MF1323.1197 Reel 35_0063

ReadAboutContentsVersionsHelp
1

1

Thomas J. Henley San Francisco Dec 19 '55

Remarks and suggestions in reply to letter of this office on the 19th relative to the location of one of the additional reserves provided for Act of March 3rd last no map enc. ---

Rec'd Jany 5. '56;

Last edit about 1 month ago by Susan R
2

2

Office of Supt Indian Affairs San Francisco Cal -Dec 19th 1855

Hon G. W. Manypenny Comr of Indian Affairs Washington City D.C.

Sir:

In reply to so much of your letter of the 19th ult. as relates to the location of one of the additional Reservations provided for by the act of the 3rd March last, and also the extract accompanying yours of the 17th ult from the Secretary of the Interior on the same subject, I have the honor to make the following remarks, and suggestions. By reference to the map of California, herewith transmitted with the proposed and established Reservations marked upon it, it will be observed that from the nature of the country, beween Mendocino or Big River, known as Bool-dam, and Nome Lackeee, being impassable mountains, and that between Pitt River, and Nome Lackee, being accessible by a newly opened wagon road, it would be attended by less expense and difficulty to remove the Pitt River Indians to that Reserve than of those from the Russian River and Mendocino County, below the Cape. The numbers of Indians to be provided for at Mendocino it will be seen by the report of Maj Hintzelman of the 16th ult is much larger than of those in the Pitt River Country. The Indians of Pitt River, especialy those high up on that stream, are not now in immedidate contact with the settlement, and arrangements for them are not as pressing, as they are for those upon the coast - Many of whom are already pressed by the progressive settlement of the Country, and are a soure of great annoyance to the settlers. It must be admitted however that these remarks apply to some extent -- though not with equal force -- to the Pitt River Indians. It is true that they are becoming in some degree a barrier to the progress of settlement, but I entertain the opinion that they can be withdrawn, as fast as necessity will require to the Nome Lackee (Reserve)

Last edit 7 days ago by Jill B
3

3

Reserve. But in case this should be deemed by the Department of doubtful propriety in conformity with my suggestions to Genl Wool to which you have alluded, I would recommend [as?] there is no authority in the Department to accomplish that object, that a clause be inserted in the Indian appropropriation, - which I assume would be readily done at the suggestion of the Department - authorizing a division of the Appropriation, and its application to three instead of two Reserves. I think in this way the same amount of money will be more benefit to the Indians, and the service, and give greater satisfaction to the Country.

I am well convinced that this arrangement will be less expensive than the removal of the Indians that would otherwise be necessary, besides giving greater satisfaction to the different sections of the Country. As it is not a season of the year when examinations can be made on Pitt River with reference to the location of a Reserve, I will have time to hear further from the Department before the time will come when a party can be sent to that part of the Country.

Very Respectfully Your Obt Srv

Thos J Hurley Supt Ind Affrs

Last edit 7 days ago by Jill B
Displaying all 3 Page