and no interest whatever in
that described in the articles of 1821. The memorial under review is
thus greatly in error, in representing the interest of the Brothertons
as extending to “an equal undivided interest in all the balance of the
lands bought of the Menomonees and Winnebagoes.” The memorial
alleges that the first purchase, in 1821, embraced 737,280 acres; and
the second purchase, in 1822, 691,200 acres. If the estimate of quan-
tity in the purchase of 1822 be correct, after giving 153,600 acres (8
by 30 miles) to the Brothertons, and a like quantity to each of the
four other tribes last above named, there would be no residue in which
the Brothertons could acquire an undivided interest of one-half.
By the 11th article of the treaty of August 19th, 1825, with the
Chippewas, Menomonees, Winnebagoes, and others, concluded at
Prairie du Chien, the United States agreed “to convene, whenever the
President may think it necessary and proper, such of the tribes, either
separately or together, as are interested in the lines left unsettled herein,
and to recommend to them an amicable and final adjustment of their
respective claims,” &c. (See U. S. Stat., vol. 7, page 275.) This
provision was designed to cover the case of the Menomonees and Win-
nebagoes, in regard to the boundaries of their possessions in Michigan
Territory. Accordingly, in 1827, Secretary Barbour addressed, under
date of March 27, a letter of instructions to Governor Cass and Thomas
L. McKenney, as commissioners, and from this letter I quote as follows:
“I enclose for your government a copy of the treaty of Prairie du
Chien, which fully illustrates the object of the council to be held, and
the ends to be attained by it.” " " - “It is presumed that at some point

-
10 CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS.
on Green bay or Lake Michigan, this council may be held with most
convenience to all concerned. This is referred to, but left in your dis-
cretion.” " " " " " " “Two memorials, both of the 27th January,
1827, having been received by the President of the United States from
the Brotherton Indians, of Oneida county, in the State of New York,
setting forth, among other things, that they have purchased a certain
tract of land on Fox river, eight miles wide and thirty miles long; and
that they have, in other respects, an interest with other tribes of In-
dians of the State of New York, in the country in the vicinity of Green
Bay, and to which country they have a prospect of removing; and as
the Indians, of whom it is represented they purchased said country, will
doubtless form part of the general council; and as exceptions have been
taken to the occupancy of said country, so represented to have been
purchased by the Brotherton Indians, by citizens of Green Bay; and
as, with a view of a final adjustment of the object of said memorials,
leave has been given to the Brotherton Indians to send a deputation
to said council, you will receive them accordingly, and examine the
subjects of the memorials, copies of which are here with enclosed, and
report the result to the department, with your opinions, for the sanction
of the department, and the reasons for any decision you may come to,
whether for or against the prayer of the petitioners, with a plan, (if in
your opinion it may be proper to consent to their settlement, and the
settlement of their friends in the Green Bay country,) for their several
settlements, so as to guard, as far as may be, against any future rupture
between them, or between them and their Menomonee and Winnebago
and other neighbors, or discontents among the white settlers at Green
Bay.
“I have the honor, &c.,
“JAMES BARBOUR.”
The commissioners, under these instructions, convened the council
on the 6th August following, at Butte Des Morts, on Fox river, near
the outlet of Winnebago lake. The Chippewa, Menomonee, and Win-
nebago tribes, are recited as parties to the treaty of August 11, 1827,
which was there concluded, (U. S. Stat., vol. 7, page 303;) but the
New York tribes, including the Brothertons, were apparently repre-
sented in the council, and an important step of progress was made
(Art. 2 of the treaty) toward effecting an adjustment of their claims,
although a full and final adjustment could not then be agreed on.
The claims of the New York tribes were presented to the commis-
sioners during the council by their own delegates, and by their friend,
Mr. Dean. The remonstrances of the Menomonees against these claims
were declared by their chiefs, and their friend, Mr. Doty.
By reference to Senate document Indian Removals, 23d Congress,
1st session, pages 540, 541, and 542, it will appear that the Menomonee
chiefs denied the cessions—at least in the meaning and intent claimed
for them by the New York Indians. They stated that the papers signed
in 1821 and 1s22 were not understood by them, and they refused to
acknowledge the claims presented against them by the New York
tribes. The commissioners deemed it best to close the council, and
embody in the treaty the beneficial provisions in regard to boundaries

CLAIM of BROTHERTON TRIBE of INDIANs. 11
that had been agreed on with and between the Chippewa, Menºmºnee,
and Winnebago tribes. By the fifth article, the New York Indians,
including the Brothertons as such, were admitted as part recipients of
a perpetual annuity for education; and by the second, the Menomouees
and Winnebagoes agreed to refer the matter of difficulty with the New
York tribes to the President of the United States, who was thereby
empowered to establish such boundaries between the Winnebagºes
and Menomonees and the New York Indians, as he might consider
equitable and just. -
The memorial of the delegate, Mr. Fowler, to the House of Repre-
sentatives, at the last session of Congress, claims that, by the treaty of
1827, the United States bought of the Menomonees “the very tract
sold in 1825 by the Six Nations, &c., &c., to the Brothertons.” The
tract acknowledged to belong to the United States by the boundaries
defined in the third article of the treaty of August 11th, did indeed
include a small part of that sold in 1825 by the New York Indians to
the Brothertons, as the tract named in the treaty extended six miles in
a southeast direction from Fox river, with a southeastern boundary
nearly parallel to said river, whilst the Brotherton tract extended in
the same direction thirty miles southeast from the river, and thence
eight miles to the northeast, &c.
The Senate ratified the treaty of 1827, with the proviso that “the
the said treaty shall not impair or affect any right or claim which the
New York Indians or any of them have to the lands, or any of the
lands mentioned in the said treaty.” The question now arises, how
far did the treaty affect and impair the claim of the Brothertons to the
153,600 acres sold to them by the other New York tribes in 1825? It
is to be observed that the third article of the treaty of 1827 declares
and defines the boundaries of a tract theretofore belonging to the United
States—a tract acquired by conquest from Great Britain, and not pur-
chased of the Menomonees; a tract owned by the United States before
the articles of 1821 and 1822 were concluded; and, by the terms of
the articles of 1822, under which alone the Brothertons have claim, it
was declared that the Menomonees “do not cede to the Stockbridge,
Oneida, Tuscarora, St. Regis, and Munsee nations, any lands in the
vicinity of Fort Howard, or near the mouth of Fox river, the title of
which may have been heretofore extinguished by the American govern-
ment.” President Monroe, in his partial endorsement of those articles,
under date of March 13, 1823, evidently had in view this tract, at the
head of Green bay, on Fox river, in draughting his endorsement, a part
of which is in these words: “It is to be understood,” &c., * * * *
“and that the title which they have acquired is not to interfere in any
manner whatever with lands previously acquired or occupied by the
government of the United States or its citizens.”
One of the principal objects in view, in negotiating the treaty of
Prairie du Chien, and the treaty of Butte Des Morts, as indicated by
the instructions given by the War Department, and by the terms of
the treaties, and the reports of Commissioners Cass and McKenney,
was to define the boundaries between various tribes named, and be-
tween them and the United States; those boundaries having been un-
settled, to a considerable extent, by the events of the then recent war

12 CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS.
on the frontier. One of the acquisitions of that war, on the part of the
United States, was the settlement at Green bay, originally made by
the French, then captured by the English, and finally wrested from the
English by the United States.
General Cass, in his address to the Indians on opening the coun-
cil at Butte Des Morts, presented the matter in this light to the Indians
there assembled, and this view of the matter was then apparently coin-
cided in by them. General Cass said: “A great many years ago the
French came into this country, and they established a settlement upon
Fox river, and at Green bay. After awhile the red-coats drove the
French away, and after awhile we drove the red-coats away. Now
our people have settled in the country, and we are anxious that bound-
aries be established between them and the Indians. They were never
established while the French or English had the country. We want
to know what is theirs and what is ours,” &c., &c.
Now, as the 3d article of the treaty of Butte Des Morts only defined,
between the United States and the Indians, the boundaries of the lands
that had long before belonged to each, and as the New York Indians
had excepted out of their purchase by the articles of September, 1822,
such lands about Fort Howard as were already in possession of the
United States and its citizens, it is difficult to perceive what right the
New York Indians had to sell to the Brothertons any lands that be-
longed to the United States at the time of the sale, (1825) or what
legal or equitable claim the Brothertons could acquire against the
United States, by reason of the failure of the title they purchased to
that part of the tract described in their conveyance, that the New York
Indians had never owned. If any further argument or reference is ne-
cessary to render it conclusive that the region on Fox river, above its
mouth, and that around the head of Green bay, was considered
and known to belong to the United States before the articles of 1822
were entered into, it is afforded by reference to the legislation of Con-
ress.
3. Congress having, in the year 1812, (April 23,) passed an act (U. S.
Stat., vol. 2, page 710) “authorizing the issuing of patents for land,
and to grant donation rights to certain claimants in the district of De-
troit,” who shall file their claims by the 1st December following,
by the act of March 3, 1817, (vol. 3, page 390,) extended the time for
entering donation rights to the 1st day of December, 1818; and by the
act of May 11, 1820, (vol. 3, page 572) revived the powers of the
commissioners under the act of April 23, 1812, for the purpose of “set-
tling the claims to land at Green Bay and Prairie du Chien, in the
Territory of Michigan;” and, by this last-dated act, authorized the
appointment of a person “capable of translating the French language.”
as an agent for the said commissioners, who should give public notice
at Green Bay and Prairie du Chien of the time that he would attend at
each of those places, to receive “notices and evidence of titles and
claims to lands within the same;” and who should remain at those
places for a time sufficient to give the inhabitants full opportunity for
presenting such notices and evidence.
It is inferred, from the wording of the 1st section of the act last
quoted, requiring the commissioners “to perform the duties therein”
-

CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS. 13
(act 1812) “prescribed in relation to the claims that have been filed,
&c., in pursuance of the act” of 1817, above mentioned, that under
the act of 1817 sundry claims from Green Bay and Prairie du Chien
had been filed, and were then (in 1820) not yet acted on. This act
evidently being in force only till the following session of Congress, by
a subsequent act—February 21, 1823–(vol. 3, page 724) the provi-
sions of the act of May 11, 1820, were revived and continued in force
to the 1st of November following, with some provisos and additions.
The 5th section of this last act made provision also for the confirmation
of tracts to “every person who, on the first day of July, 1812, was a
resident of Green Bay,” &c., and occupied a tract that he cultivated,
or had previously cultivated, lying within the settlement, and who has
continued to submit to the authority of the United States. It thus ap-
pears that the legislation of Congress had recognised claims, and had
provided for the confirmation of titles to lands in the Green Bay settle-
ment, before any of the negotiations of the New York tribes with the
Menomonees had commenced.
In the negotiations, therefore, the rights of the United States and its
citizens in that quarter were kept ºn view, and provision was made to
save them from the operation of the conveyance of 1822; and hence,
also, from being affected by the conveyance of 1825. The first time
the relation of the Brothertons to these articles of 1821 and 1822 came
before the government and its commissioners the invalidity of their
claim to the region on Fox river was discovered, and their title pub-
licly disregarded, as void to the extent of its conflict with the acquisi-
tions of the United States.
It appears to me, therefore, to be erroneous to say that the United
States acquired of the Menomonees, by the 3d article of the treaty of
1827, any of the lands of the Brothertons, or that any injustice was
done them by that treaty.
The New York Indians presented their case on the council ground;
and these facts were evidently then known to them, if not before. To
insure good feeling among all parties, however, in view of the satisfac-
tory adjustment of the boundaries of the Green Bay settlement by that
treaty, immediately thereafter the commissioners distributed presents
to the Indians assembled, of the value of $15,682; and an article (No.
5) was inserted in the treaty providing for an appropriation of $1,500
per annum for an indefinite period of time thereafter, for the education
of the children of the tribes parties to the treaty, and the children
belonging to the New York tribes.
The report of Commissioners Cass and McKenney, with which the
treaty of 1827 was transmitted to the War Department, in that portion
relative to the difficulties between the Menomonees and the New York
Indians and their confederates, and in the portion relative to the bound-
aries agreed upon at the council, as those of the settlement on Fox
river and at the head of Green bay, are so much to the purpose in this
inquiry that I incorporate them in this report.

14 CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS.
“TREATY GRound, BUTTE DEs MoRTs, Fox River,
“August 11, 1827.
“SIR: We have the honor to transmit you a treaty this day con-
cluded with the Chippewa, Menomonee, and Winnebago tribes of
Indians.
“The various subjects embraced in our instructions—namely, the
continuation of the Chippewa boundary, the establishment of the limits
of the reservation embracing the Green Bay settlement, and the adjust-
ment of the matter in difference between the New York Indians and
the Menomonees and Winnebagoes—have been particularly attended
to, and settled as far as circumstances permitted.
“The first article requires no explanation. It provides for a final
determination of the Chippewa boundary, and, so far as regards that
tribe, it carries into full effect the principles of the treaty of Prairie du
Chien.
“It is well known to the government that for some years the various
tribes of Indians in the State of New York have contemplated removing
to, and establishing themselves in, this region. By the permission of
the government, negotiations were opened between them and the Me-
nomonee and Winnebago Indians, and in the year 1821 an instrument
was signed purporting to be a treaty between these parties. In 1822
another instrument was executed, containing a great addition to the
original grant. Copies of these treaties are herewith transmitted, and
we must refer you to the files of the department for the instructions in
relation to this matter, which have been given from time to time by the
government, and for the reports which have been made. Much dis-
satisfaction has prevailed among the Menomonees and Winnebagoes
from the period of the execution of these contracts, and we were very
desirous of amicably adjusting the business, and terminating all causes
of difficulty. We have found this, however, impracticable, and no
course was left for us but to ascertain the facts as far as possible, and
report them to the government. Copies of all the papers submitted are
here with transmitted, and the various statements made have been em-
bodied in the journal of our proceedings. Some facts necessary to a
clear understanding of the case have been publicly agreed upon by the
parties, and others are disputed.
It has been agreed, as the clear understanding of both parties, that
the Menomonees were to remain joint owners with the New York In-
dians of all the land ceded to the latter. This understanding is not,
however, expressed in the treaties.
“It is contended by the Menomonees, that the persons who signed
the papers on their part were not authorized to do so.
“We believe, from an examination of the various facts, that the Me-
nomonee tribe was not sufficiently represented on those occasions.
Without undertaking to determine how many chiefs must be present
to carry with them the authority and influence of their tribe, it is suffi-
cient to know that the representation, when these papers were exe-
cuted, appears to have been inadequate to the objects to be effected.
“It is also contended by the Menomonees, and we think with jus-
tice, that the terms and extent of the cession were not understood by

CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS. 15
their people. That this allegation is in part true, has been already
shown by the admission of both parties in the tenure of the land. That
it is true with respect to the extent of the cession is probable, from a
comparison of this with the amount of the consideration, and with the
residue of the country left for that tribe. If the subject was fairly un-
derstood, it is an instance of improvidence not often to be found even
among the Indians. -
* Besides, the cessions extend beyond the acknowledged limits of
the Menomonee country, north to the Chippewas, and south to the
Manitowalk and Milwaukie Indians. And it will also be perceived
that there is some difference respecting the boundary upon the Fox
river of the second cession.
“It is presumed that the government is free to take any course with
respect to this second cession. The act of acceptance required by the
conditional approval of the President has not been performed by the
New York Indians, and the whole subject is therefore open for exami-
nation and decision. Nothing will be gained by longer delay. The
question will become more difficult as the feelings of the parties are
excited, and their rights committed. The New York Indians are now
migrating to the country; and where they establish themselves, and
make valuable improvements, there they will look for permanent and
secure titles. A common interest in a country between an agricultural
and a hunting people is impossible, for as one advances, the other must
recede. The New York Indians are emphatically a farming people,
and nothing would be gained for themselves, or för the great cause of
Indian melioration, by the cession of an extensive country dispropor-
tioned to their numbers, and which would lead, almost necessarily, to
a relapse into their former habits of life. What use have they for
2,000,000 acres of land? A generation would not pass away before
the plough would give place to the rifle, and, independent of other con-
siderations, we should lose the benefit of the example of industry and
prosperity, which forms a principal reason for their establishment in
this region. Much is certainly due to those Indians for the attachment
they have displayed to the cause of the United States, and their per-
manent residence here would add to our physical strength, and place
upon the borders a body of people of whose fidelity there can be no
doubt. They have come here upon the faith of the arrangements they
have made, and with the permission of the government. No one will
question the propriety of securing to them a district sufficiently exten-
sive and productive for their wants and their numbers. But neither the
one nor the other require such a wide-spread territory as they have en-
deavored to procure. Its confirmation would strip the Menomonees of
the larger portion of their country; it would lead to a resumption of
the habits of savage life, and it would place beyond the control of the
United States the most valuable section of this extensive country, and
the key, in fact, of our communication between the lakes and the Up-
per Mississippi.
“We believe that good land enough may be found on the south side
of Fox river, and beyond the limits of the reservation, described in the
third article of the treaty; and we recommend that these Indians be
located in that quarter. Almost all the improvements they have made

16 CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS.
are there, and in fact we understand that seven locations, at most,
have been made upon the opposite side. It would be proper to ascer-
tain with reasonable certainty the number who will probably remove
here from New York, and then to determine the quantity of land which
ought to be apportioned to each individual. This might be upon the
most liberal scale, as well with relation to the present generation, as
to that which will succeed it. The country should then be examined
by some competent person, and a tract laid off and assigned to these
people, fully adequate, both in quantity and quality, to their support.
We cannot but think that this process would be just to them and the
Menomonees, and proper and expedient in itself. We may add, that
a severance of title between the New York Indians and the Menomo-
nees is earnestly desired by a portion of the former, and we believe
that all hopes of improvement not founded on this measure, will be
utterly fallacious.
“We have made provision in the second article for establishing the
boundaries of the reservation upon the Fox river. Our right is derived
from that of the French and the British governments, and no docu-
mentary evidence exists of its extent. It is well known that the
French authorities, when in possession of this country, took possession
of such land as was wanted for their purposes, without the formality of
a treaty. They merely declared to the Indians that their great father,
the King, desired such a piece of land, and, after distributing such pre-
sents as they thought proper, they took possession of it. In this man-
ner their rights, as well of jurisdiction as of soil, was acquired, and it
was doubtless in this manner that possession was obtained of the
country upon Green bay. The settlement was so remote, that it is not
probable the British ever took any important step respecting it, and to
this day the question of jurisdiction is unsettled, and the boundaries of
the reservation left to be determined by such facts and recollections as
have survived the period of the settlement. Questions of jurisdiction
have arisen, which have called for judicial decisions, and many more
may be expected to arise, in a district where the provisions of the in-
tercourse law with the Indians are in constant and active operation.
“To provide a remedy for this state of things, we deemed it proper
to establish the lines of separation by definite boundaries, and in doing
this we limited the tract on the west side, by the most remote private
claim of land, and on the south and north sides by the probable extent
of other private claims. The reservation now embraces within it all
these claims, and is as small as it can be, to attain that object, and to be
bounded by straight and parallel lines. About 200,000 acres of land
are contained within its limits, and it is a very valuable tract of land.
“The provisions we have inserted, to save harmless the claims of
the New York Indians, and to avoid any opinion respecting the private
land claims, require no observation. We have so framed the treaty,
that the whole matter is within the control of the President, and the
sooner all the questions in relation to it are determined, the better will
it be for us, and for the Indians.” " º: º: " *
The quotations and references hereinbefore made, it is presumed,
establish the fact of the remonstrances of the Menomonees, commencing
as early as 1824, against the instruments executed in 1821 and 1822,

CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS. 17
and indicate that either the Menomonees did not understand the purport
of those instruments at the time of execution, or that there was some
deep-laid scheme in 1822, set on foot by the New York tribes of their
advisers, to acquire a title to lands in the then Territory of Michigan,
both as to quantity and nature of tenure, such as it was nºt the policy
of the government to sanction, and it was not possible, whilst the act of
1s02 was in force, for them or any other tribe or nation of Indians or
white men to obtain, without the sanction of the President and Senate
of the United States. - -
In pursuance of the second article of the treaty of 1827, instructions
were issued, June 9, 1839, by Secretary John H. Eaton, to General
Erastus Root, James McCall, and John Y. Mason, commissioners, ap-
pointed to establish the boundaries of a cºuntry for the New York
Indians, within the limits of the lands claimed and owned by the Meno-
monees and Winnebagoes. The two principal objects they were in-
structed to have in view, were: “First, the providing a country and a
home for the New York Indians, that shall be acceptable to them in
extent and soil, and wood and water, &c. Second, in consulting the
views and feelings, and condition, of the Menomonees and Winnebagoes,
who have generously given the permission to do so, it is important that
you harmonize these interests.” -
The instructions then proceed to state the general views that should
guide the commissioners in their action. I deem it unnecessary to
quote them further, but solicit a perusal of them, as published, (Senate
Doc. Indian Removals, 23d Congress, 1st session, vol. 8, 1833–4,
pages 10, 11, 12, and 13.) These instructions develop the definite
policy of the United States at that period of time, in regard to the New
York tribes; and the sensible object of giving to them a suitable
country, of limited extent, by a confirmed title, in lieu of their claims to
a large extent of country, in common with the Menomonees, and not
well defined as to boundaries, or conveniently arranged as to the vari-
ous shares of the parties having interest therein. This object was one,
manifestly for the interests of all the parties in any way concerned—the
United States, the Menomonees and Winnebagoes, and the New York
tribes; for the latter, at the time of their removal, “were in an ad-
vanced state of semi-civilization, and were good farmers and herdsmen.”
(Schoolcraft's Notes on the Iroquois, page 31. Account of the conduct
of the Society of Friends towards the Indian tribes—London, 1844–
page 169.)
The commissioners, after some time employed therein, were not suc-
cessful in fully accomplishing the objects of their appointment. They
arrived at Green Bay on the 10th August, 1830, and spent the time
intervening, to the 1st day of September, in endeavoring to settle all
matters of difficulty mentioned in their instructions. The report, signed
by two of the commissioners, dated Detroit, September 21, 1830, and
the journal of their proceedings, throw much light on the controversies
between the Monomonees and Winnebagoes, on the one part, and the
New York Indians and their confederates, on the other; and I would
respectfully refer to them, as printed in Senate Doc. Indian Removals,
23d Congress, 1st session, 1833–4, vol. 8, pages 123 to 168, inclusive.
Ex, Doc. 66 2

18 CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS.
The speeches of the various chiefs on each side, the memorials and
arguments presented to the commissioners during their stay at Green
Bay, indicate that both parties to the controversy had become more
determined and more bitter, and that claims and denials had become
more extended and positive, since the council at Butte des Morts.
The New York Indians at first (August 28) offered to accept a tract
embraced within parallel lines—one crossing the foot of Winnebago
lake at the rapids at its outlet; the other crossing Fox river at the
Rapids des Pere, or Lower rapids, and having a line at right-angles
to these as the northwest boundary—drawn to be thirty miles, in a
direct course from the foot of the Grand Kaccalin, and having the
boundary to the southeast as far as the Menomonees and Winnebagoes
claimed. This tract would embrace an immense body of valuable
farm and timbered land, (page 159.) If the Oneida settlement was not
within these lines, a piece on Duck creek was to be added.
The Monomonees and Winnebagoes would not agree to this. They
offered to grant a tract on the northeast side of Fox river, having a base
on Fox river from the small island above the Grand Kaccalin to the
Little Butte des Morts, and extending northwest thirty miles. With
the hope of “a final adjustment of differences,” the New York In-
dians—August 30–(page 161) abated their claim in part; but the
probable quantity covered by their abated proposition is, say 1,200,000
a Cres.
The commissioners thereupon proceeded to “establish boundaries
for the New York Indians,” (page 162,) assigning to the tribes of the
Six Nations 275,000 acres of valuable farm lands on Duck creek, and
extending to the east side of Fox river; to the Stockbridges, 6,000
acres on the southeast side Fox river, having a base on the same
from the Grand Kaccalin to the Little Chute; and to the Brothertons,
20,000 acres on the southeast side of Fox river, between Plum creek
and the Little Kaccalin. As all these tracts trenched on the lands of
the United States according to the boundaries agreed upon in 1827
between the government and the Menomonees, the commissioners pro-
posed to accept from the latter, in exchange, a quantity of land on the
east side of Fox river, between the Grand Kaccalin and Winnebago
lake, equal to that proposed to be relinquished by the United States to
the New York Indians.
This arrangement the Menomonees and Winnebagoes would not
agree to, (pages 164 and 168;) nor was it satisfactory to the other
parties to the controversy. It further appears from the memorial of
John W. Quinney, “in behalf of the Stockbridge and Munsee tribes,”
presented to the President December 14, 1830, (Senate Doc. Indian
Removals, 23d Congress, 1st session, vol. 8, page 199) that “to this
arrangement” (say they) “we have to oppose the strongest objections.”
The Stockbridges (same memorial) asked for a large tract having a
base on Fox river, from the rapids at the Winnebago lake, to a point
two miles below the Grand Kaccalin, and extending southeast fifteen
miles from said river.
The Brothertons also formally objected to the tract allotted them
by said commissioners, although the 20,000 acres proposed to be set
a part for them was a part of the land claimed by them under the arti-

cLAIM or BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANs. 19
cles of 1822; and also required a part of the lands confirmed to the
United States by the treaty at Butte des Morts. Their memorial, nu-
merously signed, will be found in document last quoted, page 207, &c.,
dated December 27, 1830; and therein they ask for 61,000 acres hav-
ing a base of eight miles on Fox river, and extending southeast for
quantity.
Immediately after the adjournment of the council held by the last-
mentioned commissioners at Green Bay, the Menomonees requested
permission to visit the President of the United States and lay their
grievances before him.
Permission having been obtained, and a delegation of their chiefs
having reached Washington and conferred with President Jackson, he,
on the 1st February, 1831, directed the Secretary of War, John H.
Eaton, and the Indian agent at Green Bay, S. C. Stambaugh, “to enter
into some amicable arrangement with the Menomonee tribe of Indians
now at the city of Washington, for a settlement of their dispute with
the New York Indians,” &c., (same Doc., page 504.)
The New York Indians had also sent delegations to Washington, as in-
dicated above. The latter delegations, between the 14th and 27th of
December, 1830, as above, and the 22d of January, 1831, made some
further abatement of their claims. On the 22d of January, 1831, the
various New York delegations (Oneida, Brotherton, St. Regis, and
Stockbridge and Munsee) addressed a memorial to the President,
stating that they had received “instructions and powers from the tribes
they respectively represent to repair to the seat of government, and
make such arrangement and disposition of their claims to lands at Green
bay, in the Territory of Michigan, with the Ewecutive and Congress of the
United States, as to them, the said delegates, may seem proper and right.”
Under their powers and in furtherance of the objects of their appoint-
ment, they proposed to accept two tracts—one of about 161,000 acres
on the southeast side of Fox river, and another of about 697,000 acres
on the northwest side. (See said vol. 8, pages 396, 397, 398, and 399.)
It was with this favorable prospect of an adjustment, under the
full powers possessed by the delegates for the New York tribes, that
the order of February 1, 1831, to “enter into negotiations,” &c., ap-
pears to have been given to Commissioners Eaton and Stambaugh.
In pursuance of that order, the treaty of February 8, 1831, (U. S.
Statutes, vol. vii, page 242,) was negotiated. By the introductory part
of the treaty the territorial claims of the Menomonees, as then exist-
ing and admitted, were defined. By the first article, the Menomonees,
still denying their obligation to recognise the claims of the New York
Indians, &c., nevertheless provided for them a region “to be held by
those tribes under such tenure as the Menomonee Indians hold their
lands,” &c., defined by boundaries therein stated, viz.: “Beginning on
the west side of Fox river, near the ‘Little Kaccalin, at a point known
as the ‘old mill-dam; thence northwest forty miles; thence northeast
to the Oconto creek, falling into Green bay; thence down said Oconto
creek to Green bay; thence up and along Green bay and Fox river to
the place of beginning,” excluding therefrom confirmed private land
claims and the military reservation at Fort Howard, and reserving
also timber and firewood for the garrison at Fort Howard off said

20 CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS.
granted lands, and so much of saidlands as might be needed for public
roads and highways. (U. S. Statutes, vol. vii, page 343.)
By the supplemental articles, dated February 17, (page 347,) it was
provided, “That the President of the United States shall prescribe
the time for the removal and settlement of the New York Indians upon
the lands thus (1st art. treaty) provided for them; and, at the expiration
of such reasonable time, he shall apportion the land among the actual
settlers in such manner as he shall deem equitable and just. And if,
within such reasonable time as the President of the United States shall
prescribe for that purpose, the New York Indians shall refuse to accept
the provisions made for their benefit, or, having agreed, shall neglect
or refuse to remove from New York, and settle on the said lands
within the time prescribed for that purpose, that then, and in either of
these events, the lands aforesaid shall be and remain the property of
the United States, according to said first article, excepting so much
thereof as the President shall deem justly due to such of the New York
Indians as shall actually have removed to and settled on the said
lands.”
The treaty first quoted was ratified by the Senate in 1832, with the
following proviso, (vol. vii, page 347 :)
“Provided, That for the purpose of establishing the rights of the
New York Indians on a permanent and just footing, the said treaty
shall be ratified with the express understanding that two townships of
land on the east side of Winnebago lake, equal to forty-six thousand
and eighty acres, shall be laid off (to commence at some point to be
agreed on) for the use of the Stockbridge and Munsee tribes; and that
the improvements made on the lands now in possession of the said
tribes, on the east side of the Fox river, which said lands are to be re-
linquished, shall, after being valued by a commissioner to be appointed
by the President of the United States, be paid for by the government.
“Provided, however, That the valuation of such improvements shall
not exceed the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, and that there
shall be one township of land, adjoining the foregoing, equal to twenty-
three thousand and forty acres, laid off and granted for the use of the
Brotherton Indians, who are to be paid by the government the sum
of one thousand six hundred dollars for the improvements on the lands
now in their possession, on the east side of Fox river, and which lands
are to be relinquished by said Indians; also, that a new line shall be
run, parallel to the southwestern boundary line, or course of the tract
of 500,000 acres described in the first article of this treaty, and set
apart for the New York Indians, to commence at a point on the west
side of the Fox river, and one mile above the Grand Chute on Fox river,
and at a sufficient distance from the said boundary line as established
by the said first article, as shall comprehend the additional quantity of
200,000 acres of land, on and along the west side of Fox river, without
including any of the confirmed private land claims on the Fox river,
and which 200,000 acres shall be a part of the 500,000 acres intended
to be set apart for the Six Nations of the New York Indians and the St.
Registribe; and that an equal quantity to that which is added on the
southwestern side shall be taken off from the northeastern side of the
said tract, described in that article, on the Oconto creek, to be deter-

CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS. 21
mined by a commissioner to be appointed by the President of the
United States; so that the whole number of acres to be granted to the
Six Nations and St. Regis tribe of Indians shall not exceed the quantity
originally stipulated by the treaty.”
Before the Senate had acted on the original and supplemental articles,
and attached the foregoing proviso thereto, they had been, by direction
of the Secretary of War, communicated and fully explained to the
Menomonee nation, in full council, by S. C. Stambaugh, U. S. agent,
and by them approved. (See pages 553 and 554). Agent Stambaugh's
report, accompanied by sundry documents, and the journal of the pro-
ceedings, &c., at the council, will be found in Senate Doc. Indian Re-
movals, 23d Congress, 1st session, vol. 8, 1833–4, pages 523 to 554
inclusive. All of these are of interest as connected with the matter
now under investigation, and are therefore referred to for further details.
(See, also, pages 655 to 676 inclusive.)
Between the date of the negotiation of the treaty and its ratification,
the matter of difficulty had otherwise elicited the anxious concern of
the President of the United States; and during the winter of 1831–32,
at Washington, efforts had been made to reconcile the New York In-
dians to some proper terms of arrangement. So far as the Stockbridge,
Munsee, and Brotherton Indians were concerned, a basis had been
then agreed on. (See report of P. B. Porter, dated February 3, 1832,
and accompanying documents; same series of Senate Docs., vol. 9,
pages 173 to 188 inclusive.) But the Oneidas and St. Regis insisted
on terms that the United States could not fix in their behalf, without
additional negotiations with the Menomonees. By the treaty of 1831,
the United States having acquired of the Menomonees the regions east
of Winnebago lake, Fox river, and Green bay, extending to the shore
of Lake Michigan, and including all islands of the waters mentioned,
the commissioner, Governor Porter, assisted by Mr. Irwin, then in
communication with delegations of the New York tribes, agreed with
the delegates of the Stockbridges and Munsees, and the delegate for the
Brothertons, that those tribes should have reservations on the east
shore of Winnebago lake. On the 26th December, 1831, the Stock-
bridge and Brotherton delegates proposed to Governor Porter and Mr.
Irwin, “to relinquish their present possessions on the southeast bank of
Fox river, and to accept three townships, to be located by them on the
east shore of the Winnebago lake, on receiving an indemnity for the
full value of their improvements, and the expenses of their removal.”
(Page 176.) -
On the 27th, the commissioners proposed to those tribes that had
“made improvements on the east side of Fox river,” that they should
accept a tract of 46,080 acres on the east side of Winnebago lake, and
be paid for their improvements at their valuation, not to exceed in all
$25,000. (Page 177.)
The Stockbridges and Munsees, by their delegates, on the 28th, de-
manded two townships, and $25,000 indemnity for removal and im-
provements; and the Brothertons one township, and $2,000 indemnity.
On the 29th the commissioners acceded to the demand as to quan-
tity of land, but declined to agree to the indemnity asked, reiterating
his views of indemnity expressed on the 27th.

22 CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS.
As regarded the Oneida and St. Regis tribes, there was not so near
an approximation to a settlement.
On the 9th January, 1832, the deputies of the New York tribes had
an interview with President Jackson—(pages 180, 181)—John Me-
toxen and John W. Quinney on behalf of the Stockbridges and Munsees,
assisted by Mr. Beale, their counsel, and David Toucee for the Brother-
tons, assisted by Mr. Dean, as counsel. These delegations then
agreed to the proposition of the commissioners, in the presence of Presi-
dent Jackson. Metoxen said, “We are perfectly satisfied with the offer
made to us.”
After the conference, David Toucee again demanded $2,000 indem-
nity for his tribe, as an absolute sum, in lieu of a valuation of improve-
ments. The commissioners then offered $1,600 as the indemnity to the
Brothertons; “which,” says Governor Porter, “being acceded to, this
tribe was satisfied.” (Page 182.)
It will thus be seen, that, so far as the Brothertons were concerned,
the basis of a settlement to be made that should be satisfactory to
them, was agreed on between them and the executive department of
the government before the Senate had acted on the treaty of 1831.
That basis was within $400 of what they had voluntarily proposed to
accept, and the Senate accordingly embodied the arrangement in the
proviso above quoted. -
The adjustment, however, made by the proviso, for the St. Regis
and Oneida tribes, was of such a nature, that it required the sanction
of the Menomonees. Accordingly, on the 11th of September, 1832,
the necessary instructions were given by Secretary Cass to Governor
Porter.
It is deemed unnecessary here to quote those instructions, inasmuch
as the substance of them appears in the report and journal of Gov-
ernor Porter, which will be found in volume 10 of the series of docu-
uments quoted above, (23d Congress, 1st session,) pages 25 to 55 in-
clusive. The result of Governor Porter's mission was the treaty of
1832. (U. S. Statutes, volume vii, pages 405 to 409.) Governor
Porter remarks, in regard to the articles of that treaty, in his report:
“It will appear that an arrangement has been effected satisfactory to
them, (the New York Indians,) and just to the government.”
It may be well to sketch the outlines of Gov. P.'s proceedings very
briefly. The Menomonees, when he first met them, October 1832,
would not agree to the proviso of the Senate. Their principal speaker
opposed it in a very forcible address; (pages 31 and 32.) They would
concede nothing to the New York Indians. They denied all, their
claims. It was to the United States that the Menomonees had con-
ceded a tract for the benefit of the New York Indians, and for this the
Menomonees were to be paid by the United States. (Consideration
$20,000; see 2d article treaty of 1831, U. S. Statues, vloume vii, page
343.) Throughout the council, commencing October 22, 1832, and
lasting more than a week, the Menomonees refused to concede any-
thing to the New York tribes. However, they assented to a proposi-
tion to give, in exchange for 200,000 acres on the northeast side of the
tract of 500,000 acres, 200,000 on the southwest side of said 500,000
acres, having a base on Fox river, from the old mill-dam to the Big

CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS. 23
Kaccalin, (pages 43 and 44.) To this the Stockbridges and Brother-
tons agreed, “for the purpose of settling and adjusting this long pro-
tracted dispute;” (page 47.) The Oneidas and St. Regis dissented.
On Saturday, the 27th, however, the Rev. Eleazer Williams said:
“We are willing to make a sacrifice for the sake of having this dispute
settled.” A * * * “I am instructed by the New York Indians to
make this as their last and final proposition, viz: The New York In-
dians will agree to settle this controversy, on condition that they have
granted to them in exchange for 200,000 acres on the northeastern side
of the tract of 500,000 acres described in the treaty, an equal quantity
on the southwest side, to be laid off as follows: beginning at the old
mill dam, and thence extending up Fox river to the Little Rapide
Croche; thence running back from the river three miles; thence in the
direction of the course of Fox river, keeping back three miles from the
same, until it shall intersect the first stream which empties into Fox
river above the Grand Chute; and thence running on a line parallel
with the southwest boundary line of the tract of 500,000 acres de-
scribed in the treaty; the necessary distance to include 200,000 acres.’
This proposition was, with slight modification, the basis of the treaty
of 1832. (See journal, page 50; see treaty, volume vii, pages 407
and 408, section 2.) We thus see that the settlement resulting
as embodied in the proviso of the Senate to the treaty of 1831, and
repeated in the treaty of 1832, so far as the Stockbridges and Mun-
sees and the Brothertons were concerned, severally, was based on
propositions made by them long before the Senate acted on either of
those treaties, and concurred in constantly and repeatedly. The
Stockbridges and Munsees asked, at Washington, for two townships,
and indemnity, and it was conceded by the Senate. The Brothertons
asked for one township and $2,000; agreed for one township and
$1,600, and this was granted. So far as the tract of 500,000 acres, as
fixed by the treaty of 1832, is concerned, its boundaries were made
finally to correspond with a proposition tendered by the New York In-
dians, “for the purpose of having the dispute settled.”
The proviso attached to the resolution of the Senate, by which the
treaty of 1831 was ratified, was attached, as therein declared, “for
the purpose of establishing the rights of the New York Indians on a
permanent and just footing.”
The modification of the proviso made by the second article of the
treaty of 1832, was “in lieu’’ of the proposition contained in the proviso.
The New York Indians, in giving their formal assent in writing to
the treaty of 1832 with the Menomonees, (U. S. Stat., vol. vii, page
409) recite that, “whereas a tedious, perplexing, and harassing dis-
pute and controversy have long existed between the Menomonee nation
of Indians and the New York Indians, more particularly known as the
Stockbridge, Munsee and Brotherton tribes, the Six Nations, and St.
Registribe,” “ ” “ ” “being asked to signify an acceptance of
the modifications proposed as aforesaid by the Menomonees, we are
compelled, by a sense of duty and propriety, to say that we do hereby
accept the same. So far as the tribes to which we belong are con-
cerned, we are perfectly satisfied that the treaty should be ratified on
the terms proposed by the Menomonees.” - " - “For the purpose

24 CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS.
of putting an end to strife, &c., we signify an acceptance of the
modification;" " ...” “and we most respectfully request that the
treaty, as now modified by the agreement this day entered into with
the Menomonees, may be ratified and approved by the President and
Senate of the United States.
“For and on behalf of the Brothertons,
“WILLIAM DICK.
“ DANIEL DICK.
“ELCANAH DICK.
“OCTOBER 27, 1832.”
It may be remarked that the appendix to the treaty of 1832, just
quoted, alludes to the new basis of settlement, constantly, as an adjust-
ment proposed by the Menomonees, and accepted by the New York
Indians.
The history of the negotiations, as stated, and as referred to, in the
journals quoted, shows that the propositions which were engrafted in
the treaties, with slight modifications, came, however, from the New
York tribes. This fact is not deemed material, except as it tends to
show that the Brothertons were not forced to accept the basis of settle-
ment embodied in the treaties of 1831 and 1832, but did so deliberately
and with apparent cheerfulness, and with a full knowledge of all the
details of the settlement.
On a review of all the matters hereinbefore discussed, the facts ap-
pear to me to be briefly these: The Brothertons, in 1825, in considera-
tion of $950, obtained an agreement from certain New York tribes that
the latter would cede to the former a tract, eight by thirty miles in ex-
tent, southeast of Fox river, in the then Territory of Michigan, and
having one (the northwest) side thereof resting on said river, commenc-
ing two miles below the Grand Kaccalin, and extending down the river;
and also the undivided one-half of all the interest of said certain New
York tribes, in their purchase of September 23, 1822, from the Menom-
onees, after reserving for the Stockbridge, Oneida, St. Regis, and Tus-
carora tribes or nations, each, a tract as large as the above recited
Brotherton tract.
The said agreement had reference to the articles of 23d September,
1822, in which the Menomonees had excluded from their sale to the
New York tribes such lands, within the boundaries named in said
articles, as belonged to the United States and its citizens. That it be-
came known and fixed, by the treaty of 1827, that a large part of the
tract specifically claimed by the Brothertons had not been sold by the
Menomonees to the New York Indians, and that a valuable tract below
the same, on Fox river and Green bay, was also the property of the
United States. Moreover, the President refused to confirm the tract
named in the articles of 1822, except as to an inconsiderable part.
That the Menomonees, before payment in full had been made, under
the articles of 1822, protested against them, and continued ever there-
after to protest; and their protest was based on charges of fraud in
the New York !". insufficiency of consideration, ($3,000 for
6,000,000 of acres) want of authority in chiefs signing the articles,
&c., &c.

CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS. 25
That the law of 1802 expressly prohibited the purchasing of lands
from Indians and Indian tribes, and declared such purchases, when not
approved by the President and Senate, void and of no effect. That a
difficulty hence arose between the Menomonees and Winnebagoes and
the New York tribes. That, to settle the matter on a just basis, the
United States bought a tract of 500,000 acres, on the northwest side
of Fox river, for $20,000, and three townships on the east side of the
Winnebago lake, for other valuable considerations, annuities, &c.,
(treaty of 1831) for the purpose of establishing the rights of the New
York tribes on a just and permanent footing, and providing for them a
country to occupy; and (same treaty) bought also of the Menomonees
all their lands on the east of Fox river and Winnebago lake.
That, in the winter of 1831–2, at Washington city, the Brothertons
agreed, before the treaty of 1831 was ratified, to accept one townshi
of land and $1,600 indemnity, in lieu of their claims; and their dele-
gate “seemed much distressed” at the “unfortunate termination of
the conferences” with the Oneidas, because the arrangement in behalf
of his tribe was likely to be defeated thereby. That in October, 1832,
the Brotherton Indians were perfectly satisfied with the same provision
in their favor, when presented to them at Green Bay by Governor Por-
ter, and accordingly requested the ratification of the articles of October
27, 1832, with the Menomonees.
It is thus plain, that if the Brothertons acquired any rights in 1828,
they were very ill-founded and precarious. That both the Executive
and the Senate, in 1831 and 1832, having all the reports and docu-
ments, and all the claims and difficulties fully before them, endeavored
to make a full and final adjustment of all the matters in controversy,
on what was designed to be a just and permanent footing—a footing
evidently regarded by the parties on all sides interested as equitable
and fair.
It is but fair to presume that, the transactions being fresh, and the
information on all points full, the President and Senate were well pre-
pared then to determine an equitable basis of adjustment. No new
facts, bearing on the facts as then existing, have since been developed,
and the wisdom of disturbing now the adjustment then made, in my
opinion, may, therefore, well be questioned.
It was, at the time, evidently the policy of the United States to ob-
tain and set apart a country near Green Bay for the accommodation of
all the Indians of the Six Nations—about 6,000 in number, including
as well those remaining in New York as those near Green Bay—and
reserving to the United States such parts of the tract as shall not be
actually settled on by them. Hence the purchase of 500,000 acres of
the Menomonees, to be appropriated to the use, so far as needed, of
those New York tribes that would remove there.
As to quantity of land, therefore, the provision made for the
Brothertons by the treaties of 1831 and 1832, in proportion to their popu-
lation, was nearly as liberal as that made for the tribes of the Six Na-
tions. The º may be accounted for, when we consider that
the Brothertons had invested less money in the transactions of
1821 and 1822, than the Six Nations. They also would have taken an
Ex. Doc. 66–3

26 CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS.
interestin a much less quantity of lands in the purchase of 1822, as
described in the President’s approval to the articles, than the tribes of
the Six Nations would have taken by the two approved purchases of
1821 and 1822, had those purchases been recognised by the Menomo-
nees, and enforced by the United States, as the New York tribes inter-
ested at first claimed they should be. I would here remark, as the
memorial is likely to mislead the reader, in regard to the allowances
made by Congress to the Stockbridges in compensation for their interest
in these matters of 1821 and 1822, that the 3d section of the act of
August 6th, 1846, (U. S. Statutes, vol. ix, page 56.) appropria-
ted $5,000 “in consideration of moneys paid by said Stockbridge
nation of Indians to the Winnebagoes and Menomonees, in the years
1821 and 1822, and all other claims.”
The treaty of 1848 makes special reference in the supplement, (vol.
ix, page 964) to “a claim against the United States, for indemnity for
certain lands on White river, in the State of Indiana, and for certain
other lands in the State of Wisconsin,” * 3: * “ in con-
sideration of the relinquishment by them of said claims, and all others
except as provided in this treaty.” #: * “The United States
do further stipulate” :k * “to pay to the sachems or chiefs
of said Indians, on the ratification of this article by them, with the
assent of their people, the sum of five thousand dollars; and the fur-
ther sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid in ten annual instal-
ments, to commence when the said Indians shall have selected and
removed to their new homes, as contemplated by the 7th article of this
treaty.”
The $5,000 appropriated in 1846, and the $5,000 appropriated 3d
March, 1849, to fulfil the supplemental stipulation of the treaty of 1848,
are the only sums as yet paid to the Stockbridges, the $20,000 being
withheld till they shall remove; and as to the $10,000 thus already
paid, it is on account of, as well these claims, based on transactions
in 1821 and 1822, as of all others. I should be at a loss, therefore, to
know how to divide this sum of $10,000, or to form an opinion as to
how much was allowed for the claim to lands on White river, how
much for the claim to lands in Wisconsin, and how much for all other
claims.
The latter part of the memorial of Mr. Fowler, delegate for the
Brotherton tribe, alleges that the United States made more ample pro-
vision in lands and money for the Oneidas and Stockbridges, because
of their participancy in the transactions hereinbefore reviewed, than for
the Brothertons; and therefore asks that an equally liberal course be
taken towards the tribe he represents. If this statement be true, there
may have been some good reason for it. It is enough for me to say
that the Executive and the Senate, in 1831 and 1832, aimed at a just
settlement, and they had then all the facts before them. - - -
It may here be remarked, that no other, Indian tribe, within the
bounds ºf the United States, could probably be found, with which the
government has dealt more liberally than with the Oneidas and Stock-
bridges. If the principle of an eqality in liberality be admitted as ap-
plicable to the Brothertons, as compared with the Stockbridges and

CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS. 27
Oneidas, then must it also be applicable to the Stockbridges and
Oneidas, and other Indians within our jurisdiction, as compared with
the most favored tribe. To carry out this principle, it will be at once
perceived, would introduce confusion throughout our entire Indian re-
lations. Solemn treaties, heretofore made, would be valueless, and
the liberality of Congress would be solicited to relieve the treasury of
its present surplus, and to substitute a deficiency for abundance in the
revenue.
There is another idea introduced into the memorial, in connexion
with which I deem it proper to add a remark. The idea is, that inas-
much as it is usual for the United States to defray the expenses of re-
moving Indian tribes to new homes, the government should make some
compensation to the Brothertons for removing themselves. It should
be observed, that those tribes generally have been removed at the cost
of the government, of which it has purchased their old homes and
haunts.
The Brothertons, however, did not sell lands to the United States;
and when they removed west, they were good farmers; and it would
appear from the statements and references hereinbefore made, that at
least some of them were men of good business capacity. Their re-
moval appears to have been undertaken to better their circumstances,
and to have attained its object in this respect.
The Indian title to the 500,000 acre tract having been extinguished
by subsequent treaties, excepting the 65,400 acres allotted in severalty
to Oneidas, it is deemed unnecessary to transmit any maps of the re-
gion of country, or of the various tracts hereinbefore mentioned.
The Brothertons having selected the township of land secured to
them by the treaties of 1831 and 1832, on the 7th of January, 1839,
(House Journal, 25th Congress, 3d session, page 209,) “Mr. Doty
presented a petition of the tribe of Indians called the Brotherton In-
dians, praying to be acknowledged citizens of the United States, and
for an equal division of their lands.” This resulted in the passage of
the act of Congress of March 3, 1839, (U. S. Statutes, vol. v., pages 349,
350, and 351,) by which provision was made for the division of their
lands among the individuals of the tribe, “to be held by them sepa-
rately and severally in fee simple after such division shall have been
made,” &c., and also for the recognition of those Indians as citizens of
the United States. -
The division having been made, Congress also, by the act of 21st
July, 1840, (U. S. Statutes, vol. vi, page 813) appropriated the sum
of $1,830 to defray the expenses that had been incurred in effecting it.
A question is submitted in the memorial of Mr. Fowler, delegate,
&c., as follows: “Why, it might be asked,” “ ” ” “was special
º made (for the Brothertons) in Gillet's treaty at Buffalo in
1838 º’”
An examination of that treaty suggests this remark: The policy of
the government in 1838 was to remove all Indians east of the Missis-
sippi to the Indian country west. This policy embraced the removal
of the tribes near Green bay. (See report of Secretary of War to the
Senate, March 7, 1836, S. Doc., 1st session 24th Cong., vol. iii, page

28 CLAIM OF BROTHERTON TRIBE OF INDIANS.
229). By the 2d and 15th articles of the treaty of 1838, (U.S. Statutes,
vol. vii, pages 551 and 555,) ample provision was made for the remo-
val of the Brothertons to the west of the Mississippi. But they did
not wish to go. They petitioned Congress (January 7, 1839) for fee
simple titles to their lands at Green bay, and for the privileges of citi-
zenship, and their request was granted. Could they reasonably expect
to obtain the pecuniary advantages at once of a settlement as citizens
at Green bay, and a removal to the Indian country west?
The act of March 3, 1839, having been fully executed, the Brother-
ton Indians became citizens of the United States, and in that capa-
city have lost and merged their relations to the government as an Indian
tribe. Since the allotment of their lands, the department has not ex-
ercised any supervision over them; its only connexion with them being
such as arose from the application, during a few years of the period
since elapsing, of a portion of the $1,500 for education, appropriated
annually in pursuance of the stipulations of the 5th article of the treaty
of 1827, through the sub-agent at Green Bay, to the education of their
children. (For remarks respecting the Brotherton Indians see paper
No. 27, accompanying the annual report of the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs in 1846; paper No. 5, accompanying annual report of 1847;
paper No. 20, accompanying the annual report of 1848; paper No. 2,
independent, accompanying annual report of 1849, page 215; and
paper No. 20, accompanying my annual report of 1854.)
The facts in regard to the claim of the Brotherton Indians, present-
ed to Congress in the memorial hereinbefore quoted, being, as I be-
lieve, correctly stated above, I am at a loss to discern any principle
to which to refer you that would assist you in preparing an estimate
for submission to Congress of an amount to be paid them by the
United States in satisfaction thereof.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
- GEO. W. MANYPENNY,
Commissioner.
Hon. R. McCLELLAND,
Secretary of the Interior
º - -
C. 5 united ºates. Dº º +ke interton, 25 2.47
lºg - -
º
2-10 Lºcal rag |