The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-09-23
CREEK FUNDS.


The Attorney-General Concludes He Has No
Right to Investigate Their Alleged Misuse.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 21.-The opinion of
Attorney general Miller in the matter of
the alleged misappropriation Of money
paid to the delegates of the Greek Nation
on account of the Oklahoma cession, was
made public to-day. The facts in the case
are as follows:
tween the government and the Greek
Nation, Congress made an appropriation by
the act of March /, 1889, for the payment of
s., ESQ. .S57. 10 to the Creek Nation for the re-
lease of their title to certain landssand by
an act approved March 2, in pursuaffce of a
similar treaty, made a somewhat smaller
appropriation for like purchase from the
SeminOles. The questions involved are
substantially the same in both cases. 1t
M
ton. The act making the appropriation
for the Creek purchase provides that
S2.000.000 of the purchase price shall be
made permanent fund, bearing per cent.
interest, and that the remQining $50, ,S57
shall be paid to the Treasurer of the Greek
Nation; ''Or to such person as shall be duly
authorized to receive the same. at such
time and In such sums as shall be directed
by the National Council of said nation"
AS a matter of fact it is represented to
the Attorney general. and he assumes it to
be true that about S42, 900 of. this smaller
sum OF money was used In compromise
and payment of a note of about twice that
amount held by some bank in Arkansasf
and that the greater part of the balance
was appropriated in the payment of at
torney's fees to persons who claimed to
have rendered services in forwarding the
treaty and procuring the appropriation.
Creek Nation it is claimed that these pay
ments, especially the payment of the at
tOrney fees, were a fraud upOn the rights
of the people of the nation and in violation
of the statutes, which provide that no
agreement shall be made by any person
with any tribe or individual Indians not
citizens of the United states for the pay
ment of any money in consideration of
services rendered or to be rendered. unless
the same is made in writing and receives
the approval of the Commissioners of Indian
Affairs and the Secretary of the Interior. In
the matter under consideration it is con-
ceded that there was no contract comply
ing with this statute.
Another section provides for the recovery
of money paid IN violation thereof. 1t is
claimed by those who has received this
money, that the language Of Section of
the act of March 1, 1882 shows purpose, on
the part of Congress. TO put this smaller
sum at the disposal of the Creek Council
for such use as that body may see ft. The
Attorney general regards this as a correct
construction of the act. and that in thus
dividing the appropriation into TWO funds,
making a permanent Investment of one.
and putting the other at the disposal of the
Creek Council. it was the intention of Con-
gress that that body should have full au-
thority I'd deal with it in its discretion.
After that treaty was made both houses of
the Greek Council passed acts authorizing
payment of the moneys by the united
States to certain delegates who received il,
and t has not been questioned that the
payments were made to the proper parties.
The Attorney-general says that he does not
see that he is authorized to disregard the
discretion plainly granted to the Creek
Council in the disposition of these funds. OF
to attempt a recovery thereof.
On behalf of those who have received
these moneys it is insisted that the
five civilized tribes. in which are in
cluded the Creeks and the Seminoles.
stand upon different footing from
the uncivilized tribes. and therefore the
statute does not apply to them. In this
view the Att0rney-gencral is inclined TO
share. His right to bring an action to re-
cover the moneys so paid he finds SO doubt
full that he has determined not 10 do so. If
these people choose. he says, they can use
the name of the United States to recover
whatever rights they may believe them
selves deprived of without the interposi-
tion of the AttOrney-generaL.
In concluding the opinion the Attorney
general says that he will not. however. at
tempt TO control the action Of the district
attorney. who may conclude that it is his
duty to have this matter investigated by