It will be seen therefrom that the case does not come within the purview
of the provisions of the extradition treaty of 1861, and that no demand
on the part of this Government for the return of these absentee Indians
seems warrantable, unless they are charged with some crime, as provided
in said treaty. On the other hand, if the Government of Mexico insists
upon removing them from its territory, this Government will be prepared
to receive them in the manner suggested in the report of the Acting
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and will make every proper and lawful
effort to induce them to remain within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.
[Inclosure 1.]
Mr. Smith to
Mr. Bliss.
Department of the Interior,
Office of Indian
Affairs,
Washington, May 12,
1897.
Sir: On March 10 last this office submitted
a report to the Department in the matter of the alleged illegal
occupancy of certain lands in Lower California by a number of
Indians said to belong upon the Yuma [Page 392] Reservation in California. The matter was
brought to the attention of the State Department by Mr. Romero, the
Mexican minister at this capital, and in the said office report of
March 10 it was stated that the United States Indian agent, Mission
Agency, Cal., was directed by letter of that date to proceed at once
to the premises occupied by the Indians and use every legitimate
means in his power to induce the trespassers to return to their
reservation; or, failing in that, to at least effect their removal
from the territory of Lower California, and to make prompt report
thereon.
The said office report concluded with the statement that should the
agent fail in his effort to secure removal, this office would, upon
receipt of his report to that effect, submit such suggestions for
the consideration of the Mexican Government as the facts found might
appear to warrant.
I am now in receipt of a report from Agent Estudillo, dated April 12,
in which he states that he met and talked with the Indians in
question through an interpreter in the presence of Judge Christena
Fonseca, Jose Bustamenta Jendame, and Jesus Garcia Rural, of Lower
California; that he found that they have lived where they now are
for ages; that they never knew any difference as to what Government
owned the country; that it was always theirs, and is theirs yet;
that they showed him commissions given to them by Governor
Sanguines, (?) of Encenada, Lower California, which are several
years old, and they concluded by refusing to leave their native land
and remove to American soil.
The agent further reports that while these Indians are doubtless
Yumas they have lived on the Colorado River without reference as to
what Government they were under or answerable to for many years, and
he can not see that anything can be done further than to let them
remain where they now are.
For the purpose of securing further information in the matter the
papers were referred April 24 to Miss Mary O’Neil, superintendent
Fort Yuma School, for investigation and report.
Under date of May 1 Miss O’Neil reports that the Indians
unquestionably belong in this country, and suggests that if they be
put across the boundary by the Mexican authorities the Indian police
can handle them on this side.
It being found that the Indians refuse to voluntarily return to this
country the question presents itself as to how their removal from
Mexican territory can best be effected, provided of course that the
Mexican Government shall insist upon their entire removal from the
country, and not merely from the Algodones ranch, upon which they
are located.
The case does not appear to be one covered by the provisions of the
extradition treaty with the Republic of Mexico proclaimed by the
President December 11, 1861 (12 U. S. Statutes at Large, 1199),
unless the Indians shall be charged with some crime, as provided in
said treaty.
Their condition appears to be similar in some respects to that of a
number of British Cree Indian refugees from the Dominion of Canada,
who are thought to have been implicated in what was known as the
Riel rebellion during the year 1885, and who settled upon land in
this country.
October 6, 1885, certain reports respecting the matter were
transmitted by this office to the Department with recommendation
that the subject be referred to the Department of State with request
that arrangements be made with the Dominion authorities for the
return of the fugitives to the British territory.
[Page 393]
October 13, 1885, the Secretary of State replied, in a letter
addressed to the Department, as follows:
* * * On the state of facts shown by your letter and its
inclosures, I beg to say that unless there should be a
specific demand from the Dominion authorities, such demand
being good under the extradition treaty and followed by a
warrant of surrender, the Indians in question can not be
returned by us to Canada, nor can the United States
authorities, military or civil, properly connive at their
being kidnapped and sent over the line. If, however, there
is satisfactory proof that a demand is coming in due form,
they can be arrested to await such demand. If they are
guilty of offenses within the jurisdiction of the United
States, they can be proceeded against for such offenses; but
they can not be prosecuted in our courts or before our
military tribunals for offenses committed in the Dominion of
Canada.
Although the British Cree Indians were alleged to be criminals, no
demand appears to have been made by the Dominion of Canada for their
extradition. They were found to be well behaved and law-abiding, and
this Government not only permitted them to remain for a number of
years but fed them while they were in destitute condition.
It appears, however, that in April, 1892, the Canadian government
expressed a willingness to take these Indians back, provided they
were taken to the border by the authorities of this country; but
they continued to remain until the summer of 1896, when they were
removed to the boundary line and delivered to the Canadian
authorities under the act of Congress approved May 13, 1896, which
appropriated the sum of $5,000 to defray the expense of such
removal. (29 Stats., 117.)
In 1862, when a portion of the Sioux tribe fled to Canada after the
Indian massacre in Minnesota, the Canadian government assigned them
to a reservation within her territory, and while since then she has
endeavored to persuade them to turn to the United States, they still
continue to occupy, with the consent of that government, the
reservation set apart for them. I allude to the British Cree and
refugee Sioux incidents to show the action of the two governments in
dealing with these unfortunate people.
No demand was made by the Government in either case for their return.
No demand is made by this Government for the return of the refugees,
or more properly stated, the absentee Yumas, by the Government of
Mexico. They are, however, entirely welcome to a home in this
country, and upon their return they will receive the same care and
attention that is given their brethren. But their evident preference
for Mexico is the obstacle that will make their retention in this
country, if returned, a matter of difficulty.
If, therefore, the Government of Mexico insists upon removing them
from her territory, I can only suggest that they be carried to the
border line and delivered to the Indian police of the Yuma
Reservation. This being done, every proper and lawful effort will be
made to induce them to remain. But if, despite such efforts on the
part of the Government, they persist in returning to Mexican soil,
and the Government of that Republic will not permit them to occupy a
tract of unappropriated land by sufferance, there will probably be
no consideration other than that of humane regard for their
condition that will prevent the Government dealing with them as
trespassers as provided by the laws of Mexico relating to
trespass.
I inclose copy of Agent Estudillo’s report, and have the honor to
recommend that it be transmitted to the honorable Secretary of
State, with the duplicate of this letter, which is also herewith
inclosed.
Very respectfully, etc.,
Thos. P. Smith,
Acting Commissioner.
[Inclosure 2.]
Mr. Estudillo
to Mr. Browning.
United States Indian Service,
Mission Tule River
Consolidated Agency,
San
Jacinto, Gal., April 12, 1897.
Sir: I have the honor to say in answer to
your letter of March 10 (Land 8912), 1897, that I went to Yuma,
thence by team to Lower California.
I had previously notified the Indians to meet me on a given day at
the house of the judge.
Upon my arrival I found all awaiting me except a few Indians and the
judge, who had gone to Ensenada, Lower California, for the purpose
of seeing the governor.
I conversed with the Indians through an interpreter in the presence
of Judge Christena Fonseca, second judge; José Bustamenda Juidame,
and Jesus Garcia Rural, of Lower California.
I found the Indians opposed to leaving their old homes. They claim
that they have lived where they now live for ages; that they never
knew any difference as to what Government owned the country; that it
was always theirs, and is theirs yet.
They showed me commissions given them by Governor Sanquenees, of
Ensenada, Lower California, which are several years old. They
coincided on refusing to leave their native land and remove to
American soil. While these Indians are Yumas, no doubt they have
lived on the Colorado River, without reference as to what Government
they were under or answerable to, for many years. I can not see that
anything can be done further than to let them remain as they are and
where they are.
Respectfully,
Francisco Estudillo,
United States Indian
Agent.
