Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1894-05-31
INDIAN LAND TENURE.
Extract From the Report of the
Teller Committee.

The theory of the government
was when it made title to the lands
in the Indian Territory to the In.
dian tribes as bodies polite that
the title was held for all of the In
dians of such tribe. All were to be
the equal participators in the ben
efits to be derived from such hold
ing. But we find in practice such
is net the case. A few enterpris-
ing citizens of the tribe, frequently
not Indians by blood but by inter
marriage. have i'm fact become the
practical owners of the best and
greatest part of these lands, while
the title still remains in the tribe
theoretically for all, yet in fact
the great body of the tribe derives
no more benefit from their title
than the neighbors in Kansas, Ar
kansas or Missouri.
According to Indian law doubt
less the work OF the most enter
prising class we have named) an
Indian citizen may appropriate
any of the unoccupied public do
main he chooses to cultivate. In
practice he does not cultivate il,
but secures a white man to do so,
who takes the land on lease of the
Indian for one or more years ac-
cording to the provision of the
law of the tribe where taken. The
white man breaks the ground, q,
fences it, builds on it and occupies
it as the tenant of the Indian and
pays rental either in part of the
crop or in cash, as he may agree
with his landlord.
Instances came to our notice of
Indians who had as high as 100
tenants, and we heard of one case
where it was said the Indian citi-
zen, a citizen by marriage, had 400
holdings, amounting to about 20,-
900 acres of farm land. We be-
lieve that may be an exceptional
case, but that individual Indians
have large numbers of tenants on
land not subduced and put into
cultivation by the Indian, but by
his white tenant, and that these
holdings are not for the benefit Of
the whole people but of the few
enterprising ones, is admitted by
all. The monopoly is so great
that in the most wealthy and pro-
gressive tribe your committee were
told 100 persons had appropriated
fully one-half of the best land.
This class Of citizens take the very
best agricultural lands and leave
the poorer land to the less enter.
prising citizens. who in many in
stances only farm a few acres in
districts fartbest removed from
the railroads and the civilized
centers.
As we have said, the title to
these lands is held by the tribe in
trust Tor the people. We have
shown that this trust is not being
properly executed, nor will it be
if left to the Indians, and the ques.
ton arises what il the duty Of the
government Of the United States
with reference 10 this trust?
While we have recognized these
tribes as dependent nations. the
government has likewise recog-
Lized its guardianship over the
Indians and its obligations to pro-
tect them in their property and
personal rights.
la the treaty with the Chero-
KEGS, made in 1916, we stipulated
that they should pass laws for
equal protection, aud for the
security OF life, liberty and prop.
erty. II the tribe fails to admin.
lister It's trust properly by secur-
ing to all the people Of The tribe
equitable participation in the
common property Of the tribe
there appears TO be no redress foi
the Indian so deprived Of his
rights, unless the government does
interfere to administer such trust
Is IL possible because the gov.