The true Democrat., 1854-05-02
CON R E $ SIGNAL. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
 March 24, 1854.
INDIAN APPROPRIATION BILL.
March 24, 1854.


 Mir. Crow. 1 move the following amend ment to come in after line 787 of the bill
 To Cherokees residing in States east of tn Mississippi river, in full of all demands, unde the provisions of the treaty of 29th December 1885, and the supplemental articles thereto o lst March, 1886. and the treaty of 9th of Au gust, except the amount of $53 3315 funded psrcaplt1 certain Cherokees for subsistence alC removal. S92695 19 with interest from the l4th December 1852, to time of payment: Pro giIel That in no case shall any money hereby appropriated be paid to any agent ot said In dlans. or to any other person or persons than the Indian or Indians to whom 1t IS due: Pro a5del ozs0. That the Indian or Indians who shall receive the said money, shall first respec lively sign a receipt or lease acknowledging the same to be in full of all demands under the aforesaid treaties
 Mir. GREENWOOD I move to amend the amendment by increasing 1t 100000. move it for the purpose of enabling me to submit a few remarks in regard to the propriety of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Penn svlvania I know that the chairman of the committee on Indian affairs, with whom l have acted in relation to this bill, is anxious to dis pose of 1t as soon as possible; but being apprsed, to some extent personally of the history of these transactions with the Indians, l cannot refrain from submitting few remarks Ill regard to the subject.
 am familiar with the provisions of the treaty of 1885, and also with those of the supplement- al treaty of 1856, having been resident near those at the time those treaties were made l knew the parties engaged i'll them-the parties to which the government look as the treaty. making power.
 There is but one question, in my opinion in- yolyed in the amendment which has been of ferred by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Those Cherokees who saw proper to remain III the States then composed part of the Chero- kee nation By the provisions of the treaty certain amounts were agreed upon to be deduct ed from the treaty fund.- for subsistence and removal; and the whole matter resolves itself into a question as to this amount agreed upon fer subsistence and removal. It is in reference to the excess which was paid to Ross and his party, under an arrangement between him and General Scott in 1888, and which was deducted from the treaty fund, and of the disbursing of the same, of which they complain. That is the only question which is submitted to this commttee-whether or not they will suffer those Indians who saw proper to remain in the States to be prejudiced by subsequent arrange ment between General Scott and Ross.
 l was there in 1S38 when this arrangement was concluded. 1 am aware of the fact that Ross got the advantage of General Scott in that arrangement. There is no doubt of that Some portion of them removed, and the amount allowed for that purpose was increased to S105 to each man, in regard to some detachments which were removed west. Is 1t right or just that this treaty fund should be taken to pay those expenses, to the exclusion of those whC remained ln the States. and who now reside there? That is the only question before us- They hold that the government had no right by an arrangement with Ross, or any other per son, to deprive them of any privileges they were entitled to under the treaties of 1835-6 How was 1t, that by the treaty of 1046 1t was provided, that the rights secured to them by the treaties of 1635-'6 were not to be prejudice ed thereby, if they had no just cause of con- plalnt agansG the government on account of the disposition of the funds in that manner?- There was that express reservation in that treaty l. is true as remarked by the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Houston this question was not submitted to the consideration of the Senate committee at the time this general arrangement was entered into. But, from that very fact I have no doubt they had an eye to the rights of the Cherokees east of the Mississippi Hence the provision in the treaty of 1846 was adopt cd, by which they were not to be prejudiced in any rights they had acquired under the treaties of 1835-6
 Mir. Orr. l am opposed pro f6rnaa to the amendment of my friend from Arkansas. an very anxious that a vote should be taken upon the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Crow that it shall be dis posed Of one way or the other, So that the com- mctee may rse and report the bill the House Mir. GREENWOOD. 1 withdraw my amend meuJ, # there be no objection.
 There was no objection, and the amendment was withdrawn.
 he question then recurred upon Mr. Crows amendment, upon which tellers had been de- handed. Adopted
 April 10, 1851.
 Mr. GREENWOOD, by unanimous consent and il pursuance of previous notice, introduced a bill, which was raaI 8 first and second time br i,s title, a8 follows and referred to the com mjttae on commerce:
 ' ! bill to be entitled an act to enable the 65ase5 of Missouri, Arkansas, and Mississippi to apply portion of the swamp lands granted to each respectively, to aid in the construction of the St. Louis, Helena, and New Orleans rail roads.