The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1909-09-08
INDIANS WILL
|. ASK BIG AMOUNTS
sissEToN AND wAHPEToN SIOUX
WILL PUSH BIG CLAIM AT NEXT
SESSION - EACH MEMBER or
TRIBE WAS ENTITLED TO 80
ACRES or GOOD LAND.


| ACRES OF GOOD LAND.
When congress convenes Ia Wash
ington next December the sisseton and
Wahpeton Indians OF the Sioux In
dams OF North and South Dakota win
put in some big claims through their
attorneys. Maxwell and Chase, OF
Washington, ID. G., and who have rep
resented them for nfteen years. If
these claims 60 through 1t win mean
the bringing into circulation in the
Dakotas Of sum Of money equal TO
or greater than the $7sS,000 the gov
eminent allowed these same bands Of
Indians last year on one of the old
claims dating back from the treaty of
1882.
The claims on which the judgment
OF S7S8s000 was obtained last year
were for damages resulting to friendly
Indians during the massacre of So. On
account of this Indian war the govern
ment annulled the treaty made some
years before and during all the inter-
vening years the Indians fought to OBJ
tain their rights. claiming these par
ticular bands of the Sioux had always
been friendly and had taken no ac-
tive part in the Instruction. The case
Ito be pushed this year is in regard to
their lands.
The Indians claim that an act of
congress Of March 8, 1858, the presi-
dent of the United States was author
ICED and directed to assign or set apart
for these Sisseton and Wahpeton bands
of Indians a tract Of land outside the
limits of any state sufficient in extent
to enable each man. woman and child
to have eighty acres Of good agricul+
tural land.
At the date of this act there were
living 4,524 of the Sisseton and Wah-
J peton people and they claim 1920
acres of land or the value thereof.
Should the claim go through at its
! full value, that number of acres of
good North Dakota land would mean
no small sum Of money. According to
J the Sisseton and Wahpeton claims,
sections one and two of this act Of
March 3. 1868, is in the process of be-
ing carried out as the lands on the
! south side of the Minnesota river have
. been sold and the proceeds accounted
J for to the Indians. The lands author
lied to be set apart by the first part
! of this act are claimed to be one of the
) considerations which induced the Wah-
: peton and Sisseton Sioux TO assent to
the disposition that was made of their
ancient homes. They now claim that
no action has ever been taken in then
: behalf in regard to section one OF the
act OF 1868 and no lands have been set
apart for them as was directed by COM
gress and had it not been for the lands
then owned by them in North Dakota
they would have been homeless wand
: erers.
What gives the Indians hope in re-
gard to the action of congress in the
! matter is that the same act. included
Z the Medawakanton and Wahpakoota
: bands, better known in the west as
] the "Santee' Indians, and as far al
! relates to these bands the act has been
: fully compiled with, although some
/ years ago.
Some extracts from a brief prepared
o that will be presented when congress
e convenes, and pushed vigorously, are
of interest
n 1.-THE commissioner of Indian affairs
4 in his letter to the secretary Of the
& interior, dated May IS, 1866, speaking
upon the subject of the location o.
Z the Medawakantons and Wahpakootas
4 (Santeesl. under the provisions of the
g TACT of March 8, 1868, said:
: THE Crow Greek reservation was
: selected under authority of the act O.
4 congress of March, 1868, providing fol
a a removal of the Indians 10 tract o
n good agricultural land, well adapted
: fir agricultural purposes outside thu
limits of any state. The reservation a
e Crow Creek proving, after three years
trial. not to be such a tract, 1t wal
deemed to be within the power ant
duties of the president, under that Law
to provide another tract which shoulC
fulfill it's requirements for the use
I. the Indians"
While no lands were ever set apar
for the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands
4 as directed by said eact their RICH
thereto became fxed and vested there
under, and az that right has neve
been relinuished or surrendered b,
them, 1t is conclusive that the sai'
lands were and are held in trust b,
the United States for the use ant
benefit Of the said Indians.
What 10 the Value Of Lands7
Had these lands been set apart II
a 1868. ais directed in the act Of tina
year, they would now be very VALUABLE
probably fifteen to twenty five dol
4 lars per acre because they were t
be good agricultural lands, and tina
class OF lands In any locality wher'
these lands and that class of lands
in any locality where these lands woul'
have been set apart, had the specif
terms of the law been complied with
are worth that much. or more today
III we take the minimum price Q
lands, one dollar and twenty five cent
per acre, the value OF 361,s2O acres i
$452, 400.
It has always been the policy OF tn
United States. as expressed in number
Gus laws, to allow Indians five pc
lcentum per annum interest on tn
proceeds derived from the sale of thei
lands
BY the terms of the act OF 1880. III
secretary of the interior was author
ICED to deposit In the treasury certain
funds of the Indians in lieu of invest
ment, among them all sums receive
on account Of sales or indian trus
lands. interest to be paid thereo
semi annually at Ave per centum pc
annum.
Now If our conclusions be correci
that the United States must under TIL
terms OF the act OF 1863, have don
either one Of two things. that ID. tn
president must have complied wit