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

I QuesIOn WNelheT TIIFa
senator from Tennessee offers an amendment TO make
provision for paying assignee under contract Tor re-
moving the Choctaw Indians from Mississippi and Ala
baa Under the rule no private claim can DC offered 70
an appropriation bill amendment; and IS simply
Tor the Senate 10 decide whether this s private CLAIM
which is excluded from being offered as an amendment
under the rule As il is very difficult and delicate
matter 10 distinguish in all whether claim IS
public or private one, the Chair, wishing the Senate to
decide the matter for themselves, will leave TO them 10
say whether II IS private CLAIM winch is excluded py
the rule.
Mr. CHASE would ask whether this amendment
may not be considered by unanimous consent, notwth-
standing the rule believe this is very meritorous
claim but still my conviction is very clear, win the
Chair, that il is private claim At the same time, II
seems 10 me, might by unanimous consent, consider
| Mr. PEARCE. cannot conceive how this claim can
be viewed in any other light than as private claim
believe IS set up by certain contractors VINO sb ,b
government TO convey those Indians to their new homes
in the West al certain price per bead II seems tha
there difficulties in The way OF theT emigration
The Indians refused 10 20 because they were not iur
nished with certain amount OF land scrip which they
wanted, before they started 10 pay their debts lhey dl
not therefore, so when they were expected 10 80, ana
the conr actors lost money consequence of their re-
fusing to 90 at that time think that IS the foundation
of part OF the claim The government did not con-
pay these persons the money which they now ask
We appropriated Tor them the money which the govern
men contracted to pay. But they say that the govern
men failed TO do something else which was necessary 70
enable them 10 carry ont their contract without loss, ana
therefore they ask be ndemnlied Then, again, lhe
contractors called upon by the Indians to furnish
them with certain articles necessary Tor their comfortable
removal which were not included in the contract but
beyond it, We informed that the Indians would
not have gone they had not been furnished with those
articles The contractors furnished them relying on me
Justice and liberaly Of the government to reimburse
them All this constitutes an equitable claim III II Is any
thing alb to reimbursement frCn the governments out
if does constitute private claim against the govern
ment. that 10 me there such things as pri
vate claims Hence would have felt bound 10 sustain
the decision of the Chair against the reception oi the
amendment but the Char has submitted the question
to the Senate feel bound TO declare by my vote mat this
is private claim
Mr. MASON. | do not entertain doubt but that this
is private claim; and yet feel myself constrained 10
vote to admit il as an amendment to this bill do SO
because understand that the Senate by former vote
few days ago. declared that claims OF this character,
although they private claims, do not come withh
the rule which has been read. When another amend
offered by the senator from Tennessee 10 pay
10 certain individuals claims which they had against the
government for alleged Indian depTedatons the same OBJ
jection was made but it oyerrulcd by the Senate
and he amendment entertained although 1t was al
terwards rejected feel myself borrd TO acquesce ID
that construction which the Senate has placed upon Its
rule; though do not entertain doubt that this IS
private claim yet reluctant to mee one measure 10
one set OF claimants and another measure 70 ano'ne
feel bound 10 say, therefore, that although 1t is private
claim, do not think It comes within the rule as the
i The PRESIDENT The Chair will put the question
strucd private claim, which is excluded under the
rule Those who consider that It is private clam,
/ Mr. BELL II the Chair will pardon me, would sug
ges that It would be better TO submit 10 The Senate the
question whether they will entertain this amendment
The PRESIDENT The Chair has 10 conform TO the
rule lie has no alternative
Mr. BELL. There has been discussion with re-
gard 10 the nature of the claim Gentlemen have
deraken TO define what is public and what is private
claim 1t is very difficult undertaking TO draw the line
between them, let whoever will undertake IT. think
even the chairman OF the Judiciary Committee lMr
BuTLERl would find some difficulty in laying II down
accurately. But trust that under all the circumstances
OF The case, this claim will be considered. II has been
before the Senate oen and has been so much mooted
that II can be acted upon Immediately and without de-
bate II II is not. in the opinion OF the Senate, well.
founded ii can be rejected do not care now TO go into
the nature OF the claim, but wish TO say word as 10
the remarks OF the honorable senator from Maryland.
He has stated some points OF the case but not all OF
them.
! Mr. PEARCE II was not necessary TO state all.
Mr. BELL. | understand that the honorable senator
thinks this is private claim and large proportion OF
the amendments which in the habit OF offering TO
these appropriation bills doubt, IN the opinion OF
many gentlemen, strictly for private claims. Others en-
tertain different opinion. Many senators think that
they public claims and well entitled to be received
and acted upon as any other case where an appropriation
is made. This claim arises under a law OF The United
States providing Tor the removal OF these Indians What
4 the honorable senator from Maryland said was well
enough, so far as il went will merely add that whilst
these gentlemen in the midst OF the performance OF
their contract, the government OF the United States,
without reference to this contract thought proper 10
change the law IN regard TO the right OF these Indians TO
certain compensatory to which those gentlemen looked at
the time for thelT remuneration.
The Indians relied upon scrip for one hall the reserva
ons which they sold on the Mississippi, which was to be
paid 10 them on their arrival at their homes. While
these gentlemen performing the contract after they
had removed perhaps some ten twelve hundred oil the
Indians, and were in the process OF removing some six
or hundred more, Congress provided that no such
payment should be made to the Indians but that the debt
should be funded simply state this order that the
Senate may see the ground upon which the claim stands
hope that we shall admit the amendment, and allow the
claim.
\ Mr. CASS In addition 10 what said by the hon
orable senator from Virginia, merely wish TO remark
that understood the proposition precisely as he did.
seems TO me that the Senate, the other day, by solemn
vote put construction on lis own rule which necessar
includes this claim. was among those who voted with
the minority that occasion. think the yeas and nays
pirate $3.50 900 for Creek depreia,ons was not private
claim. The Senate decided that it came within the rule
And now should like 10 know what distinction can be
drawn by which the claim OF for $4,000 for Creek
depredatons within the rule, and the claim OF
ID for relief under the Choctaw treaty does not come
within the rule. The Senate has put construction on
its own rule. Ii admitted that proposition being in
order; then voted in the minory bat have dis
position TO set myself up IN opposition 10 the decision o
the Senate. ] am not willing TO make one measure foI
one and another for another.
il The PRESI DENT What may have taken place here
ofore is another question. The rule positive, the
Chair has stated Ii this s considered 10 be private
claim, cannot be received under the rule but II II is
not considered private claim, is proper amend
ing the discussion with regard to the Of the claim
whether they consider IT, The Chair is unwilling TO
exclude anything that may be properly offered, matter
what his individual opinion may be. lie submits the
matter to the Senate TO say whether they consider this
such private claim as is excluded under the rule or