OCR Text |
Show COMMISBIONER OF -INDIAN AFFAIRB. 9 the Department of Justice. January 29,1891, the Acting Attorney- General replied to Department letter of January 15, 1891, that action had been withheld by the district attorney awaiting the arrival of the president of the company. February 20, 1891, the Attorney-General further reported that information was needed as to certain physical features connected with the actual amount of water theretofore used by the Indians, and as to what part of them the canal would cut off; that as matters then shod they were not by any means in such shape as to proceed summarily to a suit, for the Department had no conclusive evidence that the Indians had been or would be injured and that it would seem necessary to have a personal inquiry upon the ground by some competent man who could prepare himself to testify for the Government. By Department authority of March 5, 1891, the Pima agent was instructed on March 11 to employ Mr. Lewis A. Hicks to investigate and report plans relative h irrigation improvements on the Gila Reser-vation, and to qualify himself to become a witness for the Govern-ment in the suit against the canal company, if it should be deemed advisable to continue that suit. He was further advised that the district attorney stated that the Florence Canal Company had not constructed any dam, or rather obstruction, in the Gila ltiver above the Pima and Maricopa Reserva-tion, by ivbicb the waters of that river had been diverted from their natural channel to the prejudice of the prior right of the Indians, and that there were no data in his office to show how much water the Pima and Mariwpa Indians had theretofore actually appropriated, nor how many acres of land they had actually cultivated to the one 'crop, which he-claimed was all they had been accustomed to irrigate. The report of Civil Engineer Hicks, dated April 22,1891, stated that in order for him to testify whether the diversion of the waters of the Gila River by the Florence Canal Company had been or would be prejudicial to the prior rights of the Indians it would be necessary for him to be on the ground from.the time the river commenced to get dry on the reservation until the flow had entirely ceased. May 30, 1891, Agent Crouse telegraphed that it was not too late in the season for Engineer Hicks to make such test, and June 5 he was telegraphed to employ Mr. Hicks and such assistants as might be considered neces-sary to complete the investigation. February 16,1892, Agent Crouse was directed to report whether Mr. Hicks had made ,the investigation; and if so, to forward his report. This report, if made, never reached this office, and an examination of AgentCrouse's accounts to June 30, 1893, fails to show any payment to Mr. Hicks. Novemher 23,1894, Inspector Duncan reported that the anticipation of the Geological Suwey as to the disastrous effec'ects of the wnstruc-tion of tbe Floreiwe Canal bad been realized; but be failed to make any |