The daily union., 1852-08-10

l IL
they never got Why, this is most astonishing case
ihey never got the 100000 acres Why, sir, where are
lney hvpg They are living on the 100000 acres sci
apart ior The whole tribe, and they, being majority of
the whole tribe enjoy their full share aud YET complaint
10 made that we have gwen them 100 900 acresi II
is said they have the seventy cents per acre which
was reserved by the government the treaty. We have
already paid under this treaty fifty five cents an acre 10
the Indians. Have we ever paid so much before! Why
sr less than eleven and half paid for
The great Menomonee eesslon, and about the same
amount for the Sioux cesson which not long since
rauhed and that was camored against being TOO hah
can see no foundation whatever Tor this claim. II il
Is Tor the seventy cents in lieu oil the 100 900
acres which they 10 have OF the Missouri why
do they not ask US to comply with the treaty, and give
them 100 900 acres All sir, they not such fools as
to do that They know ii they off 100 900 acres for
themselves what will be the result 1t will be that The
Mississippi Shawnees will have 500 600 their
100000 They are moi so insensbIe To their own in
teess as give the half OF 500 900 and receive
instead Of 100 900 acres leaving The Missouri Shaw
nees 800 900. no foundation for the claim
whatever on any principle OF construction which be
| applied 10 the treaty.
| The amendment of the senator from Arkansas pro.
poses that the appropriation shall be made condition
that the Attorney General, on investigation shall be sat-
ished that the claim is just have very high regard
for the opinion OF the Attorney General when | know
that he investigates subject and presume that when
subject was referred 20 his opinion by Congress- he
would investigate it. But when we have before US so
plain case as this do not any necessity for such
reference. We can investigate il well as the AL
torney General Besides, am opposed to the policy Of
making appropriations 10 depend on The opinion Of the
Attorney Geneai. III MS opinion
nave it TO guide US before legisiate, and not after
wards.
The recommendation OF the Secretary Of the Interior
in favor OF this claim has to no weight He really
never TO investigate subject He goes at random
and very frequently, wnen his recommendations are here
the most superficial examination dscloses that they are
utterly erroneous II seems that dependence whatever
can be placed on his recommendation. Then, ii these
Indians have got their nifty ve the treaty
provided they should have i they have got only the
100000 acres, but 500 00O cannot see for nv life what
further claim upon us they have
Mr.. CASS. Mr.. President, the honorable senator from
Wisconsin Is entirely wrong on this subject The matter
Is exceedingly plain, and lies in nutshell The Care
Geredeau Indians owned tract OF land and sold il 10
the United States in 1925 In consideration OF it, the
United States gave them tract Of fifty miles square upon
the Kansas In the treaty OF 1925, at the request OF the
Indians, there this provision made, that the Ohio
Indians, from time TO time. when they chose emgrae
might 90 there Some years afterwards the United
States made treaty with the Shawnees in Ohio WHERE
there small tracts reserved and occupied by The
Shawnees, the Delawarcs, and the Wyandots. In pro-
cess OF time these reservations had become valuable and
IN 1881 the United States wanted the Indians 10 70 west
We made arrangements with these Indians in Ohio 10 20
west and we provided TO give them 100000 OF
he tract which had been before sold their brethren in
that country Oat OF that tract of fifty miles square, they
were to receive patent Tor 100000 Of land Now
want TO know what right had we TO change the terms
OF The original treaty. and patent of the land
II they were TO go there at all in body, (Which tie
treaty never contemplaed) they had equal right 10
Inc whole whereas we say in the subsequent treaty
that we will give them 100000 AS said before
they Were entitled 10 the land without patent; and
yet gentlemen talk about their having part of these fifty
miles square. Gentlemen talk about the value OF the
land which the Indians have settled What good il
that value TO them They cannot sell it except 10 The
United States so that it does not make any difference 10
them whether the land be worth dollar or q million
Of dollars. Whatever may be the price, makes no df
ference TO- them. for they hold just other Indians
hold land with the right to occupy and not to cell 10
any one but TO The oil the United States As
SAID before, the United States have furnished one tract
OF land and they got consideration for two That il
just the whole point OF the and that ali there is
Mr.. WALKER. will take it spon the ground Of
the senator from Michigan. He says the treaty Yves
made with the Shawnees of Missouri in 1925, and that
IN lieu OF the twenty-five miles square near Cape Cee.
deau, they given fifty miles square another place
Does not the senator bear in mind that that was not
given to them absolutely, Missouri Shawnees2 Does
be bear mind that there was an express reservation
made in that treaty that the Ohio Shawnees might settle
on that fifty miles squarei
The next point OF the senator is, that patent had
been issued the Shawnees OF Missouri Does he lose
sight OF the TACT that the patent the portion OF
the Ohio shawnees, IN pursuance OF the spuaions OF
the treaty tie cannot forget that But put upon his
own ground suppose that in the treaty with the Shaw
nees OF Missouri this portion had been reserved and
we bal treated with each band separately the govern.
ment having view The Ohio Indians, would have de-
Quoted what was intended for the Ohio Indians and
would have given to the Missouri Indians so much less
OF course The government, however, proper to
appropriate gross aggregate amount Tor the Missouri
Indians, including the Ohio Indians; and cannot see
me difference between giving it jointly them, or giving
70 them separately II they should demand it, Bot
they dad not demand II; and all that they have a right
now TO ask is that which reserved in the treaty
that The tund which the holds for their BEN
e1t should be paid 10 them in gross
Again. SIR what would separate treaties with these two
tribes give them upon the principles deduced from this
treaty. II would be just what | have before stated
Il would leave the Shawnee Indians OF Missouri with
100000 acres and there would be 100 900 acres left for
the Shawnees OF Ohio IN place of doing that we hs We
given them 100000 jointly The 100000 acres be-
ing included IN the 900 ceded BY the treaty of
1875 to the Missouri Indians.
Mr.. UNDERWOOD Mr. President, the manner in
which my fnend from Tennessee Mr. BELL has sup
posed that | misunderstood this whole matter has n-
duced me 10 rise Tor the purpose OF espassng on the
attention oil the Senate for very short time My atien-
lion was directed to the subject by the remarks made
the other day by the gentleman from Missouri, MIR
ATcHIsos subsequently had a conversation with
hIm aud became enlisted in the subject and ventured 10
make few remarks; for doing which | have received
the casugalion OF my friend from Tennessee who sup
lect know sr, that 1t is sometimes dangerous to enter
INTO matter which has studied thoroughly and
II had thought that the conversation which had with
my friend IRON Missouri would have led me into the col
llson which has taken place between myself and the
gentlemas IRON Tennessee, perhaps shoud have used
the better part" OF "dscreon and not entered Mt all
into this controversy But being in II, wish TO main
lain the position which have assumed. and think cor
recty assumed. and 10 show that my friend from Ten
nessee has really brought into this discussion number
OF matters which humby conceive have nothing in the
world To do with IL.
He says, for example, that this Ohio band was oriri-
nay part OF the tribe that settled upon the Mis-.
SOAR, and that they returned to Ohio What of that
Suppose they originally the tribe has not the
government by these treaties made contracts with them.
and made bargains with them, a separate tribe ID