Litchfield v. United States

32 Ct. Cl. 585, 1897 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 18, 1800 WL 2127
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedNovember 1, 1897
DocketIndian Depredations, 4843
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 Ct. Cl. 585 (Litchfield v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Litchfield v. United States, 32 Ct. Cl. 585, 1897 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 18, 1800 WL 2127 (cc 1897).

Opinion

Peelle, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The questions submitted for our determination arise on the defendants’ motion for a new trial, filed November 26, 1894, under Revised Statutes, section 1088.

It is averred in the petition, among other things, in substance, that on February 4, 1865, at Julesburg, in Colorado, the defendant Indians destroyed or carried away property belonging to the claimant, consisting of wagons, provisions, stock, etc., amounting to the sum of $9,513.70.

And further, that on October 23,1865, at Alkali Station, in Nebraska, the defendant Indians shot or drove off 46 head of oxen belonging to the claimant, of the value of $5,152, and all of the value of $14,665.70.

It is further averred that a claim for the property so taken or destroyed was filed in the Department of the Interior June 22, 1882, which was examined by the Secretary of the Interior, and on February 16, 1891, that officer allowed the sum of $10,190.

On February 13, 1893, judgment was rendered in this court on stipulation of the parties for $10,190, under the provision of section 4 of the act March 3,1891. (26 Stat. L., 851)'

The defendants’ motion for a new trial as aforesaid, filed within two years from the date of the rendition of the judgment, assigned as specific grounds for a new trial, among other things, that “the defendant Indians at the date of the alleged depredations were not in amity with the United States.”

And further that the claimant was not at said date “the sole owner of the property alleged to have been taken.”

The stipulation filed and upon which agreement judgment was rendered refers only to the depredation of February 4, 1865, though the allowance by the Secretary of the Interior covered the property taken or destroyed at both depredations, and the omission to include the property taken or destroyed October 23,1865, was doubtless a clerical error, especially as the property alleged to have been taken or destroyed February 4,1865, was valued by the claimant, as alleged in his petition, at less than $10,000.

This action, as indicated by the above title, is against the Sioux and Cheyenne Indians, though the allowance made by [587]*587tbe Secretary of the Interior was against the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapahoe Indians, and the evidence of sundry witnesses before the court satisfactorily shows that the depredation of February 4,1865, was committed by the Sioux,' Cheyenne, and Arapahoe Indians, while the one of October 23, 1865, was committed by the Sioux and Cheyenne Indians.

Both parties have briefed and argued the case on the theory that the three tribes are defendants, and we will so consider the case, at least on the question of amity.

The material facts and circumstances bearing on the question of the amity of the defendant Indians at the time of the depredations are, in brief, these:

At the time of the depredations stated the claimant was a freighter between the Missouri River and Denver.

Prior to February 4,1865, the claimant, with a train of 25 ox wagons, had transported to Julesburg, in the northeast corner of Colorado, a large amount of grain, flour, groceries, and other merchandise, which had been unloaded and placed in a warehouse at that place for safety; and on that day a body of Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapahoe Indians, numbering' from 1,000 to 2,000 and acting in concert, attacked the station, destroyed the building, and burned or otherwise destroyed or carried away the merchandise, burned some of the wagons, drove away his cattle, and killed all of his herders but one, scalping four.

At the time of this attack the troops of the United States, with the aid of many of the citizens, endeavored to check the Indians in their wantoii destruction of life and property, and succeeded in saving some of the wagons, but with the loss of 22 soldiers and citizens killed.

The depredation of October 23, 1865, was at Alkali Station, in northwestern Nebraska, some 60 miles east of Julesburg, by a large body of Sioux and Cheyenne Indians, whereby they took and drove away or shot 46 work oxen belonging to the claimant, but his wagons and other property were protected by the herders and others repelling any further attack.

The reports for 1864, both civil and military, indicate quite clearly that early in the spring of that year, if not before, a combination was anticipated by the officials between the Kiowa,.Comanche, and Apache Indians of the south with the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapahoes of the north for the purpose of hostilities on the white settlers; and it appears from the [588]*588same reports that engagements were had in April and May between the troops of tlie United States and some of the Indians named, but it does not appear that the defendant Indians were connected therewith, nor does it appear that the Indians generally were so engaged.

It does appear from the reports for that year, however, that the defendant Indians engaged in serious and extensive depredations about that time, robbing settlers, stealing their stock, and to protect their stolen property occasionally killed some of the citizens; but their purpose at this time appears to have been plunder and pillage and not war.

Late in June the governor of Colorado issued his proclamation calling upon agents, interpreters, and traders “ to inform the friendly Indians of the plains that some members of their tribes have-gone to war with the white people.”

In response to that proclamation two bands of Arapahoe Indians, known as “Fridays” and “Left bands,” came in, the former at Camp Collins, where it remained, and the latter at Fort Lyon, where it remained only for a short time and then joined the hostiles, who up to this time were principally the Indians from the south.

July 14, 1864, Indian Agent Whitely, writing from Denver in reference to the Arapahoe and Sioux Indians on the Upper Platte in the vicinity of Cache La Poudre, says:

“In all my talks with them they appear to evince a disposition to keep the peace with the whites, and many of them express a great deal of auxiety for the coming in of Eoman Nose and the medicine man with their respective bands, that a treaty may be effected and they may begin to reap the advantages of a permanent settlement. I am the more convinced of their sincerity in these expressions from the fact that several of the settlers on the Cache La Poudre assure me that they have so declared themselves in their hearing.” (Keport Sec. Int. 1864, p. 379.)

So that at this time the Indians in the vicinity named appear to have been well disposed.

July 26, 1864, Indian Agent Colley, writing to Governor Evans from Fort Lyon, southern Colorado, states that when he last wrote him he “was in hopes that our Indian troubles were at an end,” but says affairs from Larned (southern Kansas) are bad; that they had “ killed some ten men from a train and run off all the stock from the post,” and that his informa-[589]*589tiou was that “ all the tribes were engaged in it.” (Eeport Secretary of the Interior, 1864, p. 374.)

It is evident that the tribes referred to were the Kiowa and Comanche, and perhaps some Cheyennes and Arapahoes from the south, as at that time they were within the agency of Col-ley, while the great body of the Sioux were far to the north.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Litchfield v. United States
33 Ct. Cl. 203 (Court of Claims, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 Ct. Cl. 585, 1897 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 18, 1800 WL 2127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/litchfield-v-united-states-cc-1897.