The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-12-29
HENRY d. GARRISON


rlsonp reported from the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr.. KING presume il is not intended BY any sena.
tor after the discussion which took place upon the bill
ior The reduction OF the price OF the public lands pur
chased ffon the Saginaw tribe OF Chippewa indians. tn
press this bill, whether the lain has been transferred
not The twelve thousand dollars has not been received
from The proceeds OF the sales OF the lands, and until IL
shall be 80 received, we cannot 90 forward with any
KIND oil consistency TO pass this bill Therefore ii isa
matter OF perfect indifference, whether this claim has
been transferred or not seems 10 me that these p-
yate claimants should wait until after the land shall be
disposed OF under The treaty Then they may reasonably
MIR FELCH The committee which reported this bill
reported also apublc bill 10 which the honorable senator
AS the charm OF the committee stated when the other
bill was before US, the committee unanimous 10
that b but We're not so IN the matter involved IN the
private claims. THIS claim is one oil large number
mentioned N the schedule, in all amounting TO about
$4,000. The principle, therefore, goes beyond the
amount of thus claim which is about $500, and applies
to about $4,000 equally with this. is then, ques-
ton OF some importance "a TO what is the right OF these
parties, ifa
was not aware that the bill was to be before Ms for
discussion the other day. and knew nothing about
It than every other senator knows; but have bestowed
some time upon it, and would now call the attention OF
The Senate to the several treaties with those Indians
There four treaties the first two of which will be
the only 10 which will be necessary refer Ac-
codng to the stpulaons IN the first treaty. the Chppe
wa Indians transferred to the United States l02.400
OF land lying IN fifteen tracts, on different rivers. BY
this treaty. The government of the United States assumed
the payment of debts The conveyance OF the land
absolute Under this treaty. the United States absolutely
and without qualification undertook the payment of these
claims The gentleman will understand me- because wish
10 call his attention directly 10 that point. UNDER
FIRST TREATY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
UNDERTAKE ABSOLUTELY THE PAYMENT OF THESE CLAIMS.
This view OF is founded upon the following considera
on: The United States are 10 pay 81 %, or the govern
ment price, Tor the hands, keeping strict account thereof
The fourth article of the treaty provides for the payment
oil nine classes OF claims. so ne of these
the gentleman supposes The be with thso wait
the result OF the sales of the lands But there is dis
linctIon While some OF them are to wait the result of
the proceeds OF the lands others and this is of that
cass) stand upon entirely different basis BY the fifth
article OF the treaty the government agrees to advance the
amounts stated in the preceding article for the purchase
OF goods ard provisions, payments OF debts, &c gong
enumerang the different classes OF cases which the
government will pay. 1t is evident that dstinc-
ton is made; because, while the incu-
ded in nine classes, six OF them only here
mefaed While nine classes are to be paid by the fifth
article of the treaty, the United States assumed the
Immediate payment in advance, as It is called here, OF but
SIX out OF these nine classes was supposed IN the
argument the other day that because the government
obliged keep OF the proceeds, therefore the
whole wait the result of the sales of the
land But il will be by looking at the treaty that
this not the object in requiring the account; the
object must very evident from examination OF the
articles of the treaty The price OF the land was not
fixed II the land sold for more, at auction, there
would be balance due the Indians; and therefore an
account should be kept So also with these two classes
of claims unsettled In regard to those two classes
toned in the treaty. they not 70 be paid until after
asceralnng the amount aimed tor depredations,
&c. 1t was not competent Tor the United States to
pay them, excepting with the consent OF the Indians
themselves These two items amounted to about
$50 900, and their payment depended upon the of
the Indians Suppose iben that the Indians had refused
allow the payment and that the lands had sold for gov
eminent price; here would have been from this alone
credit of $50 900 in favor of the Indians the whole of
which the government were under the necessity OF
placing 10 their account
The position which seems to me to he the correct one
to be derived from this treaty, that under this first
treaty the class Of mentioned here was assumed to
be paid by the United States, but the advance not to
be made 10 the Indians until thew had received the result
pf he n Ihpd
title which had been made to the United States by
this Saginaw band of the Chippewa Indians. They had
received an adequate title, and had assumed certain
immediate payments, agreeing, at the time, that GER
other payments should be made from the proceeds OF
the lands, stpuang TO keep account This seems to
to be correct view OF this matter as presented by the
first treaty
Now let refer for a moment to the second treaty;
for if thess claims are not to be allowed think it must
on OF the effect OF the secoad treaty As to
this second treaty, If II has any effect II must be on
of arrangement between the United States and
the Indians by which the government threw OH the re-
sponsibiy which they had assumed in the first IN
stance. 1t seems to me that II would be question
whether such an arrangement could be entered INTO
without the consent OF the parties interested; whether
the United States were at liberty into another
treaty with the Indians to defeat the plan OF the former
treaty do not know what arrangements the United
States were AT liberty to make; but we know perfectly
well what would be the result had the treaty provided
for the payment of such claims by land instead of
money Suppose this had been cesslon of land TO
Henry D. Garrison, to any Of the other claimants,
To meet their demands, instead OF being as 1t IS; the
title OF the land would have passed TO the claimants i'm
medately upon the making OF The FIRST treaty, and 1T
would not have been competent for the commissioners,
afterwards to have conved with the Indians to defeat
this claim 1t would have been enough for him to show
that the stpulaons of the first treaty mad given him an
absolute claim and that alone would establish his title
Ii weud have been competent say for any claim 10
have been afterwards made by the Indians upon the one
side and the United States upon the other, TO interfere
with this claim under the treaty Is not the same with
regard to the payment of money? Everybody under
stands the which the claims against the In
dans are managed. The claimant leaves them
until his claim is in manner settled But when the
agreement is made by the government OF the United
States to pay the amount il considered settled In
this particular case the premises improved in some
respects by the claimant The Improvement and lands
passed from the possession Of the Indians into the
OF the government and this claim being provided Tor
by treaty, ii deemed sufficient that the govern
of the United States had assumed the payment OF
the claim 1t written in the treaty, and there was
an end OF the matter
Again, how would it stand in regard 10 asslgnees!
When the treaty has undertaken the payment OF the
debt il has been almost uniformly made subJec, OF as
sgnnent; and would it be competent, after assignment
r the Indians TO come together, and react the claim IN
the frs, treaty? fl seems 10 that in such the
government would protect the innocent owner, in other
cases of assignment against any such subsequent infringe
ment OF his claim
There is question: however, with regard TO this
ond treaty as TO its real effect II is question whether
The government have undertaken by that second treaty,
point OF fact defeat the payment of this debt The Sd
article of the treaty provides that nothing embraced
in the 9Th article OF the former treaty shall obligale
Tho n tn aiy