Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1885-04-13

der the treaty of 1868, and accordingly
nothing will be done about the matte,
this summer. Mr.. Mcdonald, banker
at Fort Pierre. and Rev. r. d. Hinmsn
had special interviews with the presl.
dent, and also, BY his request, with the
secretary of the interior, in reference 10
the status Of these lands. While neither
the president nor the secretary indicated
what action he would take, the deleRs.
tion came away satisfied that the rights
OF the settlers on this land would receive
Just and careful consideration, and that
no lhasty or ill.oonsidered action would
be taken. The clear and succinct state.
ment of the facts laid before the presi.
dent received complimentary mention
from the secretary Of the interior.
GARLAND's OPINION,
Washington, April 1o-Attorney Gen.
eral Gsrland's opinion on the Winneba.
go reservation has been made public,
After reciting that Clark Thompson. un.
der an act of congress of February 81,
1863, and by direction of the Indian
commissioner, removed the Winneba.
goes from Minnesota to what is now
known as the Winnebago reservation,
and also under an act of March 3, 1868,
he removed the members of the Sisseton,
Medawakstton, Wahpeton and Wahps-
konta Sioux to what is known as the
Grow Creek agency, and the further fact
that the Winnebagoes, on March 8, 1865,
ceded their lands to the United States
and went west to Nebraska, and in 1866
the various bands of Sioux on the Grow
Creek reservation we're removed to Ne.
braska, and wandering bands of Sioux
went upon and occupied the abandoned
lands. The opinion is substantially as
follows:
These reservations have not been
merged in the public domain. The
Indian commissioners map for 1884
shows them among the various reserya.
tions IN the United States. When the
treaty of 1868 was made the wandering
Sioux on these lands were parties TO it
through the chiefs of the tribes from
whom they had wandered. They have
remained ever since on these lands With
the consent of the United States. The
questions submitted for opinion turn
upon the Interpretation of the words of
the second article of the treaty, that il
to say, 'and in addition thereto all ex.
listing reservations on the eastern bank
of the river shall be and the same is Isle
set apart for the absolute and undis.
turbed use of the Indians herein named,
II the old Winnebago and Grow Greek
reservations answered to the descriptions
OF existing reservation on the east bank
of the river at the time the treaty wai
entered into, they are protected by it,and
the executive order of FEBRUARY 9th, 1884
restoring portions of them to the public
domain, is imperative and void, being
in violation of the treaty find by the
third and fourth articlse of the treaty
with the Sissetons and Wahpetons, Feb
ruary 10th 1867, that reservations are
set apart for certain members of sale
band, who were not sent to the Grow
Greek reservation. In prociaiming thi
treaty, thus excepting from its operation
members of the tribes who we're parties
to it, on the ground that they had al
ready been provided with settlemen,
on the Grow Greek reservation, the ex
ecutiye necessarily recognized and adop
ted all that had been done toward es
tabljshing the reservation. now in quee
tion. This action was subsequent t.
the removal of the Wlnnebagoes ant
Sioux, and the cession of the former o
their lands. At the time of the treaty
the lands in question had been validly
appropriated as Indian reservations, ani
being on the east bank of the Missour
fell within the treaty, and was protected
by it from the power of the executive tc
throw open lands to entry. But if I am
wrong in thisview; if the argument O
the executive order of February 9th
1885, the treaty of 1865 in so far as il
processes to secure lands to the Siou,
on the east bank is made to have no eff
feet whatever, because there is no lanc
so situated which answers to the de-
scription used in the treaty, and tn
eminent and intelligent gentleman wht
represented the government in conclud
Ing the treaty, are placed in the some
what embarrassing position of having
offered to the Indians reservations OF
the east bank when there were non,
there. for it Is fact that il the lands il
question were not reservations there wa
no reservation on the east bank excep
the Yankton reservation, which, ,howeve,
could not possibly have been in contem
plation, because it was established by
previous treaty, made in 1859, with tn
Yanktonias, who were not parties to tn
treaty of 1868, and could not, therefore
be affected by it. II, then, it be tru
that these lands we're not technical res
ervations at the time of the treaty q
1865, it is obvious the contracting pa,
ties must have used the tenn "reserva
ton" in some secondary sense; an,
when We see that there has been an un
interrupted practical appropriation o
the lands as Indian reservations iron
1868 to the promuigation of the execu
tive order, as so described in the Indial
commissioners maps and the reports O
the secretary of the interior to congress
We cannot3for moment be at q loss t,
know what that sense is. Nothing il
better established IN reason or author
ity, that when the expounder of stat
ute or other Indictment is satisfied tha
q term in it is not to be taken in its nor
NAL acceptation, it becomes his duty t,
to give it the sense in which it appear
to have been used. So here, if thes,
lands are found not to be reservation
in strict legal sense, but understood tt
have been such generally and by th,
| government itself the grant mnat h,