The daily union., 1852-08-12

Mr. BELL. There was another contract following
the one from which the honorable senator has read.
Mr.. MASON This Is from report made ia January,
1851, by the honorable senator from Tennessee, [Mr.
BELL
Mr. BELL. viii the honorable senator allow me to
read paragraph from the repou
Eons were made for their removal under this contract
but the Indians refused 70 20 by wafer and the
was cancelled on the 4h Of September 1874 On the
day another made for their removal with An
deIson Cobb Forrester and Pckens These parties
10 be paid S26 ia per each Indian removed,
"The government appointed Colonel II. N. Barstow
agent 10 superniend the emgraon and see that il was
properly conducted and he repaired 70 the Indian
efforts were Immediately made 10 remove the Indians
within the time fixed in the contract but they refused
until the certificates scrip Tor their land issued
They desired these to their debts The Secretary #
but the promise complied with. The contractors
We're, therefore, placed Ia most embarrassing position.
thousand Indians within the year 1874
eit their They were, under the circumstances,
eompeed 10 furnish rhe Indians az their own puyae
pense, those articles which for their
noys relying upon The promise OF ne secretary and the
nished with land scrip TO repay them"
MIR. MASON. With whom that contract made9
Mr.. BELL. That contract was made with the Secre-
Slr MASON. Then this claim grew out OF tha, con.
tract
Mr.. BELL. 1t did
Mr.. MASON. Then understand that this contract
was made by the War Department, and the Indians
fused 10 go According to this report understand than
the Indians refused TO remove both in 1s45 and 1915
without their horses and oxen The agent OF The GOV,
assured the contractors that ii they would sub
them they would be paid by the government 1hefe
accordingly some five hundred and hly OF them re-
moved" II am correct in this maer-and do moi pro.
Tess to understand it fully, for rely very much upon
what comes from the Committee on Indian Aiars-,hs
contract made by the Secretary and appropria-
on was made for their removal But. in consequence OF
ebarrassments, The Indians refused to go, and these
losses accrued to the contractors and the government
now desires further appropriation.
Mr.. ADAMS. am not distinct IN my recollection oil
tla hIuE md thp man
ner in which the honorable senator from Virginia Mr..
HuNrER] has inexperienced this question to some ex-
tent contract was made with this company Tor the
removal of the Chocaw Indians There was law
giving them scrip in lieu OF reservations they were
entitled 10 under that treaty with the government, one.
half OF which 10 be paid to the Indians directly, and
the other half TO be vested government funds, and
put to interest They made contracts in Mississippi with
various PERSONS speculaors and others, upon the faith OF
the half of the scrip they were entitled to- and which
they supposed would be delivered 10 them there When
they about being removed under this contract, the
government order 10 the agent not 10 pay over
the scrip the Indians entitled 10 until they had
moved wes in consequence OF which they refused 10
remove altogether alter they had been assembled
for that purpose by the contractors. Finally the gov
changed the contract took il omthe Indians and
paid the Indians themsel some instances for
removal IN others, their agents, the SPECTATORS as they
were generally termed were permitted TO remove them,
and they got consideration for il. The government
authorized to pay for their emova and they fixed
the price 10 be paid them for their removal That is the
nature of the contract IL arose out OF contract OF the
government, and from e act oil tue government IN
fusing pay the debt which everybody acknowledges
that the Indians entitled. and which they after
wards recognised that they sustained this loss.
Mr. HUNTER. Here sir, is paragraph OF the report
of the department, which will read
"The for the removal of the Choctaws in the
performances OF which this claim originated, stipulated,
among oer as na' 70, Tue hs IN no
what was specified Ia the contract and on this ground
the Indian Office appear have declined paying any part
OF demand now made upon the government"
Now sir. the provision is that claim is to be made
for supplies furnished to the Indians other than those sp
ulaed in the contract They claim that II ought 10 be
count OF the laches OF the United States in ectng
give the Indians the certificates OF land scrip That is
The foundation of the claim, stated in the report OF the
department. Notwithstanding this provision that they
shall make claim Tor anything not stipulated IN the
tract they do make this claim for articles furnished TO the
Indians and for which there was no stipulation These
supplies furnished TO the Indians and they claim
that the United States bound for them, because they
disabled the Indians from paying for them by not giving
them the scrip for their land.
Mr.. BAYARD. | have nothing 10 say against the
justice OF this claim have not had any opportunity to
examine it; and that matter do not mean to discuss
The question before arises under rule OF the Senate
which, if IL worth making is worth retaining That
rule expressly prohibits the introduction OF private claims
amendments upon any general appropriation bill This
is general appropriation bull and The question which
have 10 decide is not 10 the Justice OF the claim
ainst the government, but the question whether
ought to allow to be introduced whether 1t is private
claim in the ordinary meaning OF the words, and under
the received usages OF the Senate in relation OF
that kind II wanted any evidence that tins is private
claim think that nigh take the evidence that II was
presented TO the Senate as private claim that IL
reported upon private claim by the honorable senator
from Tennessee al the session OF 1851 and the state
ment made on the memorial OF William b. Hart, reported
upon by the senator from Tennessee on January 2os
o51 In that memorial they the general facts and
without going into all the proceedings will refer 10 that
which was read by The senator from Virginia.
The contract for the removal OF the Chootaws in the
performance of which hts claim origin1tcd stipulated
among things that the should
any ulam Tor any further allowance Than what
specified in the contract and this ground the Indian
office appear have declined paying any part Of The de
mand now made upon the government The committee
Of opinion that damages the have
ned by the default Of the goyeeut should be PAID
outstanding the provision in the contract above stated
! would ask senators, what is private claim il this
be notl Here s a claim made by individual, that,
although according 10 the terms Of his he would
not be entitled 10 the sum, yet upon equitable consid
Grafton OF some act OF The government which tended TO
defeat deange his plans under that contract he has
sustained loss which requires 10 equity and in good
faith that the government should compensate IT, That
the basis of IT, Now is not this private claim We
have now before the Committee of Claims half dozen
claims precisely similar to this IN principle, and which
have exactly much right 10 be introduced here We
amendments to this bill | DO not know how this claim
can he dsng from these other claims similar in
their charscer. An appropriation made, for exam.
pie, for building custom house at New York. and there
or two claims IN connexion with that The
tractor under that appropriation states that the estimates
and measures OF the architect not iurn shed in su
cen time to enable him 10 carry on the work That was
the OF facts, according to his allegation and ii
rtcolect Alright according to his proof | ask II the
claim is not o the character here--for equitable
damages arising from the performance OF contract
~ - -. do.