Burlington hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1845-185?, 1846-04-16

Blu, in 1882 another treaty waa held
with these indians in which the following
tract Of country was coded TO the United
States. beginning on the Mississippi
river at the point where the Sac and Fox
boundary liue las established by pre-.
vions treaty. meets that river thence up
said boundary line to a point fifty miles
from the Mississippi measured on said
line, thence in right line To the nearest
point OH the Red cedar of the Iowa. forty
miles from the Mississippi rser, thence
in right line to point in the northern
boundary line Of the State Of Missouri, 6f.
ty miles measured on said boundary line
from the Mississippi river. thence by the
last mentioned boundary line to the Mis-.
sissippi river. and the western shore of
said River 10 the place Of beginning"
This cession includes the Half Breed
tract and shows tina, the parties 10 these
treaties did not understand that tract to
have been coded by the treaty of 1924
1t was however fully ceded by This treaty
of 1882.
A more difficult question growing out
of this treaty of 1924 relates to the title
which the half breeds acquired by that
treaty. They were to hold ..by the same
title and in the same manner as other In
dian lands are held" From this it has
been contended that the half breeds were
To hold this land in the same manner in
all respects as though they were a nation
by themselves, including the qualified
right of sovereignty which the Indian
tribes are permitted 10 exercise in their
own territories, that by virtue Of these
treaties no new rights were acquired by
the United States rights of the Sacs
and Foxes having been merely transferred
TO the half breeds, that until The rights of
this new nation shall have been exiin-
guished by treaty with them, our territorial
laws could righlfully exercise no control
over these lands any more than over those
of the Sioux or Polawatomies lying with.
in our territorial limits. and that therefore
the sale of the half breed tract on an exc
cullon against the owners, was an abso-
lutte nullliy and gave no right of property
TO the Plaintiff in this suit.
We do not think this correct view of
the subject. The treaty Of lS24 conferred
upon The half breeds the right of private
property in the lands, not that of sover
eighty over them. The provision that they
were TO hold it by tie same title and in
the same manner other Indian lands
are held, was intended principally il no,
entirely TO prevent them from transferring
their property wi,hou, the consent of The
United States. and the jurisdiction Of the
latter became entire and absolute. The
} title NJ the half breeds was no, disturbed
by this latter treaty inasmuch as cession
! OF land from one nation 10 another does
not etfec. the right OF private property.
On the 30th of June. 1884, an act OF
Congress was passed declaring shat all
the right. title and interes, which nigh,
accrue or revert to the United States TO
. the reservation Of land lying between the
Mississippi and Des MONIES rivers which
; was reserved for the use of The half breeds
? belonging to the Sac and Fox nations,
now used by them or some of them un.
3 der treaty male and concluded between
: the United States and the Sac and Fox
J tribes or nations of Indians a, Washington
!, on the 4th day of August, 1924 be and the
same are hereby relinquished and vested
in said half breeds of the Sac and Fox
:. tribes or nations Of Indians who at tbs
2 passage of this act are under the reserva
u lion in the said treaty entitled by the In
D dian title to the same with full powe
and authority to transfer their portion.
e thereof BY sale, devise or descen, accord
ing To the laws of the state Of Missouri.
e Since the passage of this &C. but li,il'
doubt exists as 10 the exact nature Of til,
half breed title. To ascertain the numbe
of interests in this tract, their extent ant
who are entitled to them, may still occa
sion grea, difficulty, but when once ascer
II tanned the precise nature Of their titles il
G easily understood being nothing more o
e less than full fee simple title as tenant
:. in common. |, matters not wha, was III
;, previous half breed tenure. TO thos
t, then holding was given the fall and absu
:. Lutte ownership. The change efftc,e
was no, beynnd the scope Of lawful legis
8 lation for if az has been contended IN
y half breeds under the treaty were each in
j dividualiv entitled 10 a life occupancy III
ID change effected by this act of 1884 is u
IS greater than though estates in tail ha
I. been changed into fee simple titles. A
}, though legislature may not have til
% power to destroy vested rights i, can Gre
,e ate or augment them even though the inle
% es, Of pos,eriiy should be effected thereby
,. Nor is it material so far as the effic:
;. cy Of this act of 1884 is concerned W he'll
,e er or not it violates the treaty Of 1924 b
v making a different disposition of tho.
ID lands from wha, was stipulated for
re tina, treaty. Government, is certainly u,
J. der The stronges, moral obligation TO pr,
o. serve inviolste the faith Of all treaties, b,
y if the legislative power which in sue
ID matters is sovereign, sees proper to viola
is tins duty there Is no power in the Judici
a ry to prevent it. True, a treaty is by Il
Constitution declared to be a supreme la
re of the land, hut 80 is an act Of Congress
v. The latter may repeal the former in II
6, same manner that one statute may repe
he another. Ii is an act Of sovereign,
lie which if the Judiciary could arrest the
d nigh, parayse all the energies of war
alt self on the ground tina, the declaration
ut war was a violation of treaties.