Thomas J. Henley San Francisco Dec 26. '55
Reply to office letter of the 19th Ult. requesting the Dept. to be furnished with an estimate in detail of the probable necessary ex penses of removing In dians to two new Indian Reservations +c +c
Rec.d Jany 31 '56 Ack.d Feby 5. 56 [File?]
[1?] to 6 Office of Supt Indian Affairs San Francisco Cal Dec 26th 1855.
Hon. G. W. Manypenny Commissioner of Indian Affairs Washington D.C.
Sir, In reply to so much of your communication of the 19th ultimo, as requests the furnishing to the Department with an estimate in detail of the probable necessary exigenses of removing Indians to two new Indian Reservations, and of all expenses incident to their maintainence, and the improvements of the Reserves. I beg leave to refer you to my estimates for the establishment of two additional Reservations under date of July 23rd 1855, with this explanation, made necessary by your instructions of 13th November last, that the oxen, mules, and horses estimated for, is as small a number as it would be practicable to perform this necessary labor on the Reserves, and there being no excess of these animals on the other Reservations beyond what is actually needed and in use there it will be necessary to purchase them. The laborers estimated for use for Cooks, Farmers, Teamsters, Overseers, and
Field hands. The last being only necessary for the first crop, after that the Indians should perform all the field labor with the superintendence of overseers. For subsistence, Clothing, Blankets, and removal -- one half of this sum only is intended to be expended in the removal of Indians during the first quarter. The number of Indians now on the Klamath Reserve is estimated by the Special Agent( S. G. Whipple) in charge, at 1500__ and the number in this vicinity, and intended to be provided for at that place, at 5000__. It is impossible at present to estimate the number that it would be advisable to remove to the Klamath, during the first three months after its location, nor have I any date by which I can estimate the probable cost per head -- As for example, the cost of removing Indians to the Fresno was nothing, they were brought in by the Inducements held out to them in the advantages they would derive by residing there, and the same remarks are applicable to the Indians at Nome Lackee, Except about four hundred of them, brough from Nevada and Trinity Counties. These last were bad Indians, it was very expensive to collect them together, and their removal was too expensive to form a basis on which to estimate the cost of removing others. The improvements necessary for this Reserve are two houses one at the upper end, and the other at the lower end of the reserved lands, to be twenty by forty feet each, and two stories high, will be sufficient for the [commencement]
These houses should be built of logs, and constructed as to adapt them as a sort of defence against [against written again, then crossed out] the Indians in case of disturbance. Timber for these houses is convenient, and the expense of their construction will not in my opinion exceed $1,500_ which is intended to be embraced in the estimate for removal and subsistence. Other improvements such as out houses, stables +c [etc.] will be needed hereafter, and will be included in subsequent estimates. It is proper to remark that these estimates will not materially interfere with my recommendation of the 19th [pursuant?] relative to a Reservation on Pitt River. In regard to the last clause contained in my [previous?] letter of 17th ultimo I have also to remark that the improvements now proposed to be made at Mendocino in case of that place being approved, as selected by H.P. [Heintzelman?] Esq _ are intended to be almost the same as those proposed for the Klamath. The remarks generally as to the Klamath, removal and subsistence of Indians +c [etc.] are applicable to Mendocino Except that the number of Indians is much larger at the latter, than the former place. Very respectfully Your Obd Svt Thos. J. Henley Supt Ind Affrs