The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-05-29

Routine Business-Debate on Forfeiture of
Railway Land Grants.

Routine Business-Debate on Forfeiture of
Railway Land Grants.
WASHINGTON, May 28.-Mr. Platt reported
avorably from the committee on Territories a
bill to authorize the county of Columbia. Wash
ingGon Territory, to issue bonds for the construc-
ton of q courthouse. The bill was passed.
Mr.. Harrison, from the same committee, re-
ported favorablv bill legalizing and validating
the general laws OF Washington Terrific ry for
the incorporation of insurance companies, and
declaring all such companies heretofore incor-
porated under such laws, to have been legally in
corporated The bill was passed.
The Chair laid before the Senate 1lr. Wilson
resolution offered yesterday ing for an
investigation by the committee on Indian affairs
into the cond net Of Indian traders by the
Commissioner of In dian Affairs
Mr. Dawes thought that the committee could
not well enter such far reaching investiga-
ton at this stage Of the session. Ii there were
need of such an investigation. and it were con-
Quoted at Washington, the expenses for witnesses
from the Territory would be heavy. he thought
il would be better to have the investigation con-
Quoted in the Territories, and at time when
the committee should be more at leisure than
they would be during the remainder of the SEES
sion. He added that the whole subject of trade
with the lndi ms needed revision. 1t was re.
proach to the United States that a license should
be needed for man to trade with an Indian. Our
statutes relieved white man of the slightest OBJ
legation to keep his contract with an Indian.
Mr. Cockrell would like to hear the statute
/ read.
Mr.. Dawes read the section of the Revised
Statutes providing that no contract with Indians
shall be valid til, approved by the Interior De-
partment He said the English of that section
was that no white man need keep his contract
with an Indian
Mr. Butler asked whether 1t relieved the In
dian also, and Mr. Dawes replied in the afirma-
tive.
Mr.. Vest said the evil complained ef was an
old one, and as the resolution applied only to
the present administration or the INDIAN Bureau
it did not begin to reach the evil. Mr.. Vest did
not make his remarks in any partisan sense
The evil ives inherent in our statutes.
Mr.. Teller did not care how careful or honest
an Indian Commissioner or an Indian agent
might be, there was danger OF abuses under our
present system. He did not know that there
were any more abuses now than heretofore, but
the system was at fault
Mr.. Wilson had no personal knowledge Of any
abuse in the matters referred to, but had re-
ceived written statement concerning various
transactions in connection with the Indian SER
vice He was Indifferent as to what committee
should investigate it, but thought the subject
should be looked into.
The resolution was referred to the committee
on Indian affairs
Northern Pacific land forfeiture bill The pend
| ing question was to lay on the table the amend
| ment of Mr.. Van Wyck, which amendment would
| forfeit all lands coterminous with and adjacent
| TO such parts or the proposed line as snoulo not
| have been completed at the date Of the passage
| of this act The motion to lay on the table was
defeated-yeas %. nays 28-and the question re-
Cured on the adoption of the amendment.
| The bill went over without action.
Mr. Van. Wyck's bill for the taxation of rail-
| road lands was then placed before the Senate,
and, under the plan of discussion of this bill, the
debate on the Northern Pacific forfeiture con-
tinued.
| A protracted debate ensued. participated in by
/ Megsre Van WICK EdmunaS Plumh Dolph
| Vest, Mitchell and others, but it resulted in no
action on the bill before the Senate
| After an executive session the Senate adj
journed until Tuesday next