The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1898-01-19
THE CURTIS BILL,
As Analysed by DELEGATE Riedsoe.
While Not SuitIn9 Him. ne Believes
We Might Have Fared Worse.
To the Ardmoreite.

To the Ardmoreite.
Washington, Jan. 16.-The SUBJ
committee of the house yesterday
reported the Curtis bill with propos-
ed amendments, the details of which
you published in this mornings ARD
MoREITE. have not had an oppor-
tunitY to see the bill. In fact, no
one has except the members of the
committees on Indian affairs. the
Dawes commission and government
officers of the Indian department.
AS the bill stands now the lands
would be allotted, the possession of
the lands and towns would remain
just as they are except that they
might incorporate, until arrange
ments could be made to purchase
the land upon which the towns are
located from the Indians. We would
not be compelled to even endeavor
to purchase unless we thought il sd
visable. On final vote there was a
close contest between the provision
recommended and the lease system.
When the supporters of the lease
system failed they then endeavored
to get provision for leasing pend
ing the purchase from the Indians.
This proposition was also defeated
by a narrow margin. The meeting
was not harmonious. / understand
the senate subcommittee will make
no report, but will take the chances
on Incorporating their ideas in the
conference c1mmittee, and it is there
that the greatest opportunity for do
ing us damage exists. The natural
question that arises is, what was 1t
that caused the committee to aban-
don the other propositions. / can
only state that in my opinion a ma
jority of the committee are of the
opinion that no disposition of the
title to the lands in townsites can be
made without the consent of the In
dians. That in the last few days
they have come to the conclusion
that the property rights of the white
men and of the Indians also in the
improvements on townsites Is as
fully protected uuder the constitu-
ton of the United States as the In
dian title under their patent; and |
that while they have all the time |
conceded that they must have the |
Indians consent, they have hereto
fore considered that they could dis
pose of the rights of owners of i'm |
provements upon townsites by legis- |
lation, whether such owners con-
sented or not, and, viewing the situa-
ton as they do now, it is impossible
for them to enact legislation that
will be in any wise effective without /
disposing of the interests
Of non citizens in the towns. In
other words, it would be as neces-
sary to treat with the owners of i'm
provements to divest them of title
20 their property as to treat with the
Indians for a like purpose. Is it
possible that they have come to the
that the non-citiEen would
lot sit passiyely by and see his prop
,rty thus disposed of, but would ap-
peal to the courts and effectually
lullify the execution of such legisla-
ion. These are some of the reasons,
evidently, that brought about the
recommendation to permit towns to
and purchase. The fail
ire TO agree upon any other satisfac-
ory solution was probably another
'ause.
This proposition at least has the
merit of not attempting to lcgisla.e q
way anybody's property rights. 1t
hifts the burden from the shoulders
# congress to those of the people
How far the towns
would be successful under this pro-
ision would be purely a matter of
peculation with me. The people of
he Chickasaw and Choctaw nations (
Vould probably have more trouble i'm /
cquiring title than would the town. ,
lite people of the other nations for
hey would have to obtain the con-
ent of both nations.
0&@ @-1 A@6h A161 hA@
ee reported this provision by no I
means assures it's passage finally and ]
Incorporation into the legislation 4
hat will be enacted. This PROPOSE
ion only received the sanction of n !
majority of those present and il is /
'ossible that some other provision Z
nay be substituted by amendment OF
n conference. AS other PROPOSE !
ions clearly more detrimental to our
interests were considered, we might
ave Jared worse.
L understand that some of my re-
'uhlican friends object to my writ
nR letters Of criticism upon the ad-
here. First, because !
nv niaainr In ofwirkIxv 49, ~m-.s~- =