REMARKS ON INDIAN APPROPRIATION BILL.

JANUARY 21, 1885.

THE CREEK INDIAN LANDS.-THE DISPOSITION OF OKLAHOMA.

The House having under consideration the above-named bill

The Clerk, continuing, read the following paragraph:

For interest, at 5 per cent. per annum, on the sum of $45,561, being an additional amount appropriated for cession of land under the third article of their treaty, dated June 14, 1866, by act approved July 17, 1884, from July 19, 1866, the date of ratification of the treaty, to July 19, 1884, the date said principal was placed to the credit of the nation, eighteen years, $41,004.90; in all, $112,973.30.

Mr. BURNES. I desire, if points of order have not been reserved

Mr. BURNES. I desire to reserve the right to make a point of order against this paragraph; and with that reservation I have a few remarks to offer that I think throw some light upon this whole transaction. First, however, I offer the amendment which I send to the desk.

may

The Clerk read as follows:

Amend by adding the following at the end of line 353:

"Provided, however, That no part of the above sum shall be paid until the Creek Nation shall make and file in the office of Secretary of State a deed of cession and conveyance transferring to the United States 150,000 acres of the east half of said Creek lands reserved by the Creek Nation for a permanent home in the treaty of June 14, 1866, and also a statement in writing releasing the United States from the seeming trust created by said treaty as to the west half of said Creek lands sold to the United States by said treaty."

Mr. ELLIS. I reserve the point of order.

Mr. BURNES. Now, I desire to call the attention of the committee to the fact that under the treaty of June 14, 1866, the Government of the United States obtained a conveyance from the Creek Nation of the west half of all their lands, and they reserved the east half for their permanent home forever. The line dividing the nation into two parts, according to the terms of the treaty, was to be a direct line running from north to south.

Mr. CHACE. Which treaty was that?

Mr. BURNES. The treaty of June 14, 1866. Now, you observe that by the terms of that treaty and by the granting clause of the treaty, the Government of the United States obtained a title, subject to certain limitations, to the west half, and the west half only. It obtained no title to the east half-to any part of the east half. It obtained title to the west half, and the east was reserved as a home for the Creek Indians forever. This being so, it is conceded, I apprehend, by my

distinguished colleague, who has this bill in charge, and it is a fact, that if this line had been run directly from north to south, dividing this territory into two equal parts, the quantity of land paid for would have been the quantity of land that we received. This being so, will any one contend that it was our duty, or that we had a right at the last session of Congress, to appropriate $45,000 for the purpose of paying for land not within the west half. We did appropriate the $45,000, under the gentle coercion of a Senate amendment, and it looks to me now as if we were appropriating for interest on a claim that never rightfully existed and for which we receive nothing; for I say to the committee now that we get no legal title to the 150,000 acres of land-none whatever, either by statute or under the treaty.

Mr. KEIFER. Why not? Mr. BURNES. For the reason that the Creek lands were to be divided into two equal parts by a line running due north and south; the west half to be ours and the east half to belong to the Creeks forever. But a surveyor, not having the fear of God or the United States before his eyes and in violation of the express grant under the treaty, voluntarily chose to make a détour from what ought to have been under the treaty a direct line, and pretends to take into the west half 150,000 acres which belonged then and belongs now to the Creeks and was a part of the east half. Will my distinguished colleague on the committee [Mr. KEIFER] please read the granting clause of the treaty and dispute, if he can, the express grant of the west half and the express reservation to the Creeks of the east half as a permanent home forever? He will find it was a perfect and complete reservation of every part and parcel of the east half. My colleague, able lawyer that he is, will find a further answer to his question in the certainty, that title to unpurchased land cannot be obtained in the face of express reservation or otherwise by an illegal line run by some surveyor in direct disregard of the law of the land.

Now, then, by the terms of this treaty the Creek Indians ceded and conveyed to the United States the west half, and the west half only, of their lands. If you pay this purchase-money, or the interest on it, do you get the title to the lands? You may say that you have a right to take the lands from the Creek Indians, and that they would acquiesce in that proceeding; but I say that there is no sanction of law; there is no title to or ownership of the lands in the Government of the United States at all. Of course, I am not speaking of mere equities that such conditions might create. This being true, the question arises, Shall we sit here, having appropriated $45,000 to pay for that to which we have no title, either under any existing law or the treaty of 1866, and now appropriate for interest on the former illegal appropriation? Shall we appropriate and pay this money for that which we do not lawfully get, which we cannot lawfully hold, which does not belong to us, and which we have solemnly, by treaty obligations, pledged as a permanent home for these Creek Indians forever? That is the question.

But it will be said, and it has been said, that the Seminole Indians have a portion of it. We purchased-or, properly speaking, coerced from the Seminoles their entire tract of land at 15 cents an acre and sold to them, good Yankee traders as we are, 200,000 acres of this so-called Oklahoma country, the ceded lands of the

Creeks-200,000 acres at 50 cents an acre; so that while the Seminoles sold us their lands at 15 cents an acre we sold to them 200,000 acres at 50 cents an acre. So much, therefore, for the Seminoles and their connection with this transaction. Under threats of confiscation, just after the war had closed, we drove a hard bargain with them as with the Creeks.

I desire, now, sir, to call attention to another feature

Mr. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR. Before the gentleman leaves this subject will he give, if he can, or state what reason is given for making this détour?

Mr. BURNES. When a surveyor, without any sanction or without any authority of law, either statute or treaty, goes and makes a détour or deviates from a direct line established by law I can see no motive in such a proceeding that is lawful or justifiable. No department of the Government could empower him to violate the law, yet he did it. No other reason is assigned for the action of the surveyor.

Mr. CUTCHEON. Is there any reason given for the divergence? Was it possibly to follow the course of a stream, or anything of that kind?

Mr. BURNES. There is nothing whatever that I have ever heard of to warrant or justify the proceedings at all. It seems to be wholly unjustifiable. Perhaps the gentleman who has the bill in charge-the gentleman from Louisiana-can explain if there is any reason for the divergence except lawlessnesss. I do not know of any; on the contrary, he must have known he was violating the law of his country, and that no sanction of his proceeding by any officer or department of the Government, save the one of which we are a part, could give even a color of legality to it. I would also say to my friend from Michigan [Mr. CUTCHEON] that there were no topographical or other impediments to the running of a straight line as the treaty requires. It appears to have been done without any sanction of law and in violation of the treaty of 1866, by which we acquired these lands.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. RANDALL was recognized and yielded his time to Mr. BURNES.

Mr. BURNES. Now, let me call attention of the committee to another proposition. You will observe that this treaty was made in 1866. These Creek Indians had been unfortunate enough to array themselves against the United States in the civil war just then closed, and you will observe, by reading the provisions of the treaty, that following the example of adventurers in the Southern States, the administration of the Government of the United States at that date seemed disposed to speculate upon the misfortunes of the terrified Indians. The Creeks, having been transported from their early homes in this country to the western wilds of the Indian Territory, had been given their territory as a permanent home forever. They were at the mercy of the Government at the close of the war. They were told by the treaty itself that they had forfeited all their lands, their rights, and their other property; that by the ceding of one-half of these lands to the Government at 30 cents an acre they might hold the rest for themselves as a permanent home. Now we are taking, at the instance of a Government surveyor, without sanction of law, 150,000 acres more of their territory at the rate of 30 cents an acre, while we are selling at the rate of 50 cents to the Seminoles.

Mr. KEIFER. Is not the correct amount 350,000 acres?

Mr. BURNES. Two hundred thousand acres are provided for and sold in the Seminole treaty of the same year. I have found nothing in any treaty with either the Seminoles or Creeks to justify the statement which I have heard made upon this floor that the Government sold the Seminoles 350,000 acres of the ceded land of the Creeks. I would like for some gentleman who asserts the fact to point us to the treaty that gave more than 200,000 acres to the Seminoles. And if the fact exists, will some one inform us when and where and how the Seminoles paid for the excess? I apprehend it cannot be found. The treaty of 1866 between the Seminoles and the United States sustains the statement I have made.

I mention these things now for the purpose of making a basis for the amendment which I have had the honor to offer. We have been told that a state of war exists in this territory of Oklahoma, and that the settlers are now face to face with their destiny, that destiny being under the command of an officer of the United States Army. There can be no fair-minded man, I apprehend, who will for one moment claim that the grant of this Oklahoma territory, so called, is not subject to an express trust created by the treaty, the third section of which has been read in our hearing. These settlers, it had better be said here, have not the lawful right to go upon these Oklahoma lands.

I say this in the face of valued and esteemed constituents who are desirous of going, and some of whom have gone there, and I warn members of this committee that they will be responsible for the blood which may be shed in the conflict said to be impending if they hesitate to speak here and now firmly and distinctly to the high-hearted and gallant people hovering on the borders of Oklahoma that they have no lawful right to invade or settle that territory at this time. They should be told the truth. Congress should give them the right to enter and settle-a right denied them by solemn treaty stipulation. They see large cattle companies enjoying the blessings of the territory, and naturally and properly they think they have as much right there as these favored few with their great herds.

This being so, what follows? The Creek Indians and their enterprising attorneys want $45,000 in money. The always able and fair-minded gentleman who has this bill in charge has investigated this claim, and comes to the conclusion that the Government owes this money to the Creeks. I do not believe a word of it; but it may be so. In this condition of things what had we better do as American representatives? Let us compromise this matter and save the threatened bloodshed to which allusion has been made here. Adopt this amendment, and let the compromise be made, providing that we shall have the lands which my esteemed friend thinks we ought to pay for, and that the Creeks, in receiving the money, shall relieve us from this seeming trust in the treaty, and allow this fair land to be opened up for the lawful settlement of the poor and homeless people of this country who may desire to go there. It has been seen in this discussion that it is lawful now to settle on these lands Indians and freedmen, and it is a well-known fact that practically a few white men with immense herds of cattle enjoy them, without military or other interference on the part of the Government, as completely as if they owned them in fee-simple. Let it be our work, by adopting the amendment, to make the honest and humble seeker of a home in this splendid region equal in right there

with the favored ranchmen, Indians, and freedmen for whom it now seems to be exclusively held.

Sir, there are in this Oklahoma territory a little less than 5,000 square miles of territory. Shall we prepare the way for 20,000 hardy, honest, industrious families to make their happy homes thereon, or by inaction allow them to be driven off by the Army of the United States, and under the merest pretense of keeping the lands for Indians and freedmen, who are not there, allow a few cattle-kings to hold and enjoy it all without let or hindrance?

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BURNES] to modify his resolution so as to require that the Creek Indians. shall file with the Department an acceptance on their part of the survey that was made, because the lands that are sought here to be paid for are all on the west side of that line, and there might be at least some ambiguity as to whether we were paying for lands east or west of the line if the resolution or the amendment should be adopted in its present form. The object my friend has in view is simply to require the Creek Indians to accept the survey that was made, because it is by reason of that survey that the surplus number of acres that we are required to pay for is ascertained.

Mr. BURNES. Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that the suggestion of my colleague is a good one, and I accept the amendment.

Mr. ELLIS. I insist on the point of order against the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri has raised the point of order, as the Chair understood him, or reserved the right to make the point of order, against the paragraph.

Mr. BURNES. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. After that point of order is disposed of the point of order of the gentleman from Louisiana against the amendment will be heard.

Mr. ELLIS. Is not the amendment to the paragraph?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but the gentleman from Missouri raises the point against the paragraph, and the Chair is desirous of hearing what that point of order is.

Mr. BURNES. The point of order I desire to make is this, that there is no law by treaty or statute authorizing the appropriation of this money, and that the appropriation is in fact in violation of law; but I will not insist upon the point of order now if the gentleman from Louisiana will withdraw his point of order to the pending amendment.

Mr. ELLIS. No; I insist on my point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands the point of order to be that the amendment changes existing law and does not retrench expenditures. Does the gentleman desire to be heard on that question?

Mr. BURNES. I desire to say only this: Here is a paragraph in this bill which appropriates $45,000 for the purpose of paying interest alleged to be due to the Creek Indians eighteen years ago under the terms of a certain treaty.

Mr. ELLIS. I thought the subject had been debated.

The CHAIRMAN. There has been no debate on this point of order.