The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1904-01-31
INDIAN LOSES AGAIN
Congress Adopts New Policy
of Dealing.
FOR OPENING OF LANDS
AS in Oklahoma Case Consent
Not Necessary.

Washington, Jan. 3o-A new govern
ment policy is in process of inauguration
with the American Indians. Hitherto.
the Indian has had something to say
about his future. 1t may not have avail
ed him much for when congress saw
fit TO ride over him roughshod it did so;
but It usually went through certain forms
which gave the case a record on paper
and might have been taken by some fu-
ture historian as a justification of it's acts.
For example, in the case Of the kiowas,
Comanches. and Apaches in Oklahoma,
the bulk of he Indians still insist that
the Jerome treaty of 1892, providing for
the partition and sale Of their lands, had
not a leg of law to stand on, as the In
dians were msled as TO the contents OF
the treaty, and not enough signed it, any
way, TO validate it. But the negotiation
had at least the outward semblance Of
regularity of procedure; and when con-
gress then pulled important features OF
the treaty together and substituted some
thing e'se, it at least took pains to ex-
cuse itself on the plea of necessity,
brought about by changed conditions.
Hereafter. there will be no pretense Of
getting the consent of the Indians before
their surplus lands are taken for white
settlement. Commissions may be sent to
the tribes; but if the tribes say mo"
their lands viii be carved up and sold
just the same as if they had said yes
If there is evidence that the Indians are
going TO turn down proposals of this sort
generally, the proposals themselves will
be brushed aside as henceforth useless
and congress will take the short cut Of
simply deciding that a certain reserva-
ton shall be opened without bothering
even to request the consent of the occu-
pants thereof
This is the plain English of the situa-
ton, and it is safe to predict that before
ten years have expired there will not he
an Indian reservation left in the United
States Twenty years ago such a policy
would not have been brought forward
seriously. Thirty years ago no one would
have dared to breach it, for fear of an
Indian war. or a dozen of them. Forty
years ago, or little less, when congress
decided that it wished to build a railroad
scross the continent, it sent out men OF
prominence, known by name if not in
person to the Indians, to ask the tribes
to withdraw to reservations north and
south of the right of way and stay there.
The understanding was that, in view Of
their non-interference with the white
mans railroad project, the lands of those
reservations should belong to the Indians
forever, and could no more be taken away
fr.m them against their will than the
property of the President of the United
States could be taken from him.
BY degrees the recognition of the OBJ
legation imposed by these agreements has
been fading away, till towards the end o.
the year 1902 it vanished altogether with
the decision of the United States supreme
court in the Lone Wolf case, which con-
tanned this sweeping statement of the
law:
The power exists to abrogate the provi-
sons of an Indian treaty, though pre-.
sumably such power viii be exercised
only when circumstances arise which VIII
not only justify the government in disre-
garding the stipulations of the treaty. but
may command, in the interest of the
country and the Indians themselves that
It should do so. When, therefore. treat
les were entered into between the United
States and a tribe of Indians, it was new
er doubted that the power to abrogate
existed in congress. and that in a con-
tfngency such power might be aVailed
of from considerations of government
policy. particularly if consistent with per-
feet good faith toward the Indians.
And elsewhere:
Plenary authority over the tribal reIa-
lions of the Indians has been exercised by
congress from the beginning and the pow
er has always been DENIED a political one.
not subject to be controlled by the judi
ciaI department of the government.
In view of the legislative power pos
sessed by congress over treaties with the
Indians and Indian tribal property" the
court dismissed consideration of a number
OF objections raised 10 the way congress
had written into the jerome treaty things
that were not there and then legislated
according TO the treaty as finally amended
by itself. without submitting the amend
nents to the Indians again
This shows the bread scope of the deci-
sion. 1t is true that the court pre-
sumes that whatever congress does IN
the way of abrogating or disregardins
treaties shall be done in perfect good
faith toward the Indians and that its
despotic power viii be exercised only
when the conditions justify action in the
interest Of the country and the Indians
themselves. But who shall pass upon
the question Of the right time and other
conditions? Ii is not equally 10 be pre-
sumed that whatever congress does IN
Indian affairs it does in good faith, and
in the interest o. the country and of the
Indians? And as there is no power cap
able of questioning its motives. arc we
not bound to consider that presumption
as equivalent to a settled fact
And congressman faced with the moral
question involved in opening reservations
against the will Of the Indians would at
once respond: 1T is 20 the best interest of
the government that the western coun-
try should be settled up by the white
people who are to remain there and de-
velop il. II is the best interest Of the In
dams that they should be surrounded
with the superior race from whom they
can learn self-support and the ways of
the world. of which nov they know moth
ing OF course. We are keeping faith
with the Indians because they were not-
fed in the Lone Wolf decision that they
have no rights in the land. and that what
ever provision congress makes for their
comfort is in the nature Of q benevolent
gratuity."
And there YOU are. There is no going
behind or beyond the decision Of the su-
prexne court. which Indians have TO re-
snect as white men do. That tribunal is
oninipotent and that Indians have no fee