--.
THiE ARGUMENT
F
hi it,C I
OF
WM. P.;,  DUVAL,
ON
CLAIM OF THE CITIZENS OF TEXAS
FOR
COMPENSATION FOR THE PROPERTY TAKEN FROM THEM BY THE
CAMANCHE INDIANS, SINCE THE ANNEXATION OF THAT
STATE TO THE UNITED STATES.
WASHINGTON:
PRINTED BY GOGGIN & SAUNDERS.
1852.
/
/~
//
1. 
I 
ARGUMENT.
To the COMMITTEE OF INDIAN AFFAIRS of t7e House of Representatives,
who have in c7harge the petition of Messrs. BEtRRY, Cox, WILLIAMS,
LEE, and others, citizens of the State of Texas, praying Congress to
iidemnifyV them for property taken or destroyed b  the Camanches
and other tribes of Indians, on the borders of the white settlements of
said State, since its annexation to the Utnited States:
GENTLEMEN: Inpresenting the claims above referred to, others
of a like nature will necessarily fall within the general principles
that govern the whole class of Indian spoliations, unless peculiar
circumstances may vary the equity of some of the claimants.  It
has often been asserted that the Congress of the United States
do not hold the nation bound by justice or policy to make good
the losses sustained by her citizens in a war with a foreign power.
This, as a general rule, may be admitted, yet in many instances
Congress has paid for property taken or destroyed by the enemy
during our last war with Great Britain, not in the use or service
of the United States, or occupied by our military, or destroyed
by order of the officer in command. A list of cases, with the
proper references, is hereunto appended. It was then the uniform practice of Congress, in every act passed granting compensation to persons for the destruction of property, when the same
was destroyed by order of the commanding officer, or destroyed
by the enemy while in the use or occupation of the military, to
set forth in the law the fact; and a review of the several acts of
Congress, for this kind of indemnity, will show their uniformity
in this particular. In all other cases, where compensation was
granted by Congress for property taken or destroyed in the war
with Great Britain, the act of Congress simply states, the property 
4
was taken or destroyed by the British troops during the war of
1812, and in the years 1812, 1814, or 1815.
Waiving all discussion as to the right of our citizens to indemnity for losses incurred in a war with a foreign enemy, the Indian
tribes within the limits of the United States stand on a principle
wholly "different, perhaps unlike that of any two people in existence."  "In general, nations not owing a common allegiance
are foreign to each other: the term foreign nation is with strict
propriety applicable by either to the other. But in the relation
of the Indians to the United States, this is marked by peculiar
and cardinal distinctions, which exist nowhere else."   (Cherokee
Nation vs. State of Georgia.  See 5 Peters' Reports.)  "Those
Indian tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries
of the United States cannot with strict accuracy be denominated
foreign nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a
title independent of their will, which must take effect, in point of
possession, when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile they
are in a state of pupilage: their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian. They look to our Government for protection, rely upon its kindness and its power, appeal
to it for relief to their wants, and address the President as their
Great Father."  (5 Peters' Reports, same ease.)  If the United
States chooses to become guardian to the Indians, does it exclude
guardianship of-its own citizens? Does the protection of the one
necessarily exclude the other? It seems but just that the guar dian should protect both wards, as he holds in truth the estates
of both. He should see each held accountable to the other for
their losses. If it should be said that the Indians have no estate
to answer the demands of justice, he ought to give some account
of the millions of acres that he holds as trustee for the Indian;
and is daily receiving the proceeds, as residuary legatee of his
own creation, much against the will of his red ward.
The manner and mode of proceeding pointed out by the act
of Congress of the 30th March, 1802, entitled "An act to regu late trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve
peace on the frontier," is so clogged with conditions and pro visoes, which in many instances cannot be complied with, from 
1)
the very nature of the country, and the wandering life of the
Indians, (they having no permanent home, and not cultivating
the soil,) without annuities, and destitute of means to indemnify
the party for any loss or damage to his property. The act of
1802 is a dead letter, so far as the indemnity to our citizens for
Indian depredations is concerned. Its complicacy defeats its
own object, as much so as if it had been designed to prevent any
payment for such losses.
It has been heretofore stated in Congress that Texas should
have run a line through her territory, and placed the Camanche
tribes over that line, so that the War Department might establish
its posts on such line permanently, and thus keep the Indians
out of our settlements; and not having made such line of division,
Texas or her people are to be left to the mercy of the savages,
and must suffer for the omission. In answer to this, I say that
Texas is more justly entitled to claim of the United States indemnity for her citizens than any other State in the Union: First.
Because she acceded to all the demands made on her by the articles or resolutions admitting her into the Union. Second. The
United States did not require Texas to lay off and appropriate
territory within her limits, for the use of the Indians. Why then
should this new demand be urged as a reason, that her citizens
should not be indemnified for their property plundered by the
Indians?  Had Congress requested, in the resolutions passed for
the admission of Texas, that such a line should be run, and a
portion of her unsettled lands set apart for a limited time, for
the use and occupancy of the Indians, no doubt it would have
been acceded to. But so far from doing this, or giving protection
to the people of Texas, Congress required the State to deliver
up all of her arms, posts, arsenals, and munitions of war, leaving
the State at the mercy of the Indians, utterly disarmed.   To a
thinking mind, it must seem extraordinary that a new country,
with vast numbers of daring warriors hovering about her settlements, and with a border of many hundred miles, should have
been required to surrender the arms so necessary to their security
and defence.  Texas, up to the time of her admission into the
Union, would have greatly preferred to retain her arms, &c., by a 
surrender of a portion of her unsettled wild lands, for the temporary occupation of the Indians.
It has been offered as an excuse for the want of that efficient
protection which Texas since her annexation has never received,
but which the Congress of the United States is by duty and
the Constitution bound to give, that the United States own no
land in the limits of Texas.
The Constitution grants to Congress the exclusive power to
regulate the Indian tribes in their intercourse and trade, and to
preserve peace on the frontier. What soil did the United States
own in New York, North Carolina, Georgia, and other States,
where the Indians remained? Georgia was the only State that,
by compact with the United States, agreed to permit the Indians
within her borders to remain for a reasonable time, until the
General Government could conveniently remove them; and after
most unreasonable delay, that State was forced to adopt decided
action before the Indians were removed from her soil.
Whatever opinion was entertained by any department of the
General Government as to the necessity of the United States
having control over the soil in any State, in order to give the
citizens prompt and efficient protection against the Indians, surely
the act of Congress, approved 29th December, 1845, should put
to rest this pretence, as the act declares " all the laws of the
United States extend to and over, and are to have full force and
effect in, the State of Texas.
It may be asked with reason and propriety, why the United
States, out of all her millions of acres lying north and west, on
the borders of Texas, have not furnished land for the tribes of
Camanches? The vast plains and rich pastures unocccupied by
a white man is the very country best suited to these Arabs of the
plains, not inferior to the best horsemen in the world. Why, then,
should the United States expect Texas to yield her lands to the
savages? Is this any part of her agreement? And shall it be urged,
under these circumstances, that a people disarmed by the General
Government, without the means of protecting their lives or property, and fallen, as many of them have, under the fury of the
savage, should receive no indemnity for the loss of almost all
they possessed?
6 
7
In the treaty made by the United States with the Indians in
Georgia, a stipulation was made that a certain sum should be paid
to the citizens of that State as indemnity for losses sustained
by her citizens from the Indians within her limits, out of the
money the Indians were to receive for surrendering their possessions and removing west of the Mississippi. I believe the amount
thus applied did not by any means liquidate and pay the just sum
due the citizens for their losses. The act of Congress which
proposes to secure to the citizens of the United States indemnity
for Indian depredations, has proved a failure, except when enforced by some treaty made with the Indians. If this act had been
fairly and justly executed. it would have been wise economy
saving the lives of thousands of our citizens, and millions that
have been expended in suppressing Indian hostilities. Whenever the General Government complies with its laws, no citizen
will seek to redress his wrongs by strong hand, or seek reprisals
or revenge for his losses. It is certain that our citizens will
attempt to redress the wrongs inflicted by the Indians, if the Government will not. It is to the interest of the United States to
pay for the property taken or destroyed by the savages, rather
than incur the expense of hostilities with them. Humanity to
our own citizens demand this course, as it does for the protection
and preservation of the unfortunate red race. Your Indian wars
have cost the nation millions more than if every citizen had received full compensation for all the property taken or destroyed
by the Indians since our Government was established, to say
nothing of the loss of so many lives sacrificed in these conflicts.
The treaty made with the various bands or nations of the
Camanches, on the 5th day of May, 1846, in Robertson county,
in the State of Texas, by the commissioners on the part of the
United States, contains a stipulation in the 7th article, "that, as
these bands or nations are in the practice of stealing horses from
our citizens, and if persisted in, it cannot fail to involve the
United States and the Indians in endless strife, it is therefore
agreed that it shall be put an entire stop to on both sides."
These Indians prefer to eat horses and buffaloes, and live entirely
on meat. They are wandering over the plains, have no regular 
8
habitations, and raise no corn: to expect them to return the
horses they steal, is about as reasonable as to suppose a starving
man would give up his dinner.
Unless the United States can locate these Indians, and induce
them to cultivate the soil, they will never remember the agreement not to steal horses, or, if stolen, to return them. Unless
the United States will furnish them rations, a1 the horses they
steal will be made into beef. It is this passion or appetite for
horse-flesh that has occasioned so many horses to be stolen from
the citizens of Texas, as they answer the double purpose of war
horses and rounds of beef. I assure the committee that the
Camanches must be either destroyed or fed; and Congress will
exercise its wisdom and humanity, if it desires to prevent their
extermination.
It may be said, that if the Indians are unable to pay for the
property, the law promises, under certain conditions, (after a
year's delay,) the United States is then to pay for it. If the
claimant is to come here for relief, his claim must be very large
indeed if he did not eat it out long before he could get a law
passed in his favor. If he apply to the proper department to
get pay for his losses, however full and clear the evidence might
be, he would be informed that Congress must make the appropriation before his claim could be paid, for no such fund embracing his case had been or ever was set apart for this object.
The result of all this injustice is, the injured citizen looks to his
rifle to square his account. Hence the frequency of our Indian
hostilities, and the millions spent by way of economizing a few
thousand dollars.
The customs and habits of the Camanches, and their manner
of warfare, should claim the attention of the committee, as a
knowledge of these will show the equity of the cases of the Texas
claimants. In three material points the Camanches differ from
all other Indian tribes known to us.
First. They always act as mounted men, and better or more
fearless riders are not to be found. Their horses are well trained,
and they are enabled in quick time to rush into our settlements,
(generally in the night, when the frontier inhabitants are sleep 
9
ing,) and, when there is rno moon, silently and adroitly they are
enabled to plunder and carry off the horses and mules before
daylight.  Thus all the animals fit for the saddle are carried
away, leaving the inhabitants afoot and unable to pursue the
Indians with any hope of overtaking them. All the tribes,
except those on the great western prairies, go to war on foot.
Second. The Camanches use no bread, and know nothing of it
except as they see it in our settlements. They subsist entirely
on the flesh of the buffalo and horse-the first daily becoming
more scarce.
Third. The Camanches, contrary to the habits of all other
Indian tribes, invariably violate their female captives. These
facts are notorious to the citizens of Texas, and they have engendered the most deadly hostility against this wild and numerous
nation.  If their wives and daughters are thus treated, and their
property thus plundered, finding no redress here, it requires no
prophet to foretell, their rifles will clear and square the account
with these Camanches, and the United States will have at last,
and at great expense, to turn their arms against these savages.
The United States are munificent to the new States, and to
many public institutions. To railroads, canals, &c., more than
twenty millions of acres of the public domain have been granted
by Congress. They have granted, too, a large amount of land, as
pre-emptions to actual settlers; but these, being generally poor,
have to pay the minimum price for the lands they occupy.  This
may be wise and prudent, as it brings large tracts of country into
cultivation, increasing the value of the lands retained by the
United States, and enabling the enterprising and laboring emigrant to find a home and comfort for his family, placing them in a
position to acquire independence, and often in a few years wealth.
These are generally located in peace, and secured from thlie inroads of the Indian.
Amidst all this liberality, who has thought or felt for the frontier man, for the bold and daring pioneer? These seem to be
forgotten; yes, these brave and fearless men, who have in so many
instances, and under so many privations, won from the fierce
warriors the wilderness and the waste, and created an empire, now
2
:...,....
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ 
10
occupied by many prosperous and happy millions of people, daily
adding strength and wealth to the nation-they are neglected
and forgotten.  Who casts a thought on such humble and distant
and obscure sons of the frontier?  Will you let them fall, and be
stripped of their little property? The great and magnificent march
of this nation to dominion and power is so towering, these sons of
obscurity are not noticed in our triumph and glory. We boast of
laws and equity, and of our republican institutions, and, over all,
our noble Constitution and impartial justice. We profess to protect the weak and poor against the powerful and wealthy. Shall
these claimants find all these are merely themes for our political
orators-declamation to adorn some fourth of July oration?  It
is hoped not, and that Congress will practise what the Constitution and justice demand.   The rich and powerful in all nations
have and will protect themselves. It is the poor and humble
who want the protection of the Government; and if they have it
not, constitutional protection is a mere promise, broken as it is
uttered.
You give away to railroads, held now and to be owned hereafter by wealthy stockholders, millions of acres of the domain,
made valuable to the nation by the daring and gallant'try of the
untiring pioneer; yet none of all these lands, thus acquired, have
been disposed of to pay for the destruction or loss of their property by the Indians; and shall these men, when they petition
Congress for some compensation be told, "Look to the act of
the 30th of'March, 1802:, and the subsequent laws of Congress
for redress?-laws which have never been executed by the Government, except only when enforced by some treaty stipulation,
or by special 4pplibations directly to Congress.
WM. P. DUYAL,
Attorney in fat for the 0Gaimants.
...1
:. t: - 
-1 t
APPE1N-DIX.
Cases in which Congress paid for the capture or destruction of i2(peity
in the late wa? with Great Britain, when the same was not in the
use or occupancy of the United States or her troops, nor destroyed by
the orders of the officers in command.
An act for the relief of Joseph McNiel.-(See Little & Brown Statutes at
Large, containing Laws of the United States, published in 1819, vol 6, page 259.)
An act for the relief of William Henderson, for the value of his property
destroyed by the enemy in the late war with Great Britain.-(Vol. 6, p. 268.)
An act for the relief of the heirs of Edward McCarty, deceased, for property
destroyed by the enemy, during the invasion of Louisiana by the British troops
during the late war.-(Vol. 6, page 270.)
An act for the relief of Solomon  Prevost, for losses sustained by him, during
the invasion of Louisiana by the British troops, during the years  1814 and
1815.-(Vol. 6, page 273.)
An act for the relief of John Pettel, for the destruction of his buildings andi
other property, during the invasion of New Orleans by the British troops in the
winter of 1814 and 1815.-(Vol. 6, page 277.)
An for the relief of the legal representatives of John Guest, deceased, for a.
house and brick office burnt in the town of Havre de Grace, in the State of Mary -
land, in the year 1813, by the British troops.-(Vol. 6, page 400.)
An act for the relief of Wm. Flood.-(Vol. 6, page 163.)
An act for the relief of the representatives of Thomas Beacham, deceased, for
a barn burnt in the State of Virginia, during the late war with Great Britain
and her troops.-(Vol. 6, page 626.)
An act for the relief of the heirs of William Forbes, deceased, for property in
certain houses destroyed in the late war by the British troops.-(Vol. 6, page
600.)
An act for the relief of Charles J. Catlett, for tobacco destroyed by the British
or American troops, in the late war with Great Britain.-(Vol. 6, page 670.)
An act for the relief of David Kilbourn, for property destroyed on the northern
frontier by the enemy during the late war with Great Britian.-(Vol. 6, page
690.)
-\n act for the relief of James L. Pattison, for a house and other property
destroved bvy the enemy during the late war with Great Britain.-(Vol. & page
o09.)
e?:.,' a. *'' 
12
An act for the relief of Wm. Eadus, for $2,000 for his house burnt by the
British troops at Sodus, New York, in June, 1813.-(Vol. 6, page 710.)
An act for the relief of George Wallis, for the destruction of his cattle by the
Indians-sum of $3,000, out of the annuities of Sac, Fox, and Iowa tribes.-(Vol,
6, page 913.)
There may be other cases of the same character as those above referred to;
but the last mentioned case cannot avail the citizens of Texas, as the Camanche
tribes are not allowed any annuities.
*
illi
*.,;....     
...              e i —I ^