Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1886-05-16


i,a il id1ho, ana ne fati1us anii Pay
alIaE Reservations - Waahiae1an Fer
RileEg.
& IS eEaine4 Ghaf ~ pzosision q
Esnki0n g. above uaole4 Fequire4 he
Uzf1ed Ssa1es - extinzais4 - indian
title g. fheas fFact8 and that hecaasa
snfz A. i ALLEGED, was nnt ssassnahl1
ooHe. re coneauT Il RECESSED fFcD Ne
can4iliaa sntean4nt. To sappart SIS
chafm Is cited tue veil resouizad F1le
ih41 II ne preferences q eondltion
Gnbeeqa u rendered inpos i1sa By go
u tn RFanluF. 4 becomes void.
i vii b observed thaf tbs pruviaios
Of iaw qnated applies only - land8
failing audsr che Operations q ne aet
sid AcQnifed - he Gonalion 20 43a rad
nasnaa Ia snis hiliN Nana 81 che tracts
namad Wsxs ac4nifed il the donatfoa
unless peEhars il Be The frsl one 1nen-
tionsd. By section 3 these are exsepsed
frou the grant All lads 3 reserved, sid,
granted o. otharuias appropriated, -
tia fsnse TIE line Of the road waH def
uiteiy fixed and plat thaEeaf 6led u
fns General Land 0f8os. TIA earliest
definite l0oati8n Of any portion 81 the
rad vas in Nore1absr, 1871. (Rsport of
CemmiasionsT Of eha General Land Of
ioa, 1878. >. 30l). Tkis vas for t6at
portion q tie rnad lying IN Mime
sofa. The balance Of he line has been
dslniteiy looated sinoe, at difIsrsnt
data.
VIA references to ahe iirst mentioned,
viz. ehe land lying between tbs Rsd
River Of the North and tha James River
IN Dakota, i Is admitted b. the oom-
uaay and the records nhov that the read
was oompleted through these lands
within tie time prescribed. The pro-
posed forfeiture daas not attest them,
and Il Is at course obvious that, II fhaY
fell within the terms Of the granting
act, tha Indian title waa enc which
did nos embaFfaez she company or call
for any action on the part of ths Unitsd
States
With reference 70 the other trasta
menii0ned, meme % them uere lands to
whiah the provisions referred 10 applied,
for they we're reservations and appro
priated IS sEeh at ehe date o. the def
nita Aooation Of the road, and we're not
therefore acquired in the donation
bF ths sempany. They wats expressly
excepted from the donation BY the
third section OF the act, and we're not,
therefore, lands 70 Which the pfovi-
aions under consideration, in any event.
applied.
Il appears that with reference 10 one
az these tracts the road was completed
without any necessity for aid from the
United States within the time required;
and that, with reference Is all the 9th
ers, the United States has never been
under any obligation 60 extinRuish tue
| Indian title at ali.
Bat even II such an obligation exist
Cd, il is too clear for argument that il
/ vas the sole province Of the United
/ States to deteEmine when and under
what circumstances Il should be dis
charged, consistently With public policy
and she welfare Of the indians. What
ever may be individual views as 10 the
policy Of extinguiahing thaae titles and
/ the incidental effect upon she welfare Of
tha Indians, Il Is entirely clear that
/ Congress, by uneQuivocal language, re-
served to the UniEed States exclusively
the right 10 determine that question 10
relation to these lands. II she has not
defeKmined that these titles can now be
exsiaguished consistently with public
| policy and she welfare OF the Indians,
that ends the controversy. Neither
the company nor any one elsa can
oomplain.
The position Of the company upon
this question am0unts practically % q
claim that they we're entitled TO the
| assistanae OF the treaty and making
| power Of the United States Whenever,
In building their road, they encountered
opposition from tribes or rowing bands
Of Indians. In other words, that Con
Qress not only donated them 1900 0oC
acres Of the public lands, without limit
alton, restriction or condition, bat also
gave them the use OF the treaty-makino
power and the army whenever q rowing
band Of Indians inteEfeFed with their
work. Your committee decline 20 adopt
this view Of the case. and, On she con
traFy. are clearly Of the opinion that
Congress had no snoh intent IN the pass
ACE Of the granting act and that no jns-
tiieation for suoh claim can be found
il its terms.
Third. Il is further claimed that the
United States has not caused the lands
along the line Of tbs road to be surveyed
as required by tba act, for the want Of
which surveys " settlement ia Murdered
and retarded, and the company ID
thereby prevented from selling or Feal-
king any benefit frem is unsurveyed
lands-"
Yenr COMMITTEES are unable 70 see,
even II ell this Is true, how Il in any
way touches the question Of the duty Of
the Company TO ooHstruct its line Wifnin
She required time. But Il is not true
that the United States Is tn default IN
the matter. The provision Of the act
/ referred % Il Is follows:
That she President Of che United
States shall cause the lands 90 be sur
veyed for 40 miles in width on both sides
OF the entire line OF said road, agter the
general route shall be tixed, and 81 fast
as may be required by the construction
Of said road" tSeo g.
The question IS 70 when the surveys
shonld Be made. with reference 10 the
construction Of the road, was left en-
tirely to tbs discretion Of The President.
II be e any time decided that further
surveys were not repaired By the con-
structien Of the road. OF that the surveys
we're prosecuted AZ fast as vas neoeasa-
/ y, then no right 20 further surveys ex-
iated IN the company. The lands, &c
your committee ara advised, were s1r
vsyed up 20 the time o. tha default Ia
1873 AZ fast a.. In any reasonable iudg.
ment, was required. and We are satls6sd
thas no ineonvsnienoe. from any delay
IN the surveys retarded OF prevented The
completion Of the road.
Fourth. u h fnFthsF eOntandad that
the grant is got nov f0rfeitable because
Of tha action Of Congress IN the passage
Of tie act approved Jnly 70, 1859 p Il.
Stat. l57.)
The granting act contained two dona-
tions affecting The pablo lands. first. 3
grant Of fiRht Of gay thFsnRh public
lands (Ssa. 2i)s second. the grant II
lands eoniained In ssation 3 The two
grants are entirely separate and dislinat,
made BY tue different sections and Of
two dinefsnt esiate4 TIE former APP
piled 10 ell lands legally described as
public; the latter ouly 10 certain odd
seotions0f sueh lands not within uamed
exosptions- UndeF the former the oom-
panY had the right 70 bufid its road
across any 81 saeh pablia lands, and for
that purpose had the Of an easement
~ 30 fest on cash aide Of ila track.
Under The latter Is took 10 fee the desia
Datod sections. June p. 1881, the road
vas located over the Crow Indian Res
ervatlon, already shown not 20 have besn
iualn1ed IN the granted land4
1heFeupsn, ADJUST -, 1881, q sreaty
OF aaFeament Vas entered into batween