|
|
|
Helen Hunt Jackson Papers, Part 1, Ms 0020, Box 2, Folder 6: 24 letters from various people to HHJ (some with drafts of replies).
Transcribed by Irene Draper and Kate Vukovich, 2013.
[some envelopes included in folder]
Boston Jan, 7th 1881
My dear Mrs. Jackson,
The Senate Bill No. 1773, has these objectionable features, — Sec 1. has these words, “The President be, and he truly is, authorized, whenever in his opinion any reservation of such Indians is advantageous for agricultural purposes etc-“ Sec 3.- has these words, “That the allotments provided for in this act shall be made… under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may from time to time prescribe”
You will see that this bill does not give [inserted above: “the Indian”] by law the right to homestead a quarter section of land, He should have the same right under law that the German, Negro, Chinamen and and every other race has, The privilege for which we contend is strictly forbidden by this bill, The Indian should have the right by law, to enter, under the homestead laws, a quarter section of land, no matter what the “opinion” of the President or secretary of the Interior may be, It gives the Indian no legal rights at all. The thing is a fraud, and in my opinion cannot be got through the senate if attention is called to the matter
Yours Ever
J.H. Gibbon
[envelope addressed to Mrs. W.S. Jackson Kimble Mansion]
Copy
Department of the Interior,
Washington, June 30- 1882.
The Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
Sir:
The Department letter of the 26th instant, on the subject of the Mission Indians, is hereby withdrawn.
You will reply to Mrs. Helen Jackson’s letter of the 11th instant authorizing her to visit the locality of the Mission Indians in accordance with her request, and ascertain whether, there is an suitable land in that vicinity, belonging to the public domain, that can be made available as a permanent home for such of those Indians as are now established upon reservations.
She should furnish such minute description of such lands, if found, as will enable this Department to draft an executive order for setting them aside as an Indian reservation.
It seems that the lands specially referred to by her, are within a grant for which patent has been issued by the United States.
Very respectfully,
H.M. Teller.
Secretary.
[On printed letterhead]
Department of the Interior,
Washington,
October 14th, 1882.
Dear Mrs. Jackson:
I will in same way provide for your expenses to look after the Mission Indians, and you may make your calculations to go when you are ready. I have only a small contingent fund, and only about $2,500 civilization fund, while the Hon. C. Schurz had when he came into office over $500,000 available for just such a case as this.
I shall be in Colorado on the 25th instant; but will arrange the matter before I leave.
Very Respectfully, [signature: HM Teller]
[Handwritten:] PS When you are ready to go notify H Hon Commissioner of Indian Affairs & he will arrange about your expenses
HM Teller
[On printed letterhead]
Department of the Interior,
Office of Indian Affairs,
Washington, October 16, 1882.
Mrs. Helen Jackson,
Madam:
Your letter of the 16th September, to the Honorable Secretary of the Interior, has been this day handed me for reply. The work of selecting a permanent home for the Mission Indians of California, in which you propose to engage, is one of very great importance, and I doubt not under your management, will be productive of very beneficial results not only to the Government, but also and particularly, to a very deserving and heretofore much neglected tribe of Indians. The only difficult question to be decided before answering your letter was, as to how funds could be provided with which to pay the necessary expenses. You have very generously proposed to give your time to this work, free of charge, and only ask that your expenses, estimated at about $1200, should be paid.
Congress leaves the Indian Office without adequate means to meet this class of expenditures, but I am now able to say to you that the funds will be furnished you as required, as also for the expenses of Mr. Kinney, whom you propose to associate with you in this good work. The promptings of humanity, as well as a sense of justice demand that these Indians should be placed in a position where the fruits of their labor will be for their own benefit, and where unprincipled white men cannot in the future, as in the past, deprive them of what is justly their own.
There unfortunate people, once the owners of 365,000 head of horses, cattle and sheep, and harvesting 75,000 bushels of grain in one year, have, in the last half century, been driven from place to place, the victims of unscrupulous adventurers, and seem destined to become homeless wanderers and vagabonds unless the strong arm of the Government is interposed for their relief and protection.
The attention of Congress has repeatedly been called to the condition of these Indians, but up to this time no decisive action has been taken for their relief.
I therefore express the earnest hope that your self-imposed and praise-worthy efforts may result in the adoption of some measures of their permanent benefit.
Very respectfully,
H. Price
Commissioner.
[An alternate transcription of the following letter can be found in The Indian Reform Letters of Helen Hunt Jackson, PS 2108.A44 1998 in Special Collections, on page 268.]
[This is a draft with many crossed-out portions. The following is what appears to be the final draft.]
[1883]
Chauncey Hayes
Dear Sir
Yours of the 14th is received & its contents duly noted
We have obtained legal opinion & some evidence on the points you bring up. & find these points not well taken.
We are sure therefore that you will be glad to learn the Dept. has already given action against some of those who have illegally seized upon I[ndian] lands, -- & that we are confident that the Govt. will henceforth deal rigorously with all parties who are found practicing the dishonest devices which have been so prevalent in this country. in regard I[ndian]’s rights.
There is one point on which we be glad of any information you can give us in regard to the P[achanga] I[ndians].—
Do you know of any attempt having been made or any steps having been taken by those I[ndians], looking toward the getting of these lands in severalty—before the P[achanga] Canyon was set aside for them by Executive Order? order?---
Yrs &c.
[also attached is an envelope with printed letterhead reading:]
“Department of Justice
Office of
United States Commissioner
Los Angeles, Cal.
OFFICIAL BUSINESS.
A Penalty of $300 is fixed by Law for using this Envelope for other than Official Business.”
[A handwritten note adds:]
“Letter of H.I. Lee—relative to Indian village. filed on by Armin Cloos”
[Also attached is a map of a township:]
Copy Plan sent to S.S. Lawson Ind. Agent July 8, 1883.
[Some plots are colored in and notated. The back of the map reads:]
Theodore Anderson
Warner’s Ranch
Via Collins.
[On printed letterhead]
P.O. Box 1282
Law Offices Of
Henry T. Lee, U.S. Commissioner-
No. 14 Temple Block,
Los Angeles, Cal., 6th. March 1883
My dear Madam
As you requested I have made some further investigation in regard to the case of the Indian settlement at Agua Caliente, near Warner’s ranch in San Diego County, whose hands, occupied by them for many years, have been taken in part by Helm under claim of U. S. Patent, and the remainder entered upon under Homestead act by Armon [sic] Cloos.
As I suggested to you the other day, the first and imperative necessity is to send a U. S. Deputy Surveyor to the grounds, who shall make the necessary surveys and a plot of the country, locating the Indian fields & settlements, with reference to the lines of Helms’ Patent, and Cloos Homestead claim.
The Indians claim that Helm has twice moved his fence, each time encroaching further upon their fields and settlements. Such a survey would at once show what part of their possessions were irretrievably lost, and what still remains to be fought for. To save this remainder to the Indians, which appears from the records to be all covered by Cloos’ homestead claims, I can see but two courses open.—
1st. To obtain an executive order setting apart such lands as a reservation. The objection to this is that Cloos by filing and payment has obtained an “inceptive right” to the lands.—It is a question for the Indian office & departments to determine whether or not to ask the President to interfere in this case, and take cognizance of the long continued possession of these Indians, under the broad doctrine laid down in the leading cases of Atherton vs Fowler, and Hosmer vs Wallace, and constantly affirmed and applied by later decisions of the Supreme Court, and in Circulars and opinions from the Departments. Unfortunately I cannot turn to any cases where, so far, these eminently equitable doctrines have been held to apply to “bonafide actual settlers” of the Indian blood.
2nd. The only other possible method which I can see open, by which these lands can be saved is by the Indians individually applying to take them up under the Indian Homestead act of March 3rd 1875.
This of course would require the severance of tribal relations, but I have little doubt that these Indians would be glad to abandon such relations in form, as they have done, to a large extent, in reality, in order to save their lands.
I suppose that upon these Indians making the necessary affidavits, applications and payments before the Land office here, they could then successfully contest Cloos’ entry, on the ground of prior settlement, PROVIDED that they made their entry and payments within three months of the date of Cloos’ entry, which was January 18th. 1883.
You will see there is not one moment’s time to lose if this latter course is to be pursued. The Indians must be brought to see the necessity of the step, the lands surveyed and equitably segregated among them, and all necessary action taken in the Land Office within the space of several weeks. This whole question of Indian lands in Southern California is bristling with legal difficulties. Those seeking to obtain, or hold possession of such lands (and this Agua Caliente case is a fair sample) are utterly unscrupulous, and have the professional aid of expert attorneys. You will pardon me for the suggestion that the efficiency of your commission both in investigations as to the actual condition of the Title of lands occupied by Indians, and their rights (and wrongs) concerning the same, and more especially in cases requiring immediate action on behalf of the Indians, would be immeasurably increased if you were authorized to employ an attorney expert in Land Laws & practice. Much valuable time would be saved, many mistakes avoided, and the results of your investigations and action would be much more definite and satisfactory.
You may command me, as far as my time and experience go, but I am convinced that the investigations upon which you are entering will call for expert assistance at almost every step. As to the special legal propositions which we were discussing the other evening, I fear the mere statement of it in legal terms brings its own answer. It was, as I remember it, as follows,-- Can an Indian resident on public lands, still maintaining his tribal relations, contest the homestead entry of a legally qualified settler, whose actual settlement was subsequent to the Indians? – The answer is obvious. He has no priority with the United States, and consequently, no standing in Court; and, if he pleads equity, it must be equitably answered- why did he not sever his tribal relations and enter under Indian Homestead act? or why did not his Agent see to it that these lands were reserved by executive order?—
Yours very truly,
Henry T. Lee
To Mrs. Jackson
of Indian Commission
Los Angeles Cala.
March 8th 1883
My dear Mrs. Jackson-
Mr. C. Cabot, the “expert land attorney” whom I had in mind when I took the liberty of suggesting the employment of an atty in my last letter, has just told me, that, being requested by Mr. Johnson Register of the land Office to hunt of the Indian Reservations, he has found an Executive Letter virtually withdrawing Capt Pablo’s land from land open for settlement. It is however so vague as not to justify the Land office in refusing to entertain application for homestead farm settlers. But, in his opinion, it would give Capt. Pablo and his Indians a standing in court to contest the Homestead Claim of Cloos, even if they did not file in the land written the three months after Cloos’ filing & entry. This gives us more time to work in. Still the necessity remains for the employment of a U.S. Surveyor to locate definitely the Indian Fields and Settlements referred to in said letter and occupied now by the Indians.
It may be that the Interior Department never, upon proper showing by the Indian office, send over a surveyor at its own expense to definitely fix the limits of the tract referred to in the said executive Letter.
I shall with your permission arrange a meeting between you and Mr. Cabot. He is by all means the best posted U. S. Land Atty we have here, and seems interested in the Indian question, outside of any prospective fee—
Mrs. Lee asks me to say that she is not making any calls at present, otherwise she would certainly [as?] herself the pleasure of calling on you. Will you not kindly waive ceremony and take a Sunday dinner with us?. I am just leaving the office for home but will see you to-morrow- Yours very truly
H. T. Lee
[On printed letterhead:]
United States Land Office,
Los Angeles, Calif.
March 9, 1883.
Mrs. W. S. Jackson.
of The Indian Comm. etc.
Los Angeles.
Madam.
In answer to your enquiries we have to state, that the following Tracts of Land, are reserved by the U.S. Govrnt. as Indian Reservations, under Executive orders. [written between lines: Executive order Dec 27 1875.] Potrero Indians including “Rincon Yapichi a La Joya.”
To 10 S. R. 1 6. Sections 23. 25. 26. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. and [Tract?] Sections. 17. 18. 19. 20 . 21. 22. 27. 28 and 29.
[more available upon request]
[on printed letterhead:]
W.H. Brown. US Surveyor General Theo Reichert Chief Clerk.
Department of the Interior
U.S. Surveyor General’s Office,
For the District of California,
610 Commercial St. San Francisco, Mar 14th, 1883-
P.O. Box No 2260.
Mrs. Wm. S. Jackson,
Kimball Mansion,
Los Angeles, Los Angeles Co.,
Madam:
Referring to your letter of the 9th inst., relative to the rights of Indians to remain unmolested on the lands they had cultivated, and which rights in some instances are specified in the old Mexican Grants as conditional to said Grants, I beg leave to answer as follows, from the records on file in this office:
the rights of Indians in and to the lands which they occupied, were invariably respected in conformity with Law 9th, Tit. 12th, Book 4, of the “Novissima Recopilacion” (New Code), by which it was required “that in making grants of lands to the Spaniards, it should be without predjudice [sic] to the Indians, and that such as would be granted, to the damage and infamy of the Indians, should be returned to their rightful owners.”
In Law 7th Tit. 12th of the same book, it is ordered, “that whenever distribution of land is made, it shall be without predjudice [sic] or damage to the Indians &c.”
These rights were duly and carefully considered by the Mexican authorities of the country, in the following grants made to Indians:
Luisun to Franciso Solano.
Los Coches to Roberto.
Milfritas [to] Ignacio Pastor.
El Alama Pintado [to] Marcelina
El Posito de las Animas [to] Yniga
El Escorpion [to] Manuel and others
Hirerta de Cuati [to] Victoria Reid
Tract near San Gabriel [to] Simeon
Tract near San Fernando [to] Manuel Triumfa
and many others.
As to the conditions inserted in the grants made to Mexicans, of lands upon which Indians were then living, I may mention several, viz:
L. C. No. 342.- In the grant of Santa Ysabel to Joaguin Ortega and Stokes, the following condition , is therein contained: “the grantees will leave free and undisturbed, the agricultural lands which the Indians of San Diego are actually occupying.”
L. C. No. 254.- In the grant of Valley of San José to J.J. Warner, the following clause may be found: “subjecting himself to pay for the granary and other property of the Mission of San Luis Rey, that there may be upon the said land, and not to disturb nor molest the Indians that may be established upon the same.”
L. C. No 740- In the grant of “Punta de Quinten” made to J. B. R. Cooper, the Cañada of San Anselma is especially reserved because it was occupied by the Indians of San Rafael.
L. C. No. 321- In the grant of “Rio de los Americanos” to Wm. Leidesdorff the second condition reads as follows: “2d. he shall not prevent the Indians of that vicinity from deriving any benefits or cultivating the said lands.”
As referred to in your letter regarding the grant of Temecula to Valdez, there does not appear to be any condition relative to Indians, neither is there any in the San Jacinto grant to Estudillo.
Trusting that the matter herein contained, will assist you in making your report, and that it is according to your request,
I am respectfully,
W.H.Brown
U.S. Surveyor-General,
Dist. of Cala..
[on back of last page of letter:]
Letter of Surveyor General written [three words] with [one word] for [us?]--&c.—
[On attached postcard:]
Northampton
April 19 80
Dear Madame
I will write Dear Layman at San Francisco today & next in due time to get facts referred to. He is a honest & reliable man & if he will write out the case you may rely upon his accuracy I rejoice that few are doing so good a work. You will meet Mr Huntington soon whose whole soul is stirred at the bitter wrongs inflicted by our nation upon its children. Yours sincerely S.E. Bridgeman
April- 9. ‘83
Dear Mrs Jackson:
I have partly sketched for you a history of the secularization of the Missions with respect to Indians in said Missions.
I have been unable to find the properties decree of […]—which you desired-
Should you desire any further information within my reach, I will gladly research it.
Yours [truly?]
M. [surname illegible]
[likely meant to be attached to the previous:]
Jesuits succeeded by Dominicans.
“But all the labors of the Jesuits were brought to an end in 1767. In that year Charles III of Spain, issued a decree banishing the member of that order from the Spanish territories; and a strong military force under the command of Don Gaspar de Portala [sic] was dispatched to California, and soon put an end to the rule of the Jesuits by leaving them for their covenants.
The Spanish Government did not intend to abandon California The peninsula immediately became a province of Mexico, and was provided by a civil and military government, subordinate to the viceroy of that country. The missions fell under the rule of the Dominicans, and from their mode of treatment, most of the convents soon returned to their former state of barbarism…
In 1769, in the spring, a number of settlers with some soldiers and Franciscan friars marched through the Peninsula towards San Diego. &c. &c.
History of California by John Frost. L. L. S. 1881 M. [surname illegible]
[In pencil on back:]
Dominicans succeed the Jesuits in Lower California 1767. then the Franciscans also settled San Diego 1769.
[attached:]
Synopsis of Secularization Law, and the Regulations thereunder.
Written for Mrs. Helen Hunt Jackson
Mission Indians.
The Missions of California were secularized by the decree of the Mexican Congress of 17th of August 1833 and 21st November same year. The first article read: “Government will proceed to secularize the Missions of Upper and Lower California.” The Missions and their property were turned over to Administrators who were directed by the Government to make provision for the support of the Indians by distributions of cattle and horses, and by assigning to them Suertes—‘small patches of land for cultivation.’ But these orders were not carried out according to their intent-. The repartimientos distributions of stock—were generally made to the friends of the administrators and thereby the Indians driven off in large numbers.
August 9. 1834, Governor Figueroa, received instructions fro the Supreme Government to provide with the repartimientos distribution of Mission land to Indian and pobladores—white settlers—which was effected in part by Commissions appointed by the Governor, and subsequently carried out more fully and in a manner more in harmony with the municipal system, by the azantamientos [sic]- councils- of the different pueblos or organized towns.
The object of the secularization was to convert all the Missions into pueblos. The Municipal system of the Spaniards was derived from the Roman. Under the Roman, (civil) Gothic Spanish, and Mexican law municipal communities were never incorporated into artificial persons with a common seal, and perpetual succession as with us under English and American laws. Consequently under the former law Communities or towns held their land in common—pro-indivisa [sic].
When thirty-(30) families had located on a spot, the pueblo was accomplished. The instant the poblacion was formed it became entitled to the land within its proper territorium. That is to say the pobladores—settlers—became entitled to the land to the extent of four leagues, and or the pobladores were not incorporated, they held it- pro-indivisa [sic].
By the 5th article of the Regulations of Governor Figueroa of August 9, 1834, there was given, to every head of a family, or to all those over 21 years of age, although they had no family, a lot of land, whether irrigable or otherwise, if not exceeding 400 yards square, nor less than 100- out of the common lands of the Missions; and in Community, sufficient land was allotted them for watering their cattle.
—Art 6 provided that one half of the self moving property (cattle) should be distributed among the individuals in a proportionable and equitable manner.—Also one half, or less of the chattels, instruments, and seed on hand and indispensible for the cultivation of the land, should be distributed proportionately among them.
A retention upon the dispersion of such property was made in Art. 18. as follows: “They cannot sell, burden or alienate, under any pretext the lands which may be given them; neither can they sell their cattle. –Art. 19- The [crossed through: owner] land where owner shall die without heir, shall revert to the possession of the nation.”-
The same regulation of Figueroa, governor“Before mailing an inventory of the outside property (Country property) the Commissioners will endeavor to explain to the Indians, with suavity and patience, that the missions are going to be converted into pueblos; that they will only remain subordinate to the priests in matters in relation to the spiritual administration; that the land and property will be divided out among them, so that each one may work, maintain and govern himself without dependence on any one; that the Land in which they live will become their own property; and that in order to do this, they must submit to what is command in there regulation and order, which must be explained to them in the best possible manner. They will likewise have immediately divided out to them the lots for cultivation agreeable to the 5th article of these regulations (already quoted above). The Commissioner, padre and majordomo will select the [locality?] where it is to be, choosing the best and nearest to the mission; and they will give to each the quantity of land which they can cultivate, according to their aptness and family, without exceeding the maximum stipulates. (400 yards square). They will likewise see that each [“one” crossed out with “person” written above] marks his land in the manner most convenient to him.—
It was also provided that the rancherias—collection of Indian huts. residence of the Indians—situated at a distance from the Missions, and containing more than twenty-five families, might-if they chose- form a separate pueblo, and the distribution of land and property, should there take place in the manner provided for the rest- The rancherias which do not contain twenty-five families, although they remain where they now reside, will form a district or ward, and belong to the nearest pueblo.
The Missions had not been entirely secularized in 1839- and ’40- There were numerous fluctuations and changes—in the execution of this law; being at one time entirely suspended and the mission establishment partially restored to the direction and management of the mission priests.—
The California Deputation held in Monterrey on 3rd of November 1834, clarifies by regulation the grade of the Missions and frequent of priests of the (as they called it) extinguished missions- pursuant to the 2nd article of the decree of secularization.
On the 7th of November 1835, the Mexican Congress decreed “that until the curates mentioned in the 2nd article of the law of August 1833, shall take possession, the government will suspend the execution of the other articles of said law, and maintain things in the state they were in before said law was enacted.” Governor Alvarado, January 17, 1839, issued regulations for the preservation of the Mission profit, and the accounting of the administration, and says on a reason for issuing the regulations: “The fact of these not having been published in due reason, a set of regulations, to which the management of the administration of the Missions ought to have been subject, from the moment that the so-called secularization was attempted, having caused evils of great transcendency to the upper California, or these officers, authorized to dispose without limit of the property under their charge, do not know how to act in regard to their dependence upon the political government, and that of the most Excellent Departement junta not being at present in session to consult with respecting the necessary steps to be taken under the circumstances, since the regulations of said secularization neither could nor can take effect on account of the positive evils attending the fulfillment thereof, as experience itself has demonstrated, has evidenced this government, in consideration of the pitiful state in which said establishments at present are, to dictate these provisional regulations” &c.”
And in pursuance of this, the Governor appointed W. E. Hartwell an Inspector for the examination of the accounts of the administration and to make a report of the property of the missions.
Governor Alvarado, who did not seem to have held the administration in a very high regard, on the 1st of March 1840, abolished the office of Administrator and in the stead created the office of majordomo with a salary attached. These inspectors had a supervision of the Missions, a distribution of necessities to the civilians &c.
In 1843 March 29, Governor Micheltorena by proclamation ordered the majority of the missions to be again placed in charge of the priests in consequence of an arrangement entered into between said Governor and the different prelates of said missions.
In consequence of it the Missions of San Diego, San Luis Reg, San Juan Capistrano, San Gabriel, San Fernando, San Buenaventura, Santa Barbera, Santa Cruz, La Purisima, San Antonio, Santa Clara, and San Jose, were ordered to be delivered up to the very nearest padre… “and said missions should in future continue to be administered by them, as tutors to the Indians, in the same manner as they held them formerly. The priests were ordered “to take care to gather together the dispersed Indians, excepting, 1st those legally emancipated by the Superior departmental government, 2nd those who at the date of this decree are in the service of private persons.—This decree also guarantees to owner the possession and [preanation?] of the laws which at that date (March 29, 1843) held, and promised not to make new grants without the information of the padres, notorious unoccupation, want of the cultivation, or necessity—“
The Departmental assembly of California on the 28th of May, 1845, ordered that the departmental government should by proclamation call together the Indians who had abandoned the missions of San Rafael, Dolores, Soledad, San Miguel, and San Purisima and that if within one month after proclamation the Indians did not re-unite for the purpose of occupying and cultivating said Missions, the Missions would be declared without owner, and the government would dispose of them as they saw fit—The same power, made the Missions of Carmelo, San Juan Bautista, San Juan Capistrano, and San Fransisco Solano, pueblos, and after reserving a sufficient [one word] for the curate’s house, for churches and appurtinances [sic] and a court house, ordered the rest of the property sold at auction. –
The remainder of the Missions as far as San Diego were allowed to be rented out, providing that the Indians would not be disturbed in the cultivation of their own land, “which the government must necessarily designate for them.” One third of the rents obtained for the Missions, was ordered to be set apart for the Indians.
On the 28th of October 1845, Governor Pio Pico ordered the sale at public auction the Missions of San Rafael Dalores, Soledad, San Miguel, and La Purisima which had been abandoned by the Neophytes. –all property of the Missions- such as grain, produce, mercantile goods &c—was also ordered sold. San Luis Obispo, and San Juan Capistrano were ordered sold, in December 1845, -- The Missions of San Fernando, San Buenaventura, Santa Barbra, and Santa Ines, were ordered to be rented out, “excepting those small portions of land which have always been occupied by some of the indians of the Missions.[“]—The rest of the Missions, San Diego, San Luis Rey, San Gabriel, San Antonia, Santa Clara and San Jose, were not to be sold until further order of the same Government—It was promised that “the Indians who possess portions of land in which they have their garden and home will apply to it this government- for the respective title, in order that the ownership thereof may be adjudicated to them, it being understood that they could alienate said land, but they shall be hereditary owing their relatives, [assenting] to the order established by the laws[“]—
On the 3rd of April 1846, the Departmental assembly of California “seeing the impractibility of renting the Missions,” ordered that the government might do what it saw fit so as to prevent the ruin of the Missions of San Gabriel, San Diego, and the remainder of the Missions which were in similar circumstances. That is it authorized the government to sell said Missions [“at” crossed out and replaced with “to”] provide [crossed out: sale] persons at public auction—and in case of sale after payment of debts, “any surplus shall be divided among the Indians of the premise sold[“]-
On the 31st of October the Departmental assembly issued the following decree: “The sale of the Missions made by Dn. Pio Pico as governor as well as other acts done by him on the same subject beyond his authority are entirely annulled.”—and it left out the Missions rented to abide the expiration of their lease.—
It seems that Carter who pretended to be authorized, acting as Governor of California, had on 25th of May and 16 of June 1846, authorized the padre of the Mission of Santa Clara to sell Mission lands—These orders were repudiated by Col Mason acting as military Governor under the U.S. on the 3rd of January 1848, because [Carter?] ordered his men [“made” crossed out and replaced with “executed”] after the 7th July 1846, the day on which the U.S. flag had been hoisted in California, and for which date the U. S. claimed ownership of the County—
Claims were made by parties before the Law Commission of California to some of the Missions, as pueblos, and were rejected by the Commission, the land then reverted to the public domain of the U.S., subject to be claimed under the laws thereof.
After the laws of Secularization of the Missions, Mexican Colonials and some foreigners who had become nationalized, acquired from the Government of Mexico, though the Governor of California grants of large tracts of land, ranging generally in extent from one to Eleven leagues, although in some few instances, exceeding the latter figure. These grants were made upon condition of settlement, improvement &c. &c. They were soon started with cattle & sheep & homes, that had been taken for the priests and indians by the administration of the Missions and sold or distributed by them to the near proprietors.
Truly Yours
M. [surname illegible]
April 1883.
Or to the legal states of the Indian or citizens, you have my paper, which I gave you a few months ago. In there you will find the true talies[sic]—
[surname illegible]
[on back:]
Mission Indians
Sketch of history of Secularization of Missions
[April 1883]
My dear Madam
I have to beg your pardon for not having answered your favour of 3rd last more promptly
There aught to be on file in the Bureau in Washington several long letters from me in regard to the Mission Indians as they are called in Calfa- The policy and action in regard to these Indians is and has been to say the least unjust and trifling- Once a year or oftener some persons appear out here in Calfa as special agents for the Mission Indians, and after having had a nice and pleasant trip throughout the state and perhaps embracing the whole coast they return to Washington make out a report which is perhaps noticed in the annual reports and then the matter stops.
What these Inds. want is a home that is some place where they be by themselves, The amount they now receive from the Government is so trifling that they may properly be called self supporting-
The amongst the best herders teamsters shearers & such like occupations. And perhaps as good a thing as possible under all the circumstances would be to scatter them amongst the farmers who can make use of their labour- I have right families on my farm and each family will average two males large enough to earn wages- If I want more I send out for them-
My people are Yuaquis [sic] from Sonora. From the Indn. acquis. into Labour Bureaus, encourage the Inds. to work and earn their own living as the rest, including the Church to[sic]. Encourage them to marry and to be married in the Catholic church to which they claim to belong
Most truly Yours
George Stoneman
[Envelope text:]
State of California
Executive Department.
Mrs. Wm S Jackson
Kimball Mansion
Los Angeles
Calfa
Stoneman
#25—Stoneman to HHJ
Banning SPRR
April 19th 1883
W. Helen Hunt Jackson
Dear Madam
As the Secretary of a Citizen Meeting at Banning I am authorized to address you. Requesting—
Should you visit our settlement you allow us an expression of our opinion on the question of our land as relating to Indians.
Also to suggest, that we can furnish you some valuable information on the subject of your mission generally.
If you will accept of it, and notify us of the time of arrival, a wagon will be placed at your service, and any attention we can show you will be considered a pleasure—Very Respectfully
C. H. Jost
Secretary
[attached:]
“Banning- San Gorgonio Pass-
San Bernardino co. California- March 20th 83
To Miss Jackson and Mr. Kinney
Commissioners appointed to investigate the lands and condition of the Indians in Southern California:
At a public meeting of all the Residents on the Lands reserved for Indian Territories, held at Banning, in San Gorgonio Pass San Bernardino co. California—it was resolved that a delegation from said inhabitants be appointed to proceed to San Bernardino and lay before the Commissioners a statement of the existing status of the lands reserved for Indian purposes—as affecting the citizens resident in those townships known as 2 and 8 S. R. 1 E. and 2 S [Ramse?] 2 E in San Bernardino meridian.
Believing that it is of the utmost importance that you should become conversant with facts affecting the condition and future will-being of the Indians whom it is designed to place upon these lands we respectfully request a hearing.
Among those facts, as affecting the residents directly and more remotely the Indians are the following:
There is in San Gorgonio Township- of which these lands are a part- a population of over 250 whites- In township 3 S. R 1 E in the village of Banning- which is the business centre of the surrounding country- and has an immediately surrounding population numbering fifty whites. It has post and express offices- RR-depot, district school, church organization, general merchandise store, the flume of the San Gorgonio Fluming Co. the magistrates, and during last year there was sold or shipped from this place above fully twenty thousand bushels of wheat and barley- over two hundred tons of baled hay- a large amount of honey, butter, eggs, poultry, live stock etc. besides two hundred cords of wood. Although more than half of the area of this township is in the mountains, and uninhabited from the remaining portion, which is surveyed land, there is at this time fully twelve hundred acres in grain, and the value of the improved property is over fifty thousand dollars- exclusive of RR. property. Vested interests have been acquired to all the water available for irrigation- under the code of laws existing in this state. Wells have repeatedly been dug without success in this township. U. S. patents to lands were granted in this township long anterior to the “executive order” reserving the lands for Indian purposes- and since then the Population has not increased. No Indian has within the memory of man resided in this township- There are not over two entire sections of land in the entire area available [inserted text: left] for cultivation; and on these without abundance of water no one could possibly succeed in earning a livelihood. One of these sections was occupied- and was abandoned—the attempt to raise a cereal crop proving a failure. The extreme aridity of the climate renders the successful growth of cereals problematical- even when summer following is pursued- and the amount of human casualty professed by the average Indian does not usually embrace the period of two years.
To intersperse Indians between white settlers who own the RR. land or odd sections- and the remaining portion of the government sections- where a “no-fence” law exists as here would not be conducive to the wellbeing of the Indian- and would result in a depreciation of our property alike needless and disastrous.
In township 2 8 R 2 E there are not over eighty acres available- that in [Weaver?] Creek Canyon- where the water was acquired and utilized before the executive order- and the legal right well established-
In township 2 8. R 1 E settlements were made many years before the issue of the order of reservation- especially on odd-numbered Sections of RR. lands as then supposed to be- and these bona-fide settlers have acquired claims in equity to their improvements. On one Ranch in this township- that of Messrs Smith & Stewart- who have cultivated and improved the mesa or beach lands- there was produced several thousand sacks of grain- but this involved such an outlay of capital and Knowledge—besides experience in grain growing such as Indians do not profess—
In this township (embracing the three mentioned) there are upward of forty voters- and these unanimously and respectfully ask you to grant us a hearing- when we can reply to any interrogatories you may be pleased to make- If you will kindly name the time when to you convenient- the undersigned delegation will at once wait upon you-
Respectfully yours
W. K. Dunlap
Ben W. Smithe
S. Z. Millard
Welwood [Shannon?]
Geo. C Egan
D. A. Scott
G. Scott
[envelope attached.]
Letter from citizens of Banning relative to San Gorgonio Reservation]
5/14/1883
Mrs Helen Jackson and
Abbot Kinney Esq
U.S. Commissioners
Mission Indians:
Yours of 9th inst enclosing letter to Don Juan [Goyena?] rec/d and letter duly forwarded to him as requested.
I am glad of the interest you are taking in securing to these Indians their rights, and would be glad to aid you in any possible way.
There is no disposition on the part of [Goyena?] to unlawfully annoy the Indians.
The clause in the Pauma patent does not apply to any of the Indians now on the Pauma Ranch or to any that have been there for the past ten years or more.
The former ranch owners bought the interest of the only Indian remaining.
There is also a judgment in ejectment against the Indians occupying the ranch, which can be enforced at any time.
I think that upon a careful examination, you will find that the Indians have no rights on the Ranch whatever and the Sections quoted would not apply to this case.
However, I will advise Don Juan, to let the matter rest until I hear from you further.
He would not do anything to place himself in a position of being put to unnecessary expense.
Very Respectfully
J Chauncey Hares
[attached:]
Initial C.—
May 16—1877 Williamson in Land office Letter from the Commissioner—[deciding?] the withdrawal of the tract of land known as Rancheria of San Isidro. 5 miles east of Warner’s Ranch – for public sale or [auction?]. Executive order shall be issued
Letter from S.A. Galpin May 12. [Bona?] of I[ndians] describing said ranch. & Saying that it wld be reserved by Executive order for Mi[ssion] I[ndian]s.
This is the tract Cloos has field on.
—Chauncey Hayes—
Chauncey Hayes-
San Luis Rey-
Said by Lawson to be the man who had offered to the Pechanga Indians to gut their lands for their [wild] Ind. Homestead but - for $200.—
[on the back:]
Mem. of letters [one word] to San Isidro the rancheria field on by Cloos
[attached envelope:]
J. Chauncey Hayes | Government Lands Located.
General Agency
Land Sold or Leased,
Civil and Criminal Process Executed.
San Luis Rey, California.
Mrs Helen Jackson and
Abbot Kinney Esq.
US. Special Commissioners Mission Indians
Los Angeles City
Los Angeles Co. California
Return in 10 days
#39—H.A.C. J Chauncey Hayes to HHJ and her permitted reply
Santa Ynez May 14th, 1883
Mrs. Wm. S. Jackson
Dear Mrs. Jackson: your favor of 9th. inst. came to hand yesterday in this out of the way place.
I am sorry I could not stay home and see you after your tour through the Indian villages. My duties and also my health required my absence. I am willing to sell the ranch reserving to myself the exclusive right to two acres of land where the chaple [sic] built by the Indians stands, and one half section on the south side of the road including the frame house and other building & etc. formerly belonging to T. Amat.
Enclosed please find statement. Several parties have applied for purchasing the ranch, but in hopes that the Gov. would buy it for the poor indians, I did not entertain any offer, although I might get a higher price, therefore I must set a term, after which I will be free to dispose of it.
Thanking you for the interest you take on our poor Indians, Yours truly
& Mora Bishop [Bishop Mora] of Monterey and Los Angeles
[attached envelope:]
Mrs Wm. S. Jackson
Kimball Mansion.
Los Angeles, California
#37—H.A.C.
Letter to HHJ from Bishop Mora, Santa Ynez
[On printed letterhead:]
W.H. Brown. US Surveyor General Theo Reichert Chief Clerk.
Department of the Interior
U.S. Surveyor General’s Office,
For the District of California,
610 Commercial St. San Francisco, May 17th, 1883.
P.O. Box No 2260.
Mrs. Wm. S. Jackson,
Kimball Mansion,
Los Angeles,
Madam:
A letter from you addressed to R. C. Hopkins Esq., under date of the 8th instant relative to certain priviliges [sic] of the Mission Indians, has this day been referred to this office for reply, and I have to inform you, First, that there is no Rancho named “San Jose del Valle.”
Second. The information asked for concerning the Ranchos “Santa Ysabel” and “Valle de San Jose”, was given in letter from this office dated March 14th, 1883.
Third. There is no condition or clause in the San Francisquito grant relative to Indians.
Fourth. In the grant of the Valle de San Felipe (to Felipe Castillo) is found the following clause. “4th the grantee will see that the gentile Indians of San Felipe keep the peace and be of good conduct, for which the Government recommends him to imbue them with ideas of the utmost morality.”
Fifth. In the grant of Pausua to J. A. Serrano Blas Aguilar and Jose Aguilar the following condition is contained.
“1st. They shall leave free the arable lands now occupied by the Indians who are established thereon, as also the lands they may need for their small quantity of live stock.”
I believe the foregoing complies with your request to Mr. Hopkins and answers all your questions contained therein.
Will you please be kind enough to acknowledge receipt of this letter.
Very respectfully yours
Theo Reichert.
Chief Clerk U.S. Surveyor-General for Cala.
[On printed letterhead:]
W.H. Brown. US Surveyor General Theo Reichert Chief Clerk.
Department of the Interior
U.S. Surveyor General’s Office,
For the District of California,
610 Commercial St. San Francisco, May 24th, 1883-
P.O. Box No 2260.
Mrs. William S. Jackson,
Colorado Springs,
Colorado,
Madam;
In compliance with your verbal request of the 22nd instant, I hand you herewith memoranda prepared by the Keeper of the Spanish Archives of this office, which I hope may prove of some service to you.
Very respectfully,
W. H. Brown
U.S. Surveyor-General for Cala.
[attached:]
Senate
Washington Jany. 6, 81
My Dear Mrs. Jackson,
On my return here at the close of the holidays I find yours, both your letters. I asked Bright Eyes to telegraph you, because I preferred that she shd be responsible for any statement of what had transpired before I reached Washington—
If you have seen the Springfield Repn of Tuesday you will have seen my view of the present condition of this Ponca question. They have been worn out, and have become discouraged. They have been made to believe that nothing better is in store for them. The government has laid its heavy hand upon them, and held them down until they have yielded to its terms. That is the whole of it. Fifty millions of white men have achieved a glorious victory over five hundred half naked, half starved Indians! I think that the scheme will encounter some opposition before it gets through Congress. This consent which has been wrung out of the Ponca’s is the trick of a sneak—more despicable than anything Kemble [transcriber’s note: Indian Inspector E.C. Kemble] did in forcing them away from their homes—I hope that you will keep your eye on this business and the men engaged in it.
Truly Yours,
H.h.Dawes
[attached, on printed letter head:]
Department of the Interior
Washington.
Washing Dec. 24th 1880
Miss Helen Jackson
Dear Madam we have been trying to get Mr. Riggs as interpreter, could not secure his services before 1st. Prox. he will meet us in Indian Territory, we have one of our own here who is a good man & interpreter
[one word] in great haste
George Crook.
[written on back:]
Keep all such letters as these until this fight is over You don’t know what evidence may be needed before you are through.
[attached:]
Boston, Dec 23- 1880
My dear Mrs. Jackson:
The Devil himself reigns at Washington! How can people lie so, & be so cruel. Last night, inspired by a new idea, Tibbles started like a flash for Dacota—Where he is now, I don’t know. To-day, just now, at dinner a telegram came from Dawes, that Susette must come to Washington immediately. She starts in two hours, with a Mrs. [Arne?] for companion, a woman whom she has seen but once (& between ourselves does not trust). We don’t know who is to meet her, or take care of her, or whether Tibbles will be there or not. If only you could go to Washington now, & take her to your hotel, it would be one good thing to hold to, in this [house?] of wickedness. George W. Curtis is going to be horrid in the next Harper’s Weekly; repeating the old tale that the Poncas were removed before Schurr came into office, & that he has done all in his power to save them from the Sioux, & make them happy. Facts make no impression upon Curtis. What a pity it is when men get so far beyond facts that they can’t see them.
I think we are utterly beaten & routed in this fight—! & that having the right on our side counts for very little.
For myself, I am still so weak, that these things stop my breath, fill my chest with pain, & make me tremble like an aspen leaf. My second girl is in bed with a severe attack of measles; & there is a dr. & a nurse in attendance on her—So I am having a hard pull—
A telegram this minute comes from Tibbles, saying that he goes to Washington to-night—So Susette is safe there—
Good bye—God help the Indians, & us too—
M. LeB G.
[Written in a second hand on the side:]
Only the devils Dutch representative reigns at Washington
[Attached: [1881?]]
Worcester Jany.15th
My dear Madam
I thank you for your flattering opinion of my effort to make Mr. Clarke smart a little for his insolent brutality. Mrs. Goddard’s affial to me, when she writes so effectively herself and had, through her husband, a right to have, the control of a paper of much larger circulation and influence than ours, reminds me of the conduct of a Quaker skipper who was assailed one day with a torment of filthy and profane abuse by the captain of another raft, irritated by some nautical mishap. The good man bore it until Christian manners could endure no more and then called to the mate who was busy between decks. “Jeremiah! come on deck and talk some of thy language to this man.” If my language can be of any use to Miss Suzette or her friends even to the extent of relieving their minds more adequately than they can to do it for themselves, it is quite at their service.
I am not in the least disposed however, to exonerate Mr. Clarke as you request, at the expense of Secretary Schurz or any body else. His offence is in the meanness of spirit and coarseness of manner of his attack upon a poor girl. His opinion as to the Ponca business, of which Miss Suzette’s veracity is a side issue, he shares with many worthy people, whom I would convince if I could , but would not denounce.
Even for Mr. Schurz I can make some allowance, though his conduct is indefensible and in some aspects despicable. But I do not fully understand the temptations which attend official responsibility so great as his, and am willing to believe they are stronger than we can appreciate. The temptations of a journalist to caprical flippancy, reckless of justice and courtesy I can understand and know they are not strong enough to exterminate the offence of the Republican’s correspondent.
I will dutifully send you anything I may write on the Ponca question or topics related to it. Make my respects if you please to Miss Suzette, and believe me, my dear Mrs. Jackson,
respectfully and faithfully
Yours,
J. [Everett? [Greene?]
[An alternate transcription of the following letter can be found in The Indian Reform Letters of Helen Hunt Jackson, PS 2108.A44 1998 in Special Collections, on page 275.]
Capt. Stanley
Dear Sir,
Your report and letter reached me Sat. Evening. I have not had time yet to thoroughly examine the Report but have no doubt it will be of material value, and I am greatly obliged to you for undertaking the trip
I also received your note enclosing Mr. Lawson’s letter. I do not see that the letter calls for any reply from me, and I am surprised that he should have been annoyed at my asking you to report to me on the condition of the Desert Indians. No doubt some misrepresentations were made to him by some one, or he would not have felt as he did.—My delegating to authorize any part of my investigation, which I was unable to make myself, was wholly legitimate, in fact it was not the expectation of the Dept. that I was able to visit in person as many of the I[ndian]s as I did. [The following section is crossed through with an X: “I enclose a cheque for $65 which I trust will be satisfactory to you—taking your time at $5. a day.
I would have been glad to hear a little more in detail”]
I am sorry you did not mention what renumeration you would yourself think fair for your time. I have assured however that $5. a day would probably cover it & accordingly enclose a cheque for $65. If this is satisfactory please let me know &c.
[Attached:]
Las Angeles Cala
May 28th 1883
Mrs. H.H. Jackson
Special Ind. Agent,
Colorado Springs
Colorado:
Dear Madam,
Inclosed [sic] please find my report of my visit to the Cabezon Indians,-- I have tried to place my observations in as clear a light as possible—I was careful to say nothing to the Indians [denigrating?] to Mr. Lawson, but I found them very much incensed, against Mr. Lawson & Juan Morongo, and from what I learned from R. R. employees, I think they have cause. I presume you have received the letter of Mr. Lawson to me—I simply answered, by saying I should transmit the letter to you for reply, use, or reject such portions of my report as you think proper. But although I promised the Indians nothing—I sincerely hope something will be done for them immediately.
My expenditures incured during my trip amounted to thirty seven $37.00 Dollars— My time was occupied five day- for which, you can allow me such renumeration as you think proper.
I am Very Respectfully
you obt. servant
J D A Stanley
[attached:]
Los Angeles Cala. May 28th 1883
To Mrs. H. H Jackson,
Colorado Springs
Colorado,
Madam,
In compliance with your request, I proceeded to the Cabezon Valley and have endeavored as far was possible with the limited time at my command, to ascertain the present condition, and actual necessities of those Indians that still inhabit that portion of the Colorado Bason [sic], known as the “Cabezon Valley”- that being also the name of the head Chief, who from the best information that can be obtained, is not less than ninty [sic], and probably, one hundred years old, and who still has great influence with all the Indians in that reagion [sic],--
I found it impracticable to visit all the “Rancherias”, and accordingly sent out summons, and called a council of the Indians of all the villages, to be held at a point on the Rail Road, known as Walters station, that being the most central point. The next day there there [sic] were present in council about one hundred Indians, including the Captains of all the Rancharias [sic], and the old Chief Cabezon.
Having been Special Agent under the old Superintendant system, and well acquainted with the the [sic] Indians I was received by them with the greatest cordiality.— I sed [sic]e, and interpreted your letter to Cabezon, and also explained that you were not able to visit them in person on account of ill health.
I told them that you had heard that dissatisfaction existed in regard to the Agent, Mr. Lawson, and [crossed out: “that”] also his interpreter “Juan Morongo” (an Indian
The Indians through their spokesman or interpreter, then stated their causes of complaint. First- that Mr. Lawson had never visited their villages nor taken any interest in their welfare- That he had allowed his interpreter “Juan Morongo” to take the advantage of them- that Juan Morongo had made a contract for them, with a man in San Bernardino, to cut wood (on land claimed by the Indians,) for the R.R. Co. he, taking the Lyons [sic] share of the profits and agreeing to pay them every Saturday, ( in money) That Juan Morongo took some two hundred and ten dollars belonging to the Indians and appropriated it to his own use- That the contractor did not pay as agreed, but wished the Indians to take poor flour, and other articles at a great price.
These may be some exaggeration of the causes of complaint. But it is evident, that no one, has looked after the rights of these indians.
The Indians have stoped [sic] cutting wood, and they say the contractor tells them, he will send others to cut wood if they will not do it. If I understand rightly, it is govt. land, and no one has a right to cut the timber- Tis true tis Mesquite timbre, and they profess to cut only the dry trees- but the mesquite is invaluable to the Indians, it not only makes their fires, but its fruit supplies them with a large amount of subsistence. The mesquite bean is used green and dry, and at the present time, is one of the principle articles of food—and besides- without the Mesquite tree the valley would be a perfect desert.
The wood (dry trees) could be made a source of employment, and profitable revenue tot eh Indians if cut with proper regulations, but the present mode- is destruction to the timber, and benefits but few of the Indians. I have extended my remarks on this subject, as I think it very important. If the wood is to be cut, I think the Indians should be supplied with wagons, and harness, that they may do all the work of delivering the wood and get the profits of their labour.
I would suggest that it is very important, that a tract of country be segregated and set apart, for these Indians. There is a vast amount of desert lands, but there are places that have been occupied doubtless hundreds of years, where wheat, corn, melons and other farm productions, can be grown- There is very little running water, but water is so near the surface that it can be easily developed.
The Indians appear to know nothing of any lands being set apart for them, but claim the whole territory they have always occupied. I think that to avoid complications something should be done for these Indians immediately, to protect their interests.—
At present there are eight village, (or Rancherias,) each with its own Captain- but all recognizing old Cabezon as head Chief. I ascertained from each Captain the number belonging to his Village, and I found the agrigate [sic] to be five hundred and sixty souls.
These Indians are not what are called Christianized Indians, They never belonged to the Missions, and have never been received into any Church. They believe in spirits and witchcraft. While I was among them I was told by by a white man that the Indians intended to kill one of their number because he had bewitched a man, and [“made” inserted above] him sick. I asked the interpreter about it, He acknowledged it to be true, but said they only intended to frighten him so that he would let the man alone. I told him it would be wrong to kill the Indian, and he said they would not do it—
They are very anxious to have schools established amongst them, and are willing to all live in one village- if a suitable place can be selected
I shall offer (as my opinion,) That immediate steps should be taken to set apart lands for these Indians. That they only, be permitted to cut wood for sale on the public lands in Cabezon Valley, That no one be permitted to cut any green timber in the valley
That two strong wagons, and harness for twelve horses, be furnished (or loaned) to the Indians for the purpose of hauling wood only That lumber be furnished to make sheds for said wagons & harness—(The Indians have horses of their own.).
All of which, is
Respectfully submitted
J D A Stanley
[On printed letterhead:]
G. Wiley Wells. A Brunson.
Brunson & Wells,
Attorneys and Counselors at Law,
Nos. 11 to 17 Baker Block.
In Re Mission Indians of California
Los Angeles, Ca., June 1st 1883
Mrs. Wm. S. Jackson
Colorado Springs Col.
Madam:
According to promise our Mr. Wells at once entered into correspondence with parties in San Diego to ascertain the states of the Indians on the Puma Rancho. We enclose you the information received.
You will observe there is no record regarding the “Pauma” but there appears to have been an action commenced for possession of the “Pauba”; this is another and different Rancho. It may be that Mr. Hayes is mistaken regarding a judgment &c. We are continuing the research and will advise you as the same progresses. There has been no action as to those upon the San Jacinto, Mr. Kinney has left us for the east.
We are, Truly yours
Burnson & Wells
[Likely meant to be attached to the previous letter, written in same hand:]
<Copy>
San Diego Cal
May 26 1883
Messrs Burnson & Wells
Gents:
There have been no recent Indian ejectments “Cuca” was the last –1877—
Temecula and Pauba was done on execution from some court above, and hunting the old execution books of Hunsaker to find a reference – it was in 1874 or 75. Have written Hayes for light. Will let you know in the cause of Liberty—
Yours truly
<signed> A. B. Hotchkins
[Likely meant to be attached to the previous 2 letters:]
<Copy>
Regl Actions No 4
W. P. Brighton
v
Isadore an Indian
Ysedro “ “
Padro Juan “ “
Suite No 631 Dist Court S. D. Co 17 Nov 1877 Ejectment Chose & Level for Pltff
Judgment for Pltff
Antonio Vavela
v
Olegario
Marianna Calacca
Joaquin Calaca [sic]
Marselio Cubin
Francisco Subic
Semoni Calam
Feliz Sobrenes
and 72 others, Indians
Reg Actions 4 No 603 Dist Court 18th Dist filed July 7 1877 Trespass part of the transaction below
Margareta Sobrenes de Trujillo Gregorio Trupillo
v
Mariana Calacca, Joaquin Calacca, Marselio Cubin, Franciscon Subio, Seraco Calacca, Feliz Sobrenes, Pedro Pablo Sobrenes, Jose Luis, Palipos, Daniel Socona and Telefrorio
Regl Actions 4 No 584 D. Court 18 Dist field 16 June 77
Ejectment for “Cuca” Ranch
Judgment for Pltff defts were dispossessed
F Saujarijo
Z [Larcago?]
v
John Doe
Dist Court S. D. Co No 132
June 24 1873
[Course?] Ejectment filed & for $1000 damages Pltff allege they own Rancho “Pauba” & “Temecula” said to contain 51000 acres and described, avers ignorance of defendants name, Sworn to by J Murietta agent, send on Augustia Daguerre 26 June 1873
This case was dismissed after an answer was filed denying pltffs complaint and alleging possession under one –Vignes–who was said to be the owner
I think Vignes was an old Frenchman living at San Jose.
Murietta now living on the Ranch was Agent
Her suit to dispossess was brought in some court above and execution sent down—Hunsaker Sheriff dispossessed them—Can’t find his books—will look for them
Coahnilla San Diego Co. Cala.
June 18 1883
Dear Friend
My teacher wants me to write too [sic] you. All the people they are very glad that Mr. Lawson put school here, and the children are glad too. I can read spell [sic] but cant write yet good I am read in Sheldon Third Reader I am fifteen years old. my name is Angelo Marra Attencio all the people call me Agnes and I have one brother He is ten years old and his name is Samuel. My mother she is been sick all the time This winter she is nearly dying. all scholars can read and spell some time the teachers want them to write to her on slate so we learn to write litter [sic] I want you to write me one litter [sic] your loving Friend
Agnes Attencio
[attached envelope:]
Mrs Helen Jackson
Colorado Springs
Colorado
[attached:]
Coahnilla San Diego Co
June 24/83
Mrs. Jackson
Dear Friend
Received yours of 15 last evening and about two weeks ago the package of papers sent from Los A. it was over one month on the way. were sent to San Diego & I had to send there for them. The Indians have been happy ever since. There was a meeting called at once at School House for me to read & interpret paper. It was an [imposing?] affair. I think I had quite as large an audience as you but perhaps not quite as many clean spirits. They were profuse in their thanks for your kind remembrance of them & wished me to return “muchas saludes” in return. The Capt’s son Leonacio Sugo & some others are writing you today in their own houses so whatever they send is done without any outside help. I began teaching Nov. 1881. school closed June 30. and this year I have taught from Sep 1st until June 30 10 months which will have to be taught every year. It seems strange that a government like ours would exercise so little judgment, taking Indian children out of the brush- we may say- & confining them for 10 months to school is outrageous, and it will necessitate frequent changes of teachers if their heart is in their work for it - very wearing. There is abundant work here for two teachers. They come to me for everything I am Lawyer Doctor seamstress & every thing else I am so worn out I don’t know as I shall be able to come back at all & if I do it will only be for part of the year. I have thought perhaps the best thing I could do would be to go to father & mother whom I have not seen for 16 years and recruit [inserted: “say for one year”] their return to my work, but shall be governed by circumstances, as to the vacation. It would be better to have it all at once. There should not be any school from last of May until first of Oct. it gets vy warm in these villages in summer and I find that it is vy hard on the parents to provide food and clothing for the children while they are waiting for their little crops to grow and all except the tiny tots- (who ought not to be in school so long) are really needed at home. With their bad management poverty bad fences poor farming implements, it is great labor for them to raise their little crops It is an imposition on the parents particularly the mothers to compel regular attendance for so long a term. It simply injustice and in the end will work injury to school affairs I think it has already in most of schools. I don’t think the cramming process will work any better with Indians then [one word] children. I don’t think children in this climate can stand the mental labor that they can east. To elevate these degraded children of children of nature to a higher level must necessarily be a work of time & demanding the exercise of the most persevering effort and untiring patience and it is unwise to push matters. They are natural vy slow and it is labor in vain to hurry them.
Thanks for your kindly interest in myself & little family. Your visit here will always remain a “green spot in my memory.”
Only for that I don’t think I could have finished the term. It seemed to give me a new lease of life & it encouraged the Indians so much, which of course helped me vy much. No difference where I am a letter will always reach me addressed to San Jacinto. Mrs. Jordan will forward to me.
I am poor letter writer but will be most happy to write you occasionally and will be so much pleased to hear from you when convenient, If you have the time & patience to reply to the letters the children are writing you- it would make them very happy. You can enclose them in a letter addressed to me & I will see that they get them. How restful it must seem to be in your own home after such a hard jaunt. Gertrude gives me in kind wishes to you
Your friend
N. J. Lickner
Only two letters have come in yet and I will not wait for others as I have an opportunity of sending it off
[attached:]
Coahnilla San Diego Co. Cala.
June 24” 1883
Mrs. Jackson.
Dear Friend,
My father got the paper you sent to him he was very thankful. When you arrived here I was not here I was working to San Juaquin when I came back I was sorry I did not see you. The children were very glad to see you and the people so very happy too. We be pleased to have you come again. All the people send you much love. I read in Sheldons Fourth Reader I been in school about nine months.
Your Friend
Seonecio Sugo
[On printed letterhead of the Surveyor General’s office:]
Cycuan [sic—modern spelling Sycuan], Cosmit, Inaja
Capitan Grande
--laid out by map in San Diego—
by guess by Mr. Wheeler=
knew what townships they were in- that was all.
--guard at the sections.
--Cahuilla.
Santa Ysabel had been surveyed—
Mr. Dryden went with Mr. W.— every survey, excepting Cycuan, Cosmit, [one word]
he saw as you mentioned in [this note?] that they did ¬not take – the billings -- & the quarter [hart?] of it worthless—
--Contrary to to Mr. W. S. Joaquin
in 1876 [Y…. S…]
Pala, Rincon, La Joya—
on plates at S. G. S. Office—
[two words] by [every?] colored yellow on the [university?]
--lines colored green on the boundaries that the Agent proposed to recover as notifications-
--three lines new marked out by Wheeler & showed this to Dryden
Mesa grande village partly in & partly off the R.—
Aqua Caliente village is on San Juan del Valle—
Wheeler’s recommendations of additives to in Cahuilla R.— [More available upon request]
[attached envelope:]
Official Business
U.S. Surveyor-General’s Office,
610 Commercial Stree,
San Francisco, California.
Mrs. Wm. S. Jackson,
Kimball Mansion,
Los Angeles,
California
[additional envelopes available upon request]
| Top of Page |
 |
maintained by Special Collections; last revised 8-2013, jr