Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1848-12-30


them be paid Immediately, another portion were TO
await the sale of the lands and 10 be paid out OF their
proceeds This Of Mr.. Garrison, together with portion OF
the other classes provided for in the fourth article OF the treaty.
stand on an entirely different basis BY the fifth article OF
the treaty the United States to advance the amount pre-
scbed in the preceding article for the purchase OF goods end
pyisions and also the classes OF cases mentioned
the ninth article, which the Government thereby stipulated
pay as practicable 1t Is evident that distinction
is made in these classes because in enumerang them
SIX only partcuazed Nine classes Of cases were 10 be
pads but in the fifth article the United States assumed the
immediate payment OF only six out OF the nne was con-
tended the other day that because the Government were
obliged keep Of the proceeds Of the sales Of
these lands, therefore the payment OF the whole amount OF
these claims be suspended until the proceeds the sales
should all received and be paid only OF those proceeds
But will be upon looking at this article OF the treaty.
that such was not the intention. While the Government
authorized to sell the land the price was not fixed upon
The lands TO be sold other public lands, being first
exposed at public sale TO the highest bidder and II they
brought higher price the surplus belong TO the In
dan and hence the necessity for keeping an account OF the
sales the part of the Government so with regard to the
two classes of unsettled claims mentioned IN the fourth ar
cecams for Indian depredatioas and manipulated debts
which be paid until their amounts should be seye-
rally ascertaned and then they not to be paid
without the consent of the Indians Now, suppose the In
dans had refused to allow this class Of claims and the land
had been sold by the Government there would have been
fifty thousand dollars which the Government would have been
compelled pay to the Indians. The position which seems
TO be the is this that under this first treaty
mentioned
the United States for is there stipulated that the advance
of money for the purpose of quida.ng these claims In
brief the Government hes received absolute title to these
premises and in consideration thereof assumed by the treaty
the immediate payment Of specified debts leaving other debts
to be paid upon the final return Of the proceeds of the lands
and the balance Of the proceeds, if any the Indians
This, IN judgment, is the view as presented IN
the first treaty.
not 10 allowed it be consequence OF the prov
sons Of the second treaty restricting the operations Of the first
treaty snd such be the effect of this treaty. then be-
comes simply arrangement by which the United States
rid themselves of responsibilities assumed in the first
treaty II to to be question of importance
whether this Government had the power, without the consent
Of the claimants throw off this responsibility. do not
pretend TO BE- very familiar with treaties of this kind, do
know what construction has heretofore been given clause
by which the United States have assumed payment to
the creditor Of the Indian tribe making the cesson but it
certainly would not have been competent for the Indians and
the Commissioner of the United States to set together AID
make arrangement by which the interests of third per-
sons by the first treaty, could be preudced do
perceive how the United States by subsequent arrangement
throw OFF responsibility which they have incurred by
treaty, without the consent of the party interested
The of doing business by the Indian traders and
others who credit the Indians, is well known They never
leave the tribe until they secured in their rights They
rely for payment the proceeds Of the chase aud
assumed BY Government the ceson Of lands Of the tribe
When, upon such cesson the Government by treaty under
takes the payment of such claim the creditor pursues
further. Tbs is sufficient for him. Il is written in the
OF the Government
Claims us allowed on Indian treaties also the subject
Of assignment by the individual to whom is TO be paid.
The claim provided for in this bill has been assigned Can
the Governent, by second treaty abrogating the liability
assumed b the first, thus defeat the rights Of the innocent
assignee of the claim To do would be rank injustice.
II would beo permit the Government debt in
instrument and to repudiate by another and that without
the consent of the person interested
In manyo the Indian treaties the creditors Of the
compensated for their claims by the reservation OF lands for
their benefit If this treaty had given lands TO the creditor
instead Of promise TO pay the debt due him. would hardly
be conendd that second treaty. without his consent
could defeat his title. His right to the land and his title in it
would became perfect the moment the first treaty ratified
Such titles have often become the of judicial nvestga
ton, and have always been held good second treaty could
defeat the title than second deed could defeat
prior by individual gantor The first treaty
gives rights that be resumed without the Of the
party interested do not see why the absolute undertaking
Of the Government pay the debt Of the creditor equally
conclusive. is question whether the Government have
in fact undertaken by the second treaty defeat the operation
Of the first treaty upon these claims.
The third article of this provides that nothing
braced in the fifth article should oblge the United States
advance out OF the treasury, al that time the entire
appropriated for the payment Of the whole Of these claims
II then goes provide that the thousand dol
lars appropriated by Government, instead Of being paid
according TO the terms Of the first treaty. shall be dsbured
by the President who shall select of the nine classes
claims embraced 10 the of the first treaty. such OF them
in his judgment ought to be entitled to preference the ba
looking al this section Of the treaty, be the
design Of the Government not to rid the treasury OF the pay
assumed by the first treaty. but merely defer the
time Of dscharging the claims BY payment Ample time has
already elapsed for the Government make the payment Of
these claims under the Of the second treaty. Ele
years have passed away since the arrangement
made for these payments by the first treaty
the construction Of the second treaty is such not
TO defer the time Of paying these claims, and il is valid in
its operation upon em then abrogaes entirely in effect the
obligations OF the first treaty. Not only will this claim but
the whole class which belongs be defeated altogether
The second treaty burdens the property that has been
ed with the payment Of fifty cents per upon all the lands
ceded This will at least be half of the whole value Of
the property II also gives preference this and other
incumbrance all the claims mentioned in the first
treaty II this is the true Interpretation Of the terms Of this
treaty il is evident that the arrangements made will wholly
defeat the payment Of the claims assumed in the fret treaty
II that the Government by its has thus
defeated the claims in the first treaty. was Of course done
without the Of the claimants. And how the Co
done They have done it by delaying the time
for selling these andsby asking higher price for them than
could be obtained thus keeping them for years Of the
market, and finally, by appopang the proceeds other
objects than the payment Of the debts mentioned in the
by which they ceded In the report Of the committee
remarked that in the Of claim standing upon the
ground Of that under consideration, the United States have
any way nteiered delay the payment, of the claims
under the first treaty, that act Of itself sufficient
10 induce Congress 10 make proper compensation TO such
claimants Where by the act Of the Government the pay
menf altogether defeated the s still stronger not
as it should be- the object Of Government 10 withhold
that which is due honest claimants This is in my opinion
correct view Of the question This is all desire to say