| OCR Text |
Show laws heretofore passed relating to Indian depredatiou claims, particn-larly with reference to the questions involved in the proposed amend-ment, attention was called to the fact that while possibly it may have been the intentiou of Congress prior to March 3, 1885, to consider claims of "inhabitants" as well as claims of "citizens" of the United States against tribes in amity with the United States, yet the act of 1885 plainly provided only for the i~ivestigstiono f claims of citizens, excluding claims of 'Ginhabitants;" as did also the act of 1891. (John-son v. The United States, 160 U. s., p. 546.) Attention was also invited to the fact that while it has been the policy of the Government for the past century to make provision for the satisfaction of just and bona fide claims for property taken .or destroyed, yet no provision has ever been made for the adjudication of claims for property merely ''damaged.n Senate bill 897, which was introduced in the Fifty-third Congress, first session, contemplated amendments similar in effect to House bill 6712, but it never became a law. It proposed to omit from the first paragraph of the aot of March 3,1891, the words "in amitmyw ith the United States." With the same end in view, House bill 6712 proposes to insert $'or whioh had, prior to such taking or destruction, entered into any treaty of amity, peace, or friendship with the United States." In the same report of May 6, reference was made to the case of Marks et al. v. The United States et al. (160 U. S., p. 297 et seq.), and it was stated that if the above-quoted clause of House bill 6712 were eoacted into law, Indians actually at war with the United States would be compelled to pay, ont of their annnities and trnst funds, claims for property taken or destroyed by them during the existence of war, a policy contrary to all former policies of this Government. There are no doubt many claims that have been rejected which would be allowed if the proposed amendments were adopted, and possibly some of them were just and proper at the time the depredations were alleged to have been committed; yet they were not adjudicated under the laws then in force, and the changes in the condition of the aEairs of the Indians which have taken place since a large portion of these depredations were committed, and the difficulty the Government would now find in verifying the evidence of the claimants, in view of the great length of time whioh has elapsed since the commission of the depredations, would render the injustice to the present generation of Indians many-fold greater than aoy injustice which the claimants would suffer under the law now in force. Not only would it impose an unrea-sonable hardship upon the present generation of Indians, who are try-ing amid adversities to advance in civilization, by compelling them to make compensation for depredations committed by their ancestors while in a state of savagery, but it would take millions of dollars £rom the United States Treasury to pay claims, of whioh many would at least seem questionable. * |
