A TRUE PICTURE OF INDIAN SITUATION
tj.::. • • _
A few month ago Jennings
Cv Wise, of Washington, D. C.,
counsel for the Indian Board
of Cooperation of California,
wrote a most brilliant essay en
titled , A plea for the Indian
citizens of the United States.”
This interesting and valuable
article was subsequently favor
ably referred to on the Floor
of the U. S. Senate by the Hon.
W. C. Bruce, of Maryland. He
declared, “In my humble judg
ment this essay not only de
serves to be inserted in the
Congressional Record but should
have a place in every library
in the land.”
In view of the interest that
is being taken in Alaska in the
Indian question, this interest
ing article might be read with
much profit and enlightenment
by the public generally. Limit
ed space prevents publication
of the essay in full but the
following excerpts are pro
duced:
By the act of Congress ap
proved June 2, 1924, however,
every noncitizen Indian born
within the territorial limits of
the United States was declared
to be a citizen of the United
states. Thus, 148 years after
the United States had assumed
political jurisdiction over the
Indians, they were elevated
from the status of a depend
ent Dolitical wardship to that
of full citizenship, and as
citizens, with all the constitu
tional rights of such, assumed
a definite place in the body
politic of the Nation.
The effect of the transforma
tion which they have under
gone has not been fully rec
ognized. Whatever the status
of the United States with re
spect to the property of the
political wards of the Nation
may have been prior to June
2. 1924, the enfranchising act
of that date, it is submitted,
definitely fixed its status as the
trustee at law of so much of
the property of the Indians as
remained in its hands.
The report of the Commis
sioner of Indian Affairs for
1924, shows that there are still
about 150,000 full-blooded tri
bal Indians who, with other
legal Indians, hold in common
tribal lands that have not yet
been allotted in severalty. Un
der the existing law the un
alloted tribal lands of these
Indians necessarily remain un
der the control of the United
States, and, though the tribal
Indians, like all others, are
citizens, it is clear that until
they are prepared and elect
to take their lands in severalty
the Government is morally
bound to continue in the re
lation of political guardian
while charging , the trust with
respect to their property im
posed by the act of June2, 1924.
Although the Indians, meas
ured by European standards,
were the most moral people
known to history, the colonial
Englishman’s Church deemed
them the “spawn of hell,” to be
extirpated in the spirit of the
Old Testament. (The Puritan
in Holland, England, and
America, Campbell.) Desirous
of their lands the frontierman
invented the useful fiction that
a people who had occupied de
finite tribal domains from time
immemorial, were nomads with
out attachment to the soil.
With such a view extant
among the so-called civilized
whites, it was not unnatural that
the Indian should have become
fierce in the defense of his
lands—at times .cruel—and that
the idea should have gained
credence that “the only good
Indian is a dead Indian.”
m vain Washington, who
knew his fellow countrymen
and was not deceived by them,
sought to prevent the massacre
of the Indians and protect
them in their admitted rights.
The Constitution itself forbade
the acquisition of their lands
save by United States treaties
New York ignored the Consti
tution and the statues. Georgia,
with tbe tacit consent of Tohn
Quincy Adams and Jackson
twice nullified the mandates of
the Supreme Court, threaten
ing a resort to arms to prevent
their enforcement, while Ala
bama threatened to secede from
the Union if Indian statutes
were rendered effective.
it was a harsh tutelage which
the Indians of the United States
underwent. It was not until
Grant became President that
the responsibility of the Nation
was recognized. With an in
tegrity and a courage equal to
that of Washington, he ap
pointed a commission to ex
amine into the Indian situa
tion, and adopted the reserva
tion system, Congress itself
has never deemed it within its
undoubted “plenary power over
the tribal relations of the In
dians” to deprive them of their
property rights without some
form of compensation. Such a
practice would not only be
violative of the decisions of
the Supreme Court of the
United States, but would be
contrary to the Law of Na
tions. Civilized states, though
possessing plenary political
power over their inhabitants,
do not confiscate the private
property of dependent people.
it must, therefore, come as
a distinct shock to Congress
and the people of the United
States to learn that 148 years
after the United States assum
ed political jurisdiction over
the Indians, 138 years after
the Constitution was adopted,
the Department of Justice, on
behalf of the Secretary of the
Interior, the Secretary of Agri
culture, and the Secretary of
War, who together constitute
the Federal Power Commission
under the act of 1920, should
argue in the Court of Appeals
of the District of Columbia,
the second highest court in the
land, in effect that the fifth
amendment to the Constitution
guaranteeing private property
rights is not applicable to the
Indians of the United States—
that Congress can confiscate
their property without re
course on their part to the
courts!