.MTA2NA.NzIyMTg: Difference between revisions

From Newberry Transcribe
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Hearthemelody
No edit summary
imported>Kitsapian
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
obligations to
[[top right margin headnote:  obligations to individuals - first branch - commission under the 17th article]]  two courses the Commission in question could choose, either might be liable to exception. Had the bounds set by the Treaty been alone consulted, the sum there limited would have rendered the power of the Commission exceedingly barren & incomplete. But, in making adjudications beyond the sum limited by the United States, it surely took the more philanthropic alternative, -- and perhaps not an entirely unsafe one, -- because a special law gives all Indians a claim to just payment for whatever is taken from them collectively or individually, and the Commission might have considered that it would be borne out by that law, where the Treaty fell short. As for the amounts to which the Treaty limits the payment for the specific objects placed by it under the control of the Commission, that they were inadequate had been long understood. Indeed, this very inadequacy appears to have formed one great cause of the unconquerable resistance of certain Cherokee Chiefs & of the mass of the nation, to all the propositions of the United States for a Treaty rendered nugatory by such imperfect provisions. From time to time the particular allotments were enlarged, but never to an extent which could reconcile the people to the Treaty, or persuade the best informed of them even to appear among the claimants under an arrangement which they
individuals - first  
branch - commission  
under the 17th article.
 
two courses the Commission in question could
choose, either might be liable to exception.
Had the bounds set by the Treaty been alone
consulted, the sum there limited would have  
rendered the power of the Commission exceedingly  
barren & incomplete. But, in making adjudications
beyond the sum limited by the  
United States, it surely took the more philanthropic
alternative, - and perhaps not
an entirely unsafe one, - because a special  
law gives all Indians a claim to just payment  
for whatever is taken from them collectively or
individually, and the Commission might have  
considered that it would be borne out by that
law, where the Treaty fell short. As for the  
amounts to which the Treaty limits the  
payment for the specific objects placed by it
under the control of the Commission, that they
were inadequate had been long understood.
Indeed, this very inadequacy appears to have
formed one great cause of the unconquerable
resistance of certain Cherokee Chiefs & of the
maps of the nation, to all the propositions of
the United States for a Treaty rendered [[negatory?]]
by such imperfect provisions. From time to time
the particular allotments were enlarged, but  
never to an extent which could reconcile the  
people to the Treaty, or persuade the best informed  
of them even to appear among the
claimants under an arrangement which
they

Latest revision as of 16:59, 12 July 2020

top right margin headnote: obligations to individuals - first branch - commission under the 17th article two courses the Commission in question could choose, either might be liable to exception. Had the bounds set by the Treaty been alone consulted, the sum there limited would have rendered the power of the Commission exceedingly barren & incomplete. But, in making adjudications beyond the sum limited by the United States, it surely took the more philanthropic alternative, -- and perhaps not an entirely unsafe one, -- because a special law gives all Indians a claim to just payment for whatever is taken from them collectively or individually, and the Commission might have considered that it would be borne out by that law, where the Treaty fell short. As for the amounts to which the Treaty limits the payment for the specific objects placed by it under the control of the Commission, that they were inadequate had been long understood. Indeed, this very inadequacy appears to have formed one great cause of the unconquerable resistance of certain Cherokee Chiefs & of the mass of the nation, to all the propositions of the United States for a Treaty rendered nugatory by such imperfect provisions. From time to time the particular allotments were enlarged, but never to an extent which could reconcile the people to the Treaty, or persuade the best informed of them even to appear among the claimants under an arrangement which they