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

consider rs perfectly chimerieaas one that we have
not The power and resources 10 tuhi o. carry out.
took from these friendly lndians-heIr land as they
call Il Now, There is not great deal IN that idea al
last iot me land taken was us as much me land o.
friendly Creeks mean by that suppose, IS, that General
Jackson took "trip OF county that they-fhe friendly
Creeks-happened then TO be occupying. But the whole
Indian country there al that time country, anu
there boundary line between the friendly and
The hostile Creeks And repeat that the land that the
friendly Indians considered taken IRON them belonged
much 10 the hostile Creeks TO them Genela Jack
son might have said 10 them. do not take this from
you the friendly portion OF The Creek nation, but lake
il from the whole nation from the hosles as well as from
you; aud the balance OF the country that leave you rs
TO be occupied by the whole tribe one nation think.
therefore, that there is nothing in that view OF the mat
Ter. and that The honorable senator from Virginia Mr.
HusrERl need have no Tears that they can come and
make eclamaons upon this government Tor any despo-
aton OF what they may consider as peculiarly Their
land
But these claims arise from different consideration
Ii tribal claim il is not The Creek nation that sci
up this claim. but that portion OF the nation who
government-that portion OF them no shed their blood in
attempting to reduce their brothers 10 friendly position
towards The United States. and in doing SO sustained
losses Before this capitulalion they say they were
promised indemnihcaon which they have Teceiv-
ed have endeavoTed as briefly as could 10 state 10
the senator from Virginia Mr. HuNTERl what consider
the distinguishing features OF this claim mean that
class OF features which distinguish il altogether from
that class OF claims that he had his mind when he
stating, thnk not only orcbly but truly that this gov
eminent could not go back and do justice 10 the various
Indian tribes from whom have obtained and. and Tor
which il may be said that they did not receive full
compensation For these reasons | have not attempted
TO state all the principles of This claim.
have changed my impression and opinion IA 10 the
validity of this claim up before for the con-
sideraton OF this Senate Ii am mistaken in regard TO
any o the facts that have stated should like to be
corrected have endeavored 10 show from the evidence
in the case, that this private claim and other than
private claim, belonging to that portion OF the tribe
which was iuendly In the OF 1918 and 1914 Ii was
not then a national claim, and is not now. 1t is not
tribal claim, but is in the nature of private claim,
which was not then likely to he taken into consid-
Grafton, because those who had inf cled losses upon
them were brothers OF their tribe and the hostile
Creeks, in the treaties they made part of the Creek
naionas, for instance, the treaties of 1891 26, and '32
would never care to make stipulation TO have lndenini
y made to the friendly portion Of the be Tor losses
ic,ed upon them by themselves the hostile Creeks
think that because this private CLAIM oil such pecu
liar character, the friendly Creeks never had IN their
power bring this matter up Tor the consultation and
tion of The whole tribe 10 get them 10 this CLAIM
| upon this government. They also may have thought
that ought 10 be careful TO do them justice, by
considering this IN Inc light OF private clam. haa II II
claim now brongh, up by The whole nation as an
outstanding ella from 1914 TO this day. 1t II had been
SO brought up, think the presumption would be strong y
by Tie Mcintosh treaty 1S2l by treaty Of 1926
the treaty of 1882. have stated The WY il
was not settled then; and having done so. viii leave The
question TO the ascslon OF the Senate
The ques ion being then taken upon the amendment to
sttike out the appropriation 10 pay tns claim, was mol
| agreed 10,
| Ga motion, The Senate then adjourned