The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-05-09

INDIAN APPROPRIATIONS HILL

at annroorations ior the current and contingent ex-
of the Indian Department and for fulfilling treaty
pulaons with various Indian tribes Tor the year endng
Jnne 30 1856 the pending question being ON the appeal
taken by Mr. EoorER Thursday last from the decision
af The Presiding officer Mr.. BRclT being in the chair
ruling that the following amendment reported by Ar
raopsp from the Committee Indian Affairs to pro-
ide for private claim therefore excluded by the 3oth
rule fssfh sG Ell b5s4 #t{
Andrew TyS @ bis s osn a q H. ss nan
Of he Tennessee river s472o with interest," from the Esd q
August, lS43.' " b.os vsssss isg M Aas@-tsts4s
Mr. COOPER appealed on Thursday last fsom the de-
;s;on Of the Chair because believed that that decision
os not in conformity with the spirit OF the rule upon
which the question Of order raised stated then that
this same ei presented in the same shape year ago
bad lecn received II passed both by the House and
be Senate and afterwards lost in the committee of
conference which took place between the houses upon
the dsagreeng the Indian appropriation bill The
amendment does not involve any of the characteristics OF
private claim such as are contemplated by the rule in ues
ton.
under the provisions Of the treaty Of 1877 between the
United States and the Cherokee Indians BY that treaty.
all Indians, or white married TO Indian women, by
whom they had children became entitled to land; and
Andrew Taylor being person within the provision be-
came entitled section Of land By the operation of
an act OF the legislature of Tennessee he elected from
wa negotiated between the United States and the Chcro
KEGS provision made for such had lost their lands
in virtue Of the legislation of the legislature Of Tennessee
Commissioners appointed in pursuance Of the
tenth article of that treaty the value of the
eryatons made under the treaty of 1871 They made the
assessment and returned il into the office The value put
upon this reservation $l4720 and by of Com
gress subsequently passedwhich have not just be-
fore me-provision made for its payment and for the
payment Of other claims the value Of which had been de-
termncd by the same commissioners That is
aused and the proposition is merely that provision
shall be made for claim which stands both upon the faith
Of treaties and upon satnte passed by the Congress of
the United States 1t is in private claim
trust that the Senate will overrue the decision of the
Chair and thus do justice to this most meritorous claim
ant
Mr. RUSK It seems to me that this amendment is clearly
excluded by the rule The rule excludes only such pr
vate claims not for the purpose of carrying out
existing law ANY appropriation IT seems TO upon the
reading of that rule will strike the Senate be-
ing in order, if it is carry out existing law. This
amendment is clearly for the purpose OF carrying out
existing law BY one treaty this reservation was allowed
By the laws of the State in which the reservation was
made the deprived Of his reservation law
Of Congress then passed authorizing the payment TO
him OF the value of the reservation including the
proyements. But whatever the land would have been
worth taken under the former treaty, TO be paid at its
valuation not including the improvements A commission
appropriations made for their paymcl and other
eindlcrly situated paid The commissioners
went out and determined the amount of damage. Then,
the amendment offered under the provisions OF treaty
under the provisions of law and is clearly intended
to be excluded by the rule because is simply the
ing out of the law of the land
Mr.. COOPER When addressing the Senate before /
not able to turn TO the provisions Of the law making
appropriation for the payment Of the claim Before the
question is TAKEN desire to read 1T
Resolred de- That the Secretary Of the Treasury be i
ed pay, causeo be paid, the several found due
claimants under the Cherokee treaty Of 1885, upon
hate issued by the board Of commissioners appointed
Of the seventeenth article said treaty Of the
expended balance o appropriations made for the payment Of
such claims upon the presentation of said certihcates
! have stated already that the claim under the
treaty Of 1917 originally, and that provision made for
the OF the value Of the reservation by the sube
queni treaty of 1895 and 1896 This is the referred to
in the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr STUART in the chair. I,
The question Shn the decision Of the Chair stand the
Judgment Of the Senator
Mr. BRIGHT called for the yeas and nays and they
ordered and being taken resultedyeas l6 nays 6
as follows:
. YEAs-Messrs Atchison, Bayard, Bright Chase, Clay,
Dodge Of Iowa Douglas, Evans Fish Foot Jones of Iowa
NAYs-Mcsms. Benjamin, Brodbead, Brown, Cooper,
Dawson Fit.patriek Geyer Johnson Jones Of Tennessee
Wener-16.
The PRESIDING OFFICER The decision Of the Chair
Is sustained, The amendment is not ia order
Mr. WALKER If understand II is tie vote The
Chair made decisonj the appeal taken and the
question then was Shall the decision of the Chair stand
as the judgment Of the Senator On tic vote the affirm
alive is lost It does stand The amendment s there
fore decided to be in order The question is in the affirm
ativesha the decision stand There not a majority
for that and the Senate has failed TO sanction the decs-
ION
Mr. BADGER think the senator Is right; and In or
der 10 settle the question aud ascertain the OF the
Senate that subject take appeal from the decision
Of the Chair that Is affirmation Of the iudQ-
ment OF the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks il is not
IN order TO take appeal upon an appeal
Mr BADHER There Is no appeal now. The Chair an
nounccs that the decision is affirmed and appeal from
that decision Suppose the Chair announce yeas
l5 nays 25 and that the decision was thereby affirmed
could appeal from hs7 Should We be without
edy IN such case Z
Mr.. WALKER. Tho decision holds the Affirmative If /
understand and the Senate has failed to cast majority
vote for IT, II is tie vote.
Nr BADGER The form Of the question decides the mat
er tits Shall the decision Of the Chair stand rs the
Judgment Of the Senate 2n There must be q majority in
the Affirmative TO sustain the Chair
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair holds that il Il
not IN order TO take appeal from decision upon ques-
ton Of order
Mr. BADGER Then / lake an appeal from that Sure
" the Senate must have The ruling Of ts decisions
otherwise We cease TO have any influence upon
business
Nr BRIGHT concur entirely In ,hSopiuon expressed
by the Chair u Is not the opinion Of the Chair that the
question upon IN this case j is appeal from the Dc
on OF the Senate that the proposes take The
senate, of course have sustained the decision
Mr BADGER The Senate is equally divided.
VT BiuGHT. This comes up in the shape OF an allrma-
w proposition. Suppose the question upon an
atadment and the vote Is to l6 MS q matter Of
'VvvttsG The amendment would fail,
w bDGER Certainly
osAG BWGHT. The Chair decided this amendment out
order The question is Shall the decision Of the Chair
n u rs the Judgment Of the Senate The Senate being
5sg aIded clearly the proposition fails and the de-
[ uleinaly made by the Chair stands, and the amend
",pt 1p = ont Of order.
nSr' BADGER Oh no just the reverse
nAl ARD II seems 10 that the proposition is an
Ateaingly simple The Chair decided that the
~ inumen offered out Of order That Is binding un4
~ SsPPeaed from. ask whether you must not reverse
vac decision Of the Chair in order 10 permit The amendment
~ p,ttslr