The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-05-23

And would submit TO the consideration OF the Chair II
il is going very far 10 exclude such claim US this
upon the ground that il is private claim.
Mr.. HUNTER II seems TO me that this Is, stricuy
speaking, private claim There proof that this Is
not considered private claim by The department
They have received instructions wherever they thought
that there Just Indian claim arising out OF ransac-
tons with the Indians 10 estimate Tor IT, That has been
the rule and the instructions, and believe the Indian de-
partment act under that rule and Instructions They
believe that il any government ofcer is entitled TO such
claim, ii is their duty 10 estimate for H. Therefore, ihe
fact that there is estimate Tor il does not make other
than private claim These contractors clam go eonse Sc
mode in which the government paid these Indians
The PRESIDENT, The Chair will again read the
rules ''No amendment shall be received the object OF
which is 10 provide for private claim although the same
may have been previously sanctioned by the Senate
Thus il will be perceived that private claims are excluded
under any and every consideration. The Char has no
Personal desire to exclude this claim, but rather other
wise, both from his local situation and the interest he
feels in the parties But the presding officer OF this
body he must keep to the rules, although, II he were to
follow his own feelings, he might be in favor OF il.
MIR. BELL, believe that this question was submitted
TO the Senate al the last session OF Congress.
Mr.. HUNTER. Ii may have been reported by the
Committee on Indian Affairs TO the Indian appropriation
bill; but am sure it was not reported by the Finance
Committee.
the Committee on Indian Affairs. Ii mistaken, the
senator from Texas MIR RusKl can correct me, be-
lieve the amendment was made IN favor OF William b.
Hart.
Mr.. ATCHISON | believe srcli an amendment, was
reported by the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr.. BELL. This is certainly new decision IN regard
10 this matter, il has been once entertained by the
Mr.. SEBASTIAN | rise merely for the purpose OF
stating 10 the honorable senator from Tennessee Nj
BELLl that can supply the information about Whch ne
TO be in doubt This claim was recommended by
the Committee Indian Affairs at the last session OF
Congress- and was ngrafted an amendment upon TIE
general Indian appropriation BILL but was lost between
regard 10 the committees OF conference That IS The posi-
ton in at the last session OF Congress y was an
upon the report of the Committee Indian Affairs.
MIR. BELL dislike to press any amendment OF ms
description; but yet am certainly supported by what
has been said by gentlemen upon the other sde in say
ing, in reference 10 this amendment that the Senate has
considered it, not private claim but such one as
under the standing rules OF the Senate, could properly
Mr. %0 HuNTER PERHAPS the que question was not raised
at the last session
MIR, BADGER. | rise for the purpose Of assisting my
keep the peace in reference to this bill DO not let us
take up all the day in deciding upon The question
s q will b ebs s has n
what took place in regard TO this amendment al the
last session; whether the question was raised or mol
he does not remember. The simple question now 10,
Is this a private claim not!
MIR. SEWARD called for the reading of the amend
ment
The amendment was accordingly read
Mr.. SEWARD. am at loss to conceive how this
amendment differs at all from the amendment we have
just adopted directing the OF 5000 10 be paid to
Lieutenant Maury for preparing Nautical Almanac. 1t
may differ to be sure in one point, but IN another II is
the same it is to pay for services actually performed
think il is precisely in the same category. do not
tbak that the rule intended 10 embrace case OF
this kind. where the services directed by law. and
where the department seeks 10 get appropriation Tor
the purpose OF paying for those services do not think
that the rule was ever intended to apply 10 any such
case
Mr. ADAMS. 1t occurs 10 my mind that this claim is
in precisely the class with the appropriation Tor
the Collins line. There was an appropriation made
yesterday for transporting the mails This claim IS Tor
removing the ndians-an appropriation to be made oT
complying with the contract made by the government or
removing those Indians II this amendment is 10 be
cluded under the rule then all large portion OF the
amendments offered here are out oil order am willing
The PRESIDENT This amendment stands upon a
very different footing from the other in relation TO the
Collins steamers According 10 the rule estimates from
the departments authorize the Offering OF amendments
and the Senate have decided that the estimate IN regard
TO the Collins line sufficient TO justify ITS being offer
ed The rule goes further and says that an amendment
may be received, whether there be estimate or not
be reported by standing committee But II excludes
all private claims, whether estimate come from the
head OF department. or IT be reported roma committee
or not. The question now is, Is this private claim
The Chair was under the impression that Il was and
therefore would be excluded under the rule Now II the
Senate, after having the nature OF the claim explained
are prepared 10 say that this is not private clam-iha
il is amendment properly TO be offered because IL
comes from standing committee, the chairman oil the
committee being Instructed 10 III as
then the Chair, order that his opinion may not preu
dice individual opinions, will submit the question to the
Senate to say whether they consider this claim TO be such
a claim or not as should be excluded under the rule
Mr. BORLAND | thought, when raised the ques
ton the other day regard 10 this Collins line, and IN
sisted that il was not in order under this rule that the
action OF the Senate then settled the quesonat least IL
did TO my mindtbat this omnibus bill, TO which
all such amendments were 10 be offered And especially
did think on yesterday, when we passed the Creek
amendment that 1t intended to provide ior sim
liar TO this IL is true that this is 10 be paid TO single
Individual but he is the assignee OF several individuals
and whether II is 10 be paid 10 one or many persons, The
character OF the claims is precisely the same 1t is to pay
for expenses incurred by the general government IN con-
nexion with these Indians And though the one was
for $3.50 900, and TO be paid TO hundreds Of
PERSONS yet the duty this is precisely the same,
and this claim OF this single ndvdua-the assignee Tor
several pesonsfor forty thousand dollars comes
under precisely the rule, and should be admitted
upon the same ground as the other.
Mr. BELL. II seems to that this amendment stands
upon precisely the same footing as that offered the
other day by the Committee on Indian Affairs 10 pay
for depredaons committed by Creek Indians ] cannot
can see no difference cannot perceive how the one
be called public claim and the other private one But
will not debate this matter. l will only state IN regard
to myself that act under the direction OF the Indian Com
mtee This amendment is presented by their orders. |
have not the slightest feeling upon the subject myself II
is not my charge n any form or manner, except so far
as / am directed by the Committee on Indian Affairs,
Generally when that committee TO conclusion in
which concur earnestly attempt TO carry II out That
all that have in view But III II be the pleasure
OF the Senate 10 lay down rule IN this particular case,
which shall be the governing principle o their conduct
hereafter in reference 10 all analogous cases-although
should regret that II thought proper to apply just
Il. alfor, hauh I.,,o