The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-05-19

some recollection OF The Transactions connected WIN ne
lions OF dollars, That however, IS not very material
That necessarily became the FIRST fruits OF the false Pocy
Of the government What was that policy ana y y
sustained all for beg leave now in The outset OF my
reply to the honorable senator from Michigan, tMr.
CAss 10 s,ate-what stated Yesterday u subsistence
law sustain this claim because that law does not EN-
brace such claim although. was argued by the hon
orabe senator from Texas Mr. RusK, The law, II APP
Piled may well be said TO support IT, But do not rest
upon that exclusively said there portion OF the
obligation which rests upon the government TO protect
the property OF its citizens in time OF war against public
enemy general principle, which could apply to this
And whether this Indian outbreak can be consd
cred properly Called not sill there was
principle behind those circumstances in the nature OF
the policy OF the government adopted in this treaty and
pursued in its execution which took It out OF those prn-
cipes that would exclude the inhabitants OF Alabama
from coming TO the government and claiming indemnity;
there were new facts and circumstances which imposed
an obligation upon the government which could not well
be dsregarded when we come TO look into the history OF
that policy,
What was that extraordinary policy stated that this
the first treaty under which the government had ex
pressy permitted by the terms OF the treaty itse-and
sustained also, because they would not prevent 1t per-
haps after the treaty had been executed SO lar as the Peo
pie OF Alabama commemorative FIRST treaty by which
the government had expressly permitted the whites TO
settle within the limits OF Indian territory before Inc
Indians were removed. What is that treaty! The hon
orable senator from Michigan Mr. CAssl believe did
not allsde to that particular clause of the treaty under
which these difficulties II is in the 9th article oil
the treaty, in these words:
Al intrsders upon the hereby ceded shall be
removed therelTom the intruders may
be removed by law from other public lands nn' the eoan
indian who in number about 60OO] Eek
ospting. however, from this provision all white persons
have made their improvements and not expelled
the Creeks through their means Such may remain
until their crops are gathered Aer ,he country sur
rate upon thai part OF il not included In such selections
call the attention OF the honorable senator from Mich
igan Mr. CAss] to that fact-that part OF the arce(he
said yesterday that the treaty well considered)-
would call his attention to that part OF the article which
reads Alter the country is surveyed. and the selections
made, this article shall not operate upon that portion oil
1t not included in these reservations" What is the
meaning and the purport OF that portion OF the article
is that the Indian territory that was coded BY the treaty
of 1882 was laid to the population Of the surround
ing States and the citizens OF the United States generally
as it surveyed and before it sold
Now, if the honorable senator from Michigan Mr.. CAss
chooses to make explanation. should be happy to
hear it. stated that this the policy Of the govern
ment by the Introduction Of new features in this treaty.
whatever might be the motives which prompteit or the
necessities under which it done do not undertake
TO investigate that matter, and mpute bad motives either
then or now But call upon the honorable gentleman
state TO the Senate what the policy of the govern
ment in adopting these principles IN the treaty. but TO
by that means the removal OF the Indians
from necessity nee they were then obliged 10 CO.
Mr. CASS What article did the gentleman read
Mr. BELL. 1t was the fifth article Of the treaty and
reairm (the senator can explain IN future) that all
these dsastershese depredaons upon the property OF
the citizens OF Aabama-howed naturally and BY sort
OF inevitable necessity from the policy which The gov
principle OF indemnity for losses sustained by the
citizens OF the United States will come presently to
the Of Aaama or the e
United States. If il fairly rests upon the government OF
Alabama, then the application for indemnify ought 10 be
upon the government OF the United States, then the appl
cation 10 well made here. will be clearly perceived
that there nothing in the preceding policy Of this
ernmentno principles established recognised hereto
foTe-whch can apply 10 such case as this.
MIR. CASS. have read over the article Now, will
the honorable senator tell me the poin, to which he
Mr. BELL. In the first place. ii was no, provided in
the treaty that the Indians should be removed before the
whites were permitted to settle in the Indian territory
Az the lands surveyed, without referring to
the removal OF the Indians, and OF course implying that
while the Indians remained there the whites were free TO
come in and occupy the country.
Mr. CASS Will the honorable senator allow me to
that was not their country at all; the country was
purchased by the United Staes-some 5000 900 OF
acres-and there had been reservations, The white
settlers would have gone there the very next day after
the lands had been purchased But there were reserva
90 there until the country had been surveyed, and the
Indians had made their reservations That the main
point. The land the land OF the United States,
and the system prevailed in relation to any other
public andhat the moment il open for sale every
body was at liberty to go there, But TO protect the In
dians the treaty provided that settlers should 60 there
until the lands had been surveyed and the Indians had
selected their reservations.
Mr.. BELL. think this is an evasion (f the honora-
BILE senator will pardon my OF that tem) OF the
curry have made in relation TO the policy Of this gov
eminent at that day, There were some twenty -one
thousand Indian routes within the limits OF the territory
thus coded to the United States. besides two thou
sand three thousand negroes Now, was It the in
tenon OF the government 10 buy out their lands, and
still leave Them permanent residents OF that country
Was there nothing contemplated to their removal
westwards Was there provision in the treaty 10 that
efectl
Mr.. CASS. Certainly there was
MIR BELL But the policy of the government has
BEEN in other that the Indians shall be removed
within given time Now, there was no such provision
in that treaty.
Mr. CASS II the honorable senator will permit me,
will say that you know Mr. President, that the treaty
could have been made unless you granted them
vatons, with the right to 60 remain they pleased
The government made provision for the removal OF every
Indian who would go but those who would not 60 had
right to remain there select their reservations and sell
them they pleased and foot of that country
could have been obtained otherwise than by The terms of
that treaty
Mr.. BELL, / was showing that by the provisions OF
this treaty the government bad contracted obligations
usually contracted 10 such treaties regard TO these In
dian depredations They had made treaty, and left
$1,000 Indians and 1000 negroes IN this country, and
made no provision for their removal prior to the hng up
answer OF the honorable senator from Michigan Mr.
CAss TO hati Why sir, political necessity and you,
Mr. President, appealed TO 10 confirm the statement
he makes, that treaty could have been made except
upon these anomalous terms. But that does not touch
my argument 10 fact must say that il is conhrmatory
oil what laid down yesterday that the government had
pursued policy in this which made them liable for
these depredaions
Mr.. CASS. ! said that what the honorable senator