St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-08-02
This Time the Western Cattle Kings Get
it From Attorney General
Garland,
Who Decides That There is No Legal Au-
thOrity for Leasing the Indian
Lands.
Santos, Naturalized American, FL
nally Released by Ecuador
Authorities.
The Dolphin Discussed Pro and Con
by the Various Persons
Interested.
Leasing Indian Lands.

interior referred the question of the power
of the interior department tn authorize the
Indians to lease their lands for grazing pur-
poses. has transmitted to Secretary Lamar
an opinion in effect that no such power eX-
lists under the law.
The questions referred 10 the attorney
general were: whether there was any
law empowering the interior department to
authorize the Indians to enter into contract
with any parties for leasing Indian lands
for grazing purposes: also whether the
president or the interior department has any
authority 10 make lease for grazing pur-
poses of any part of any Indian reserva-
ton. or whether the approval by the
president or secretary of the interior
would render any lease made py the
Indians with other parties were lawful and
valid. The questions. writes the attorney
general, are prOpOunded with reference to
certain Indian reservations. namely: First,
the Cherokee lands in the Indian Territory
west of 9G degrees longitude. except such
part thereof as have heretofore been apprOp-
rated for and conveyed to friendly tribes
of Indians. Second, the Chevenne and
ArapahOe reservation i'm the Indian Terri
tory. Our government has ever
claimed the right, and from
very early period its settled policy
has been to regulate and control the alien
alton or the disposition by the Indian ma
tionS or tribes of their lands. This policy
was originally adopted in view of their
peculiar character and habits, which render
them incapable of sustaining any other re-
lations with whites than that of dependence
and pupilage. There was no other way of
dealing with them than that of keeping
them separate,
SUBORDINATE AND DEPENDENT.
with guidance and care thrown around
them for their protection. Thus in
1875 congress-, by proclamation, forbade
all persons from making settlements on
lands inhabited or claimed by Indians,
within the limits or jurisdiction of any par
ticular state, and from purchasing or re-
ceiying any gift or ceSSiOn of such lands or
claims without express authority and direc-
tiOn of the United States in congress as
Sembled,' and declared that every such
purchase or settlement. gift or eeSSiOn not
having the said authority should be null
and void, and that no right or title will
accrue in consequence of any such pur-
chSSe, gift, ceSSiOn or settlement BY
section of the act of July %, 1890, the
congress of the United States enacted that
no sale of lands made by any Indians, or
any nation or tribe of Indians, within the
United States, shall be valid to any person
or persons. or to any state, whether having
theright of pre-emption to such lands or not,
unless the same shall be made and duly eX-
ecuted at some public treaty held under au-
thOrity of the United States Similar pro-
visions were again enacted in section of
the act of March l. 1895, which, by its terms,
included any purchase or grant of lands,
or of any title or claim thereto from any
Ipfl-anc or nation rrihn nf InnianS
within the bounds of the United States
The provision was further extended by sec
tian u of the act of May 10, 1896, so far as
to embrace any purchase, grant, lease or
other conveyance of lands, or of any title
or claim thereto As thus extended it was
Te-enacted by an act of March 8. 3.1I99, chap
ter 46. and also by the act of March 80. 1902
chapter so, section 12.-ThiS legislative
provision in terms applied to purchases,
grants. leases, etc, from individual Indians
as well as from Indian tribes or nations; but
by the twelfth section of the act of June so
1881, (chapter 1911 twas limited to such as
emenate from any Indian nation or tribe
of Indians" and provision of act of 1884,
just referred to, has been repro
duced in section 2,116. X. s.,
now in force. 1.-The last named section
declares mo purchase, grant, lease or
other conveyance of lands, or any title or
claim thereto from any Indian nation or
tribe of Indians. shall be of any validity IN
law or equity unless the same be
made by treaty or constitution.
One who enters with cattle or other
live stock upon Indian reservation under
lease; that description made in violation of
the statute is an intruder and
may be re moved therefrOm as
such. notwithstanding his treaty,
with the consent of the tribes. Such consent
may exempt from the penalty imposed by
section PLY r. s., for taking his stock
there, but it cannot validate any lease or
confer upOp him any legal right whatever
to remain upon land, and to this extent,
and no further, was the decision
of Judge Brewer in the United
States vs. Hunter, 81 Federal rep.
615. But present inquiry in substance is,
first, whether the
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
can authorize these Indians 10 make leases
of their lands for grazing purposes, or
whether the approval of such leases by the
president or the secretary of the
interior would make them lawful
and valid. Second, whether the
president or department have authority to
lease for such purposes any part of the
llluldu ItStINdtiOu- L SuDlulG llldb TIC
power of the department to authorize such
leases to be made, or that of the president
or secretary to approve or make the same,
if it exists at all, must become
law and therefore be derived from
other treaty or statutory provisions. l am
not aware of any treaty provision applicable
to the particular reservation in question
that confers such powers. The
revised statutes contain pro-
visions regulating contracts or
agreements with the Indians, and preserib-
ing how they shall be executed and ap-
proved. (SectiOn 2103). But these pro-
visions do not include contracts of the
character described in section 2116.
hereinbefore mentioned. No general
power appears to have been con-
ferred by the statute upon either
the president or secretary, or any other Off
Ger of the government, TO make, authorize
or approve leases of lands held by the In
dian tribes. and an absence of such power
is doubtless one of the main considerations
which led to the adoption of the act of
Feb. 10, 1875, chapter 90, to author
ize the Seneca nation of New York
Indians to lease lands within the Cattarau-
gus and Allegheny reservations and confirm
existing leases. The act just cited is moreover
significant as showing that in view of
congress, Indian tribes cannot lease their
reservations without authority of law from
the United States. In my opinion, there
fore, each of the questions proposed in
your letter should be answered in the mega
tive, and l so answer them"