The daily union., 1852-08-13

chance would the Senate have, when considering the an
propration BILL 10 mature all these private measuTes Ii
i will amount IN principle 10 sided legislation Each
house will have TO adopt what the opposite branch does
without examination Now, are YOU prepared for that
At ibis period o the session Il will be impossible for the
Il House 10 examine all our private measures will be
equally impossible for Us 10 examine all theirs; they
would therefore have 10 be taken up without eonsdera
ton and passed, because one house has matured them
That is not constitutional legislation seems to me-
4 We are organized that each house consider
and ought 10 consider the legislation Of the other house
upon all OF these various These remarks will
not apply TO the various items contained 10 general ap
propaiion bills which passed IN pursuance oil stand
Jog laws, and TO carry out the great public OF
the country, because the members OF both houses may be
presumed understand what the general necessities OF
the county require, and may be presumed TO be prepared
10 act upon the general measures IN pursuance OF stand
ing laws when they up in the general appropriation
bill. For these reasons think il very bad policy 10
cumber general appropriation bill with Individual meas
ures, aud shall therefore vote against the resolution.
The question was then taken upon the resolution, and
II was rejected.
4 INDIAN APPROPRIATION
The hour OF twelve, having arrived the Senate pro-
ceeded 10 consider, as IN committee OF the whole the bill
from the House o Representatives making appropria-
ton Tor The and contingent expenses OF the Indian
department and Tor fulhllmg treaty slpuaions with
rous indian tribes Tor the ending June 30th, 1853
4 Mr.. JONES, OF Iowa. ] offer the following amend
ment I#f#.4
"For payment James w. Marsh 10 cover loss OF his
properly destroyed by band Of Sioux Indians in month
Of July, 1872 while extending the connexion line
OF the public in the State OF Iowa Missouri
f
1 OF the United States 81 200" ls1 4H#
In relation to this amendment have fortified myself
with much information, which have sought and oh.
tanned from the that accessible me; but
probably shall husband the time OF the Senate by
ing 10 be read paper from the Indian department. which
appended to The amendment rather than giving verbal
explanation myself:
Extract fon additional estimate of funds required for
the service OF The iadan department within the
This claim is presented under the seventeenth section
OF the intercourse law OF 1884 which promises restitution
reparaon by the United States for depred tions ed
by Indians who are not IA tue receipt OF annuies from
government The proof nrnished by Mr. Marsh to this
Sioux Indians the Wahpacooia band who receive no
annuity from the government OF the Unted Sates-(S-e
vol 4, U Statutes Large, page 729, chap l6i An
10 regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes
Mr.. HUNTER Did understand the senator from
Iowa 10 say that he had communication from the Indian
department explanatory OF this amendment!
Mr.. JONES. Yes, sir; the explanation has just been
read II shows that the appropriation is asked for under
the intercourse law OF 1884, which passed for the
purpose Of preventing difficulties between citizens of the
United States IN the Indian country and the Indians them
selves, and for property which might be stolen or de-
sifoyed by them. This which the property OF
depuy surveyor OF the United States stolen by the
Sioux Indians. These Indians have annuites out of
which we can take the amount of which Mr.. Marsh was
robbed and the intercourse law of 1884 provides that
where persons are robbed or have their property stolen
remuneration for such property shall be made BY The gov
ernment OF The United States | think this is beyond
question, case which is covered by the law The mat
Affairs, as well as to the Commissioner and both the
committee and the Commissioner OF opinion that
was proper appropriation 10 be made in the Indian ap-
pFopriaon bill, II not being private claim.
Mr.. HUNTER II / understand this claim, il origi.
mates in the 18th section of the intercourse law, and
would have been paid il there had been appropriation
so. ii Is moi private CLAIM In relation to its merits
know nohng The senator has stated them.
Mt. ATCHlSoN. ] know all about this calm-hat
is, have examined il with care
Mr.. BRODHEAD. WHAT'S the amount9
Mr. AiCHl SON. $1,000 only. Ii is for property
taken by the Indians in the Territory OF Iowa The som
tee were OF opinion that under the general intercourse
law he was entitled 10 his claim If he pursued the
prescribed by that law 10 go before the Indian agents. or
the superintendent OF Indian AFFAIRS either the one or
the olber and prove that he had lost his property and
that had been destroyed taken by the Indians He
would then have recourse against the Indians; and II
they received annues from the United States he could
be paid But appears that these Indians receive no an
nulies; and hence the treasury OF the United States un
der The general law Is responsible This is the whole
case and Is public CLAIM, II there be such thing as
public claim,
The amerdmen, was agreed to-
Mr. CLEMENS. have an amendment which wish
TO offer
Tor deprcdations committed by the Creek Indians upon
their property. taken by the troops the United States
and 1887 ss557s7 to be distributed according 10 The
act Of Congress approved March >, 1891"
Mr. HUNTER | should raise question OF order in
relation to this being private claim, but for the decision
relation 10 Harris clam Ii 10 that this is no
more private claim than ihat bat both claims, in my
opinion, are private claims This is the same case
which was up upon the deficiency bill, and which was
argued by the senator from Tennessee Mr. BELLl and
the senator from Michigan, Mr.. CAss did not then
believe that 1t was ia case Tor appropriation do
now do not suppose II TO be necessary repeat the
argument upon that appropriation 1t must be fresh in
the recollection OF the Senaie.
Mr.. CHASE. should like TO have the question de- |
clded whether this Isl private claim not tor think
we are in fair way 10 accomplish the object OF the sen
atoT from North Carolina Mr. BADGERl by indirection
II we not prepared directly repeat the rule These
claims do not proessedy arise under any law OF the Uni
ted States; but they arise suggested in the former
debate upon the application OF equity TO these partic
uar CLAIMS There is no law by which any provision is
made Tor the payment OF these Claims There is no con-
tract in pursuance OF any law There Is no treaty by
which they are recognised provided for that they 90
not come within the category in which the caIr yester
day decided by the Senate 10 be private claim was
placed e., claim arising IN Pursuance of law or
under treaty. which is the supreme law OF the land
raise The question for the decision of he Char that this
private claim, and that the number interested in
does not make any difference.
| The PRESIDENT. The Senate is aware that the
Chair very unwilling 10 decide where there is the slight
est doubt In matter of this kind and has therefore, on
seveta occasions, submitted the Senate whether such
proposition as that came under the rule and
would be excluded or did not come under the rules
and could be admitted. Under decision reversing q
decision OF the case, which occurred on the def
cheney bill, the Senate determined Yesterday that claim
" bad formerly pronounced private claim was not
private catn although the CHAIR IL called upon 10 de.
eide the question, would have decided other rwise The
Chair s therefore, unwilling exclude any anne ndment
when, py any possibility, may not be strictly aprvae