The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-08-13

cation Aad provided also. That nothing herein contains
he limits q any STATE ?; district, q any indian having
sndse 1a q ~ Tsa Sac. % asasS q
shall DO paid io the property ake slolen, a.
oysd By Any ass esa 9a % aa aSsd sa stipend
which such lnd,aa shall beiong
Now, sir have been willing from the beginning Ia
extend every provision which | have read on, OF an
law 10 all the Indian tribes, both with respect TO Terra
and lhe whole western hontier This bill enlarges
much yond the provisions OF that ACT For instance
makes no distinction between me depfedallons commit
ted by Indians by crossing the line into the errtoyo
ate and depredaons committed upon persons who NAV
be passing through the Indian territory Now, seems
to me that our citizens 80 nto ne Indian territory &
must abide il without looking TO the government for n
demny for injuries they receive ~ going into that terri
tory II il al best new principle introduced into n,
legislation OF Congress- am not willing 10 sanction
unless have further reasons assigned why II should
adopted.
am memoer OF the Committee OF Claims, and have
good deal to do with Indian depredations, and from N
faci that there is provision in this bill giving reos
five operation 50 az TO embrace great many thes
dian claims which thought had been presented to H.
conmiee Of which am member | did not see Dc
policy OF that. But when come to look into theAs
which have Just read. and found that these depreciation
heretofore provided for BY the government. were ds
relations committed within, the limits OF Sus /
/ then saw that this bill was broad enough d Z
embrace all the deprcdations committed upon Nr
sons travelling from Independence, - Josephs O \
anywhere else across the plains to Santa Re, even
California And when looked at the mpossbity a /
telling what Indian tribes had committed these depeds
TONS to whom our agent was To look for indemnity ID \
tell out OF what annuities or granes upon the part
the government they were 70 be paId struck me thai
there was some objection TO legisatg beyond the act
1902 that ought to consider before passing this bill
Now sir, put il to my friends upon my left whether
this bill does not provide for the injuries that have been
10 California from the Upper Missouri How is il posi-
bile to ascertain what tribe has committed the depre
tons and TO whom to look for indemnify, and wheths
il be the object intention Of the supporters Of this bill
TO provide for the payment OF all these depredatons,
should like to have information upon these subjects
fore voting for the bill IT, be the policy Of this gov
ernmentto make i that broad. why, SO be III but al
moi myself the propriety Of enarglng Il beyond w
the government has already done.
Mr. A TCHlSON. The senator has been unfortunate
in not examining the intercourse law OF "a instead oil
the law OF '02 II he had done he would have found
that since 34 those OF depredaions committed in
the Indian territory have been provided Tor and paid By
Congress Why, sir. the ..inercoufse' law makes The
same provision for depredatIons committed III wha
is called Indian territory, described Indian territory
as in other cases. The intercourse" law Of 1891
covers the cases of depredatons which happen from
AZ deg down to the Arkansas line. and IRON The 4
frontiers Of Missouri and Iowa the frontiers Of Mexico
This has been the law since "a II is no new principle
This bill is intended for the purpose OF applying tosid
zens of Texas the same benefits OF the intercourse av
OF 1884 that is applied to the citizens OF the State Nil
sour Or Iowa, New Hampshire Or Connecticut in nav
eing through the Indian territory lfyou will turn yoWf
attention To the nth section OF the lniian law O
which revived and amended the law OF '02. you will find
this very provision which the senator nav complains
The object of this bill provide for depreciation
committed in the limits OF the State Of Texas
Now sir, since the annexation OF Tex.s, the Unte
States has given her protection, either military Other
wise, until the last year or two. do not know That
now we have any authorized agent there Well, on
depredatons have been committed from the honr Of
nexation up 10 the present time but TO wha, extent
do not know. Now the question is this: Will we extend
to the State OF Texas, to the people OF the Slate OF Ier
within her limits the same provisions we have applied
to the States of Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas and evNI
Mr.. UNDERWOOD. viii this bill dot,
Mr.. ATCHISON. It will do nothing more. II is 6I
Mr. EWING. The difficulty tina, strikes me in hi
bill the is not that urged by the senator from Kes
tncky; but there is another, and that is ths the Uu
States has no control over the Indians IN Texas at al
Our Indian intercourse act does not extend there all
II cannot direct the trade with the Indians there Wei
cannot prohibit the sale OF spruous liquors to them Va
canno, license traders, or prohibit individuals IRON going
upon the Indian territory of Texas In short, the whosk
control of the Indians in Texas s strictly and properly
Texas itself Now, il the control Of the Indians sur
rendered 10 the United States there. just il is The
the law projecting their properly just as It is EXTENDED
all other States But this bill does not extend il h
takes simply that provision OF the "inteTcoose' las
hs power II he United States to proect properly ~os ~
take Of Indians 10 other States This. believe h
the case There is an Indian agent in Texas pomaI
under, as thought, very doubtful authory. wss n0
quite certain Of the power of the United States apo
such agent al all, to send him there. There was
precedent for the appointment An Indian agent has been
there for few years; but do not recollect any law
authorize his appointment at all, which gives him l
power which he has in the other States and Tenored
the United States This is not Indian territory at all
The portion OF Texas occupied by the Indians is not n
dian territory in the sense that the laws OF the Uni
States recognise it, Now would not consent to ansva
for Expectations committed by individuals within that Ter
rtoiy over whom we have NO contro and the intercourse
with whom we cannot at all direct That is my opinion
and unless 1t can be shown me that that objection dos
not exist or unless il be remedied in form oths
| cannot vote for this bill. f+t
Mr. CHASE The act OF 1884 defines the limits 81 III
Indian territory. It's t.N
States Missouri and Louisiana, he Territory Of Aksf
slso that part Of the United MsB
sipp river, and within any State In which the ladn
tue has been cxunguished.
That the Indian territory II is 10 that territory a
the provisions OF this of 1884 extend Now il is pro
posed 10 extend the provisions OF this ACT 10 depreda
committed within the Statesthe States OF Florida and
Texas 30 far as Florida is concerned, any dspredatn
now committed By Indians residing within the Indai
tss, r y already provided for y thus act 50 a.
different principle she has reserved TO herself all k
lands within her limits she has the entire conro osa
all the Indian tribes within her limits. The power Of r
United States does not extend there, unless in ven
pass this act make ourselves RESPONSE bic for deledr
tons co nmiited by indians over whom have CO
troll Now, the principle OF former acts has bees
that where we are Responsible for the conduct OF the
taas we are responsible for the depredsons commits
BILE Tor the deprsdaons OF Indians for whose conduct
are not responsible II is totally different principle, sH
I seems 10 me very unnecessary one. should pc veg
happy 10 vote for any act which goes for the principle
the act Of 1884, but this seems 10 me 10 20 beyond
Mr. RfJSK will NOT dcfaio he Sanafe long rhe law, n