The islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1891-1899, 1894-10-18
KEEP OFF RESERVATION.
The Court Decides Puyallup Indian
Cannot Alternate His Land.

The Court Decides q Puyallup Indian
Cannot Alternate His Land.
SAN Francisco, October Ii. The
United States Circuit Court of Appeals
decided to-day 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 off the reservation.
The decision is one of the most impor-
tant that has been rendered since the
organization of the court, and unless re-
versed by the Supreme Court of the
United States will be an impregnable
barrier between the unsophisticated In
dian and the enterprising white. The
case before the court was that of Edwin
Eells, Indian agent of the Puyallup res
ervation in Washington, against Frank
G.. Ross.
Ross is a railroad contractor, and in
the early part of 1893 he was engaged In
building a road through the Puyallup
reservation. From John Cook and Susie
Cook, Indians, who had farm on the
reservation, Ross secured permission to
occupy their land and to erect camps on
it for his men. Soon after Ross took
possession of the land the Indian agent
ordered him to vacate the premises on
the claim that the ground he occupied
was government property. Ross, how
ever, did not move, and then the Indian
agent called the military to his assistance
and drove him away by force of arms.
Ross took the case into the United States
Circuit Court for Washington, which de-
cided that Eells had no authority to
drive Ross off the reservation; SO the
Indian agent was enjoined from inter
fering with the contractor. Soon ate,
this decision Eells appealed to the APP
pellate Court, and now that tribunal de-
cides in his favor, overruling the judg-
ment of the lower court and ordering
Ross to keep off the reservation. The
court in its decision said:
1.-The act of 1887, which confers citi-
zenship, clearly does not emancipate the
Indians from all control or abolish the
reservations. That the abolition of res
ervations is the ultimate hope of the
governments policy there can be no
doubt, but it will not be soon and cannot
be realized by attributing fanciful quail
ties to Indians or supposing their nature
can be changed by legislative enact
ment. The patent has clear words of
prohibition against alienation. The
power of the government to impose re-
straint is not questioned, and its pur-
pose is certainly not ambiguous. The
treaties with the Indians, the allotment
of land in severalty, all had the purpose
of fixing them in permanent homes.
"By article of the treaty the privilege
of allotment can only be availed of by
those who locate the same as a perma-
nent home, and the purpose is so clear,
insistent and dominant that the Presi-
dent is given power to prescribe such
rules and regulations as will insure the
family in case of the death of the head
thereof the possession and enjoyment of
such home, and he may issue a patent
only to such person who has made a
location for a permanent home, and, if
issued, may cancel the patent if such
person or family 60 from place to place.
1t follows therefore that the contract of
Ross with the Indians was void, and he
was properly removed from the reserva-
ton. If it is for the interest of the In
dian or commerce to remove restraints
upon alienation, Congress will undoubt-
edly do so if applied to, and in the latter
case it will be enabled to provide for the
interests of the Indians, but they seem
to have provided for themselves in the
contract with Ross"