The daily union., 1852-08-10


Mr.: SEBASTIAN. Seventy cents an acre were re-
served as consideration for the land assigned 10 them
west Of the Mississippi The residue above the seventy
cents has been paid long since, invested part was
paid IN advance some OF il for saw-mills, grst- mills
and other purposes and part was invested In five per
cent annuiles now held by the United States and he
interest paid annually TO them But there seventy
cents reserved in the treaty. several other
treaties WIN other bands Of Indians IN Ohio, ia the same
year. which was reserved consideration for the land
assigned. They say this consideration has failed, and
ask ior reundng of that portion oil the reservation in
ohio-ihe seventy cents ON the whole tract OF land,
Mr. BORLAND. | must confess that the subject gets
ltle more difficult the more hear il explained.
understand that we originally ceded 10 these Indians
900 acres OF land in Ohio.
Mr. BUTLER, On, no.
Mr. BELL Yes, i was upwards OF 100000 acres.
Mr. BoRLAND. This was reserved in considera-
on OF Their removal from these reserved lands Did
pay them by The treaty, will my colleague be kind
will present TO the Senaie AT the date OF the treaty Of
1884, the Wapagb band in possession in tire
Stale OF Ohio, oil 92So0 OF land They ceded those
lands 10 the government of the United States and took
in exchange 900 west OF the State of Missouri
Their lands were 10 be put up and sold other lands OF
the United Sales--not by private entry as the senator
exposed TO public sale other lands of course at the
minimum price OF 81 25 per acre. We agreed, in the
rs place. TO reserve TO ourselves seventy cents
consideration for the land assigned to them west OF
the State OF Missouri and then for The overpus we be-
the trusee and 10 disburse il for their benefit
Out OF this ovepus we advanced SC 900 to enable them
10 remove; we subsised them Tor twelve months we
paid the expense OF erecting saw mill and slmlll
and blacksmith shop on their new land and then. after
deducng the seventy cents acre, reserved as con-
sderaon Tor the lands assigned them west and alter de-
ductng the other expenses incurred for ther benefits it
was supposed that there would sill be surplus from
the sale OF their lands That surplus invested, in
pursuance of the terms OF the treaty, in five per cent
annui,ies, which the Shawees have been receiving
since.
To proceed further with this case The government
proposes to assign them the 900 west and pro-
posed BY an article OF the treaty to give them patent
Tor it. They went and occupied the lands. the ground
assigned by the treaty OF 1885, 10 the Missouri Shaw
ulaton 10 assign to the Ohio Shawnees 100000 acres
exclusively for their own use. They were not able to
do it; they not able to do il to- day and they
can be able to comply with this stipulation unless they
purchase 100000 acres from the Missouri Shawnees
They occupy the land in common-a privilege reserved TO
them by the Missouri Shawnees in the treaty of 1925,
which contained stipulation that such OF the Shaw
resided in Ohio should emigrate to the country
assigned them west, should have the privilege Of occu
pying in common They possessed this right under
the treaty Of 1926 they had This privilege at the time
the treaty of 1881 was formed. 1t was privilege ac-
corded them and acquired by them under the treaty of
1926 They had at the date Of the treaty OF 1881,
which gave them, in addition 10 the right In common,
the exclusive right to 100000 acres
Now, if my colleague will allow me TO transgress the
privilege OF merely answering his question, will take
this occasion to answer one argument OF the senator from
Wisconsin. Under the letter OF the treaty 1885, the
Shawnees Of Ohio have right TO grant from the Uni
ted States, by patent, OF the 100000 acres which they
stipulated for themselves in the treaty of 1881. The
ground upon which the argument against the whole OF
this claim is based is that by the treaty OF 1925. we had
actually done better for them and had secured them
more liberal provision than was given by the treaty OF
1881. Unfortunately for the other side, this argument
proves entirely too much. proves Just what the sens
ator from Kentucky said would be the result II places
the Indians in the attitude Of surrendeng TO the United
States by the treaty OF 1881 seventy cents an in lieu
OF provision which was only onereghih as fayora.
Bile TO them as that which they had under the treaty OF
mon sense and intelligence in making the provisions
OF this treaty. Would they have surrendered that
y it, as has on ny M
the gentleman from Tennessees They had, under the
provisions OF the treaty OF 1925, the right Of common
right Of incorporation, With the old Shawnees without
surrenderng their land In Ohio. Now, would ASK the
senator from Wisconsin, what have the Ohio Shawnees
the of the United States from the sales of the
lands ceded by the treaty of s3li Why, he says they
have received the right TO the occupancy OF 100000
acres tell the senator they had that before they ceded
Mr.. WALKER. They got hfty.hye cents an acre.
Mr., SEBASTIAN. The fily-hve cents an acrewas
from the sale Of their own lands and it was their own
money. They had right to the common occupancy
OF the 100000 acres under the treaty Of 1925. They
had IT without the treaty OF 1884, by title ndepend-
ent OF that treaty. We must suppose, ii the gentle
mans argument be true, that they sacrificed that right
Tor which the Missouri Shawnees had paid a consld.
Grafton, and ceded away, a mere grauity, seventy
cents the lands ceded by the treaty OF 1891
The lands 10 addiloD they owned independent OF that,
and they had this right to incorporate with the western
Shawnees independent OF the treaty OF 1881 They could
have gone there and occupied that land under the treaty
OF 1885, and have kept their lands IN Ohio also. Now,
there light shed upon this By the history OF other
treaties made al the time want senators TO bear
n mind that the whole features OF these treaties were
marked by act OF Congress OF ls30-beng act
TO authorize and arrange exchanges OF land with the In
dians in the Eas, for land in the West. The whole
policy OF these treaties was contained in that law. And
the Commissioner who made the treaties at that time
found these Ohio Shawnees possession OF 90 $50 acres
for which be agreed that they should have 100000 acres
the Oawas had $4,000 acres and were to receive
81 00g acres west the Senecas and Shawnees, having
reservation OF 49, $50 acres, 10 900 acres
upon going west; the Senecas of Sandusky had 10000
acres, and TO receive 67o00 west and so on
that rate You see therefore, that there is one fea-
ture running through all these Indian reaes and that is,
ives, for what they ceded in the East BY the treaties,
and the law authorizing these treaties, this was called an
exchange OF land, aud this reservation OF seventy cents
per reservation common 10 all the treaties,
showing that il consideration TO be paid Tor their
lands west Three of these tribes got land outside OF
this grant but when you came to treat with them you
asst gned them land inside oi this grant Then for what
say that il 10 lieu OF the right OF common occupancy
under the treaty OF 1925 say that they had that right
under the treaty OF 1925, independent OF the treaty OF
1884, and could have avaed themselves OF II, and still
have held their lands in Ohio. This is the plain state OF
the case.
am much obliged TO my colleague [N1r BoRLANDl for
giving me this opportunity TO make this statement IN
gard TO the facts OF the case
Mr.. BORLAND obtained the floor, but gave way TO a
| attnnfn In adtn hnrr