New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-02-21

by the Indians to the United States.
The precise character of the title by
which Indian tribes hold lands, and the
rights in and to such lands, both of the
Indians and the government, have been
definitely set forth by the Supreme Court
in several cases. But reference to one case
is sufficient to establish the position herein
taken on that subject. In the case OF
Cherokee Nation VS.. Georgia Is Peters, p.
49, the opinion of the court on the question
was delivered by Chief Justice Ma arshall
| in these words:
Though the Indians are acknowledged to
| have an unquestionable, and, heretofore,
unquestioned, right to the lands they oc-
cupy, until that right shall be extinguished
| by a voluntary cessiOn to our government,
| they occupy a territory to which we assert
title independent OF their will, which
must take effect in point of possession when
their right of possession ceases.
The constitution places in the hands of
Congress the power to dispose of the terri
tory and other property of the United
States, and the same high authority quoted
above has repeatedly asserted the power of
Congress to grant lands in the Indian pos
session, but has uniformly held such grants
to be "subject to the Indian right of occu-
pancy."
The laws of the twenty-fifth, twenty y-sixth
and twenty-seyenth of July, 1866, were
framed on this idea, and their dangerous
character, both to the rights OF the Indians
and to the prospective rights Of the people
of the United States, arises from the fact
that they stand on solid foundation. If
not repealed, these laws will sooner or later
absorb more than Cnehalf of the Indian
Territory. The fact OF their existence upon
the statute book stimulates interested par
ties to work for the passage by
Congress of some kind of territorial
bill that shall operate SO as to give
effect of these laws. The faith of the nation
could not be pledged in any more solemn
manner than it is already pledged to the
tribes of the Indian Territory. To deprive
them of the rights they have in their coun-
try would be a breach of that faith-would
be tyranny. When the land is needed for
cultivation, and when, as we hope, the In
dans shall become a seif-sustaining pespie,
citizens of the United States, and willing
for just disposition OF their territory to
such citizens as shall wish to cultivate it.,
the question of the extinguishment Of the
Indian title viii have come to be pres
ent and practical question; but never un-
til that time.
The Indians damage their chance of hold
ing the lands at all, by assuming to own it
in fee simple. This gives a plausible
ground for the impression that they wish to
engage in giant land speculation. Their
homes would be tirmer under their feet to-
day if they would claim only the rights
really given to them by law, treaty and
patent. As a choice between land specu-
iators, it is of slight import who does the
speculating. But it is question of i'm
portance to all honest parties in interest
whether these lands be properly deaAt with
or not. 1t should be q matter of intense
concern to our legislators that no wrong
be done to either the Indians or our own
people. The gobbling Of tie Indian Terri
tory by railroad companies would be an
outrage on both. RAD.