The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1870-04-16
FROM WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON, d. c., April

To tho EdiAer Of tina woRKmomAK'u ADrOcArxs
A few weeks ago / referred In IN.
case of Elias @. Boudinot, the CberOLs.
Indian manufacturer and pioneer i
civilization and improvement amoDo
his own people. and commented uDon
the course Of the officers of the Internal
Revenue Department in relation to hi.
arrest and the confscation of hia nro.
perty. Day before yesterday M,
Kerr, from the Committee Of In
Judiciary reported . joint resolution
deelaratory of the true intent ard
meaning of the Section Of the Law
which the Commissioner, Mr.. Delano
holds up ~ a'shield for his action. m
Joint Resolution condemns the action
Of the Commissioner in this case. A the
the following extract from the report
accompanying the resolution:
Il appears, then, from the record, tn. N,
Boudinoe not only was anxious to obtain Nm,
actually did obtain the Official sanction Of Com.
missioner Rollins and DeIano, with respect d
bis said manufacturing business And thers L
no allegation whatever that Mr.. Boudino. M
not scrupulOusly complied With the inssructicOa
and interpretations Of the Commissioners Of Ia.
ternal Revenue ia the actual management az
his business in the Territory. The SeiSure Of
Mr.. Boudinot's factory occurred on the aOsh Of
December, 1883. Il was more than q mou,b
Afterward before Commissioner DelanO oHioIaIl,
or otherwise Incorporated the Indian counhy
into any collection district
IL 10 now stated by the Commissioner that Ne
has reversed his former decision, before Quoted
and the decisions OF his predecessors, and hold,'
at present, that the 10Th section Of the act Of
July 70, 1858, intended the extension Of the
revenue laws over the Cherokee territory, and
not alone over the " articles produced there
but It Is admitted that no notice vas given %
Mr.. Boudinot OF any change In che opinion Of
the Commissioner, and that his property wa
seised, and his person arrested, ~ though he had
willfaly violated tue Law; and Il Is also admit
ted by Judge James. who represented Mr.. DeA
no before your committee, that the reversal Of
the repeated decisions Of the Commissioners Of
Internal Revenue was never officially PrOnul-
gated until alter the seizure Of COlOael Bud
not's property. and after his personal arrest
The report throughout exposes the
questionable course Of the present com
missioner and his subordinates, and
winds up with an able argument Sutain.
ing the rulings of Mr.. Rollins the former
commission in the case of Mr.. Bon
dinot:
In addition to these Judicial decisions / seem
eminently just, upon principle, and TO be re-
quired by the uniform policy Of the government
that the treaty stipulAtions with Indian tribes
should be 80 construed 40 70 give liberal effect
to their intent and objects 10 favor OF Ihe Ia.
dams, and that no Law Of Congress should be
permitted TO reverse this policy, even shere il
Ia competent by Law to DO %, unless its terms
be so clear and explicit al to admit Of 10 other
or more favorable construction.
The terms of the tenth article Of the treaty
in this case are very clear and free from ambi'
guilty. They do not appear to forbid 40 Indian
to purchase out Of the Territory, in good faith,
materials to be changed or manufactured BY
him in the Territory and there sold. or cOurce,
it would mot protect persons who, in any buH-
ness they might conduct in the Territory,
should attempt 70 do 90 in bad faith, or to eVade
revenue or other laws, but no such questions
arise 10 this matter Colonel BOudinct d.
though he admits be purchased some Of bio
leaf tobacco out of the Territory, 10 not charged
with having done % for any improper purpose.
To construe the treaty to forbid any such pur.
chase would uniustly limit the range Of industry
and production BY the Indians 10 the Territory
1t Ia not necessary in this case TO cOndds
the power OF Congsess BY Law TO repeal or an
null . treaty with an Indian tribe. Il will DO
conceded that such n power ought only 70 b.
exercised, il il exist, in the cleArest cases Of
right and necessity. 1t 10 only demanded here
that the Law Of Congress Of July 30, 1885, b
construed There is nothing in its terms % dis-
close any clear intent on the part Of COngre,sn
annul the treaty. They can well stand together
They are not inconsistent The original cO0-
structions put upon the Law by the CommiD-
sioners, 90 stated, fully and fairly rrcOnels
them. Those constructions do not invite o.
lead to frauds upon the revenue. II any frauds
should be Attsmpted they can be readily detect
ed and defeated. Besides, the laws EXTENDED
over the whole Territory by the COmmi%ion'f
are highly penal In their character, and esnne'
fail to lead TO much embarrassment 70 lsgIu
mate business and enterprise, and much dl'e0''
tent. ".
The action of Congress infer vii
fully sustain the report of the commit
tee and secure to the aggrieved party
an early restoration of bis factory and
effects, and will facilitate his finally o.
tanning Justice In the courts Of the
United States. NoREMAcUH.