The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1896-05-28

treaty Of February %, 1856, lsee II
1 Stat. p, l249).
This treaty contained in its 18th ar.
ticle the blowing proviso::
# shall not be obligatory d pom the
Indians, parties of the treaty, to re-
move from their present reservations
4 until the United States shall first com
5. piled with the stipulations Of articles
|IV and VI of this treaty, when the
i United States shall furnish them with
all necessary transportation and sub:
i sistence to their new homes, and sub
i sistence for six months thereafter; pro-
yided, that owing to the heretofore
good conduct Of the Mile Laos Indians,
they shall not be compelled toremove,
SO long as they shall not in any way in
terfere with, or in any manner modest
the persons or property of the whites
IS On May Z, 1864, another treaty was
made making special provision for the
expenditure, by the United States, Of
sums of money for the purposes, in the
treaty, specifically stated.
It was long ago officially declared
that all the obligations of the United
States undertaken by said treaties have
been fulfilled; so that as matter of
law the question OF right in the United
States, as regards the Mile Laos res
ervation, is res. adjudicata Has the
provision in the 18th article above
cited become operative by reason Of its
breach by the Indians? Is it not an
interference with, and molestation
OF, the persons, rights and property, of
the whites, when such whites want TO
exercise the right of settlement upon
the public lands, and such settlement
is obstructed or interfered with bv the
Indians? Or, if this is not true. then
the whites become tenants at will, upon
the public lands Of the United States.
OF the Indian:
1t is not pretended that any of the
land now occupied by bona fde settlers
was, at the time of the treaty, occupied
by, any Indians. Does the government
propose to extend the possession of the
Indian to the exclusion of it's own citi-
zens? ss-. Ss.
This matter was officially determined
by the Hon. z. Chandler while secre-
tary OF the Interior, as long ago as
! March, 1877. In letter to the Hon.
Secretary, of that date, addressed to
the commissioner of the general land
Office, relative to the land here con
sidered being subject to disposal under
the the land laws of the United States.
he said:
''The Indians occupying the reserva-
t!on IN question have not an exclusive
right to the lands, but that, on the con-
trary, they are subject to sale and dis
posal by the United States" q
Under this proviso referring to
provlso OF the twelfth article of the
treaty of 1869, it is true that SO long as
said Indians do not interfere with the
persons or property of the whites they
cannot be compelled to remove, butit
by no means gives them an exclusive
right to the lands, nor does it, in my
/
and disposal by the United States,
| ut was anticipated, evidently, that
these lands would be settled upon by
white persons; that they would take
with them their property and effects;
and it was provided that so long as the
Indians did not interfere with such
white persons or their property they
might remain, not because they had
any right to the lands, but simply as
matter of favor.'
I'm this view of the case, and am
satisfied that this is the proper con
struction of said proviso, said lands are
now, and were at the time Folsom Of
fered to file his D. S., subject to pre-
emption filing and entry
This decision of the Hon. Secretary
OF the Interior in 1871, was followed by
the department and acted upon by the
public, without question until May,
1882, then benevolent persons, fromthe
far east, urged the right Of exclusive
possession to the land on this reserva-
ton with the Indians. The subject
was thus again brought before the then
secretary of the Interior, and after
elaborate discussion and due considera-
ton the then sectretary (Hon. H. M.
Teller adopted and reaffirmed the doc,
trine enunciated by his predecessor.
Sec. Chandler.
Under date of May 10, 1882, Secre-
tary Teller announces his ultimate de-
/ cision in a letter addressed the com
missioner of the general land Office as
follows:
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter Of the Goth Of
April concerning the Mile Laos reser-
walton in the State of Minnesota. I
have carefully considered the same,
and after an examination of the stat
utes cited, and the action of my pre-
decessors, Hon. q. Chandler and Hon.
Carl Schurz, I feel constrained to sub
stantially adhere to the decision made
i by Mr.. Chandler. I do not think there
can be any controversy as to the status
4 of the Indians on that reservation.':'
i Tn the same letter the Hon Saora.