﻿mwELLl 
  INDIAN 
  CLAIMS 
  TO 
  LAND. 
  43 
  

  

  difficulty. 
  This 
  is 
  due 
  more 
  to 
  the 
  imperfection 
  and 
  scantiness 
  of 
  

   available 
  data 
  concerning 
  tribal 
  claims 
  than 
  to 
  the 
  absence 
  of 
  claim- 
  

   ants 
  or 
  to 
  any 
  ambiguity 
  in 
  the 
  minds 
  of 
  the 
  Indians 
  as 
  to 
  the 
  bound- 
  

   aries 
  of 
  their 
  several 
  possessions. 
  

  

  Not 
  only 
  is 
  precise 
  data 
  wanting 
  respecting 
  the 
  limits 
  of 
  land 
  

   actually 
  held 
  or 
  claimed 
  by 
  many 
  tribes, 
  but 
  there 
  are 
  other 
  tribes, 
  

   which 
  disappeared 
  early 
  in 
  the 
  history 
  of 
  our 
  country, 
  the 
  bound- 
  

   aries 
  to 
  whose 
  habitat 
  is 
  to 
  be 
  determined 
  only 
  in 
  the 
  most 
  general 
  

   way. 
  Concerning 
  some 
  of 
  these, 
  our 
  information 
  is 
  so 
  vague 
  that 
  

   the 
  very 
  linguistic 
  family 
  they 
  belonged 
  to 
  is 
  in 
  doubt. 
  In 
  the 
  case 
  

   of 
  probably 
  no 
  one 
  family 
  are 
  the 
  data 
  sufficient 
  in 
  amount 
  and 
  

   accuracy 
  to 
  determine 
  positively 
  the 
  exact 
  areas 
  definitely 
  claimed 
  

   or 
  actually 
  held 
  by 
  the 
  tribes. 
  Even 
  in 
  respect 
  of 
  the 
  territory 
  of 
  

   many 
  of 
  the 
  tribes 
  of 
  the 
  eastern 
  United 
  States, 
  much 
  of 
  whose 
  land 
  

   was 
  ceded 
  by 
  actual 
  treaty 
  with 
  the 
  Government, 
  doubt 
  exists. 
  The 
  

   fixation 
  of 
  the 
  boundary 
  points, 
  when 
  these 
  are 
  specifically 
  men- 
  

   tioned 
  in 
  the 
  treaty, 
  as 
  was 
  the 
  rule, 
  is 
  often 
  extremely 
  difficult, 
  

   owing 
  to 
  the 
  frequent 
  changes 
  of 
  geographic 
  names 
  and 
  the 
  conse- 
  

   quent 
  disagreement 
  of 
  present 
  with 
  ancient 
  maps. 
  Moreover, 
  when 
  

   the 
  Indian's 
  claim 
  to 
  his 
  land 
  had 
  been 
  admitted 
  by 
  Government, 
  

   and 
  the 
  latter 
  sought 
  to 
  acquire 
  a 
  title 
  through 
  voluntary 
  cession 
  by 
  

   actual 
  purchase, 
  land 
  assumed 
  a 
  value 
  to 
  the 
  Indian 
  never 
  attaching 
  

   to 
  it 
  before. 
  

  

  Under 
  these 
  circumstances, 
  either 
  under 
  plea 
  of 
  immemorial 
  occu- 
  

   pancy 
  or 
  of 
  possession 
  by 
  right 
  of 
  conquest, 
  the 
  land 
  was 
  often 
  

   claimed, 
  and 
  the 
  claims 
  urged 
  with 
  more 
  or 
  less 
  plausibility 
  by 
  

   several 
  tribes, 
  sometimes 
  of 
  the 
  same 
  linguistic 
  family, 
  sometimes 
  of 
  

   different 
  families. 
  

  

  It 
  was 
  often 
  found 
  by 
  the 
  Government 
  to 
  be 
  utterly 
  impracticable 
  

   to 
  decide 
  between 
  conflicting 
  claims, 
  and 
  not 
  infrequently 
  the 
  only 
  

   way 
  out 
  of 
  the 
  difficulty 
  lay 
  in 
  admitting 
  the 
  claim 
  of 
  both 
  parties, 
  

   and 
  in 
  paying 
  for 
  the 
  land 
  twice 
  or 
  thrice. 
  It 
  was 
  customary 
  for 
  a 
  

   number 
  of 
  different 
  tribes 
  to 
  take 
  part 
  in 
  such 
  treaties, 
  and 
  not 
  

   infrequently 
  several 
  linguistic 
  families 
  were 
  represented. 
  It 
  was 
  

   the 
  rule 
  for 
  each 
  tribe, 
  through 
  its 
  representatives, 
  to 
  cede 
  its 
  share 
  

   of 
  a 
  certain 
  territory, 
  the 
  natural 
  boundaries 
  of 
  which 
  as 
  a 
  whole 
  

   are 
  usually 
  recorded 
  with 
  sufficient 
  accuracy. 
  The 
  main 
  purpose 
  of 
  

   the 
  Government 
  in 
  treaty-making 
  being 
  to 
  obtain 
  possession 
  of 
  the 
  

   land, 
  comparatively 
  little 
  attention 
  was 
  bestowed 
  to 
  defining 
  the 
  

   exact 
  areas 
  occupied 
  by 
  the 
  several 
  tribes 
  taking 
  part 
  in 
  a 
  treaty, 
  

   except 
  in 
  so 
  far 
  as 
  the 
  matter 
  was 
  pressed 
  upon 
  attention 
  by 
  dis- 
  

   puting 
  claimants. 
  Hence 
  the 
  territory 
  claimed 
  by 
  each 
  tribe 
  taking 
  

   part 
  in 
  the 
  treaty 
  is 
  rarely 
  described, 
  and 
  occasionally 
  not 
  all 
  the 
  

   tribes 
  interested 
  in 
  the 
  proposed 
  cession 
  are 
  even 
  mentioned 
  cate- 
  

   gorically. 
  The 
  latter 
  statement 
  applies 
  more 
  particularly 
  to 
  the 
  

   territory 
  west 
  of 
  the 
  Mississippi, 
  the 
  data 
  for 
  determining 
  ownership 
  

  

  