Republican vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1857, 1855-06-30


. the goseInor of the Territory himself can
didy confessing its truth Still les.
sir, did expect that, whilst confessing o
behalf OF Yourself and associated speeula
tors, you would have had the boldiess an
bad taste to attempt defence of The NOR
atty and propr,ety Of the act. ''Thos
contracts Il use your own words) were.
appears, for convenience sake made in III
name of Judge Johnson, although it wa
we'll understood that Judge EImore, Col
Isascs; and myself yourself J uere equaH
, interested.
This is candid and full confession O
the facts which constitute the grayamer
of my complaint; and as your controversy
with me turns mainly upon the point o
the propriety OF such specula.ions in land
SO circtiths,anced, l will, without conde
sctnding 10 handy epi,hets or retort the Wit
operative language with which you assai
me-, say few words, by way OF explana-
ton upon that subject.
Under the sixth artic le OF the kansa.
treaty Of 1925, there was reserved "flom
the lands ceded" one mile square Of lane
for each of certain hai-breeds of the natiot
and twenty three individual, are mention.
ed in the realty for whom as many sec.
tons OF land are reserved on the north o.
the Kansas river. Similar language j,
employed as to the reservations made IN
der the Potrawatomie treaty Of the 10Th Of
October. 1882; and II will be- seen BY The
opinion Of the Attorney General of the
United States. given on the goth OF Sep
TENDER, 1888. that officer considered that
the original Indian title to these reserva-
tons was not extlnguished on ,ae rat,iica-
ton ofthe treaty.
The Kansas haif-breed lands, however
being situated within the Indian country
no question as to the nature and extent Of
the grant had arisen until after the date Of
that opinion; Du, when the question did
arise, this department uniformly held thai
the principles Of that decision were equal
ly applicable to the Kansas as TO the Pot
tow atomic reserves. From that time, as
parties have presented the question by
submitting deeds for approval, the UNIFORM
opinion Of the Indian department has been
adverse to the power Of the Kansas half
breeds 10 sell or ALLEVIATE their reserves,
and hence. sir, my opinion of "the indeh.
cacy and IMPROPERLY" Of high official
fuuctionaries in the Territory engaging in
attempted speealations therein, in viola
ton of laws, regulations, and decisions
which, from their exalted position, they
should be tue first 10 uphold, and the last
TO violate. When those who should have
been the conservaiors become the violators
o! the laws, | leave i, TO that public to
which you SO confidently appeal to judge
if the Example thereby set Is hot "de-
moralizing tendency leave it to all
candid men, also. to say if such conduct OH
the part Of official fuhctiouaries is not dds
reputable" and, under the circumstances
stated in the repot, to which you take ex-
ceptions, marked by indeicacv and i'm
propriety,' Ii is maxim that "gnor
ance OF the Lave excuseth no man," How
much less. than, does Ignorance or reck-
essless ofthe laws applicable to the gov
ernment and protection OF a large portion
Of the inhabitants Of o newly organized
Territory.excuse those appointed to be the
executors and judicial expounders Of such
laws. To him hose sense Of propriety
is So ob,use as to induce him to think that
such a disregard Of the laws and regula-
tons provided for the protection and guar.
dianship of the Indian wards Of the gener-
al government is innocent in Itself, and in-
wolves no moral turpItude or "demorali-
zing" effects, have not word to say
Such casuist tan have ne inst conception
OF the distinction between right aud wrong
and, OF course, moral truths can have no
effect either in qnickening the susceptible
ity Of his conscience, or in enlightenlng
his understanding He that cannot see,
IN the bare recital and unblushing ac-
acknowledgement Of these attempted speeu.
lations BY government officers, in the face
OF law, enough to shock his sense Of off
cial propriety, must have conscience i'm
pervious to reason, aud which no lang iage
can reach
You lay much stress upon the compe-
tency of the grantots and the fairness Of
the consideration proposed to be paid, and
dwell with much self.complacenry upon
The Intelligence and accomplishments OF
three Of the vendors-M essrs Louis Pip
in, Francis Aubrey, and Moses Belmor,
COR Belmond) all OF whom you say ate
,eh,le men, and the husbands OF three Of
the half breed owners of the reserves
Had you been as deeply versed in the
my s,elies Of Indian conveyanc;ng as you
doubtless ere in other branches ofiaw, YOU
would have known that il was the intelli-
geLce or comp -tsncy OF the reserve, or his
or her heirs, and no, that Of whites who
may ,utermarry with either, which it was
incumbent on the grantee to establish as a
condition precedent to the approval oil
the sale Of an Indian reserve in his favor.
But ,f all you say about the extraordinary
sharpness and trading capacity of your
vendors was true, still, if the right to sell
was conceded. as they inherit their lands
as Indians they must be treated as lndi-
ans and their lands, whenever sold, be
disposed Of subject to the rules and regula-
lions prescribed for the government Of the
department in cases of Indian conyeyan-
ces. The fact Of a witness TO the execu-
ton of such an instrument OF writing being
as IN these cases. an Interested party, would
if known, yi,iq,e as well as invaidate the
transaction. The competency Of the VEN
Tors and the fairness of,he consideration
paid, or agreed to BE- paid. must also be
established BY disinie'esied testimony; nor
can the rule which requires the execution
and acknowledl cement Of Indian deeds in