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

TNItIfHE
senate OF course referred only to the fatigue incident
the late discussion during night session. The by
which this class OF claims decided 10 be private claim
was however not the less understood upon the
par Of the Senate recolleet perfectly well the argument
that was urged by the senator from Delaware Mr. BAY
ARp He said that he interested in providing for the
payment OF claimants for French spoatons and bin had
actually passed the Senate snctoning the payment Of
those claims and yet he said he not at liberty
amendment TO the civil and diplomatic bill providing
for them Although they under law Of the land
they were private claims They under treaty the
supreme of the land but still being large class Of
private claims they could not be entertained by the Senate
amendment TO the civil and diplomatic appropriation
bill.
have before me report which nj the session
of 1888 upon these claims when they very fully
sidered and investigated IL was made by the present
Comptroller of the Treasury, Mr.. Whittlesey then
Der of the House Of Representatives whose habits of nyes
gaton and clearness in Judgment well known TO every
member Of the Senate In speaking OF this class of claims
he says
The trd class Under this head commencing at page
executive document 21 list Of claims to the number
Of zoos for depredaons committed by the Greek Indians
upon the citizens of Georgia and Alabama"
He then showed the mode in which these claims had
been reported 1t that out of the three commission
e but two acted and that report of the evidence on
which they acted furnished TO the departments
but they stated the gross amount necessary TO satisfy
the claims the sum of 1856, l67 90.
Mr. TOOMBS do not wish to go into that now; but
both those statements not My object has been only
TO show the improperly Of the point OF order am, how
prepared with the documents show that those state
mcns correct but that the three commissioners
acted upon the greater part of the claims though the third
resigned before the time of the commission expired
Mr. Whittlesey mistaken in the facts of the case
Mr. CHASE know it is improper to go into the merits
of the claims upon point of order and yet have had
those merits urged upon the Senate why the
decision should be that they are not private claims re-
they referred to the Committee of Claims in the
House of Representatives they reported list Of
caimsa list of claims of private individuals the gov
ernment Then they private claims II is impossible
to question it, unless claim is regarded private
claim which arises under the provisions of any general law
whatever.
If there is any law upon the statute-book in
quence of which, remotely approximately, any claim
arises upon the government behalf of private ndivd
ua then if these claims not private claims that claim
is not private claim, and such rule becomes worthless
Whether not these claims fall within the principle OF the
intercourse law whether they fall within the provisions of
that law, is another question: but think can show
endeavored TO show former OCCASION when that ques
ton before the Senate if it should come before
in separate bill if the Senate entertain it now, that
this claim does fall within the principle Of the Indian
intercourse law within the terms of the law.
will not, however, go into that now Ny object in
rising simply show that the committee which reported
upon them heretofore regarded them private claims
and that they have regarded by the Senate hereto
fore that there has been decision of the Senate upon
any occasion when they not held and that if all
these considerations not sufficient to bring them within
the rule and to show that they ought to be excluded by IT.
it seems to useless to have the rule
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Nr BRIGHT in the chair
The senator from Virginia objects to the consideration of
the amendment the ground that il is excluded by the
Both rule. The individual opinion of the Chair is very
clear upon that head that it does within the encep
ton and is excluded by the rule But independent OF his
opinion the fact that the Senate at the last session Of Con-
gres oyeruled decision sustaining the amendment as in
order would make respectful to the Senate for the Chair
to decide that the amendment is not in order.
Mr. TOOMBS respectfully appeal from the decision Of
the Chair
The PRESIDING OFFICER The question is, Shall
the decision of the Chair stand the Judgment Of the
Senate n
Mr.. CHASE On that question | call for the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BELL have strong impression, with some other
gentlemen who voted this matter in 1852, when il
up that the question of order then raised and decided
fayorably to the entertainment of the proposition have
sent for the debates of that year If find
some evidence of il there Before receive that volume
and before the question is taken wish to refer the Senate
10 question of order which raised a somewhat
similar in hat year find by reference the jour
nal Of he Senate of August 10, 1852
- The Senate resumed committee Of the whole the
consideration of the bill III X 43) making appropriation for
the current and contingent expenses Of the Indian Depart
men and for fulfilling treaty stpulatons with the various
Indian tribes, for the year ending June 80, 1883"
motion made by myself to amend the bill by in
sorting:
For supplying deficiency in the appropriations hereto
fore made for the removal Of the Choctaw Indians from Mis-
ssPP as estimated BY the Commissioner Of Indian Affairs
And the same being objected to as against the so rule
THE PREsIpEST feHpoye submitted the question for
the decision Of the Senate whether the said amendment
In order and
:" 1t determined in the airmative-ycas 90 nays a.
This at the session. and upon the Indian APP
preparation bill The senator from Virginia must
Der that decision. II in regard the claim of viii
liam H. Hart and others who represented the contractors
for removing the Choc,aw Indians the Of the Mis-
ssspp under contract made with the government The
only specification in the existing law the time that
the Executive should be authorized 10 make contract for
the removal Of those Indians and perhaps made ap
preparation for that purpose but not certain whether
that was not Probably there was appropriation
in the bill The contractors in the execution Of the
tract detained great length Of as
they aleged-by the default OF the government in not send
ing oneha the amount OF scrip claimed BY the emgrant
Choctaw Indians in due time They alleged that they
had assembled large proportion OF the Indians in short
time after they entered upon the execution OF the con-
tract was practicable The Indians were poor and
came with their hmiles-perhaps thousand two
thousand OF hemand the contractors had subsst the
Indians out OF their funds Their contract was, in
terms that they should the Indians for 80 much
head or for certain in gross according the
Der removed The question arose. whether they
entitled TO indemnity from the government in consequence
Of the default Of the officers Of the government in
hitting earlier to the Chocsw Indians the scrip which was
10 be handed 10 them before they started on their Jour
ney the Of the Mississippi The claim WINS for the
supplies clothing and provisions furnished while they
were encamped.
An amendment provide for this claim was moved TO
the Indian appropriation bin and the question raised
whether II was not mere private claim The amend
10 provide for contractors who had stipulated
the Mississippi river and after they had been paid the
amount specified in the contract the claim was for in
demnity for extra supplies furnished them upon the allie
CATION that there had been neglect the part Of the gov
eminent Upon that ground the exception WAS taken nv
the from Ohio In that rs In the other that Il
excluded by the goth rule The question was debated
pretty fully and the Senate decided by vote Of thirty 10
fourteen that IL not private claim coming within