The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-06-01

The senator says We cannot now estimate the Indian
ute and he tells US, why csnuot that the
Indian title 10 but the right 10 over the land and
obtain pleoaious subsistence from the game ha IKE e
Indians themselves, tho country Why, sr II
u strange, indeed we cannot estimate the Indian e al
thus day What have been doing since tho revolutionary
war; Has not la every instance when n was proposes
10 make Indian treaty estimate been made Of the
value OF tho Indian title 70 the nds proposed 10 be sold
Why, sir you viii fad that the very next year the Indians
We're allowed for lands in the region OF country not
six and quarter cents acre, but the admission Of the
government 49, that that land right adjoining this was more
valuable than six and quarter eents-as much as Two
thirds more valuable There 10 the estimate set by the
government ITSELF upon whalf Upon land TO which the
title was 40 ~ No, sur but 10 land over which there was
an Indian htehe right TO and procure pfeearious
subsistence Here them have evidence Of the value of
the Indian title la the following year, me treaty OF
Indian SPRING have evidence of the estimate which the
country set upon the Indian title, and have II contnu
ally since Not year passes which the govern
is not brought TO make estimate of the Indian
title see therefore, that there is any force this
point which is thrown in as TO make weight against
this claim
Mr.. President there another very broad assertion
made by the SENATOR and that gave the time
these Indians that with which they satisfied
confess surprised with that declaration from
the lips Of the honorable than with any other deca
ration which he made. Why sir, not the very evil
dence which he reading and reviewing the time proof
coeent and conclusive OF the incoecness Of that
Was not the protocol drawn up by them eyes reitaon
of his decaraton How them could he say they received
that with which they satisfied II is impossible 10
say it in truth that by any intend i'm
ply that the senator would falsely this matter in
ientonaly. But do know that these Indians dis
satisfied at the time They declared il solennly in writing
They declared in that form which they deemed part Of
the treaty.
MIR. HUNTER. did say that the Indians were sat-
isfed the capitalization Of For Jackson but have
the evidence Of Agent hawkins that they would have been
satisfied that time If they had received $4,000 in money
Mr.. WALKER That subsequen, part of the
senator's remarks, and was about 70 comment on it, and
| going say, that the next thing heard from The
honorable that they would have been satisfied
the time Colonel Hawkins made his report il they could
have been paid $50 0o0 Now, what is said that sub
ect by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in reviewing
the whole history Of this transaction He says ths
GAS what may be deemed Just and proper compen-
saon for the lands referred to- have to remark that Colo
mel Hawkins in his letter of the LIST of August 1885, q In
dian Affairs 1885, eald that he bsiered the Indians would
the time have accepted $50 900 indemnity The
itec Of the Fourteenth Congress- Of which Mr. Lowndes
was chairman considered the remark to refer exclusively
their claim for indemnity for injuries and losses e Indian
Af,irs 1867 So did the Committee Ways and Means
of the House. in 1924, lib, 1927 On the contrary my
concurred was Of contiay opnion.-(see Commissioner
Browns report made in $780, the Committee Oh Indian
Affairs of the Senate W
Now, wish senators to note what follows for it adj
dresses itself to the Senate well the Secretary of the
Interior, to whom this report was made
But be this may even if the friendly Indians see
ing their land rretrievably taken from them, expressly
informed BY General Jackson that he had no authority Ia
great weight OF msforuues dshearened and desparng,
would have received at that time for their lands made
quae compensation, that affords rule by which to
measure what they ought to receives and to consider
them bound by what Colonel Hawkns's opinion they
would have received, If paid them them would be the
| strnngest injustice"
differing vastly from the senator from Virginia. and from
any view seems to me which may be taken this sub
jec when II is clearly and fully understood. Why sir,
suppose the commissioner Gays that time confronted
by General Jackson they were told that he could rot
comply with the terms proposed by General Pnckney that
he could do nothing than the capituaon from
them and take fom them their country; and suppose when
they had TO 90 anyhow they voluntarily said give
100000 would the haze considered that the In
such propositioap No, Ii impossible that lust
could come 10 such conclusion. These are the best
features surrounding the transaction and the beet you
Of that Of Colonel Hawkins is that under the
circumstances ecited by the Commissioner Indian Affairs
they would have humby bowed down and ,aton that
when they knew well they could nothing When
friends found Involuntary placed in the position of
miles, and forced and become willing submit TO such
terms, do no, know how far minds might be willing
to consider them concluded that subject but, for nv
part am constituted that can take such that
cannot say that would hold them responsible for
the SEQ 900 had then been paid them and was undenaby
the consideration for their lands
Another statement was that, when the capulation was
made General Jackson reserved land for the friendly Creeks
equivalent to that which he took from them have CON-
mented tina, before and the comparison which made
of taking youf two horses and returning you
sderaron for the other is parallel He gave them
nothing Dut arcaly belonged 10 them nothing but
what they said in bis presecce belonged them nothing
but what ey said IN writing, belonged to them and that
writing he consented forward the government knowing
that they claimed IT as their part OF the treaty.
This them the attitude occupied by this caso Of that
time This the manner in which Geaera Jackson, in
connection with this whole transaction that time an
swered the argument and the assertion Of the senator
they received equivalent But General Jackson at
the did dispute that part OF the treaty. that pro-
toool which they claimed their part Of the treaty Why
do make ths assertion In the repor, of the Com
missioner Of Indian Affairs to which have referred he re-
cites the fact that
General Jackson, however, did pretend TO take or
retain the lands Of the iendy Crs part of the conquered
territory His for taking them stated by HIM
in his letter 10 the Secretary of War, dated August 10
1914, in which lie said Considerations interesting the
United States, relative the Spanish dominions inme
daey south Of us, Induced procure the cesson Of all
the Creek lands Of Consequences bounding foreign claims
OF territory in order prevent future injurious
uunquilny.' q indian dGairs s33) On the 18th
Of April 1894. Mr.. Forsyth from select committee in re-
gard TO the claims Of Georgia, made report which il IL
sad n 1914 General Jackson acting under The auho rty
Of the government, took from tho Creek Indians for an
equivalent named by himself all the land the United States
chose require, to effect great object Of national policy
regard 70 the Indian tribes. canno BE- aieged this
donf by rrm Of conquest This acquisition BY conquest
acquisition Of lands from fyisnd and allies for an
equivalent named by the United States =
The equivalent, as before stated was bu, another
portion OF their own country and they declared in the
protocol to the treaty then part bus, see tha
contrary the of the honorable senator General
Jackson himself did pretend that be giving an
equivalent lie took ,hs territory for political considere
lie did view II q matter Of consequence 10
The vhethe he opye A