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

In Wofd every
Of acquiring land except by descent il becomes conclusive
on the point
Again it is admitted that the title Of these habreeds
be either reservation grant and on the strength
OF the opinion alluded to- II is commended that II Is reser
vation and grant But this Is misuse OF terms IL
will do this day say that because the word reserve
is used in passing the land TO other parties il is mere
reservation retention of the Indian right Of occupancy
All the titles 10 individual Indians made by use Of The
word and is the constant practice 10 treat them
only grants, not only Of the Indian right o. oecu
paney but also of the ultimate fee OF the United States ana
aenabe with the consent OF the PRESIDENT Indeed al
though called reserves they the essential element aud
first requisite of reservation reservation Is that which
one when making grant keeps for htgsej 1t IS that
which he held before and does not grant Whenever II
passes another these lands passed from the
whole tribe to these individual hali-breeds as con
tend from both the United States and the tribe or what
is the thing under the authority Of Mitchell ~ Tue
United States from the tribe with the sanction Of the un
ted States matter by what mamie you call it. or by what
form OF words IL done, i Is grant IN elect "hen
both parties say to these ha-breedsn not very approp
language admit We reserve these lands from us 10
yons il grant it means nothing. The opinion
Of 1885, then which is based the idea that language OF
| this kind makes reservations, and not a grant
cannot be sustained Indeed this is decided by the SUI
preme Court in the very teeth OF the opinion In The
case of Aetgs HcCinng, Crunch, IL, where II
is decided that the is the contract of both psr
ties and that the words the words of both parties
question TO the identity of the land and as the
word had been used ii Insisted that II was APP
pcable only to lands which the United States had owned
before the treaty and could apply to lands Of which
the Indians the al the time of the treaty the
reservation being the United States. The counsel ar
gued that il straning the word reserve very far and
could only mean retained y and at page Is Chief jus
tice Marshall says the treaty is the contract Of both
parties each having landsn The words the words OF
both parties and the term might without any strained
construction be applied TO the lands either great ylo
lence is done TO the known import OF the word II u
considered equivalent to the words "set apart And the
case decided make the word reserve operate
to pass lands by way of grant from the Indians to the
United States. The OF johnson Mcintosh, Whea
$685. tends to the points and the court say THE
usual mode adopted by the indians of granting lands to
individuals has been them in treaty, or TO
them under the sanction Of the commissioners with
whom the treaty negoate,R BY which language the
court treat the result the same whether the terms are
/ those of reservation of grant
If anything wanting to show that the opln-
ion referred to is not in accordance with the usual com
sructon Of these treaties refer to another opinion OF
the Attorney General be found VOL page $50,
! Opinions of Attorneys General,) where it is held by
him that similar acquires absolute title alien
able with the consent of the President for that otherwise
the would be of little value to the party This
opinion is founded upon the supplement 10 the Chpctaw
treaty. to be found in Statutes at Large VOL page 1893
and the language of the reservation stronger than
that of the Pottawaome treaty Of $780, the Kansas
treaty of 1925 In truth il the principles of the opinion
of 1888 to be adopted and applied to all reservations
made in language similar TO that OF the treaty to which IT
refers or in Language equivalent to IT. consistency would
require that it should and reyononze the entire
practice of the department..
The other assigned by the Commissioner against
the confirmation all founded upon the rules and forms
adopted by the department, and the executive generally
for purposes of convenience and certainty and like the
rules of court all times liable to be dispensed with
or modified if the end of their adoption has been reached
and substantial requirements are complied with y will,
however think be found that all the objections TO the
state of the papers and evidence have been fully obvated
They are that there proof of the ider,ty and
competency OF the gran'ors that the papers we're not
executed before the agent that there is evidence that
the consideration the full value of the land and that
there has been no payment Of the money,
To the competency and identity Of all the grantors
the dispositions of Bapste James, the United States
interpreter of Anthony A. Ward, citizen residing very
near thea And as to the competency of Belmard and
wife, Aubrey and Joseph james, present the dispositions
of Edmund Byrely and j. A. Halderman To the compe-
tency of his wife, and the other grontors present
the deposition of Francois Aubrey and the competency
Of his wife the deposition OF Moses Belmard thus fully
establishing the competency of all the granto including
the husbands of the female reserves, and also their
/ identity.
ua presence of the agent bu, they made known to
him, testified by Baptste James and be declared The
consideration to be higher than he would have been viii
ling to give and allowed the parties to have the services
of his interpreter WISER In addition to this, may
that it the deed which the rule requires to be
ted in the OF the agent and 1T is easy to provide
still that that shall be done. The value of the land Is
proven by the dispositions of Ward Bemard and Aubrey
and there is evidence the contrary Agent Clarke
expressly says in his letter. that he does know if the
price offered is too high too low and he is contra
dieted as 10 several things by the oath Of the inter-
prefer. Mr.. Whfeds letter is not official one, and
is TO be regarded the declaration OF any third
person. not under oath. The offers said TO be made
by Others have no names given are contingent upon
their getting the whole twentythree tracts which Is inn
possible; and strangely enough coupled with request
accept them They evidently made not pro-
purchase but only for the purpose of hwarting the
made with others J. b. Chapman the only letter.
writer who has carefully examined the land and knows
any thing OF it. with all his anxiety TO defeat these
tracts admits that the price not beoV his estimate OF the
| value.
That there has been money paid on the contracts is
singular objection, when il is recoeeted that yet
title is made. 1t is amply secured because the deed and
payment of the money to be simultaneous. 1t would
have been silly and unusual to pay before receiving title
That done formerly submitted TO the Presi
dent for approval and the injury which would result
from the loss made argument in favor of ratification
appears from the opinion OF the Attorney General vol
52 j but he properly remarks that ii the folly of the
purchaser TO that risk and that he should have taken
contract making the payment depend on the ratification
These contracts have been made in accordance with the
suggestion in that opinion and all that is asked for
that the contracts be approved and the memoalsis al
lowed to make their respective deeds of conveyance in
ordance with the contracts upon the payment to them Of
the consideration money and that the deeds he executed
and money paid in presence of the agent of the Kansas
| tribe
Most of the evidence applies the contracts with De
corie and Blanchard and if there sufficient evidence
of the payment of the money receped TO them the rau
cation in their be made subject the payment
the whole money, in the others aud they accept the
purchase these terms, or not, as they please.
| All. REEDER
] On behalf OF the purehasera
/ To his Excelency FRANKLIN PIERCE,
President Of the United States.
Secretary Of he Interior 10 the President together NTH re-
port Of the ActiRg Commissioner Of Indian d6ars
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
/ Wash uIv o