Mississippi Democrat. (Carrollton, Miss.) 1844-18??, 1845-09-17

came which required me to meet the is
sue; tue true character of the bill was
exposed, and the House refused to enact
it into law.
My speech has been published in all the
papers; my objections are there stated TO
lis general provisions, as well as to the
principles on which the bill is based. But
in the concluding paragraph of that speech,
the phrase " The enormities of the bill'' is
introduced; and it is said that the inten-
lion of the bill being but TO subserve the
ends of justice, such an expression was
unmerited, and raised false alarm 10 re-
gard to the bill. With the intentions of
the bill have naught TO do. | deal with
the bill itself, and the abuses which may be
practiced under it.
lst. Iregard the very principle that the
Chickasaw nation shall be required to IN
stitute suit against the United States, in
the Circuit Court of the District Of Colum-
bia, even for Just claim, as an enormity,'
as q reflection upon Congress and the Ex-
ecutive departments of the government:
because it implies that they either have
not the disposition to deal justly with the
Indian, or the ability to comprehend and
properly understand their rights.
I'd. regard the principle as prece-
dent leading to the most enormous con-
sequences. The claims of the Chickasaw
nation, which have admitted in all my
arguments, may be said to sink into insig-
niicance when brought into comparison
with those of the Cherokee nation, and
other tribes. But if our government should
allow itself to be arraigned in court in this
way, as defendant on all claims which
might be set up against it, all discretion
over large portion of the appropriations
would, be taken from Congress, and there
is no estimating the extent of the viilainy
that could be perpetrated on ex parte
testimony.
Sd. The Constitution provides ''No mo.
ney shall be drawn from the Treasury, but
in consequence of appropriations made by
law" This Chickasaw bill provides that
"Such sum as may be finally adiudged by
said Supreme Court TO be due by the Uni
ted States to the Chickasaw nation, shall
be accounted for by the United States,
and held and disposed of by them. subject
to the trusts specified in said treaties: and
said decree, whether for or against the
United States, shall be final and conclu-
sire" The decree of the Court may not
actually, manually, de facto, take hold Of
the keys of the national treasury, bul
this law pledges the faith of the govern
ment that the sum deereed "ShalL be ac-
counted for" and virtually it draws the
money from the treasury in violation of the
Constitution; and however base and lnfa-
nous the testimony, yet the decree of the
Court, like the law of the Modes and Per-
slams, is reversible. This consider a
great enormity.' ~
9TH. This Chickasaw bill confers the
Jurisdiction upon the Circuit Court of the
! United States for the District of Columbia
to hear and determine all the claims of any
nature whatsoever of the Chickasaw IA
ton, under the treaties of 1882 and 1884
against the United States Now it appears
that on the 18th day of March, 1912, tht
amount of stocks held by the Secretary 0
the Treasury in trust for the Chickasaws
was 81 $685. 77 23. The Chickasaw trea
~ provides that the money of the nation
shall be invested in stocks not having more
, than twenty years to run. The memorIa
of the Chickasaws above referred to, says
that in defiance of the terms of saiC
r treaties, large portion of~said proceed
have been invested in stocks having more
f than twenty years to run. The exac
amount | am unable to state, but from
what reformation have, suppose the sun
/ above alluded to amounts to more thai
100000. The government in purchasing
stock having more than twenty years t
: run, clearly exceeded their authority, an
! the purchase was, without question, mis-
} application of trust fund. But let us ru
] this isolated case out through the courts III
5 der this law. The Chickasaw nation sue
e the United States for 100000, the amour
e supposed to be misappied in the purchas
r of stocks; the court enters a decree 70
!. the amount against the United States; th
!, Supreme Court affirms the decree. Tn
: binds The United States, and renders it
Il nal and conclusive. But wherein is III
+ Chickasaw nation benefited? For tn
moment such question is brought to tn
| consideration of Congress, the claim woul
e be admitted But then the attorneys fee
f There is the marrow of this transaction
Il And suppose the rule of compensation al
;, plicable in the Choctaw speculation, th'
e one-half of the recovery belonged TO tn
I, attorney, should be allowed in this cas-
o 100000 would feel comfortable in tn
e pockets of Woodworking attorney. Th
Is would have been great wrong TO Il
!; Chickasaw nation, and destructive of Il
ID ends OF justice. This is greater emo
is mity.' And the question is not with N
1T did men intend to do such thing und
lel the law; but, could they thus plumber {
j ,-..--...4 !. - - L. ...,1nIn