Enter a grandparent's name to get started.
choose a state:
|92. John Hill, deceased, seven horses. $ 750; 40 cattle, $ 200, Allowed. Provided for by the treaty of Coleraine. The charge for the hogs is rejected.||.||950.00|
|1792. James Comer, nine horses,
Allowed. Provided for by the treaty of Coleraine. The charge for the horses lost in 1789 is rejected.
The treaty of New York, which followed the loss, does not provide for it.
|1797. James Britton. Jr. one horse.,
This claim originated in an alleged outrage, committed subsequently to the treaty of Coleraine. It is consequently of the description of claims provided for by the 2d article of the treaty of Fit Wilkinson and the remedy should have been sought in the-manner prescribed by the act of Congress regulating trade and intercourse -With the Indian tribes. It is rejected.
|1784. James Sims, deceased, eight negroes, valued at – – $1,975 cattle and horses, $ 500
This claim is not supported by any testimony, nor is it presented in such a shape to entitle it to the privilege of being referred to the President as a fair claim. The claimant, in her first of affidavit, states. that –her husband died in the county aforesaid on the 4th Dec 1819," and "that, in his life time, he never preferred any claim for the negroess under any of the Indian Treaties." In her amended affidavit, sworn 7th Feb. 1822, she states, that 15 years have elapsed, since the death of her late husband; and in another part of it, ”that a claim for property stolen by the Indians was made by her late husband to the agent of the United States, but under what treaty this deponent cannot at this period of time state." It is impossible to reconcile these contradictory statements, made by the same person, and within 3 months of each other.
|1786. William Anderson. Horses, &c.
It appears by the amended affidavit of the claimant, that the property was lost subsequently to the treaty of Shoulderbone, in 1786, and prior to the treaty of New York, in 1790. It is, therefore, comprehended in the period embraced by the last mentioned treaty, and must be rejected, as that treaty contains no provision for any other description of property than negroes.
|1781. Robert Carr, deceased. Beds, furniture. &c. &c.
This claim has already been decided, (page 30) at least that part of it which is recognized by the treaty, to wit, cattle and mare; as to the other property, clothing, &e., no allowance can be made for it.
|1791. Joseph Cook, deceased. Twenty-five negroes, at $ 400 each,
It appears from the claimant’s own statement, that this claim originated in a contract or agreement between the original claimant and Alexander McGilvery, at individual of the Creek nation, and that it was never assumed by the nation: the nation, therefore, cannot be justly charged with it. It is rejected.
|1788. David Jackson. deceased. One negro girl,
Allowed. Provided for by the treaty of New York. The charges for the negro killed, and rifle, clothing, and furniture, taken away, are rejected. They are not warranted by the treaty.