The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-08-05
JULY &c, 1855.


JULY &C. 1855.
Acng Comissonr Of Ldian Agars DE Secretary Of he
Interior
DepAarsEgT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Indian Affairs July 90, 1855.
SIR had the honor TO receive on the 18th instant the
letter OF the President Of the United States transmitting
communication from Gov. A. H. Reeder and addi-
hona evidence respect certain half-beed Kansas
serves In which he and other officers of Kansas Territory
interested although Il seems purchased ia the of
one of them, the Hon. Sanders w Johnson. Upon the
envelope enclosing the you have endorsed request
that should report on the new papers and give my
reasons &c.
| In compliance with your directions have examined
these papers with ite delay the points re-
ered 10 therein would permit and now submit the follow
/ ing report As the result;
The object of Gov Reeders communication and evidence
appears TO be-
ist TO show that notw thsandng the opinion of At
torney General fancy in September 1885, in the tad
med by the governor be analogous of Pottawaome
reserves the reservations made by the 9th article of the
Kansas treaty Of 1925 operated grant in fee simple in
favor OF the parties therein named and not of
occupancy and that consequence the have
right to ALLEVIATE the same with the consent OF the Pres
dent; and,
I'd That the rules and forms adopted by the depart
ment and the executive generally for purposes Of
nience and certainty like the of court are
all times liable 10 be dispensed with mod fled il the end
Of their adoption has been reached and substantial require
ments complied with i will, however he adds 4be
found that all the objections the Of the papers and
evidence have been fully obvated"
First, as to he righf or he reserrecs % sell
Notwithstanding that the governor considers the opn-
ion OF Attorney General fancy in the analogous of
the Poawatumie reserves under the of 1882
brief and hasty one,' and which viii not bear a
comparison with other opinions OF himself and other At
orneys General and the decisions Of the Supreme Court
of the United States find nothing in his arguments
reasoning calculated to mpeach the soundness of that
opinion convince that either the department
the Indians would be benefited by giving preference
his exposition of the intent and meaning of the
article OF the Kansas treaty under which the reserves
which he is deeply interested were apart Nor
convinced by his OF reasoning that the construction
placed upon the language setting apart these is
contrary the longcontinued practice of the depart
ment has as he asserts reservation after
ton been made in language equivalent to that
ployed in the 9Th article OF the Kansas treaty. where the
reserves have been allowed 10 make deeds Had the
governor specified the TO which he audes, APP
tprehend they would turn out upon examination, to be
like his reference the opinion of Attorney General
fancy in the of under the supplement 10 the
Choctw treaty Of $780, which he supposed be perfectly
analogous these habrecd reserves but which shows
total mistake msapprehension his part OF the prin
I cples involved In the under the supplement the
Choc,aw treaty. Governor Reeder that the lam
guage Of the reservation stronger than that OF the
Po,yatouie treaty OF 1890 1884, the Kansas treaty Of
1925 but by reference to Attorney General Taneys opin-
ion vol 2 b. 465 OPP OF Att Gen. it viii be that he
considered the supplement part and parcel of the
main instrument and SUCH maintained that the ,choe
treaty must be considered together as forming but one
treaty. Hence it is that from the and character
OF the made in the agreement he inferred be
the intention OF the contracting parties place them
the with the MADE before This
conclusvey proves that the alleged analogy between the
principles involved in that decision and the of the Kan
haibreeds is ancn than real In the former the
whole spirit and of the treaty favored the right OF the
reserves under the supplement ALLEVIATE their reserves
while in respect the Kansas habreed reserves neither
hclette spirit OF the treaty. Of the article providing
Tor the habeeus OF the tribe uses the inference that it
was intended 70 confer upon them more han mere posses
sorry right The principles OF the opinion OF Attorney
General fancy, lar as know have been nfexibly ap
piled dH treaties IN which similar language has been
used in setting apart resorvatons and this being the
case Governor Rede is mistaken in supposng that their
application existing treaties would "reyerse aud reyou-
tonize the whole practice OF the department. On the
rary IL is the substitution of has views those of Judge
fancy which would produce that result
As indicating the of the Senate of the United
States as to the character OF the reserves provided in the
Poawatome treaty of 1882, | have respectfully call
your attention To the fact that in the constitutional action
OF that body upon the treaty of 26th September 1885, with
the Chippewas 0towas, and Pottawaomcs and the sup
Elementary articles thereto the provision in the 9th article
of the treaty, that all the individual reservations Of land
in the treaty concluded Camp Tippeeanoe dated goth
October 1892 shall be considered gratis in fee simple
the persons 10 whom they made their heirs and
signs forever and the provisions in the 4h supplement-
airy article intended TO give the fac simple TO two
tons Of land reserved under said treaty of 1882 Me
sauequa and her children to herself alone stricken
out (See Statutes at large, VOL i pages 433 443 and
note al All
was in view Of the fact that sales had been made Of
reserves under the Potlawaomie treaty of 10th October
1882 and which regarded by the executive depart
ment opinion expressed by the Attorney General
under date Of 10th September 1888 null and void that
the parties interested asked Congress grant 10 those
serves the fee in the land Congress accordingly did
enact by the law of 9th March, ls4s under which sales of
of said have been approved (ee vol O.
Appehending similar Of things in the Of
Kansas halforeeis induced the report be made you
upon the subecto the l5h November last in which
eral questions were propounded with view such de-
cisions thereon would enable the office to meet them
they should arise in the discharge of its business
but such decisions have not yet been received here
If special legislation by Congress necessary in the
of the Pottawatomie treaty to Justify the disposition
which has been since made of the under il in vr
tue of the of 94s shall the executive department nor
undertake TO dispense with such Legislative nterposton
the of reserves made admitted by Gov Reeder
in similar language under the 9Th article of the Kansas
treaty of 1925 Whether the act of lS4S intended
exposition OF the true meaning Of the grant in the Pot
awatomie treaty to which ii refers free gift
cesson of efeesmpe title in the land reserved the In
dian and Indian descendants therein provided may
wen be considered matter of doubt but there be
question that the special in its terms and APP
plication, it is be construed general law
having reference 10 made in similar language in
other treaties not named therein. Congress- although 1t
cannot lessen impair rights arising under treaties pos
sessed ample power make gift donation Of the gov
ernments interest in these lands and there have been
special reasons operating the minds of members in favor
of the claim Of the Pottawaome eesimple IL
ties which might exist in the of the Kansas habreed
other reserves similarly situated For example
under the treaty of 1924 be held by the usua Indian
e Congress by the of 3oth June 1884 elinqushed
the ultimate fee of the United States in the same and gave
the reserves n power and authority TO transfer their
portions thereof by sale devise descent according TO
the laws of the State of Missouri OF in that case