The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1901-05-27

72j males over the age Of IS years of
whom 6S9 were p years and over
III is years and over be held to pe
the legal age Of those who were author
ized TO sign the agreement, the number
who actually signed was Sc less than
three-fourths OF the adult male menu
bership; and if p years be held TO be
the minimum age than % less than
three-fourths signed the agreement. In
either event less than three-fourths of
the male adult appear to have signed.
IT therefore seems that besides will
ful misrepresentation and false trans
lations TO the Indians, as charged, 90
influence their action and induce them
to sign the agreement. that the de-
partment was also misled as to the
actual number OF adult Indians I'm the
tribe and that it was lead to believe by
the certificate Of the agent in charge
that the number of those who did sign
comprised more than three-fourths of
the adult male membership Of the
tribes, whether is years or q years be
taken as the proper age of signers 70
give legal effect to the agreement.
"The significance OF this is found In
the 18th article OF the treaty OF 1865,
which precludes a less number than
three-fourths OF the adult male meme
bers OF the tribes from ceding their
lands The language Of tina treaty be.
ing as follows:
Article 12 No treaty for the ces-
sion Of any portion or part of the reese
ervation herein described, which may
he held ina common, shall be of any val-
ft,
dams, unless executed and signed by 't
least three-fourths Of the adult male
members occupying the same.
Therefore, because of the inadequ-
acy OF the nllotments proposed by the
agreement TO provide support for the
Indians by stock raising which must
become their principle Industry. and OF
the improper allotments to Messrs.
Scott and Day and the apparently Inn
proper practices IN procuring the agree
ment and false certihcation as 20 the
signers thereof. 1 am Of the opinion
that II should not be ratified"
Commissioner OF indian Affairs Jones
In an official communication TO con-
gress under date of January s, 1909,
refers to the reputation Of the so-called
Jerome treaty by the members Of the
Kiowa, Comanche Apache tribes ana
concludes as follows
TT Is certainly a novel propesiGcn in
law that one party 10 an agreement
may without the consent of the other.
alter or modify an essential part uf
such contracts. II IS apparent that
no court of law would uphold or ems
force any contract so altered or
amended"
Commissioner Jones then proceeds %
cite % decision of the supreme court ct
the United States in the case OF the
Supreme Court VS. Cook, in which j
was held that the right of the Indians
10 their occupancy is as sacred as that
of the United states 20 the fee, ana
IL was this title that was guaranteed
10 these Indians by this treaty Conn
missioner Jones continues, ~ the
United states did not have cloar title
by which it could convey the right 81
occupancy 10 the Indians, it must clear
the title IN order thnt x may do so.
When the Indians are called TO part
with the sacred right of occupancy
their compensation IS IN no manner de-
pendent upon the pre-eNsting rights OF
other parties"
The commissioner then takes NO the
question OF the right OF congress by
single enactment 70 repeal the treaty
OF 1868. cedlng the lands TO The indians,
and asserts that such a right exists
only as TO cases urely political he
asserts that congress has no consu-
tutionai power 20 settle or interiors
with rights under treaties except in po-
liucal cases.
The records Of congress show that
the Hiowa and Comanche treaty was
never ratified by congress as sep-
nrate measure but was attached as
rider TO the Fort Han military reserva-
tion bin and passed through the house
under suspension OF the rules without
any general discussion whatever Fo'