The Tomahawk. [volume] (White Earth, Becker County, Minn.) 1903-192?, 1919-04-24
Chippewa Indians Of Minnesota.

>
# Chippewa Indians Of Minnesota.
That the property of the Chippewa
Indians can only lawfully be disposed
of in accordance with the terms and
provisions Of the act of January IA,
1889, as ratified by the Indians was
expressly held in the case of the Unit.
ed States VS.. Mile Lac Band, 229- U.
s. 49S at 500. In that case lands
coded to the United States under the
agreements of 1889 were disposed Of,
not as the agreements provided, but
as directed by two joint resolutions of
Congress under the general land laws
of the United States, to the detriment
of the Indians. The court held that
this could not lawfully be done and
gave judgment in favor of the Chip
pewa Indians of Minnesota for the
value of the property In accordance
with the compensation provided in
the act Of 1889 as agreed to by the
Indians, the judgment in that case
against the United States for its viola
ton Of the agreements of 1889 being
In an amount In excess Of 100000.
Upon this point the court at pages
509,. $40, said: 4
LAS before stated, the lands not
within the proviso were disposed OF.
not under the act Of 1889. but under
the general land laws. not for the
benefit of the Indians, but In disregard
of their rights. This was clearly In
violation of the trust before described,
and the Indians are entitled to recov-
er for the resulting loss. In principle
1t is as If the lands had been disposed
of conformably to the act of 1889, and
the net proceeds placed In the trust
fund created by II, and the govern
ment then had used the money, not for
the benefit of the Indians, but for
some wholly different purpose. That
the wrongful disposal was in obedience
to directions given in two resolutions
Of Congress does not make it any the
less a violation of the trust. The reso-
buttons, unlike the legislation sustained
in Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 1877
U. s! 294, 3O7, and Lone Wolf v. Hitch.
cock, 1877 IT, S. $50, 564, 56S, were
not adopted in the exercise Of the ad-
ministrative power of Congress over
the property and affairs of dependent
Indian wards, but were intended to as.
sert, and did assert, an unqualified
power Of disposal over the lands as the
absolute property of the government.
Doubtless this was because, there was
a Misrepresentation of the true relation
of the government to the lands, but
that does not alter the result" r"
The above decision illustrates the
error of the administrative officers OF
the government in dealing with this
estate. They have proceeded upon
the theory, announced in the cases OF
Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 1877 o.
s. 294, and Lone Wolf ". Hitchcock,
1877 U. S. $50, 564, 56S, that Congress
in dealing with the. property Of the
Chippewas did so In the exercise Of an
unqualified power Of disposal over the
lands as the absolute property of the
government, whereas Congress as
made plain in said decision by the act
of January IA, 1889, adopted an en-:
'tirely different policy and did in fact
deal with the Indians by agreement
and did not assert, or attempt to as.
lsert it's plenary power. .-..,t-
r. This is made even palmer BY the
decision in Minnesota v. Hitchcock,
1856 U. S. 373. In that case the State
of Minnesota asserted its right to Sec
lions 16 and SO of the coded lands for
school purposes. The court held that
by the agreement of 1889 the lands
had been ceded to the United States
in trust for a specific purposes, and
that the rights Of the State did not
attach to the trust property; that the
property could only be used and dis
posed of as the agreement provided
At pages 394-5 the court said:
$50 It 10 that when Congress came
in 1889 to make provision for this body
Of lands Il could have by treaty taken
simply = cession Of the indian right Of
occupancy, and thereupon the lands
would have become public lands and
within the scope of the school grant.
But it also had the power to make
arrangements with the indians by
which the entire tract would be other.
wise appropriated. !.
What was in fact done? The act
Of January IA, 1889. provided for a
commission to negotiate for the ces.
sion and REIMBURSEMENT of all and so
much Of the White Earth and Red
Lake reservations as in the judgment
of the commission should not be re-
quired to satisfy the allotments re-
quired by the existing acts, the cession
to be for the purposes and upon the
terms hereinafter stated The allot-
ments referred to were allotments in
severalty, made in conformity to the
provisions of the act of February 8,
1887. GA Stat. at L. 3SS, Chap. 49,
The ceded lands were to be divided
into two classes, one appraised and
sold at auction, and the other disposed
~ ~ a actual aoft1orc az q Ok nor ocro