New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-03-29

ton" or,tribe. but as a matter of practice rather
than theory. the lands are already to large ex-
tent divided up among the individual Indians They
hold their respective farms By titles good among
themselves. and sell devise or purchase among
themselves. but cannot dispose ~ their lands to
whites. Thus they have already. 10 some extent,
the incentive thrift and improvement of their
property which comes individual ownership.
On the other hand, the system as 1t exists is a
protection TO them against the lane schemes OF
whites covetous of their property. At the same
time. there is good argument tot made IN taNor
of giving the Indian the opportunity to acquire
absolute and individual title to his land In the
natural order Of things his property and his acts
resident of the State Of New-York should be
brought under the regulation of the State courts
constituted 10 have Jurisdiction over controversies
about property and over offences against the Penai
Code Even the opponents Of the Nreeland bill
admit this, hut they urge greater dehberauon IN
carrying such policy into effect.
one of the features of the proposed act 10 which
the strongest opposition is made is the section pro-
viding for the sale Of Indian lands leased by whites
such occupants. Tn. town Of Salamanca ana
several villages built on such land. 1t IS held
To be essential to the progress of business enter
prises these that absolute title be given TO
land instead Of leaseholds. and this seems
plausible statement. But the opponents of the Dill
say that its provisions make II possible for land
dealers and spectators in ell lands to enrich them
selves at the expense OF the Indians. The meas
ure STIMULATES that lcssecs Of lands may obtain
title TO them by paying "a sum Of money, per
ccnrum of which equals the annual rental upon the
lands SO leased" also proportionate share Of the
cost OF eXtinguLshiug the Ogden Land Company
claim which in the case of a lot would ne
but "A few cents. In other words, the white per-
sons living lands owned by the Indians can
obtain title 10 them by paying twenty times their
annual RENAL. II is pointed out by some that the
rentals paid for many these tracts ridiculous
~ low. In illustration OF this. the statement is
made that tract OF land IN Salamanca which pays
the Indians a rental of 50 year was recently
rgf--l1 s~,+g, IA
the easehold merely Of one Of the lots. Yet the
title to the whole tract, according TO the terms OF
the VIeeland bill. could he obtained from the
Indians for 500 Cases are cited of many residence
lots whose easeholds sell readily for from 500
o 500. which pay only 50 or 81 year rent to the
Indians. and which this basis could be bought
for SO or $50.
The claim of the Ogden Land Company is In
teresting both from the point OF view of the law
yer and the student of history. Its origin takes
one back the eventfuI period just subsequent to
the Revolutionary War, when the craze began for
speculation IN lands in what then the West
In the space, Of a few paragraphs it is impossible
go into a detailed history of how the so-caled
Ogden Land Company became possessed of IFS
claim to -erupior rights to these Indian lands
At the celebrated Treaty Of Big Tree, ratified
near Geneseo 1877. Robert Morris bought from
the Indians substantially all their land in Western
Newly oTk except ten reservations. Morris sold the
land he purchased 10 the Holland Land Compnny
and in 1910 David a. Ogden obtained from this
company the right TO buy from the indians the
land Of their reservations when they desired to
sell ogden did not buy the land: he bought what
were called the ''pre-emption rights" In other
words when the Indians wanted to sell he or MS
heirs or assigns had the first right 10 buy. The
Indian ownership Of the land Of the reserVa lions
was unquesuoned.
The author Of the Nreeland bill holds that this,
claim would constitute a cloud the title 10 the
land after its allotment. The value OF the claim
is disputed by some persons, and others hold that
whatever value may inhere IN the claim. there is
no Justice in taking money to eXtinguish it from
funds accruing the Indians from the sale Of their
lands in the West This they characterize as
downright robbery" There never any cor
roration called the Ogden Land Company. The
rights transferred by Ogden have been held by
trustees and there twenty shares, each rep
resenting one-twentieth Of whatever the rights
claimed NAV be valued at Charles +. -Appieby, of
New-York. owns share. The rest are owned
by the estates of several persons now dead
As TO the attitude of the Indians themselves In
regard 10 the proposals of the Vreeand bill there
: can be no question. The recent council Of the Six
; Nations held at OnondaGa Castle TO consider the
question protested unanimously against IT, From
a personal acquaintance with many InAians on the
reservations, the writer say that this protest
| fairly represents their views. While many would
ike TO become citizens. they regard the present
| as the wrong time. and the Vreeland bill as the
wrong way for the accomplishment of,so important
! a change In their condition.