University of Oklahoma College of LawUniversity of Oklahoma College of Law Digital CommonsAmerican Indian and Alaskan Native Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-18995-16-1896Free Homesteads in Oklahoma TerritoryFollow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/indianserialsetPart of the Indian and Aboriginal Law CommonsThis Senate Report is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in American Indian and Alaskan Native Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899 by an authorized administrator of Universityof Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact darinfox@ou.edu.Recommended CitationS. Rep. No. 964, 54th Cong., 1st Sess. (1896)54TH CONGRESS, } 1st Session. SENATE. { REPORT No. 964. IN THE SEN.ATE OF THE UNITED STATES. MAY 16', 1896.-0rdered to be printed. Mr. PETTIGREW, from the Committee on Public Lands, submitted the following REPORT: [To accompany H. R. 3656,] The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3656) providing for free homesteads on public lands in Oklahoma Territory for actual and bona fide settlers, having had the same under consideration, report it back with the following amendments: From the title strike out the words "in Oklahoma Territory." From line 5, section 1, strike out the words "in the Territory of Oklahoma." . At the end of line 15, section 1, add the words: P1·ovided, however, That all sums of money so released, which if not released would belong to an Indian tribe, shall be paid to such Indian tribe by the United States. Thus amended, your committee recommend that the bill do pass. The effect of the first two amendments reported will be to change the act from one covering alone the surrendered Indian lands of Oklahoma Territory to an act covering the Indian reservation lands opened by treaty or agreement to public settlement in all States and Territories of the United States. The effect of the third amendment reported will be to secure to all Indians payment for lands surrendered under agreements with the United States Government · that certain COJl)pensation was to be bestowed upon them. In seeking to chaHge the act from one of limited scope to one of gen-eral application, your committee is actuated by a belief that its just provisions should not be con fined to a circumscribed area or to a selected number of people, but should cover all of that class to whom, in its original form, it was made locally applicable. The measure involves no new principle of legislation, but is sus-tained by precedents numerous in the statute books of the nation. It aims merely to bring newly acquired public domain under the benefi-cent provisions of the homestead law, an enactment which has in years of our past extended westward from congested population centers those energetic millions of our own and other races who required only room and a place to toil that the fruits of their labor might fall into the lap of the world. It is hardly necessary to go into details and statis-tics in support of the achievements of the homestead law. They ha.Ye been repeatedly uttered and printed in connection with measures before this bo~, a,nd they justify the wisdom of the framers of that enactment. 2 FREE HOMESTEADS lN OKLAHOMA TERRITORY. The contention of your committee is that iu the application of the homestead 1aw there should be no discrimination-tbat it should be applied to every portion of the public domain and to all the people who go out to subdue the wilderness. The argnment that these lands were bought for a price from the Indians, aud that it was provided that the ultimate wllite owners of the land should compensate the General Gov• ernment for its outlay, lrns been given due consideration. The only possible conclusion, within lines of equity, is that the provision was an erroneous one, and that its elimination from the statutes has been already too long delayed. Our entire national domain was originally purcllased from the Indians, either for a cash or commodity price, or through the cost of conquest, and much of it has been twice bought, because of its · ancient occupancy by foreign nations. Yet in the par-celing of the domain, und.er the operation of the homestead act, the proposition that the Government should exact the cost of land from its former occupants never found the form of law until it came to be applied to these recently acquired infinitesimal remnants of a governmental area that once reached westward from the Mississippi to the Pacific. In connection with a measure similar to the one reported herewith, the Secretary of the Interior has submitted a report, and, through a tabulated statement therein embodied, exhibits the conclusion that the enactment of the bill under consideration would deprive the Govern-ment of some $35,000,000. This statement of the pecuniary benefi~ to come to the 11ation can never be fulfilled under conditions now c:xistrng and which have existed since the land was thrown upon the market. Much of the area to be disposed of lies within the semia,rid region of the far West. It is not worth to the settler the price asked for it. For example, there were 9,500,000 acres released in 1889 from fodian juris-diction in the Great Sioux Reservation of the Dakotas. Of this total only a little over 700,000 acres has been taken, for which the occupan_ts have agreed to pay a,bout $825,000. This leaves 8,800,000 acres und1s-posed of, and nuder the terms of the treaty with the Indians, the Gov-ernment is bound to pay, at the expiration of ten years from March 2, 1880, to the Indians, one half a dollar per acre, whether any of it is sold to settlers or not. Unsalable rea1 estate should not be figured in as prospective cash assets. And the land not tniken is practica11y un alal>le. The 700,000 acres occupied by settlers represent all that will ever be attra ·tive to producers. The balance is ranging grounds for herd , and is available without entry- or purchase for that purpose. Th arne line of r a oning will apply to the ceded lands of Oklahoma, of which there are over 15,000,000 worth entered in the tabulated state-ment of the Secretary of the Interior . . On theoth r hand, th re are ceded reservation lands in Idaho, Wa h-mgton, and Montana that wm not be affected by tlrn measure recom-m n l y y r committee, becau e of their mineral character. They willr main u11d r the operation ofthemineralland laws and will become r , dil ala le a u ·h. Their value must therefore be deducted from th 1 -. · imate of the nt rior Department. Of h · r hl d . rt land there is an area sufficient within the c d 1 frac· i n of n lian re ervations enumerated in the report of the -r tar f h In ri r to mat rially reduce th aggr gate of hi e ti -m t . and f hi l1aract r can ne r be old to farmer or to •.k gr w r, r an th r ·la f pr ducers· and for so mu h of it a th rnm nth urcha e from the ndians it can not expect to be m n a d. b . n lu i f ur mmi t , upon the rea onable ba i 1 , ha h D I ar m u all g d lo estilnate under th& FREE HOMESTEADS IN OKLAHOMA TERRITORY. 3 provisions of t!iis bill should be reduced at -least one-half, or to about $17,500,000. But your committee can not admit that this mon~y total should be considered as lost revenue. It represents an exaction not before imposed upon agricultural producers w~o, through toil and ~he privations of extreme poverty upon the frontier, plant the foun~at10n stones of wealth-teeming Commonwealths so firmly that they w1ll en-dure as long as the rains fall and the 8un endows life with the ene1~gy of its rays. The report made by Mr. Lacey to the House of Representatives in relation to House bill No. 3948 is hereby made a part of this report. House Report No. 147, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session. Mr. L.A.OEY, from the Committee on the Public Lands, submitted the following REPORT: [To accompany H. R. 3948.] The Committee on the Public Lands having had under consideration House bill 3948 report the same back with a favorable recommenda-tion, with the followjng amendments: Insert in line 3, after the word "tbat," the words "so much of," and strike out the word "requiring" in the same line, and insert the words "as require" in lieu thereof. Also amend by adding, after line 14, the following words: Pro1,idecl fi1rther, That this act shall not apply to reservations where the proceeds of the sales or homestead or other entries thereof are under existing treaties required to be paid over to the Indians, or helcl in trust, or paid into the Treasury for their benefit. Thus amended, your committee recommend that the bill do pass. The proposed bill does not involve any new and untried principle of legislation, but is only a return to the homestead law in its original form and purpose. It will be proper to review briefly in this connection the history of the homestead act, w bich, after some years of discussion, :finally became a part of the laws and marked a new epoch in the country's history when it finally became a law, May 27, 1862. In 1852 the Free Soil Democracy, in their platform at Pittsburg, declared the public lands to be a "sacred trust," and that they "should be granted in limited quantities free of cost to landless settlers." ·In 1852 and until its final passage Hon. Galusha .A.. G,:ow, now again a Member of this House, appeared as the champion of this great change in the land policy of the nation. A bill was lost January 20, 1859, in the House, by a vote of 91 to 95. On February 1, 1850, a homestead bill passed the House by a vote of 120 to 76. February 17, 1859, it was taken up in the Senate by a vote of 26 to 23. Mr. Slidell antagonized the bill in the Senate and called up the bill for the purchase of Cuba in its stead. The proposal to open free homes to the landless on the public domain gave way to a proposition to stre11gtben slavery by the purchase of more territory already fnl1y occupied with slave labor. On a previous motion to postpone the consideration of the homestead bill the vote stood 28 to 28, and Vice-President Breckinridge gave the casting vote against the bill. S.Rcp. 5-19 L~ FREE HOMESTI!]ADS IN OKLAHOMA TERRITORY. The bill was lost, but the agitation in its favor largely influenced subsequent political events. March 6, 1860, Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois, reported the Grow home-stead bill favorably. March 12, 1860, it passed the House by a vote of 115 to 65. In tlie Senate l\fr . .Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, reported a substi-tute requiring homestead settlers to buy their land at 25 cents an acre at the end of five years' settlement. Senator Ben Wade moved to amend by substituting the House bill. The motion was lost by a vote of 31 to 26. May 10, 1860, the Senate passed Senator Johnson's substitute by a vote of 44 to 8. The House refused to concur and a conference was ordered and the conference committee, after twelve meetings, accepted the Senate sub-stitute. As expressed by Mr. Grow, it was '' a half loaf." The conference report was adopted by a vote of 115 to 51 in the House, and 36 to 2 in the Senate. Mr. Colfax stated that the proposed cost of 25 cents an acre to the homesteader was equal to the average cost of the land to the Government. Mr. Colfax and Mr. Windom announced that this bill was only the first onward step in the line of a new policy. But on June 23, 1860, James Buchanan, President of the United States, vetoed the bill and it failed to pass over bis veto, the vote in the Senate being 28 yeas and 18 nays, 8 votes less than a two-thirds majority. Mr. Buchanan declared the bill to be unconstitutional. He said that 25 cents an acre was a mere nominal price, and that it was equivalent to giving the land away. He declared that Congress .had no power to grant free homes on the public domain, or to grant land for use in the education of the people. Th eland he said was like money in the Treasury, and was a sacred fund that could only be disposed of by being sold for cash or for land warrants. The Louisiana purchase was paid for out of the National Treasury and Congress had no more power to give it away than theywouldhave had to give the money away that bad been paid to Napoleon for its pur-chase. The proceeds of land sales he looked upon as a source of rev-enue long to be enjoyed by the nation. Be did not recognize the benefits tllat might result to the people at large by the transfer of an uninhabited wilderness into a populous and prosperous commonwealth. The benefits to the old States by the addition of new taxpayers to the population did not eem to be appreciated by the President. The Pre id nt did not realize that in this new homestead policy lay a germ of national growth of untold value, in which the old States would hare the w alth to be added by the new members of the national con-fed ration. h id a that an uninbabited public domain was a sacred trust which shoul k pt a litude until it could be sold for cash seems to ha full n r d the mind of the Executive. illin an d irons of paying. 100,000,000 out of the funds r , ur. :£ r th I ur ha e of Cuba, which would add new power h au f 1, r , and he mi ht well under tand that a different ul , l :£ 11 w li uil ing u1 of new tate in the We t under a tm ffr hm. h ill w, lo t , 11 oon followed. The friends of h b m t a 1 e re1mbu~ ed for the amount::; to be paid from the 1>ro-an mg from the d1 posal of the lands when opened to ettlement . . f all h land alr ady opened to ettlemcot upou Iudian reserva-tion her t fore ?ed hall be taken up, the sum to be paid therefor b h t lei: 111 b 5, .33,0 >G .86. Thi bill proposes to relea e ~ l r fr m h payment of tbi sum. It i probable that a por-1 n f b 1 nd hu pen d t ettlemen t will not be . ettled upon d r h h m t ad act, and therefore the amount to be realized will r ch e f 111 , m a d. i imp . ible for the under igned to a rt in h t p rtion f h ]all(l ar n t adapt d to born t ad e · tl m nt. n h m J ri y p rt i i e. timated that not more than .,.,.,v . .. ,vu will Jiu 1 i 1 y he overnment. In th opinion hi tim t fall far hort of the probable lo to h of hi bill. FREE HOMESTEADS IN OKLAHOMA TERRITORY. 17 A table priuted by the Commissioner of the General Land Ofilce i~ inserted herewith, showing in detail the facts and figures as to tlae number of acres, price to be paid by the settlers, etc., in the case of each reservation. Both the Commissioner of the General Land Office and the Secretary of the Interior, upon their opinion being usked l'es_pect-iug the wisdom and the propriety of the passage of such a bill, have responded unfavorably, as will appear by their letters published with the report of the majority of the committee. S. Rep. 964----2 i of I11dinn lands obtained by cession and subject to disposal 1inder the homestead law, the amount which wi ll be received therefor mteier mount already received froni disposals, and the loss to the United States if homestead settle1·s are r elieved from furthe1· pay11w11t. Name of r<>sor,•ntion. Estimntetl I Totnl nmonnt I Statnte l?ro-1111ml>or paid for oes- dding ior of 1Lcrt•s sion. payment. ceded. Area in acres openeu or to bo opeuecl to settlement and entry. 1 Amount Price that will per be r eceived ncre from sot-to be tlers under -paid existing b\· set- la.w when iler. I all lands 1 ba.ve been Gr<>nt ~i~111~, N. Duk., S. 1 9,053,035 {a) ~ar .. 2, 1889 1} 8,550, 938 {$0: ~g}I $4, 735,879 l);\k.., ~el>r. (-5 ::st., 888) . l. 00 t\"l' Trnn•rs, X. Dok. nud 606, 71'.! $2,203,000.00 Seo. 27, not I 573,882 2. 50 I 1, 434,705 disposed of. S. llak. .Mnr. 3 , 1801 (26 St., Ynukton ~iou'I., S. Dnk ... .. . Fvrt llPr:lwlll. X. Dak ...... . C!\•nr !l'.Alen(', Itlnllo . .••••••• Ne7. Porct', Idnho ColYilk, ""n::.h . ........• .... . Siletz, Oreg ... ••..•••.•...•.. row, ::Uont .• •••••••••••••••• Chippewa, Minn . .••••••••••• lilt, 006 1,946,880 185,060 530,000 1,500,000 177,000 1,800,000 5,026,447 610,000.00 800,000.00 ()50, 000. 00 ], 668, 622. 00 (b) 1038). Au~. 15, 189-1 (28 St .. :no). hlar. 3. 1891 (26 St .• 1032). Mar. 3. 1891 {26 St., 1027). A.ug. 15, 1894 (28 St .. Sill). J uly 1, 1892 (27 St., 62). 142,600. oo I au~ 15, 189-1 (28 ::st., :!26) . 946,000.00 I hla.r. 3, 1891 (26 St., 1042) . {a) Jan. 14, 1889 (25 St., 64;!). 151,692 1,838,720 174,690 550, 556 1,416,668 177, 000 1, 700,000 3,322,936 3. 75 I 568, 845 1. 50 I 2. 758,080 1. 50 262, 035 3. 75 1 1, 877,085 1. 50 2, 125, 002 1. 50 I 265, 500 1. 50 I 2. 550, 000 1. 25 4, 153, 670 Loss to Amount I United States rocei'l"e(l if settler~ are to J'uutc' ;JO, relieYetl frum 1896. payment. Remarks. $111, 337. 63 j $4 624, 541. 37 !{Proceeds to be deposited in United States ' Treasury for benefit of Indians. 20, 211. 55 I 1, 405, 433. 45 None. 2, 758, 080. 00 37. 864. 45 1 530,980.55 None. 262,035. 00 I Subject to entr y under other tJ1:1n home-stea d law, b ut greatest proportion will probably be en tered under the homestead law. None. I 1, 877,085.00 I D o. None. 2,125,002.00 Proceeds to be subject to future d isposi-tion by Coniress. See sectiun 2, act July 1, lS!l:! (~i Stat., 03) . 1,445.65 I 264,054. 35 j Subject to entry under otber than home-s tead laws, but greatest proportion will probably be entere,l under home-stead law. 840. oo I 2, 549, 160. oo None. I 4,153,670.00 I Proceeds to be ueposi t ecl in U nited States Treasury for bane.tit of Incliaus. ~ 00 ~ ~ trj trj ~ 0 ~ t_,,j if) >-3 t,,.j ~ U). ~ 0 :,::; ~ P> ;:rl 0 ~ P> >-3 t_zj ~ ~ )-j >-3 0 ~ ~ ~ = ~ :' ~ I ~ ~ Ull{)roJree Outlet (exo1usn-e 9f Pawnee and Tonkawa banda), Okla. Pawnee, Okla ..• ·••·•••••• ••• Tonkawa, Okla ..•••••••• •••• Sao and Fox, Okla ..••••••••. [owa, Okla ..........••••••••• A.bsentee Shawnee and Pot-tawatomie, Okla. Cheyenne Okla. and Arapahoe, Kickapoo, Okla. ..•••••••••••. Wichita, Okla ...•..••.••.... Total ...••...•.......... ~ Proceeds from dispol!lal. b See remarks. ti, 574, 48ti 200,770 79,095 1191, 184 219,446 309,134 a, 1a2, 390 184,386 574,010 33,252,541 9, 324, 125. 00 June 16, 1880 (21 St., 248). Mar. 3, 1881 (21 St., 4c22). Mar. 3, 1883 622 St., 62') . ot. 19, 1888 (Sl5 St., 609). ¥~- 2,1889 (~5 St., 9946. Mar. 3, 18 3 (27 St., 640). 268,065.79 Mar. 3, 1893 (27 St., 644). 30,600.00 Mar. 3, 1893 (27 St., a.3). 950,278.00 Feb. 13, 1891 (26 St., 758). 305,565.46 Feb. 13. 11191 <26 St., 753). 773,000.81 Mar. 3, 1891 (26 St., 1021). 5, too, 646. 87 Mar. 3, 1891 (26St., 1025). 264,922.02 Mar. 3, 1893 /27 St.,363). 929,512.50 Mar. 2, 1895 (28 St., 897) . 25, 261, 987. 95 -···--·-------{ 1. 00 5,360,870 1. 50 2.50 } 7,370, 4c10 c137, 496. 86 7, 232, 913. 1' 169,320 2.50 423,300 07,000. 00 416,300.00 The Cherokee Indian• were also paid for ceding their rights in these lands . .A.mount included in item " Cherokee Outlet." 68,950 2.50 172,375 cl, 000. 00 171,375.00 Do.a 364,536 1. 25 455,670 052, 000. 00 403,670.00 Cost of cession includes amount paid Creek Indians for these lands.a 207,028 1.25 258,785 C 30,000.00 228,785.00 Do.a 256,896 1.50 385, 8« c35, 000. 00 850,344.00 Coc:eil a~d8i~~~:l:~~ii::0f~t tE:!~ lands.a 3,500,562 1.50 5,250,848 08, 000. 00 5, 24,7, 843. 00 Cost of cession includes amount paid ta Creek, Seminole, and Choctaw an 127,500.00 Chickasaw Indians for these lands.a 85,000 1. 50 127,500 None. Cost of cession includes amount paid to Creek Indians for these lands. d 491,388 1. 25 614,235 None. 614,235.00 Cost of cession is amount paid Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians for these lands. '.l:he proceeds from disposal are to be deposited in United States Treasury for future determination by courts as to amount to be paid the Wichita Indians. e 28, 911, 632 -------35,789,263 446, 256. 14 f35, 343, 006. 86 c No separate aooount was kept of the receipts from the disposals of lands in the several reservations in Oklahoma, and while the amounts apportioned to the several veservations have been estimated, it is believed that the aggregate receipts from all of the reservations is approximately correct. . d 14 Stat., 785; 25 Stat., 757; 26 Stat., 1025 ; 23 Stat., 212; 25 Stat., 1004. e The difference between area ceded and area opened to settlement and entry is due to reservations for schools, etc. j This amount will be reduced by so much as may be received iB. payment for com.mutation of homestead entries if any of the settlers elect to commute instead of receiving patent without payment by 11, longer residence. ltj t:o t_,,:,l t_:,::j t:q 0 ~ t_,,:,l m 1-3 t;rj > tj m H z 0 ~ t'" > t:q 0 ~ > 1-3 t;rj · ~ ~ H 1-3 0 ~ ~ 1-6 ~ 20 FREE HOMESTEADS IN OKLAHOMA TERRITORY. The bill under consideration has been given, in common phrase, an attractive nadlle. An alleged ''free-home" bill appeals to a certain sen-timent that has heretofore found acceptance in the enactment of our homestead law, and the contention of the majority of the committee is that no discrimiuation should be made between the settlement of the lands to whieh the homes-teMl act applied and tke lands acqaired as h-eretofoce stated. The committee says: The co11te-niion of y0111' committee is that the applica-ticm of the h0mestead la-~ is ht th&r-e shon~ be Il(i) discrimination-that it should be applied to every portioo. of the pViWic domain a.Jld to all the people who go out to subdue the wilderness. The IH'gm»eDt -that these lands were bought for a price from the Indians and that it was ~d that the ultima.te white @wners 0f the land sb,mld compensate the General {jovemmen,t for its eu..tlay has been given due consideration. The only possible oon-cmuaon, l't"itlml linef! of eq.uit-y, j,s that the provision was an 61.'Toneous 0.ne a.nd th-at its elimination from the s-tatu1ies has been alrea.dy too l0ng delayed. With this view t;be undersig:aed is entirely unable to agree. The public domain M it existed at the time of th~ passage of the homestead law, a.nd U.PQn whi('.h land was given to settlers in tracts of 160 acres after five years' residence and cultivation without payment to the Govern.meD.t, wa,s not acquired primarily to supply settlers with land. Territorial and politieal considerations mainly dictated the policy of obtainng too lauds by purchase from and treaty with other natious. At the time of acquiring th-e same very large portions of said lands -.retie not supposed tG be adapted to or capable of cultivation. The Bta.tesmen of those days could scarcely have contemplated the possibility that they would e-ver be occupied by settlers for agricultural purposes. Tbe aequieition of th,e saine and payment for the same had thus been made in the :first instance almost entirelywitlwut reference to any need that might ever exist that they should furnish homes to the American people. But in our rapid growth and development they had been prior ~ the time of the pa.ss~ge of the laws for opening Indian reservations lar~y taken up by settlers, and the demand fo1· new territory upon which to loea-te became pressing and clamorous. The exeitement which preceded the opening of lan.ds in Oklahoma will be still rem·embered, as will the mad rush scarcely controlled by Gown.men.t au.thorities to secure these lands upon the well-under tood oc:mdmo11. of payment for the same in addition to compliance with the provision of the M:meste».d laws. In every appeal made to Congre for -the opening of the lands of these reservatiom, the argument that ~e Government ought not to be put to the large expenditure required m the pa,yment of the I d.ian for the relinquishment of their title wa.8 ~&ed. by t ose who were advoc trng and in istin g upon the pa age of bills for that purpo e by saying that it was understood that the Gov-et"11Jneat ould be reimbursed by the ettlers. So far a Senators and ~ntatives and oth r urging the pa sage of such bills could be said ~ ~nt the ttlers who were cla.moring for an opportunity ro esiab~ them elves upon th eland , there wa , then, in the passage of t.Ae ~ a contract between those bo hould oooupy the lands and the Gff~t tha the would pay for the same a um equal to the a~ which e overn nt hould e pend in obtaining the Ian for tbei:r benedt. In each .ct pro · ing for ettlemen t upon such lan the prioo per acre to be paid w l a..rly sta ted and well understo d by v who loo3'ed u.po th.e land nd thus not an implied but ~ in b pini n f h nnd r . ign rl n~red into bf r W1 h h rni 1 11 p h tipnlat d pr ic for h land en1iel'E~ up £ r r · iving at 11 therefor. FREE HOMESTEADS IN OKLAHOMA TERRITORY. 21 It is probably not t-Oo mu.ch to say that not one of the agreements made with the Indians ceding their lands would have been ratified, and not an act opening them for settlement would have been passed, if it had not been thoroughly understood and agreed that the f!.ettlers upon these lands should reimburse the Government for the amount expended by it to obtain them. The obligation of the settler to pay the Government the price stipulated is as definite, well understood, and binding as the obligation of any Government debtor. While we do not question the policy of our homestead laws, we insist that in relation to these lands, purchased and opened upon the demand of the settlers, it was right that another policy should be adopted. The attractive idea of free homes for the people was all very well while the Government had lands acquired for political and territorial reasons which it could donate to them. The purchase of 160 acres and the donation of the same to a citizen is entirely another thing, and can be justified, in the opinion of the undersigned, upon no consideration of public policy or governmental duty. As well might the Government be called upon to buy lands from individual owners or syndicates, and donate them as free homes to settler s, as to be called upon to buy lands from the Indians for such purpose. As well may the Government be called upon to relinquish its debt to any other debtor who finds it incou venient to pay as to relinquish to the persons who have taken up these lands · under contract the amount which they stipulated to pay for the same. The propriety and right of reimbursement of the Governmeut for the sum paid in the extinguishment of Indian titles had been settled several years earlier than the passage of the first of these acts under consideration. In 1880 Congress found it necessary in dealing with the Ute Indians in Colorado, as the result of serious disturbances which there occurred, t0 remove them from contact with the citizens of Colo-rado. .And accordingly an act was passed in 1880 providing for the a,cqnirement of 11,500,000 acres of land from the Ute Indian Reserva-tion upon the payment therefor of a large sum of money, somewhat uncertain in amount but estimated in the discussion of the bill aU the way from $1,250,000 to $4,900,ijOO. The act in question provides speeifica.lly: TiHft noital!I of said uind,, whetker mineral w etherw1,$e, shall be lUWJ1Ze to entry an« s6tt'le-ment mHUl1' the provisions of the homestead law, but shall be subject t<> cash entry only in accordance with existing law; and when sold the pn>ceeds of said sale sha,H. li)e first sa.credly applied to reimbursing the United States for all sums parid out or set apart ll,llder this act by the Governmen t for the benefit 0f said I:ndi&ns, a:ad then to be a.pplied in payment for the lands at one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre which. may be ceded to them by the United St ates outside of their reservation, ill pursuance of this agreement. And the r emainder, if any, shall he deposited in the Treasu..ry a8 now provided by law for the benefit of the sud Indians, in the proportion b.ere-inbofore stated, and the inter-eet thereen shall be distributed an.Dually t0 them ia the same manner as the fl!l-nds prnvided for in this act. The homestead act was passed in 1862. Up to 1880, therefore, a :perioo. of eighteen years, it applied to the lands embraced in the public domain, la,nd.s which, as has already been said, were not purchased for t:he pur-pose of furnishing homes to our people. In 1880 a.:aother policy was adopted with reforence to the lands which the Governmellit might p:o.:r-chase from the Indians, and that policy has been steadily adhered to for sixteen years. There is nothing inconsistent er diserimiru.tting iJil these two policies. The passage of this biH will net only relinquish to the oeeupants .,f said Indian lands the amount which they have agreed to pa,y for the same, b.ut will establish the prin.eiple that mall m-twe emDg-0ci8b.me:as 22 FREE HOMESTEADS IN OKLAHOMA TERRITORY. of Indian titles the Government shall pay for the same from the money raised by taxation of the whole people, and then donate the lands thus acquired to individuals. .A.side from being indefensible upon principle, the amount involved, it will be seen, is very much larger than any eRti-mate heretofore made. 0. H. PL.A.TT.

[Report : Mr. Carter]

Abstract

Extracted data

[Report : Mr. Carter]

Abstract

Extracted data

Related items

Related items