The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-05-27

claims OF this chaacerold claims, repeatedly pressed
upon the attention OF CongIess--adsersely reported
upon-reponed upon perhaps also iavoIably-I do moi
know how that ISL say il is somewhat extraordinary
that these claims should be pressed here as an addition
10 deficiency bill already large IN It's amount-in ac
enormous and unprecedented in the amount OF It's appo
praiions am little surprised that The friends oil The
administration should desire TO press an approprasn Of
this magnitude into bill already swollen beyond any
former bill OF its kind Nevertheless, u these claims
are just and well founded in principle, should not. Tor
that reason alone, withhold my vote from me amend
ment
have already sad however, that these claims are not
within the principle OF the act OF 1916 Indeed thete Is
no serious claim that they within IT, Neither are hey
within the principle Of the Indian intercourse acl
although claimed TO be so.
will, ina very lew words, show The ground OF inns
opinion The provisions OF the intercourse act relating
TO Indian depedatons not new The act OF 1884 has
been chiefly referred TO in this discussions but the pro-
visions OF that act relating 10 this subject almost as
old as the government itself The act Of 1896 contains
the same Identical provisions which are found IN the ACT
OF 1884. And what is the character and the principle OF
these ovsionsa The government OF the United States
draws line by which separates the Indian territory
from the territory OF the organized States, and within
that Indian country the general government and the
Indian tribes exercise exclusive jurisdiction. The
tribes all under the tuliage OF the government,
and il becomes the duty Of the government OF the Uni
ted States to maintain over them within that territory
constant supervision and superintendent The object OF
the government is 10 prevent depedaons BY these tribes
and in order to effect that Congress has egslaed from
make these tribes responsible for depedatons II In
dan passing out OF the Indian country within the In
dian country, where he is under the exclusive lusdc-
ton OF the United States commits depreciation upon the
property of an American citizen, the mode of redress is
pointed out by statute Proof of the individual claim is
to be made demand for its amount is to be made upon
the Indian tribe Ii payment is refused the amount is TO
be withheld from the annuity OF that tribe, and ulti-
mate payment is guaranteed by the government OF the
United States. The government, however guarantees
payment in where the injured party seeks
private revenge The object OF these enactments is
TO prevent war; restrain private revenge; 10 MAINTAIN
general constant supervision and control the tribes
/ he national Rut the has
never made itself responsible Tor depredauons COM
miited by Indians within the limits of State. The
reason is very obvious Within State limits the State
supreme and sovereign; within the Territories OF the
United States the only governmental which appeal can
be made is the government OF the United States within
the limits OF the State, the duty OF protecting the citizen
devolves upon the Stale government within the limits
of the Territories, the duty OF protecting the citizen de-
wolves upon the government OF the United Staes and
then. the government of the United States does not
protect the citizen except by It's general legislation and
as part of its general Indian policy.
There is, therefore, seems to me, no groundnone
whaeverfor saying that this claim comes within the
provisions OF the intercourse act II il does not fall
within the provision of that act upon what ground il
be sustained
desire that senators may consider for moment what
principles they might sanction by vote for this amend
men can conceive OF but two principles upon which
this amendment be successfully indicated. Ii these
sound principles of legislation and governmental pol
icy, this amendment may be susained but if they not
this amendment must fall Is the government response
Bile for bad legislation If it is and bad legislation
be shown to be The OF these depredaions, this
amendment can be sustained Is this government re-
sponsble for unwise polcyi II It is, and the unwse
policy of the government be shown 10 be the origin
of the injuries complained of, this amendment be
sustained Upon the other OF these principles
must this amendment, be vndcaed If It can be INDICATED
al all.
Where would the adoption OF such principles carry us
Would il manifestly result in the assumption of all
the consequences OF all the acts oil our legislation Sup
pose you repeal the tariff reduce the duty upon
particular article and great injuries and losses occa-
stoned by that legislation is the government responsible
Clearly in my judgment, il II is responsible for these
depedations Again, is the government responsible fol-
injuries which flow from is general or particular policy
The senator from Tennessee Mr. BELL has argued this
case ii he thought the government thus responsible.
He has said that the Creek treaty. SO often referred TO in
this discussion unwise and that necessarily led
the results complained of and having led TO those results,
the government is responsible for the consequences.
We'll, SIR il government is responsible for the
quences OF this particular Indian treaty. then they
sponsibe for the consequences OF every treaty, with
whatever nation. We negotiate no treaties with foreign
powers by which the interests OF individual citizens are
not largely affected Instances OF the private effects OF
public treaties will occur TO every senator Every treaty
negotiated. every important OF legislation, changes
the accustomed course OF policy and II is impossible 10
change or materially modify the policy Of great govern.
nent-of mighty people without nilictIng individual
injury But il has been heard OF until now tha, the
government is responsible for such injury.
Sir this very question has been presented here and
over again. 1t was presented by the constituents of my
friend from Iowa MIR DoDGEl and my friends from Wis
cousin Aessrs. DoDGE and WALKER when they suffered
so largely from the depredaiions OF The Indians in the
Black Hawk war. But government did not indemnify
them. II was presented IN the OF the claims for
| Indian depredaIions in Michigan; bat the government
refused 10 indemnify Uniformly, and under all circum.
Stances has the government refused sanction claims Of
| this character.
As, them Mr.. President. these claims do not fall with
in the principle OF the act Of lsl6as they do not fall
within the principle OF the Indian nlercourse aw-as
they must be indicated if indicated ALL upon prin-
cple which will open the doors of the treasury wide
that we may well cease 10 pass any appropriation bills
Tor other Objects for shall have money left APP
proprael cannot but think that senator's will do we'll
TO reflect long before voting for the proposition OF the
senator from Tennessee, Mr. BgLL1
The question was then taken upon the amendment, and
rejected by vote OF - to 20, published in the
Union OF Thursday, May 20.
i
New York FashiopabIe Clothing EstabIishm me mt,