The morning call., 1894-10-12
INDIANS TRIUMPH.
Northern Pacific Driven
Off Their Land.
Rights That Were Sold for a Song
Restored to the Red Men-Court
of Appeals Decision.

The United States Circuit Court of APP
peals decided yesterday that the Puyallup
Indians have not the power TO ALLEVIATE the
land granted to them in severalty, and ap-
proved the conduct of the agent who drove
the workmen of The Northern Pacific off
the reservation. The decision is one of
the most im portant that has been rendered
since the organic ton of the cour', and
unless reversed by the Supreme Court of
the United States, will be an impregnable
barrier between the uusoDhisticsted In
dian and the enterDrising white.
The Puyallup Indians inhabit a fertile
valley In the State of Washington. The
lands we're granted TO them 10 severalty
few years ago, and the corporation forth
with began 10 cast covetous eyes on the
fair domain. The Northern Pacific Rail-
road Company decided to construct
branch through the reservation. and con-
tractor named Ross was engaged 10 secure
the right of way.
Among other members of the tribe Ross
met John and Susie Cook, who sold him
the right TO use their share OF the reseFva-
ton for six months at the absurdly low
rate of 81 month. Ross brought his
workmen camps and implements and
! pitched his tents on the land obtained from
the Cooks. The WORK of grading for the
railroad had commenced. when Indian
Agent EelS came to the rescue of the dis
| possessed. He drove Ross and his men off
the reservation and forbade them to re-
turn, but bis triumph was painfully
evaneScen Ross sued for and obtained
an Injunction from the United States Cir
cut Court for N"r,hern Washington, re-
straninC EelS from interfering with him
! or his workmen. He prepared 10 return to
the reservation, but Eels, unwilling TO
give up the battle after one bout, carried
| the case to the Court of Appeals, which
Yesterday dissolved the decree and re-
versed the judgment of the Washington
court.
The contractor did not deny that the
| lands upon which be had entered were
part of those set apart as the Puyallup
reservation, and that the reservation had
not been directly revoked; but he con-
tended the allotment of lands in severaltv
and afterward making the Indians cti-
Zens necessarily had The effect 10 revoke
! the reservation.
The Court of Appeals carefully consid-
cred the plausible argument made in be-
half of the railroad company and its con-
| tractor and decided against it.
lit is clear" the decision reads, shat
| allotment alone could not have the effect
of making the Indians citizens, unless
| citizenship is held to be- ilcOnSiSt-
emit with the existence of a reser-
VdLlOUs III is uOb ucCcSSdIHy So, SuUHe
of the restraints of reservation may be
| inconsistent with the rights of citizens.
| The advantages of a reservation are not,
| and if to secure the latter 10 the Indians,
! If others not Indians are excluded. it is
not clear what right they had to complain.
'The act of 1887, which confers citizen
| ship, clearly does not emancIpate the In
| dians from all control, or abolish the res
ervatlons.
| THAT the abolition of reservations is
! the ultimate hope of the Government pol
| icy there can be no doubt; but it will not
be soonest realized by attrlbutng faneiful
qualities to the Indians or suppU sing that
| their nature can be CHANGED by leglS a.
| tive enactment.
'1'he patent has clear words of DrOhlbi-
| ton against alienation. and even il it had
/ omitted them the treaties and law imposed
| them.
tine power of the Government TO i'm
pose the restraint is not questioned. and its
| purpose is certainly not ambiguous. The
treaties with the Indans-ihe allotment of
tho land in severalty-all had the purpose
| of fixing them in permanent homes.
| "By article 6 of the treaty the privilege
| Of allotment can only be availed of by
| those WHO will locate on the same as per-
manent home, and the purpose is so care
! full, ins!stent and dominant that the Presi-
| dent is given power To prescribe such rules
| and regulations as will insure to the family
in the case of the head thereof the posses
sion and enjoyment of such permanent
horne. and he may issue a patent only to
such person or family who has male 4
location for permanent home, and if is
sued may cancel it il such person or family
rove from place 10 place.
1T follows, therefore, that the contrac;
of Ross with the Indians was void and
that he was properly removed from the
reservation. If 1t is for the interests OF
the Indians or of commerce TO remove the
restraints on alienation Congress Will nc
doubt do so 4 applied 10, and in the latter
case it will be enabled TO provide far the
interests of the Indians. better than they
have seemed to have provided for them
selves in the contract with Ross"