{"newspaper_name": "Holly Springs gazette.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 4907, "word_count": 937, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9742000102996826], "ccnet_perplexity": [1811.699951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
preme court of the United States. But the
bill runs thus And the appeal authori'
sed by this act shall be taken within
period not exceeding on gear from The date
Of fhis act" This was mos. extraoFdin
srv provision. and was sufficient 10 Justify
the darkest susp cions of the bill. Had It
said or year from the date Of ihe dscTee,ali
would have been well. but an appeal from
a dilatory chancery court, thus secured, Is
mere mockeIy."


Why did ut Mr.. THOMPSON notice this
defect in The bill, when It's reconsideration
was moved and he made his speech upon
! that motion In the house of representatives.
/ Why did he overlook l; when called upon
/ by nv enemies In this state, and was threat
ened with the charge of 'poitroonery II
/ he diI not expose In another pu5iicauon,the


"enorm:ies" he had failed to explain IN hls


published speech | will explain this mys


terry. MIR. THoMPsoS says. 'the bill runs
thns"--"snd the4rEal authorised by TINS
l asw nation has been preIudlced by The lle-


gal location of individual indian claims, i!
IS a controversy between the Individual
claimants and the nation and the courts are


norc open for the settlement OF such claims.


The Ch;ckasaw nation need no additional


egisla alton to right themselves If they have
1


there no such cases2 [ have never heard


there was from any one but Mr.. Thompson,


and after travelling through nearly every


Chickasa W county recently. never heard


of such claim, o. saw siagle individual


that hnd heard ofsuch.


This cl ses my review of Mr.. THOMPSON


replication 10 my card. and | will now


notice another er"rmi'y which he hal


brought forward in his last address. Hear


him:


In nv former nddress.I omitted 10 NO.


tice one pecuiarity Of this. bill, which


will not now pass. An appeal is said 10 b'


allowed to either party from the circul


at shall ba taken within period not ex


ceeding une year from the d0te OF th!sd act.
This statement is false and Mr.. THoMP
SON knew it was false when he made IL
The bill does not now, nor did it ever sra,


thus" 1t was originally reported in tn
senate after the most mature deliberauoI


before The judiciary commttee and ran
. "oae vear after The dute of the decree" |


was so ordered 10 be printed and was re


turned from the printer 10 the senate ms
> printed zone year after the date OF this aci.
{ The misprint was discovered AID It's cor
" recIioB made according TO the origins
bill. When the bill went to the house


read-"ore ear from the date ot The Se


cree" and was passed in those words. MI
THOMPSON was accide nla!y out of tn
: house and did not vot flr the bill bu:
} had every reason TO believe. and 40 nO'
! believe. hat had he been in .he house
the time the bill passed, he would no: hav
: opoos-d IT, b FIRE il vent To the house.
- had been Submitted to the secretary of wa
:" (who has charge ofthe Indian department
g and was made satisfactory to him
v amendments that he suggested and whic
:" were adopted BY the senate. When M
THoMPsoE made his speech against q
." bill on reconsideration il lay before bin
5 copied in large and glaring letters. and If
' contained tie defect he now points out,
vi must have discovered 4, or II Il escap
"u him then. he would certainly have detect
ne when he deLiber ately wrote out his spec
ss and added ideal "enormlties' never conc
"e we'd by him or any other person un1l tt
:" time. The misprint OF this clause appea
7 in the bill as published 10 my first detenc
60 and was not discovered by me until af
la. it, publication. Had the bill really pass
" as misprinted. the appeal would have be
ms of no service 10 the Chickasaws, becaus'
i"' year from the dale OF the act would ha
IA Iu> iranspired before any decree could hs
s. been obtained either for or against them
-. With sach provision the bill would b'
"e been useless to the claimants and not sa
~ toned by me as thei: agent.


~ A velume written on thus subject CO
e GU not show more clearly the infamous mei
"a. resorted 10 to poison public opinion
~ raInst this bill. Here a member OF
gre.s, who expects immortal praise for
~ posing its passage, puts words ia the
son thai il did not contain, tina: he may att
"fae darkest suspicious" TO 1t. aud n
uc" same sentence has the hardlhood 10 q.
'ne the yery words of the bill and say If ii
re- read thus. sail icould hare been scet!."
'ee" In his last address ne says:


., up 10 the Sd Of March last. doc. 9
UT and myself were in the habi; Of daily
- soual intercourse. On that day. made
" speech on the Chic ckasaw bill; and
faas @ that hour, he refused TO salute me as
: r'a~ - tleman."


.na WHY did I refuse to salute him as q
.u Neman /! Not for his vote against he
the but because he had acted toward me
ers', the most base duplicity. Up to the
,beir ment he opposed the bill had not the


the distant idea that he had any objections
a cf I had consulted with him fully and II


u~Er