The New York herald., 1870-07-01
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE.
WAsHlNGroN, June 80, 1870.

- WASH1NGroN, June 80, 1870.
INDIAN. APPROPRIATION BILL.
Tnc House resumed consideration Of the Senate
Amendments to the Indian Appropriation bin.
The report OF the Committee on Appropriations
recommending concurrence in some and non-cur-
renee In others of the Senate amendments was
agreed to as whole, except where special votes
were called for. r -
Mr.. FERRY, frep.) OF Mich, asked for q separate
vote On tne amendment in which the committee re-
commended non-concurrence, aDpropratng s36T53
Tor the payment 10 Indians In Michigan the differ
ence between coin and currency paid to them In
1863 and 1854, under treaty supulations, with five
per cent interest added thereto. lie argued in favor
of the amendment -r
Mr. SARGENT trep) OF Cal, opposed the amend.
ment, as establishing q most dangerous and costly
precedent, that woud apply as well TO the soldiers,
sailors an pensioners and al other creditors OF the
government as to Indians, whose agents had been
sharp enough TO have stipulated for payment in
coin. The principle was as binding morally in the
one case as In the other.
on a count by tellers there were bat twenty-one
yeas. No further count was asked, and the amend-
Inent was non-concurred in
Mr. EECK, (den.l OF Ky asked for q separate vote
OIL the amendment, in which the Committee on Ap-
preparations recommended ncrconcuirence, max
Ing large appropriations under Indian treaties OF 1867
and 1858, which treaties the Foretll Congress had
fused to ratfY. He said there fifteen twenty
OF these amendments, aggregatmg one million live
hundred thousand dollars, and he wished to have
the vote OF the House upon them, ss instruction
TO the committee % conference 10 which the bill
would be referred. These appropriations, II made.
would run for thirty years, and would cost the gov
ernnent between dfty and sixty millions.
Mr.. PAINE, trep) Of Wis, hoped That the re ,om.
mendaion Of the Committee on Appropriations
would be adberea to, and expressed his dsspproval
OF the entire system Of lndinn treaties.
The amendments IN question were all non-con-
CURED In.
Mr.. AxTafL t5en.l o! Cal, asked for separate
vote on the amendment Increasing he appropria-
ton for the incidental expenses Of tie Indian SER
vice IL California from seven million five hanGfed
thousand dollars 10 ten million dollars lie opposed
the amendment as being intended Tor TIE removal
OF The peaceful industrious, civilized Mission In
III san Diego county. lie represented the movement
rs speculative one 10 secure the arms OF those
Mission indians
Mr. SARGENT endorsed the remarks OF his col.
league.
TIE scnate amendment was non-concurcd in
Mr.. DE1ESRIt, (repl OF Texas, asked for separate
vote on an amendment. IN which the Committee on
Appropr aticns recommended concurrence, forbid
ding deductions from Indian annnijles on account
OF dep! edations. he argued against the ariend-
ment, taking the ground That the principle thus
abgogaied was the correct and common sense mode
OF dealing with the Indian deprede!ions
Mir. WiLxEsoS, Tep.l OF Mimi, argued in the
same direction.
Mr.. SAR0EST argued in support OF the amend
mcat, Coaleudng Lnat me existence Of such sys
TEN STIMULATED The goting up 81 claims Tor Indian
6eprejetons AID II lustfates hy citing he case OF
5exan Rrazlss, who, NOT nnd's gooi market Tor
kts ca 1e uivIs theta thioIaa Ne indian country,
saaipti1is t6s InafaNs V drive them on, and then
game to Washington aid Eiaas s.slll before NE
Indian Department. % ID
Mr.. PArsx srqued in suppori of The Senate sTaend-
msnf, 80 ~ 10 avoid AGe allowance OF unjust and
hsnfuiens claims,
1ns amend msnt was corourred In.
A complttoe OF conference was ordered on the
0sagrsslns votse