Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1888-10-25

"same, and whether said leases
"are authorized by existing Leg s.
"lation, or are conducive to the
"welfare of the Indian Territory
"or Indian reservations" "
You will find the following a
part of of Mr.. Toller's report:
"Section 2116 of the United
estates revised statutes reads rs
"follows
"No purchase, grant or lease,
Tor other conveyance of lands, or
"of any title or claim thereto, from
"any Indian nation or tribe of In
"dians, shall be of any validity in
claw or equity unless the same be
"made by treaty or convention en-
"tered into pursuant to the con-
"stitution."
"This section. applies to pur-
chase, grant, lease or other con-
veyance of land, but il makes no
reference to the products thereof.
No prohibition is imposed upon
the Indians as TO the disposition
of the products of the soil. They
are not prohibited from disposing
Of the grass growing upon their
lands any more than they are pro-
hibited from disposing of the
wheat, corn or vegetables raised
thereon as the fruits of their la
bor."
"Section 2tl7 of the revised
statutes provides as fOllows:"
Every person who drives or
"otherwise conveys any stock of
"horses, mules or cattle TO range
"and feed on any land belonging
"to any Indian tribe, ,oiihoUt the
"consent of such tribe, is liable to
ga penalty of one dollar for each
"animal of such stock"
"The section recognizes the
right of the Indians to dispose of
the grass growing upon their lands;
for if their consent be given to
Craze stock thereon, the statute is
not violated, and the owner Of the
stock is not liable to the penalty
| imposed. If this conclusion be
correct, by parity of reasoning it
would seem that they would have
/ the power to enter into agreement
fixing the price to be paid, and for
the protection of their interests
"The privilege to Craze cattle is
but n license and not a lease. 1t
conveys 40 interest in the lands
occupied"
"All applications to the depart
ment TO lease lands have been uni
formly denied for want of authori-
I ty in the department, but such re-
fusal did in nowise interfere with
the rights of the Indians to
make such use ofthe lands as was
consistent with the character of
their title. The permits now COM
/ planned of as having been given by
,.the Cherokees were given without
even notice to the department,
and neither the Cherokee nation
nor the parties holding such per-
mits have ever asked the depart
mcnt to approve the same. The
Cherokees have a fee simple title
to their lands and do not recog-
nize the right of the department
to interfere in the management Of
their affairs with reference there
to. Patent was issued to this na-
tion of Indians December 81, 1898
for their lands in the Indian Ter
ritory, under the provision Of Ar
ticle two and three of the treaty
of 1885, q Stat. AIS, and in accor-
dance with the terms ofthe Act Of
May 2S, 1880. I'd. App"
"The United States supreme court, 3,
December term, 1872, in the case
of Holden rs. JoyQ7 Pat. 250), in
referring to the clause in the pat
ent issued the Cherokees, which
provides that the lands conveyed
thereby, shall revert to the United
States if the Indians become ex-
tinct or abandon the same, said :
"Strong doubts are entertained
whether that condition in the pat
ent is valid, as it was not author
izad by the treaty under which it
was issued. By the treaty, the
United States covenanted and
agreed to convey the lands in fee
simple, and it may well be held
that, if that condition reduces the
estate to less than fee, tits void. "
sin the case of The United
States rs. Ben Reese, at the May
term, 1879, of the United States
district court for the Western Dis
trict Of Arkansas, after viewing
the various treaties and laws and
r - .-.,.s. ...:.t ..go.