The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-09-10
rnn . SINGLE STATE.

In another place will be found an editorial from The St. Louis Republic concerning the proposed new state Of sequoyah. The article is not copied for purposes of criticism or discussion but because its language leads to the inquiry: Can Indian Territory be ad- ded to or joined with any other Ter ritory without violating solemn treaties made with the Indians by the United statss7 This may seem an unusual question, and the point raised may be an unusual one. but a little study or treaties made with the Indians will show that 1t is no idle inquiry.
 In 1885 a treaty was made with the Cherokee Indians then inhabiting por- tions of Georgia. Tennessee and Ala bama, and article s of that treaty reads thus:
 The United States hereby convenants and agrees that the lands ceded to the Cherokee nation in the foregoing article shall in no future time, without their consent. be included within the ter ritorial limits or Jurisdiction of any State or Territory.
 The treaty made with the Choctaws and Chicasaws contained this section:
 Article {. The government and peo- ple of the United States are hereby obliged to secure to the said Choctaw nation of red people the jurisdictiop and government of all the persons ana property that may be within tneir limits west, so that no Territory or State shall ever have right to pass laws for the government of the Choc- Jaw nation of red people and their de- seendants, and that no part of the lana granted them shall ever be embraced In any State or Territory.
 With the Creeks and Seminoles the treaty made was of similar purport. the 4th article reading:
 The United States do solemnly agree and bind themselves that no State or Territory should ever pass laws for the government of the Creek or Seminole tribes of Indians, and that no portion of either of the tracts of country de- fined in the first and second articles of or included within, or annexed to, any Territory or State, nor shall either or any part of either ever be erected into a Territory without the free and full or without the legislative au- thortty of the tribe owning the same.
 These treaties, entered into at diff ferent times with what are generally known as the Five Civilized Tribes, are all of practically the same tenor. and all were accepted in good faith by the indians. Are not these pledges bind ing? The present Secretary of the Navy, Hon. Charles J. Bonaparte, In an offieial report submitted to Congress on March ', 1904, used this language:
 To appreciate the situation one must ernment to the so-called Five Civilized Tribes. These tribes consented to give up their habitations i'd other parts of the United States and remove to the Territory in return for certain solemn and explicit pledges made to them by the United States, embodied in treaties with all needful formalities, and further evidenced by numerous of- ficiai documents of the highest authori- ty. The removal of these Indians to their new homes was desired and effect ed by our government to serve grave ends Of public policy, and their consent to it constituted an ample considera- ton for the promises made them in return. If these promises are not binding upon the United States, then. our government and people can be bound by no treaty. If we do not scrupulously respect the rights fiow- ing from these treaties no one can place confidence in our national honor.
 We have given some of the promises and pledges made by our government in the extracts we have made from the treaties. Tn view of all the facts MT. was not using extravagant language when he said that if our gov ernment does not carry out It's pledges mo one can reasonably place confidence in eur national honor"
 These are not the words of fanatic or of a paid attorney for the Indians, but of man who spoke with full of the subject and with a solemn sense of the duty of the United States to keep faith with the Indians. Bearing the language of those treaties in mind is 1t keeping faith with those people when our gov ernment forces them to join with Okla homa? It does not do this officially, in so many words, but 1t does 1t through Congress which tells them they must have statehood with the other Territory or remain a Territory inde- finitely. Members of both Houses of Congress have persistently refused to recognize the claims of the Territories or to provide for their admission as States, either jointly or separately. That their objections have not been well founded Is beyond doubt, but they may be persisted in. ~--
 The inhabitants of Indian Territory are going to put the question squarely up to the next Congress and we don't see how it can be successfully lodged. They have held a Constitutional Con- vention. adopted a name. constitution and form of government. and are going to apply for admission. They will present the treaties that have been made with them and ask for Statehood and Congress must comply or refuse, for we do not see any middle ground They have the area, the population and all other requirements and if the com ing Congress does not admit Sequoyah into the Union we fall to see what excuse 1t can make.
 -S-o-S
 EDUCATION IN ALABAMA.
 .HK.