Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.

582 ABRIDGMENT OF THE SENATE.] Creek Treaty-Fraud. [MAY, 1826. this design existed, and of the obligation on countenance this fraud. The chiefs say such the part of the United States, so far as Con- was the intention. Mr. V. B. said such could gress could do so, to defeat so unworthy a not have been the intention; and, as it could scheme. They differed as to the means that not be, the other conclusion is unavoidable. Congress ought to use to carry it into effect. The intention was, that the money should be [Here Mr. V. B. stated the two modes of dis- distributed according to the rights of the Intribution proposed by the two Houses.] dians constituting the Creek nation. It was The two questions, then, Mr. V. B. said, that fair and just, and not inconsistent with the lanpresented themselves in this view of the sub- guage of the treaty. Such, Mr. V. B. said, ject, were, had Congress the right to go to the would have been his view of the subject, if extent proposed in the amendment made by this had been a case between a civilized nation the Senate? and, if they had, was it essential and this Government. But when their attenthat they should do so? With respect to the tion was turned to their rights over Indian right, he was, at first, under some doubt in re- property, the case stood upon a different pringard to it; but a more careful examination had ciple. There had been great inconsistency removed those doubts, and had satisfied him amongst us as to the rights we had exercised that the amendment of the Senate was war- over the Indians. At one time they depended ranted. The treaty directed that two hundred on our mere will and pleasure; at another time and forty-seven thousand dollars should be we had treated them as an individual power. paid to the chiefs of the Creek nation, to be From the time of the formation of this Govdistributed among the chiefs and warriors of ernment, we had assumed the right to legislate, that nation. By the word chiefs, was it in- according to our will and pleasure, over their tended the chiefs in the nation, or the chiefs in interests and property, so far as to protect the city of Washington? Those in this city them from fraud. On this principle, we had say it was intended to be paid to them, and regulated all their trade. We had provided by they ask of the Department of War that it law that they should not dispose of the lands should be paid to them in sums, counted out they owned, unless in a specified form, and to according to the distribution which had been the United States. We had gone further; by stated. There was no difference on this sub- law, we had directed that the annuities due to ject between the conferees. They were of them from us should be, without'their consent, opinion that the money was to be paid to the used to make remuneration for damages done chiefs of the nation in open council: that was by the Indians. These three points of legislathe language of the treaty-the good sense of tion, Mr. V. B. said, covered the whole ground. the treaty. The delegation who negotiated the What was the case now before the Senate? treaty say it is to be paid to them; and that, There was a fund of $247,000, belonging honin that view of the subject, they are warranted estly to the Creek nation. It could not be dein the opinion expressed to them by the Secre- nied, because it was for their lands. The fact tary of War and the Superintendent of Indian was proved that there was an intention to deAffairs. The conferees say, the intention of fraud them of this money. It had been said the treaty was, and its language imports, that that we had no right to provide by law to prethis money should be distrbuted in the usual vent an event of that description, by directing proportion, according to the just rights of the that the money should be thus distributed, acIndian warriors. There was nothing in the cording to the principles of justice. ]Mr. V. B. language of the treaty inconsistent with that said it would be sheer squeamishness to hesiidea. How ought the money to be distributed? tate now as to the power. Certainly on principles of justice amongst those The amendment proposed by the Senate Indians, according to their rights. What was holds the Secretary of War responsible for this asked on the part of the delegation? That it money to these Indians, according to their just should be distributed among them for their rights. The amendment from the House suppersonal advantage, and in conceded injustice poses that may be effected, and this money to those they represented. They proposed to paid, in open council of the chiefs, when sumtake one hundred and sixty thousand dollars, moned in the usual way. The conferees on the and to distribute it among themselves and the part of the Senate believed that measure would favored chiefs of the Cherokee nation. The fall short of obtaining the desired end; that simple statement of the pretence set up, was so the amendment of the House did not go far against right and justice, that Mr. V. B. said enough, but, under the circumstances of the they were bound to presume that such could case, Congress should go farther, and see that never have been the intention of our Govern- the money was properly distributed. They ment. It was unjust and fraudulent. The ought to see that this money went actually into chiefs say they have a right to do it, and they the hands of the different chiefs and warriors would abide by the consequence; but it was -then, if they chose to give it to the Cheroconceded to be a corrupt design. What was kees, or to dispose of it in other ways, the the intention of our Government? If that United States would have done their duty. construction was given to this treaty which Mr. V. B. said, in his judgment, the characwas sought for by these chiefs, the conclusion ter of the Government was involved in this would be, that this Government intended to subject, and it would require, under the cir

Pages

About this Item

Title: Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.
Author: United States. Congress.
Canvas: Page 582
Publication: New York, [etc.]: D. Appleton and company [etc.]; 1857-61.
Subject terms: United States -- Politics and government

Technical Details

Collection: Making of America Books
Link to this Item: https://name.umdl.umich.edu/ahj4053.0008.001
Link to this scan: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/ahj4053.0008.001/584

Rights and Permissions

These pages may be freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please go to http://www.umdl.umich.edu/ for more information.

IIIF

Manifest: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/api/manifest/moa:ahj4053.0008.001

Cite this Item

Full citation: "Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856." In the digital collection Making of America Books. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/ahj4053.0008.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 22, 2025.

Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.

Annotations Tools

Actions

About this Item

Technical Details

Rights and Permissions

Related Links

IIIF

Cite this Item