THIRTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS, 1863-1865. 647 



paying them the interest, has accumulated from that interest $75,000 

 in Indiana State bonds, which are good; $53,500 in Virginia bonds, 

 which, are not of much value; $12,000 in Tennessee bonds; $500 in 

 Georgia bonds; and $100 in Washington city bonds. Then they have 

 in cash $20,000, and they have in gold $26,200, which is worth $52,000 

 to-day in currency. So it will be observed that they have in available 

 funds, saying nothing about the Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, and 

 Washington bonds, $95,000, besides $26,200 in gold. 



1 have heard it said that we ought to pay the Smithsonian Institu- 

 tion this money in gold, because we pay some of the Indians by treaty 

 Stipulation in gold. I think the Senators who are members of the 

 Committee on Indian Affairs will bear testimony to the Senate that we 

 have paid gold to no Indians except where there was an express agree- 

 ment in the treaty that payment should be made in coin. We have 

 had, and have, an abundance of treaties with the Indians; we hold 

 their money in trust; but in no instance, 1 undertake to say, has the 

 money been paid to these Indians in gold except when there was an 

 express stipulation in the treaty that it should be paid in gold. I know 

 of no reason why there should be an exception made in favor of this 

 rich corporation, the Smithsonian Institution why they should be 

 treated any better than our Indian tribes are treated. 



Mr. JACOB COLLAMER. Are they not paid in gold? 



Mr. GRIMES. I undertake to s&y that there are not and have not been 

 any Indians paid in gold except where there was an express stipulation 

 in the treaty that they should be paid in coin. 1 asked the gentlemen 

 on the Committee on Indian Affairs, when the Indian appropriation 

 bill was under consideration the other day, if that was not so, and they 

 said it was so. The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Lane] bowed his head 

 and said it was so. There are treaties made with the Indians, I admit, 

 by which we have agreed to pay them in coin; and then there are 

 other treaties in which we have not that stipulation; but where that 

 stipulation is not embodied in the treaty we do not pay them in coin. 

 There is lying on your table at this moment a communication from the 

 Secretary of the Interior, asking that we shall do for these Indians 

 precisely what the Smithsonian Institution asks we shall do for them 

 that we shall pay them in coin in the future. But this Senate, so far 

 as I know, has refused to do that; so far as I am informed, the Com- 

 mittee on Indian Affairs have utterty refused to do it. I do not see 

 the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs present, nor mv 

 colleague; but there are gentlemen here, I think, who know what 

 the facts are in regard to the payment of these Indians. Now, I ask, 

 if it be true, and I think it will be demonstrated in a few minutes that 

 it is true, that this is the method in whiclj we treat the Indians whose 

 funds we hold in trust, is there any very substantial reason why we 

 should deviate from this rule in favor of this corporation, the Smith- 

 sonian Institution? 



