Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1842-03-30

the Chickasaw lotans stipulated TO remove west
OF The Mississippi river, and the General Govern
| ment 10 Furnish them with the means OF doing 30.
To carry into effect this stipu alton the above con-
tract ives made with Captain Buckner. when
the ChiekaS1ws assembled at Memphis, the point
| OF embatkation, only 3,OOl could he persuaded TO
60 10y the boats; the balance Of the tribe refused
do SO, and travelled by land to the country allotted
To them west OF the Mississippi For oil these In
dams who thus went by land, Captain Buekner
charged the same price tor transportation as they
had sone IN his boats ana iIT this he allowed
anu paid, as above stated, thu of S3T,7i9; IN
oher words, he was paid foe trans porting boats
indians wto had travelled through by land. That
the s'9unu OF MS claim is correctly stated will be
| seen by reference to the d, position of Captain
Bnckner, hcieto appended, ana marked A.
/ The committee would also i vltc attention TO the
testimony ON ME to sustain this claim. which 10 also
appended. and the papers severally continuing
that evidence, marked b. which, the Second Au,
etor informs Ne, comprise all the evidence addueed
| to support the clam.
Afer careful examination or all this evidence,
the committee are constrained to shy that it was not
suf Gle MT TO warrant the accounting officers in con.
sidcriug. much less in allowing, this claim. "A short
analysis, they think, will demGns,ra this.
IL Is not pretended riat more than tho ; 0Ol In
dams were transported 10y the boats The claim
seems In have been based upon tvs positions;
Isl. That the superintendent Of the emigration
had designated all the Chiekasaws to lie removed
| by the boats.
2nd That Captain Buckner made preparations.
The language OF the contract is, shat the said
party of the second part (Buckner) agrees to trans
port, IN good and substantial siea boats with keels
attached, II required from Memphis, Tennessee. 10
Little Rock or Fort Coffee as many of the Chicks
saw indians, their baggage, and their agents. as
may bc designated by the superintendent after
the uaio OF the contract and time of removal That
superintendent was Mujor Upshaw; and the COM
mWtee look IN VAN ior any Designation by hun at
any time 10 Captain Buckncr, or any one else of
any number OF Indians to be removed by boats
There IS an entire absence of all proof un this point
Major upshnw states that tho Indians told him and
tue PRESIDENT that they wished To go by water but
he no where states that he ever desgnated IN Can,
Buckner any number who were To- be ttnnsnor,.J
IA boats Inc wishes Of tho Indians, Us made knovn
To MAJOR UpShaw, are one thing, and desion,
ton OF 4 number by Major Upshaw, to Ca5,,;n
Phillips, is entirely different matter.
Inc second question ~. was he ready To repov.
The whole uibel According to the testimony. he |
had SIX boats; and Mi Glasgow states in een.,,i |
terms. that while employed almost entirely m NJ n
business, they could have token more than douLe |
that number! From the pay the boats received for
demurTnge they were certainly long time "al most
entirely employed" IN the removal, and by max
ing several trips could doubtless have removed
more than double the number of Indians
Ihis proves nothing, because he doe, no,
prove that the six boats could have earned
all the Indians at ore trip. which was clearly Tho
| understanding. The evidence Of c. A Games 10
explicit on this point. lie describes IN, capacity
COull hnv va
carried 600; the Cinderella. 500; the Fox son.
he DE kalb. 500; the Cavalier 500; and the liz
ca, 500" Captain Buckner then, was ready by
| his own showing, TO have carried g. 500 Indians =
Ills account was settled uDon the assumn,;op ~,
inc Chiek.slw tribe numbered 533S Was %
then ready 10 transport ALI Clearly NOT n, b,
hrs own showing, there were ,S3S for WHOM, L.
had made no provision. But IL Captain Buckrcr
provided more than four boats, it was at his own
/ risk, as by the contract he was only r,ou,,cJ .,
have four. This will be sustained nv the la,,,.s -
Captain Philips of June l6, 1910 and The SOL
October, 1887; and these four boats were M, me-
than suihcent to have removed the 3OOl Indians
| conSidcrng the amount of baggage thew carried
The committee would invite attention TO Nh, svi.
| dence referred TO. They have presented tbcs.
points, IN order TO show that the testimony unon
which this claim was allowed is loose, uns,tiSIac.
tory, and entirely inadequate to sustain !, ~
reasons above referred TO ought to have more thon
satisfied the accounting officers TO reiec, The Glaze
1t the'e were not sufficient, there were oibsr.
equally cogcn'. ''"e''
! Al the testimony in the cnse is comno,,d or,,,
tsrs addressed by individuals to CAPTAIN Buckncr
They had not the sanction Of an OATH nor bsd 81.
Government the benefit Of cross examin,tion
Such testimony would not have been received b,,
justice OF the penc, TO sustain iudgmen, for one
cents much less would higher tribunal hive
cd Judgment upon II for SS7.74s 40. The Can,
OF CAPTAIN Buckuer, Il any existed, assir.ciIv an |
equitable claim for damages sustained II - IL
duiy OF The accounting officers OF the Tte,surv ~
DC soV,'neo ny ne s'Fet letter Of the law and the
contract; It Is not their province to disnensa H.
equity Of the Government unless autbor'gI =, 'i i
| SO by law of Congress ~ w
mat there were objections TO this claim 10 b,a
iuII notice, ION the fact that two years had elonsd
since It was made, and the Officer, sb,,,rJ r.
1sked themselves why Cap,ein P,ill;ns or CO,
Colrs did not ray It at the time when h. was Ma
| the sum Of SlOS,OU0. The objections which az
Isied To us payment them and which were ,uf,i,n,
Tor mem 10 refuse to recognise its legitimacy. ex
MI o4l. ,~.f.. 4
TO its allowance by the atcountine officers NJ IL
treasury. The assumption that he ou,h, IN he
paid for transporting all the Chcknsaw tribe .nS
the mode OF arriving nj the numbers CONSTITUTING
the tribe, are remarkable.
The rolls in the Indian burenu sbo,,, ort, %
as having emlgrated. The provision checks .bov. |
ed 5,sb2 The accounting officers seem To hav.
preferred the larger number; but WHY W. are nj
loss 10 conceive. The rolls OF the office fthe re-
cord OF the number Of the trbel would seen, IN IA.
higher evidence than provision cbecLs sbo,.iu
how many have been fed by contractors or cib.rs
lnetc can lie no motive FOR diminishing the number
OF the tn0e on the rolls Of the Office but many mo-
;ives could be found TO actuate the con,,,c,or i;
masnHying the number Of his provision checks
That the accounting officers should nrefer III.
weaker evidence, without any impeachment Of the
rolls OF the Office, when the effect Of such preCerenc
Is I, swell the amount OF a claim against the Go.
vernment, which there is no sufficient testimonv IN
sustain, requires exp nnntions TO make il, comDre
henstble to the committee.
FROM thorough investigation OF this c1ss. the
S""l"''ee nte constrained 10 say, there was no
evidence TO Justify the accounting officers Of the
Irre"sury IN allowing this large sum 81 money!
The testimony Of Captain Buckncr state dc, 10 /
was introduced by Co. Richard NJ Jobrson ,vbo
attended with hm almost daily, until the reou,iiion
Tas pomineo. There Is some reason 10 believe
mat these daily visits Of popular Wire President
nad more persuasive influence with the account.
lng "iheeIs IN passing tbs claim, than the strength
OF The testimony by which il was sustained
The whole amount thus paid to Cent. Buckne-
vas Sl46 29i %; Of this amount. the sum of s37
'I9 was beyond doubt Improperly paid. II the
committee have been correct ia the view thew have
'aken OF Ibis case, the Chicnsaw fund has sus,,in
90 loss OF Sl29,2ij so, attributable TO the want
2i prudent economy and nithf1lness on the p,r, nj
those connected with its disbursement and lie ,c-
mtied. SUI
A.
infe5Togaisri's propgrded 10 Simeon B.ct,.r Ly,s
c,mm"H'' On PHthe ElPsntfurss, and Ai, ansr,,.
H.rsf3, utder oatd.
Isi inieuonlory. Under contract for removal
81 tho ChCk1sIW Indians Won orp,,, o. - ~