The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-10-03

r.. less sll' 50 di'rionsd 70 heads % e ,as fan; 81
Inteles, @ heeon to soh September.
1850, ate per cent 24S4 81 zo,, =,
9Th. Dcposi'e made with agent by Poly ia, Jsmi,
Ia'e1s., se% ihe,soa to soA september, s''''' %
io'' 10 0''' 80 2s7s ~
| sss 4o6 o.
Interest calculated a, cent less hsa The S.w
70 the Iodans from ,he Phelps and Gorham find i. :
Principal Szssoo SssS ~ ~
/ sss.4 .4os o.
Now sir in regard all these items, the evidence is
clear that the money into the hands OF this UHed
States agent by yiue Of authority vested in him by the
United States In consequence Of the character which
this agent there held under the laws and treaties OF tne
United States, he made guardian and controller not
only OF The interest OF the money coming TO these Seneca
Indians, but, agent OF the government OF the United
States, 10 receive and take care OF their funds by vr
tue of that character aone attorney and agent OF e
United States, he received bis money, but Withneid IT,
and never paid it over to them.
Now, sir, there is no principle better established than
this: that the government is liable for the acts oI its
agents. when performed 10 ansaclng Its business his
agent failed to pay over these moneys lie was not, as
the senator from Maryland supposes, only the agent
OF the government but their own appointed agent They
inused these moneys to him. not IRON any confidence
they had in him individual, but suPposng tnat ne
an agent put there by the government OF the United
States who proessed 10 protect their interest Therefore
they considered him entitled TO transact their business
He received their annues and DIVIDENDS from lne pak,
and they did attempt at any time to interfere win TINS
agent OF the United States in the transaction OF these va
rious kinds OF business :
Now is il fair with regard to this unprotected tribe of
Indians that should send them agent OF ours,
and say Here an agent Tor The special protection OF your
interests. and when, by virtue oi that agency ana ina
appoinment, he has exercised his authority, that we
should screen ourselves under preence that the money
was inrusted to him individually The fact that he was
nrused by them an individual and not az an agent
sent there to protect their interests is not supported by
any testimony; but the evidence taken upon the subject
proves the conirary-tbat this agent was not person
whom they would have trusted had they not supposed
consequence OF his character agent that ne was the
proper person ntrus with their business, and that the
government was responsible Tor his acts.
In view OF the fact that he the agent OF the United
Satesn view OF the fact that the Senate of the United
States, and the committee OF conference, JUSTIFIED TINS
mode OF authencatng these accounts in order to ascer
IAN whether haey were ans ns sSown by
testimony think there is an Imperative obligaton on
the part OF the government to remuneate these lnans
for the money lost through the agent OF the untea
States.
MIR PEARCE The United States never submitted
themselves be the guardian OF these Indians for tins
purpose They gave any authority to their agt mt
is receive their liability, these moneys the individual
property of members OF the tribe, and which wele de.
rived from other sources than the revenue OF the United
Sir, there is no fact, which | am able to ascer-
tain, which shows that these Indians had any night
TO consider the United States responsible Tor the acts
of the man who happened to be their agent, other
than those he performed while dscbargng the duties
of agent He was their agent for certain specific
purposes But there law by which he was
authorized TO be their agent for other purposes and
instructions from the department TO perform any other
than the specified duties as agent OF the government
drawn II is extremely probable that the Indians had
confidence in this because oil his personal and ON
cia character II their mistake that that confidence
was misplaced and are the United States bound to make
good the liabilities OF agent OF tribe oil Indians Tor
the custody OF funds other than those he derives from the
government Suppose you carry this principle OUT VINO
usi We have very extensive negotiations with Indian
tribes-several hundred thousand at me-and II the
to be bound by all the acts o these agents
than thar which the United States have TO pay over 10
them do not see where will end. There will be an
immense amount OF Liabilities incurred as every one can
perceive Sir there is no principle in the thing. The
United States should not be held liable for the defacaton
OF its agents any further than they are ntrusted with the
was agent Of The United States for special purposes
he their agent for the transaction of the other
business OF the tribe ,
senator from Maryland lies in ihis This money was
never paid over these Indians Ii was not ntrusted by
them 70 the agent after they had received T. or aey Seyer
from the time that was drawn. Now, SIR, is lar, IS
il proper TO insist upon strict legal construction with re-
gard 10 the liabilities OF this government IN relation TO
these Indians with whom have treaty shpulaions, BY
which spuations they under the care OF the general
government Is il fair TO insist upon technical rules OF
law with regard TO these poor lndansi put the ques-
ton TO the senator from Maryland and TO every senator
in this body whether we ought to insist strongly upon
mere techncaity OF law and strict legal construction
hope no such principle will he established in regard to
any OF the Indian ENTHUSIASTICALLY this tribe that has
suffered so much in consequence oil defacaton, and
whose claim has been fully recognised by previous
Mr. DODGE. of Iowa. Was this amendment reported
by the committee
The PRESIDENT. 1t was offered by the senator from
Mr WALES. | will explain it il the gentleman re.
Mr.. DODGE would like to hear the amendment
read and some explanation given. ! am on the side OF
the Indians and OF the senator from Delaware.
| The amendment read.
| Mr. WALES In answer to the inquiry OF my friend
from Iowa, will state again that this appropriation was
recommended by the Committee on Indian Affairs al ths
session There was full and detailed statement made,
which presume senator except those on the committee
has considered
| Mr. PEARCE. | have.
Mr. WALES. Then you are the only one, presume
| AT former session there not only report oil the
Committee on Indian Affairs, but, by an amendment OF
the Senate this included in the general appropriation
bill OF that session. That amendment was lost IN the
House, and, committee OF conference being appoint
ed the matter referred TO special commission, under
direction OF the Secretary OF War; who reported favoaby
upon IT,
Mr. HUNTER. ] understand this TO be case IN which
the Indians ntrusted their money TO their own agent but
that this agent failed and they lost il so that was lost
through misconduct on part Their losses were
incurred by the dealcaton OF their own agent and not
through any fault Of this governments and II we are re-
Quired to pay such claims this see no end to appro
pratons II is enough to pay the Indians what due to
| them in consequence OF the defacaton OF our own
agents. and ought not TO be asked TO pay Tor losses
a,,staned through the misconduct of their own agent