The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-02-13
Made Three Minute Talk and
His Plea Was Confirmed.
Senators Thought Kansan's
Point OF Order Surely Safe.
ON AN INDIAN BILL.
Amendment Before Body Pro-
vided for Payment, 5000, 900.
BristOw Only Man Opposed to
Confirmation of Smith.

COnllfmaLIOn Oh smith.
Washington. Feb. 13.-The result of
| q contest in the senate few days ago
| illustrates what may be done by few
| minutes talk by a member of that
| body WAC knows tie facts involved in
a question and who is able to state
them in a few words.
When the Indian appropriation bill
| was being considered in the senate,
Senator Charles Curtis made a point
| or order against an amendment. which
provided fer the payment to certain
Creek Indians of the sum of $500, 900.
Senator Owen, who favored the item,
thought Vice President Sherman would
sustain the point of order made by
| the Kansas senator, so instead of con-
timing their remarks to the point of
order both he and Senator McCumber
argued the merits of the claim. intend
ing to appeal from the decision of the
chair. This they did, when he sus-
tanned the point made by Senator Cur
tbs. but the Kansas senator made a
three minute speech on it's merits, and
when the vote was taken only three
senators voted with the Oklahoma SEN
ator.
It was admitted by all that the brief
statement of Senator Curtis caused a
large majority to vote in support of
the ruling Of the vice president. The
speech of Senator Curtis was short. 1t
was as follows:
What Senator Curtis Said.
I'm view of the fact that there have
been SO many misstatements in regard
to this claim, I should like to take a
few minutes time in explaining 1t to
the senate. 1t is a very old claim. In
the first place, by the third article of
the treaty of 1866 it was stipulated that
the government should sell certain lands
and out of the proceeds pay to the loyal
Tr71i 49,
in proportion to their respective losses.
The land was sold and the money was
turned into the treasury. In 1872. act
of July Is, 100000 was appropriated,
to be applied pro rata on the several
amounts awarded under the treaty of
1866. Afterwards the Indians present
ed their claims to the secretary Of the
interior. That officer, in a report dated
February is, 1879, held they had no
further legal claim. Again, on July 20,
and the secretary of the interior held
that they had no further legal claim.
On the 10th of May, 1888, the matter
was submitted to the court of claims.
The court of claims, in passing upon
the case. held that the Indians had no
legal claim and that the 100000 was
in full settlement of all claims of said
Creek Nation for damages and losses
Of every kind growing out Of
the late rebellion. The opinion
of the court will be found in nineteenth
court of claims reports, at page 675 I
should like to read just a part of the
syllabus of the case:
"'III. The provision in the treaty of
1866 that 1.-The, stipulations of this treaty
are to be in full settlement of all claims
of said Creek Nation for damages and
losses of every kind growing out of
the late rebellion applies to individual
and personal as well as to national
demands.
"IV. BY the Creek treaty, 1865, the
United States reserved 100000 from
moneys to be paid the nation and
stipulated that that amount should be
divided among the loyal Creeks "in
proportion to their several losses;'' but
they did not thereby assume the losses
which loyal individuals suffered by rea-
son of their having faithfully adhered
to the government during the war
after that decision nothing more
was done in reference to this claim
until the agreement was entered into
with the Creeks in 1902. In that in
strument the congress of the United
States agreed that this loyal Creek
claim and another claim should be
submitted to the senate for settlement
as a board of arbitration. A resolu-
ton or a memorial was presented. 1t
was sent to the committee on Indian
affairs in the regular order of BUSH
ness. The committee On Indian af-
fairs was never selected by the senate
as board or a court to adjust this
claim. The memorial was referred to
it in the usual course of business. The |
committee took jurisdiction, however, |
and reported the matter back. but not
by way Of resolution. They selected the !
Indian appropriation bill, and put the /
award, so called, in the Indian appro- |
priation bill of March 8, 1903.
Kansan Stated His Contention.
Nov, my contention is that there |
was no award of any kind or character |
until the Indian appropriation bill be- |
came a law. Had the committee re-
ported to the senate a resolution, the |
senate might pass it one day and the I
next day, if the senate had been con- |
WINGED that they made a mistake, 1t /
could reconsider and reduce the amount |
from s., 200,0 900 to 100000, and no one
would contend that the latter action |
would not stand as the final action of
of the senate.
1.-THE committee selected an appro-
priation bill. Under the general pro-
cedure of the house and senate the bill !
must go to the house. 1t went to the
house The house disagreed to the |
amendment The whole matter went /
to conference, and in conference the |
house and senate agreed to an award
of $500 600. It came back to the senate,
was approved, and the only legal
award was heaward of $500, 900 made on
the Sd day of March, 1903, and the pre-
siding officer of the senate who passed
upon this question two years ago we'll
said that the senate could not go back
of the act Of March 8, 1903. That is the
law, and that is the award and the |
only award made by the senate.
81 pointed out yesterday that when
the s600,000 was appropriated. the pro-