The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-04-14
TROUBLES OF THE TRIBE.


The senate committee on judiciary gave
a pu blic hearing ON the claims OF the
Narragansett tribe OF indians In the SEN
ate chamber this monring.
Mr.. James N. Arnold, who was ap-
pointed at the last pow-wow-to represent
the tribe, was the first speaker.
Gentlemen of the judiciary committee;
In defense OF the petition now before
your honors, and as reasons for its IA
vorable consideration at your hands, we
would submit the following facts; To-
day we have no time TO make or hear
long arguments and therefore what we
nature of the proof that can be submitted
to an impartial and thorough-goIng COM
mission with power behind them to call
1t out.f ~
As TO the sources of authority for the
claim the Indian legislation cen be pro-
duced wherein can be plainly shown that
the State or colony Of Rhode Island as 1t
then was undertook TO do right by pass
ing good laws and orders for the guar
dianhip of their Indian wards; that had
these laws been enforced as they should
have been; then this petition would never
have had an existence and these Indians
just claim. It'can be shown how this
law was evaded and the penalty never
exacteo. To instance case we Will take
the Indian covenant OF 170a. III this
means anything II means that the colony
and the Indians became guardian and
ward, and that all that belongs TO this
relation between two parties were assum-
ed at this time. To prove this there can
be submitted the legislation that was
from time to time enacted TO carry this
contract into. effect The appointment OF
an overseer,to be on the ground and to
give advice and counsel and whose
primal duty was most nmistakably to
see that no advantage was taken In any
way OF these wards; it was his duty to re-
port any encroachment upon their do
mains or any wrongs committed against
them. SO far as he carried out these just
principles he is to be commended anu SO
far as he. fell short OF doing his duty he
Is to be condemned.
1t can be shown that while wise and
prudent legislation was enacted 1t failed
or being executed by having bad agents.
When Ninegret, therefore, asked to
have power to sell real estate and gave as
reason that his father had left large
debt on his shoulders beyond his power
to raise or to dispose OF with his present
income and resources, we ask what was
guardian for then, and what had the
overseer been doing that he allowed this
estate.to become SO involved.
II ward can GO and do business
and contract obligations just as well as
before then of what use was he guardian
and the agent? The fact that Ninegret
had debt ON his shoulders proves that
some one had not done his duty. When
Ninegret was given this permission why
was he not obligated to pay this debt
with the proceeds arising from the pro-
posed sale OF real estate.
The printed papers submitted with the
petition shows one OF the most barefaced
and shameless robberies ever committed
upon defenseless people. IL afy one can
read this through without just iDdigna-
tion then nothing wilfever stir his feelings
Of Justice.
The Assembly saw Its error and stopped
1t before entire destruction had been
wrought. The long and disastrous war
Of independence followed and lett the
country in such condition of poverty
that 1t was impossible 10 undo the wrong.
The guardians continued, however, up
to the year 1880, and the Indian agent
was annually named This fact proves
this much--that the contract entered into
in 1879 by having an annual overseer or
agent appointed was in full effect in 1880,
and the conditions were Just as binding
on both parties. There can be no dodg-
ing this point and as the land ceded by
the Indian trioe in 1903 was on a condi-
tion OF future protection and that their
and should not be taken away from
them without their consent heing had
thereto, IL follows that when the
guardianship was abolished IN 1850 that
then the tribe should have been, and was
by every principle of justice and equity,
entitled to receive from the hands OF their
guardian full value for their property
placed in his hands. There is no Court
of Probate In the State but that would
insist that the guardian make full and
ample return for the property of his ward
placed in his HANDS, and hence why
should not the state follow in this whole
some line a procedure. II the State
makes laws then certainly they ought to
show also that thev Will themselves live
up to them. IL they have no respect for
their own laws then they canuot expect
others to have for them.
The history of the Indian legislation
from the time Of the dethronation of
Ninegret to the year 1880 shows many
wise suggestions, but many bad evade-
ments.
Why were not these acts, reports and
commissions looked over at the time of
the abolishment Of the guardianship in
1880?
why was not the Senate invited to take
a hand in the matter?
Why was not the Supreme Court asked
for an opinion?
Why did the House do the whole busi-
ness?
Why was not the tribe asked to petit
tion for the removal Of the said guard
ianship? q
Why was deed written and altered to
suit circumstances; and why was it not
in harmony with the,plat?.2
Why was not report made as to wha
became CT the $1,000, who got it and who
did not, and who has 1t today and has
had it since, the payment OF portion OF
the said $4,000, a sum which Is estimated
from $500 to S2000f
Why was this deed recorded before 1t was
paid for?
Why has the final settlement teen con-
Quoted in such careless slip-shod man
ncr?
What was the object of the abolition
of the Reservation?
What sinister game was on the point OF
consummation?
Why did not the Reservoir scheme ma
terislize? s
Why was the cry 30 persistently echoed
that the land was utterly valueless?
Who were responsible for such a state
of affairs, the guardian or the ward?
On whose shoulders should the result
of such an affair rest, the guardian or
ward?
l. A. Al ~