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

not have been ruled out of order
Mr. HUNTER The senator from Maryland was mis-
taken in regard to the Intercourse act IL only applies 10
Indians within the territories of the United States
TO Indians within the States If the Indians within the
territories come into the States and make spoations il
their and the of spoatons within
the ierritores but il does apply at all to Indians
within State That is the mistake OF the Nor
was the claim set up hereofoe do not know what rea
may be urged for il the ground that 1t came
within that act but il said TO within the equity
of the act II said that If the policy and principle
upon which that act founded correct then in
equity the persons upon whom spoaons We're committed
in Georgia and Alabama entitled TO indemnify but
il asserted that the claim within the act of
1884
Mr.. PRATT The act provides that if Indians shall
pass from the Indian country into any STATE Territory in
habed by the citizens Of the United States and there take
&c. indemnity shall be made Did not those Indians pass
from the Indian country /?
Mr. HUNTER If the will look. Mt the first
ton OF that act he Win nnd uat il aehcs "l the ihaa
country is.
Mr.. TOOMBS. The senator from Virginia is mistaken
Mr. HUNTER We shall by the reading of that Sec
Mr. ToOMBS The first section of the act is not think,
subject the construction which the senator from Virginia
would put upon it.
Mr. RUSK | rise to a point of order The question
which gentlemen debating cannot be reached without
reconsideration.
Mr. PRATT | understand that the amendment offered
by the from Texas within that part of the
rule which excludes private claims and therefore, that it
is out of order
Mr. RUsK. submit that question to the decision Of
"
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BRleHr) The ques-
ton presented is whether the amendment moved by the
from Texas from the Committee Indian Affnrs
comes within the rule 1t is very difficult to apply the
thrtieth rule to all the different which arise here
suddenly but the Chair is of the impression that this
amendment does within the rule and is excluded
being private claim,
Mr. RJSK I appeal from the decision of the Chair
and desire say word upon the question the argu-
ment has taken very extensive range II any payment
be made under the appropriation made by this amend
ment of mine it will be made under treaty. which is the
law of the land The amendment does not select out the
individuals whom the money to be paid it does not
ascertain them it does fix the amount The amount
is fixed by law This is altogether different from the case
which has just been ruled to be private claim and
cuded SUCH because the Indian intercourse law of 1884
does not extend Alabama and Georgia If it did
there would be application of that sort because the law
provides that the claims shall be paid out of the Treasury
Every familiar with the history Of that claim and 1t
has been before Congress for several years pas knows
that it does within the law of 1894 believe
upon occasions certainly upon one bill passed the
Senate but defeated in the House. to extend the pro-
visions of the intercourse law of 1884 to Alabama and
Georgia. beve that il is not pretended do not think
the honorable senator from Georgia pretendedthat IT
within the provisions of that law. lie said that 1t
within the principles of the law and that it ought TO
have been paid according TO them but the law does not
tend there's and twice think certainly once when bill
passed this body TO extend il the States of Georgia
Alabama Florida and Texas IT defeated in the House
of Representatives.
Mr. TOOMBS / am satisfied that the decision of the
Chair is wrong and WILL therefore, vote with the
from Texas satisfied that the amendment of that
senator is to carry out existing law SO was the amend
Indian Affairs and of the amendments Of the
Committee Finance. The Senate acouiesccd in the
amendments of the Finance Committee decided against
mine and will probably decide for this showing the uncer
tanty of these matters.
But sir wish to put the senator from Virginia right
on another point stated that the which presented
was clearly within the principle and in my Judgment
within the letter Of the intercourse law OF 1884 lie has
referred the first section OF that law showing that IT
does embrace Alabama and Georgia That first sec
Il A wording,
the gentleman contends that the States OF Aabama and
Georgia included within its letter viii read IL
show that he wrong in point OF fact IL defines the
Indian country thus
All that part OF the United States Of the Msss-
spp and within the States Of Missouri and Louisiana
the Territory Of Arkansas'-
That does not include us, Of course but il goes
also that part OF the United States Of Mssis
spp river and not within any State to which the Indian
title has not been extinguished'
This includes the Greek country then within Alabama
and Georgia II not within State TO which the Indian
title had been exnguished but within States to which
the Indian title had been exngushed The territory men
toned il declared should "fo the purposes OF this act
be taken and deemed 10 be the Indian country The act docs
notmcnon territories east Of the Mississippi IL docs
mention Florida then Territory the senator seems to
suppose II applies TO that part Of the United States east
Of the Mississippi river and not within any State TO which
tho Indian title has not been exnguished" This Indian
country seast Of the Mississippi river and not within
any State which the Indian title has not been extinguis
edr but within States to which the Indian title had
been oxtngushed.
Mr. PETIT What is the date Of the act2
Mr.. TooMBS June 30, 1894.
Mr. PETIT That before Wisconsin, and Michigan
were admitted and those the Territories alluded 70
aeast OF the Mississippi, aud not within any State
Mr.. TOOMBS The wsrds Not within any State
70 which the Indian title has not been extngushed That
Is the designation II docs not say "any State but any
State TO which the Indian title has not been extnguished
Mr. PETIT IL refers TO lands TO which the Indian title
has not been extinguished.
Mr. ToOMBS II says that part OF the United States
cast Of the Mississippi river and not within any State TO
which the Indian title has not been cxhnguished for the
purposes Of this act be taken and deemed TO be Indian
country"
Mr. FISH, What Indian title there to extngush in
Georgia and Aabama2
Mr. PETIT. What Is the punctuation Of that clause
Il there a comma after aStatcT
Mr.. TocMBS. That makes difference.
Mr.. HUNTER II the senator win observe the section
closely he will that strictly accurate First II
applies to all Territories Of the Mississippi river
cepting by the States there, and the Territory Of
Arkansas Next Il applies cast Of the Mississippi except 70
States which the Indian title has not been extnguished
II docs not apply it cannot apply States in which the
Indian title has been exnRushed because there Is there
no Indian territory TO which il apply Bu II was de-
signed to apply TO the Territories Of Wisconsin and For
da which were not then States and in which there wa.
Indian territory east Of the Mississippi If the senator
from Georgia viii Icok the debatosor there have beer
extended debates upon this claimho will find that i was
adsted by those who advocated the claim that the inter
course act did not apply to it, If II did apply TO ~ The
claimants might have gone 20 tho department without
coming here for payment He will find that that admission
made two years ago by the senator from Tennessee
Mr. BELL, by the senator from Alabama Mr.. Clemens
who introduced IT. and by the from Michigan, Mr.
CAss who discussed IT. II was claimed before tha
that law covered IT,
Mr. STUART wish 10 ascertain from the senator from
Texas two facts in reference to this question before