Omaha daily bee., 1902-06-16
INDIANS TITLE TO HIS LAND
Effort to Protect Him in Possession is Now
Taking Form.
INDIAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION MOVES
New Policy of Interior Department
and Congress VIII He Tested BE-
tore Supreme Court of
United states.

ana VIII He rested he
fore supreme Court of
United states.
WASHINGTON, June 15.-(Special )-Fol-
lowing is an extract from a report to be
made by S. NJ. Brosius, the Washington
agent Of the Indian Rights association:
The action of the legislative and execu-
recent past shows a tendency to violate
all treaty obligations with the American
have been guaranteed by treaty, to the
mercenary greed of politicians.
1t is interesting to note the inception and
growth Of the well-establlshed policy that
the rights Of the Indians must be respected
In acquiring. full control of the lands by
discovery within our borders,
In the earlier settlements of our country
the disposition of lands claimed by dis
eoyery were under control of the European
rulers, who gradually came to recognize
the rights of the Indians to the occupa-
ton OF the lands they claimed. The Brit
ish government, through its colonial gov
ernors. was jealous In securing the re-
hnqlishment of the Indian title before per-
manent settlement by colonists.
The action of the Pennsylvania assem-
bly,, IN l729, in enacting stringent pro-
visions forbidding private purchase Of lands
other provinces. IN the proposed union %HU Of
the colonies, in 1754, a provision was in
serted which curtailed the tendency to Sc
NNAC nv NANh1A AAehAS VI III Alhlollsf u
clause Of their agreement reading as fol-
W hat they make all purchases
not now within the bounds of particular
colonies, or that shall not be within Their
bounds, when the extension of some OF
them are rendered more certain" other
provisions gradually recognized the Oriei-
nal title in the Indians and sought to Sc
cure a surrender thereof before taking
Supreme Court Opinion.
NIL IL
the, Articles of Confederation and later
under the constitution. The supreme court
of the. United States has uniformly held
that the Indians should be protected in
the use and occupancy of their lands. In
the case of the United States against Cook
the court said: The right of the Indians
was that Of occupancy alone. They had no
power of alienation except to the United
snsieSt dbIv Zee &c was Vas IN r,I the ~ oed,, states ncS
This is the title by which other Indians
hold their lands. 1t was so decided by this
Mcintosh. The authority Of that case has
never been doubted. The right of the In
dians as to their occupancy is as sacred as
that of the United States to the fee, but 1t
is only a right of occupancy. The posses
sion, when abandoned by the, Indians, at
grant. This right of use and the occupancy
by the Indians is unlimited. they may
exercise it within their discretion. II the
condition for profitable use they may be
made so. If desired for the purpose of
timber to such an extent as may be reason
able under the circumstances"
In the 'case of Mitchell against the United
States the same court further held: 'The
merits of this case do not make IT neces-
sary to inquire whether the Indians within
the United States had any other rights of
soil or jurisdiction; 1t is enough to con-
slider II as a settled principle that their
right OF occupancy is considered as sacred
as the fee simple OF the whites
Inroads Made by Congress.
Until the year 1900 congress recognized
supreme court, and uniformly provided for
securing the cession of lands by the Indians
before they were opened to settlement by
the government. On June 6. 1900, however,
congress provided for the opening of the
Comanche, Kiowa and Apache reservation
in. Oklahoma territory, without first secur-
ing the authority or consent of the Indians
to important provisions OF the legislation
affecting the welfare of the tribes. These
binding as any obligation entered into by
the United States government with any
The indians in this case appealed to the
courts for a restraining order to prevent
the law from being carried into effect:
Columbia has denied the tribal claim, hold
ing that congress has full power to move
Indians at will from one reservation to
Of government. The decision is so plainly
at variance with the rulings of the SUI
DTGme court Oh III bHlltu 0tdNCS VII lllo
question, and prejudiclal to the. welfare
of the Indian that the Indian Rights asso-
citation has appealed the case to the high
upon the court docket. the hearing being
set for October 20 next.
Adopted ms the Law.
Since the sweeping decision in the Kiowa
case was made by the court of appeals,
the rule OF law therein laid down as his
guidance in pending. cases. Quite recently
a bill was submitted to congress with the
secretary's recommendation for passage
which affects the Cherokee lands, in In
dian Territory; the right OF the tribe to
thereof is ignored by the Interior depart
ment.
M recent debates in the United States
under treaty promises shows that the
danger signal should be hoisted. While
Roe Rose Rill rSS anS ooff sioux shs ss Tss se,nS wi eans the
cred a lengthy controversy followed which
developed the fact that the red man has
many champions from the states where
there is a large Indian population. Sena-
tors Gamble McCumber and Spooner con-
tended that by reason Of title acquired by
Indians could not be arbitrarily dispos-
sessed of title. Senators Stewart of Ne
that the Indians need not be consulted in
the disposition of their lands.
Senator Stewart claimed that the govern
ment had the right to condemn any indian
reservation lands regardless of treaty
obligations and open the same to home.
stead entry.
Indian Title is Good.
Senator Mccumber has evidently given
the question serious thought, as the iol-
owing quotation from his speech on tho
Rosebud bill shows: What is the Indian
title In tho first instance? What is the title
of ancient occupancy? What is it's force?
What is it's character? What rights have
we I'm lands occupied exclusively by Indians
where they have not yet been ceded by
any act of Indian tribes? That is GER
tainly a very inehoate right. IL is a tile
that has not much value to II. l admit,
as II has been stated here before, that we
have a right perhaps legally, though not
morally, to compel the red man to pass
beyond the limits of increasing civilization
and cultivation OF our soil: but when we
have driven him to the last extremity,
then we reach a different point in our
ancient occupancy the title is so light
that we may have the right of possess on
and exclude the Indians from the posses
sorry title of the land. When, however,
we have made a binding obligation with
those Indians. In consideration of which
they have surrendered that occupancy,
which the United States courts have de-
cided time and time again has a suflct mt
value TO make IL a legal consideration for
cession; when we have received that and
in consideration have given them a poss s.
sorry title OF other tracts of country, then
we have bound the government: and when
we are IN such a position, why not deal
with those Indians as We deal with any