The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-05-06
CONGRESS OF THE U. STATES.
INDIAN APPROPRIATION BILL

Sen AIEs
INDIAN APPROPRIATIONS BILL
NJ RISK | am authorized by the Committee ON indian
Affairs to offer the following amendment;
10 such Cherokees as omitted in the taken
NV d w SIe who included and paid under the
at Of july lsls the Commissioner OF Indian Ahairs De au
horized to pay them the per oapa allowance that was
psid the other Indians under that distributor froeasa
fho commission shall be satisfied that they ought TO Pc nca
5000 be appropriated for that purpose.
Mr. HUNTER | would ask the senator from Texas If
,his SAMPLES to band or to Individuals
Mr. RUSK | do not know exactly the amount nor
ond the Commissioner Of Indian Affairs himself estimate
the amount necessary to carry out TINS provision; put
$1,000 sufficient and will perhaps more than cover y
Mr. RIySK. No. sir; but win state how 1t arises by
h treaty with these Indians they were to have so much
peg capita out Of certain fund There was census o.
fhem taken in what year | do not remember, by D. w
Ser 1t was alleged by the Indians that he did not take
he entire census that there some who lived at dis
tance where he was whom he did not enamea'e an
examination was made by the Commissioners OF Indian Al
fairs and was found that all the Indians were not in
cluded From the report Of the agent was ascertaned
that the Indians proposed to pc provided ioT W TINS
as much entitled to be paid under the treaty us were the
others The others paid simply because they were
included BY Mr. Ser. This proposes to pay those who
we're not included provided the Commissioner shall
tain that they entitled 1t is but act of justice
Mr. PRATT ] wish to have the decision OF the Chair,
whether this is private claim or not
Mr. RUSK 1t is to carry out an existing law,
Mr. PRATT. cannot the distinction between this
case and the which has just been decided The claim
which has just been decided not to be in order was claim
growing out Of the act Of 1884.
Mr. HUNTER. Not at all
Mr. PRATT If there is claim all in that case it is
claim existing under the provisions of the act OF 1884
Now the senator from Texas supposes that his amendment
does not within the rule which orbds private claims
TO be offered amendments to an appropriation bill be-
cause he says II is clam growing out OF some pubc
law That is the only ground upon which he can put 1T
because by the very terms Of the amendment ITSELF
claim Of SO much money, to be paid per capita 10
IoI;an c y,ritra ola tbn
part of those Indians to receive per capita certain amount
Of money.
The senator from Texas says this is not a private
claim within the view Of the thirtieh rule because is
claim growing ont of n treaty or public law. think
the is right but If he is right now, the Senate
wrong in the decision which they have just given
decision favor Of this claim by the Senate would
involve in order to preserve consistency necessary
suit the reconsideration of the which has just been
given If the inhabitants Of Alabama and Georgia arc
entitled to receive anything for the depredations commit
Ted upon hem it is only because under the provisions OF
the act Of 1884 they entitled 10 the money which was
proposed to be appropriated by the amendment offered by
The senator from Georgia 1t is provision therefore, made
by public law and 1t is provision in relation to in
dviduals Hereis amendment which gives per capita
amount Indians and the only reason according TO the
argument of the senator from Texas, why it is not pr
yate claim, is because these individual Indians
titled 70 j. under .Ips pp5c biz ESr aw ss asrs n for
Mr. RUSK The rule is very clear
"Yo amendment proposing additional appropriations shall
made to carry out the provision, Of existing law.
Now here is clearly an existing law here is treaty
with these Indians which is the law Of the land providing
Sr the payment Of per cepaa allowance to them is
Clear then that this amendment is TO carry out general
law Of the land. But the rule proceeds
Or resolution, previously passed by the Sen
during that session. moved by direction Of standing
committee Of the Senate in pursuance of estimate from
the head Of of the departments and amendment
shall be received whose object Is to provide for private
eam although the same may have been previously sane
toned by the Senate"
This is simply carrying out law obligation which
would have been discharged before but defect in the
census which taken, and which discovered and
ched by the act Of ls4s IL is just clearly not pri-
va,e claim within the meaning of the rule ia proys-
ion pay the salary Of officer The salary OF the off
Of the government is asccraincd by the law Of the
land and the amount TO be paid TO these Indians must be
scertaned by reference 10 the treaty which Is the law OF
The land.
Mr. PRATT dcsireto read the first clause Of the
teenth section Of the act Of 1884 which the claim
nted by the honorable from Georgia is predcated
IL in these words
THAT IL any Indian Indians, belonging to any tribe in
ay with the United States shall within the Indian
try, take destroy the property Of any person lawfully
within such country shall pass from the Indian country
into State Territory inhabited by citizens OF the Uni
ted States and there take, steal destroy any horse,
horses other property belonging to any citizen or inhabi-
ant Of the United States such citizen nhabtant his rep
rosenatye attorney agent may make application to the
proper superintendent agent or subagen who upon being
furnished with the necessary documents and proofs shall
der the direction of the President make application the
nation Or tribe % which said Indian or Indians shall belong
or satisfacion," &c.
Then II provides that If the nation which the Indian
o. Indians depredang may belong does not indemnify the
individuals suffering the United States shall do IL
ar RUSk. VIII the senator allow me a momcnt2
Mr PRATT. Certainly.
Mr. RUSk voted with the senator from Maryland in
regard to the amendment moved by the from Geor
ga thought IL ought 10 be included, and | think SO
still have voted for that half dozen times Dnt the
senator viii observe this clear distinction that the law OF
1894 not applicable to the States of Alabama and Geor
ga and therefore the claims Of citizens Of those States for
The dcpredahons referred TO have not been paid.
Mr. PRATT desire only TO make myself understood
ihnd that voted at the last session. that the claim pre-
sented by the amendment OF the from Georgia
apriyate claim but apprehend very many senators
voted because they did not think that the citizens Of Geor
ga and Alabama within the provisions of the law OF
1884 Whether they eutted TO The money or not Is
one question They claim to be entitled IL under that
law You refused 70 permit that question be decided by
the Senate by saying that 1t is private claim although
may cxst claim under that law. Now, say tina,
The decision which has been made BY the Senate
should not have been made but the whole question
should be presented TO the Senate, whether, under
he lIth section Of the Of 1894 the inhabitants OF
Alabama and Georgia were entitled TO be paid for thos,
Expectations Now the from Texas comedies tina
uthey entitled to be paid under the act Of 1894 thai
amendment stands in the position with the ono which
he has now offered
! NJ RUSK. Certainly
| ,MPRATT II the inhabitants Of Alabtma and Gcor
~ nave no claim under the act Of 1894 IL Is not pretend
~ on 'he part OF the honorable senator from Georgia, o
one else that they have any claim at all Therefore
t,s presented from committee a claim under an ex
NV the Senate should not have decided against th'
itpenl upon question Of order as TO whether tht
tso ought 70 be considered or not The Committee or
s u Ahars reported that amendment upon thu
p, Ina was jus, claim under the act Of 1894
VT hUSk Under the principles OF tho act Of 1884
Iu1e the Of Q1