total failure of all efforts to enslave the exiles.

indians and exiles complain—government disregards their complaints—further efforts to enslave exiles—they fail—general arbuckle’s report—collins charges reynolds with misconduct—reynolds called on to explain—his reply and proofs—collins desires claim to be made against creek warriors—they refuse to notice it—political feelings—watson presents his claim to congress—resolution of that body calling for information—answer—house doc. 225—digression—proceedings on claim before congress—its final settlement.

1838.

the indians and exiles who had emigrated, now found themselves separated at the distance of more than a thousand miles from their brethren in florida, with whom they could hold no intercourse. they were without a country—without permanent homes—residing upon the lands of the cherokees, at the mere sufferance of that tribe, whose humanity had been awakened, and whose sympathy had been extended to them. their situation and discontent were duly communicated to the executive; but it appears to have been regarded as of too little importance to receive attention.

but while the president and the war department disregarded all complaints coming from the seminoles and exiles, they relaxed no effort to secure watson in the possession of the ninety human beings whom he had purchased of the creek indians, at the request of the executive.

as the last resort, instructions were sent to general arbuckle, commanding in the west, to make investigations, and ascertain what more could be done for the re?nslavement of those people. that officer replied to this communication as follows:

“head quarters 2d department, western division,}

fort gibson, aug. 27th, 1838. }

“sir: i had the honor, on the 22d instant, to receive your instructions of the 21st ultimo, together with the papers to which they refer. i extremely regret that the united states is liable to suffer loss in consequence of the creek warriors having sold, and received pay, for the negroes they captured from the seminole indians in florida; and these negroes having been imprudently returned to the possession of their former owners at new orleans, and brought to this place, with two hundred or more other negroes belonging to the seminoles. owing to these transactions, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to identify at most but few of them; and from the present position of this case, it is not probable that one of the negroes will be obtained except by force. for further information in relation to this subject, i beg leave to refer you to my letter to captain armstrong, acting superintendent of the western territory, of this date, a copy of which is herewith enclosed. i shall do all in my power to prevent loss to the government, and will at an early period have the honor to advise you of the measures taken in the case.”

“i have the honor to be, sir, with great respect,

your obedient servant,

m. arbuckle,

brevet brig. gen’l, u. s. a.

hon. j. r. poinsett,

secretary of war.”

the letter to captain armstrong, superintendent of the western territory, was as follows:

“head quarters 2d department, western division,}

fort gibson, aug. 27, 1838. }

“sir: i received by the last mail, from the honorable the secretary of war, a communication under date of the 21st ultimo, on the subject of the negroes captured by the creek warriors, together with a letter from the commissioner of indian affairs to the secretary of war, under date of the 19th ultimo, relating to this subject, copies of which are herewith enclosed. all other papers or transactions in relation to this matter, it is presumed, you are apprized of. it will be seen by the communication first referred to, that it was not known at washington, at the date of that letter, that the creek warriors had been paid for the negroes. that circumstance, however just to the warriors and proper, so far as you have had an agency in the affair, will increase the difficulty of obtaining the negroes, as it is believed the creek warriors will not now give themselves any trouble to have the negroes delivered to the individuals to whom they sold them. and notwithstanding the pledge of the seminole chiefs to me, to surrender the negroes in the event the government should so require (after reconsidering their claim to them), i do not believe they will comply with their promise, with the knowledge that the negroes are to be taken from this country as the servants of a white man. finally, as the seminoles are greatly under the influence of their negroes, there is scarcely a hope that the captured negroes will be surrendered without the application of force (which is not required); and, in that event, it is not probable they could be had, as they would no doubt run away the moment they are informed a military force is to be employed to take them. and in such case, it is believed, they would be assisted, when necessary, by most of the seminoles, and by all the seminole and creek negroes; and if the captured negroes could be placed in the possession of the creek agent, he would not detain them a moment without he had a suitable guard for that purpose. i am therefore of the opinion, that the best means that can now be resorted to, to prevent loss to the united states, is, if possible, to induce the seminoles to refund, from their annuity, the sum paid to the creek warriors for the negroes, and the interest on the same until paid. i will be much gratified if you can visit this post in six or eight days, when the seminole chiefs can be assembled here, with the object of inducing them to agree to the measure proposed, or such other as may be deemed advisable. in the event that it may not be convenient for you to be at this post at an early period, i request that you will favor me with your views on the subject of this communication by the return of mail.”

“i am, sir, with much respect,

your obedient servant,

m. arbuckle,

brevet brig. gen’l, u. s. a.

capt. w. armstrong,

acting sup’t w. ter., choctaw agency.”

this correspondence might well have concluded the efforts of the executive to deliver these ninety exiles to the slave-dealer. it were unnecessary to say, that general arbuckle’s labors in this behalf proved useless. he had foretold such failure in his letter to the war department. in january, 1837, the creek warriors captured these people, and for almost two years the influence of the executive had been exerted to enslave them; but a series of incidents, unequaled in real life, had constantly succeeded each other, preventing the consummation of this intended crime; yet the slave power was inexorable in its demands.

these circumstances failed to convince the president that it was useless for the executive of a great nation to contend against the plainest dictates of justice; against those convictions of right which dwell in the breast of every human being who has not extinguished the moral feelings of his nature.

collins having returned to his plantation in alabama, deliberately, drew up and transmitted his report to the commissioner of indian affairs, which we have heretofore quoted. but when he was subsequently informed that the thirty-two exiles who were in the hands of the sheriff at new orleans had, on the day of his leaving that city, been delivered over to reynolds, and sent west, his indignation was further excited, and he immediately wrote the commissioner of indian affairs again more distinctly charging the officers engaged in the emigration of these people with bad faith. he wrote as follows:

“montgomery, alabama, aug. 8, 1838.

sir: since writing you a week since, i have understood that lieutenant reynolds has informed you that on his arrival in new orleans the negroes that were detained there had been surrendered to him, and that, in consequence of my not being there, they were sent off to, etc. after seeing so much duplicity and management as has been manifested by the officers with whom i have recently had intercourse, particularly lieutenant r., i am not surprised at the above statement. lieutenant r. is well apprised that the negroes had been turned over to him while i was in new orleans; and it is also susceptible of proof that during my stay there arrangements were privately making to charter a boat to transport them. after i learned this, i purposely threw myself in his way; but he said not a word to me in relation to the negroes, until i addressed him the note which is herewith enclosed. after receiving his answer, i, in his presence, addressed the enclosed copy to major clark; but before i had procured a messenger to carry it to major c., lieutenant r., after being a short time absent from the room, returned, and informed me he had seen the sheriff, and he had refused to turn over the negroes to him, which rendered it, as i conceived, unnecessary to send the note to major c. after my return home, he wrote that (the next day after i left it seems) the sheriff reviewed his decision, and a second time turned them over to lieutenant r.; and as he states in his letter to me, that major clark ordered them to proceed forthwith to arkansas. why was it necessary, then, for me to have been there, since he had yielded everything to his senior officer, and that officer he knew had determined not to respect the order he had received, and had determined (as his previous statement and subsequent conduct prove) to send them forthwith to arkansas? it is about such a subterfuge as the sheriff turning the negroes and withholding them after my letter to major c. was seen, and then turning them over again after it was known i had left. it is due lieutenant r. to observe, that he stated to me the sheriff had told him a lie. i know not what object he could have had in view in doing so.

“i remained in new orleans four days, in which time i became convinced from the maneuvering that was evinced that nothing would be gained by a longer stay, and as the sickly season was approaching, i left with the conviction that the sheriff would alter his decision as soon as i left there.

“i am, with the highest respect, sir,

yours, etc.,

n. f. collins,

agent creek warriors.”

c. a. harris, esq.,

commissioner indian affairs.

it is worthy of notice that this agent of a slave-dealer should thus address, to one of the executive departments of this august nation, complaints against the sworn officers of our government; but it is still more worthy of note that the war department should call on its authorized and sworn agents to respond to complaints coming from such a source. copies of collins’s two letters were immediately enclosed to lieutenant reynolds, accompanied by a letter from commissioner harris, of which we give a copy:

“war department, }

office of commissioner of indian affairs,}

august 27, 1837. }

“sir: i enclose copies of two letters from n. f. collins, esq., (one of the twenty-ninth ultimo and the other of the eighteenth instant,) in relation to the negroes which you were directed to turn over to him as the agent of the creeks. from these papers, and from other information received here, it would seem there has been great disregard, if not a violation, of the orders of the war department in this matter. i trust you will be able to make such explanations of your conduct as will relieve you from censure—a prompt answer is desired.

“it may not be amiss to inform you that, when on duty in the indian department, you are bound to obey the orders of no military officer, unless you have been placed under his direction. captain morrison is the only army officer authorized to control your movements.”

“very, etc.,

c. a. harris, commissioner.

lieut. j. g. reynolds.”

these intimations to lieutenant reynolds of censure, and the distinct call for explanations, could be neither misinterpreted nor misunderstood; and, although the complaints and charges had been preferred not merely by a man in private life, but by an individual whose very employment as an assistant slave-dealer had rendered him odious and infamous among honorable men, yet this officer who had fought under the flag of his country, and was ready at any moment to peril his life in the support of his country’s honor, was now constrained to meet charges coming from an infamous source. the surprise of lieutenant reynolds at this procedure was expressed in the following letter:

“new orleans, sept. 20, 1838.

“sir: your letter, dated twenty-seventh ultimo, enclosing copies of two communications received at your office from mr. n. f. collins, the creek attorney, came to hand on the tenth instant. i was surprised at being called upon to answer for ‘my conduct’ toward mr. collins, as also the department for disregarding its orders. indeed, sir, i have been, in my own estimation, too faithful a servant in the special department in which it was the pleasure of general jessup to assign, and you to continue, me, to make a defense to the allegations advanced by collins. at the time of mr. collins’s departure from this city, he did not evince that virulence of feeling that he has thought proper to express in his letter; on the contrary, he was then apparently under the full conviction that i had done all that was possible to aid him, and carry out the orders received in relation to the negroes in question. what object could i possibly have in wishing clandestinely, and in the very face of orders, to send those negroes to arkansas? had mr. collins been here, sir, so far as i was concerned, he should have had the negroes upon identity. i enclose papers, sir, from various gentlemen to disprove the assertion of mr. collins, ‘that the negroes were in my possession during the time he was here;’ on the contrary, they did not come into my hands until some time after his departure. it is true, i have frequently referred to major clark for advice in matters relative to my official situation. it was on account of the high regard i have of his character as a gentleman, and an officer of long standing and experience, and whose integrity stands preeminently and deservedly high.

“i have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully,

your obd’t servant,

jno. g. reynolds,

u. s. m. c. disb. agent, ind. dep’t.

c. a. harris,

com. ind. affairs, washington city, d. c.”

we have too little space in this work to copy official papers to any considerable extent. those which accompanied lieutenant reynolds’s reply were—

first. a full statement of facts from sheriff buisson, showing that the thirty-one prisoners, who had been in his charge, were not turned over to major clark until the twenty-eighth of june, 1838.

second. a full statement of facts by george whitman, owner of the steamboat, who contracted to carry the prisoners west.

third. a similar statement by major clark of the facts that came within his knowledge, accompanied by a copy of a communication from jno. c. casey, acting seminole agent.

all these statements showed that lieutenant reynolds had strictly obeyed his orders; and whether they proved satisfactory to the war department or not, we are unable to state. it is, however, believed, that no further proceedings were had in relation to the conduct of that officer.

mr. collins, finding that he possessed some influence with the war department, on the eighteenth of october, wrote the commissioner of indian affairs, saying, “i have now to request that, should general arbuckle be unable to comply with the instructions i understand he has received, (which from my knowledge of the indian character i have no doubt he will,) this claim may be laid before the agent who may be appointed to investigate the claims of the creeks with the necessary documents; that it may be examined and reported on by him.”

in answer to this letter, mr. crawford, acting commissioner of indian affairs, replied, stating that general arbuckle had, on the twenty-eighth of september, informed the department that the negroes could only be obtained by military force. mr. crawford also assured mr. collins that general arbuckle had been instructed to act in concert with captain armstrong for the purpose of obtaining a treaty with the indians by which provisions for this claim would be made; and that the necessary papers had been transmitted to those gentlemen to enable them to act with a correct understanding of the subject.

but the creek indians appear to have become impressed with the opinion, that the whole proceeding was either unjust or dishonorable, and they wholly refused to participate any further in the transaction.

the exiles and indians were now living on the cherokee lands. the creeks would have nothing further to do with watson, nor with the united states, in regard to the captured negroes. the seminole indians showed no disposition to surrender them to slavery, and the exiles themselves exhibited no intention of going voluntarily into bondage. general arbuckle advised against the employment of military force to effect that object; and to all present appearances these ninety exiles had, through a train of mysterious incidents, been preserved from bondage. the florida war had become unpopular; and watson, the purchaser of the supposed slaves, had warm personal friends among the whigs of georgia. they were quite willing to subject mr. van buren to any degree of odium in their power. watson, therefore, sent his petition to congress, asking indemnity for the loss of slaves whom he had purchased of the creeks at the instance, and by the recommendation, of the executive officers of government.

in order to sustain the claim of watson, it was necessary to place the facts attending this transaction before the house of representatives. for this purpose a resolution was adopted, on the twenty-eighth of january, 1839, calling on the secretary of war for “such information as was to be found in his office touching the capture of negroes and other property from the hostile indians, during the present war in florida.”

in answer to this resolution, the secretary of war, on the twenty-seventh of february, made report, embracing one hundred and twenty-six pages of printed matter. it was numbered h. doc. 225, and ordered to be printed. from that document much information has been obtained in regard to the capture and emigration of this first party of indians and exiles to the western country.

the result of this speculation in human flesh is so essential to a correct appreciation of the whole transaction, that we deem it proper to give, in this connection, the proceedings of congress upon that subject; although it may appear to be rather a digression from the chronological narration of events which constitute the subject of our history.

it will be recollected that the commissioner of indian affairs, in his letter to the secretary of war, dated the first of may, 1838, suggests that it might create agitation, were the department to ask congress for an appropriation of money to carry these exiles to africa, or for any other disposition of them; that, to suppress all discussion in congress upon the subject of slavery, gag-resolutions and gag-rules had been adopted at each session since 1835. it was under the operation of these rules that the advocates of slavery expected to pass a bill to indemnify watson for his loss in failing to enslave these exiles.

1839.

during the summer of 1839, the document, no. 225, above referred to, was printed. according to the practice of that day, few, even of the members of congress, examined these documents. a copy of this, however, was placed on file, with watson’s petition and other papers, as evidence on which his claim rested.

at the commencement of the next session, the author of this work, being a member of the house of representatives, was placed upon the committee of claims; at the head of which was hon. david russel, of washington county, new york, a man of great industry, integrity and ability; always independent, according to the general views of that day, and upright in the discharge of official duties. hon. william c. dawson, of georgia, was also a member of that committee, and appeared to take much interest in this claim. he was a man of much suavity of manner; one of that class of southern statesmen who felt it necessary to carry every measure by the influence of personal kindness, and an expression of horror at all agitation of the slave question, under the apprehension that it might dissolve the union.

mr. dawson was anxious to get this claim of watson through congress, and, not expecting the chairman of the committee on claims to favor its passage, requested the author to examine and give support to it. it was that examination which gave him the first information as to the real cause of the florida war. after a full and thorough investigation, he assured mr. dawson that he would be constrained to oppose the passage of any bill giving indemnity to watson. at that time it was the usual practice for the committee on claims to leave all petitions asking pay for slaves, or which involved the question of slavery, without reporting upon them, lest they should cause agitation. there being no prospect of obtaining from the committee a favorable report, the case was at the next session of congress referred to the committee on indian affairs, who reported in its favor, providing for the payment of the full sum which watson gave the creeks, and interest thereon from the time of the contract up to the time of passing the bill.

1841.

this bill was placed on the calendar, and in 1841 the author endeavored to call attention to it, in a speech made in the house of representatives on the “florida war.” this led some members to examine it; and some of them, more independent than others, declared their hostility to its passage.

in the twenty-eighth congress, the author, having become obnoxious to the slaveholders, was removed from the committee on claims,[121] and watson’s petition was again referred to that committee, in order that it should receive the prestige of its influence; but it was reported upon late, and was so low on the calendar that it was not reached during that congress.

1848.

1849.

in the thirty-first congress, mr. daniels, chairman of the committee on claims, reported it in february. but general crowell, of trumbull county, ohio, being on the committee, opposed its passage, and caused a postponement for that session; and at the next session it was, after a short discussion, passed over without any final action upon it.

at the thirty-second congress, the committee on claims was yet more favorably constituted for the slave interest—mr. sacket, of new york, and mr. rantoul, of massachusetts, being the only two members upon it who openly resisted the slave power. mr. edgerton, of ohio, mr. seymour, of connecticut, and mr. curtis, of pennsylvania, being northern democrats, remained silent during the discussion of this claim. it was however again reported by the chairman, mr. daniels, of north carolina, at an early day, and a full determination to carry it through was manifested by the slaveholders.

both of the great political parties were at that time (1852) endeavoring to suppress all agitation of the slave question. southern men, particularly, were horrified at every appearance of discussion in relation to the “pecculiar institution;” and they hoped to pass this bill without even an examination of its merits before the house. but the opponents of slavery were not idle. efforts were privately made to call attention of gentlemen to this claim, that they might examine its merits before it came up for discussion; and on looking into it, a number of members prepared to oppose its passage.

1852.

after one or two postponements, it came on for discussion on the twentieth of february, 1852. mr. sacket, of new york, met the case at once, in a speech which showed that he had studied it very thoroughly, and understood it perfectly. he insisted that slaves were not plunder, and did not come within the contract of general jessup, which gave to creeks the “plunder” they might capture. 2d. that the whole transaction was one of speculation on the part of watson, inasmuch as the report set forth that the negroes were worth at least sixty thousand dollars, while he paid only fourteen thousand and six hundred dollars—being less than one-fourth their value, evidently taking upon himself all risk of title and possession. 3d. that the officers of government had no authority to involve the nation in this slave-dealing transaction. 4th. that those officers were not the government, and could not bind the people to pay their funds for human flesh.

mr. abercrombie, of alabama, was in favor of the claim. he declared that he was in florida at the time of this contract, and knew all about it, and that it was well understood that the term “plunder” did include slaves.

mr. daniels, chairman of the committee, felt called on by the effort of mr. sacket to speak early in the discussion. he insisted that general jessup, the commissioner of indian affairs and secretary of war, fully understood the case; that it was understood by the parties that the term “plunder” did include slaves; that watson was drawn into this matter, partly, to relieve the government from the transaction in which it had become involved. he insisted that the negroes captured were slaves of the seminoles; but when inquired of on that point, could only say, that officers engaged in the florida war had spoken of them as such. he was much embarrassed by interrogatories propounded to him by mr. stanton, of ohio, and other gentlemen.

mr. mace, of indiana, a democrat, took a short and comprehensive view of the case. he, nor any other man could tell whether these negroes were slaves or freemen. on the part of the officers of government, there was not a single impulse of humanity manifested in regard to these people; but all their endeavors were put forth to enslave them. he was entirely opposed to the bill.

hon. john w. howe, of pennsylvania, would never give his vote in favor of regarding men, and women, and children, as plunder. he commented with much force upon the contract, and the documentary evidence before the house, and would maintain the humanity of all prisoners captured in war. he sustained the position of general gaines, that they were prisoners of war.

on the tenth of march the bill came up again for consideration, when mr. johnson, of georgia, advocated its passage in a very elaborate speech. he differed from mr. sacket, mr. howe, and those who opposed the bill, mostly upon the great question—insisting that slaves were property under our federal constitution; that the people captured by the creek indians were not possessed of any rights; that they were to be regarded as mere chattels: indeed, this point lay at the foundation of the entire discussion. he however sought to add strength to the claim by reading letters from mr. crawford, commissioner of indian affairs, and from mr. poinsett, secretary of war, to show that they sympathized with the slave-dealer, and were desirous that this bill should pass.

mr. welch, of ohio, in few words, declared his conviction that these negroes were prisoners of war, to be treated as such, and not to be regarded as slaves or chattels.

mr. evans, of maryland, thought it difficult to understand the case, but would adopt the views of judge iverson, of georgia; that gentleman had been a member of the house of representatives, and his statements could be relied upon. he read a long affidavit showing the recollections of mr. iverson, and, as the united states had the property in possession, he would vote for the bill.

mr. stuart, of michigan, now a democratic senator, thought the government had been in great difficulty in getting these seminoles to go west; they would not go without the negroes, many of whom had intermarried with the seminoles. by the treaty which general jessup made, in 1837, our government was bound to send the negroes west, and having done so, was bound to pay watson for his loss.

mr. skelton, of new jersey, a democrat, recognized no power in this or any other government to treat prisoners of war as slaves. the discussion had become interesting, and, in some degree, constituted an agitation of the slave question; and as the committee rose without taking a vote upon the bill, mr. orr, of south carolina, moved a resolution precluding further debate upon it; but the house adjourned without taking a vote on the resolution.

the case came up again on the tenth of april, when a resolution to close debate in one hour was adopted. the house then resolved itself in committee; and mr. bartlett, of vermont, a democrat, took the position that the government, nor its officers, had power to enter into any agreement with indians or white men, by which they should enjoy any privilege, or receive any compensation, not authorized by law; that the contract between general jessup and the creeks was of no validity, but absolutely void; and every transaction touching the enslavement of the exiles was without authority, and of no effect.

mr. walsh, of maryland, insisted that the indian tribes were not nations, and ought not to be treated as such; that it was not incumbent on the friends of the bill to show that slavery existed among the seminoles; if they lived within a slave state, they might hold slaves; that the government had the right to enslave the negroes when captured.

mr. sweetzer, of ohio, democrat, denied the authority of general jessup to make any contract for the services of the creek warriors other than the law had provided; nor could he have authority to make any stipulation as to the disposal of prisoners when captured.

mr. southerland, of new york, a whig, thought the question of slavery was not necessarily involved in this case; that the united states, having sent the negroes west, were bound to indemnify watson for his loss.

mr. daniels, by the rules of the house, had one hour to reply, after the expiration of the time for closing debate. he attempted to reply to some of the arguments offered against the bill, but advanced no new position. at the expiration of his speech the vote was taken, and the bill reported to the house as agreed to in committee. the previous question was then called, and under its operation the bill passed—seventy-nine members voting in favor of its passage, and fifty-three against it.

one member from the slave states, williamson r. w. cobb, of alabama, voted against the bill. all the other members from the slave states voted for it; and were aided by the votes of members from the free states, as follows:

from new hampshire: harry hibbard—1.

massachusetts: wm. appleton, zeno scudder—2.

new york: abram m. schemmerhorn, james brooks, gilbert dean, f. s. martin, abram p. stevens, joseph southerland—6.

connecticut: collins m. ingersoll—1

new jersey: r. m. price—1.

pennsylvania: joseph r. chandler, thomas florence, joseph h. kuhns, joseph mcnair, andrew packer, john robbins, thomas ross—7.

ohio: john l. taylor—1.

indiana: sam’l w. parker, richard w. thompson—2.

michigan: e. s. penniman, charles e. stuart—2.

iowa: lincoln clark, bernard henn—2.

california: joseph w. mccorkle—1. in all the free states twenty-five.

the vote against the bill was given by the following members, from the free states:

from maine: e. k. smart, israel washburn, jr.—2.

new hampshire: jared perkins, amos tuck—2.

massachusetts: orrin fowler, z. goodrich, horace mann—3.

new york: henry bennet, george briggs, john g. floyd, timothy jenkins, daniel f. jones, preston king, william murray, joseph russel, wm. a. sacket, w. w. snow, hiram s. wallbridge, john wells—12.

new jersey: charles skelton, n. t. stratton—2.

vermont: thomas w. bartlett, james meacham—2.

connecticut: charles chapman—1.

pennsylvania: james allison, john l. dawson, james gamble, galusha a. grow, john w. howe, thomas m. howe, milo m. dimmick, thaddeus stevens—8.

ohio: nelson barrere, joseph cable, alfred p. edgerton, j. m. gaylord, alex. harper, wm. f. hunter, john johnson, eben newton, edson b. olds, charles sweetzer—10.

indiana: samuel brenton, john g. davis, graham n. fitch, thomas a. hendricks, daniel mace—5.

illinois: wyllis allen, r. s. molony—2.

wisconsin: james d. doty, solomon durkee, ben. c. eastman—3.

these fifty-two members, with mr. cobb, of alabama, made up the entire opposition to the bill in the house of representatives. in the senate there was very little opposition to its passage; and after thirteen years, the people of the united states paid for the slaves whom watson bought on speculation, but of whom he failed to obtain possession. the northern advocates of the bill justified their support of it more generally upon the principle, that our officers sent the negroes west, and thereby rendered it difficult, if not impossible, for watson to obtain possession of them; and they insisted that, in refunding to watson his money, they did not pay him for human flesh, but for the money he had paid out at the instance of federal officers. this vote closed the controversy in regard to general jessup’s contract, to give the creek warriors such plunder as they might capture from the enemy.