The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-08-03
LAND LEASE LOBBYISTS.
COW MEN GO T WASRIoNGTON
To 0ive Cleveland and Lamar a Game of
Taik on Retaining Ranches In the
Territory More of the Attor-
ney Generals Opinion.
GOre of Mr.. Garland's Land lease
Opinion

| hsoFo oil MIR. 6arland's Lana Lease
| Opinion.
WAsHINGToN, Aug. 2.-The follow
ing additional extract IL made from
Attorney-General Gsr,and's opinion on
Indian land leases:
This Statuiocy provision is very gen.
eral and comprehensive. Its operation
docs not depend upon the nature or
tho extent Of the title TO the land
which tho tribes or "a nation may hold.
| Whether such title be fe9 simple or
right OF occupancy merely, il not ma
terial. In either case the statute ap-
plies. 1t is not, therefore, deemed nee
assary or important ia connection
with the subject under consideration
TO inquire into the particular right or
! title 10 the above mentioned resorVS-
tioSs, held by Indian tribes or nations
respectively, which claim that what
ever tho right or title may be, each OF
these tribes or nations are precluded
by the force and effect OF this statute
from either alternating or leasing any
parts Of its reservation or impaItiug
any interehts or claim JIG the same
without the consent If the government
OF the United STATES. The lease
of land for grazing purposes is as
clearly within tho statute az leaSa
for any other or tor general pGTpNs9s,
End The duration OF the term il imma-
terial One who enters with cattle or
Otbec live stock upon an Indian raser-
walton under that description made in
violating Il statute Is an intruder, and
may he removed therefrom as succ,
notwithstanding his treaty with the
consent of tho tribes. Such consent
may exempt him from the ponalty
| imOosed by section 2ll7, Revised Sta5-
ut0S, for taking hia stock there, but IT.
cannot validate q lease nor confer upon
| him auy legal right whatever 10 fe-
main upon tho land, and to this eX-
| tent and no further, was the decision
of Judge Brewer IN the case of the
United States vs., Hunter, u Federal
RonOrts, Gl5; but the present inquiry
in substance, ia whether tho depart
mont oftbe interior can authorize these
Indians TO make laaaes OF their lands
for grazing purposes, or whether the
approval OF such cases by the presi
dent or tho secretary Of the interior
would mako Jhcm lawful and valid
whether tho president or the depart
mont hiss authority 10 lease for such
purposes any part Of an Indian
reservation. l submit that the
power OF the department to au-
thoriZe such leases TO be- made
or q the President or the secretary 70
approve or make salo, il ID exist at
all, rests upon some law, and, thero-
fOre, must DO derived from either O.
trOaty on ? statutory provision, I am
not aware OF any treaty
provision applicable to the
particular reservations in ques.
tion that c0niurs such powers.
Tho Revised Statutes contain prOViB.
ions regulating contracts or agree
ments with Indians, and how they
shall be executed and approved (s0c.
ton 203), bus these provisions do not
include contracts Of the character
described IN section Gig. noreinbo,ora
mentioned, No general power appears
to have been conferred by statute upon
either tho President or tho secretary
of ether officer OF the government TO
authorize or approve leases halt by
Indian tribes. Doubtless one az tue
main considerations which led tD ihe
adoption or tine uo5 OF February 10,
1910, chapter so, was to authorizes tho
S6u6aa uagila Of New NOrk In
diaus 30 tease lRuis within
CattarNu gus county and all iho agency
reservation ami 10 confirm existing
leases, Vno ae. JUS, citod is, mar6-
over, ElE a4lclul gs showing that ia
Wow of CJugrOss Indian tribes
cannot lease their reservations With
ont tho authority q, soma law Of the
United States. In my upiuuu, tbors-
fore, each OF tho questions proposed
In yoNg letter should bon answered ia
the uegatigc, aud 1 80 auswor them"