The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1901-05-26

5, 1900, refers to the reputation
of the so-called jerome treaty by
the members of the Kiowa, Co.
manche and Apache tribes, and
concludes as follows;
IL is certainly novel PROPOSE
ton in law that one party to an
ageement may, without the con-
sent Of the other, alter or modify
an essential part of such contract.
1t is apparent that no court of law
would uphold or enforce any con
tract so altered or amended.
Commissioner Jones then pro-
ceeds to cite a decision of the su-
preme court of the United States
in the case of the United States VS..
Cook, in which it is held that the
right of the Indians to their oc-
cdpancy is as sacred as that of the
United States TO the fee, and it
was this title that was guaranteed
to these Indians by the above
treaty. Commissioner Jones con.
tinues: If the United States did
not have clear title by which il
could convey the right of occu-
pancy to the Indians, it must clear
the title in order that it may do so.
When the Indians are called to
part with the sacred right of oc.
cupancy. their compensation is in
no manner dependent upon the
pre-existing rights of other par.
ties. ="
The commissioner then takes up
the question of the right of con-
gress by single enactment to re
Ital the treaty Of 1868, ceding the
lands to the Indians, and asserts
that such a right exists only as to
cases purely political. He asserts
that congress has no constitutional
power to settle or interfere with
rights under treaties except in po.
litical cases.
The records of congress show
that the Kiowa and Comanche
treaty was never ratified by con
gress as a separate measure, but
was attached as a rider to the Fort
Hall military reservation bill and
passed through the house under a
suspension of the rules without
any general discussion whatever.
For eight years prior to its passage
it had been before congress, and
Speaker Reed, who was familiar
with the legal propositions inyoly-
ed, refused to allow the bill to be
taken up for consideration re
peatedly. Speaker Crisp also pur-
sued a similar course, and it is
stated by the attorney for the In
dians that at the time the bill
finally passed the house none of
the members on the floor, with the
'vcept;on of those on the commit
re on Indian affairs, were familiar
with its provisions.
1t is asserted, however, by Judge
Springer, that waving the question
of the legality of the Jerome treaty
that the act of congress of June 6.
1900 is invalid as the records show
that congress made numerous
changes of the original treaty of
great Importance to the Indians
and that the Indians were never
given an opportunity to concur in
or reject the provisions of the
eaty inserted by congress. lie
therefore claims that the treaty
did not receive the approval of
both parties to the contract and is
therefore null and void.
The case presented against the
opening of the reservation to set
tlement is unusually comprehensive
and is proving a thorn in the sides
of the interior department officials.
The protest submitted by Judge
Springer last Wednesday has been
referred to Judge Vandeventer for
judicial opinion for the guidance
Of the department. This action
alone indicated a change in the
position of the department. When