White River Agency, Colorado
July 7, 1879
Sir: In reply to yours June 27 (A., Colorado, M., 1282), in which you say my expense account of E.E. Clark, in getting a blacksmith, October, 1878, is disallowed because no exigency is shown, and because it is believed a smith could have been obtained by correspondence, I have to say:
First, the exigency arose from the fact that we were running two plows in sod-ground, and that the plows required sharpening every other day; and, beside, new points had to be made, which the blacksmith then here could not do, except in an inefficient manner, and did not even pretend that he could, for he had picked up the trade. To help him all in our power we went to the expense and trouble of burning a coal-pit to get charcoal, and after that he spoilt the share of one plow by burning.
Meanwhile I was corresponding with several parties, trying to obtain a smith at Rawlins, on Bear and Snake Rivers, in Denver, and Middle Park, but failed, generally because of the wages offered were not an inducement, as smiths could earn as much at home, or more. Of all this I have no evidence but my word, except that of the smith I did obtain through Mr. Clark, and this I [enclose] herewith. This is of Mr. Woodbury, whom I especially desired Mr. Clark to get, because I knew he was a good workman, though an apprentice, and when he came he had not quite served his time, and his folks let him go, as I offered to have him in my care. Since he came our smith-work has been entirely satisfactory, nor do we burn charcoal for him.
The time came when our plowing had to stop; the season was growing late, and Mr. Clark was sent to get a smith, that something might still be saved. These circumstances as related enter among the reasons why our farm-work has been backward this season.
I grant that this statement should have been fully made before, but my inexperience is one excuse, and the propriety of the step I took, another; but these do not alter the facts that, in a business point of view, much greater expense would have been justified.
In conclusion, I feel like adding that, to get a smith here as soon as possible, I let Mr. Woodbury ride on my horse, which was well used up on the trip, and afterward I was put to the expense of buying grain at the railroad to feed him; while, but for this, said horse might have been of more use to me personally on my own place, where his services were needed. I feel, further, that my enthusiasm to get forward is somewhat beyond my worldly discretion, at least as exhibited in this case, but which is quite certain to be moderated.
However, it seems to me now that the above statement, with the [enclosure], will lead you to the conclusion that Mr. Clark’s expense account should be allowed, since it was made within the proper “sphere of duty;” but I leave you to censure me freely for not giving you all the particulars before, so that you could have a clear understanding of the case.
N.C. MEEKER,
Indian Agent,
White River Agency, Colo.
Hon. E.A. Hayt
Commissioner