The Iowa plain dealer. [volume] (New Oregon, Howard County, Iowa) 1867-1895, 1885-05-07
The W innet,sgs.

IrcrlIt ~ AbeV ldtfI Will
Ind that he na- ,!onr Is Very hasty,
aud iii-ronsiIercd thing |
In ordering tie lawful settlers of thu
piblie Iauas formerly constituting !,
the WinncbAgO reservation. VIZ
b-.lcys that the more carefully the
subject Is examined, the more
certain it will appear that the Pres
ident is rs wrong in point Of Law IS
he Is In point Of equity and common
sense. There is, We believe, no pre-
cedent for his revoking the execu-
tive order Of his predecessor, or for
his withdrawing from settlement
public lands which have been sur
veyed, formally opened to the public,
and appropriated by citizens under
the land laws. Such revocation
Of orders, II it became customary,
would lead to the most intolerable
confusion. The next President
might undo Mr.. Clevelan DIS order
AMI restore the settlers now elected,
and 80 on al jnJnitttn. Whether
or no the reservation could be
opened by executive order was Q
matter Of opinion, and 1t was held
by the last administration that 1t
could be 30 opened. It was In fact
80 opened, the settlers have oc-
cupied 1t in good faith, and the land
il theirs. Il the Indians had any
rights at all, such rights were not
individual but tribal, and amounted
In no sense to ownership but only 10
q lien. It is perfectly proper for
this administration TO pass on the
question whether the Indians are
entitled 10 damages. 4hey have
suffered no real damages. Their
actual welfare has not been affected
In the least. No lands occupied or
used ii any way by indiana were
opened to settlement. The real
rights Of the Indians were carefully
guarded In Secretary Teller's order,
and the self.styled friends Of the In
dams" are talking arrant nonsense
when they cay otherwise. II the In.
dams have any rights at all which
have been infringed, they are Of q
purely technical nature. The In
dams did not live on the lands, did
not use them, derived no income
from them, and never expected to
occupy them or derive income from
them. They could not sell them,
for they did not own them. They
were public lands Of the United
States, which had been set aside Tor
Indian occupancy. and the occupan-
cy had ceased. The only possible
thing to b. done was for the United
States to extinguish the Icdian
title. All that the Indians could
expect was = certain amountOf money
| il compensation, to be used, accord
| ing to the general line Of proceed.
ents, In the work Of Indian edn.
cation. It Is by no means certain
that the Winnebago tract Is ever
technically covered by an Indiar
lien; but II 1t is, 1t Is compensation
and not the land itself that til
Indians are entitled to receive. BY
all means let them have the com
pensatioR, and make 1t ample. Thu
more money the government viii
expend-in . judiciOus manner-fol
Indian education, and instruction II
the arts Of agriculture and civilized
life, the better It will be for all con
|cerned. Give them all that Is Lawful!
their due, and much besides. Blu
let our enthusiastic friends IT thu
Indians" be careful about jumpiDl
ut conclusions. Turning thre'
thousands white settlers on thei
holdings in Dakota would be ~
more an act Of justice to Indian
than to New Zealanders. It !
Isimply an act Of outrageous Unjust
lice to the settlers. The Indial
grievance is purely fanciful 10 thi
case. It does not exist. and tn
lsentimentalists draw wholly upol
their imaginations for their fact
when they attempt to explain tn
Igrievance. The charming youn
eastern poetess Miss Elaine Good
ale wrote touching and high keye
article on this subject for the Ne,
York Independent some weeks agt
in which she dwelt upon the pas
, sionate love Of an Indian for hi
home, and pictured the heart broke
. grief OF the Sioux who were drive
forth fronR their ancestral abiding
places by the recent order Of 6ecre
tary Teller. Doubtles she will us
the episode In poem. OF cours
the estinable young lady coul
not be expected to know that thel
were no Indians living on the land
in question: Minneap Ills Tribnn