It was 1860, the year that heralded the 25th anniversary of British settlement in South Australia. The pride generated by this celebration developed into an orgy of self congratulation. After all, the colonists achieved much during this period. They saw many things that generated pride. Self government arrived in 1857, substantial buildings filled Adelaide, South Australia had a vigorous and expanding economy, and finally, South Australian society grew upon the philosophy of free men as opposed to the reliance upon convict labour as occurred in all other colonies.

Go to top

Report Origins

Niggling at this smug complacency was a certain Mr Baker, the erstwhile owner of the lands around Point McLeay, a noted Aboriginal establishment. Over the course of 1860 he kept asking moral pricking questions in the Legislative Council about the Aborigines. He was a refreshing public voice in the wilderness. Finally, on 4 September 1860, he persuaded the Legislative Council to examine the current social conditions of the Aborigines in South Australia. The objective was to ascertain the impact of British colonisation upon them and:

"... report generally upon the present state and condition of the aboriginal population, and of the efficiency of the system now in force for their protection and support, and to suggest any such alteration in the said system as may, on inquiry, be found expedient, and tend to the future and permanent benefit of the natives and the community at large." [2]

After ten days of taking evidence and one week considering the report, Mr Hall, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Aborigines placed the committee's report before the Legislative Council on 16 October 1860. The report was a poignant and damning indictment upon the legal and physical alienation of the Aboriginal peoples from their land within South Australia. Disastrous consequences of the detailed neglect were laid bare.

Without any ado, the members of the Legislative Council heard it in silence. While the report received the perfunctory order for printing, it attracted no further attention in Parliament. Outside Parliament, within the South Australian British community, the report appeared to generate no public reaction. While the newspapers of the day published the debates of Parliament and thus recorded the tabling of this report, in the months that followed, no editorial comment or letter to any newspaper raised the subjects detailed in the report. [3] No community outrage occurred over the conclusions of the report. The oppressor's muted response condemned the Aborigines to a silent death.

Go to top

Attitudes

Attitudes towards Aborigines established themselves before colonisation. Settlement reinforced the prejudices. Common beliefs and prejudices became set by the time of the enquiry. Adelaide people already widely knew that Aborigines were thieves and liars. Also they proved incapable of understanding the simple truths of British Justice and Christianity. [4] This thinking saw its origins in official pronouncements. In one instance, a Select Committee on Aborigines reported in 1837 to the House of Commons stated that the Australian Aborigines were:

"barbarous" and "so entirely destitute ... of the rudest forms of civil polity, that their claims, whether as sovereigns or proprietors of the soil, have been utterly disregarded". [5]

In another instance, South Australia's Governor Grey, through Act Number 8, 7o & 8 Victoria (Assented 12 August 1844) stated in the Preamble that

'... the Aboriginal inhabitants of this Province, who are barbarous and uncivilised people, are destitute of the knowledge of God and of any fixed belief in religion, or in a future state of rewards and punishments.' [6]

In a moment of reflection, the Committee reported that their task was to deal with the question of responsibility held by a 'civilised' nation when

"... taking possession of territory previously occupied by nomadic and uncivilised tribes, who, despite questions of law or expediency, had an equitable title to the lands they occupied ..." [7]

While a certain guilt feeling led to this statement, the feelings of sorrow did not extend to redressing the evil but instead, suggested that income derived from the leases over land dedicated for Aboriginal use should go to the Aborigines. Acting in the role of Pontius Pilate, the Committee stated pragmatically that:

"The melancholy fact has frequently forced itself upon the minds of the Committee during their examination, that the race is doomed to become extinct, and it would only be a question of time when the reserves would again revert to the Crown." [8]

The Committee attempted to establish the reasons for the decrease in the numbers of Aborigines. They gave five reasons [9] for this notable decline. Blame fell mainly upon the shoulders of the Aborigines.

Go to top

Infanticide

Leading as the first reason was infanticide. A great deal of enquiry went into establishing the extent of this practice. No one was able to produce first hand [10] evidence of infanticide and yet most witnesses agreed that anecdotal evidence pointed to infanticide as an established practice. [11] To spice his evidence with divine horror, the good Reverend Cox even alluded to an unknown tribe whose parents practised cannibalistic rites upon their children. Although Cox denies believing such a story, he still deems it fit to repeat the story. [12] Taplin also told the Committee about a similar story but ascribes it to third hand sources. [13] This sensational allegation appears to be part of the apocryphal anecdotes that contemporaneously prevailed in Adelaide. Their purpose was aimed at reinforcing prejudice rather than seeking truth. Child sacrifice accompanied by parental cannibalism is a hoary old chestnut even used by the Old Testament writers who fulminated with great vitriol their damnation of the Molech [14] worshipers as the manifestation of all that was evil. According to the Holy Bible, Molech demanded the killing and devouring of children. [15] By raising this myth, the good Reverend Cox, the Holy Bible exegete, placed the Aboriginals upon the same par as the hideous Molechists thereby justifying their vilification as the devil's children.

Go to top

Sterility

The second reason blamed initiation into the law as inducing sterility among Aboriginal men. Included in the list of rites was circumcision and 'whistle cocking'. [16] While circumcision was widely used, sometimes a tribal group practised whistle cocking. This is a still current method used by Aboriginal males for contraception. European men shivered at the presumed barbarism related to male body mutilation at the age of fourteen as the pathway to manhood. Body mutilation caused great consternation amongst the European settlers within their overblown imaginings of processes, especially the fear of genital mutilation. [17] Apart from circumcision and sometimes whistle cocking, included in initiation were such things as body marking and receiving the law. This attitude ignores the advocating of bodily mutilation through circumcision as a pathway to God in the Holy Bible. The first recorded case of circumcision occurred when Abraham received divine orders to circumcise his son and all his workers. [18] He duly performed this action upon all consenting adults. [19] If one believes in the Biblical account, then the good Christians of the South Australian colony become guilty of hypocritical outrage. The belief of mutilating baby boys when they reach the age of eight days [20] is no less barbaric than waiting until the boys turn fourteen. It is a factor of time rather than deed.

Go to top

Promiscuity

Ranking third among the raft of ideas that placed blame upon the Aborigines was promiscuity. The Europeans may have introduced a nasty form of syphilis but it was the rampant promiscuity of natives that spread the disease. The idea that starvation was the key factor in this situation received glib attention. Prostitution highlighted one method of supplementing their food rations. Mr George Mason stated that the wives of Aborigines visited the shepherds' huts specifically for the sake of supplementing their food supplies. Mason stated that they would do this to satisfy hunger. As an aside, Mason comments facilely about starvation by stating that, "... it is often an inducement." [21] Not so facile, however, was the death of a woman from starvation at Mt Remarkable. By being faithful to her husband who was incapable of providing food for her needs, this virtuous woman died of starvation. [22] No Christian Sub-Protector felt any need to feed her despite her Christian virtue. What good is virtue in the face of a hideous death? Indeed Mason is correct in his conclusion that starvation is a fine aphrodisiac.

Another reason for promiscuity received attention from Mrs Taplin. [23] The Aboriginal women liked half caste children because they get more sympathy among the whites. To maintain the myth of miscegenation with their husbands, the Aboriginal women claimed that if they ate white flour while pregnant, they would have white children. In an aside, Mr Taplin stated that the men wink at this idea. [24] The evidence illustrates the notion that the Aborigines were uncontrolled sexual wantons who used any device to justify their lascivious activities.

In evidence, the absurd notion of Count Strezlecki received serious attention by the Committee. Strezlecki's novel idea, embedded in racism, hypothesised that, after an Aboriginal woman engaged in sexual intercourse with a white man, the woman no longer could become pregnant through sexual intercourse with an Aboriginal man. [25] The implied suggestion is that white virility and its various manifestations, in this case sperm, are so strong that weaker races are unable to compete. Thus once inseminated with a white man's sperm, the reproductive organs of an Aboriginal woman became conditioned to receive such powerful sperm and thus the woman's organs reject any inferior sperm. Such a contention in these circumstances, proved the placement of white men at the apex of human civilisation and power.

Go to top

Health

The fourth reason for the dissipation of Aboriginal health and thus population size was their propensity to drink huge amounts of strong liquor. Their love for liquor was overt and thus disgusted the sensibilities of the Committee. All witnesses reported on the effects of alcohol upon the Aborigines. Words like "lack of industry", "idleness" and "dissolute" described the Aborigines who drank. The various witnesses blamed the innkeepers for providing the liquor to the Aborigines. [26] Harsher fines and better law enforcement were discussed in an effort to stop the trade. [27] However, at no point did the Committee examine the reasons for the Aborigines drinking liquor. No where did the Committee seek to discover if the Aboriginal loss of economic independence and the consequent idleness drove the Aborigines to drink liquor as an escape this loss of livelihood coupled with the attendant misery.

Go to top

Gender Imbalance

The fifth reason in the report about Aboriginal population decline was the factor of a disproportion between the sexes. This imbalance of more males than females produced the logical conclusion that the Aboriginal population's ability to reproduce was severely impaired due to the lack of available women at the normal reproductive age. In contrast, the settlers attempted to Christianise the young women in the various schools. The settlers aimed at producing chaste women. However, the result was to remove them from the breeding pool. The settlers could never reconcile this contradiction. The Aboriginal women did resolve the contradiction by running off with men once they came into marriageable age.

Go to top

Blame the victims

Although the Committee placed the greatest blame upon the Aborigines for their desperate condition, they ignored the evidence that received repetition by the witnesses. This related to the protection of Aborigines from the many lung diseases that prevailed among the Aborigines. After the loss of their traditional hunting grounds, [28] the Aborigines ceased to have access to plentiful supplies of possum and kangaroo skins. Throughout their existence before white settlement, the skins were their traditional coverings. [29] These coverings were obviously adequate because all colonists noted that the Aborigines were in good health at the beginning of white settlement. The witnesses also note that the Aboriginal health diminished after settlement. The replacement for their possum skins was government supplied blankets. The supply of blankets was desultory [30] thus not allowing the Aborigines the full protection from the weather and thus promotes their ability to warm themselves. [31]

The results from this policy received frank description from Dr Wyatt. He detailed cases of pulmonary disease, inflammation of the lungs and bronchitis. [32] Other witnesses were equally damning of the general health of the Aborigines. Many mentioned lung diseases. While the concept of viral infection was at its infancy, there was no recognition that the new viral infections came specifically through the Europeans.

Taking a step on his own, Mr Taplin gave a unique cause for these lung problems. In a novel diagnosis for the time but very reminiscent of current debates, he laid the blame for these lung diseases firmly at the feet of tobacco abuse. [33] In another original piece of diagnosis, he suggested that the Aborigines caught colds because they took their blankets off once they became warm. This sudden exposure to the cold created the sickness. [34]

There were more devastating results. The process of doling out food and blankets generally only went to the aged and infirm. This left the young, especially the children, exposed to the elements and thus sufficiently weakened and unable to withstand the ravages of lung diseases. In one tragic incident, Mr Younghusband complained to Thomas Rickaby, a police corporal, that the putrefying bodies of some Aborigines were causing a nuisance. In one day alone, Rickaby states that he buried fourteen Aborigines. All had died from disease. [35] In his description of this incident, Rickaby condemns the behaviour of the sub-protector at Goolwa Mr Jones who was negligent in intervening in the situation. Rickaby states that Jones should have known about the deaths. Everyone else seemed to have this knowledge. [36] The tragedy was caused by diseases introduced by the whites and exacerbated by white neglect, especially that of the Sub-Protector.

Consequently, the role of Chief Protector received some discussion. Within the Committee, agreement was reached to reintroduce the position of Aboriginal Protector. At this particular time, the Commissioner of Lands, Mr Bagot, looked after the welfare of the Aborigines. The inadequacy of this regime was soon exposed by the lack of planning and expenditure from Bagot. [37] Various people testified to the results of this inadequacy. To rectify this problem it was recommended that:

"That a Chief Protector be appointed, whose duties would be, to watch over general interests of the aborigines, and be the responsible means of communication with the government." [38]

Go to top

British Law

By declaring the Aborigines British Subjects, they became subject to the full operation of British Law. While the Committee concluded that:

"It is proved in evidence that the strict application of British criminal law to the aborigines of this Colony is not in accordance with the principles of equity or justice." [39]

The problem of bringing prisoners to trial was awkward. Not only would they disappear at the first opportunity but so would the witnesses. Thus witnesses would be treated like convicted criminals and held in chains and prison. [40] This treatment was not in the experience of the ordinary British subject. The holding of white witnesses in chains within South Australia was unheard of yet it was common practice for the Aborigines. No bail or habeas corpus seemed to be applicable to the Aborigines.

Another example of the problems with British law was detailed by Major Warburton, the Commissioner of Police, who raised the quandary of holding Aborigines to written contracts. These tended to favour those who had the power of understanding the notions of British Law. The enforcement of contracts led to needless misery. [41] In reality, concluded Warburton, the beauty of British Law was wasted upon those who couldn't understand its principles. [42]

The Committee concluded that while the Aborigines couldn't get fair treatment from British Law, their own tribal customary law did: "... bear favourable comparison with Lynch Law." [43] While this is a pejorative commentary upon Aboriginal tribal law, if the colonists wanted the Aborigines to understand British law, they were obliged to expend sufficient energy to assist them in understanding the law. There were attempts in the past. On 3 August 1842, the Chief Protector, Mr Moorhouse reports that he will call the Aborigines together and explain to them the British law as it related to theft. [44] This was by no means unique. However, the efforts were minor in assisting the Aborigines to understand their rights and obligations under British law.

Go to top

Land Loss

The loss of land was recognised by the Committee as a primary cause of current Aboriginal distress. The revenue allocated for Aboriginal welfare came from the leasing of land tracts specifically set aside by the government for Aborigines. By leasing the dedicated Aboriginal reserves to whites it further alienated the Aborigines from their source of economic subsistence without returning any benefit to the Aborigines. [45] In an attempt to rectify some of the serious problems raised by the Commissioner of Crown Lands and Immigration relating to the shortage of funds for to Aborigines, the Committee recommended:

"... that the income arising from the present reserves should form part of that fund; that additional reserves of land should be made, for the purposes of leasing, and augmenting the fund, until the amount of income derivable from that source equals the necessary expenditure of the aboriginal department." [46]

Go to top

Social Alienation

The Committee further recognised that unless the Aborigines were completely alienated from their previous society, there was no hope in making them black skinned whites. [47] The schools built on the Adelaide plains, Point McLeay and Poonindie, were dedicated to the experiment of social engineering through an early policy of assimilation. This idea of alienation from traditional culture was seen as the solution to the current problems. The Committee concluded that:

"... from attempts to Christianise the natives can only be expected by separation of children from their parents and evil influences of the tribe to which they belong. However harshly this recommendation may grate on the feelings of psuedophilanthopists, it would in reality be a work of mercy to the rising generation of aborigines." [48]

Go to top

Tokenism

The saddest part of all the testimony taken was from the 'token' representatives of the Aboriginal people. The questions asked display a lack of sensitivity to Aboriginal custom. One woman, described as Lubra Paranko, displays the problem of insensitivity towards the Aborigines. On being questioned about her first husband who had died before her cross examination, the record reads:

"2636. What was his name? - [The witness looked to the ground and were (sic) silent.]" [49]

Only with a slight acquaintance of Aboriginal custom, one would realise the insensitivity of the question and the reason for the answer. Aborigines do not use a dead person's name nor do they speak about the dead. This woman was responding according to her custom. Question 2654 is of a similar nature where the Chairman asks her about her dead child.

The use of token Aborigines underlines the sentiment that the Committee was set up to assuage white feelings of guilt rather than investigate the underlying problems of the Aborigines. Out of 100 pages of testimony, only one page was dedicated to Aboriginal testimony. This fact requires no further comment.

Go to top

Conclusions

In finality, the Committee concluded that:

"All the evidence goes to prove that they have lost much, and gained little or nothing, by their contact with Europeans; and hence it becomes a question how far it is in our power, or what is the best possible means of compensating them for the injuries they have sustained, or of mitigating the evils to which, so far as they are concerned, our occupation of the country has led - or awarding compensation for injuries sustained by them consequent on the forced occupation of their country."

In all its fine words, the Committee was still a prisoner of its time. They did not consider that they should make proper reparations for the damage done to the Aborigines. After all, they considered that the Aborigines were chiefly to blame for their current condition. If only they didn't kill their children, if only they didn't circumcise their young men, if only they weren't so promiscuous, if only they didn't drink, if only they had more females, then all would be well. If only they learned the truths of Christianity and the merits of vocation and hard work and then they could be like the whites. At no stage did the Committee entertain the concept of understanding Aboriginal notions of community and society. While history could not be rewritten, the settlers did have it in their power to try to understand the original inhabitants. Some did but many didn't.

The Committee felt that by improving the system of distribution of food and clothing, good provision of Christian education and establishing summary courts to deal with the Aborigines on site, the system would be perfect and the Aborigines could die out in comfort. Such conclusions and attitudes were not unique to South Australia. After all, their attitude received its finest articulation by a certain Mr Lesina in 1901 who boasted in the Queensland Parliament with confidence that the immutable

'...law of evolution says that the nigger shall disappear in the onward progress of the white man.' [50]

Go to top

Footnotes

1. This quote is in the Kaurna language. It says: Have you not forgotten it? Formerly we Kaurna lived here for some time. Return to text

2. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, Preamble. Return to text

3. Hansard records no debate upon the issue nor did any article or notice appear in any of the three Adelaide newspapers, vis, The Register, The Advertiser and The Observer save for mentioning that it had been presented to the Legislative Council. The response of the Adelaide community was definitely underwhelming. Return to text

4. The Register, 12 July 1844. Return to text

5. Lindley, (1926), The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law, London, p. 41. Return to text

6. Preamble, Act Number 8, 7^o & 8^o Victoria (Assented 12 August 1844). Return to text

7. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, p. 1. Return to text

8. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, p. 3. Return to text

9. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, p. 1. Return to text

10. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, q. 2651, p. 100. Even the 'token' lubra could not supply this evidence. However, the evidence of an Aborigine could not be believed unless corroborated by a white person so her evidence did not count. Return to text

11. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq. 1406 - 1408, p. 60. Return to text

12. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq. 781 - 783, p. 35. Return to text

13. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq. 1409 - 1413, p. 60. Return to text

14. Molech, (the Chaldean word for king) the chief deity of the Ammonites. Return to text

15. 2 Kings 23: 10. Return to text

16. This is the process whereby a hole is cut from the base of the penis into the urethra. Thus during intercourse, if the couple wish to have a child, the male places a finger over the hole prior to ejaculation. Otherwise, without doing so will result in any discharge draining through the hole. The term 'whistle cocking' is thus self evident. It is still practised. Return to text

17. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq. 1432 - 1436, p. 60. Return to text

18. Genesis 17: 11 - 14. Return to text

19. Genesis 17: 24 - 26. Return to text

20. Leviticus 12: 3. Return to text

21. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, q. 2212, p. 85. Return to text

22. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq. 321 - 329, p. 19. Return to text

23. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, q. 1405, p. 60. Return to text

24. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq. 1404 - 1405, pp. 59 - 60. Return to text

25. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, q. 378, p. 20. Return to text

26. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq. 199 - 201, p. 13. Return to text

27. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq. 373 - 376, p. 20. Return to text

28. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq. 597 - 598, p. 27. Return to text

29. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq. 584 -586, p. 27. Return to text

30. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, q. 1849, p. 75 & qq 2101 - 2104, p. 82. Return to text

31. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq 1183 - 1184, p. 52. Return to text

32. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq 591 - 593, p. 27. Return to text

33. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq 1176 - 1181, p. 52. Return to text

34. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, q. 1182, p. 52. Return to text

35. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq. 1869 - 1881, p. 76. Return to text

36. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, q. 1178, p. 76. Return to text

37. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq. 1093 - 1097, p. 48. Return to text

38. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, p. 1. Return to text

39. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, p. 2. Return to text

40. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, q. 217, p. 14. Return to text

41. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, q. 163, p. 10. Return to text

42. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq. 167 - 172, p.11. Return to text

43. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, p. 3. Return to text

44. GRG 52/7 p. 83. Return to text

45. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq. 1063 - 1065, p. 47. Return to text

46. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, p. 2. Return to text

47. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, qq. 1404 - 1405, pp. 59 - 60. Return to text

48. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, p. 6. Return to text

49. The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer, q. 2636, p. 100. Return to text

50. Queensland Parliamentary Debates, Vol. LXXXVI (1901), p. 212. Return to text

Go to top

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lindley, (1926), The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law.

Preamble, Act Number 8, 7o & 8o Victoria (Assented 12 August 1844).

Queensland Parliamentary Debates, Vol. LXXXVI (1901)

The Advertiser

The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer.

The Observer

The Register


Back	Home	Forward

Go to top

Navigate our site

Number of visitors since 1 February 2002:

For comments, bick bats and bouquets
Contact the Webmaster

Best view:
IE5, Win95,
256 colours, 800x600
Java Enabled

Material

Section 346
Skillogolee Creek

The house that Thomas Adams built
Skillogolee Creek

The first letter of Thomas Adams from
Skillogolee Creek