treaty." The Department of State, however, had previously said: "The treaty stipulations between the United States and Mexico, by which the parties engaged to restrain savages from attacking each other's possessions, were repealed by the second article of the Gadsden treaty. Still, the obligation to that end, under the law of nations. remains in full force, as it is presumed Mexico will acknowledge." June 1, 1877, orders were given to the military authorities of the United States to cross the border, if necessary, in pursuit of lawless raiders. Against these orders the Mexican Government protested. The United States, however, justified them as being necessary under the conditions then existing on the border. February 24, 1880, the orders of June 1, 1877, were declared to be no longer operative, it appearing that the Mexican Government was then in a position to insure the full protection of life and property on the borders.' For some time afterwards raids continued on both sides of the boundary. July 29, 1882, an agreement was concluded providing for the reciprocal crossing of the international boundary by troops of the two countries in pursuit of savage Indians in the unpopulated and desert parts of the line." This agreement was subsequently extended. Certain Papago Indians having made an attack, apparently from the United States, on the Mexican town of El Plomo, twenty-five of them were afterwards arrested in the United States by the American authorities. A complaint was entered against the four chief instigators of the attack, and they were held for trial, while the rest were a Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Mexico, May 22, 1877; H. Ex. Doc. 13, 45 Cong. 1 sess. 12; H. Report 701, 45 Cong. 2 sess. 239. Mr. Hunter, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Nelson, min. to Mexico, Nov. 7, 1871, For. Rel. 1872, 350; H. Rep. 701, 45 Cong. 2 sess. 207. e H. Ex. Doc. 13, 45 Cong. 1 sess. 14; H. Report 701, 45 Cong. 2 sess. 241. See supra, § 219. ₫ H. Ex. Doc. 13, 45 Cong. 1 sess. 18-28; II. Report 701, 45 Cong. 2 sess. 242- 254. e Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Mexico, Aug. 13, 1878, For. Rel. 1878, 572. See, also, Mr. Foster, min. to Mexico, to Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, Dec. 14, 1878, For. Rel. 1879, 754; same to same, Dec. 27, 1879, For. Rel. 1880, 726. / Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min, to Mexico, March 1, 1880, For. Rel. 1880, 735. See, also, For. Rel. 1880, 781, and supra, § 219. 9 For. Rel. 1881, 756, 759, 803, 817, 819, 821, 823, 826, 827, 829, 831, 833-838, 841-846; For. Rel. 1882, 388, 390. h For. Rel. 1882, 396. 4 For. Rel. 1883, 662. See, also, For. Rel. 1883, 654, 655, 657, 658, 660, 680–701. See, as to a further extension of the agreement to Nov. 1, 1886, Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Jackson, min. to Mexico, Oct. 5 and 6, 1885, MS. Inst. Mexico, XXI. 382, 383; Mr. Jackson, min. to Mexico, to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, Oct. 17, 1885, 86 MS. Desp. from Mexico. detained to await the orders of the Secretary of the Interior. The Department of State expressed the opinion that the Indians in question, no matter what may have been their motive, "committed an offence which was international in character, upon the assumption that the Indians, who were formerly Mexican, had become American Indians or were subject to American control;" and that it was therefore"the international duty of the United States toward Mexico to see that the Indians are properly dealt with and punished.” a March 21, 1867, the minister of the United States in London was instructed to propose to the British Government an Canadian frontier. arrangement whereby United States troops, when pursuing Indians who might have committed hostile acts within the jurisdiction of the United States, in the country lying between the Red River settlements in the east and the Rocky Mountains in the west, should be allowed to follow them for a reasonable distance in the uninhabited portions of British America. He was directed "distinctly" to "admit" that the United States did "not claim as a right that its armed forces shall in any case cross the frontier," and that the concession if made would be subject to such restraints and guarantees as to prevent any possible abuse. If the request should be declined, the United States would consider any other plan that might be proposed to secure the desired result by some other course of procedure. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Adams, min. to England, March 21, 1867, In February, 1878, the British minister at Washington communicated to the Department of State a copy of a dispatch from the Governor-General of Canada relating to the supposed intention of Sitting Bull to enter the United States for hostile purposes, and setting forth the precautions taken by the Canadian government in the matter. In the following March, it being reported that Sitting Bull was near the border and camped on the British side with about 2,500 armed and hostile Indians, the facts were communicated to the British minister with an expression of the hope that all necessary precautions might be promptly taken to avert the consequences arising from the possible outbreak of an Indian war. The Canadian government stated that the Indians in question were driven into Canadian territory after having been worsted by United States troops, and it was @ Mr. Day, Sec. of State, to Sec. of Interior, June 6, 1898, 229 MS. Dom. Let. 163. Sir Edward Thornton, British min., to Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, Feb. 19, 1878, For. Rel. 1878, 344. c Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Sir Edward Thornton, British min., March 15, 1879, For. Rel. 1879, 488. suggested that measures be taken to induce them "to return to their proper allegiance and their own country." a See, as to the action of H. B. M. S. Osprey, in cooperating with the United It was subsequently reported that companies of hostile Indians from Sitting Bull's camp were scattered about in the Indian reservation in the northern part of Montana, driving and scattering the buffalo and other game and stealing the property of the peaceable resident Indians; that Sitting Bull himself had camped south of the boundary, but had afterwards returned with his chief lodges of warriors to British territory. Under these circumstances it was stated that the United States conceived that it had "a perfect right to regard as a menace to domestic peace and tranquillity the presence within its border of a warlike body of disaffected Indians, who have explicitly defied its jurisdiction and by their own act embraced the protection of another power;" and that, should the Government decide to compel the submission of any of those Indians appearing on the southern side of the line, "it would look upon a new recourse for asylum across the line as calling for prompt and efficient action by the British Government to repulse them, or to disarm, disable, and sequestrate them under a due responsibility for them as a component part of the territorial population of the British-American dominion.” As they had sought British protection, and Her Majesty's authorities had done nothing toward denying it," and still less toward enforcement upon them of submission to the authority of the United States, or of subjecting them to the treatment usually observed toward revolted aliens on the territory of a friendly power," the United States conceived that it was "bound now to regard the Indians of Sitting Bull's command as British Indians." If, therefore, they should make incursions of a hostile character and threaten the property, the domain, or the means of subsistence of the friendly Indian tribes in the United States, or if active military operations on the part of the United States against them should become for any cause inevitable, the hope was expressed that Her Majesty's Government would “recognize the importance of being prepared on the frontier with a sufficient force either to compel their surrender to our forces as prisoners of war, or to disarm and disable them from further hostilities, and subject them to such constraints of surveillance and subjection as will preclude any further disturbance of the peace on the a For. Rel. 1879, 488, 490. a frontier." The Canadian government, on the other hand, renewed its suggestion that the United States should endeavor to induce the Indians to return peaceably to American jurisdiction, representing that the chief difficulty in dealing with the Indians grew out of the dimunition of the natural food supply on both sides of the line." Complaint was subesequently made of an attack on Canadian Indians by Indians from the United States. In the course of 1880, partly through cooperation of the officials on both sides of the line, the situation improved; but the question as to Sitting Bull and his immediate following remained pending, and the opinion was expressed that the British Government, "in the fulfillment of its obligations of neighborly comity and good will, should repel any new attempt on the part of Sitting Bull and his unsubmissive adherents to cross the border into British territory in evasion of pursuit, or should take such active and effective steps as will prevent his recrossing into the territory of the United States, and domicile him as a British Indian, under due restraint of surveillance and subjection." The British minister at Washington expressed the conviction that the government of the Dominion would use its influence to the utmost to prevent predatory incursions into the United States by British Indinas. "At the same time," he said, "the Government of the United States can fully appreciate the difficulty of preventing such incursions across so extended a frontier, for the forces of the United States were unable about four years ago to prevent Sitting Bull and his followers from crossing the frontier and taking refuge in British territory, although I am confident that this Government earnestly desired that they should not be allowed to do so." He added that the only means which the government of the Dominion had found to prevent depredations by American Indians fleeing to Canada had been by furnishing them with subsistence, which it had done at great cost; but that the Indians had a Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Sir Edward Thornton, British min., May 27, 1879, For. Rel. 1879, 496. See, also, Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of State, to Sir Edward Thornton, British min., July 3, 1879, For. Rel. 1879, 500; Sir Edward Thornton, British min., to Mr. Evarts, Sec of State, July 14, 1879, For. Rel. 1879, 502; Sir Edward Thornton, Brit. min., to Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. Sept. 8, 1879, For. Rel. 1879, 508. Sir Edward Thornton, British min., to Mr. Hunter, Act. Sec. of State, Sept. 9, 1879, For. Rel. 1879, 508; Sir Edward Thornton, British min., to Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, Sept. 30, 1879, For. Rel. 1879, 510. See, also, For. Rel. 1880, 491, 497, 498, 507. Sir Edward Thornton, British min., to Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, Nov. 23, 1880, For. Rel. 1881, 570. See, also, For. Rel. 1881, 574, 576. d Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Sir Edward Thornton, British min., Feb. 5, 1881, For. Rel. 1881, 577. See, also, Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Sir Edward Thornton, British min., May 10, May 14, and May 26, 1881, For. Rel. 1881, 587, 588. also consumed a great number of buffalo, thus diminishing the supply and creating discontent among the British Indians. The United States subsequently complained of the incursion of a large body of Canadian Indians into the Indian reservation in Montana for the purpose of driving away buffalo. The Canadian government stated in reply that it had for many years been the habit of the Indians on both sides of the line to cross in pursuit of game, but that whenever depredations had been committed by Canadian Indians upon settlers or Indians in the United States, and the facts had been duly reported, no efforts had been spared by the government of Canada to arrest and punish the offenders; and that instructions had been sent in the present instance to the mounted police to exercise special diligence in finding out and punishing the Indians who had been guilty of the act complained of. A suggestion was renewed that concerted action should be taken by the two governments to restrain the Indians from crossing the border even in pursuit of game. In 1883 a copy of the agreement with Mexico for the reciprocal pursuit of Indians across the boundary line was submitted to the Canadian government for its consideration, with a view to effecting a similar arrangement between the United States and Canada. In June, 1883, a copy of certain correspondence was communicated to the British legation at Washington "as illustrating the good understanding prevailing between the American commanding officers on the frontier and the British commander at Fort Walsh, by which they are enabled to act in concert in repressing the marauding excursions of the Indians on either side of the line." The Canadian government stated that it knew of no circumstances which would warrant the adoption of such an exceptional measure as the agreement between the United States and Mexico, especially in view of the improved situation along the Canadian frontier; but it was suggested that an arrangement should be made between the British and American Governments by which Indians on either side of the line should, on complaint under oath charging them with felonies or serious outrages against property, be arrested and surrendered for trial in the country where the offenses a Sir Edward Thornton, British min., to Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, May 27. 1881, For. Rel. 1881, 589. Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Drummond, British chargé, Aug. 25, 1881, For. Rel. 1881, 593. e Mr. Drummond, British chargé, to Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, Sept. 26, 1881. For. Rel. 1881, 594-596. See, further, For. Rel. 1882, 314-316, 319–322, 323–324. d Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. West, British min., April 17, 1883, For. Rel. 1883, 496. e Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. West, British min., June 16, 1883, For. Rel. 1883, 503. See, further, For. Rel. 1883, 506-508, 509-526. |