Imágenes de páginas

To constitute a half-breed or mixed blood an actual and bona fide settler within the meaning of the statute, it must be shown by proof satisfactory to you, that he was an occupant by personal inhabitation within said reservation at or before the passage of the Act of July 17, 1854, and in such case he will be entitled to locate his scrip, embracing his improvements, conforming to the legal subdivisions of the public surveys, unless such location interferes with another bona fide settler, when each will be allowed to take such subdivisions as will embrace his improvements.

The persons who have gone into said Territory by authority of law," the land officers at Red Wing and Faribault will understand, are only such white persons as, prior to the passage of said Act of July 17, 1854, had entered said reservation under the Indian Intercourse laws such as licensed traders, authorized missionary teachers, and other persons in the employ of Government in connection with Indian affairs, and who inhabited the lands and made improvements thereon prior to said Act. Improvements of this class of persons are shielded from the scrip; yet you can do no act in the way of giving title to the white claimants of such improvements because the law has conferred no power on the Executive for this purpose.

3d. The said Act authorizes also the location of scrip “upon any other unoccupied lands subject to pre-emption or private sale. Or,

4th. Upon any other unsurveyed lands, not reserved by Government, upon which they have respectively made improvements.

Where the scrip may be located on unsurveyed lands outside of the reservation on which the half-breed has improvements, and which is not reserved by Government, his application for location should be accompanied by a diagram and description, denoting natural objects and distances, so as to fix, with certainty, the exact locality wanted, serve as the best notice in our power to settlers, that conflict may be avoided, and enable you, when the public surveys are made, to designate the legal subdivisions embracing the location.

The land selected in satisfaction of a certificate of scrip must be located in the name of the party in whose favor the scrip is issued, and the location may be made by him or her in person, or by his or her guardian or duly authorized agent. The application should be duly attested in each case by the Register and Receiver, and attached to each should be your certificate to the following effect :


18"We hereby certify that the within scrip has this day of been located on the - containing acres, agreeably to the Act of 17th July, 1854, and by the party duly authorized to make the location.

66 Attest:

- Register.

Receiver.” No receipt is to be issued to the locator, except in unavoidable cases, where there may be a small excess in the area of the location over the scrip, and in that case it must be paid for, and the Receiver will issue his receipt, which he will number and account for, as in the case of bounty land warrant excess. But no certificate of purchase is to be issued; the scrip and application, instead of certificates of purchase, being the instruments of title which are to be returned to the General Land Office in this class of business.

The Register, however, in the case of excess payments, will append to the application his official statement, that acres of said tract, the excess, has been paid for, per Receiver's receipt, No.

[ocr errors]

Your proceedings in locating the certificates, and your official returns, are to be kept entirely separate and distinct from other sales and locations. At the close of each month the Register and Receiver will make a separate official return of scrip located, with all the papers on file connected with each location, accompanied by a monthly abstract; form A, herewith,

You will observe that this scrip is not assignable, transfers of the same being held void; consequently, each certificate, as hereinbefore stated, can only be located in the name of the half-breed; and such certificates or scrip are not to be treated as money, but located acre for acre.

No fees or commissions of any kind are allowed by this Office for services of the land officers in this matter, such being an incident to their general duties, and you are, therefore, hereby interdicted from charging or receiving any compensation for such services. This scrip is, of course, not applicable to any class of Indian trust lands, but only to unreserved, unincumbered public lands.

Very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,

Thos. A. HENDRICKS, Commissioner. Register and Receiver at

FORM A. Register's Monthly Returns of Locations made at the Land Office -, for the month

ending in virtue of Sioux Half-breed Certificates, issued under the Act of 17th July, 1854, (United States Statutes at Large, vol. 10, p. 304, ch. 83.) (No. 243.)

[ocr errors]

No. 640. Oneida Indians not allowed to sell timber from the lands occupied by them.


December 26, 1854, I herewith enclose a copy of a letter received from F. Hubeschman, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, in relation to the disposition by the Oneida Indians, of timber and lumber cut upon the lands of that tribe. As I am of opinion that the Indians have no legal right or power to cut, or otherwise dispose of such timber, except so far as may be necessary for their own purposes, I have to request that you will instruct the timber agent at Green Bay, to give notice that after a certain day, (giving them a reasonable time for such notice to be fully circulated among the Indians, and others interested,) that all timber cut, or lumber used therefrom, after that date, will be seized and sold, and that the law in relation to trespasses committed upon the public lands, will be strictly enforced, as in other

Very, &c.,

R. M'CLELLAND, Secretary. Commissioner of the General Land Office.

cases, &c.

No. 641. Referring to a law of Congress giving Bounty Land Warrants to Indians, held, that in certain cases they may purchase land.


May 14, 1855. Your letter of the 11th instant has been received, referring to an entry of forty acres of land made at the land office at Ionia, Michigan, in August, 1854, by two Indians, and presenting the question, “whether, under the laws of the United States, Indians being considered in the light of minors or wards, can, as such, acquire title to land in fee.In the State of Michigan, where this entry was made, the Constitution recognizes as a citizen, every civilized male inhabitant of Indian descent, à native of the United States, and not a member of any tribe. In this particular case, therefore, it may be that the parties purchasing are citizens of that State; but independent of that fact, in view of the late law of Congress, as to the right of Indians to receive bounty land warrants, and of course to locate the

same, and receive patents therefor, I cannot think there should be any hesitation in carrying into grants, the sale to the two Indians above referred to, or that which may be made by any other person of like character, of land open to purchase by the first applicant.

Respectfully, &c.,

R. M'CLELLAND, Secretary. Commissioner of the General Land Office.

No. 642. Indians retaining tribal relations are not entitled to the right of Pre-emp

tion. Held by the Commissioner, that half-breeds, without tribal connection, are not excluded from such right.*


April 29, 1856. Sir:-On the 24th October, 1834, this Office held, under a decision of the President, that " Indians residing within the Choctaw cession should be left to the rights secured to them by the treaty, and that pre-emption rights did not therefore accrue to them.”

On the 3d September, 1850, Commissioner Butterfield decided, that John Waisly, a Chippewa Indian, was not entitled to a pre-emption, " for the want of citizenship,” and that filing a declaration of intention to become a citizen could not avail the party, for the reason that the naturalization laws “do not apply to Indians domiciliated on our soil, but only to foreigners, who owe an allegiance to an authority distant and separate from that of the United States," and he adds, “it has been long settled, that Indians are not entitled to a right of pre-emption.

On the 20th May, 1854, Commissioner John Wilson, instructed the Register and Receiver at Sault Ste. Marie, “ that where Indians have ceased to draw annuities, are not members of any tribe, and are recognized as citizens, by the Constitution and laws of the State in which they reside, the question whether pre-emption rights will accrue to them, is open and under advisement."

In a communication to this Office, of date 14th May, 1855, it was held

* See decision of Secretary Thompson, in the Superior City case, (No. 493.)

by yourself, that civilized Indians, resident in the State of Michigan, might purchase land, “open to purchase by the first applicant."

I find no other decisions of the Department proper, or of this Office, bearing upon this subject. Retaining a connection with his tribe, an Indian can neither acquire nor hold a separate property in land. Such an ownership would be inconsistent with its laws or usages. Property in land is in the entire tribe. Johnson v. M Intosh, 8 Wheaton, 593. His relation to the tribe, and his subjection to its customs and laws, are incompatible with that separate individual settlement, improvement, and use of the land, contemplated by the pre-emption laws. As a member of the tribe, he is under a divided sovereignty, subject both to the laws of the tribe and the regulations prescribed by the United States. If his connection with the tribe has ceased, either by its dissolution or his withdrawal, he is then subject only to the laws of the United States, and of the State or Territory in which he may reside. He is not a foreigner, and owes no allegiance to authority independent of the United States. He may not be a citizen of the United States, in the highest sense of that term, but he is, within the meaning in which it is used in the Act of 1841. He enjoys all the rights which are held by white persons born within the United States, save, perhaps, such as are purely political. He is competent to acquire, hold, and, in the absence of disabling statute, to dispose of real estate, and is entitled to the protection of the Government; and, under the Constitution and laws of the State of Wisconsin, if civilized, may exercise the right of suffrage. See Jackson ex dem. Smith v. Goodell, 20 Johns. 188, where the subject is very fully discussed.

It is my opinion, that the fact that the pre-emptors are half-bloods of an Indian tribe, but without tribal connection, and resident among white people of the State of Wisconsin, would not, if established, exclude them from a right of pre-emption, under the Act of 4th September, 1841.

With great respect,
Your obedient servant,

Thos. A. HENDRICKS, Commissioner.
Hon. R. M'Clelland, Secretary of the Interior.
Extract from a letter of Commissioner Hendricks, in relation to the

Superior City case.





No. 643.

Persons residing on the lands ceded by the Chippewa Indians at the date

of the treaty, were provided for by the 10th article thereof, but none others.


November 6, 1858. Sir :—The papers pertaining to the pre-emption claim of Frederick Lamarge to the east half southwest quarter, and lot No. 2 of section 5, town. ship 49 north, range 14, west, contested by Michael S. Bright by virtue of a trader's license, and the east half southwest quarter contested by William C. Baily as part of his pre-emption claim, which were submitted to this Department by your letter of the 14th of September last, are herewith returned.

Said Bright claims the right to enter the land under the 10th article of the treaty with the Chippewa Indians, on the 30th September, 1854, which reads as follows, to wit, "Article 10. All missionaries and teachers and other persons of full age, residing in the territory hereby ceded, or upon any of the reservations hereby made by authority of law, shall be allowed to enter the land occupied by them at the minimum price whenever the surveys shall be completed, to the amount of one quarter section each." There is no proof that said Bright was residing upon the land at the date of the treaty or at any other time. Any right which accrued under said article would have relation to the date of the treaty. The alleged occupancy by Bright's agent or clerk, commenced on the 12th October, 1854, subsequent to the date of the treaty. But occupancy by an agent would give the claimant no right to the land under said article 10; and Bright has established no valid claim to the land specified. The decision of the Register and Receiver in which you concur, is hereby reversed.

J. THOMPSON, Secretary. Commissioner of the General Land Office.


No. 644.

The Shawnee lands became subject to pre-emption settlement, on and after

the date of the President's order, setting aside the " surplus,&c.


Washington, December 20, 1858. Sir: I have carefully considered your report of the 10th instant, in regard to the date after which legal settlements may have been made upon lands remaining to the United States between the western limit of the State of Missouri, and a parallel line thirty miles west therefrom, and within the cession, by treaty of 1854, with the Shawnee Indians. The fifth article of said treaty provides that no white persons or citizens shall be permitted to make locations within said limits, until after all the lands shall have been surveyed, and the Shawnees shall have made their selections and locations, and the President shall have set apart the surplus.?

The three things to be done before the lands are open to settlement, viz., the making of the surveys, the completion of the selections, and the setting apart the “surplus” by the President, (see 2d article of the treaty,) I understand as consummated on the 2d November, 1857; and am therefore of opinion that the public lands within the limits above mentioned, became subject to settlement, with a view to pre-emption, after that day.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

J. THOMPSON, Secretary. Commissioner of the General Land Office.

No. 645.

Article 10 of the Chippewa treaty of 30th September, 1854, confers rights

of pre-emption upon those persons only who were "residing on the land at the date of the execution of the treaty.


April 13, 1859. Sir :-My attention has been called by your letter of the 19th January last, to the case from the Buchanan, Minnesota, Land Office, involving the claim of Aaron Crozier to enter by pre-emption a certain tract of land, part of which is claimed adversely by Charles Kimball, under the 10th

« AnteriorContinuar »