The daily union., 1852-08-10

Indians have promised 10 give them in fee simple as
viii show you directly, 100000 acres Of this valuable ter
Tilory worth $500 900. 81 100000. We get OF
markedly cbeapn We pay only soo,ooo In the con
struciion OF the treaty. the value has nothing 10 do with
it, In the fulfment OF the contract upon the question
OF the damages TO which the Indians may be entitled for
violation Of H. the value might have great deal to
do with H. In that point OF view. II the gentleman from
Tennessee is right saying that the country worth
IS or $40 acre. have got oil very well if can
satisfy their claim 10 100000 OF this valuable land
My inend from Tennessee has commented upon In
opinions OF the Secretary oil the Interior shall not al
tempt to vindicate those opinions nor shall go further
ia these irrelevant matters, which, conceive, have
been brought into this debate without having anything
10 do with the real matters involved Inc gist oil hs
whole controversy lies, as think ~ nul-shelii and II
does seem 10 me-, If senator's would only examine the
treaty which contains the facts they would not hesitate
moment about it, What does the trst treaty OF 1925
say Ii says that the Missouri Indians shall have hity
miles square OF land. in consideration OF their twenty
FIVE miles upon the Missouri river My friend comments
upon the difference Of their having got four acres
TO one. What has that to do with itl Ii they
get one hundred TO one. and il is the bargain, ii
has nothing 10 do with il. We have disposed oil the
question Of value. The question OF quantity we now
dispose OF in the same way II they got four times as
much and have got il by fair bargain they entitled
il, and the difference in quantity has nothing do with
the question They got these fifty miles square for the
twenty five miles Cape Geredeau, but they got
with stipulation. And what is that stipulation. That
il their brethren in Ohio should choose to go and live
made, what the condition OF these Ohio Indians
They had the fifty miles square upon the Kansas They
had besides, the whole country 10 Ohio Can any one
deny that After they had remained III that condition
for six seven years having fifty miles square besdes
the Ohio lands, made treaty with them; and what
did we say in that treaty. We said this;
In of the cessions stipulated in the fore
going artice United States agree the said
tribe band OF Shawnees consisting OF about four hun
dred souls-----" sf#a
Myfrend puts stress upon the number Of these Indians
10 show that they gota great deal OF property for such
small tribe. What has that to do with the question
Mr.. BELL. Ibid not refer to il with any such view.
hope the genileman does not mean that his remarks shall
Mr. UNDERWOOD Not at all
Mr. BELL. | referred to their numbers to show that,
being four hundred, they majority OF the whole
tribe. and hence enjoyed the right TO use over half OF
Mr. UNDERWOOD. The number of The Indians, il
seems me- has nohiag 10 do with the construction Of
the treaty Whether they be few or many. the princi-
Plies upon which the rights Of parties to be settled
should be Identical The stipulation OF the treaty TO
which refer is in these words
The United agree to said tribe band
of Shawnees consisting OF about four hundred souls to be
removed, in convenen, and suitable manner, TO the west
side OF the Mississippi river, aud will grant by patent
in fee simple TO them and their heirs oreve they
snail ea, as nao 'o ana @ remain ~ upon % the same as @
direction OF the President Of the United States. within the
10 the shawnee indians Of shs State Of Missouri
Let us look at that Here is stipulation in express
terms that the United States will grant 900 in
fee simple, as long as these people remain as nauon
and live upon it, ont of the fifty miles square which
had been set apart for the other Indians What is the
meaning OF granting 10 those four hundred souls 100000
acres in fee-smPe' Is il not that they shall have the
exclusive OF those 100 900 acres Are other per-
10 go in and enjoy portion OF them Why, sir,
The thing Is preposerous II direct stipulation that
they shall have the exclusive use and nobody else is TO
have any use, OF these 100000 acres.
Now, ask the senator, had the United States right
to out OF these fifty miles square, 700
and say to the Ohio Indians: You shall have the ex
elusive Of this land, and you shall exclude the Mis-
souri, Indians who bad acquired right 10 that fifty
miles square six years before" The thing is utterly pre-
poserous In what condition, then, do you present your
seves You have, by the first treaty with the Missouri
Indians, said: You shall settle anywhere and every
wbere according to your regulations upon the whole hy
miles square" You have then said, by the second treaty
with the Ohio Indians We will give you the exclusive
OF OF land within the nifty miles square"
say there inconsistency which be possibly
reconclled the treaties cannot stand together; you
cannot give the Ohio Indians the exclusive use, IN fee
simple, OF 000 900 acres of this land which the other tribe
have right 10 settle upon, and use in common, with the
Ohio tribe Sir language, discussion, arsumenf cannot
make the thing planer than the two treaties when you
compare the one with the other. II is palpabe no man
galnsay II.
This treaty. them goes on and staes that If there
good land enough set apart these 100000 10 fee
SIMPLE Tor exclusive OF the Ohio tribe, within the
nifty miles square, then il is TO be laid off adjoining those
fifty miles Have they ever got 1t within the nifty miles
square for their exclusive FOR have they got It ad
ioinng for their exclusive use Why, the paper pre-
here the patent upon the Kansas given by Mr.
Tyler shows that they did not get IT within the nifty
miles square for their exclusive use There is pre-
tence they got adjoining They have never got it
al all, then. their exclusive USE according 10 the
treaty OF 1891 They have never received IT, What have
they receivedl Just what the senators from Wisconsin
[Mr WALHER] and Tennessee Mr. BELLl said they had
go--thc night common with the Missouri Shawneesto
go and settle upon the fifty miles square That is all they
have received.
What did they stpulae for in the treaty of 1891! Did
they spuaie for the right IN common to settle upon the
fifty miles squarei Tha, they had under The treaty OF
1925. That provision had already been made for them
with the Missouri Indians The treaty expressly says that
the ONO Indians may and settle and enjoy in
vita them But did that provision satisfy the Ohio
trbei No, sir. They said mo; we parted with our
land; must have 100000 in fee-sinpe by
selves" Where is the fee-smplel Have they got ii I
There pretence that they have; and here the gen
teman from Tennessee [Mr. BELL] and the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. WALKERl satisfied with this
stipulation the treaty OF 1891, which guarantees these
Indians 100 900 But this is for their use in
iee-smpe. As long they occupy Il, they are satisfied
with the stipulation OF the treaty OF 1891, having the
privilege OF occupying IN common with the Missouri In
dams, according the provisions OF the treaty OF 1925
There is The whole Anybody who will look into
the two treaties will see II.
Then the question is, what damages to be paid
Sir. II you spulaie that shall have patent for a thou.
sand acres OF land Tor aud my heirs to live upon
valuable privilege than say shall have that thou
sand acres IN common with my friends from Tennessee
and Wisconsin, Everybody the difference if you
make IL individual case; and here s that individual
carried precisely IN these treaties The treaty
OF 1881 says they shall have in ee-smpe for their
use, not in common with these other tribes
MIR. WALKER. just at this point will the senator