New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-03-12
AGAINST NEDDLING WITH INDIANS.
ONE OF ATKINSs PET SCHEMES EXPOSED


THE INDIAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO
REMOVING CERTAIN TRIBES TO OKLAHOMA.
WASHINGTON, March 10.-C. c. Painter. the Wash
ington agent of the Indian Rights Association has
written a vigorous protest against the proposition
made 10y General Atkins. Commissioner Of Indian
Affairs and urged for the third tmo In his last annual
report, to the Choyennes. tho Arapahoes the
Wichitas and the KlOwas from their present rescrVa-
tions in the Indian Territory into the Oklahoma
District Many Democratic Congressman and poll
clans from tho West camorous IN support OF the
project, whe its opponents declare that IL is neat
little chcmc to got the Indians out Of the way In order
to form Democratic Territory and state. to bal
ance the future Republican state of Dakota
The theory of the removal OF the Indians Is
that no treaty stands In the way OF their removal or
of the opening of their atons. since they arc on
Executive order rcsert atons while there are rca,y @
and other difficulties in tho way OF throwing open
Oklahoma 10 white settlers. Ihls is Inc Way hr
| Painter meets this contention: $4,000
These valid in appearance orly, but not
| why it should no; be done A treaty was made with
| the Cheyennes and Arspahoes, for instance, giving
VIC had right give hem this land, II being In part
embraced in the Cherokee outlet and the Indians did
treating but supposed they were getting the land
which Is occupied by them They refused TO
upon it, and We had no right to remove them 10
| it, After correspondence, the President set apart,
by Executive ORDER their present reservation, In
had power annul 10y Executive order their treaty
rights, among which was the right OF any inivldnal i, a
L
of land he secured by patent II the Prcsi-
dent could righfuy give them this land In lieu or ms
other, their possession OF II carried with IL all the
| rights they had on tho other tract
| The Nichitas said to be reservation by un-
ratified treaty. and since the treaty has been
ratified by tho Senate there could be no legal obstacle
to their being removed. The fact Is. these Indians
claim always TO have been the owners OF this land not
only Of what they occupy, but of large body octu-
pied In part by the kiowas and Comanches Dclawaies
ard CaddOes. and also that which was procured from
| the Quapaws for the Chickasaws. wo treating win
those Kansas Indians for land owned by them. Their
title to 1t has never been extlnguished SO there arc
virtual legal and treaty obligations In the way OF this
| removal fully sacred thOso which prevent us
from opening Oklahoma. aud certainly the moral oDll-
cations even greater.
| These people, especially the Wichitas. have taken
deep root ir these lards. have built them houses and
| opened up farms. This is being done with most en-.
cOuragng rapIdty by tho Chcycnnes hrapahocs ana
Comanches II would be cruel outrage to ioicc
them TO remove II would be a disastrous STEP back
| ward to induce them to 20. The lands to which they
would remove not so good as those now occupied
they bitterly opposed to the plan and it ought not 10
! be attempted
| Oklahoma ought to be opened up. II is not needed
by III, Indians 1t cannot be kept empty and ought not
| TO be kept Steps ought TO he taken at once 10
gain the consent Of the SemnOles and Creeks To throw
this land open 10 settlement. aud IL could doubtless DO
done II fair price above the thirty cents acre
| which we paid for IL. for the settlement OF Indians
| upon It. was offered for IT,
| Mr.. Painter adds this significant caution awe
| ought by this time 10 have learned something from
| experience In regard TO such removals. Nearly all
Of our wars have originated In irrtaons growing out
! Indians grew out OF them. this al nduccmcnt
offered and Il would be difficult 10 find a tribc whose
al has not proved TO be long step backward III
their progress.