33d Congress, 
 Is/ Session . 
 
 [SENATE.] 
 
 Rep. Com. 
 No. 295. 
 
 •sr 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 
 Mat 30, 1854.—Ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Sebastian made the following 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany Bill S. 390.] 
 
 The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the claim of Overton 
 
 Love, a Chickasaw Indian, report: 
 
 That sometime in December, 1847, or January, 1848, a band of nine 
 or ten armed men, from the State of Texas, crossed Red river and 
 forcibly took from the premises of Overton Love four of his slaves, 
 named Patrick, Malinda, Lucinda, and Susan, the right to which he 
 acquired from a devise of Nancy Guest to his wife. And at the same 
 time and place they also seized and abducted their slaves named Harriet 
 and her infant, and a boy named Andy, the property, under the same 
 will, of John Guest, a minor and brother of Mrs. Love. The value of 
 the aforesaid slaves, according to the lowest rate established by deposi¬ 
 tions before Agent A. J. Smith, was for those of Overton Love, $2,400, 
 and for those of John Guest $1,300. These slaves were the property of 
 Chickasaw Indians, and were taken from their possession in the Chick¬ 
 asaw district of the Choctaw nation. The facts were duly commu¬ 
 nicated to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and the case was re¬ 
 ferred to the Solicitor of the Treasury, who instructed the district attor¬ 
 ney of Texas to institute civil proceedings in the district court of the 
 United States for that State, against the offenders. A report from the 
 district attorney, after great delay, disclosed the fact that the defend¬ 
 ants were all irresponsible, and either dead or fled to California or 
 Mexico, and beyond the reach of process. The suit was, therefore, 
 abandoned. The slaves were removed to parts unknown, and have 
 never been recovered. The owners have not only not resorted to any 
 violence or retaliation, but have patiently awaited the result of tedious 
 and ineffectual legal proceedings for redress. They now ask that the 
 United States pay the value of said property, as prescribed in the 16th 
 section of the intercourse law of 1834. The section above referred to, 
 is as follows: 
 
 “That when, in the commission by a white person of any crime, 
 offence, or misdemeanor, within the Indian country, the property of any 
 friendly Indian is taken, injured, or destroyed, and a conviction is had 
 for such crime, offence, or misdemeanor, the person so convicted, shall 
 be sentenced to pay to such friendly Indians to whom the property may 
 belong, or whose person may be injured, a sum equal to twice the just 
 
2 
 
 S. Rep. 295. 
 
 value of the property so taken, injured, or destroyed ; and if such offender 
 shall be unable to pay a sum equal to the just value or amount, what¬ 
 ever such payment shall fall short of the same shall be paid out of the 
 Treasury of the United States : Provided , That no such Indian shall be 
 entitled to any payment out of the Treasury of the United States for 
 any such property if he, or any of the nation to which he belongs, shall 
 have sought private revenge, or attempted to obtain satisfaction by any 
 foroe or violence: And provided , also, That if such offender cannot be 
 apprehended and brought to trial , the amount of such property shall be paid 
 out of the Treasury as aforesaid A 
 
 It is said that the property was taken under some pretext of a claim— 
 a pretext which is scarcely plausible even, when the character of the 
 offenders, and their final concealment of the property and of them¬ 
 selves is considered. Such a claim, if honestlv entertained, could not 
 otherwise palliate the act, than to reduce the guilt of the parties from a 
 larceny or robbery to a trespass. The property had been in the peace¬ 
 able possession of the claimants and of the testator who bequeathed it 
 to them; and the seizure of it by strong hand, without legal process, 
 and within the territories of a nation with whom the United States 
 were, and ever have been, at peace, was, to say the least, “ an offence 
 or misdemeanor,” and, therefore, within a class of cases for which that 
 act provides. The other conditions of the act have been fulfilled, and 
 their right to the payment is now clear and absolute. They have not 
 sought revenge or private satisfaction, and the offenders “cannot be 
 apprehended and brought to trial.” The committee, therefore, report 
 a bill for the relief of the claimants.