The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-06-23
nonRrNa mn rnnrars.

In former times 1t was claimed that the Supreme Court of the United States. in the famous Dred Scott case. had de- elared that the negro has no rights which the white man is bound to re- spect." or language to that effect. AL though as matter of fact the court declared nothing of the sort ths Abolitionists took 1t up and used it as campaign thunder in the bitter contro-
 versies of the ante-war period of our history.
 Changing the language little. we might say that the Indians have no rights which the white man and the white mans government feel bound to respect. The Indian country has been treasury for the grafters. and the Indians have been their victims. What Is more discreditable. our government in too many cases has upheld and en- forced what can only be looked on as steals. The last Congress allowed a fee of s7sO,o0o to the ''Choetaw attor- neys." although it was plainly shown that the demand was extortfonate and unjust. A few days ago a stili more fragrant case was approved by Con gress. This case goes back to 1891 when. as The New York Post sums 1t up, the Government found that grant made to the Coiviie Indians in Wash ington included a white settlement. It was desired to regain possession of l. 800. 900 acres, half of the grant, and Congress concluded that since the grant had been made only on an Executive order, tho Indians had not obtained valid title. The 1.50o.ooo acres were. therefore. opened to settlement In 1892, a firm of attorneys bargained with the Indians to collect a dollar an acre for the receded land on 10 per cent. com mission The contract was to stand for ten years. Nothing was done until this year. four years after the lawyers contract with the Indians expired. when the committees of Congress were con- vinced that the coIville claim was valid one. The s1,5o0.O00 was allowed, and the dead contract between the lawyers and the tribe was recognized to the extent of recommending 1t to the Court of Claims. with a request that the terms be duly considered. Again. the officials of the Interior Department
 were overruied by the lobby.
 This graft, according to'The Portland oregonian, twas so foul smelling that no attempt was made to pay part of the Indian money to these lawyers while the bill was being regularly considered
 by either the House or the Senate" To have mentioned this matter or included it in the body of the bill would have exposed the efrair in all it's rottenness, so an amendment was slipped in to al- low $l5e,000 to the ten lawyers or agents interested. Senator Clay. of Georgia, in speaking of 1t declared that the amendment was so cleverly drawn way than as "a command of Congress to the Court of Claims to pay each lawyer SIS, ,o0o" The Senator also de- clared that the lawyers had done neth- ing and rendered no service to entitIe them 10 the money. It should also be as shown by The Post. that these claims were made under contract which had been dead four years The contract between the indians and the firm of attorneys was made in 1892 and was to hold good for ten years The firm did nothing to earn the moneg while the contract was in force. but louf years after its expiration they are given money which they have not sarned and which really belongs to the Indians.
 The Choctaw case to which we allud- ed before. is thus referred to by The Post.
 when it was decided to break up the tribal holdings m Indian Territory some years ago, 1000 Choetaws living In Mississippi wanted to share in the division of lana and money. Mansf ield. McCurray and Cornish, lawyers of South agreed to keep these 1000 claimants out for g per cent; of what it woaid cost the Choctaw Nation to to be SEQ, ,00O, ,e08--a citizenship was valued at $5,0e0--and when the Missis- sippl Choctaws were finally ruled out, the lawyers presented their bill for $l,-
 The Interior Department disapproved the contract, but Congress was appeal ed to, as usual For doing what the was willing and able to do as part of it's regular work; the South Me Alester firm was given $750,000 hy court created to pass upon the claim. In the Senate debate, MT. La Toilette said that lat least one of the members of the court or commission. which was created by special act to pass upon their claim, was brother in-law of one of the Senators who sup ported the legislation establishing the court"
 These are some of the methods by which unsccupulous white men. backed by Congress. have wrOnged the Indians in recent times. and they show how the business of robbing she helpless red men has pfospered. They have been looked on as lawful prey for the graf ters of all classes and our government has not protected them.
 -S1o-e-
 Referring to some recent alrship ex periments The Brooklyn Eagle consid-