MEMOIWThW4 ON ATTTHORTY O NBS 7 ()TM 1 YM2 AN A3AIS 1J A

TPOVIDJ) FOR n :AT ILT 5153 and tOtT 1 BThY.

16735 RTT ATIN rTAL I3DT CT ION.

The !1irAvt wthorztng the a4xtts$on of (lOtoi.

into the TTninn as a S-1-ate contains a ipific resArvation in

favor of the au F;hor.ty of Conrss to 16ehlat p on matters per-

taming to the affiir r' the Pive Civilized Tribes of Indians

resident in the Territory to bco2e riarl; of smrh state. Yrt

this reservation Congress must have had in rtertplatinn a situ-

ation which would call for some additIonal legislation pertain-

ing to these affairs..

This subject was first to reciTe the attention of

Congress in drafting the Act * Section 1 thereof containing the

following provision:

Mng emt&iu4 in the 6M4be construed to limit or impait the rights of person or propertypertaining to the Indians of said territories (so long assvchright shall remain unextinguished) or to iimiI or effect theauthority of the Goverximit of the United States to na'ce anylax or regulation respecting such Indiana,, their lids, propertyor other rIghts by treaties,,aeeinent, law, or ot herwise, wMohit would have been competent to make if thts Act had never beenpassed.

This broad and comprehensive reservation of authority

on the iart of Cnjress Is aiple to authorize any action that

Congress ray deem it neoensary to take, to rieet the exigencies

of the situation in Oklahoma growing out of the dtIes and obli-

gations of the Governiuent to the Indin ribs an 1,1i.e property

of all Indians over which the Gaerinent has retai.ne4 any, au-...........................

thority uid eoncrning which it i q necessary for it to perform

any duty.

It was decided in an early d' by Chief Justice

Marshall, Cherokee NtIon vs. State of Georgia, 5 ret, 3.7 that.

neither an Indian nor an Indian tribe could en into the (ourts of

the United States on their own account and that they, being

r',i

wards of the rent, must e reprsmtd y t rrnn

in all Judicial proceedings, and that th 1rrnmit owed then

the dit' of its protecting care in all pr?onal and property in-

terests, The principles LUd down by Thf 7 1 ir4tien MarhRll

have been followed 1y the TTnite d States Snprma and tho Poderal

Courts in every intanoe in whtch a similar question han been

presented.

Th3 vast amount o± new linlation prtUning 10 the,

affairs of Xndtans necessarily raises n4m qii pstin to bn deter-

mined by the Conrts relative to the duty of the rrov ernment 'to

the Indian: A p,-Ant to his allotment with legal restrictions

on alienation, the conferrin of citinnhip upon him while under

rest riot ions, the holding of his lands in eralty, his tribal

relation and his oitzennhip, the statue nreated by allotment in

severaity, oitienahip trTh. relation, and statehood when the

all exist together, the status arising upon the dissolittion of

tribal Govemient as to those still under rest,.otions tn.,

etc.,, all present new phases or at least new othinations of the

Principles which have been announced by the Court and of course

will lead to lon g continued and dinastros gation if Congress

fails to make some oPeoific decration as to the jurisdiction and

procedure in the territory where these conditions existoo and

this is true notwithstanding the nuzierons utterxtces of the

Courts upon some of the vrions phases or the questions that will

necessarily arise.

The authorIty of the ivernmenl; and the jnrthdiotion

of the United States Courts in general over TnOmaffairs has

boon presented in an ecthistive opinion b' Mistime XIII qr of t*

Supreme Court in the case of the United Sttss vs. Kag, 118

U. S. 3750

Among other things, the above opinion oonta-ins the

following:"But these tndians are iithtn the rhioal limits

of the United States. The Roil and the psope within theselimits are under the political control of 'the (Iov orrment of the

United States or o! the States o ThUnn, Thor exists withinthe fro M doriain o er inty hut thepse two. Thre rt' heoitiea, cot ntie, and. other organized hod s rtth iir&t I ei3-lat ii-e fizrct ion, bit", they are a,11deriv'ett from or exist In sub-ordination to one or the other of t3e. The torrt f orial Governrits owe all their power to the tatna of the TTnAtad Statesconferring in theii tJ pow ers which they exercise inr iioh a.rnliable to b withdrn, rr odified or repealed atany tinc byonross. W}ut authority theil-he state ray have to enact

criminal lawn for tho IndiansIndlans will be preent. ly considered hutthim paer of Con resH to organize territori3. verrix'enta andrn&ce lawn for their, inhabitants, arises not so ztnoh frm theclause in the constitution in retard to sposing of and rakingrules and relat ions concern ing territory And other propertyof th "United States as from th ownership of the country inwhinh the territories are and right of exclusive soyerignty which.must exist in the Nat ion, Goverient and can be 'oin4 wwhereelse.

?erh the best Mtatmuent of t he poe 1. ;ion .t ro=din two opinions of this court by Marshall In the casc of theCherokee Nation v• (eorgi 5 Pet. p. I & and in the cno ofWorcester vs, ro.ja 6 Pet. P. 6.x x x x x

In the first of the above cases it was he).1 that theseTribes ware. neither States nor Nations, had only some of the at-tributes of soverignty and could not be so far recognized in thatcapacity as to stutain a rniit in the Suprerie (Iourt of the !Tnit edStates. In the second case It was said that they were not sub-ject to the jurisdiction asserted over t)tt by th q State ofeori& which, because i;hey ierc within it Xiite, where they

had been for ages, had attoted to extend her laws and the ju-risdiction of her courts over then.

In the opinions in these oases th' are okon of ar"wards ofe etIon" npupil* as local dep nin4ent coriuLies.In this spirit the Unit-OA Staten ho nondnte Its reltien*to themfrom its organization to this tine.

These Xndian Tribes are the ward. p of the Theyare coiunities dependent on the United Statas; dependent largly for their food; dependent for their poU . cal rights. Theyowe no allgienoe to the States, and receive fr'ri tht nopro-teotio. Because of th local ill feeling, the people of theStates, v er e they are found are often their d e ad 1 est enemies.From their very weakness and helplessness, so largely due to thecourse of dealing of the Pederal with them and the treaties inwhich it ham been promised, there ariae the duty of proton Lion,and with it the power, This has always been recognized by thexecutive and by (b.ongress, and by this (ourt whøne'rer the ues

tion has arisen.The prwer of the geioral over these revi-

nants of a race once pw erful, now weak and diminished inhors, is necessary to their prctotion, as well as to the safetyof those tong whorl they dwell. It must, exist in that. ovrment 0 because if, never as existed iyhore else, because thetheatre of it3 exercise is ri;hin the geogrhical limits of theUnited States, because it has never het denied, and because Italone can enforce its laws on all the tribes."

The above very lucid statement of the obi igat ion of

the Governiont in these xttters and the rel t ion the people

to the State and the Federal (kverziient is as pregnant with truth

at this time as when uttered by the distingu.tshed. jurist.

Analogous principles have been announced by the Courts

at various times.

#151,he 4ty and jurisdiction to Axeratf5o wait oontroiand wardship: bin so vested in the gmowal ro'errwvint, the, r

of Ats exsrlo 1r3 purely a. .ttica3 stion for rnination by the politAoal departrientog and n w i thin jI11 cog-nizance.

"As long as the United States rers tho n*tionalcharacter of the Xri&tans they tr under the proton on or treato- and the laws of n;ress, and their pro p erty ts wUhOrawn

from the operation of state laws,e&ty exit for xtded tor1 uriditiofl

control over Trci Lnr1s."T, 8, vs, Rlokert, X88 tl.S. 5,

Jonp,s22 Cyn 11?.

rs. Xehan, 175 V. S.Stpns v. Cherokee Nation 1114 U.S. 445.

The tus of Intins &tor citizenship ti nonforrad

has received attentIon fran th oo eourtø anti It hs been 1i1d

That the ckverwijit :15 not r,eye. frori iAya duties

of guardianship and protection of ni1 1birs of an Indian Tribe

treaty with sunh tribes in nonpienn of the Indians

comingcitizens o th United Stat; and the fact thftt. IndI$

to whom rids he been allotted, in era1ty cre d 1red to he

citizens of the United tates,, oos not render null and void 068

to them or a to the rentnin portions nf tiuir trihs, re-

strictions upon tenation of their lands oontdned in Act o

Congress under wtch allotments In se'Ter1ty hr ",)Pen de, nor

terminate the ricjit and duty of the United States to preserve theIf

resrvation lends for the use and b'ef it of l hH Xndian.iT. S. s. Mullin,, 'Ti Fed. Rep,

"Citizenship bestowed on the Indians Is An no way in-'consist t w t h the rO citrictions upon Uic r f to their landsand the leases obtained In the onrney, C, were utterlyvoid,*

B ack vs. ouney Stock d. Bop.12 C C A 40

'ISo long as the trih1 organization Is recozize4 bythe Nat tond G*venne zt, the P ot that the hthit andof the Indiana have been changed by

intercourse with the whilee,does not mithorize the r urts to disregard the fri1 atns."

5 Wall. U.S •U.S. vs. Hoi1tda,., 2 yo 13.

They Axe no f; sienab1e to the laws of the Terrltoryor State in which they reside; they re however rnbjeoi to theplenary authority of the United States.'

Tuttle s. More, 154 S.W. 85,U.S. vs. Chootw Nations 13 V.8.Loanoke vs. Uitchcoek, 1? U.S. 5.Stephens ire, (flierokee Nation, 14 V. S. 445.

-'4-'-'

It has also }.een h1d that an Tnri i,an Tribe nannot mo

or h $lted in the courts of -, 1he United States or In a state court,

except where ethor1ty has been conferred by statute.1'h*h4 VS. Chocta' tton, 6n ? ed. Rep.

Also Lhat th TTni.tri Statss rir" as f,,liardlan of EWOh

ridins ma1ii t 1n an cIon in th tr

u .S. vs. Inai,, 75 Rp.iTT. v. (R 57.

21 ", yc 121.TT.. vs. o:vc, 83 847,

27 C AAn said In tho United States vs. Patp3,lo,48

"Th Tnited Sttte from -tlui earliest organtzatiRfl ofthe 1at:l.ona1 Covernnt has assurted 'ntroi over t.- ho svra1IruUan Ties In the Urted Sts-t,)Sts-t,)a an hs nind suoh controlo the State Gavernnnts.

A10 (ongross has fUll power to reserve in the nah1-5ng Act, auhnrity over Indian Tribes v 1 property. Sh reser-vation 1:3 Ttth the oensent of the people -forming the state,"

Thj Jet throhly consdered in re Kansas

Indian3 5 Va11. (U. s .) L ( 55-56 in which i t, is said"Tf under he control of Congress, from nceesity

th re can he no divided iLhority. if they he outlived manythings, they he no o t;)iirorl. t1'i rroteo ion affordedhy thecore tUticei, treatte an 1,iws of on ress. x x x Thc^rgno qution o f State rvr1gnty in the eweas Knsas acceptedher adnission into the far41i1 r o states on condition that theIndian ri:hts shoi1d renain unirn: 1rd and the g oral coverniiontM, 1 ibor ;' 0 any rul t ion reo::,ir-c fAng t l ieuyi j r 3. r4ds,

operty, or other rights which it wou],rl have b' ooriet ent tonako if Kansas had not been adratted into the Union.'

This I flE2 a9l OS with a1 force t the S tate

of (Y:lhoma and her rights and prerogative.

In Stephens vs. Cherokee Nation, 1'74 U.S. 44, Jntioe

Harlan, after an i;tve rovI owndr the ethorities relating

to the relativ prr&r ai rib, of the era1 Sovtrnent and

those of the tater in rearc1 o Indian affairs and in 'r}iioh ho

reiterates and approves the principles announced by, Chief Justice.

Marshall in the ease ot' Ch rokee atiorx rn. (orFia a1ove, and

byJiwtice Miller in the Kaama cane, uahve, ses the following

language:

"Such being, the pont.ion occupied by the trbeeand it hs often been avaied of to their vitage) and the

power of Congress in the premises having the plen1tnde thus indi-cated, we are unable to perceive that the legislation in quest ionis in contravention of the 'xtnstitution."

Thts decision was bsod nOn .giia.tten of COng'3$S

upon the subJont of Tnrli.afl affairs,, t}m con*1&ttionlit.y of

--5 -

which was q ationd on the theDr that Congrs8 wp m wi hot

Dower 1;O enact it.

In Wigan v, i:s u.so sz and. 63 the

qtestion of hc superior power tral Govimmint over

these matter agiLn received the ttntinn o f th rt in a. cane

w}ire the Trobte Court O1 th at of on piotin

of a juardiar, for i girl of ' oars of age,

had ordered the al of her allotment at the price ot vty-

dive oent pr €cr. ut, i gevor, batn tho ooriol&on ,on

th injwt..ae and, inhumanity of hat pro M.ing, the

eirt dos

not, fail t) .xpr8f5 1t very Unst d proval of the tran

action and In cwn3ir1 thi 19Li loarin upon 'iaae, ars

"hi roaty of 1U6? intro duo ad . ncc 'imitation u, onL inal n\!itt f 1ed patented $o a ttatIs, th limit of tnority. And :v oh limii riiut bo applied tosalc% voluntary at i tnvr1ntary, aVT ct off rtftht of atu 't.n to u poe c the oat ie. 9'v it that th(i p s ent to

this aulotte had alrac1y boen izd d not ridge the righto ;e a:? the United Ss to am rith ihs com3int of the tribe altnition t o ii per o tv tna 1 dtal In cøot toal n.&tlon. r 1. 41n&114 aU.ottee w e tt und'r thcharge nd cr' of th 1ation ne th tribe anl they or>ul( agreefor still further prot otion, a protection no in3vidnalv& at lib ty to lisno.

" t 11 i t nfor e a1, seu4trt po 1 r øthr to dnDoas o 1' her realt yroalty sioh realty

tn 1 'n 3 e, nd a thed d by Qui giar n, i hih utdOrho j 07 ' 0 01 of h ta In

which the 1wids no

Tfl a attra to r1iich tho J.ic:La!. povers of the

united State' s aro extded br the eonst tion Congress ay give

the United 3tates Courts xciu sive or oon c nrrent jir &s(lictin a

It deow :)roPer and ri' change ani xod&f' '11h'110"lo fo&i at pleasure;

and Conrress may likewise pro-Tide for %.ho tranFlfer, ) from a etat

court, to a fedoral court su ta involving, utters of federal

jur ladle tion a a' stage of the proesetings in stoh state Court

and rm after JIL t th,r(jn. And after onoe bavin 'e

iInutshd its jurtecUction over a proper matter of fedAral oo

niz#.n*e, Congress may re-establish the Jun ict, f the Pedor

a? Court thereover,Ry, Cc. vs. Whitton 13 Wall 71Martin ye, turtter let. Wheat,5th Blath. 343.

The Moses Tkcrlor4 wall.

Cnr; has powar to ) ini,4e o nrnrbg th t r

rftory or prp't Of "c' Ste zk an tijmt

wider the 011WOI of the, TTniti tat or xna rninwwhioh the

United Stateii hr&a any o)1igat1.on.t1.S. (-ntitutien Art. 4 Sea. 3. It

8 ØdS Stat, An, 200— an rI torite.

an this includes thR jtrtadctio* or Congronsrr nUn re

8erTt1Ofl nd IrUn affairs ft - tatthood,0 ed. Sttt. Artkd. l7.

te3nF Th d CLorok Nat iin )4 (T. • 4•

Th oonteSt hwem Tndn unthr re3tric-

tiOfl3 anc white man wtth wh*. in rontao4; in a

nLeøa transaction is a iatter of familiar kkMowlodga and

ful inutice done, the, X1n rider such rtanss s a rule,

makes iipurat: ye the d6.iJ.y of th ov-ruit to give htm prop r

Drototion. This ctrI oni' ione by o r}tniye prion

for Jid1ct ion of Pis rhtB in 'Jvi 2Jodral Courts iro liemy ro&ve th ad of the ofic rs o; hc 0 t rnrtrtt tha only

of:iors win ht ward o tion) a' twty under the, law.

To u1nttiii r l;rot ions UOrL h 1.an(15 thry retaining

thereoier, and at tb aare time wr4tirrem4orW the

jurisdiot ion over 'hi rrcrtr, to a i 7ty owing 1-1xi no

dutt, 1: hoai toonBitent Ql'i ill tt and th only WV to

prTmt Ps intreat b qAng oomnd in the u,ion rcsulting

from an oiiIitIen In on rignty and thority in arnthr

Is to rke mequ.tynoal provision for ti to sxeroie

authoritr coensurate with its obligation to he thvo)ed as the

iy repure. jrisd1otion of dra). Conrts

Li extended by `-Js oonstftutl'n to all atre An wht, the

Unitt Stts Is a party, innIuaUngs of o.trs, a3J natters in

whIch It ha a, duty or ohlttiefl (Art. 4 Soto ) The power

follows 010i duty, U.S. n. Kam, above' Kid *Ift f.tlities for

executing th duty and nth instrwientitLee trh whthh the

duty is oarried Into effect should, in 'tho natu re ot things, b

xrwde co- ensiTe therewith.

ik ut i m cJ,it riJh frcte tvr that

this i1si&tion . t1orixbtion statoor rmp1

of Okia siibj,,ots shalt 'r1th in thth bill ar of Pothrai

conizanc ad ba r bn rrod i,n ;h )rroniis cooptra-

tion. of tho different deprxtsiontsf +h ( in 3.l fultn

ff0 1,iig t1 If ii; be Said that th 'i p't tiila'

tiort is a d or nation airiLt the State of O)lahoi, them ft

cart be said 1i;h fqiai fcroe that ';he tdIoiiry Mt of

creating and fxing tho jtirtsdiction of f ho Pral Courtv was

a discrimination int3t. &.1 toh

Thtt the Jr d1otJ of the gneral 1rnrLt over

this subject $.itter to derived Crom oonttt&on n no

1oner be p€t.iond. ThIs faot In fIrx 1 igrovwd6d &i

cation. AId Ov ert It ciid not rent ipon exprrn thority,

oon3ttt.IOn, a r tht, erc'd Fio 1n %r a movex

fO(ti b , .como.,i prerogatAVo ancl oanrot he dented br aticns

a ii:t1ar oltn' ..' in-

s tances. Under Ac of Atg. 3.54 1394 0 28 St.t. L, O .5, th

C : rou 1 Cour of h T,Tnit i states wre v*rt nx1n5ira jm iidto

tlon In ratters pet tn&n t tho affai.ra Of rd-tam. That

statute contains among otb.er thin, the fl1owi.ng prov&sion:

re inholn or in rrt of In-dian blood or dfisoont;:- ! to are, entitled to lo+ment of ltunder ani 1s o ConCr aa or rr claim to bo *o n'tt1t to landunder any allotment act or unde ny grant ztade by Congress, orwho claim to iwe been jrnlrfu1c denied or ex&udød from anyallotment or pro o 3. nd to wh.toh they o3. in to be 1en',Atled by virtue of uiy f Conj;rea vty oorwwnoo anprotecute or t efnd a pt 4q11 or ri cilflgg in rL.t3onto their rtghts . tP3rto .r1ett p:roir Ct('oA1i; u't offlni.ted Staten antl said O1rouI Courts am irihy gF'ren jrriadioton to try rtd, dteritn any aotion1 nwIt, or p r0000Alngs arii-Ing within ttt repeo tire jurisdictions thMflE the rightof u' person in whole or In pt of Tmd 4 an blood or deeoentto ny a1lotrexit of IAM mider ny 3.r or trt

mth:'t spcIfifly exclxtdod frori its operation the

1ve Civilized TrIbes and the 04%apw Agerto'. This was d,ubtlees

done heoauae it was inapplioie to their situation at th timo.

Under the Act ofFeb, 6, 1901 6 the, above atatnte was smended

requtrint that theUnited Stes be a partpartr defendent in all siltsbrought under this Act. This was (leaned, nnary bocaunø of

the fact that the allotment tD lands x-,i&do under tsee Act

reserved the right to the Governriit and iwt it -its ditty to act

aa trustee for the n'itan for a Period of years. Congress then

deemed It 'rise for th q Pnitd States =.c ing in that ridciary

capacity to have the right to go into ifts ovn cnurs Wien any

controversy vlas involved in which it represenled th intwest of

the Indian, and even deemed It necessary, or TroDer, at least1,

to give the l lnitecl States Courts exlunie jiirimdtntton of much

con roversy. No sound distinction can be t&kei between the duty

of the Goverru?1tt as a trustee under such .runstanoes and when

acting as guardian of rest ioted lands. Phe flovnnen1 has a

duty to perform whi acting in eiher caoity ad if there is

anyeubntantil difference between its duties as P. trustee and as

a guardian, rhogreater obligion eoes with thø gardianshi

because guardianship involvesbroader rsspPn'i1,fl1. C isø and the re

tore any , that the (ovrnmit would hw f rcteot a t&t3e

which it held as trustee i nuld certainly he to proteoL title

over which 1'; was guardian au4 maintained ?estrintinns. This law

has received an etha.ustive review from, the Supreme Court of the

United States in the recent case of McKay vs. c4yton 24 TT,5,

458, In an opinion by Jwtioe White in which t conit 1 &on-

ality of th' Act, the neoessity of it, and the duty of the Covorn

Nent to protect in its own courts such intoxeists as are involvod

when the title to Indian lands is at issue 1 tPhis opinion also

confirms, the doctrine laid down in the Cherokee case by Justice

Marshall, the Karam case by Aisticim Miller, end the Rickert case

by Justice Harlan above referred to, and it also distinguishes

the principles imr o,tyed In saoh a controvery from that involytt

in the issue presented in the natter of Neff. in the 197th T.S.

p. holding that the decision in the 7eff case was hsed upon

the right of t ,i ,, State of Kansas to enTftiroe police regultion

mm

only oiir rAn ImUn citizen wt that that o' 'an '4; in cn1 I

with the utfon, Un ot t&OnR in rrtt t o th i;ri3diction

of t trio rtovrrunt arid thft F(4tr31 CourtConrts over thn prprty

iibr o:r An Indian trih wioi is no t; rnThj

t to a) nation,

Thm3 O&$38 &11 dAmoumm th qtution of n!iot hrtn th

States and a)1 re the arwoint anthority of ths mm-t1

(ov rnrnt ?.n mtterm nnthr It t o ri trol • Congroom 3. na r e i 'ryc d

to thc ederEU (ortn in !h Sate of New York ri &t5.*n ovor

the property, rms and nofIts o t tho Sn'ca Ans. Mt

• 19 0 185 1t Stat • Y. fl, nc iy hr irmt ncs night

h itd in which s ni)r l.t ton hi b eism ed,

O.ongrfwi hai rrvM the right + gii1ii;e o 1th"

or h1 ciarctr tn the Rvmblins Aote of all th tatoø

where !ndian 1and were located at the tiri of the tiain and

ham this resrved r tght whene'tr the on uUon røquired.

It and the aithorIt r so to do 'has never boym qtetIoned by ,nip

court.

Ph' y traub]v. rtvyn<a and ntract af:L-

trig 1id of th ndum under rtitrio%in* iila*tT4fl th by-

Congress and Uhe procedure r crtc1 to toia 1 date aM enforce

tho .uue In the r4tate ooiwti ot Oklahnma rI+ a roinit disastrousto the !ndiai, shows tho nl-,^consttyofth g&lttion.

The r,piov2. of r,,-awes :rrori a tRrr i tor i a1 ronrt ftrariiori Into the Trnicn as a tat is gornet by theinab1tng Act anthori&ng a inIon and no. )y 't .hft nroviIonof the Pederal jud. i.airy Act in re1Ion to the rerra of oaue

rox a *te to sx Tinted States court. ThIs !ant con1itute3 a.rong reann 'rh.r t.nhnabl&ng t Tu)d o erntPJn o&rit, 31td.prehend ternn as to the rtght and pro4re in nuoh rra.ttor

as he r ourt does not have the vøtag of the precodont and ad-udication bi^,med pon th gera.l law applicable to th re:coval

of causes.

Smtion 1A o f thri n1in Ant, ut rizing thetlie a43d*

i ion of Oklahom An f8O t 1$ In 8 O21 Tt $M ut j)tj

i,iniTht to pjy one who, oonsidorsit. Its tontonvis are flno t, ffr"ej

from ambigultyand unortainty and the ntnral nonaoiqivineo torsu1t from thin will be t1ious a.n4 expnrintyos Utigs.tion. it

is within the power of (ongrese to rtrLod7 any fot* in this

regard and It to .in thn intreAt or a1 p3rdn8 inuding tho

Government, who he MtbstantiaI sn4 1ittte tnterøst 9 to pro-

tet that Congress she.!! Mke a. more eUoit ration of

intention in this regr.

l4)rj, wan admitted into th 11nion in M45 9 no pro-

vision being nade for thm transfer of oause. Tn Z44Tnresø

cnaoted a law m4ktnt provision for the tr.nsfr of all oases o

Ptral oognthanoe to the Tlnitdd States Oorts.Banner ye. Porter, * ?iowud 50

allure to make adequate prov 1 m ion In Cahn Ign0ling

Act for ts transfer of causes under Minh tiroelratunststnnas pia' ho

oorreot ed b' t hptnt Act of (ongrese as has boon done

heretofore.

Y & #burn vs , ith WU1. 140 -.

ThO provisions In the proposed bill relt&v o t.11,t

aspiolally as to the ,,,vines in htoh the rUte4 States

is a party vh m fining in its repreeonttive cait as guardian

or or io use of an' of the Indian Tribes or for an' of the

Indians to prot4et their restricted lds, it enaoted Into law

w134 prevent a vast amount of expensive iton and gre*t

del e's in detrrnftdng oort ileting rights, and soh % result

as a matter of oourae, to h desired., as a &ly of stice is

or the substanos of a dnial of justice.

An Act of Con6ress aprroysA XV 28,, lO, 4 Stat, I..

411, aDplioable to the lands of the-7i yo Civilized Tribes of

Indians west f the Hissiseippi, oontaina aong other things,

the fo11orin: pro-Ttsiom

"Sec. :--And he it further encted, Thator a1' sich axahAn gnor xoliAnroa, 5t s)ll eM riay *-AVfor the President solemnly to asure the trtbe or nathwhich the exchange is wt thatte Unitedstates $

--

socure and uaruity to them, aa toir hirs rthe country so exchzted with them; and if they prefer it, thatthe rnit ats wil). tztn . !Ant r rrt b iecde aneXoottted t theM or th same; Provided that, such 1itasail rert to the UniP;'d Stte, if tho TrAkems Ifl oh ome x-tinat or abandon the saris."

"eo, g .--And be it, further enact That it slmll andn b lful tor the Preident to cause suoh trhe or nation tobe protected, at their now ridence, tn& InternintAonor di s turba.noe from a.n r other ter ibø or nat in of TndA&nso or troany other person or personm whatever .

The trust oreatect by this hough observed by

the Government ann treated as nbligat"ry on the part of the

exowt ive, legi&,ative and judicial deTartm'tt, for r'zore than

e-qnartors of a 'entury has not as 't been ft1ly exitod

an cannot he whilo a stngla retr tot in rejqPJnK upon the lmldF4

of any Indian of aatd Tribmand while a sine tribal (ovorn.

nent exists among such five tribes.

The v ernm mt will ird3. r, at t h.'I' m tAmel abandon

form tin rhiob whtrt noentiry, it Me asserted the pro-

tection ofhe people during all of thin time.

ReHpotfull' submitted,

V 2