Chapter V

[V'-2] On this subject I can throw a little further light, as reflected from some documents which I find on file in the Archives of the War Department. The following letter is in a clerk's hand, with Pike's signature:

WASHINGTON CITY Feby. 10^th. 1808.

SIR,

Being informed that the Chevalier Don Fownda, Charge des
affaires from his Catholic Majesty to the United States,
has forwarded to your office an account of expenses said to
have occurred in consequence of my being _obliged_ to pass
thro' the internal provinces of New Spain, amounting to a
sum, exceeding 21,000 Dollars.--I have thought it proper to
state to you the following circumstances. On my being
informed by the Gov^r. at Santa fé that I should be obliged
to go to Chihuahua, I addressed a letter to him in which
amongst other topics--I demanded to be advised if myself
and troops were to be supported at the expense of the U
States or his Catholic majesty--On this subject he was
silent in his reply--but the day I marched from that city
sent me a small sum of money, which I was informed was the
subsistence money of my party to Chihuahua--at which place
I refunded said sum to an officer of the Gov^rs.
acquaintance & took his receipt for the same--at the seat
of goverment I received $1000 and gave triplicate receipts
making my goverment responsible for the same--and on the
close of my correspondence with Gen^l. Salcedo was informed
that I should be conveyed to our territories in the same
manner I had been from New Mexico to Chihuahua--That was to
find our own subsistence--but all other expences to be paid
by the Spanish officers.--I left a requisition that my
party in the rear might be allowed $2-6¼/100 per diem for
their subsistence, and as this was for the support of our
troops, when in their country, it remains to be decided by
our Gov^t, whether they will refund the money--At the first
place where I changed my escort on this side of Chihuahua,
pay was demanded for the services of the mules, and horses,
which I positively refused--but finding the officer was
embarassed, I gave him a receipt agreable to the enclosed
copy and date.--at S^t. Antonio I received $200 of
Gov^r. Cordero--whereof the account stands enclosed--but
I presume in justice no part should be allowed except the
cash advanced, and the mens subsistence--as agreable to the
Chevaliers own maxim--"_the Government which unnecessarily
produced the expenditures ought in justice to defray
them_"--.

I have the honor to be,
Sir,
With high consideration
Your most ob^t. Serv^t.
[Signed] Z. M. PIKE Captain
1st U States Reg^t. Infy

The Hon^able.
JAMES MADISON,
Sec^y. Dep^t. State

The foregoing letter has two inclosures. One is the following form of account:

"U. States to
the Spanish Govt.--

Dr.

7th. April 1807. To cash furnished on receipt to
Cap: Pike at Chihuahua, $1000

11th. June, 07. To cash furnished Cap: Pike at S^t.
Antonio, on receipt, 200

To a requisition for subsistence of my party in the
rear at $2-6¼/100 from ---- to ----

[*]To amount of five receipts worded
in substance as below--not exceeding 250
-----
$
=====
[*] ---- 07.

I acknowledged to have been furnished by ---- with ----
mules ---- horses for the transport of my party and baggage
from ---- to ---- The hire of said beasts to be hereafter
adjusted between the Gov^t. of the U. States and that of
his Cath. Majesty--

"(Signed) Z. PIKE.

"N. B. The whole of those charges (the latter of which I by
no means conceive the U States under any just obligation to
discharge) cannot if my men have recently left the country,
amount to more than $2000. 1200 of which I only pledged the
faith of the Gov^t. for--Pike"

The other one of the two inclosures is the following memorandum or indorsement of the State Department:

"The account against Pike inadmissible save the $1200
advanced him in Cash--and what may have been advanced to
his men left in Mexico at the rate of $2-6¼/100 p.
day--the Sum he asked for their subsistence--It appears to
have been understood by Capt Pike that he was to find
subsistence for himself & Party and that the Spanish Govert
would meet the other expences of his Journey."

[V'-3] Rivière au Bois d'Arc of the French, as we should say Bodark, Bowdark, or Bowwood r., meaning the Osage. The reference is to the bois d'arc or bowwood, the Osage orange, _Maclura aurantiaca_, a well-known tree of the lower Mississippi valley, whose wood was formerly in great request for the purpose indicated in the vernacular name. It is very thorny, bears pruning well, and has come to be much cultivated for hedges. Its botanical affinities are with the mulberry.

[V'-4] The meaning of the clause is clear, though it may not be obvious on its face, owing to the use of "summoning" in a particular sense: compare Pike's use of "summons" in Art. 11, p. 825. Agreeably with etymology, "summoning" might be written _submonition_, on the model of _admonition_; the radical meaning of these two words is much the same, both conveying the idea of warning, with the implied force of enjoining, restraining, etc. Salcedo simply reminds Wilkinson that the Spanish government had warned the United States off those premises, and consequently that the latter should not have carried into effect any projects of, etc.

[V'-5] _Sic_--but "Alferez" is not a part of Walker's name, being his rank in the Mexican cavalry: read "Walker, ensign of," etc.

[V'-6] Thomas Humphrey Cushing of Massachusetts, a captain in the Continental Army, became a captain of the 2d Infantry, Mar. 4th, 1791; he was arranged to the second sub-Legion Sept. 4th, 1792; promoted to be a major in the first sub-Legion Mar. 3d, 1793, and assigned to the 1st Infantry Nov. 1st, 1796; he acted as inspector of the army from Feb. 27th, 1797, to May 22d, 1798, and became lieutenant-colonel of the 2d Infantry April 1st, 1802; he acted as adjutant and inspector-general from Mar. 26th, 1802, to May 9th, 1807, was promoted to the colonelcy of the 2d Infantry Sept. 7th, 1805, to a brigadier-generalship July 2d, 1812, and honorably discharged June 15th, 1815; he died Oct. 19th, 1822.

[V'-7] It will be observed that Pike's syntax leaves the personal pronoun equivocal. We naturally read that Sergeant Meek killed one of his own men, _i. e._, a man of Pike's party; and I have been more than once summonsed, during my editorial function, to say who this man was. But there is no record that I can discover, and no other intimation than the above ambiguous clause, that any man of Pike's or Meek's party was killed by Meek. On the contrary, Pike's final word about his men accounts for every one of them: see p. 855, and note there. In the absence of any further evidence, we must understand that Sergeant Meek killed one of General Salcedo's men; and if so, might easily be accused of "great intractability."

[V'-8] Of Virginia, appointed from Kentucky a second lieutenant of the 3d Infantry Feb. 16th, 1801, and transferred to the 2d Infantry Apr. 1st, 1802; became a first lieutenant of the same Dec. 20th, 1803, and resigned Jan. 31st, 1808; was made a captain of the first Rifles Mar. 8th, 1809, and appointed major Aug. 12th, 1814, but the appointment was negatived by the Senate Dec. 10th, 1814; he was honorably discharged June 15th, 1815, and died in 1819.

[V'-9] That is, Captain Pike wishes to know how he is to account for instruments which were damaged, or which he had ordered to be sold, to prevent further injury on a long march.

[V'-10] That is, F. _capote_, some sort of surtout, overcoat, or cloak, constantly confounded with F. _capot_, meaning hood. Among the Canadian voyageurs and other French in America, _capote_ was the most general name of any such outer garment. It constantly occurs, for example, in annals of the fur-trade of the Northwest, capotes being made of several regulation sizes and styles, for barter with the Indians, as well as for wear of the men of the N. W. Company.