The daily union., 1852-08-12

out believe there is moi item in this claim which
ment attending them 10 the fulfimeni OF their duties
The original contract was that no additional sum, moth
ling extra, should be claimed They claim nothing extra;
they claim nothing beyond the execution oil the contract
As understand IT, the instant that the government failed
Ito perform It's portion oil the contract, the whole account
from the very commencement oil ~ may be SAID 70 nave
been thrown open in fact but these parties were per-
suaded 20 with their part OF the contract, and to
make the expenditures from their own funds, or TO Dor.
money purchase supplies, under The assurance OF
The officers OF the government that II was the policy OF
the government 10 have these Indians removed There
was an appropriation tor IT, Every point of public policy
required that, as they had collected the Indians together,
they should remove them and run the risk Il was upon
that ground that the committee thought that was clear
that the clause in the original contract that they should
claim nothing for extras iron the government IN the
execution of that contract, entitled 10 no weight, be-
cause the first step the government violated their own
contract Here are the papers and The vouchers 10 show
that the stipulation upon The part oil the
that upon certain day in September the Indian scrip
should be upon the ground. The contractors proceeded
TO assemble the Indians IA execution OF the contract
but the scrip not issued Tor two or three months al
forwards; that which Issued at all east oil
the Mississippi river So OF all the other Items; do
not remember the particulars about them all but think
every OF them has the sanction OF the agent OF the
government This gentleman did not go on blndly but
upon the Of Mr. Barsow that il was the policy
OF the government, that il was the main object OF the
contract TO remove the Indians and that 1t was founded
upon the treaty. and that appropriations had cen made
for their removal by the government but that they could
get done cheaper BY contractors under their discretion
sry authority in the best These gem
tIemen held to their contract and fulfilled il in every
part The government failed to comply with this sipu
20 on during the existence OF this negligence the part
Of the government. Now, sir, think this Isl public
matter and be very clearly distinguished from the
class OF alluded 10 by the senator from Virginia.
Mr.. HUNTER wish TO read an extract from the re.
port OF the senator from Tennessee himself, which
think places the claim upon the true ground
"I appears thas the did sustain dam
age, and Were subject 70 great expense not necessarily
connected with the fuhlnens Of their contract by the fat
which 70 have been delivered 10 the Indians before
their departure Tor the country apart Tor them west OF
damages against the government the sum OF 10 300 is
based upon saes and supplies furnished TO the indians
by the contractors on various occasions.
That is TO say that consequence OF the failure OF
the government 10 furnish the scrip at the proper time TO
the Indians, the Indians could pay their debts and
obligations 10 the contractors. Owing TO the failure OF
the government TO discharge It's obligations to the In
dians, the Indians, they say could not discharge their
obligations 10 them. That is precisely the way nn-
dersland the account; and il that does not constitute
private claim, being founded upon the mere equity OF the
transaction, do not know what does.
Mr.. BELL. would ask whether there is not dis
tnclon there, clearly drawn These are supplies which
need not have been furnished but for The failure OF the
government issue this scrip With respect 10 the item
Tor supplies furnished TO the Indians when in encamp-
ment. when assembled together and ready TO remove,
and yet waiting for the issuing of the scrip promised
them they necessarily obliged 10 furnish them sup.
Plies which by the contract they not bound 10 fur.
nsh in furherance of The policy Of the government still
10 hold them together and TO get them to when
the scrlp did come.
Mr. HUNTER My impression is. that the foundation
OF The claim is that the Indians became bound 10 them
o supplies, and would be paid them if the gov
ernment had issued the scrip as II promised.
Mr.. BELL. Not that part OF It, A large part OF it
some fifteen eighteen thousand dolarsis for supplies
furnished by these gentlemen TO the Indians to be repaid
out of the scrip. But that is different and distinct item
for indemnity They removed some ten or eleven hun
dred, think; and afterwards the government changed
its policy aud said it would net pay them the scrip at all
Hence these contractors met with a loss from that
Mr. HUNTER ask the senator from Tennessee if
great portion OF this claim dose not arise upon this
ground that the Indians could not pay their debts TO
the contractors unless the government paid them their
scrip.
Mr.. HUNTER Very we'll. sir.
Mr. BAIAkD. II seems 10 me that the argument OF
the from Tennessee TO The justice of the
claim | can make no objection TO the claim upon the
ground OF ITS justice. So far as understand II, the claim
appears 10 be just Nor do think that, If brought be-
tore the proper tme should oppose it But think
il private claim. have doubt that it is excluded
BY the rule which the Senate have adopted. What dis.
| ting uishes il from the oil Matthews, Wood, and Hall
The contractors for the building OF the custom house n
the city Of New York In the one case they were to
put up public building; in the other they were to
carry out public policy in the removal of these Indians
Yet the case of Matthews, Wood, & Hall has always
been treated a private claim. II is founded upon the
fact that the government did not comply with The Sup
ulaons of their coatract furnish TO them the
uremenls necessary enable them 10 on with their
work They were thrown over ior a season, and en-
cOuneTed great expense IRON the delay ana upon equl
table grounds ask damages from the government. The
matter was referred TO the Solicitor oil The Treasury, who
awarded considerable amount as equltably due But
no attempt was ever made attach il to general appro-
priaion bill That claim lad before the Committee
OF Claims and with little reduction they have reported
III lis favor Now sir, that is claim arising OF a
contract in reference apubc maier and where is the
difference between that and the claim now before US
What this but private claim for equitable damages
arising the performance of the econac entered
into By the government submit that II the rule is 10
be observed, it impossible, however just this claim may
be-and believe 1t 10 be just-that being a private
claim should be included in this bill without establish
ing precedent for the introduction of any private claim
that which now hold n my hand which Just much
entitled 10 admission the one before US any other OF
a similar character.
i Mr. BADGER desire TO contribute my mite in the
consumption OF this day, and TO aid in illustrating the
celence OF that rule which the honorable senator from
YnRina MIR HUSrERl got adopted IN the Senate during
the last COngfess-a rule which two IN the SEN
ate ersand alike, aud which presents this extraordi
nary spectacle that every time the rule is undertaken TO
be enforced the day is taken up deciding whether the
question fails within the rule or not. make this pre-
iiminary remark the basis OF notice which now
resolution submitted seven weeks ago to rid OF this
lime consumug rule, which occupies much OF the time
of The Sen upon ths bill in deciding whether
consider questions, instead Of considering and deciding
! them,
| Now sir having stated thus much rose 10 make this
remark when my friend from Tennessee offered this
amendment TO the deficiency BILL both said and voted
thai il was private claim within the rule, and ex.
cluded by H. have been satisfied by the discussion this
day that was wrong now believe, and shall vote,
that il is public clam within The meaning OF the rule,
I la..x xkN Ntpk ka 1paI