The Odanah star. [volume] (Odanah, Ashland Co., Wis.) 1912-1916, 1914-01-23
IF IIIl a ss5TII1R II
Continued From First PAGE.

mites on Indian~Affairs Of the House.
The timber contained III sections
Is within the Fad river Reservation on.
alone, IS estimated 10 Sc worth up-
wards of s2oO,ooo
The supreme court of the United
States nas upheld the Indian right t..
these lands in Other causes, and hold
that sections 16. in the Bad River,
the Flanbeau and the Lac Court
Grizzlies Reservation may be allotted
to members Of these tribes.
The supreme court of the United
States has held in this connection:
First. That lands encountered with
the Indian right of occupancy are
| disposed. of, in the sense of the En-
abling Act of 1916, so that no right
of the state attached in the grant for
the use of schools of sections Is.
TO quote the words of the court:
1.-THE title never vested. i'm the state,
except as subordinate to that right
| Of occupation of the Indians" GU. S.
VS.. Thomas, 151 U, S., SIT, $50, 5S4l.
| Second. e'Indiana have rights of
occupancy to their lands as sacred as
the fee simple absolute title of the
whites; but they are only rights OF
oceupany, incapable of. alienation, Or
being held by any other than COM
mon right without permission from
the government Cherokee Nation
VS.. State of Georgia, 5, Peter ~.
(Gaines VS.. Nicholson, 8, Howard
364).
third. That lands granted to the
state for use of schools may be dis
posed Of for any purpose by the
United States prior to their being
surveyed. (Mirnesota VS.. Hitchcock,
1S5, U. S. 373; Heydcnfelt VS.. Daney
Gold, etc, Co., SO, U. S. 634). The
lands in suit within the Bad River
| Reservation were not surveyed until
after the cessiCn to the Indians in
1866.
Fourth II is further held that
lands are not public lands when en-
numbered with the Indian right OF
occupancy. wisconsin V. Hitchcock,
| 2O1, U. S. 2C2). All the foregoing
contentious are upheld in the case Of
Wisconsin V. Hitchcock above cited
Although the provisions referring
the determination Of the rights Of
The parties in the pending suits are
eliminated. from III. R. 20112, this
| legislation will have the effect Of still
| further delaying action by the courts
m ,adjudicating the issues presented
in such suits.
The SccretIy OF the Interior in re-
porting upon H. r. 20112, on the 18th
| instant, states that:
This report is made, however,
With the express understanding that
the litigation Which is now pending
against certain Of the Indians of the
La Pointe and Bad River Reserva-
| ti3ns who have pccn granted allot-
mepts on sections mum bered 1G, shall
proceed to q determination in the
courts without reference to the en-
actment CT the proposed legislation"
We submit that it is not an ap.
| propriate use of public funds to pay
expenses incurred in appraisement OF
sections 10, title to which it is prob
able the United States supreme court
will hold is vested in the Indians,
parties to the pending suits.
We further submit that full Justice
in This case calls for prompt action
by the Courts. We trust that the
Stearns Lun. Der company will inter
est itself in prosecuting the court
cases institu ted by them t. final judg-
ment thereby determining judicialy
to the suits.
The Fad River Indians nave filed
with the Committee oil Indian Affairs
q pre- test against the enactment Of
the proposed legislati N.
We trust that after fully Investigate
ing the matters contained herein you
will oppose the legislation proposed
by House bills number 14112 ane
20112.
Very respectfully,
(Signed) S. M. BROSIUS,
Agent, Indian Rights Association
Honorable
JOHN H. STEARNS,
Chairman Committee on Indian
Affairs House of Renrasenta ii yes |