The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-05-06

out hat treaty There has been defect in virtue Of which
the provisions Of the treaty have not been fairly carried out
The object OF this amendment is TO that defect and to
carry out the original intention
Now, sir such proposition is clearly not private claim
The law for certain wise purposes has said that pay
frauds but that does not ndvidualize the claims at all
III you to carry out the distinction contended for the
other side there would be nothing but private claim
der the government The salaries Of your officers would
become private claims.
The question has been alluded TO eontracorsn-
divduas who contract TO carry out treaty provisions with
Indians by furnishing goods &c That is all within the
authority of the Executive department. and is public
transaction but the moment that you step beyond that
contract and find that your contractor asks for extra
ii becomes private claim and is excluded under the rule
cannot consent of course to take up the time Of the
Senate in attempting to elucidae this question only
wished TO call out these facts from the senator from Texas
by which appears that this amendment is clearly TO
aas TIe ss IA hw nss snS R2t se lnSs ne
amendment TO pay private individuals for iudividua
claims that they had for spoations which is as much
private claim any other which can be presented
Mr. SEBASTIAN. The senator from Michigan has said,
and well sad exactly what had wished to say in regard
stant practice Of the late Vice President King when pre-
siding officer Of this body in ascertaning the distinction
between what were and We're not private claims TO inquire
whether they in fulfment Of an existing law or
treaty If they were he excluded them
although the benefit of the proposed appropriation might
nure to one individual or to class of individuals
The treaty under which this claim arises is the treaty or
1886 with the Cherokees An appropriation of money
made in the year 1851 Ia pursuance Of the estimate of
the proper department. to carry out that treaty In the
administration however of that fund.- the mere division OF
it it requisite for the purpose of ascertaining who
the true benefcares of it. to make enrolment Of
the Indians An agent sent out by the department
for that purpose In making that enrolment unavodably
from the absence Of the claimants and from different causes
he unable TO make complete enrolment OF all the
persons entitled, Hence who clearly entitled
under the law and under the treaty did not receive their
per capita will call the attention OF the Chair and Of the
Senate ALSO to the Of Andrew Taylor which was en
braced by of the Senate in the last Indian appropr
different clause That by vote Of the Senate was decided
not to be private claim That occurred the discussion
Of the last Indian appropriation bill in this body.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Ir BnIonr) The ques-
ton is shall the decision of the Chair stand the judg
ment OF the Senate s+
The question being then takcn upon division there
were-ayes o. noes l2-no quorum voting
Mr. RuSK asked for the yeas and nays and they were
ordered.
Mr.. TOUCEY voted to sustain the decision Of the
Chair in the last decided, and | voted upon the
ground that there was no existing legislation that would
authorize the payment think still If there had been
existing legislation which would authorize the payment
that the executive officers of the government could make
that payment II they had funds applicable to the purpose
il would be for the admission OF the proposition
under the rule and then should have voted differently
from what did In this there is law under which
il is the duty of the officers Of the government TO make
this payment if they have the means OF doing The
object of this appropriation not TO change the law it
not to add law it is merely to provide ways and
from which the officers at the other end Of the
nue may make the payment
Now if the senator from Georgia is right in his suppo-
ston that the claim which he presented was debt due
within the law of 1894 and only wanted an appropriation
Of money voted wrong; but thinking that we needed
station must Be broagfad fad that the RreRTs6 eofe
reached the point Of appropriation, voted in opposition
his views. But now in this case we need no new law
We need extension of law Indeed we need no lcgis
aton properly called We need merely the aPpropria-
ton of the money and the existing law applies II to this
object If understand It. there treaty by which these
individuals entitled 90 this money-ust as much en-
titled il any officer under this government entitled
to the amount which the law has fixed for his salary
Mr. HUNTER believe II has been ruled by those who
have held the Chair that those claims which come in un-
der treaty not precluded by the rule OF the Senate
The from Texas states that there is treaty pula
ton in this No doubt there is have not adyered
10 It. There is a clear distinction which has been stated
by the from Connecticut between the case Of man
who in under treaty and one who comes In mere
ly under some supposed equity OF a law.
The question being then taken by yeas and nays upon
sustaining the decision Of the Chair resultedyeas H.
nays l9--as follows;
YEAs-Mesms. Allen, Atchison Chase, Dodge of Wis
consin Dodge Of Iowa Evans, Fish, Jones Of Iowa Nor
| ris, Petit Slidcl sumner, Wade and Willams-B.
Dawson Everett Fit1patreE Hunter, Pratt, Rask seba
tian, Seward, Stuart Toombs Toucey, Walker, Weller,
and Wright-lo.
SO the decision of the Chair oyerruled and the
amendment Of Mr. RusK was decided to be In order.
The amendment was then adopted.
Mr. COOPER I move the following amendment, by in
structon Of the Committee on Indian Affairs
Topay Andrew Taylor for his reservation Of six hundred
the Tennessee river s,72o with interest from the 2Sd OF
August, lsiS.
Mr. HUNTER That seems 70 me 10 be private claim.
The senator from Arkansas tells that the dcsion OF
the Senate has been had upon IT. and that they have de-
cded that il Is not private claim. make no opposition
| to IT, however
Mr. SEBASTIAN This Is the very claim to which al
luded few minutes ago, which ruled into the Indian
appropriation bin last year. and passed by the Senate but
lost by the committee Of conference II was decided
then by the Of the Senate not 20 be private claim
Mr. STUART. What are tho factsR
Mr. SEBASTIAN. II arises under different clause OF
/ the treaty,
Mr. COOPER will state in few words the nature Of
this claim 1t arises under the treaty Of 1917, made be-
tween the United States and the Cherokee Indians An
drew Taylor married TO Cherokee woman by whom
he had children and therefore became entitled under the
provisions Of the treaty, section Of land This
ton Of land situated nj Sitco Old Town the waters
of the Tennessee river Some time subsequently the
ratification Of the treaty the legislature Of Tennessee passed
= law by which the reservations made under the treaty
condemned aud ordered TO he sold BY the proys-
ions OF that act sale made and the reservation
purchased by white man. who elected Andrew Taylor
4 Taylor, by this process, lost his land.
In 1895 a subsequent treaty made, and It contained
provision for the naturalization Of the under
The treaty Of 1917 by the seventeenth article OF the
treaty provision made for ascertainng the value Of
the reservations and the mode Of fixed by
that article President jackson appointed two gentlemen
Il Messrs Upton and SUNNY, TO make the valuation They
were fix the value Of the land in ts natural at the
time that the valuation should take place They proceed
cd value the land and fixed ut the named in the
amendment--slAT2O Their commission expired before
the report Of their proceedings filed Subsequently,
however the estimates for reserves under the treaty
1917 returned TO the office and believe nearly all
of them have been paid by the government Interest is
fixed from the time when the valuation returned to