The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1907-04-10
r. L. OWEN SAYS
Restriction on Sale Of Lands Should
Be Removed.

tee today ON the removal Of r"stFic'
tlons ON the sale and leasing Of lands
spoke in substance as follows. (Noy,
19O6)
Members OF United states Senate
Committo.
Gentlemen. have the honor to
submit for your examination. consider
alton and critical analysis, the follow.
ing observations in relation 10 tho re-
moval Of restrictions in Indian Terri.
tory. and 10 De heard with regard to
the propositions submitted and an op.
portunity ro confirm by proof any
statement which Is denied.
The restrictions on the sale and
lease Of lands IN Indian Territory have
been urged by the Interior Depart.
mcnt. and the legislation secured. on
tho theory. first. that the Department
Of tho interior has supervisory control
over the Indians OF Indian Territory,
and second. that these restrictions
serve to protect the pccuniary interest
Of incompetent Indians
Neither OF these propositions Is well
founded.
While. as trustee. under specific
agreements. the United States was
charged with the duty Of distributing
tribal property. the Interior Depart.
ment has no supe ervtsory control Of any
Indian in Indian Territory, because on
March 2. 1901 by act Of Congress. ov.
cry Indian I'm Indian Territory was
made a citizen Of tho United States.
and with all the rights privileges.
and immunitios Of such This question.
moreover. has been settled by the
Supreme Court of the United states in
the Albert IIoff case, a. s Rep. 1871.
iS9. In arguing this case. the Attor.
ney General representing the Interior
Department. urged previous decision
Of the court, towit, United States VS.
Rickrrt. 1SS T. S 1872. in which the
court had held that certain property
Of an Indian. United States citizen
was not subject to taxation in Da
kota. In that case the title to the land
was still In the United States. and IN,
personal property claimed as taXabl,
was equitably the property Of the Unit
ed States, and not Of the Indian. Il
was nevertheless urged In the lief
case. by the Attorney General tina
the Rickert case was a precedent an,
Justified the court In holding that tn
government might exercise supcrvis
Ion over an Indian after he became
citizen.
The answer Of the court is omphati,
and conclusive In its comment on thi
argument, as follows:
But the logic Of this argument in,
plies that the United States can neve
release itself from the obligation q
guardianship, that so long as an In
diyldual Is an Indian by descent, cor
grcss. although Il may have granite
all the rights and privileges Of natlor
al and therefore state citizenship. tn
benefits and burdens Of the laws q
the state, may NJ amy time rcpudiat
this action and rcassumc it's guardian
ship and prevent the Indian from cr
joylng the benefits of the laws Of IN
state, and release him from ohlig,
tions Of obedience thereto. Can it h
that because one has Indian. and unl
Indian, blood In his veins he Is to b
hrcyor one of a special class owe
whom the general government may {
its discretion assume the rights q
guardianship which % has once ahal
doncd and this whether the state G
the individual himself consents? W
think the reach TO which this arg,
mcnt goes demonstrates that It Is NJ
sound. and the Supreme Court, in II
opinion In the Hon ca-r, makes IN
following unanswcrahlc. undcbatabl
declaration of principle.
In United States vs Rickrrt OSS |
S 1927 We sustained the right Of n
government 10 protect tho lands III,
allotted and patented from an incur
hranco of state taxation But II Is II
necessary 60 pursue this discussic
further. We are OF the opinion thi
when the United States grants Il
privileges of citizenship 10 AN India