The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-07-30

hardly dealt wilh-ColoneI Hawkins himself said that
me pest way 10 hqudae these claims TO make them
an allowance OF money He sad that al the time the
treaty was made he thought Ooo would have sat
ishsd them After that subsequent examination was
made and upon making This examination he found that
$4,000 ought 10 be paid hem and said that their lust
CLAIMS could not exceed 800 600.
with tins information the subject brought before
Congress N 1877, and committed to committee at the
head OF which was Mr.. Lowndes, of South Carolina who
reported upon H. They reported that under all these cir.
cmsianceshaving considered this communication from
The Indians IN relation 10 the lands--we ought to pay
them $4,000 sum which was between that found by
Colonel Hawkins 10 be due and the greatest amount
which he thought could possibly be doe to the Indians
Ia order TO show that this designed 10 be paid mot
9pon the supposon that we were bound to remunerale
them actually for all the losses which they suered-not
upon the snpposon that bound pay them for
The 100000 acres OF land, but in order do what
was reasonable, and 10 give satisacion proposed
TO make an appropriation OF this OF $S5 900 gross,
to be distributed raleaby among all the claimants. Ii
was thought That would satisfy the friendly Creek Indians
IN relation TO their treatment by the United States In
order 10 show That that was his view, will read what
Mr.. Lowndes says
"At the time Of the treaty, the friendly Creeks would
have been satished in the opinion of Colonel Hawkins,
oi Soc.coo AS Is TO be considered IN some measure
claim under treaty as they 70 have expected thar
some tx ID sum would be distributed among them
equivalent for hSr losses, and TO do will be make
IL the interest OF each sufferer that The losses another shall
nor De exaggerated beyond their al amount the commit
tee believe that will be best appropriate definite sum-
10 be applied under The direction OF the Secretary OF War;
10 Indemnify the friendly Creek Indians for property de-
suoY,d BY the hostile Creeks, in fair proportion 10 their
losses"
law passed pursuance of This recommendation
Of Mr. Lowndes, and the of $4,000 appopri-
a,ed gross Ii supposed to be much The In
dlans could reasonably expec-not upon the idea OF
paying them what he 5000 600 acres OF land was worth
not upon the idea OF paying them cent which they
might have lost for all the injuries they received from
the hostile Creeks during the warbut merely TO satisfy
them and persuade them that they had been dealt with
generously II seems, however, that they were not SAT-
ised, and they presented their claim again That claim
was again adiudicaled by the Committee Of Ways and
Means in 1924 at the head of which was Mr.. Louis
Mcane That report takes the ground that the question
had been settled by Mr. Lowndes-if understand it
in 1917, and they would not disturb that settlement.
Here is portion OF that report The committee say:
at is the opinion Of the committee that the of $685.
000 appropriated by the law Of lSl7 intended be
iu indenniy for all the losses OF the friendly Indians and
% e es. o h a e
chiefs would have been satisfied at the date Of the treaty
of war MeHe the indian assn ns' d
recng the application Of the money he Is informed that,
kins estimate II will be proper pay the claimants
mentioned in the estimate only portion OF their claim at
entitled The benefits of the law. who mentioned
in he lis, Of claims furnished by Col Hawkins therefore
hnat distribution OF the money should not take place until
the whole amount Of the claims is asceriained."
This shows that il the opinion of the Secretary of
War that this the allowance OF sum IN gross TO be
distributed among the Indians raeaby, as 10 satisfy
them OF our mode OF dealing with them. II was obvious
y the opinion OF the Secretary OF War. that after ascer
talnIng the whole amount OF the claims, thus sum OF
SIS 900 was be distributed among The claimants
ably. The committee, therefore, in 1924 decided that
they would not disturb The settlement made IN 1877.
know SIR that il has been urged by the Commissioner
OF Indian Afars-seZing upon single clause IN the re-
pori-lhai this committee at the head OF which Mr.
MeLane-and which was one of the abest committees,
IL you will refer 10 the members composing il, ever or
ganzed IN the House OF Represeniatives-did not un-
derstand the subject and that they were mistaken as TO
the acsbasing this assertion upon loose expression in
the report But whoever will read il will see that il is
nsisten and in iIs 4
statements. The idea that Mr.. McLane did not under.
stand the statements OF Mitchell which relied upon
in order 10 disparage and SET ASIDE this report is efated
BY the fact that the letter OF MIR Mitchell was printed
along with the report, and was submitted by Mr. McLane
and the committee themselves. Ii is obvious, therefore,
that they had all the evidence and papers before them
and must have understood the subject The decision,
therefore, was that they would not disturb this settle
ment. which was settlement made by Congress under
the Idea OF appropriailng sum of money IN gross-not
10 pay the whole amount OF the claim, or the whole
amount OF losses, but TO be distributed among the claim
ants raeaby In Order TO prove that this is the view,
will mention that II IS nowhere 10 be found that Mr.
Calhoun then Secretary of War; ever recommended the
payment OF The claim. When called upon 10 give his de-
eision he submitted these papers as containing all the
information which he had upon the subject.
General Jackson, when be submitted the treaty, did
not recommend the payment TO the friendly Indians OF
anything at all Subsequently, he was for eight years
President OF the United States These friendly Creeks
believe had applied TO him during his administration,
when he had The power and the means, and when. un.
doubtedly, he would have recommended something TO
Il
did not think it proper to disturb this seitlemeal And
ask the Senate II they think il right 20 back and
disturb this settlement or adjustment oil their claim thus
made 10 lSl7-something like IS years agol Ii
tablished by one committee and afterwards brought be-
fore another committee IN 1894 and they refused 10 dis
tub the settlement Now, sir, ii is asked that we, at
this great distance OF time, will go back and examine all
the circumstances connected with this treaty and say
that the settlement adjustment improper one,
and thus reopen the whole question 10 order TO show
justice TO everybody.
Why Mr. President. IL we act upon this principle,
take II upon myself 10 say that there is not treaty
which made with the Indians that | have ever
examined which could not be set aside upon the same
grounds
II we 90 upon the ground that the Indians were the
owners OF this land, and that enough paid them
for ha, ownership take all the treaties, and show
upon their faces that the Indians have not received fair
cons deraton for what they have ceded Why, sir, am
told that the Osages baye ceded 10 the United States
wards Of lao 100000 acres OF land and have only
about 800 900 in exchange for IT. How could we re-
fuse them, il they made claim after having back
and reopned this treaty in order to readjust this Greek
affair For observe sir, that II these Creeks have any
Lex maie claim upon at all, It s in relation to Their
land-his 100000 of land taken from them. II
10 readas this, and pay them SlO0 900 IN addi-
lon 10 the $4,000 previously paid for ber losses, you
will make this very action the foundation Tor another
claim. They would come before you and ask that some
thing be given TO them in return for the S00O000 acres
Of land which ceded to the government by them
under this treaty OF 1914.
Bat SIR, what will become Of the treasury, what will
become OF the time OF Congress If thus 60 back and
reopen these ancient Transactions and undertake now,
upon such imperfect evidence may, 10 Teadjust
such matters say, II we act upon this principle, that