Barbour County index., 1885-08-07
TERRIYORY 7ROuHLES,


TERRITORY TROUBLES.
Attorney General Garland last Satur-
day rendered an important opinion re-
garling contracts made with Indians by
cattlemen in which he concludes that
there Is no authority whatever for them
leasing lands for grazing or any other
purpose, and that all such leases are
not only invalid but unlawful. Ills
opinion covers the leased lands on the
Cherokee Strip west Of the Goth degree,
and the Cheyenne and .Arapahoe Indian
lands. The former, as is well known,
are leased by the Cherokee Strip Live
Stock association, made up Of more
than 100 members, while the Cheyenne
ami ArapahOe lands are held by less
than dozen men.
II now appears that IL the views held
by the attorney general are coincided In
BY the president, that the cattlemen on
the Cherokee Strip are liable to be or
dered to move at any time, just as the
lesscs OF the Cheyenne and Arapahoe
country were ordered to move. The
leasees under which the cattlemen Oc-
cupy these two reservations are similar,
though the Cherokee lease has the
sanction Of the Legislative body Of that
nation. and its executive officer, Chief
Bushyhead, and besides received the
sanction Of the secretary Of the lnte.
rior.
II that lease is declared unlawful, the
damage done will be ten times worse
than in the case Of the Cheyenne and
ArapahOe lease, because ten times as
many men are interested, and il extreme
measures should be adopted to remove
the cattiemen and their herds, 1t is
doubtful il they would peaceably sub
init. Not only would the lessees OBJ
ject, but the entire Cherokee tribe Of
Indians, the nearest civilized Of any
tribe, would stand by the cattlemen.
Now they are getting 100000 a year
lease money and this would all be cut
off.
But we cannot think that the govern
ment will order the cat lemen to lea Q
the Cherokee Strip. Such an order
would do NJ good. The Strip not
embraced in the covstel Oklahon
lands. b 1t are acknowledged to be ht d
by the government in lust for the
Cherokees. There has been no question
about this,and no dissatisfaction has ex-
lsted on account of the lease other than
that causei to u few disappointed cat
tlemen who were not awarded range on
on the Strip. The Cherokees have, uE-
like their neighbors, the Cheyennes and
Arapahoes, made no complaint on ac-
count Of the cattlemen occupying their
lands, but they have acknowledged that
the prosperity that has attended them
since the lease was made has exceeded
even tLeir highest expectations.
But there is no use in arguing the
question. The attorney general has
positively declared it as his opinion that
no tribe of Indians have any right to
lease their lands for any purpose with
out the consent Of the government of
the United States. and according to the
attorney general it would appear that
the term government meant the con-
gress Of the United States and the pres
ldent.
After reeiting the statutory provisions
running back to 1883, the attorney gen
eral concludes:
The statutory provision Is very gen
eral and comprehensive. Its operation
does not depend upon the nature or ex-
tent of title to land which the tribe or
nation may hold. Whether such title
be fee simple or right of occupation
merely, is not material. In either case
the statute applies. 1t is not, therefore
deemed necessary or important i'm con-
nectiOn with the subject under consid-
Grafton, to inquire into the particular
right or title 10 the above mentioned
reservations held by Indian tribes or
nations respectively which claim them.
Whatever the right or title may be these
tribes or nations are precluded by the
force and effect Of the statute from
either alternating or leasing any part of
their reservations or imparting any in
terest or claim in or to the same, with
Oug viz NOlAoCub Va gllC VI
the United States. Lease of land for
grazing purposes is as clearly within
the statutes as the lease for any other
or more general purposes and the dura-
tiOn Of the term is immaterial. One
WHO enters with cait.o or other live
stock upon an Indian reservation under
lease Of that description made in viO-
latiOn Of the statutes is an intruder and
may be removed tberefrOm as such not
wiilistanding his treaty with the tribe.
Such consent may exempt him from
the penalty imposed by section 2117, re.
yised statutes, for taking his stock
there, but It cannot validate the lease
or. confer 3pOn him any legal right
whatever to remain upon the land, and
10 this extent and no further was the
decision of Judge Brewer in the United
States vs.. Hunter, q Fed. Rep. 6l5."
But the present inquiry in substance
Is whether the department Of the inte-
riOr can authorize these Indians to make
leases Of their lands for grazing pur-
p lses or whether the approval OF such
leases by the president or secretary Of
the interior would make them lawful
and valid; whether the president or the
department has the authority to lease
for such purposes any part Of the In
power Of the department TO authorize
such ,ases TO be made, as that Of the
president or secretary to approve or
make the same, II II exists at all, must
rest upon some law, and therefore be
derived from either a treaty or statu-
tory provision. lam not aware Of any
treaty provision applicable 20 tile par
ticIIlar reservations In the Union that
cOnfers such powers. The REVISED stat
utes contain provisions regulating con-
tracts or agreements with the Indians