500 



GOVERNMENTAL POLICY 



[b. a. e. 



often at variance, and therefore should 

 not be confused. The pohcj' itseU' may 

 have been just, equitable, and humane, 

 while the metliod of carrying it into effect 

 by those to whom this duty was intrusted 

 was sometimes i;njust, oppressive, and 

 dishonest. The governments, other than 

 those of the United States and the colo- 

 nies, which have had control of parts 

 of the territory n. of Mexico are Great 

 Britain, France, Spain, Russia, Denmark, 

 Sweden, and the Netherlands. Al- 

 though the jjolicy adopted by them in 

 their dealings with the Indians differed 

 in some important respects, all agreed in 

 assuming the right of dominion, based on 

 discovery, without regard to the natives. 

 In all the contests between the European 

 nations regarding their claims to territory 

 in the New World the rights of the Indi- 

 ans nowhere were allowed to intervene. 

 The earliest charters, as those to Raleigh 

 and Gilbert, make no allusion to the na- 

 tives, while most of those of the 17th cen- 

 tury call briefly for their Christianization, 

 and efforts to this end were made to some 

 extent in most of the colonies. The ques- 

 tions of most importance in the relations 

 of the whites with the Indians were those 

 relating to the title to the soil. Although 

 each government insisted on the right of 

 dominion in its acquired territory and that 

 of granting the soil, the rights of the 

 original inhabitants were in but few in- 

 stances entirely disregarded, though they 

 were necessarily to a considerable extent 

 curtailed (Johnson and Graham's lessee 

 V. Mcintosh, 8 Wheaton, 583 et seq.). 

 The Indians were admitted to be the 

 rightful occupants of the lands, with right 

 of possession over so much as was neces- 

 sary for their use; yet the policy of the 

 various governments differed in the ex- 

 tent to which the exercise of this right 

 was conceded. While Spain limited it 

 to the lands actually occupied or in use 

 (Recop. de Leyes de los Reynos de las 

 Indias, I, lib. ii, 1774), the United States 

 usually allowed it to the land claimed, 

 whenever the boundaries between the 

 different tribes were duly recognized. 



It was the usual policy of the United 

 States and other governments, as well 

 as of the colonies, in dealing with the 

 Indians to treat them as tribes. The 

 Articles of Confederation gave to Congress 

 the "sole and exclusive right and power 

 of regulating the trade and managing all 

 affairs with the Indians" not under State 

 jurisdiction. By the Constitution, the 

 power of Congress in this respect is briefly 

 expressed as follows: "To regulate com- 

 merce with foreign nations and among 

 the several States, and with the Indian 

 tribes." The authority to act in this re- 

 spect must therefore be found in this 

 clause, in that relating to the making of 



treaties, and in the general powers granted 

 to Congress and the Executive. The term 

 "tribes" in the clause quoted would in- 

 dicate that the framers of the Constitu- 

 tion contemplated dealing with the Indi- 

 ans as autonomous grou]>s, through trea- 

 ties; this was the method followed by 

 the United States until it was changed bj' 

 the act of Mar. 3, 1871, and was that of 

 the colonies and the mother country. 

 The effect of the act cited was to bring 

 under the immediate control of Congress, 

 as specifled in art. i, section 8, clause 3, of 

 the Constitution, all transactions with the 

 Indians, and to reduce to simple agree- 

 ments what before had been accomplished 

 by solemn treaties. Laws were enacted 

 in the various colonies, and also by the 

 United States, forbidding and rendering 

 void the sale of lands by Indians to indi- 

 viduals. By the act of Congress of Feb. 

 8, 1887, the later ])olicy of the Govern- 

 ment, that the Indian tribes should cease 

 to exist as independent communities and 

 be made part of the body politic, found 

 legislative expression. This act permits 

 tribal lands, including reservations, to be 

 divided so as to give to each man, woman, 

 and child of the tribe an individual hold- 

 ing and, after a limited probation, confers 

 citizenship upon the allottees, and makes 

 them subject to the laws of the states or 

 territories within which they live. Pre- 

 vious, however, to this flnal step inter- 

 vened the reservation policy. The plan 

 of forming Indian reservations was 

 adopted from the necessity of bringing 

 tribes under the more complete control of 

 the Government and of confining them to 

 definite limits for the better preservation 

 of order, and aimed especially to restrict 

 them to less territory in order that the 

 whites might obtain the use of the residue. 

 This was a most important step in the 

 process of leading the natives to abandon 

 the hunter stage and to depend for their 

 subsistence on agriculture and home 

 industries (see Besey'vationa) . The same 

 policy was followed in Canada under 

 both French and English rule, and to 

 some extent by the colonies, and it was 

 inaugurated by the United States in 

 1786. An incident indicative of one 

 phase of the policy of the colonies in 

 their dealings with and management of 

 the Indians is that Indian captives were 

 held as slaves in some of the colonies, 

 while, under various pretexts, during a 

 period in the history of South Carolina 

 Indians were forced to submit to the same 

 fate. In 1702 the Virginia assembly de- 

 creed that no Indian could hold ofhce, 

 be a capable witness, or hunt over pat- 

 ented land; an Indian child was classed 

 as a nmlatto, and Indians, like slaves, 

 were liable to be taken on execution for 

 the payment of debt (Hening, Stat. Va., 



