The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-08-23
tnatiSn, Of which there is an abundance to sassy

tnatiGn, OF which there 10 an abundance TO HAa ~
! al the calls Of tho statute.
The riEht of pre-emption accorded BY the aos o(
1854 does not e1tiDguish by repeal reservations be.
longing to the UAited States NO moro doss /,
tinguish any special rights reserved to the D,hr
Beyond this, to grant preemptions OF the Ian Is
ceced by the DelaWsses, lowas. and Wcas, With
dton. and upon trsst, TO be sold et pnoiic 70
t0a for their account and benefit, would DC vi har
iion Of the treaties, breaeh ~ trust traud 'oa
Against 80 disp,siDg of tie choicest lauds at the
minimum price 70 settlers AID pi1'emptsoners, the
treaties with the Dtlawayep aud io~as have ex-
piess,y provided an adoiional gus.antee, by -
stipulation in reiatica to the act of Aerci 3 1902
But because the Weao, in their snAsty. sve not az
ticlsted bad faith on the part OF te Uaitea Sestes.
aio tie acs Of 1907 they arc not therefore, to 10
defyaudeq.
The stiralstions in the treaties with the Deesr
wares, lowas, and Wcas, respecting the Lands
ceded to them upon trus. 10 have t.e same sold =
public ancti0n aud the net proceeds thereof psiA
over 10 them, are too clear 20 be r,sunoeSstood
They ere absolutely inconsistent pre'empttons in
she Terrisnrcs Of Nebraska sod Kansas, gaant,d By
tSe act of July e2 1851, by reference 70 the opers
trou OF the art Of September A, l64l, must be re-
,ticted TO lands other than those ccred by the
Delawores, Iowas and Weas, upon truststo be ss1l
by the United States on account and for Ghe beneHk
If the Indians
The "outlet' ceded by TIE DeIawares d snbjoot
10 be located by pre- empteners, becaus,it IL ex-
c0p!cO from the ldDOS 10 Dc surveyed ana eClQ tOS
the benefit OF those Ibdlans.
By thus iimitirg the pre- emDtions TO those landk
in which the lpJians have no tie nor reserved la
teres', the treaties with tire DsOwares lowas, and
Weas will have their due effect and the statnte fer
granting pre- empticrs will also have its due and
proper eject ano force without conflict with apy Oe
the treaties by action on the ether lands oeded by
the lhCiSns.
In waving, as unnecessary aud superfaous in tho
preseLt cese, any discussion Gs to the relative an-
tboIity Of these treaties and an act of Congress.
let me not be understood as acceding to tho doc
tr1nf that oil stipuatODs OF 4 oates are subject -
be repealed or modified at any time by act Of Coa-
e,ees. Without going into that question here it
suffces to remark that every treaty is an express
conpact, in the most solemn form In which tfo
Chited States can make compact
Not to observe treaty is to violate deliberatS
and EXPIRE IS engagement. To violate such engage
ments OF treaty with any fo.oign power affords: es
upon itself to disregard the provisions Of any foreign
trcety it io'rcges the in the exercise Of
ertign rgt ana voluntarily accepts the cdsus teI
as when, in l7es it annul!ed the treaties betweeA
the United States and arane0.
There is distinction, undoubtedly, bctweena treaty
with q foreign power and treaty with lndisnas
who are subjects Of the United S;atos EKamoles
may be cited Of acts Of Congress which operate -
as to modify or amend treaties with Iadlaos. A.
their sovs reign and their guardian, we have ocoa
sionaly assumed to do this acting In their intereS6
and Cur own and not in such case violating engage
ments wih them, but sec King to give o moes
beneficial effect to such engagements; for though
they be weak, and we strong, they subjects ana
We masters, yet they are not the less entitled -
the exercise towards them Of the most scrupul002
gocd f6ith On the part Of the United States
II is net to be inferred, because Congress msy in
some cases have modified BY legislation this that
incident Of Indian relations for their benefit O.
under paramount political exigency, that therefoss
Congress intended, before the ink had become dfl
on the treaties with tie Dclawares, Ipwas, and
Weaa to violate those treaties and 10 do this do
hbaratey and wantonly for the petty objact Of en-
ablng few irdi 2duals to obtain lands ut mint
mum price rother than at tho price Of public SALE
and SO to iLfict wrong and loss 10 that aIncuut
| on the indians.
feel entire confidence in the belief that Congress
| bad TO such dscreditable intention in fact, and
assuredly such is not the legal intendnent Of thu
| act If Congress.
As for the idea suggested in behalf Of thsse indf-
yiouas, that the act Of Congress raises q contract
between the settlers and tho government, il 10 o
singular ebquity Of vision which perceives con.
treaties with the Indians. The obvious answer to-
the suggestion s, that no implication Of legislative
contract between tho government and individuals
can be raised by mere violation Of law.
Ia Ine, my opinion is, that the act of Congress
gives PFC emption only in such Of those lands ccde&
rs are not required rst to lie offered at public sale;
that the lands ceded byAthci Deawares, lowas and
Wens, under condition OF being inst offered at pub
Tic sale, are no moro opoIed to pre- empton by the
act of Congress than was the military reservation
at Fort Leavepworth ; that those lands cannot b.
taken mp by settlers under claim Of preemptions
ard that all claims Of pre- emptiOn there will be
merely void in law, and will confer no right, now
or hereafter, ON which to demand the issle Of Q
ratent from the Commis of Public Lands.
Moreover twill I've tho duty Of the President 10
maintein, by force II need be, the pghted faith Of
the United States in this behalf I am, cir, veryro
spectfully, your obedient servant. G. CCsnINo.
Ron. ROBERT McCLgILAyp, Secretary Of the In
tcror.