The weekly Minnesotian., 1853-01-01
I II E N IN N ES0TIAN
salnt paal. sa!lrnag, Snnnnrs I. iS5s.
The Sioux Treaties and Bisbur sc1ne.,ts.

The Sioux Treaties and Bisbur scmefts.
by the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux between
the United States and the Seeseeto,n and YAH
paytoan bands of Sioux Indians. the lsser sell
a large body of lands in ahis Torritory and
the Former agree to pay them therefor one mil
lion six hundred and sixty five thousand dol
lars:
AT the several times, in the manner. and
for the purposes following to wit:
''lst. To the chiefs of the seia bends TO eua-
ole them to settle f6sir 'cBoirs end to comply
sctfh their present Just engagements and to
remove and subsist them for one year-"the
sumof S2t5, 900. Prooided, Thet seid sum shall
oe paid to the chiefs in su.h manner as they
hereafter in open councaksholkreguest,-
And the balance Of the purchase money.
Sl,3G0OO0, is invested at per cent. Welding
for 80 years $4,000 cash annuities $4,000
annually for general agricultural improve
ment and civilization fund $1,000 annually
Tor educational purposes and $4,000 annual
ly for goods aad.provisions
IhaAthis was providing handsomely for these
andians, all must admit; end the manner in
which the money is invested in different funds
cxtonded over so long period, must be con.
ceded wise and judicious arrangement on the
part of the L. S. Commissioners, by every man
who is acquainted with the recklessncss and
improvidence of the Indians.
But there recurs the qucaion-,rhy was sc
large q sum as $4,000 subtracted from the
general aggcgate-why WIS the well-knowr
judicious policy of the government not to pay
the purchase money to the Indians in 6ulk-dc
parted from in regard to this amount? Why
was this sum set apart in so peculiar and
marked manner? Was it at some future ne
riod to hand over to the Indians for them t,
squander in one grand frolic? This is suppo
sition no man will for one moment entertain
What then was the money designed for. The
query can have but one answer. 1t was in
plain English, to pay their debts, and for nc
other purpose whatever. This intent of the
trcaty-of both L. S. commissioners and Indians
is manifest in the peculiar wording of the Ist
clause of the 4th article. What else can mean
'he phraseology "to settle their affairs and COM
ply with their present just engagements? The
very words are the same as have been used in
treaties with other Indian tribes, when setting
apart money to pay their dcbts-as. for in
stance IN the WinDebago treaty of 1916. Is
there anything novel or extraordinary in tbus
providing for the payment of Indian dcbts .
The roll Of Indian treaties is full of precedents.
Nor does our recollection now furnish ne with
a single case in which where treaty was ne
gotiated with Indians, they did not owe debts
that the treaty provided for paying. Yet
Sweetser, Robertson & Co. would delude the
public mind into thinking the 4th clause of the
treaty Of Traverse des Sioux to be new kind
VI stipulation, unsustaned by precedent or pro-
priety. How was it with other tribes nov in
our territory! Did not the Winnebagocs. a
small tribe, IN 1887, recognize by treaty, debts
70 the amount Of s200,OOO and did tbev not
again, only nine years after stipulate to nav
-$4ee00 to their traders, in the very words ..to
enable them to comply with their lust eno,oo
mentse' Did not the Chippewas in 1887. also
set aside tae sum OF $4,000 to liquidate their
debts; and in 1912, again give by treaty s75,.
600 for like purpose, Did not likewise the
aedaywakaptoan Sioux, provide by the treaty
Of 1887, to Pay $50, 600 to clear of their debts =
! Oio not the Mepononees in the treaty of 1886,
set apart $99, 700 for their traders and again
IN ioas, 1he similar sum of $4,000! Now, is
s'range that these two bands of Sioux each
.oi tnem more numerous than either of the 9TH
er tribes above enumeratcd--hayjpc traders