The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1910-05-14

trouble the legislature In the future"
The governors prediction failed of
fulfllment for in 1912 the Indians
were back again with longer mem
orial, stating their claims in greater
detail than before. Whether this
document is the production Of the In
dams of some Canadian lawyer act
ing for them. it is well worth read
ing. IL is couched in the stately and
dignitied style in which Cooper al.
ways clothes the utterances of his In
dian characters, and Is as formal as
any communication that ever passed
between the ministers plenipotenti-
airy of two European governments
The document is too long TO be quot
ed here. II sets forth that the Indi-
ans were the original possessors of
the land, that they never sold il to
either the English or the French and
that it was never conquered from
them by the Indians, but has always
been in our lands and renewed their
request that an annual compensation
be made them for the land
Nothing was done by the legisla-
ture in regard to the claim. bur an
act was passed making a donation of
| 500 TO the chiefs in attendance on
the legislature and giving them 800
more 10 defray their expenses. but
the governor told them that the state
could pay them nothing ON their
claim.
In 1926 another memorial was pre-
sented renewing the request, signed
byl4 chiefs. The legislative commit.
tee TO whom IL was referred held that
II any claim had ever existed II had
been destroyed. and that the Indians
had no claim or interest, at law or in
equity, to any OF the lands described
IN their memorial.
The matter then langulshed for 25
years and then, another attempt hav-
ing been made by the Indians to col.
lect payment the legislature author
lied the appointment by the COVER
nor of commissioner TO make com
plete investigation of these claims.
T. p Redneld of Montpelier was APP
pointed such commissioner and In
his report made In 1854 he held that
prior to the treaty of 1863 between
the British and French the Indians
had possession of the lands and such
title TO them as England~and the Uni
ted States had always treated with
respect He did not believe that the
10th section of Article OF the Con.
stitution or the terms of the Federal
act regulating trade and intercourse
with the Indians would prohibit max.
ing such payment. as was asked.
The principal objection raised to
such payment was that the lands in
question had been granted by the
British crown without any reservation
OF Indian titles: that the Indians
were subjects of the king and that
by the treaty OF 1888 jurisdiction over
these lands had been ceded to the
United States and the title of the In
dians thereby extinguished Mr. Red
field held that the Indians were Jude
pendent OF Great Britain. that they
were friends In peace, allies in war
and that as England had treated with
, them as an Independent people be
fore the treaty OF 1888, the United
States has so recognized them since
Governor Tchenor had reported
that there was reservation of Indi
n titles In the crown grants In New
York but Mr.. Redheld said there wa
no sn h reservation here The crow,
previous to the revolution and tn,
> United States since that event new
rassumed 10 convey an unincum
-. bered fee OF land In possession OF tn
! Indians but granted and took a fe
! incumbered by the right OF Indiai
:, occupancy and the sole right to eA
~ tinguish the Indian title.
He concludes.
}, II the lroQuois have been diyest
ed of their title Il would seem NOR
! legitimate (sic) to say that they ha
= been Invested and the title obtalne
y by conquest. Their yer
weakness, however. is guarante
i, that they shall be heard. That the
:, will be heard by the representative
!, OF people whose attribute In jui
, tice is the warrant that their caus
= will be decided justly
a fFnuftnnad Nfn,d,,. -