The daily union., 1852-08-12

from the department as deficiency 10 appropriation.
reports upon II as claim which s good one-iouhd'
ed, however, upon the mere equity OF contract
Mr., CASS. thought II was reported from the depart
ment as an estimate for deficiency
Mr. HUNTER Ii is only claim founded upon the
equity OF contract. and upon the strict terms Of it,
Mr.. BELL. think the senator can turn 10 the esl-
mate where this allowance IS asked for.
Mr.. HUNTER. This estimate is founded upon an old
report made here Ii says :" Mr. BELL made the fol-
loving report" showing that il then considered as
private claim, " accompanying Senate bill 432 The
Committee on Indian Affairs, 10 whom was referred the
memorial Of William b. Hart have had The same under
consideration and make the following report" And thai
report then made by The honorable gentleman from Ten
is the that the Indian department eproduces
Mr.. BELL That is only TO show the ground upon
which the amount OF the estimate is based.
Mr.. HUNTER. They estimated only in this way.
They say that they think this party entitled TO this
claim, and being entitled to IT, II will be tins amount
But II is not deficiency according TO their estimate, that
can see.
MIR BELL That part which the honorable senator
from Virginia [Mr HuETERl read in the appendix
explanatory OF the estimate, aud not IN the regular esti
mate The estimate made for The amount claimed on
account OF losses in making SAID removal heretofore
ported to be due By this Office and appropriation Tor
the payment OF which passed by the Senate at the
last session OF Congress, 1897 ,422 IL. That which the
gentleman read was from the appendix in explanation OF
the estimate.
MIR. HUNTER. 1 would ask the senator from Ten
Mr.. BELL] il is not practice in the de-
partInenl TO estimate for claims Heretofore have
been confined TO to the current services OF The year Bat
now they hunt up these claims and report Them to us
the class OF contemplated by the gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. CAss II was to that circumstance that
desired TO call his attention.
Mr.. BELL Ia reply to that, will say that you will
find many items this very estimate relation to clalmS
and in the appendix you will find notes explanatory OF most
OF them. Whether 1t is practice or not DO not
know think il is pretty nearly as old as the govern.
ment, as far as | have any acknowledgement so parcu-
lary in relation 10 cases ike His But they go back
appropriations which they might have recommended
yeats ago. and omitted some items, and they
mend them, and state the circumstances under which
they do it,
do not wish to do anything in violation OF this rule
But think this is case which you cannot discriminate
from public claim In many of its aspects il is pub
lie claim. As stated by the senator from Michigan Mr..
CAss, 10 individuals, TO be sure and SO do nine
tenths OF all the that appropriate for But will
not deialn the Senate in arguing the question further,
but will submit 10 their decision.
The PRESIDENT. The question is whether the Sen
ate will consider this as private claim under the rule.
If they consider private cain they will vote not 10
receive It, II they think 1t Is not private claim they
will vote to receive it.
The question being then taken upon receiving the
amendment upon division no quorum voted, as fol-
lows-ayes 90 noes IL.
The PRESIDENT There is quorum present The
question will be again submitted.
Mr.. HUNTER. | ask for the yeas and nays upon
this question. That will probably bring quorum
The yeas and nays were accordingly ordered.
MIR. MASON. 1 have yet said nothing upon this
questions Tor seldom Interfere with matters before the
Senate, being always very willing 10 listen. and have
my Judgment guided and my opinions founded upon the
information brought forward by others. But think 1t
proper now The vote upon this question Is 10 be record
ed 10 give the in very few words which lead me
TO consider this not IN the nature OF private clam under
the rule III understand il, this rule is very proper
and safe guard the Senate against mprovdent egs
laon, because IT is intended to prevent the appropra
ton of money to satisfy claims which have not been
passed upon by Congress. There are but few claims
upon the government that not private claims. But
the private claims intended to be excluded by the rule
those demands upon the government which have not been
passed upon by the national legislature, The latter,
which may be dehominaed equitable demands under
excluded appreheDu, under
this rule My attention first called to this subject
when the deficiency bill was up. listened to The debate
then, but intended TO say nothing until the vote was 10
be recorded In relation TO the construction OF this rule
understand this claim TO be this If am wrong, lei me be
corrected The government passed law Tor The reno
val of these Indians and in that law provided that they
should be removed by contract and contract was made
by the government with this individual, VIM. b. Hart,
and some others, for the removal oil this tribe.
Mr. BELL. There was treaty originally, providing
for the removal OF these Indians, and then appropra
tion made for that purpose. But there con-
tract provided for by law.
Mr. MASON. As 1 understand it. the government
made a contract for their removal whether the contract
was provided by law not makes no difference, as 1t
recognised and made legitimate by the action Of this
government. and there was an appropriation made Tor
their removal under the terms oil this contract.
As understand it, from some delay, or other cause.
arising from the action o the government, more money
required Tor their removal than was appropriated
contract for their removal made by the government
and sanctioned by law. The appropriation dld not hold
out IN consequence OF the interference OF the government
called upon 10 recognise this as claim sanctioned by an
existing law, and a contract made under existing law.
And would ask any gentleman who would treat this az
private claim TO tell me where is the difference between
remburslng the contractor for the losses he sustained
because the appropriation did not hold out in consequence
oil the action OF the government, and providing Tor
appropriation when that contract was IN progress
OF execution and the Indians were actually being removed
As understand this claim II Is really sanctioned by
lstng law and although IL is going 10 pfobt an individual
still is in consequence oil the public action OF the gov
eminent Such my understanding OF this matter, and
| shall vote 10 receive this amendment.
Mr.. HUNTER thiRk my colleague Mr.. MAsoNl
msapprehen The facts n this entirely. II ii was
to carry existing law should admit that it
in here legtimatey II there had been provision TO
satisfy this CONTRACT and the money appropriated had
turned out TO be insufficient, should admit Thai an add
lional appropriation could be asked But The fact
in this case, understand IT, Is this There not
made with the government, but made with
the Indians, who were TO be removed al their own ex
pense The contractors with the Indians complain that
they did not pay them Tor their removal because the gov
rent refused to deliver the scrip 10 the Indians and
changed the mode Of paying the Indians They say that
this changing the mode OF paying the Indians ncapac
forward with claim upon equitable considerations,
not 10 carry out any provision OF any treaty or law But
called upon 10 decide whether they are entitled TO
the claim they thus set up. say that appears 10
that upon general appropriation bill we ought not 10
be forced 10 into such inquiries The very TACT that
differ here in relation TO the facts of this
shows where be led II we begin with this sys
TEN Of admitting private claims upon general sppoprla
ton bills
Mr. COOPER A single word Here is claim about
the justice OF which there is not particle OF doubt upon
- -. I'D.