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


made with the Indians by the Preparation OF fraud, 1
know need not repeat that the government, when they
saw the extent OF these frauds, attempted 10 remedy
them, but they remedled 10 any great extent
And all these people had rushed in here being invited
not only by the conniyance OF these government agents,
but by the clause Of the 9th article OF the treaty itself TO
which have referred Now, il the honorable senator
thinks that there any charge made BY gratutousy
against that administration that has no reference to the
principles connected with the investigation OF this ques
ton should like TO have him state H. should like to
have him state whether there be any other clear and dis
nct grounds upon which 10 base the claims OF these par
ties against the government but What exists IN the policy
adopted by the government TO settle this country before
the Indians had removed from it. Not only was there no
provision made with the Indians 10 remove but, on the
contrary il expressly stipulated that they should not
remove unless they thought proper 10 do sothat no CO.
ercon should be made OF the part OF the govern
men but they would merely provide the means when they
thought proper to CO.
The Indians into removal west OF the mississippi
do not suppose any understood that designed to
charge upon that administration that they wished to have
the Indians actually perish but only 70 have the prospect
of desuion and starvation held out to Them unless they
chose voluntarily to remove That was the substitute
adopted in place OF Not only was this policy OF
starvation substitute for arms, but II was substitute
for any stipulation in the treaty itself that they should re-
move Now, all will agree that there is no stipulation 10
the treaty that these Indians should remove And IL
am correct in that should like to have the senator from
Michigan Mr.. CAss] explain why that was so. And II
it was the policy Of starvation in the principles adopt
ed in that treaty, and the execution OF it. should like TO
be told what it was. The government omitted the ar
cles usually contained in such treaties with the Indians
that they should remove within given time And why
The w % n ma no ohsi s SsS
should remove, but there was stipulation that they
should not be compelledo remove. How then, did they
expect 10 get them TO remove have said that the policy
was 10 let in the white settlers upon Them which policy
was to be the substitute for the stipulation in the treaty to
remove and also substitute for the OF military force
! Mr. CASS II the honorable senator will allow me,
will say word about this. He refers TO the stlpu
laton that they should not be removed usless they
20 80 be nsSa
| Mr. BELL II the honorable senator gives any an.
swer, hope he will answer the question put to him.
! Mr. CASS | understand it myself thoroughly. But
the honorable gentleman knows we'll as DO that we
did the best we could We provided that all those who
would 60 should be sent Oft fast as possible and we
would pay their expenses and great many OF them did
60. To those who would not go, and who would not
make treaty upon any other terms, we said !" lake
your land and settle upon il, and become good citizens
and go on and provide home for yourselves" Now
will The honorable senator answer this question! We
could make no treaty upon any other terms what We're
| Mr. BELL Before the lands were sold, and before
the time was out for the reservations 10 be Sold by the
fifth article OF the treaty il was stipulated that the coun-
try should be open 10 settlers as soon as Inc surveys were
made.
Mr. CASs went over all that before with the hon
orabe senator will merely repeat that this land was
The property of the United States, all their other public
land was We did restrain the people from going IN there
until the Indians had made their reservations After that
il open the public like other lands We sent men
out there order the Indians in their property
have no doubt there may have been bad men there as
well as elsewhere. do not say that such was the case
but cannot disavow it, There may have been bad m.a
there make out the certificates OF the sales oil these
reservations. 1t was very complicated business.
Mr.. BELL. Now, sir, | will excuse the honorable
senator from any further answers. have been trying
will any offensive erm-to fsh some answer
out Of him. had expected from the candor OF the hon.
orabe SENATOR that he would have told me whether this
extraordinary provision then introduced into this treaty
provision known before nor since. and which
think never will be used againwhether that policy was
not the conclusion OF the government his own conclu-
sion at the tme that they could by letting in the white
settlers upon that land drive these Indians rapidly
TO the west' 80
Mr.. CASS. In answer 10 that. will say that sup
pose that nobody thought of such thing. 1 take Tor
granted that nobody thought OF that for moment do
no, suppose it matter of policy with anybody. The
settlers there TO take and hold lands as any settler
| Mr. BELL Now, Mr. President that Is mos, extraordi.
nary do not dispute what toe senator states as matter
OF fact But, Mr. President say Is most extraordinary
that the honorable senator and the administration with
which he connected at that cay, should have arrived
at such conclusion aud that 5000 Indians with their
slaves would be permitted to remain permanently IN The
Mr.. CASS. They did no, all remain, but they were
going away all the time.
Mr. BELL II is mos, extraordinary, sir. that he
should have dreamed for moment that such would be
the consequence But. sir upon the very face OF the
treaty ITSELF have proof AS strong as ! desire or as
strong as any gentleman DESIRE that they had no
such thing in contemplation with regard to these eser-
vaiions Ii was expressly provided that they might be
sold within five years; and stipulation was made That
the should appoint agents 10 certify the sales
in order that the Indians might not be wronged IN the
transfer OF their reservations In the same treaty pro-
vision made that the government oil the United States,
when they thought proper TO remove, would be ready TO
give them assistance in removing, and subsistence Tor
twelve months after they went west oil the Mississippi
Sir was there single moment OF time when il was con.
templated by the people OF Alabama that the Indians
would continue in that ,erroryl Would Georgia have
consented that the 10000 Cherokees-l do not know
their exact number-should remainl And would IL
have been uflment OF the guarantee which had been
given to the State OF Georgia give these Indians reser
vaons, and allow them TO settle down IN jnxiapositon
promiscuously among the white settlers, to be not only
nuisance 10 society, in Che ordinary accep,aton OF the
term but commit depedaions Just such as had been
committed in the State OF Alabama
think that the honorable senator from Michigan Mr..
CAss has duly reflected upon the proper and far in.
ferences be deduced from the stpulaons OF this treaty
itself II treaty intended TO effect the removal OF
the Indians and this is the whole basis OF my argument
upon which this claim stands and upon which mainly
put it, Although stated that the spirit OF the intercourse
law might be brought TO bear upon IT, the main ground
was that the white settlers tempted. induced recon-
mended and invited by the government to buy lands in
The Indian country and settle down alongside OF the In
dams before they removed and before the Indians
had time remove, because they could not make their
selections until the surveys had been made; and believe
matter OF fact that the surveys not made until
/ 1894, two years after the execution OF the treaty.
The moment that selections were made by heads OF the
Indian families, that moment a rush OF population from
all the surrounding States the consequence because
of the invitation held out in this treaty. II
pertinent on the part of the governments and repeat
again, impute no bad motives. 1 think may impuie