The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-05-29

Mr. B0RLAND. viii the honorable senator from
Maryland permit me 10 make one remark desire 70
Col hawkins states that he believes the Indians would
have been satisfied when the lines OF the treaty were
drawn refers altogether as think my colleague has
gard TO lands in exchange for those given up He is
speaking OF the treaty. and 10 show that that must have
been So the senator will refer 10 the reay-to which
he will find thai the letter OF Col Hawkins reers-he
will find nothing said about any claims except those in
regard the lands L does not refer to any other class
of claims whatever The claims Tor the loss OF property
not made in the treaty OF referred to in the treaty 1t
provides only for the disposition Of the lands.
Mr.. PEARCE. ! think II is very clear from the docu-
mens which the Senate have before Them that this sixty
thousand dollars does refer 10 the claims for which
indemnity is now asked
Mr. SEBASTIAN. Will the senator allow me to cor.
rect him in one mistake This claim NOT founded
upon the treaty, but was urged an equitable claim
against the government afterwards. wish to remind
the senator that this treaty was made August lst 1914
the year, which higher sanction than the treaty.
a letter OF Mr. Pnckney TO Colonel Hawkins, who
in the confidence Of the friendly Creek Indians stating
Intervention Of the friendly Creeks messengers to the
hostile Indians 10 get them 10 come up and capulate
telling them as inducement to come in, that their claim
ants Tor the lands in the arrangements in regard 10 the
coded territories should be respected in addition to which
their warriors should be pensoned, and all their property
which destroyed during the war should be paid for
That some hve Six months before the capuation.
AS they received these terms, they set about to
bringing in the hostile Creeks. which resulted in the
pulaton OF 1914. They relied the letter of Colonel
Hawkins, exclusively that they never mentioned it
except to have attached TO the treaty The claim they
urged was claim Tor an equivalent for the difference be-
tween the eight millions OF acres OF land taken from
them and that which they received which they repudi-
aied such. The claim for which this appropriation is
asked arises from the letter previous to the treaty OF
General Pnckney Of April 2ad and did not form the sub
lect OF controversy at the time OF the treaty.
Mr.. PEARCE That makes no difference in the view
which take Of the matter only want TO show that
these claims not founded upon treaty stipulation.
In rnl ia IaI n wi r. thp
plcabe, Ind IN the letter OF Colonel Hawkins this
language:
Par, of the vouchers taken by Me- Casseday the
the assistant agent Cowela which have ordered
hearing Whatever they may be, viii forward them as
of the treaty $4,000 would have been received
equivalent"
AS an equivalent for whats For these claims for
which vouchers had been gvennot equivalent for
the eight millions Of OF land which had been taken
from them Certainly it is not 10 be considered
equivalent for that land understand that the lands
situated in the fork OF the rivers, mentioned by the
from Arkansas, granted to the friendly Creeks
equivalent for the lands belonging to them which
were included in the cession OF the whole tribe. think
il very clear. from this letter OF the Indian agent, who
speaks Of the destruction Of the property their towns,
that it not land for which they asked the 800 008
an indemnify, or for which they would have been vii.
ling to receive 100000 1t was Tor the destruction OF
their other property, else the letter has sgnih-
canoe at all Else, why should be speak he does IN
this connexion, OF The destruction OF their towns and
the eight millions OF taken from the friendly In
dams No vouchers necessary for that. But this
500 900 is mentioned as what the Indians would have
been willing to take for the losses described 10 the
paragraph and 10 which alone there any refer
encethat is /" their houses burnt, their stock and
provisions destroyed"
liqudatedi BY whom, and by what authority This
government gave any authority 10 any officer of
therso ascertain and determine these claims as 10
bind the United States They passed the of 1917 APP
proprating SIS 900 for The satisfaction of the claims
and as the committee say in full indemnity. 1t SO
considered by Congress then, and certainly was
sdered by them IN 1924 must suppose iron the
port of the committee of that date The Indian agent OF
that day required to distribute the SIS 900 among
the Indians; and in order 10 enable him to ascertain
how the distribution should be nade he received from the
Indians themselves their schedule OF the claims Ii does
not appear that be made any inquiry into the amount OF
the property destroyed and the claims they could properly
urge upon the government but he took from the Indians
this statement OF losses they chose 10 assess them
Il does not appear that any testimony was taken 10 verify
the statement but ii II had been, unauthorized
authorized only for the single purpose OF enabling
pem to make distribution pro rata OF the money APP
propriated as reasonable indemnify. In no sense,
Therefore, can they be said 10 be quidated claims, be-
liquidaied claims must be determined and
tanned by competent authority, and there no
competent authority here Therefore think II is ALTO
gelher error TO speak oil them as lqudaied claims.
They indefinite claims, not ascertaincd, attempt
ed 10 be ascertaned with any precison which were set
lied by Toe e appropriation p, n OF Ss5 coo
but wish 10 correct him in remark He says there
was authority from the government 10 the agents 10
make the schedule OF the claims There Is express
authority given in letter, in which they told, 10 so
many words do and the report 10 the government
and the two letters from Mitchell and Hawkins in
Spouse 10 those instructions, and contain the estimates
upon which reliance is placed here.
MIR. PEARCE. have seen the letter, and have II be-
fore but does not justify think, the inference OF
the senator 1t is from the Secretary Of War TO Mr.
Mitchell
81 enclose you copy Of the law making appropr-
aion OF SS5 900 to indemnify individuals Of the Creek Ma
ton Tor losses sustained daring the ato together with
copy Of tho spondence with Colonel Hawkins, and
These papers laid before the Committee of Claims,
and the law predcated on themi but u is general
Ia It's terms will be proper TO pay the claimants, &c
Mr.. SEBASTIAN The senator has got the wrong
letter will read letter which seems to have escaped
his attention, of August 49, 1915, from the War Depart.
men informing Colonel Mitchell that il is the wish oil
the President that you shall proceed the liquidation OF
the claims OF the friendly Indians the principles OF
General Pinckneys letter TO Colonel Hawkins The re.
cult you will transmit 10 the department. TO be laid before
the President for his ultimate decision and appreciation
Mr.. PEARCE. The President had authority TO
bind the by any such order No agent OF the
government could be authorized. except by act OF Con-
grcss 10 liqaidate claims bind the government
and II The President undertook with that view make
such order, he tfasscended his authority 1t belongs
TO Congress alone TO authorize the liquidation OF any
clam against them, such form TO bind the govern
neD appears, tar gather from the papers that
these statements received from the Indians IL further
appears that the estimate which they made reduced by
their chiefs from S30000o 10 os 900 but II does not APP
pear far "a ascertain. that any proper sitting OF
the evidence resored TO ascertain what
OF these claims really due There we find that the
ndians at subsequent period, seemed 10 have passed