MF1323.1197 Reel 40_0496

This page is not transcribed, please help transcribe this page

Office of Indian Affairs San Francisco Cal Dec 12th 1864

Sir.

In your letter of July 28th 1864 you desired me to make the necesssary effort to have the indebtedness of the Government on account of the Indian service in California presented to me with such information as may be to enable this Department to settle the same so far as the means are at my disposal. Subsequently under date of Oct 11th you instructed me to proceed in conjunction with late Agent Steele to settle certain claims or if such joint action was impracticable I was authorized to proceed alone. In my letter of Nov 10th replying to the latter I stated that I would correspond with Mr Steele and ascertain all I could in relation to the matter. On the 18th of Nov I addressed him requesting a reply at his earliest convenience but have received not a word from him in answer. I have therefore proceeded alone in the collection of these claims and have embodied them in an abstract which I respectfully transmit herewith accompanied by the original claim or a copy thereof upon which each account is based. This abstract comprises three lists, No 1 is composed of the indebtedness incurred during Mr Hanson's administration amounting to $24583.31.

No 2 is composed of the unsettled claims against Henley Dreibelbis and the other Agents previous to Hanson. These accounts have been presented to without having been advertised for that final action may be taken on them by the Dept. The amount of [illebible] No 2 $10186.83. [Illegible] No 3 is an abstract of the indebtedness of Mr Wentworth and is accompanied by one copy of each voucher duly certified to. The accounts are doubtless correct and without referring to them in detail I would recommend their early payment. The amount is $5290.42. I do not presume that [illegible] No 1 comprises all of the indebtedness remaining unpaid by Mr Hanson as many of the accounts have been presented to Mr Steele for his report and forwarding to the Dept. and some I understand to Mr J. Ross Browne for the same purpose and the creditors considered it unnecessary to submit them again. I have examined into the accounts presented in the [illegible] as fully as was possible and have also corresponded with Mr Hanson in regard to some of the doubtful ones. I report favorably on those accounts which I consider just in the sense of having been actually incurred by Mr Hanson and which im justice ought to be paid to the parties furnishing the supplies rendering the services by some one whether it is proper for the Department to finally pay some of these accounts or for Mr Hanson and his bondsman to be held for them is not for me to decide.

I propose to notice the claim in [illegible] No1 in their order and report my opinion of each.

No 1 I consider just and the proof satisfactory. Mr Hanson writes that he gave Mr Johnston a check for the amount which of course has not been paid. No 2 is correct. All large packages of goods must be divided into suitable packs for mules when sent over our mountain trails. No 3 & 4 are correct. I doubt not. I am acquainted with the parties. Nos 5-6 [illegible] I believe to be correct. The parties furnishing the articles are well-known [illegible]. No 8 I am not fully satisfied in regard to. Mr Hanson writes that Mr Ringgoldi account is for $1000 for which he received two checks. The blankets in No 9 were no doubt furnished. The correctness of No 10 the Dept is better able to judge of than I am. No 11 I presume to be correct. The [firm?] is of good standing in this city. Nos 12 $ 13 are probably correct. No 14 is rather indefinite but probably correct in the main, you can judge of the time from the returns in your office. No 15 is doubtless correct. No 16 is certified by totally responsible men the services I believe to have been performed. Nos 17 & 18 & 19 are suported by Mr Bryson's certificate which satisfies me of their correctness. As to No 20 Mr Hanson writes that he discharged Martha J. Herrick and paid her for all the time employed. The portion due Rufus Herrick is undisputed. There can be no doubt that the services in both

accounts were performed, if any portion of either has been paid, it will appear from Mr Hanson's returns in your office. No 21 I believe to be correct; the time embraces ten days of Mr Steele's administration. No 22 is doubtless correct. No 23 24 25 & 26 I am satisfied are correct. Nos 27 to 30 incl embrace the account of Bradshaw et al well-known [illegible] of this city. They unquestionably furnished the articles. Nos 31 & 32 I am satisfied are correct. Nos 33 & 34 speak for themselves. I confess myself incompetent to judge of the complications of Mr Hanson's accounts or follow the intricacies of his certificate.

Nos 35 36 & 37 are probably correct. The articles included in No 38 were undoubtedly furnished and the amount of the bill is due. The necessity of a portion of them and the use to which they were put is doubtful. Nos 39 & 40 for rent of land are correct. Nos 41 42 & 43 are in my opinion correct. Mr Hanson writes to that effect . No 44 is doubtless just. No 45 I believe to be correct. No 46 is correct in my opinion I place much reliance in the integrity of Mr Whipple who has expressed his opinion on this and several other accounts. No 47 I know nothing of further than appears from the certificates of M J.F. Hills. No 48 is certified to by responsible men of Mendocino et al. No 49 I believe to be correct. Nos 50 & 51 I know nothing in relation to excepting what is shown in the accompanying affidavits. No 52 I believe to be correct. No 53 I think correct.