COMPENSATION FOR THE PROPERTY TAKEN FROM THEM BY THE CAMANCHE INDIANS, SINCE THE ANNEXATION OF THAT ARGUMENT. To the COMMITTEE OF INDIAN AFFAIRS of the House of Representatives, who have in charge the petition of Messrs. BERRY, COX, WILLIAMS, LEE, and others, citizens of the State of Texas, praying Congress to indemnify them for property taken or destroyed by the Camanches and other tribes of Indians, on the borders of the white settlements of said State, since its annexation to the United States : GENTLEMEN: In presenting the claims above referred to, others of a like nature will necessarily fall within the general principles that govern the whole class of Indian spoliations, unless peculiar circumstances may vary the equity of some of the claimants. It has often been asserted that the Congress of the United States do not hold the nation bound by justice or policy to make good the losses sustained by her citizens in a war with a foreign power. This, as a general rule, may be admitted, yet in many instances Congress has paid for property taken or destroyed by the enemy during our last war with Great Britain, not in the use or service of the United States, or occupied by our military, or destroyed by order of the officer in command. A list of cases, with the proper references, is hereunto appended. It was then the uniform practice of Congress, in every act passed granting compensation to persons for the destruction of property, when the same was destroyed by order of the commanding officer, or destroyed by the enemy while in the use or occupation of the military, to set forth in the law the fact; and a review of the several acts of Congress, for this kind of indemnity, will show their uniformity in this particular. In all other cases, where compensation was granted by Congress for property taken or destroyed in the war with Great Britain, the act of Congress simply states, the property was taken or destroyed by the British troops during the war of 1812, and in the years 1812, 1814, or 1815. Waiving all discussion as to the right of our citizens to indemnity for losses incurred in a war with a foreign enemy, the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States stand on a principle wholly "different, perhaps unlike that of any two people in existence." "In general, nations not owing a common allegiance are foreign to each other: the term foreign nation is with strict propriety applicable by either to the other. But in the relation of the Indians to the United States, this is marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions, which exist nowhere else." (Cherokee Nation vs. State of Georgia. See 5 Peters' Reports.) "Those Indian tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States cannot with strict accuracy be denominated foreign nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect, in point of possession, when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile they are in a state of pupilage: their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian. They look to our Government for protection, rely upon its kindness and its power, appeal to it for relief to their wants, and address the President as their Great Father." (5 Peters' Reports, same case.) If the United States chooses to become guardian to the Indians, does it exclude guardianship of its own citizens? Does the protection of the one necessarily exclude the other? It seems but just that the guardian should protect both wards, as he holds in truth the estates of both. He should see each held accountable to the other for their losses. If it should be said that the Indians have no estate to answer the demands of justice, he ought to give some account of the millions of acres that he holds as trustee for the Indian and is daily receiving the proceeds, as residuary legatee of his own creation, much against the will of his red ward. The manner and mode of proceeding pointed out by the act of Congress of the 30th March, 1802, entitled "An act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontier," is so clogged with conditions and pro visoes, which in many instances cannot be complied with, from |