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

objected 10 as private claim The Chairthe late veneer
ated Vice President Mr. King -susm,lIed .hat question
Ia the Senate and the Senate decided that was private
claim The Chair did not decide one way or the other on
that occasion. = ..1 :.
again moved from the Committee ON Indian Affairs and
t6en HE decision took place which has been referred 70 by
the senator from Virginia There was discussion upon
the question: whether not 1t was private claim i
was insisted think by the senator from Georgia, Mr.
DAWSON that twas decided not 10 be IN order on the pre-
vous occasions because il was moved by gentleman MOI
a member of standing committee u was urged, now
ever by others in debate that IL private claim
whether so moved not the previous occasion ana
now although moved by member OF standing e1lii.
tee the Committee on Indian Affairs IL fell within the RUE
of the Senate and must therefore be adudged 10 DC OUT
order, because IL was private claim Ia; -.
The senator then temporarily occupying the cai ,he
senator from Vermont Mr. Foor expressed the opinion
that il was not within the rule An appeal was taken py
the senator from Delaware Mr. BAYAnD from that deeis-
ion and upon that appeal the senate decuco ''e '"
That Is the history Of this affair far as the votes Of
the Senate goi and II y strictly correct Is pene mo
not know that any discussion upon the merits OF the
amendment is in order. suppose II Is no., lnueea
suppose this whole discussion is out OF order because
take it, as the question has been submitted to the ohai
ought TO be decided by him without debate and after
that discussion may arise upon an appeal $50,
Mr. BELL Does the senator from ONO say thal 'hetc
was not decision in its favoa decision that II was not
private claim
MIR CHASE Not that am Of My recollection
isand think will be confirmed by the proceedings as
reported in the Globethat when it was originally pre-
by the from Tennessee from the Committee
on Indian Affairs the question was not raised. no oe
ton was made to it. But discussion arose, when was
protrcted great length and which resulted IN decs
ion upon the merits Of the amendment
Mr. BELL 1t may be necessary, before the Char IS
called upon to make decision the original de-
cson Ny memory is not very clear; but think the SEN
ator from Ohio is greatly mistaken
Mr. CHASE. am confident am right.
Mr.. FITZPATRICK. ] had not the honor OF beinga
member Of the Senate when the vote taken upon tins
question in 1885 was however here at the close o. lne
last session and with all that is said by the sena
tor from Tennessee in relation to the hour at which TINS
claim was brought forward and the uniavorable auspices
under which it before the Senate AS far as the mer
its Of the question are concerned will not undertake to
discuss them; but the from Ohio has alluded to
them shall be excused for saying that at the proper
time will demonstrate the Senate that the ease
mertorious one and that when thoroughly investigated
il win commend itself to the favorable consideration OF the
Senate recolect the hour when II was brought before
the Senate at the last session and know IL was late ut
night after the Senate had had very protracted sitting
and know the impatence and restlessness which were
incident the introduction Of the matter Mt the time when
il was presented TO the consideration of the Senate If
this question had received the deliberate attention of the
Senate and the rule had been determined in conformity
with the decisions at the close of the last session. am one
of the last upon this floor to undertake to say anything
against rule settled by the deliberate act of the body
but recollection distinct that that rule was discussed
hurredly and did not receive that attention which the
merits of the rule and the under consideration de-
manded Perhaps the rule referred 70 Perhaps some
thing ncideny said about the decision on the pre-
vous occasion but not listened to with that atten
ton discussed deliberately to impress itself upon
the mind of every senator who was then in the chamber
be excused for saying that it was not debated at
length every senator who then here can testify
The rule under which the point of order is raised is this
No amendment proposing additional appropriations shall
made Ds to oa he provisions Of existing
resolution previously passed by the Senate during
that session. moved by direction of standing committee
of the Senate in Of estimate from the head
Of some of the departments and no amendment shall be re-
ccived whose object is to provide for private claim al
though the may have been previously sanctioned by the
Senate" FEs a..
Look at the language of this rule 1t says that "no
al he
received any general appropriation BILL unless be
made to carry out the provisions of some existing law
Recur the history of this case, and | ask you if 1T
Il not brought before the Senate under existing law
After outbreak of Indian hostles in 1885, this matter
attracted the attention of Congress which authorized the
President appoint three commissioners to visit the
of war and ascertain the extent OF the damages and
depredatons committed upon the individuals inhabtng
that portion OF the country. The commissioners went
there and made an elaborate report setting forth the
of the damages from depredations. When they
turned 1t submitted to the President of the United
States and then communicated TO Congress II this be the
fact ii seems TO that the amendment is legitmatel
within the provision Of the first portion OF the rule IL Is
to carry out the provisions of some existing law.
But sir suppose that that portion Of the rule does not
the yet another branch Of the rule that it
shall be entertained unless is in pursuance Of est
mate from the head OF Of the departments presume
that although the rule specifies that il be estimated
by the head Of Of the departments II recommended
by the President Of the United States it will come within
the spirit and within the intent OF the rule II the head
Of no department may have recommended IL Well what
the proceedings when that report made by the
three commissioners Gcn jackson, IN his message 10
Congress in 1885, used the following language:
"On the unexpected breaking out Of hosttics in Florida
Alabama and Georgia IL became necessary in some cases
take the property Of individuals for public Provision
should be made by law for indemnifng the and
would also respectfully suggest whether provision
%en %aa the q ss 1ndisn
by the operations Of our own troops .s~e.e Il. -
II seems that this amendment being in pursuance
Of established law, and under the recommendation of
the President Of the United States is clearly and phs
caly brought within the meaning OF the rule and think
il is strictly in order under H. -7sts Ara @s# EreE
Mr. TO0MBS have a word 10 say upon the point Of
order The senator from Virginia, instead Of offering
argument brings in another precedent and says that the
amendment TO which alluded having been made the
recommendation Of the Committee Finance put in
the bill by mistake probably of the COMMITTEES and
is introduced here supply omission because all of the
claims provided for last year except these two
Mr.. HUNTER. The senator is mistaken. ] did say
thot il was through any mistake Of the committee II
the mistake Of the commissioner in giving the list Of claims
nj the last session.
Mr.. TOOMBS But IL n mistake in the point Of
order supposed that the chairman OF the Committee
Finance would not deliberately violate the rules the
Senate and therefore said that wa mistake in the point
Of order in proposing the amendment II that the
last Congress passed law under which the claims
mend the present Congress pass these two say tina,
sofar from that being argument against me- II Is
ther precedent q
Mr.. HUNTER II passed against the opinion Of the
Committee on Finance. We resisted n
Mr. TO0MBS Then, II the precedent OF the Senate
and this IL the precedent Of the committee so that have
both Both the Senate and senator from VIRGINIA s,a-
difficulty in his explanations Therefore say thai have
Tho vOte ri he at n \