The daily union., 1852-08-10

have shown that The government has not complied with
hen and then, the country be half as valuable as The
gentleman IRON Tennessee says il is, il you get OF by
paying 100 600 when you stipulated 10 give Zee simple
in title ior hundred thousand acres that are worth
from i've TO ten dollars an acre, think you will be
doing very WELL and making a remarkably good bar
he way have sSowa Tsps hsy aasdv IVY aa
use TO see The state Of The It's just the govern
ment has not complied. Was il unmeanng stipula-
uon that The government made with the Ohio Indians
10 1881. when they said We will give you in this
hity miles square aad adjoining hundred thousand
acres IN iee.simpe as long any OF you remain as
nation :" Did that mean nothing According to the
construction Of the gentlemen from Wisconsin and Ten
nessee Il is absolutely without meaning, because they
make say "You have got that all already you get
100000 instead of i00 000" and this is the
they gives You gave 100000 Of this land, where
you promised 100000 exclusively to ourselves
Why, sir their construction makes this stipulation IN
the treaty OF 1881 unmeaning gsenence-wthou effect
having operation upon The minds OF the Ohio Indians
Now am disposed. il has been inserted into this
contract 10 say that i meant something-hat it in,
tended that IL should have some effect We that
they have had benefit from il as yet. and see no
way 10 give them the benefit fit except by the provisions
MIR. BELL Why not propose patent for them OF
100000 acres out OF the fifty miles square'
Mr.. UNDERWOOD. My friend from Tennessee says
Why not propose to patent 100000 for them Of
the nifty miles square Why for the most obvious rea.
son entirely Just listen What would these Missouri
Indians say II you sent government officer there tell
lhem I'VE will lay OF 100 600 acres for the exclusive
use OF this Ohio tribe !" They would rise up one
man and say by the treaty OF 1925 had right to settle
anywhere upon that land have right to the use OF
the land and you are going TO lake away from all that
rghf and e confirmed by the treaty of 1875. and give
from 1t altogether"
Mr.. WALKER. They have go, 100000 acres.
Mr. BELL They can accept new conditions.
Mr.. UNDERWOOD. Certainly these people can make
new contract. Nobody doubts that.
Mr. BELL mean new conditions to execute the
n car
out his argument. My argument that they get
100000 acres OF land by the channel in
long as they exist as nation, instead OF 100000 The
gentleman says we stipulated TO give them 100000 acres
as separate reservation that they do not claim any
portion OF the fifty square mies-only 100000 acres ;
and they stipulated TO enjoy long they remained
separate nation. Now, if the gentleman wants rigdly
TO carry out our copract merely ask him TO show that
we cannot do by proposing tins amendment that the
be authorized 10 patent 10 the according TO
the terms OF the treaty OF 1884, 100 900 of this fifty
miles square, with the assent of the Shawnees Of Mis-
sour, with whom we treated in 1925 5-the Ohio portion
Of the band agreeing renqush all their claim What
objection could there be to that9
Mr. UNDERWOOD None in the world, il the Indians
would agree to it but would they
MIR, BELL es, certainly.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. The gentleman says, yes GER
iainy.
Mr. BELL. | mean the Missouri Shawnees the
Mr.. UNDERWOOD WE'LL can just say if it was
my case and were supualng, would agree to such
thing. And why The Ohio Shawnees can say 'We
square already. We have. by the treaty of 1895 right
to settle and enjoy that tract anywhere and have
addition 10 that, your obligation that we shall have
Mr. BUTLER wish to put Just one question to the
senator; Tor this is point upon which would like 10
have my mind satisfied am stranger TO this subject,
though considerable has been said about it, Which
would be 10 the advantage of the Ohio lndansto elect
TO take exclusively 100 090 acres, TO it in
with the Missouri Indians! If they had the power to
elect TO take, in SEVERAL 100000 acres to be tenants,
in common, OF the whole fifty square miles, which
would be 10 their advantage' Will the gentlemaa ex
plain il }
Mr.. UNDERWOOD Certainly, / will. 1t will be to
their advantage to have the right to use in common the
whole OF this fifty mile square, and then TO sepa-
ratey and i.e exclusively the 900 acres.
Mr. BUTLER. You must take one or the other.
Mr.. UNDERWOOD. They are entitled by these trea-
ties to both, and the idea that they to be limited to
one or the oiher IS thing in reference TO which my
friend from South Carolina is in error
Mr. BUTLER Il may be so.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Now, TO prove my statement,
here stipulation In the treaty OF 1925 that they shall
have right to use in common the fifty miles square.
Just look AT it ii you will read the treaty of 1925. you
will find that they have expressed by that treaty the right
to settle and use in common the fifty miles squire That
is right secured to them. II is stipulated the part OF
the Missouri Indians that they shall have that right.
The government comedies it, and then the government in
addition TO that, says, IN the treaty OF 1884, "we will
cure TO you 100000 acres"
Mr.. WALKER 10 The same tract
Mr. UNDERWOOD. In the same tract, certainly; but
when you secure 100000 TO them separately in fee
simple. does that exclude them from the right secured TO
them in the treaty OF 1882 Prove that if YOU can
Mr. WALKER Ii is the same thing
Mr. UNDERWOOD Upon what principle can you
show that they have right 10 occupy the fifty miles
square on the outside OF the 100000 If that 100 900
acres Is laid OIL 1t cannot be done. They have the
right which they had before, and they have by this
additional treaty stipulation the part OF the govern
ment that they shall have 100 600 themselves.
And ye, you would limit them. That is the very found
aiion OF the complaint By improper construction of
this treaty you are depryng the baud OF Indians OF the
privileges, lmmunes, and rights which are provided
Tor by stipulation, which you have right 10 do That
is the foundation OF the complaint.
Sir will not deiain the Senate longer got into this
controversy in the way have stated | have looked
into these treaties for the purpose OF trying understand
bem and as this is the plain provision OF both treaties il
seem TO me IL cannot be evaded.
The question then stated on agreeing to the
amendment OF the senator from Arkansas, Mr.. SEBAs
TAsl
Mr. CASS. Do understand the senator 10 withdraw
that provision which requires reference 10 the Attorney
General !
Mr.. SEBASTIAN. In reference TO that feature, un.
dersand il be the sentiment OF the committee but they
willing TO have II withdrawn therefore present the
amendment though that feature was not in IT, | am
willing 10 have it stricken out
Mr. BELL That leaves the appropriation OF 100000
absolute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER Does the senator so
modify it,
Mr. SEBASTIAN. do. II then leaves the appropr-
alton free so far as the payment is concerned. The
amendment is the same except the question of reference
TO the Attorney General
Mr. ATCHlS0N. / desire to look into this matter
little further.
Mr. CASS. We will take vote now.
Mr. B0RLAND. | would like TO have the amendment