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

4
whether in a council OF chiefs, or in some other way
/ cannot tell From Col. Hawkins's communicate 10
the War Department understand that some $50 900 OF
these claims ascertaned in 1916 10 be good But he
said at the time that The imperfect all
the claims had moi been presented adludicated or
mercantile phrase quldaied al that time That was
IN 1915. Congress then appropriated $4,000 put II al
the disposal OF the government and the government sent
il 10 The sgen-either Hawkins Mitchell. do not
know white-wllh instructions that II II was not enough
10 pay the whole amount OF the claims TO pay il pro
upon all The claims thus ascerained Tar lqui
dalton had been effected up TO that time. In The account
sent to the proper department by the Indian agent he
pressy stated that The account not complete, and
that there further claims 10 be asceftaned and qu
dated, However. whea this money was sent The
agent to be paid the Indians he paid pro rata and
then made report To the government here that there
one hundred and ten thousand and odd dollars
of claims TO be paid yet The liquidation made in
1916, and this report comes in in siS-showing thai,
there balance OF hundred and thousand and
odd dollars remaining yet 10 be paid the payment OF
which had not taken place in 1877 no more than in
1916.
In the year 1918 the final liquidation took place. and
then the friendly Creeks forward and claimed this
unpaid balance. The report Of MIR. McLane. made in
1924 10 relied upon 70 show that they were not entitled
the senator from Georgia, [Mr CHARLTON TO show that
that honorable gentleman had made that report either
when he had not the documents before him. or he had
them. had totally misunderstood them 1t he had the
papers before him when he made the report, am OF
opinion that he thought this $685. 900 which appro
priaed and paid to the claimants was all that was good
,
and therefore he refused to make any further appropra
ton for their payment Reference has beer made TO a
report OF Mr. Lowndes Of an anecedt date, in 1917 or
ISlS ia which he distinctly recognised the obligation OF
the government 10 pay these claims But i has other
connection with this matter, except TO show that that
distinguished man recognised the obligation OF this gov
eminent to pay the whole OF these CLAIMS
In the first place, this is not claim due TO the Creek
nation as nation II is due to only portion OF the
tribe; it due 10 The friendly Creeks, who consti-
tuted. perhaps, little than the majority of the tribe,
and perhaps not even that Now, with regard TO the
subsequent treaties. IL is very well known that the
treaty of 1921 made alleged al the time, and
suppose it is generally admitted now, by chief OF The
OF Mcintosh and his followers without the consent
OF the chiefs and leading warriors of his tribe for which
Springs think, in 1921. That was the first treaty, and
it made by hiG without due authority from his tribe
and the government OF the United States subsequently
ackno lodged this fact In 1926 there additional
other treaty, and TO restore the harmony the Creek
ihut had been disturbed by this treaty OF Indian
Springs in lo2l Now, ii is not sufficient 10
lect this clam to say that was before brought up
against the United States Tor the friendly Creeks red
into the Treaty OF 1926 mainly with view to repair the
harmony which had disturbed by the treaty made
by Mcintosh in 1921. These claims were then held
only by individuals, not by the nation or The tribe The
claim was still left in the condition OF private CLAIM
ton, who had been Unidentified for the losses
tanned by them from the hostile Creeks IN the Of
1914. In 1882 there another treaty made with this
tribe, which discussed this chamber, the object of
which not much the cessiOn OF their land lie
cutting up into reservations with liberty 10 them 10
sell it when they chose, and not obhgiDg them 10
remove westward when they had done Ii an
agreement entered into at the time with the whole nauon
including The hostile Creeks, under circumstances Of
pediency and pressing necessity.
You will observe that all of these treaties of 1872
1926, and 1884, treaties nomnally made with
whole OF the Creek nation But the treaty OF 1921 was
made by traction IN iact not by the traction composed
portion OF the hostile Creeks The treaty OF 1926
national regards the Indians embracing the whole
tribe Still the Indians, who had suffered in 1914, would
not come in with any prospect of success except in what
was considered private claim Of their upon the
government OF the United States, in consequence Of The
action OF General Pnckney ia 1914 Then there is fur
ther evidences that during this whole period-especally
as far as the Chief Opoheyohoo was concerned
friendly Indians never lost an opportunity of pressing
the,r claim upon the government II rests upon III,
made the last general treaty with this tribe, he pre-
sened this claim, and urged the propnety and justice
paying il Immediately He says that General Jackson
ped why this Is a matter which concerns the whole
country; We want you 10 remove. and when you do so
and go west then you shall be paid the whole amount
OF losses you incurred IN 1874" repeat, do not pre-
tend to say that there is documentary evidence Of this
But we find BY the report OF Mr. McLane in 1924 thai
this claim was then prosecuted.
In ls4l, when il perhaps my bad fortune be for
few months one OF the members of The then admins
traton, despatched an intelligent agent, well
quained with the Indian character and pretty well
quainied with Indian affairs, ascertain the ground
OF their complaints and if there any plan ,ba
could be devised to satisfy them. There had been sc
many panics and alarms account of the discomfort
among the Greeks and also among the Cherokees that
deemed it necessary TO do this. One of the causes
OF complaint reported by that agent was, that those
who were alive OF the old friendly party of the Creek
Indians, in wha, was called the Red St,ek 10 1914
considered that this government had not kept its fah
with them that they bad been promised indemnity from
the government of the United States for their losses
that war; and they had been but partially paid They
had brought their claims, time and time again. 10 the
tenion OF the government and the government had shut
their ears to them they had continued prosecute their
from this government This with other matters was
presented IN written report. have not it very
recently but imagine IL be easily and readily refer
red TO. refer to II Tor the purpose of showing b
these Indians have lost sight of this cIam-no
nation not 10 their national character, bat ndivd-
nas OF that portion OF this tribe who had incurred these
losses and considered that they bad claim upon the
eminent Tor The indemnify promised 10 them.
Mr.. HUNTER Will the honorable senator permit
me to interrupt him ! really wish to ascertain his
views, not for the purpose of controversy but for the
purpose OF seeing what they If understand him
correctly, his opinion is that we called upon pay
these Indians for the losses they sustained in the war re-
end that we are bound only to make good them these
losses but not bound TO pay Them anything for the ands
taken from them by General Jackson Is that correct
statement OF the senator's vewsl
Mr.. BELL My opinion of The justice OF this claim i
not founaed upon any consideration connected with The
question OF HE land Iaken from IN, n--not at ALL
Mr.. HUNTER Does not the senator think that i
bonnd for these losses we are bound 10 max,
pal ment for the land also wish TO ascertain wheihe
he thinks this will be the end OF the matter, or whetbe
be thinks the payng OF ,h,s claim will bind to max,
good another claim account OF the lands took iron
them.
MIR BELL Ny opinion il that this government can
bach In for