The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-03-31

for interpreters for the Indian tribes in Texas and for
the purchase OF presenls
Mr., PEARCE Is there any recommendation any
Mr, RUSK Yes sir hold in my hand eemman-
S.non from The Secretary OF the Interior dated
~, asking Tor this appropriation, which communication
~ accompanied by various documents on TUG su'Je'.
Ne amendment was agreed 10.
CREEK INDIAN DEPRIDArioss-
Mr. RIJSk The Committee Indian Affairs nave
further directed me 10 oder the ollow'sx amendment:
SIZE And be IL further enacted, That Tor the payment
TO The citizen or Alabama and Georgia for depreda-
M br p,onerv taken by the troops of the uni
Ted Sta les and friendly Ceeks in the years 1886 and 1887
u as .n ,o be- and paid over TO the sai
or their legal according the accounts al
L. T. Pease and J. Smith. commissioner. Of the United
States under act approved March 3. 1887 contained
Indian Affairs, dated April Is, 1887
Mr. PEARCE. That is very large item. and should
like TO hear some explanation OF IT.
Mr. CHASE Ii recollect aTight this claim has been
once decided by the Senate to be private claim IL IL
ion The payment OF large aggregate TO individuals.
ruled oul OF order last year, and raise the point OF
Mr. FITZPATRICK. What is the objection Of the
Mr. CHASE. My point OF order is that this amend
ment provides for private claim or rather for series
Of private claims. and is therefore not in order
Mr.. RUSK. do not remember the decision OF the
Senate last year. know that il offered al the last
session Dy The COHlWlltee hHdHs, 10
know what decision then had upon il. is mis-
take that this private claim and excluded by the rule
for the amendment, is in accordance with the law appoint
ing commissioners 10 ascertain the damages pepeated
by the Indians upon the citizens OF Alabama and Geor-
ga and this is in OF the report OF The commits
Tss Fl ns would
that his recollection differs from that OF the
senator from Ohio and his impression is that the amend
ment was then entertained as in order by the late Pesi-
dent OF the Senate, lMr KING
MIR. RUSk. That Is my impression.
MI. CHASE. This amendment was once entertained
and discussed before the Senate and upon that discussion
the Senate rejected IT, II then presented again,
my recollection me- by the senator from Alabama
MR. CLEMENS, and objected TO it being out OF or
der. The question put TO the Senate by the Chair
that occasion, and was rejected as being out OF
Mr.. PEARCE The law quoted by the senator from
Texas 10 such jusfes this appropriation al
this time The law in pursuance OF which sppropa-
ton should be asked for in order to bring it within the
rule, is authorizing not the ascertanment but the
settlement of the claims and their payment. The law
referred 10 by the senator from Texas, understand
it, 10 nothing more nor less than law authorizing an
inquiry into the number and amount OF the claims 1t
must be something than that In order to furnish the
ground which the gentleman assumes as Justfylng the
introductono of this amendment
Mr.. DAWSON. There seems to be mistake the
part of the gentleman from Ohio with regard to this mat
Ter. This claim has been rejected upon its merits
II will be recollected that when il up last year
long discussion took place between my friend from Ten
nessee [Alr BELL and my friend from Michigan mr.
CAss in relation 10 the policy OF General Jackson In rel
erence TO the Indian tribes. Now, will state how this
claim gets here. Commissioners appointed by the
government Of the United States, under law passed by
Congress- 10 ascertain the amount OF these losses A list
OF the claims was returned to the seat OF government
here with report. Then II that the Secretary OF
War asked he has asked from time to time
10! an appropriation OF money TO pay the claims The
subject has been often referred to the Committee on In
dian Affairs, and the committee has from time to time
ported lns of them, and recommended appropra-
lion 10 be made in The Indian appropriation bill They
presented last year as an amendment to one oil the ap
ut,pph lf,raa fhopln Lost nj tha
long discussion which have referred in relation 10 the
Indian policy OF Gen. Jackson.
II has never been rejected ruled out OF order on &C
soGnt OF its being private claim The appropriation
Was repeatedly recommended by General Jackson and
oy every administration which has acted upon The matter
in any way from that period down to this There
has been any difficulty about at all that account,
and there would not have been any difficulty al the
last but for the unfortunate reerence-no re-
call that word unorunae-but for the reference oil my
friend from Tennessee tMr BrLL in the discussion OF
the subject to the pursued by the Jack admin
is,ra,on, which had been destructive 10 the Interests
OF the country. That OF course, brought up my friend
from Michigan, who am sorry not in his seat al
the present me that he might vlndcate that admnisra
uoD. The question went of IN that way until we got
into the last hours OF the session.
This appropriation 10 not asked for by the committee
any testimony furnished the part of the claimants
but upon the testimony furnished by the government Of
the United States If these had been presented sep
arae claims Congress would have paid them long SINCE
10 without any dissent do not see what
ground This amendment can be considered out oil order.
do not wish To continue the discussion. merely wish
TO say that have stated the truth the claim has
been ruled out OF order private claim.
Mr.. BAYARD. ! know nothing OF the merits OF this
claim from the former discussion in relation 10 il but
cannot see, by possibility how It be disng shed
from any other private claim, unless the number Of claim
anis makes a claim less private one than otherwise
The provision for the payment OF certain persons
their representatives, Of certain OF money for claim,
upon the government long since due and asceained
10 alleged by certain commissioners What is that bu
private claim upon the government What other
you give 10 ii II the amendment is TO provide for
series OF private claims IL clearly excluded by the rule
Just much If it provide for a sing |,
claim; because, II that be not so, by putting largs
number OF claims in single bill IL would no longer b,
private bill Can that be truly said This is nothing
Than claim for injuries alleged to have been sus
tanned in ls37and the alleys may be true for augh
know-ior which this government is responsible Th'
fact that the amount has been ascertalned by board
commissioners does not lessen its character as private
claim; because, suppose the statement of this amour
had been that series OF judgments had been
on suits agains, number OF individuals, embracing
class founded upon general principle, and that ludg
ments had been rendered in favor of the defendants
that those claims presented, relying upon that
evidence OF The claim what would then be said Th,
only difference IL, that here the evidence is some
what different II appears, VI | may Judge from thu
statement in the amendment, that there commits
sion instituted by the United States to examine tbos
claims and adjust them Certain specific amounts wer
awarded by those commissioners 10 certain Tb
object OF the amendment is TO make appropriation 4
pay those claimants. II that does not constitute pm
waite claim within the meaning OF the rule OF the Sen
ate, at loss 10 know what may not be takeI
from under the operation Of The rule.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr FooT in the chair.
The Chair will be governed by the precedent arsinl
out OF this question heretofore in the Senate.