OCR Text |
Show Besides the conflict between the LItes and the settlers, there was the problem of the impermanenee of the Cimarron Agency. The land used for the agency was not owned by the Government but rather had been granted to individuals under the Mexican land grant system. Title to the land was not clear. Furthermore, the buildings used were only rented from private sources and were not part of the Government building complex. 4 The intention had been to use the location and the structures only temporarily. The settlers of the area felt that now was the time for the planned relocation, and Agent Irvine concurred. He felt that the LItes should be removed from Cimarron to their agency at Los Pinos, Colorado. 5 S. A. Russell of the Abiquiu agency, the other New Mexico location where Utes were found, agreed with Irvine that the Utes should be removed, but did not favor removal to the Los Pinos area. He noted problems among the Indians not mentioned by Irvine. The Utes were refused rations at Abiquiu and had to travel to Los Pinos, a long journey over rugged terrain. As a result, the Indians were poorly fed and poorly clothed. In the winter months many died from malnutrition and exposure. There was also an alcohol problem. People living at Abiquiu or close by were quite willing to sell the liquor to the Indians. These problems helped to increase tensions between the Anglos and the Indians, and Russell concluded that the Indian Department should establish an agency for these LItes on the southern portion of their Colorado reservation, thereby removing them from the unsatisfactory environment of northern New Mexico while at the same time providing a more favorable climate than that found at the Los Pinos agency. 6 Added to the reports of the agents were petitions from the residents of the area sent to the Secretary of the Interior asking for removal of both Jicarilla Apache and Ute Indians. 7 From 1874, when the Brunot Agreement had been approved by Congress, until 1877, these petitions continued to be sent to Congress, the President and the Secretary of the Interior. It wasn't until December, 1877, however, that Congress acted on the citizens' requests. In that year a resolution was passed asking the Secretary of the Interior to explain why the Ute and Apache Indians were still located at the Cimarron Agency.^ The resolution, introduced by Senator Stephen W. Dorsey of Arkansas, requested immediate removal. In response to Dorsey's request the Secretary of the Interior, Charles Schurz, explained the situation of the Utes and Apaches at the Cimarron Agency and what events were transpiring to remove these now landless Indians from that area. He wrote that on the 30th of September, 1876, the use of Cimarron as an agency headquarters had been discontinued and the affairs of this office transferred to the Pueblo Agency under the supervision of Agent Benjamin M. Thomas. o The hope was to relocate the Muache LItes on the northern portion of their reservation in Colorado and the Jicarillas on a reservation just north of Abiquiu. The Jicarillas were eventually removed, but the LItes refused to leave the Cimarron area. Until a better solution could be found a Government farmer was left in charge of the buildings at Cimarron and ordered to serve the needs of the Indians. All of this was done although the agency had been officially closed. In accordance with the treaty of 1868, the Brunot 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid., p. 831. 6. Ibid., pp. 829- 830. 7. U. S., Congress, House of Representatives. Ex. Doc. No. 138, 43d Cong., 2d Sess., Ser. No. 1648, January 27, 1875, pp. 1- 3. 8. U. S., Congress. Senate, Congressional Record. Vol. VII, Part 1, 45th Cong., 2d Sess., December 11, 1877. p. 120. 9. U. S., Congress, Senate, Letter from the Secretary of the Interior in compliance with a Senate resolution of December 11, 1877, on the location of bands of Apache and Ute Indians at Cimarron. N. Mcx., Senate, Ex. Doc. No. 8, 45th Cong., 2d Sess., Ser. No. 1780, January 14, 1878, p. 2. Hereafter cited as Letter from the Secretary of the Interior, January 1- 4, 1878 . . . |