but they should not be held responsible. Sir, we have seen thrilling accounts of sanguinary massacres which alarm us at the first blush; and, if we are to believe the paragraphs disseminated through the medium of the press, we should suppose, in reality, that the Indian was as barbarous as he had ever been, and that all the assaults or massacres, as they are termed, are unprovoked and wantonly inflicted on the defenseless white man. As an instance of this, let me mention the massacre at Fort Laramie, and from that instance ycu can pretty accurately deduce the true condition of other acts of a similar character. What were the circumstances in connection with that case?
During the last summer some bands of the Sioux nation of Indians were encamped within six miles of Fort Laramie. They were in amity with the United States, and on terms of friendship and good feeling with the officers and men of the neighboring fort. A man from a neighboring tribe, whose relatives had, a year before, been slaughtered by the troops at Fort Laramie, happened to be among these bands of Sioux. Some Mormon emigrants passed by the camp of the Indians, and a cow escaped from them, made toward the village, and the Mormons pursued her, but unsuccessfully. The Indian to whom I have referred, by way of revenge for the loss of his relative, slaughtered the animal. Complaint was made at Fort Laramie. The chiefs instantly said that they would see that reparation was made for the injury which had been done. Was this satisfactory to the commanding officer? No, sir; but he detailed a brevet lieutenant, with a company, for the purpose of arresting the Indian. The company arrived at the encampment of the Indians with two pieces of artillery. Demand was made of the chiefs, but this Indian said to them, "I have taken a lodge here; I am willing to die; you have nothing to do with this matter; you have no concern with it; the responsibility is not upon your people, but it is upon me alone." So soon as this reply was given to the lieutenant he fired, and crippled one of the principal chiefs, and killed a man. The delinquent still refused to give up. After that, the chiefs rallied and exhorted the men to commit no outrage; their influence controlled the action of the Indians; but a drunken interpreter, who was calculated to incite the lieutenant to action, caused him, no doubt, to fire his cannon. The next thing was that the war-whoop was sounded, and the lieutenant and part of his men were killed. The others dispersed, were pursued by the Indians in hot blood, and every man was slaughtered.
This is a succinct narrative of that event. Were the Indians to blame? He who violates a law is the man who is responsible for the consequences of that violation. The Indian intercourse laws of the United States have pointed out the manner in which to proceed in such, a case. If a citizen sustains injury from any tribe, or from an individual of a tribe, information is to be given to the Indian agent for that tribe. He is immediately to make a demand upon the chiefs of the nation. If they do not surrender the individual, which in all probability they would do Immediately, if they were treated in good faith, deduction is made from their annuities for the amount of the injury, and there the matter stops. If no annuities are due to them, rather than bring on war, the United States Treasury is responsible to the individual who has sustained
