[843-851]

REPORT OF THE GEORGIA COMMISSIONERS, DATED AUGUST 23, 1825.

Elisha Wood, Secretary, to James Harbour, Secretary of War.

Executive Department, Georgia, Milledgeville, August 29, 1825.

Sir:

By direction of his excellency Governor Troup, I enclose you herewith a further report of the Georgia commissioners, with documents numbered from 1 to 9, inclusive, containing testimony connected with the Indian affairs.

And have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant,
Elisha Wood, Secretary.

Hon. James Barbour, Secretary of War.

William H. Torrance and William W. Williamson to Governor Troup.

Milledgeville, August 23, 1825.

Sir:

Herewith, we transmit to your excellency documents numbered from 1 to 9, inclusive, containing further testimony connected with the Indian affairs.

From the testimony now adduced you will discover, among other facts, that the Rev. Isaac Smith, one of the missionaries in the Creek nation, located near Broken Arrow, has stated that he was present at that place when a council was held to deliver a talk to Colonel H. G. Lamar, at which time and place the Little Prince, who then acted as speaker, requested Colonel Lamar to tell the Indians then in Georgia to return to their homes, and that they should not be injured.

In the course of the collecting of testimony by the agent, Colonel Crowell, we were present when Mr. Hambly, the national interpreter, (a witness for the agent,) stated on oath that the fifth article of the treaty was not read to the chiefs in council. We were much surprised to hear evidence of that character, because it involved directly and most essentially the purity of the character of the commissioners of the General Government. In the testimony we have received, you will find in documents Nos. 1, 2, and 8, that, so far from that being true, the matter contained in the fifth article was cause of particular observation by persons present at the reading and interpretation of the treaty, and grew out of the apparent effect that it had upon the agent, Colonel Crowell, who was present.

Gentlemen of great worth, pure morals, and unblemished integrity, testify that they were present when the whole treaty was read; and one of them, that he has a most distinct recollection of the reading of the fifth article, from the circumstance of noticing at the time a very considerable change in the countenance of the agent, Colonel Crowell; which circumstance was observed by others present, and was the subject of after-conversation. This you will find is corroborated by other testimony.

The article, it appears, was inserted reluctantly by the commissioners, and entirely at the instance of the chiefs. It must be obvious why such testimony was taken by the agent; but the object has been overreached — he proved too much. This Mr. Hambly is a sworn officer of the Government of the United States; he, as well as the United States agent, has given sanction to a treaty by his official attestation, which treaty they now come forward and attempt to prove was obtained by foul and fraudulent means. In fact, sir, the omission referred to in the agent's testimony is criminal in its character, and that, too, charged directly against the commissioners of the United States — two gentlemen of high standing and approved integrity, who could have had no other interest than their country's good to promote so desirable an end as the one they have, after much labor and difficulty, attained.

There is a rule of moral law which forbids an individual to destroy by secret and covert means the effect of doctrines which he has promulgated. A similar principle is applied in civil and municipal law. He who gives currency and authority to a written instrument by his solemn attestation, is not allowed to invalidate that instrument. The attempt to do so loads him with reproach and odium. His testimony, if received at all, is received with many grains of allowance, the more especially when he alleges, in support of its annulment, that a fraud — yea, a stupendous fraud — has been imposed. Can it be believed that this Mr. Hambly and the agent would have given official sanction to a treaty which bore on its face nothing unfair, when they knew that every means other than fair means was pursued to obtain it? No; the weak and the credulous cannot give faith to such averments. It would attach a foul stigma upon their official character to say so. What did they do? What effect had their attestations? Do they not to all intents and purposes say to the Government of the United States, " There, we present you a treaty duly and properly obtained?"

The same evidence furnishes the proof that, after the treaty had been fully read through, signed, and sealed, the agent and the interpreter were called on to attest the same; which they severally did, without any objection whatever. We understand that it is alleged by the agent, as one ground of objection to the treaty, that the fifth article was not read in council; and, also, as another ground of objection, that the chiefs who made the treaty were not competent to do so. Either branch of the argument is an unfortunate one for him whereon to build an opposition. In the first case, it is presuming too far to say that the agent would witness a treaty in his official character without knowing its contents; and in the second case, it is imputed to him an absolute abandonment of his trust to suppose that he would stand by a careless spectator and witness of the mere forms of a treaty, when he knew that one of the parties to that treaty could not legitimately enter into any of its stipulations, without making known the same, which it appears he did not. The deduction from either position is most obvious, though not our province to announce.

Upon the subject of the consent given by the friendly chiefs in council to make the survey, the rudest skeptic can no longer have cause for a shadow of doubt.

Contained are the documents Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. You have testimony in relation to that particular. Your excellency will discover that, of the existence of such a council, and its consent so given, General Gaines received information before the last of the past month. At the same time he was informed that Marshall had given his consent; also, he was then informed of the true character of Edwards. The fact of the consent so given by the chiefs to make the survey having been announced to General Gaines nearly a month ago, and before his letter addressed to you of the 28th ultimo, and his failure to correct the erroneous representations of that matter founded upon the false certificate of Marshall and Edwards, surely furnishes cause of remark.

From the information we have received, it is evident that there were present at the council a number of citizens of Georgia, (General Ware, of Fayette county, among the number;) several of whom we have seen, and who have testified to the fact.

That there was such a council; that the consent to make the survey was given; also, that Marshall fully gave his; and that General Gaiues has been long since informed of the same, there is evidence abundant.

Respectfully, your excellency's obedient servants,
Wm.. H. Torrance,
Wm. W. Williamson,
Commissioners

His Excellency Governor Troup. 

No. 1.
Interrogatories to be exhibited to Duncan G. Campbell and William F. Hay, Esqrs., in the case of the Indian agent, Colonel John Crowell.

1st. To Duncan G. Campbell: Were you one of the United States commissioners who held the late treaty at the Indian Springs with the Creek Indians? And to Hay: Were you the secretary to such commissioners?

2d. Was not the treaty read to the chiefs, (who signed the same,) before they were called on to sign it? If so, state by whom, who interpreted, and who were present?

3d. Were the commissioners particular, or not, in having the whole treaty read to the chiefs? And was it, or not, distinctly interpreted to them (the chiefs) by the interpreter? 
Who was the interpreter? 
Did the commissioners omit to read any article of that treaty to the chiefs? 
Are you certain that the fifth article of the treaty was plainly and distinctly read? and was it understood? 
Was the agent present when that treaty was read? and did he, or not, particularly note the terms of the fifth article? 
Did not the interpreter explain it to the chiefs? 
Were not the head chiefs of that treaty capable of reading and writing, and capable of understanding ordinary-manuscript? Did the agent or interpreter make any objection to witnessing that treaty, when asked to do so? 
Relate all that each of you know concerning the execution of that treaty, touching the reading thereof, and the interpretation of the same, and by whom, and what was said and done by the agent at or about that period con­nected with it?

Wm. H. Torrance,
Warren Jourdan,
Commissioners of the State of Georgia.

July, 1825.

Answers of D. G. Campbell.

Georgia, Wilkes County:

The annexed interrogatories being exhibited to us by the commissioners on [the] part of the State, we have this day appeared before the officer attesting these our answers, and, being sworn, answered as follows:

1st. D. G. Campbell saith: That at the late treaty concluded with the Creek Indians, he was one of the com­missioners on the part of the United States.

2d. A council was convened on Saturday evening, 12th of February last, for the purpose of submitting a treaty which had been previously prepared.

The council was composed of all the chiefs and warriors who were upon the ground, as far as I know or believe; I did not discover that any were absent who had attended the previous meetings, except those who had absented themselves the night before, in the night. There were also present the two commissioners, William F. Hay, secretary, Dr. William Merriwether, Colonel Crowell, (the agent,) William Hambly, (the interpreter,) Thomas T. Triplett, and several white men, residents of the nation.

The reading of the treaty was preceded by some remarks from one of the commissioners, in reference to the movements of the over night. The council were 'told that a step of this sort, let it be produced by what cause it might, was not to defeat the objects of the Government; that all chiefs of the nation had been notified and invited to attend; that we had been in council for several days, and that it had been ascertained who were and who were not in favor of a treaty; that we considered the nation as still fully represented, and should proceed accordingly. These remarks were made by myself, and were in substance as I have stated.

The treaty was then produced, and the council informed that it would be read and interpreted to them dis­tinctly, and that as many as chose to sign it might do so, and those who thought proper to decline could do so.

The reading commenced and progressed, article by article, sometimes dividing an article (when it was too long) for easy interpretation. Hambly acted as interpreter; he sat close by me, and was requested to speak loud enough for all to hear.

At the close of each article, assent was expressed by the council by a sort of exclamation, after the manner of Indians. No article of the treaty was omitted in the reading; I do not believe that a single word was omitted. There was nothing in it which we wished to suppress or conceal.

When the reading and interpretation were over, a pause ensued. No man, white or red, objected to the number or grade of those who composed the council. No opposition was intimated from any quarter. The commissioners signed, and were immediately followed by the chiefs. After one or two of them had signed, Hopoithle Yoholo, of the Tuckaubatchee delegation, made the observations ascribed to him in the commissioners' journal, as I understood from Major Merriwether, who received the interpretation more distinctly than I did. The remarks of this chief were received most heartily by the other chiefs, as evinced by their loud exclamation of assent. Himself and his followers (about six or seven in all) then shook hands with the commissioners and some of the chiefs, and retired.

I recollect no other occurrence which took place during the execution of the instrument, except that, when one of its signers was about to make his mark, the agent asked McIntosh if that was a chief? The answer was, " he's chief." Our journal states that the treaty " was signed by all the chiefs present, except the delegation from Tuckaubatchee, and one chief from Talladega." It may be so that all chiefs present had signed; but it is further the fact, that many others, chiefs or warriors, were present, and proposed signing; but this was declined, as it was getting late, and the signatures already affixed were deemed sufficient.

The document was then handed to Colonel Crowell, who had been present the whole time, and he attested it officially, without hesitation or remark, as I recollect. Our secretary, Doctor Merriwether, and the interpreter, then attested the instrument also; and the council were requested to convene again on Monday morning. Before we left the Springs, (I think on Sunday, the 13th,) the agent requested a copy of the treaty, and we directed it furnished.

D. G. Campbell.

William F. Hay's answers.

Having been required to answer the interrogatories hereto annexed; to the first part I say, that I was present, and acted as secretary to the commissioners in the late negotiation with the Creek Indians.

In answer to the remainder of the interrogatories, I say, that I have carefully examined and perused the fore­going statements and answers of D. G. Campbell, and, as far forth as they represent who were present at the execution of the treaty, the manner of reading and interpreting the same, the ceremony of signing and witnessing, and the occurrences of the meeting generally, when the treaty was signed, are in correspondence with my own recollection; and I adopt the same as my answers to the interrogatories exhibited to us.

I state further, that a copy of the treaty was furnished to the agent, and copied in his own room, on the 13th" of February, the day after the treaty was signed.

William F. Hay.

Georgia, Wilkes County:
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 25th day of July, 1825.

Archibald S. Wingfield, J. P.

No. 2.
William Merriwether's affidavit.

Georgia, Clark County:

Personally came before me, William Manley, one of the judges of the inferior court for said county, William Merriwether, who, being duly sworn, saith:

That he attended the negotiations held with the Creek Indians at Broken Arrow in December, and at the Indian Springs in February last; .that he occupied the same apartments with, and enjoyed the full confidence of, the commissioners; and this deponent knows that the leading features of the treaty, as entered into at the Indian Springs in February, were well understood by all the Indians who took any interest in the subject, inasmuch as the same propositions, in substance, were made to them and fully explained at Broken Arrow, in December preceding. This deponent attended the treaty at the Cherokee agency in 1817, and also at the Indian Springs in 1821, at which last he acted as secretary, and the proceedings at each were in substance as follows: After the principal articles which were to be inserted in the treaty were agreed upon in private conversations with the principal chiefs, various rough-draughts of the treaty were made; some of the chiefs attending, from time to time, and suggesting such alterations as they wished; after it was completed and ready for signature, the whole of the Indians were convened, the treaty read over and interpreted to them, paragraph by paragraph, and the ceremony of signing and sealing gone through.

This course was pursued at the late treaty with the Creeks at the Indian Springs, and every article had been fully explained, and was well understood by most of the principal chiefs who signed the treaty, prior to their convention for executing the instrument. After the treaty was drawn up, and the Indians convened, each and every article thereof was distinctly read, paragraph at a time, and interpreted to the Indians by Mr. Hambly, the United States interpreter. There were present, at the same time, besides the United States commissioners and the interpreter, Captain Hay, the secretary, Colonel Crowell, the agent, Captain Triplett, the present sub-agent, and this deponent, besides several white men, residents of the nation.

This deponent has a most distinct recollection of the reading of the fifth article, or that which relates to the disbursement of the $200,000 to be paid immediately after the ratification of the treaty, from the circumstance of noticing, at the time the article was read, a very considerable change take place in the countenance of Colonel Crowell, the agent; which circumstance was observed by others present, and was the subject of after-conversation. This article of the treaty was reluctantly inserted by the commissioners, and entirely at the instance of the chiefs. After the whole treaty had been gone through and explained, it was signed and sealed by the parties. There was no objection whatever made by Colonel Crowell, or the interpreter, when called upon to witness the treaty; nor did this deponent ever hear from Colonel Crowell the slightest suggestion that the chiefs present were not competent to make a treaty, nor does he believe that any such suggestion was made.

Wm. Merriwether.

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 29th of July, 1825.

Wm. Manley, J. I. C.

No. 3.
Interrogatories to be exhibited to the Rev. Samuel K. Hodges, in the case of the Indian Agent, Colonel Crowell.

1st. Are you acquainted with the Rev. Isaac Smith, now resident at the Methodist missionary, in the Creek nation of Indians?

2d. Have you ever heard him say any thing about the talk delivered by the chiefs in council at Broken Arrow, in that nation, to Colonel Henry G. Lamar, as connected with the late disturbances in that nation? If yea, please state fully and particularly what he said about that mailer.

3d. Did Mr. Smith inform you that he was present at the council? If yea, did he inform you what the Little Prince said to Colonel Lamar at that time, and what he (the Little Prince) wished Colonel Lamar to inform the friendly chiefs in Georgia? If so, what was it?

Please relate all that vou may know about that matter, as fully as if particularly interrogated thereto.

W. H. Torrance,
Warren Jourdan,
Commissioners of the State of Georgia.

July, 1825.

Cross-interrogatories to be exhibited to the Rev. Samuel K. Hodges.

1st. Please state whether you are acquainted with the character of the Rev. Isaac Smith? If yea, please state whether, from your knowledge of that gentleman, you would, or would not, believe any statement which he should make to be true, without or with the sanction of an oath?

2d. Please state whether Mr. Smith belongs to the same church with yourself; and does not Mr. Smith possess a character for purity and integrity, which forbids any idea of his making, under any circumstance, an erroneous statement?

Please answer these cross-interrogatories fully, and at large, at the same time that you answer the annexed direct ones.

Samuel Rockwell,
Counsel for John Crowell, Creek Agent

July 21, 1825

Answers to the direct interrogatories.

Georgia, Putnam County:

This day personally appeared before me the Rev. Samuel K. Hodges, who, after being duly sworn true answers to make to certain direct and cross-interrogatories hereto annexed, in the case of the Indian agent, Colonel Crowell, answered and saith as follows, to wit: To the first direct interrogatory. I am. To the second. I have; when at the mission in May last, in conversing on the subject of the late disturbances in the nation, the impression they had on the school, and various other matters connected with the objects of that establishment, he (the Rev. Isaac Smith) observed that he was present at the council at Broken Arrow, when Colonel H. G. Larnar had a talk with the council, and that the Little Prince, as speaker, requested Colonel Lamar to tell the Indians in Georgia to come home and go to work; they should not be hurt. To the third. This is fully answered in the last above, so far as my recollection serves me. I know nothing further in reference to the matter. Answers to cross-interrogatories. To the first. I am; his word has ever been received by me as being entitled to my utmost confidence, when speaking of matters that came under his own observation. To the second. He does; and has long sustained a high character for both purity and integrity. I am far from believing him capable of making a statement, either on oath or otherwise, which he knows to be false. Erroneous statements are, however, often made from forgetfulness or misguided judgment. That it was an error, after professing a willingness to answer any question proposed to him, to give a direct question embracing matter with which he was so lately familiar an indirect answer, not touching that matter, must be obvious to all. This unhappy course has placed me under the painful necessity of answering the direct interrogatories accompanying the cross-inquiries.

Samuel K. Hodges.

Answered, subscribed, and sworn to, this 28th of July, 1825, before me,

Eli S. Shorter,
Judge Superior Court, Flint Circuit.

No. 4.
Interrogatories to be exhibited to Lewis Wynn.

1st. Are you acquainted with Joseph Marshall, an Indian chief? if so, have you ever heard him say any thing about having given his consent to the survey of the land lately ceded by the Creek Indians? State what you have heard him say upon that subject, and when, and where?

W. H. Torrance,
W. W. Williamson,
Georgia Commissioners.

Answers of Lewis Wynn to the foregoing interrogatories.

Georgia, Monroe County:

He says that he is acquainted with Joseph Marshall, a Creek chief. He says that he has heard said Marshall say that he had given his consent to make the survey. Witness says that said Marshall informed him that he thought it best that the survey should be made this year, for, if done, the Indians might be enabled to sell their possessions for the term the treaty allowed them to remain. This conversation was in April last, a few days after the council had met at McIntosh's, for the purpose of determining whether the consent should be given to make the survey or not.

The witness states that of his own knowledge he cannot say that there was to be a council; he was so informed by Marshall.

Witness says that Marshall informed him that he authorized General McIntosh to use his name, touching the consent for the survey, as he might think best; that he (Marshall) and McIntosh both thought that it was best to permit the survey to be made.

Lewis Wynn.

Examined, sworn to, and subscribed before us, this 16th day of August, 1825.

Wm. H. Torrance,
Wm. W. Williamson,
Georgia Commissioners.

No. 5.
Interrogatories to be exhibited to Bolin Smith, Hugh W. Ector, and George Stinson.

1st. Were you, or either of you, at any Indian council in April last, at or near the residence of General McIntosh? If so, state if you know whether that council gave its consent to the Governor of Georgia to survey the territory lately ceded lying within the limits of Georgia? Who were present at that council, citizens of Georgia?

2d. Have you, or either of you, ever heard Joseph Marshall (the Indian chief of that name) say any thing upon the subject of that council, and about his consent to make the survey; if so, when and where, and what said he? State it fully.

Wm. H. Torrance,
Wm. W. Williamson,
Georgia Commissioners.

The separate answers of Bolin Smith to the foregoing interrogatories.

Georgia, Monroe County:

To the 1st interrogatory, he says: That about the 9th or 10th of April last, he was at the residence of General McIntosh, and there was at that time a meeting of a considerable number of Indians; they assembled in council; and I learned from the general (McIntosh) and others that they had agreed for the Governor to have the land surveyed as soon as he pleased.

At that council there were present from Georgia, Major Bailey, of Monroe county; General Ware, of Fayette county; William Bowen, of Milledgeville; Saunders Walker, of Monticello; Mark and William Hudspeth, of De Kalb; Major Vaughan, and some others, from Fayette and De Kalb counties, their names not recollected.

To the 2d interrogatory, the witness says: That on or about the 6th of April last, he saw Joseph Marshall at John and A. Rooker's, on Flint river, when he said he was just from General McIntosh's; said Marshall then informed witness that there was a council to be held at McIntosh's to determine whether or not the consent of the Indians should be given to the Governor of Georgia to survey the land lately ceded, lying within the limits of Georgia. Marshall then informed witness that he could not go back to the council; that he had authorized General McIntosh to sign for him; that he was willing to have the land surveyed. Witness does not recollect of any other person being present at the conversation.

Bolin Smith.

Examined, subscribed, and sworn to, before us, this 16th day of August, 1825.

Wm. H. Torrance,
W. W. Williamson,
Georgia Commissioners.

No. 6.
The answers of Hugh W. Ector to the, interrogatories annexed.

Georgia, Monroe County:

1st interrogatory. The witness says that he was not at the council.

2d interrogatory. He says that he was at Marshall's Stand, (in the nation,) and in conversation with him, when a runner arrived and informed him (Marshall) of the murder of McIntosh, and that he must make his escape. During that conversation, the witness states that he inquired of Marshall if he was not at the council held at General McIntosh's concerning the survey. Marshall informed witness that he was there a short time previous; that General McIntosh then insisted on his remaining until the council assembled, but that he (Marshall) stated that he did not wish to be absent from home so long; and further stated that he had authorized General McIntosh to sign for and act in the case fully for him, as he had no objection on his part to the survey being made; and that he had not only authorized McIntosh to act in that case for him, but to sign his name for him in all cases where his attendance was necessary, having reference to his duties as a chief, without calling upon him to attend in person — or words to that effect.

In the course of the conversation held between witness and said Marshall, Marshall expressed an entire willingness to the survey, and assigned as one reason that it would be of interest to the Indians on the territory; that they would have an opportunity of selling some of their produce, which they otherwise might not dispose of so advantageously.

Hugh W. Ector.

Examined, sworn to, and subscribed, before us, this 16th day of August, 1825.

Wm. H. Torrance,
W. W. Williamson,
Georgia Commissioners.

No. 7.
The answers of George Stinson to the interrogatories annexed.

Georgia, Monroe County:

To the 1st interrogatory: The witness saith that he was at General McIntosh's, in April last, when a council was held by the friendly chiefs to take into consideration the application of Governor Troup to survey the land lying within the boundaries of the State, lately ceded to the United States by the Creek Indians, for the benefit of Georgia.

The witness says that the council did then and there give its consent to the Governor to make the survey. Witness says that General Ware, of Fayette county, Major Bailey, of Monroe county, Saunders Walker, of Monticello, Wm. Bowen, of Milledgeville, Bolin Smith, of Monroe county, a Mr. Vaughan, and some others, (their names not recollected,) were at that council.

To the 2d interrogatory: The witness says, that on or about the first week in April, he was at the house of General McIntosh, in the Creek nation, when he saw the chief Joseph Marshall, as referred to; the witness had, before that time, understood that the chiefs were to go into council upon the subject of the Governor's application to make the survey, and asked Marshall if he did not intend to attend the council; Marshall stated to witness that he wished to go home, and that it was unnecessary for him to be there, as he had authorized General McIntosh to sign his name for him, (Marshall,) giving his consent to the survey.

Geo. Stinson.

Examined, sworn to, and subscribed, before us, this 16th of August, 1825.

Wm. H. Torrance,
W. W. Williamson,
Georgia Commissioners.

Further interrogatories to be exhibited to George Stinson in the case of the Indian Agent, Colonel Crowell.

1st. Were you at the Indian Springs, in February last, when a treaty was concluded between the United States and the Creek Indians; if so, were you present when the treaty was read to the chiefs? Was that treaty distinctly and slowly read over to them? Was it interpreted to them, and by whom? Do you understand the Indian tongue; if so, did you attend to the interpretation? Was the fifth article of that treaty read and interpreted by the interpreter to the chiefs? Was the agent present during that time? Did the agent particularly notice that treaty, and particularly the terms of the fifth article? Did he not say something concerning that article when it was read to the Indians; and was it, or not, because it deprived him of the distribution of the money arising from the cession of land?

2d. Relate all you know about this matter, and the agent's opposition to the treaty; also, what you know or believe about his knowledge of the murder of McIntosh; whether he knew any thing about it before the occurrence, and your reason for that belief.

Wm. H. Torrance,
Warren Jourdan,
Commissioners of the State of Georgia.

July, 1825.

No. 8.
The answers of George Stinson to the foregoing interrogatories.

Georgia, Monroe County:

To the first interrogatory, he says that he was present at the treaty, from the commencement to the conclusion. He says that he was present when the treaty was read to the chiefs. He says that the treaty was distinctly read to them; it was read twice; it was interpreted by William Hambly. He says that he understands the Indian tongue imperfectly; cannot say how the same was interpreted. He says that he is certain that every article of the treaty was distinctly and audibly read; and one of the United States commissioners told the interpreter to interpret so that all who were present could hear him: the interpreter spoke sufficiently loud to be heard over the room where they were convened. He says that the Indian agent, Colonel Crowell, was present during that time. He does not recollect that the agent said any thing about the fifth article: he heard him say to the chiefs that some bad white men had said that he was opposed to the sale of their land, but that he had never told them to sell or not to sell; that, if they thought proper to cede their lands, he would go with them to their new country. He says that the agent said nothing about the distribution of the money. The witness says that when the fifth article was read he was standing in company with Mr. Samuel Scrells, who observed to witness (and attracted his attention by a touch of his elbow) to look at him, (alluding to the agent;) that it would kill him, or words to that effect. As to the last interrogatory, the witness says that his information upon the subjects therein embraced is derived from the Indians principally, and, therefore, he considers that it is unnecessary to state it.

George Stinson.

Examined, sworn to, and subscribed, before us, this 16th of August, 1825.

W. H. Torrance,
W. W. Williamson,
Georgia Commissioners.

No. 9.
Interrogatories to be exhibited to Joel Bailey concerning the Indian affairs.

1st. Were you at any Indian council in April last, at or near the residence of General McIntosh in the Creek nation? If so, was it held concerning the contemplated survey of the lately ceded territory by the Creeks? Do you know whether or not that council gave its consent to the survey? Who of the citizens of Georgia were there?

2d. Have you ever heard Joseph Marshall (the Indian chief of that name) say any thing about that subject? If so, when and where, who was present, and what did he say?

3d. Have you, at any time, held any conversation with General Gaines upon the subject of that survey — of Marshall and Edwards's certificate about that matter? If so, state the time, and what was said. Did you, or not, at the same time, or before the conversation commenced, hand to General Gaines a newspaper containing a letter from Governor Troup to the general, bearing date the 16th of July last? Be particular, and state that con­versation at full.

4th. Did you inform him any thing about the character of Mr. Edwards before alluded to, and, if so, what was it?

5th. Have you not been examined by Major T. P. Andrews, touching the treaty lately made at this place (In­dian Springs) and the council at Broken Arrow in December last; also, concerning the reputed law under which the hostile Indians allege they executed General McIntosh? If so, did you or not inform him that, as to any particular affecting the negotiations of the late treaty at this place, you knew nothing? Did you not inform him, and so stale in your testimony that you gave him, that McIntosh had declined to come out upon the subject of a treaty at Broken Arrow, and gave as a reason that he feared that some of the Indians would put him to death in consequence of a law, if he did so? If you made such a statement, did you not immediately thereafter, and connected with the statement so made, proceed to explain what McIntosh meant, and said that he meant, about such a law; and that it was in reference to the Tuckaubatchee and Polecat Spring proceedings only, which he did not recognise as a law of force in the nation, or as ever having been passed by authority of the nation? And did Major Andrews receive the qualification given by McIntosh about that law? Relate, particularly, how and in what manner you explained that statement to Major Andrews.

6th. Did or not General Gaines occasionally interrogate you while under examination?

7th. Did either General Gaines or Major Andrews say any thing to you about their surprise at your not testifying as they expected? Did they say how the Indian countrymen had testified, and that they seemed to refer to you? Were or not General Gaines and Major Andrews apparently satisfied and pleased with the statements you made to them? Relate, particularly, every matter and thing connected with that examination. After your statement had been reduced to writing, did any person or persons call on you, and say to you any thing about your evidence? if so, who was it, what said he, and what was your reply?

W. H. Torrance,
W. W. Williamson,
Georgia Commissioners.

The answers of Joel Bailey to the annexed interrogatories.

Georgia, Monroe County:

To the first interrogatory, he answers, that he was at a council at the time and place stated. The council was held for the purpose, as witness believes, to ascertain if the chiefs would give their consent to permit the Governor of Georgia to survey the territory lately ceded by them within the limits of Georgia. The council was in session when the witness left there, previous to which he had been informed by General McIntosh and others of the head chiefs that they were willing that the survey should be made immediately, or very soon thereafter. The wit­ness does not recollect all the citizens of Georgia who were at the council, but recollects Bolin Smith, of Monroe county; General Ware, of Fayette county; and two persons named Hudspeth, formerly of Jasper county.

To the second interrogatory, witness states that he heard said Marshall say that he was willing the survey should be made; witness says that, on his way to the council, he stopped at Mr, Rooker's, on Flint river, where he met said Marshall, and they breakfasted together. In company with Marshall were Mr. Prosser, of Baldwin county, and a Mr. Edwards, then of the Creek nation. Marshall informed witness that he had been to pilot Mr. Prosser to the residence of General McIntosh, who was the bearer of an express from the Governor to McIntosh. Witness states that he asked Marshall if he did not intend to attend the council. Marshall replied that it was out of his power to do so; his business would not admit of it; but that he had authorized General McIntosh to sign an instrument for him giving his consent to the survey; that he was perfectly willing it should be done. This conversation was a few days before the council alluded to, and about the 7th or 8th of April last.

To the third interrogatory, he says that he has had some conversation with General Gaines upon the subject of a certificate signed by Joseph Marshall and William Edwards. Some time about the last of the past month, (precise day not recollected,) General Gaines stated, in the presence of witness, that he did pot believe that there had been a council held for the purpose of giving consent to the survey; that it was sufficiently proven by the certificate of Joseph Marshall and a Mr. Edwards, a very respectable man, that there had been no such council. Witness then stated to General Gaines that there was such a council; that he (the witness) was present at it. The witness states that he then informed the general of the statements made to him (the witness) by Joseph Marshall, hereinbefore detailed. Witness says that he will not be positive, but believes that he did hand such a newspaper to General Gaines.

To the fourth interrogatory, he says that he then informed General Gaines that he would not make use of the name of Edwards as a respectable man; that he believed Edwards was one of the very lowest class of mankind! General Gaines then asked the witness what he knew of Mr. Edwards. Witness informed General Gaines that he knew that Edwards had left Georgia, and had gone into the Indian nation, to avoid paying his just debts. The general then inquired of witness, to whom Edwards was indebted; he was informed by witness that Edwards was indebted to him (witness) Witness says that he has known this Mr. Edwards for about five years, and can safely say that he does not believe him entitled to credit.

To the fifth interrogatory, witness stales that he has been examined by Major Andrews upon the subjects alluded to. Witness says that he did state to Major Andrews that, as to the negotiations concerning the treaty at the Indian Springs, he knew nothing of his own knowledge. Witness states that he did inform Major Andrews, and so stated in his testimony, that McIntosh declined to come out upon the subject of a treaty, at Broken Arrow, and gave as a reason that stated in the interrogatory. The witness states that that statement had reference to the Tuckaubatchee and Polecat law exclusively; but from the hasty manner in which the testimony of witness was then taken, he did not give that explanation that he wished to have done.

Witness now states, in explanation of that matter, that when General McIntosh made the statement about the law before referred to, he stated distinctly that it was the Tuckaubatchee and Polecat Spring proceedings he alluded to; that it was not a law authorized by the nation; and illustrated his view of it by marking off on the ground the shape of a handkerchief, and dividing it'into four equal squares or parts, and said that the Tuckaubatchee and Polecat law was like that — that is, for one square to make laws for all the others. Witness states further, that General McIntosh then said, that, notwithstanding it was not the general law of the nation, there were a number of Indians who were afraid some of the others would try to put it in force if they signed a treaty; that General McIntosh also slated that he believed there were then a majority in favor of a treaty, but were afraid to let it be known on account of what they called the Polecat law. Witness states that in the month of November last, previous to the meeting at Broken Arrow, General McIntosh came to this place, (Indian Springs,) when and where he, the witness, exhibited to General McIntosh a newspaper containing the proceedings at Polecat and Tuckaubatchee: the general said at that time, which was the first he saw of it, that Polecat and Tuckaubatchee had no right to make a law for all the nation; that all laws to govern the nation must be made by a full council of the nation. Witness then asked General McIntosh if he did not believe it would prevent a treaty; to which the general replied that he did not, for it could not be considered a law by any others than those of Polecat and Tuckaubatchee. After witness arrived at Broken Arrow, in December last, to attend the contemplated treaty, General McIntosh informed him that the Indians were more afraid of the Polecat law than he had expected. AVitness states that General McIntosh uniformly denied the existence of such a national law; that the Polecat law had been made by a party who had no voice in the sale of the land, and that he believed that the party entitled to sell were all willing, but were still afraid of the Polecat law.

To the sixth interrogatory, he says that he does not recollect of having been distinctly interrogated by General Gaines, though he referred witness several times to previous conversations.

To the seventh interrogatory, he says that both General Gaines and Major Andrews expressed his surprise at not testifying as they expected. They seemed satisfied with the testimony of witness until he was interrogated concerning the transactions about the treaty at this place, about which witness informed them that he knew nothing particular. It was then that they expressed their surprise, and inquired of witness why he had not kept up an intercourse concerning the treaty with the commissioners, as he seemed to have had something to do with them at Broken Arrow. He informed them that, in consequence of his engagements, he being then the proprietor and keeper of a tavern at this place, he was crowded with company, and could take no part in assisting to make the treaty.

To the last interrogatory, the witness says, that what may have been said to him upon that subject can be of no importance to the parties in issue. Mr. Bailey, in conclusion, is desirous to state that, so far as respects his testimony given to Major Andrews which was calculated to affect the United States commissioners, his answers were given to direct interrogatories only; that he could have given, if interrogated to the points, such answers as would, in his opinion, fully justify the course pursued by the United States commissioners at Broken Arrow.

Joel Bailey.

Examined, sworn to, and subscribed before us, this 16th day of August, 1825.

W. H. Torrance,
Wm. W. Williamson,
Georgia Commissioners.

Test: hugh W. ector.

APPENDIX TO NO. 3.

Executive Department, Milledgeville, November 21, 1825.

I transmit to the Legislature certain testimony recently taken bv the commissioners on the part of the State, additional to that furnished at the opening of the session, and connected with various subjects of the message of the 8th instant.

G. M. Troup.

Affidavit of Reverend I. L. Brooks.

Georgia, Baldwin County:

Personally appeared before us the Reverend Iveson L. Brooks, who, being duly sworn, saith: That while at the Indian Springs, in the State of Georgia, in the month of July past, on Tuesday, the 19th day of the month, he was introduced to General E. P. Gaines by Major Joel Bailey, who keeps the public tavern at that place. After the introduction, this deponent and General Gaines entered into conversation about the Indians, the treaty, and other matters connected with them, in the public room, near the outer door; several persons were present, principally white men, and a few Indians of the friendly or McIntosh party. In that conversation, General Gaines stated, in speaking of the possessions of the United States beyond the Mississippi, that the General Government possessed no lands in that quarter free from the incumbrance of Indian titles or the occupancy of white settlers, who could not be removed without entering into formal treaties. He further said it was the most heels-over-head piece of business in the General Government that perhaps had ever occurred in the conduct of wise men to engage by treaty with the Indians to exchange with them territory when they had none to exchange.

In speaking about the treaty, he stated that in regard to the treaty he thought he had sufficient evidence in his possession to convince him that the commencement and whole progress of it was founded in the deepest fraud and treachery, and that every individual concerned in it was damned — he paused a while, and then said — politically damned. In conversing further about the treaty and the land, after making some remarks not particularly recollected, he turned to the Indians who were present, and said, " I tell those Indians the white people will cheat them out of their lands, get all their money, and then kick them to hell."  In speaking about Crowell, he stated that he believed him a pure and upright man; that he had done no more than his duty; and the only thing he blamed him for was signing the treaty as a witness, and that he (General Gaines) would rather have lost his right arm than have done it. Talking of the Indians, he said they were disposed to be reconciled and return to the nation, except Chilly McIntosh and the small party attached to him; that he did not care whether he did or not; that he was no chief, and had a plenty of property to live either among the Indians or whites. He further said that the people of Georgia were a reflecting people; that they were under the influence of intriguing politicians; and that he had no doubt they would ultimately approve his conduct. This deponent further saith, that the conversation was a long one, and, during its continuance, General Gaines [was] occasionally highly excited, and spoke with much warmth; so much so, towards the conclusion, as to induce this deponent to break off rather unceremoniously, and turn to Major Bailey to settle his bill.

I have endeavored to recollect as [well as] I can the expressions of General Gaines. Though in some cases I may have used different words, I am confident I have retained the sense of them.

Iveson L. Brooks.

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 17th of October, 1825.

J. T. Gushing, J. P.

Affidavit of Colonel Michael Watson.

Georgia, Baldwin County:

Personally appeared Michael Watson, a citizen of the county of Houston, who, being duly sworn, saith: That in the month of August last, and he believes on or about the tenth or eleventh day of that month, he was at the Indian Springs, in Monroe county, in said State; that, in a conversation that was held between and among several persons then at the Springs, General Edmund P. Gaines, of the United States army, being present, the subject of conversation turned upon the late Indian treaty and the proposed survey then about to be made by the order of his excellency George M. Troup, Governor of the State of Georgia: he (General Gaines) stated in public company that if Governor Troup made the survey, or attempted it, he would be tried for treason and hung; that General Gaines also stated that Governor Troup and his friends were intriguing demagogues; that in the same conversation General Gaines manifested and expressed much warmth of hostile feeling towards Governor Troup and his friends. The conversation was boisterous in some respects, and it excited much warmth of feeling in the spectators and those concerned; that the whole of General Gaines's conversation and observations were directed against the constituted authorities of Georgia, and the supporters of her administration.

Michael Watson.

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 10th day of November, 1825.

Eli S. Shorter, J. S. C.

Affidavit of C. B. Strong, Esq.

Georgia, Bibb County:

Personally appeared before me Christopher B. Strong, of the State and county aforesaid, who, being duly sworn, saith: On the 11th day of August, in the year 1825, at the Indian Springs, in the county of Monroe, of said State, he heard a conversation commence between General Edmund P. Gaines, of the United States army, and Milton Cooper, of Putnam, in which General Gaines appeared to manifest much passion; and, after this, deponent got near enough to hear what was said. He heard the general say " he is a demagogue; his partisans are demagogues, unprincipled demagogues; he is guilty of treason, and the commissioners have stated wilfully false," or words to that effect. I was informed by several gentlemen then present that the former epithets were used in relation, and applied to, Governor Troup of Georgia. A severe controversy ensued betwixt the general and myself, which I deem it unnecessary here to detail. This deponent further saith, that, from what passed at that time, he has no doubt" but that the first mentioned expressions of reproach were used by General Gaines in direct relation to Governor Troup.

Christopher B. Strong.

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 23d day of October, in the year of our Lord Christ 1825.

Eli S. Shorter,
Judge of the Superior Court

Affidavit of Major Joel Bailey.

Georgia, Baldwin County:

Personally appeared Joel Bailey, of the county of Monroe, who, being duly sworn, saith: That, some time in the month of July last, lie heard General Edmund P. Gaines, of the United States army, state that the United States commissioners, in the late Indian treaty, had promised and undertaken with the Indians (meaning the Creek Indians) more than they could perform or comply with, in agreeing to exchange lands with them west of the Mississippi, for that the United States had no land there; that General Gaines said that he dared Governor Troup to at­tempt to survey the land lately ceded by the Indians; that he would have an armed force, and arrest every surveyor as fast as they crossed Flint river; that if the Governor of the little demagogue State of Georgia did not mind, he (Gaines) would get hold of him; and that the people of Georgia were a set of demagogues.

Joel Bailey.

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 16th day of November, 1825.

Joel Flanigan, J. I. C.
In and for the County of Newton.

[Next]