Payment – 18

Payments to

Claims rejected.

Claims admitted.

1775. James Wooton. deceased. Two horses.
There is no evidence in support of this claim ; but it may be referred to the President. as a fair claim. As to the charge for the negro, it must be rejected. The mere circumstance of his having been missing cannot constitute a just charge against the Creek nation. If he was seen in the Creek nation, it was more than probable that he entered it voluntarily. The claimant should have demanded his negro from the nation, which appears to have been omitted.


1788. Jacob Helverton. One old negro woman.
Allowed. Provided for by the treaty of New York. The balance of the claim is rejected ; the treaty does not provide for it.


1789. John Tompkins, deceased. Dwelling-house. &c., two horses,
This claim must be rejected. The treaty of New York, which followed the loss of the property, does not provide for it.
1797. Benj. Wafford. Seven horses, valued at
This claim is rejected. It is of the description of claims provided for by the second article of the Treaty of Fort Wilkinson. and should have been prosecuted in the manner prescribed by the act of Congress regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes.
1789. James Scarlet, deceased. One negro boy,
Allowed. Provided for by the treaty of New York. The charges for the houses, &c. burnt, and horses carried away, are rejected. They are not provided for by the treaty.
1793. John Cleveland, deceased. One negro man, $ 500 ; one man, $ 150,
Allowed. Provided for by the ‘Treaty of Coleraine. The charges for the horses lost in 1788 are rejected. The Treaty of New York, which followed the loss, does not provide.


1784. Silas Monk. One horse,
Allowed. Provided for by the Treaty of Galphinton,
1784. Elizabeth Gammon. One horse,
Allowed. Provided for by the Treaty of Galphinton,
1790, ’94. John Bradshaw. Six horses,
The evidence in support of this claim is not sufficient to sustain it. The statement of the claimant’s sons and sons-in-law are to be considered rather as urging the claim on the part of the claimant, (who appears to be incapacitated from doing it him self,) than as furnishing any testimony in its support Their statements are general, and do not appear to he founded on their own knowledge of the circumstances to which they refer. The claim is therefore rejected.
1782. Henry Anglin. One horse,
From the claimant’s own statement, it is not even probable that the horse lost was taken by the Creek Indians; at any rate, it is quite too vague to fix the theft upon them so as to charge the nation with the responsibility,
1793. David Glenn. Timber, &c. burnt
The Treaty of Coleraine which followed the destruction of property for which compensation is now claimed, provided for the delivery of negroes, and other property taken since the signing of the Treaty of New York. The construction which has been given to this clause, in every instance of a similar nature, has gone to the exclusion of the idea that it was intended that the Indians should be made responsible for property which had not been taken, but destroyed. In conformity to this decision, therefore, the claim must be rejected.



Creek, History,

Payments to Citizens of Georgia. Issue 268 of Document, United States 20th Congress, 1st session, 1828. Gales & Seaton. 1828.

Search Military Records - Fold3

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest

Scroll to Top