The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-05-29
THE UNION WASHINGTON SATURDAY MORNING MAY %, 1852

- J.
claims which were not quidated by proper authority not
youched Tor by proper evidence which have been stand
ing so long, and have been repudated by the committees
Of Gon gn g sN many years ago o,,0s
but think the senator from Maryland Mr.. PEARoE]
well as the senator from Virginia [Mr; HUkTEKl has
clearly fallen into misapprehension on the subject with
reference 10 Col Hawkins and the two classes OF claims
OF the indians upon this government think SO from
what consider very clear and satisfactory report made
Indian Affairs. which he shows think. beyond ques
ton, that the COMMITTEES OF Claims in 1924, referred TO
by the senator from VTgns, msapprehended failed 10
discriminate between these two classes 81 claims, or the
States Ia that report OF his that the committee did not
have that information before them at the time they made
Of Col Hawkins as altogether for this claim OF prop
ery destroyed whereas he made two eshmates--one
Of the indemnity which they required Tor land being the
difference between the amount taken OF them and that
signed and the other for property lost and destroyed
during the war.
AS 10 the authority Of Col Hawkins to enter into this
examination OF the losses OF these Indians for the pur
pose Of lquidatng their claims, think there can be
question: acting, as be did, under the authority OF the
War Department. My colleague has read the instruc-
ton OF the War Department to him at that time. is
true the senator says the War Department has no
thory to pay these claims but he must recolect that
that action OF the War Department was recognised after
wards by the government OF the United States in making
the appropriation of $4,000 They recognised the
thory with which he had entered into this liquidation
else they never would have made an appropriation OF
money 10 pay what be had reported 10 be DUE But Col
Hawkins states in substance that this estimate
jeciura did not embrace all the clams for the
son that some Of the Indians were net there After the
his place, and succeeded him in all the duties which had
been imposed upon him. and he directed on and
ascertain, with precision in the liquidation, what amount
was due
The senator objects to the mode in which these claims
have been adjudcated He says it probably done in
careless way Now, Mr.. President II appears that 80
{rS ha,sx l
presented to The amount OF 100000 10 Col Michel by
the Indians he, at the suggestion OF the CHIEFS reduced
the amount 10 $lo5 ooO bringing tdown almost one hall
In regard to admitting any claim that was not clearly
proved there disposition on the part oi the Indian
chiefs that occasion representing that tribe TO permit
the Indians to fix upon the government claim which
not justly due and therefore the amount which was
presented by the Indians closely examined and 30
strictly pruned down to what was actually poyed that
the whole amount reduced from $780, 900 10 $780,
000 So far, therefore, from there being any foundation
for the belief that these claims presented loosely 10
the agent there is the best TO believe that the In
dian chiefs acted in good faith and adludic,ted them
strictly in conformity to the evidence and the estimates
asceraned by him ought therefore, TO be assumed as The
true amountai any rate the smallest amount which the
government could be supposed 70 owe these Indians
But wish again to refer the fact that that statement
Of Col Hawkins, that $780, 900 would have been sufficient
to satisfy the Indians originally. must have referred to
the derence in The value Of the land taken iom them
said in that treaty about the losses OF property 1t IS
true, these losses OF property were part consideration
when " M 70 co 81
~ containing his instructions, part consideration
primarily 10 forming the treaty. AS my colleague has al
ready SAID was one OF the by which .hey
all Yet there provision made in the treaty Tor this
claim aud they rested upon what was OF higher authority
TO- them, which satisfied them than the treaty
iseli-o wit, the assurance they had received from
Gen. Pnckney, the authorized agent OF the government
at that time, 10 induce them 10 in and make treaty
They recognised it as constituting claim apon the gov
70 IA N
ITSELF and we told in another communication OF Col.
Hawkins, not that 900 900 would be enough conecturng
500 900 would be enough Now, If the senator from
Maryland assumes the reference OF Col Hawkins TO the
800 900 being sufficient to cover all the claims OF
properly. he will find difficult to get clear of the other
estimate OF 100000 lie cannot have referred the same
losses TO the different amounts and If $4,000 would
have been sufficient in the first instance, there ~ no
ground upon which he could have said that 800 600
would probably be the amount. The treaty is as
the Commissioner OF Indian Affairs has stated. Col.
Hawkins referred 10 two distinct classes OF caimsone
provided for in the treaty III the donation OF this land and
the other referred 10 by The letter OF Gen Pnckney, IN
reference TO which he directed by the Secretary OF
War to make quidation one in the estimate OF Col
Hawkins being 100000, and the other 100000. But
in regard TO The 100000, he tells you is conjec
ture altogether. He died before proper examination
and estimate could be made; and when Mr.. Mitchell
succeeded him, he went very thoroughly aud carefully
investigation OF the whole subject under the IN
siIuctons OF the War Department., and asceraned. in
stead of 100000, that $4,000 were duenot as small
what they proved. So If there is obligation at all
the government, clearly recognised by the appro-
patlon OF SS5 000 in 1917 10 pay the Indians the obli-
gallon be good Tor the whole amount which they
proved when called upon by the agents OF the govern
men and which the agents OF the government have les.
titled TO clearly proved and substantially established
before them
Mr. SEBASTIAN. II has been suggested 10 me that
doubts entertained in consequence Of the action
taken BY The treaty at Indian Springs have document
which will read for the purpose OF showing that one
OF the chiefs, in sso still spoke OF this unquida.
ted claim lie spoke of a talk" he bad with General
Jackson when he President, from which il is clearly
be that the Indians did regard The treaty OF
Indian Springs forming any bar whatever TO the claim,
aud no satisfaction for il !"
IMAM CASADIou, Creek Nation, February 3, 1912.
AT council OF Greek chiefs and head of the Creek
naton the following remarks mede the undersgn-
ed by Opothey hoio, the place and date above
"GPorHE HoLo. You have been sent here by the
President the Indians, and have business
about which constantly talking. We have claims,
and have made and the papers in relation 10 tho
and will Just mention the heads of them. When
lock the papers you will see all about II.
" uunber OF years ago U53) tho Creeks went to
among each other and the whites called in, and Gem
cra Jackson in and eted the war; and gave the In
dsns talk ri the close OF II.
+" Afterwards we heard that General Jackson made
President and delegation Of Creeks went TO Washington
him When General Jackson talked the friendly
Creeks the close of the USlt) he told them they
Of every hing they bad lost made out and they should be
paid for H. And they understood that Congress had sppro
pristed them, aud that tho they
to Washington TO the President The losses
all taken down. and the Indians received iie money for
them but they not paid half what was due
When the Creek delegation went TO Washington 70
General Jackson they said 10 him
You were once general In command OF The army,