Bonners Ferry herald. [volume] (Bonners Ferry, Idaho) 1904-current, 1916-02-25
Attorney Sinclair Gives Arguments Sup
porting His Reasons for Removal
Of Kootenai Indians
WOULD RECEIVE BETTER CARE
Not Now Getting Pro Rata of Govern
ment Appropriations

friendly to the Indians as the
people opposed to their removal My
position is that these quiet, law
abiding, inoffensive tribesmen are neg
lected and for years have been
neglected, cruelty neglected, by our
government. 1 believe just as long
as they occupy their present, iso-
neglect will continue. / think the
attitude of the government towards
them would change were their for
tunes to be linked with the for
tunes of some influential tribe oc-
cupying a government reservation.
For instance, I think, were the
Kootenai Indians joined to the Col
vile Indians their school advantag-
es, hospital attention, industrial
training would be increased. There
can be no question that the Koote-
mai Indians have the same capacity
for civilization as that possessed
by any other tribe and in addition
they are far more peaceful than
most tribes. Thus far they have
been denied opportunities and will
not likely find any better until they
become inhabitants of a government
reservation. l am informed by the
very highest authority on Indian
affairs that the Kootenai Indians
have made less Roadway than al
other tribe in the United States.
This is due to no natural defects
of character but is the direct re-
fered at the hands of the government
whose wards they became years ago
by treaty.
AS l write this not 1 have before
me the last report the United States
commissioners of Indian affairs.
Amongst other interesting data the
report shows an Indian population
of 100000. 1t appears that appro-
priations aggregating more than $780,
100000 were made last year for the
care and education of the American
! thdlohos nat AitdIo dDOul W. per
capita was thus expended by the
government. At that rate, had not
our Indians been overlooked, they
; would have received in the way of
| expenditures for education and bene-
fit about $4,000. AS matter of
, fact what did they receive? In that
report the detailed account of ap-
? preparations covers 100 pages of the
] congressional record, yet there is no
/ reference whatever to the Kootenai
Indians. How or from what source
= the paltry sum to maintain the
: small school now at the mission
was obtained, 1 do not know The
, report makes no mention of it.
Now, my contention is, it were
much better for the Kootenai In
dams to become identified with some
reservation where large sums of
money are spent for educational and
industrial purposes. Without this
government aid there will be no
greater advancement the next rs
years than has taken place the
last 25 years, which amounts to
, very little.
The suggestion that the Kootenai
Indians, until recently Canadian In
dians, virtually own by priority of
occupation the entire Kootenai val
ley is absurd. Even were they Am
erican Indians there could be no
' foundation for such contention.
Our courts have frequently held that
} the United States own the soil as
, well as the jurisdiction of the i'm
mense tracts of unpatented lands
included within their territories. The
title is in the United States by
treaties and cessions; the Indians
never had more than a right of
occupancy and the United States
possesses the legal title, subject to
that occupancy and with an abso-
Lutte and exclusive right to extinguish
, the Indian title of occupancy either
by conquest or purchase. The prin-
ciple is that the Indians are to be
considered merely as occupants to
be protected, while in peace, in
possession of their lands; to be
deemed incapable of transferring the
, absolute title to any other than the
2 sovereign of the country. Any other
rule would be disastrous to the
Indians themselves.
2 1 do not know how the Kootenai
Indians would vote on the proposal
of a change of location. l think
they ought TO be consulted and if,
after an impartial consideration by
, government officials, it is deemed
best that they be provided for on