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

| Cree ks into their midst This MAS the equivalent
ceyed, Tuese other small pieces OF land which lie says
the chiefs received individually equivalent they
also lost After The treaty. the laws Of the whites
extended over them Does nay friend from Virginia not
know that the Indians canno, live under the laws OF the
whites Add when the white population came in tho
Indians had TO abandon their pieces oil land and clear oH
speak zealoasy upon this matter. have no Iaruc-
uar interest IN H. do not know one ot the Creek In
dians But think justice ought TO be done al all times
and under all circumstances. The answer thai this is
stale claim will mol do, provided il is shown here that
this government promised this unfortunate
pensale them for their individual losses. and the
showing OF our own agent paid them but two fhs of
these losses. therefore appeal 10 the justice Of the Sem
ate retain in this bill The appropriation which the
Let the bill stand is in this respect. and let the
amendment OF The committee be rejected
Mr. BORLAND. | do not intend TO make speech
upon this subject. Some few weeks since, when the
subject then before The Senate, presented my
OF the case and urged far was ahls. the sHofie
y and usncs q paying ms claim Inc senator from
clearly set forth The merits Of the claim, that do not
think it needs another word by way OF argument in its
support.
But rose make single remark to call the atten-
ton Of the senator from Georgia, Mr.. CHARLroNl and
OF the senator from Virginia, Mr. HUNTER TO sin
gle point suggested incidentally by remark OF the SEN
aor from Virginia, that the liquidation OF these claims
was made, not by the agent OF the government, but by
The chiefs Of the Indians themselves In that the sena-
tor from Virginia is mistaken The liquidation made
by the agent OF the government in consultation and
operation with the chiefs But suppose il had been made
that recognised by the agent afterwards as proper
liquidation makes equivalent to his own act, just if
ne had gone into originally and made the whole qu-
daon himself And another thing TO show that these
Indian chiefs who concerned with the agent in
this liquidation not disposed to be exorbant in
their demands upon The government OF the United States,
and TO yield 10 all the claims set up by the individual
Indians, will say that they very materially reduced
the claims presented that time, and their award in al
every instance reduced the amount claimed by the
Indians below what it when presented
But it is not necessary TO go back to that transaction
at all to whether they had made fair liquidation
not. II is enough TO enable us to act undersandingy
now, to know the fact that in 1877, by simple act of
Congress, recognised that liquidation and made
appropriation to pay it, The appropriation not
enough TO pay il, the senator from Georgia [Mr.
CHARLToN] has shown, only two-hfhs OF each claim
being paid for instance, claimant for $4,000 would
ceiye $500, and SO on IN that way through all the claims
The recognition by the OF these claims far
back 1877 and their partial payment in my opinion
proof enough that they are obligatory upon u.s. II was
tor this that remarked, in the speech that made
upon the deficiency bill, that considered this claim
the only item in il 1hich was real deficiency II was
TO make up balance due upon claim which had been
liquidated and recognised by us and paid IN part My
opinion is that il should have remained in the deficiency
bill II pleased the Senate, however, TO strike it out.
provide for it in this bill And do think il is ,ime-l
think we owe il TO ordinary considerations oil usce-io
say nothing OF lberality and justice towards people
whose country we have taken, and, we bound to
admit, whose dearest rights have uamped upon-it
is time to pay them now not what they ask as favor,
but what they demand as simple act Q. justice and
Mr. BELL. desire the attention Of the senator from
Virginia Mr. HUNTER] for few minutes to what say.
do moi propose to examine this question fully, as the
senator from Georgia lMr CHARLToN] has so clearly
stated all The grounds upon which this claim is founded
But think this proposition be clearly Disseminated
from that class OF propositions that course OF
TO which we seem to have considerable tendency
gard TO the compensation made TO the Indians Tor their
lands-l mean this plan OF going back TO inquire whether
strict Justice has been done to them and whether more
ought not to be done for them in some shape other
wish 10 show that discriminate well enough this
claim from the whole class, in regard to which agree
with the honorable senator from Virginia. Mr. HUNTER
that would be highly impotic for US TO go back and
examine for years and years past no matter for how
long, to see whether have done justice them when
took portion OF their land from them by treaty. No
one will deny that was little more nor less than taking
we pleased for them Yet this idea OF equalization n the
payments that have made 10 the Indians thing that
would be utterly impossible. II is impossible that It
should be done justly in the first place and, secondly we
called upon by no consideration Of justice to do a. But
think il the honorable from Virginia has listened
10 the chain of arguments submitted BY the honorable
senator from Georgia, Mr. CHARLTON and will listen
to the two additions that propose TO make, be
will that this claim stands upon an entirely different
ground from the others
In order TO understand this claim properly think IT
would be well enough 10 throw out OF view altogether
all that has been said in reference TO the value OF the
land TAX from the Indians by General Jackson in 1914
throw il out OF view altogether For, understand
the claim II is not based upon that idea al all that has
Only been thrown in as make weight or a. an auxiliary
matter have been led 10 look little carefully into
this matter, from the request of the honorable senator
from Arkansas, tMr. BoRLAsDJ whose accuracy and
judgment in reference 10 these matters have had an
opportunity OF testing upon many occasions When this
proposition brought up IN the Senate before IN con-
with the deficiency BILL confress my impression
strongly against the justice oil H. supposed thar some
connexion really existed between the foundation OF tins
claim and the land iaken from the friendly Creeks
have since made careful investigation OF the sub
lect and found that such not the fact And again.
i was embarrassed when this question was up before.
by the consideration that subsequent to lsla, when the
war closed and subsequent TO 1917. when these
claims qudaed there had been two three treaties
with these Indians upon the part OF this government, and
did not clearly why IL was, If hese claims were
subsisting claims al the time the friendly Indians arst
eferred them they provided for and lqodaed
y impressed with the idea that il the Indians themselves
e ha, they clearly entitled this compensation
for their losses in 1884, they would lave set up The clam
when these trcaies made and IT would have been
allowed by the government, or we should have known
that it had been rejected Now, il can divest
minds OF all that has been said, and all that has been
found in this report OF the treaty OF Fort Jackson, and
the capilulaiion by which we took large quantity of
land from the hostile Creeks and also nearly large
quantity from the friendly Creeks we should then be
better able TO tell whether this claim based upon is
just merits instead Of requiring 10 go back
II paid a full compensation for the land we acquired
by treaty a long time ago.
Now must reterate portion of. the arguments al
ready used by The honorable senator from Georgia Mr.
CHARLroS1 Fouror FIVE months before this capipla-
ton the Secretary of War wrote 10 Gen Puckney who
then commander in-chie OF forces there, 10