|
Washburn
Report Index
41st CONGRESS, 3d Session.
Ex. Doc. No. 51
Senate
LETTER
FROM
THE SECRETARY OF WAR
COMMUNICATING
The report of Lieutenant Gustavus C. Doane upon
the so-called Yellowstone Expedition of 1870.
MARCH 3, 1871.--Referred to the Committee on
Territories and ordered to be printed.
WAR DEPARTMENT, February 24, 1871
. The Secretary of War has the honor to subnit
to the Committee on Territories of the United States Senate the accompanying
report of Lieutenant Gustavus C. Doane, United States Army, upon the
so-called Yellowstone Expedition of 1870, and to recommend, for the reasons
stated by the commander of the Department of Dakota and the General of the
Army, that the report be printed for public information.
W. W. BELKNAP,
Secretary of War.
FORT ELLIS, MONTANA TERRITORY,
SIR: The subjoined special order was received
from your office by me on the 21st of August, 1870:
[Special Order No. 100.--Extract.]
HEADQUARTERS FORT ELLIS, MONTANA TERRITORY,
August 21, 1870.
In accordance with instructions from
Headquarters District of Montana, Lieutenant G. C. Doane, Second Cavalry,
will proceed with one sergeant and four privates of Company F, Second
Cavalry, to escort the surveyor general of Montana to the falls and lakes of
the Yellowstone, and return. They will be supplied with thirty days'
rations, and one hundred rounds of ammunition per man. The acting assistant
quartermaster will furnish them with the necessary transportation.
By order of Major Baker.
J. G. MACADAMS,
First Lieutenant Second Cavalry, Acting Post
Adjutant.
In obedience to the above order, I
joined the party of General H. D. Washburn, en route for the Yellowstone,
and then encamped near Fort Ellis, Montana Territory, with a detachment of
Company F, Second Cavalry, consisting of Sergeant William Baker, Privates
Charles Moore, John Williamson, William Leipler, and George W. McConnell.
The detachment was supplied with two extra saddle horses and five pack mules
for transportation of supplies. A large pavilion tent was
Go to
Page 2
1. "1875" must certainly be a typo and should
read "1870," but it appears as "1875" in the original document.
|