Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-12-26
Secretary of Interior Defends
Withdrawal of 100000
Acres of Indian Lands
WILL BE A WARM STRUGGLE
Demand for Resembling of Order by
Congress Will Precipitate Lively
Contest = President Roosevelt Sup
ports Action of the Secretary in the
Matter.

Washington, Dec. 26.-Secretary
Hitchcock is preparing to defend his
recent action in withdrawing 100000
acres of Indian lands from allotment
thereby disregarding an act of con-
gress providing that these lands be
divided in severalty. He is collecting
precedents to sustain his course. 1t is
also said President Roosevelt will sup
port the attitude assumed by Mr.
Hitchcock.
If Secretary Hitchcock declines ia
rescind his action there will be a live
ly fight between congress and the sec
rotary. This was made evident a few
days ago when the secretary was a
witness, together with Secretary Will
son, before subcommittee Of the In
dian affairs committee, when both Of
ticials were severely criticised to their
faces for not observing an act Of con-
gress. 1t was made plain that sena-
tors regard Mr.. Hitchcock's refusal to
the part of the executive branch of the
government.
Senators who know of the cases in
point which are likely to be cited by
Secretary Hitchcock as precedents, as
sert there is one important feature that
marks the action of the secretary ir
each instance that has been overlooked
in the comparison with the recent ac-
ton Of the secretary in withdrawing
from allotment 100000 acres of Indian
lands for forest reserve In this case
the action was taken without knowl-
edge on the part of congress and was
in fact initiated by the executive
branch of the government. Just what
bearing, if any, that fact will have up
on the case in a legal way remains tc
be seen.
The secretary can point toNa prece-
dent in which the withdrawal of land
preceded legislative action.
In case there should eventually be
legislative action by congress author
izing the withdrawal of Indian lands
from allotment it is claimed that the
two classes OF cases would have the
same standing in the courts and that
it would not be possible to show that
the secretary's action in one case re-
ceived the private sanction of leaders
in congress and in the other case did
not.
Even could such private understand
ing he established it could not affect
the case in a legal sense, as those who
gave their assent to the transaction
could have no authority to bind con-
gress even if they eventually had the
power to uphold the passage of neces-
sary legislation.
This discussion has called attention
to what is said to be loose methods
frequently resorted to by leaders In
congress to accomplish desired results
with the least possible friction.
1t frequently happens that the head
Of an executive department wishes to
do something for which there is no au-
thority of law. In many cases Of this
kind in which there is no difference OF
opinion among the leaders on both
sides in congress the head of the de-
partment is given "tip" to go ahead
with the assurance that the necessary
legislation will be forthcoming. OF
course the leaders who give their sane
ton to such course can not bind
congress, but that course is pursued
when there seems to be no ground for
a difference of opinion when the pub
lie interest is served by prompt aG-
ton.
1t is said that these practices have
caused some public officials of the ex-
ecutive board of the government to be-
lieve that so long as they are sure OF
going ahead without annoyance and
tediousness involved in waiting for
completed legislation.
But the course of the secretary OF
the interior in withdrawing 100000
acres OF the Indian land from allotment
on the assumption that congress will
enact legislation providing for its pur-
chase at 70 cents an acre is said to
have exceeded any case in which legis-
lation has been anticipated, both in the
Importance of the act and in the fact
that congress has shown no inclination
to adopt such a course.