The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-12-27
THE UNION.

tinued the same thnk, sir, so lar from increasing The
obligations OF the United States to provide for the sale OF
the land will rather release the United States from ITS
obligations. Now, the claimants say, We are stopped
by the act OF Congress Tor we cannot raise dollar ~
tme and cannot raise the money by the sale OF The
lands al lower price, the question may come up again
perhaps hope, therefore, the bill will pass and II
any alteration is to be made, should propose the
amendment that after certain limit, the land should
be sold for less than the government price. II may
turn out that portion of the lands will not sell
the government price, and those should be sold
| Tor less, that the transaction may be closed.
The gentleman from Florida speaks OF new Indian
treaty There are some three or four OF them already and
they confused, so complex and so contradictory,
that order 10 decide upon them al all we have left 1t
to Congress TO decide what must be done II was alb
soutey necessary in order to get along at all in this
that something should be done and thought that the
act of Congress passed in 1874 ought to be modified
Mr.. KING. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him
question: Do | understand him 70 say that by the
treaty the lands not TO be sold for less than IS
cents
Mr. DOWNS Yes, sir the treaty says not less than
Mr. KING "Not less than IS cents.'
Mr.. EVANS An &C, of Congress has been passed
making higher limit but that Is the amount stated IN
Mr. FELCH In regard to the liability of the United
States to pay the amount specified in the treaty 1t seems
to il not CONNECTED al all with the discussion OF this
bill When the other bill was presented the other day
for allowance of of these claims, took pains to ex
anime the bills have not done this so fully as to sat
y to The Possy Of granting so the y sss
than the abrogaton of the law OF Congress now existing
it seems to there can be doubt Let me call the
attention d the Senate Tor moment to the situation OF
the lands themselves This fraction of the tribe OF In
dams certain lands reserved from the grant made by
the entire tribe previous to that time These lands com
prise about hundred thousand acres extending all along
in different tracts, The supposuon at that time was
that the land would sell for much larger amount than
it seems it will command al The present time; and law
passed making the minimum price two dollars and
half. That was when immigration was flowing in, and
it thought that sales could be made at that price II
is found that it impossible, even at the government
price of 81 IS acre. to dispose of it. great many years
must elapse before dispose of it at that price.
do suppose that the question with regard to this price
has anything 10 do viii the liability Of the United States
this treaty, at all events have undertaken the sale OF
these lands and the title absolutely ceded to these
United States They have right to make the sale ac
cording TO the terms which they can make The treaty
allows any price, excepting that they shall not go below
Is cents 1t is impossible to make sale higher than the
government price; and the duty OF the government seems
to me clearly Trustee 10 be to fix the price IN such
manner that the sales shall be effected, 50 that the
lands do not go below " cents an acre This oil pro-
pdsds more nor less than to fix the minimum at VI %
instead OF So 50; and think that the justice OF the case
is SO manifest. that there can be no doubt as TO the pas
sage of the bill.
Mr.. UNDERWOOD called for the reading OF the bill.
The bill was accordingly read
Mr.. UNDERWOOD | desire simply to ask The hon
orabe senator from louisiana whether this bill was re.
ported nna.n,m,,ousy by the committee
Mr.. DOWNS, | understand that the general ball. that
which Is now before us, was reported unanimously
though the private bill was not.
cADwALLADER WALLACE
On motion by Mr.. UNDERWOOD, the Senate, as in
committee of the WHOLE resumed the consideration of
hf Mr. IN SS se Mr. "P President for the
purpose OF informing the senator's, and particularly my
friends the way that since this bill was unler
sderation the other day, have taken special pains to
look over all documents, and believe that now under
stand the facts and the principles upon which the Com
mittee on Military Affairs reported the BILL The bill
allows compensation Tor one horse SSQ; and then al
lows for services of Mr. Wallace aid de camp of Gen
Hull for the period of year. The gentleman across
the way desires to know upon what principle the allow
ance is made for the horse and also, upon what prnc
pie allowance is made for the services Of Col Waace'
First, as to compensation for the value OF the horse
have taken the trouble, sir TO examine the statutes IN re-
Congress allowed for the purpose OF compromising own
ers of horses will read only two Gndeed sir,
of the hundreds of such acts that have been passed.
have only looked at few) to which will call the at
tenton of the Senate by way of precedent
In 1916 an act for the relief of Joseph Wilson was
passed, paying him for horse killed by sentinel The
accounting officer directed to ascertain the value Of
the horse and the cause OF his DEATH and the govern
ment paid for the horse, whose life destroyed while
the OF the United States, IN consequence OF be-
ing shot by The sentinel
In 1890, an act was passed for the relief of Joseph
Bruce who allowed the of $65 in full for his
claims account of horse lost in the United States
vice but no mention is made how his horse was lost
whether he was killed by sentinel, shot by the enemy,
lost for the want OF forage escaped and ran away or how
he was lost, the act does not explain
In the year 1920 similar act passed. for the relief
of Royston, paying him for horse lost in the service OF
the United States; and the next class of acts pay
ments allowed for hos lost in consequence of want of
forage.
Now sir in some of these cases the horse has been
lost in consequence of the American general surenderng
the American army to the enemy The horse has been
lost in the United States service has been lost without
fault of the owner, but only through The fault OF the
commanding general, who refused to allow him to fight
Now, you pay for horses lost for of forage you
may say it is act OF government because the govern
ment fails to furnish the means OF keeping the horse
alive. Upon the same principle, you pay for horse
shot by a sentinel-no in battle but accidentally. Well
il you pay for the result accident, whereby Cit
self is not to blame, upon what principle is that you
refuse TO pay when American general in violation OF
his duty, surrenders an army 10 an enemy RecOHecl
that Gen Hall tried, condemned, and ordered to be
shot for this offence You thus see from the proceed
ings of your courmaral, that they fixed the of.
fence upon the head of the general and eyonerated all
the troops Then in refusing pay for this horse, you
his property in the United Safes service by the fault OF
his general and asks you TO pay him for his loss, he
presents himself in attitude not 10 be favored Sir
makes difference to me if he loses the property with
out any fault of his own but what occasoned the loss
in this to be severely felt provided you refuse
grant this petition, is the denial oil the principle here
toore established, that where property has been lost IN
the public service without any fault of the individual to
whom belonged the government is under moral obi
CATION to make payment
But, sir, let contrast this with those in which
you have sanctioned the principle of allowing the claim
What did you do in the of Capt Center and not
whsandng my protesation' Sir, you directed IN that
to prevent falling into the hands of the enemy
that Capain Center should be paid for his prop