¹DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, May ,22, 1852.

SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith, sundry treaties negotiated with various Indians in California, together with a report from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, accompanied by a mass of documents relating to the subject.

It was my wish to bring these treaties to your notice at as early a day as practicable, but most of them, it will be perceived, were not received until after the middle of February; and as they involved important principles and large expenditures of money, and as I learned that there was much opposition to them among the people of California, I did not feel justified in submitting them to you officially, until I could inform myself as to their merits, and be prepared to express myself with some degree of confidence as to the propriety of recommending their ratification or rejection. A slight examination of the treaties and accompanying documents will suffice to show that it is impossible to form such an opinion from the information now in possession of the department.

Hence it seemed to be proper, considering the importance of the subject, and the serious consequences likely to result from mistaken action, that the treaties should be committed to some suitable agent of the government, with instructions to examine them thoroughly, and make full report upon the expediency of ratifying, rejecting, or amending them. This course, I was gratified to believe at the time, met the approval of a portion at least of the delegation in Congress from the State of California. The duty of making the desired examination and report devolved on the Superintendent of Indian Affairs for California; but he has been prevented from attending to this and other important business of his office in the manner contemplated, in consequence of the unexpected delay in passing the deficiency bill, now before the Senate. He has, however, made a report, predicated on his general knowledge of the Indians of California and of the country, in which he expresses himself decidedly in favor of the ratification of the treaties: and inasmuch as the department has no present means of obtaining further or more reliable information, and as one of the senators from the State more immediately interested has complained in his place, that the treaties have been improperly withheld from the Senate, I now submit them for your consideration, and respectfully recommend that they be communicated to the Senate, to be disposed of in such way as that body in its wisdom shall direct.

I am, sir, with much respect, your obedient servant,

ALEX. H. H. STUART, Secretary.

P. S. The treaties herein referred to are particularly described in the annexed schedule.

TO the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

SCHEDULE.

A. Treaty at Camp Belt, May 13, 1851, made and concluded by George W. Barbour and the chiefs and headmen of the Ta-ches, Cah-wia, Yo-kol, Ta-lum-ne, wic-chum-ne, hol-cu-ma, To-e-neche, To-huc-mach, In-tim-peach, Choi-nuck, We-mil-ches, and Mo-ton-toes of California.

B. Treaty at Camp Keyes, May 30, 1851, made and concluded between George W. Barbour and the chiefs, captains and headmen of the Ko-ya-tes, Wo-la-si, Nu-chow-we, Wack-sa-che, Pal-wisha, Po-ken-welle, and Ya-wil-chine tribes of Indians in California.

C. Treaty at Camp Burton, June 3, 1851, made and concluded between George W. Barbour and the chiefs, captains and head men of the Chu-note, Wo-wol, Yo-lum-ne, and Co-ye-tie tribes of Indians in California.

D. Treaty at Camp Persifer F. Smith, June 10, 1851, made and concluded between George W . Barbour and the chiefs, captains and headmen of the Castake, Texon, San Imirio, Uvas, Carises, Buena Vista, Sena-hu-ow, Holo-cla-me, Soho-nuts, To-ci-a, and Hol-mi-uh tribes of Indians in California.

E. Treaty at Dent's and Vantine's Crossings, May 28, 1851 made and concluded between O. M. Wozencraft and the chiefs and headmen of the Iou-ol-umne, We-chilla, Sucaah, Co-to-plammis, Chap-par-sims, and Sage-wom-nes tribes of Indians in California.

F. Treaty at Camp Union, July 18, 1851, made and concluded between O. M. Wozencraft and the chiefs, headmen and captains of the Das-pia, Ya-ma-do, Yol-la-mer, Wai-de-pa-can, On-o-po-ma, Mon-e-da, Wan-nuck, Nem-shaw, Bem-pi, and Ya-cum-na tribes of Indians.

G. Treaty at Bidwell's Ranch, August 1, 1851, made and concluded between O. M. Wozencraft, and the chiefs, captains and headmen of the Mi-chop-da, Es-kuin, Ho-lo-lu-pi, To-to, Su-nus, Che-no, Bat-si, Yut-duc, and Sim-sa-wa tribes of Indians in California.

H. Treaty at Reading's Ranch, August 16, 1851, made and concluded between O. M. Wozencraft, and the chiefs, captains and headmen of the Noe-ina-noe-ma, Y-lac-ca, and Noi-me-noi-me tribes of Indians in California.

I. Treaty at Camp Colus, September 9, 1851, made and concluded between O. M. Wozencraft, and the chiefs, captains and headmen of the Colus-Willeys, Co-ha-na, Tat-nah, Cha-doc-duc, Cham-net-co, and Toe-de tribes of Indians in California.

J. Treaty at the fork of Cosumnes river, September 18, 1851, made and concluded between O. M. Wozencraft and the chiefs, captains and headmen of the Co-lu, Yas-si, Loc-lum-ne, and Wo-pum-nes tribes of Indians in California.

K. Treaty at the village of Temecula, California, January 5, 1852, made and concluded between O. M. Wozencraft and the chiefs, headmen and captains of the San Luis Rey, Kah-we-as nations, and the Co-com-cah-ras tribe of Indians.

L. Treaty at the village, of Santa Isabel, California, January 7, 1852, made and concluded between O. M. Wozencraft and the chiefs, captains and headmen of the Diequinos nation of Indians

M. Treaty at Camp Fremont, March 19, 1851, made and concluded between Redick McKee, George W. Barbour, and O. M. Wozencraft, and the chiefs, captains and headmen of the Si-yan-te, Po-to-yun-te, Co-co-nood, Apang-as-se, Aplache, and A-wal-a-che tribe of Indians in California.

N. Treaty at Camp Barbour, April 29, 1851, made and concluded between Redick McKee, G. W. Barbour, and O. M. Wozencraft, and the chiefs, captains, and headmen of the How-ech-ees, Chook-chances, Chow-chil-lies, Po-ho-nu-chus and Nook-choos, which five tribes acknowledge Nai-yak-qua as their principal chief: also the Pit-cat-chees, Cas-sons, Toom-nas, Tallin-chees, and Pos-kesas, which five tribes acknowledge. Tom-quit as their principal chief: the Wa-cha-et, Itachees, Cho-e-mem-nees, Cho-ki-men-as, We-mal-ches, and No-to-no-tos, which six tribes acknowledge Pas-qual as their principal chief.

O. Treaty at Camp Lu-pi-yu-ma, August 20, 1851, made and concluded between Redick McKee, and the chief, captains and headmen of the Ca-la-na-po, Ha-bi-na-po, Da-no-ha-bo, Mo-al-kai, Che-com, How-ku-ma, Cha-nel-kai, and the Me-dam-a-dec tribes of Indians in California.

P. Treaty at Camp Fernando Feliz, August 22, 1852, made and concluded between Redick McKee and the Sai-nell, Yu-ki-as, Mas-su-ta-ka-ya and Pomo tribes of Indians in California.

Q. Treaty at Camp Klamath, October 6, 18:51, made and concluded between Redick McKee and the chiefs, captains and headmen of the Poh-lik, or lower Klamaths, Peh-tsick, or upper Klamath, and Hoo-pah or Trinity river tribes of Indians in California.

R. Treaty at camp in Scott's Valley, November 4, 1851, made and concluded between Redick McKee, and the chiefs, captains and headmen of the O-de-i-lah, I-ka-ruck, Ko-se-tah, I-da-kar-i-waka-ha, Wat-sa-he-wa, and E-eh tribes of Indians in California.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,
May 14, 1852.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 7th instant, requiring me to report any information in my possession in relation to the treaties negotiated with the Indians in California, transmitted to you on the 13th ultimo, when they were respectively received here; the causes which induced me to delay their transmission; whether they embraced any new principle; whether, in my judgement, the public interests would be promoted or impaired by their ratification, and any facts within my knowledge tending to elucidate the merits of these treaties.

In reply, I would most respectfully state that the correspondence already sent to you, and the copies and extracts herewith of communications since received from the agents in California, and the Superintendent of Indian Affairs for that State, contain, it is believed, all the material information in relation to the treaties which has reached this office.

The dates at which the treaties were respectively received here are as follows:

1. Those negotiated by the board of commissioners were received February 18, 1852.
2. Those negotiated by Agent McKee were received on the same day.
3. Those negotiated by Agent Barbour were received February 2, 1852.
4. Those negotiated by Agent Wozencraft were received—one July 9; two September 22; three November 3. 1851, and two on February 18, 1852. The one received July 9 was represented in the letter enclosing it as a "copy," and it was not until recently that it was discovered to be an original.

The treaties were not transmitted to you at an earlier day because it was desirable to consider them all in connexion, and some of them, as above shown, were not received until recently, and because it was believed that further information was necessary to enable the department to judge correctly as to their merits and the action required in regard to their final disposition. It was known that the delegation in Congress from California were opposed to the treaties, and that there was violent opposition to them in the legislature of that State, where they were undergoing investigation. The final action of that body on the subject has not yet been ascertained. Under these circumstances it seemed to be prudent to take full time for inquiry and deliberation, especially as there was, and is, in my judgment, good reason to apprehend that the hasty rejection of the treaties would be followed by a general Indian war in California, disastrous to the interests of that State and the country at large.

Some of the stipulations of these treaties are regarded as new, the most important of which is that providing for an entire relinquishment of title by some of the tribes, and their permanent settlement within the limits of a State on lands not previously owned by them. This provision, as far as I know, is without precedent; but I am by no means prepared to say it is wrong. On the contrary, I am inclined to consider it both necessary and proper in consequence of the impracticability of removing the Indians beyond the limits of the State, and of the expediency of withdrawing them from their intermixture with the white population. Another peculiarity of these treaties is that they stipulate for no annuities to be paid in perpetuity or for a series of years, according to the common practice heretofore. In view of the probable necessity for future negotiations with these Indians, it is fortunate that a knowledge of the annuity system has not been introduced among them. It is a system fraught with evil, and when once adopted it is impossible to get rid of it.

The treaties also provide that all difficulties between different tribes or members of the same tribe shall be adjusted by the agent of the Government, and that controversies between Indians and whites shall be settled by the civil tribunals of the State. Should these provisions be energetically and faithfully enforced they would doubtless be productive of the most salutary results.

There are some other features of these treaties that might be characterized as novel, but they are not of sufficient importance to require particular notice.

With respect to the question whether the public interest would be promoted or impaired by their ratification I would respectfully refer to the accompanying communication from Superintendent Beale, whose remarks on this point appear to me to be reasonable and just. I entirely concur with him in opinion that a rejection of the treaties without the adoption of precautionary measures guarding against a general outbreak on the part of the Indians would be hazardous and unwise.

The papers heretofore and now communicated contain, I believe, all the facts within my knowledge calculated to elucidate the merits of the treaties. In considering this important and perplexing question it should not be forgotten that our Indian affairs in California, like everything else pertaining to that country, are in an extraordinary and anomalous condition.

Those entrusted with their management have had to contend with manifold embarrassments and difficulties. That they have made mistakes or fallen into errors is by no means a matter of surprise; it would be strange if they had not. Their conduct in some respects has been improper; I allude particularly to their making contracts for fulfilling treaties in advance of their ratification. In this they certainly acted without authority, but it is equally certain that they did not act without precedent. How far precedent and the pressure of the circumstances by which they were surrounded should excuse their unauthorized proceedings it is difficult, without more perfect information than I possess, to determine; nor is it material to the present inquiry, as the merits of the treaties can not be affected by the subsequent action of the agents by whom they were negotiated.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

L. LEA, Commissioner.

Hon. A. H. H. STUART, Secretary of the Interior.

REPORT OF E. F. BEALE, ESQ., SUPERINTENDENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

WASHINGTON CITY, D. C., May 11, 1852.

SIR: In compliance with your directions of yesterday to report to you at my earliest convenience my views as to the merits of the treaties recently negotiated with the Indians of California, and particularly as to the expediency of ratifying or rejecting them I have the honor to submit the following statement:

With reference to my views as to the merits of the treaties I state that I regard the general line of policy pursued by the commissioners and agents in negotiating with the Indians as proper and expedient under the circumstances. My own personal knowledge and experience in Indian affairs, and particularly in reference to the tribes within the State of California, incline me to the opinion that to secure their peace and friendship no other course of policy, however studied or labored it may have been, could have so readily and effectually secured the objects in view. My experience in Indian affairs has also convinced me of the fact that those who best understand the Indian character are exceedingly cautious and deliberate in their negotiations with them, and that precipitate counsels are invariably the results of ignorance, and generally terminate deplorably to both parties. The Indian by nature is suspicious, and although easily governed when his confidence has been obtained, it becomes almost impossible to treat with him after his suspicions have been aroused. A wise reference to these facts and considerations has doubtless influenced the commissioner in their negotiations, and it is proper that they should be duly considered on the present occasion.

The system of reservations as adopted in these treaties, is but the natural result and consequence of the policy pursued throughout, and may be stated to involve two important considerations, viz: whether the Indians are to have any lands set apart for them, and if so, whether those already selected for them may be justly considered as suitable and appropriate. Humanity and justice alike urge acquiescence in the former, while the following considerations suggest themselves to our attention in connection with the subject.

It is evident that if allowed to roam at pleasure, their early extinction is inevitable, and I am slow to believe that the Government, recognizing as it does, their possessory right to all the soil inhabited by them, would deny them the occupancy of a small portion of the vast country from which such extraordinary benefits are in progress of receipt.

The impracticability of removing them east of the mountains, or so far north or south as to avoid the evils which their proximity to the whites may induce, is apparent from the following considerations.

Much has been said of late in relation to an entire removal of the Indians to the eastward of the Sierra Nevada, and this fact is a painful proof of the entire ignorance of those who advocate the practicability of the measure. When we consider that our topographical knowledge of the interior of Africa is quite as extensive and definite as that which we possess of the eastern slope of this range, it is not difficult to imagine how vastly mistaken are those who look only upon the level surface of a map for information. It is vain to expect that they could be forced in this direction, since all the information which we have of that region of country (and theirs is presumed to be more extensive than our own) is directly opposed to the idea of assigning them to a location supposed to be at best a waste and barren desert. Those individuals who have attempted the exploration of this country have but partially succeeded. They report it as abounding with vast deserts, almost unrelieved by verdure of any description, and that any spot boasting any species of vegetation is already occupied by other Indians. The only known river of any size within this section of the country is the Colorado. The valley of this river is reported by the few bold and hardy trappers of the Rocky Mountains, from whom our only information is derived, as abounding with Indians as far as any have had the courage; to explore it, and it is this valley, already filled with an Indian population, which has been suggested as a location for the Indians of California.

To move them north would be but to add one hundred thousand Indians to the already overflowing Indian population of the territory of Oregon. To remove them south is but to place them directly in the line of our southern emigration; thus exposing the lives and property of our citizens, for it requires no vivid imagination to picture the results of a meeting between savages, infuriated by a forcible removal from the homes of their fathers, and an emigration wearied by a march of two thousand miles over a trackless wilderness. In addition to this, it may be well to consider that our treaty stipulations of 1848 with Mexico, forbid our colonizing them on her borders, and to move them in this direction would, to some extent at least, impair the obligations thus solemnly imposed. It may also add insurmountable difficulties to those already existing in opposition to the projected railroad to the Pacific in this direction.

With reference to the character or quality of the land reserved by the treaties for the Indians, I can only speak from personal observation with regard to those selected in the southern portion of the State. They are such as only a half-starved and defenceless people would have consented to receive, and, as a general thing, embrace only such lands as are unfit for mining or agricultural purposes. Admitting, however, that some of these reservations contain gold enough to add a few thousands even, to the many millions taken from the soil, I ask, is it not expedient and politic to permit them to take them, especially since the rejection of the treaties will have a tendency to bring discredit upon the Government and render futile all subsequent attempts at negotiation?

The reservations made in the southern portion of the State are undoubtedly composed of the most barren and sterile lands to be found in California, and any change must, of necessity, be of advantage to the Indians. Those persons who complain of the reservations in the south have, in no instance, been able to point out other locations less objectionable or valuable than those already selected, and I am disposed to believe that, in no case of reservations under these treaties, will the lands reserved compare favorably with the agricultural and valuable portions of the State.

The necessity of reservations, and of protection to the Indians thus located, is strikingly set forth in a communication of a recent date, from R. McKee, esq., agent, addressed to yourself, and to which I have had access, in which be refers to the recent massacre of two or three villages by the whites, in which neither age nor sex were spared inhuman butchery. The communication closes with some wholesome advice on the subject of reservations, which I can not refrain from recommending to your attention.

The stipulations contained in these treaties which appear to me to be objectionable, are those which refer especially to the supply of agricultural implements, and the establishment of schools among them. With regard to the first, I am of the opinion that the tribes and bands treated with are not disposed, nor can they be induced at the present time, to engage in agricultural pursuits; and that if the articles necessary for this purpose were furnished to them as stipulated, they would find their way into the possession of the whites without a consideration of value. I would suggest the expediency, therefore, of delegating authority to the agents in whose charge they may be placed, to deliver such articles of this character at the request only of such individuals of the tribes as manifest a desire to engage in this pursuit.

I am likewise of the opinion that the establishment of schools among them at the present time would not subserve their interests: their present state of civilization and advancement being such as to preclude the possibility of their appreciating the benefits to be derived from such instruction.

I regard the other provisions of the treaties, although they may considered novel in their character, as both suitable and appropriate to the wants and desires of the Indians. The supply of beef-cattle for their present or temporary subsistence being limited, the comparative consideration given them for the extinguishment of their title to their lands, may be justly considered as trifling in amount, and especially so, if the objectionable features above stated are stricken out. Those provisions of the treaties stipulating brood-stock, have been wisely inserted, with a view, doubtless, to possess them of the means of subsisting and sustaining themselves after the period for the supply of beef-cattle shall have expired.

From the foregoing remarks you will perceive that my views of the merits of the treaties, as well as of the general policy pursued by the commissioners and agents in their negotiations are favorable.

With reference to the expediency of ratifying or rejecting the treaties, I remark that, in my opinion, it would be unwise and injudicious in the extreme to reject them, even should it be deemed expedient and necessary hereafter, without previously preparing the minds of the Indians for such an event, and the offering, at once, of some suitable and proper substitute. To reject them outright without an effort to retain their confidence and friendship, as already secured, by inducements of an equally advantageous character with those already held out to them, would undoubtedly involve the State in a long and bloody war—disastrous and ruinous to her mining and commercial interests, and affecting more or less the prosperity of our whole country.

During the Indian war of last spring, whole mining districts were abandoned, and, although unacquainted with the statistics of the State, I will venture the remark that the exports of gold were less by millions during that period than during the months immediately succeeding. If this was the result of a war with a very few tribes, what may be considered as the effects of a war with the entire Indian population of California? Popular feeling prejudicial to the treaties has been assigned as a reason for their rejection, and can not the question be properly and naturally asked, will popular feeling point out a substitute? I venture the prediction in this matter, that an entire change in popular feeling will take place, at least among such as regard the Indians as having a right even to a bare and scanty living.

To those who regard the stipulations of these treaties as novel, I would simply remark that beef and flour are but substitutes for annuities in money, powder, lead, and guns, and that while the treasury is being drawn upon annually to fulfill the obligations of other treaties, these supplies are to cease after the short term of two or three years.

In conclusion, I would remind the Department that economy may be ill-timed in the present case, and prove but the certain cause of great and extraordinary expenditure; for it is not an easy matter to estimate the cost of an Indian war in California; the late report of the Quartermaster General of the Army, however, affords a faint outline, which economy warns us not to fill.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

EDWARD F. BEALE,
Superintendent Indian Affairs for California.

HON. L. LEA, Commissioner of Indian Affairs.