762 



LEEKWIKAI LEGAL STATUS 



[b. a. e. 



laydanoprodevskie. — Elliott, Cond. Aff. Alaska, 

 '227, l.STfi (transliterated from Veniaminoff). Led- 

 yanoprolivskoe. — Veiiianiinoff, Zapiski, ll, pt. Ill, 

 29, lS-10. 



Leekwinai ( Lee-hvin-d-V , ' snapping tur- 

 tle'). A subc'lan of the Dela wares 

 (q. v.). — Morgan, Anc. Soc, 172, 1877. 



Leelahs. Supposed to be a division of 

 the Kalapooian family; not identified. — 

 Slocum in H. R. Rep. 101, 25th Cong., 3d 

 sess.,42, 1839. 



Leeshtelosh {Leesh-te-losh). Probably a 

 Kalapooian band, said to have lived near 

 the headwaters of Willamette r., Oreg. — 

 Hunter, Captivity, 73, 1823. 



Legal status. The act of July 22, 1790, 

 contains the earliest provision relating to 

 intercourse with Indians. By it any 

 offense against the person or property of 

 a peaceable and friendly Indian was made 

 punishable in the same manner as if the 

 act were connnitted against a white in- 

 habitant (U. S. Stat., 1, 138). The act of 

 May 19, 179(i, emi)o\vered the President 

 to arrest within the limits of any state or 

 district an Indian guilty of theft, outrage, 

 or murder (ibid., 472). During the next 

 20 years the idea that the Indian tribes 

 were distinct nations, having their own 

 form of government and power to con- 

 duct their social polity, took form and 

 was distinctly stated in treaties. The 

 Indians' right to punish intruding white 

 settlers was stipulated in treaties made 

 with the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Chip- 

 pewa, Choctaw, Creeks, Delawares, 

 Ottawa, Potawatomi, Shawnee, Hurons, 

 and other tribes. The act of Mar. 3, 

 1817, provided tnat the power given to 

 the President under the act of May 19, 

 1796, "should not be so construed as to 

 affect any treaty in force between the 

 United States and any Indian nation or 

 to extend to any offense committed by 

 one Indian against another within any 

 Indian boundary." The courts decided 

 that for the United States to assume "to 

 exercise a general j urisdiction over Indian 

 countries within a state is unconstitu- 

 tional and of no effect." The crime of 

 murder charged against a white man for 

 killing another white man in the Cherokee 

 country, within the state of Tennessee, 

 it M'as decided, could not be punished in 

 the courts of the United States (U. S. 

 7'. Bailey, McLean's C. Cls. Rep., i,_ 234). 

 In the case of the Cherokee Nation v. 

 the State of Georgia (5 Peters, 1) the 

 court states: "It may well be doubted 

 whether those tribes which reside within 

 the acknowledged boundaries of the 

 United States can with strict accuracy 

 be denominated foreign nations. They 

 may more correctly, perhaps, be denomi- 

 nated domestic dependent nations. They 

 occupy a territory to which we assert title 

 independent of their will, which must 

 take effect in ]^oint of possession when 



their right of i)OSsession ceases; mean- 

 while they are in a state of pupilage. 

 Their relation to the United States re- 

 sembles that of a ward to his guardian." 

 This confused relation — neither depend- 

 ence nor independence — led to many dif- 

 ficulties. From time to time appeals were 

 made l)y the Indian Commissioner for the 

 extension of the laws of the land over In- 

 dian reservations. On Mar. 3, 1885, an 

 act was passed extending the law over 

 Indians to a limited extent (U. S. Stat. 

 L., XXIII, 385): "The right of the In- 

 dians to the reservation ordinarily oc- 

 cupied by them is that of occupancy 

 alone. They have the right to apply to 

 their own use and benefit the entire prod- 

 ucts of the reservation, whether the re- 

 sult of their own labor or of natural 

 growth, so they do not commit waste. If 

 the lands in a state of nature are not in a 

 condition for profitable use they may be 

 made so; if desired for the purpose of 

 agriculture, they may be cleared of their 

 timber to such an extent as may l)e rea- 

 sonable under the circumstances, and the 

 surplus timl)er taken off by the Indians 

 may be sold by them. The 

 Indians may also cut dead and fallen tim- 

 ber and sell the surplus not needed for 

 their own use; they may cut growing 

 timber for fuel and for use upon the res- 

 ervation ; they may open mines and quarry 

 stone for the purpose of obtaining fuel 

 and building material; they may cut hay 

 for the use of the live stock, and may sell 

 any surplus . . . They may not, 

 however, cut growing timber, open mines, 

 quarry stone, etc., to obtain lumber, coal, 

 building material, etc., solely for the pur- 

 pose of sale or speculation. In short, 

 what a tenant ior life may do upon lands 

 of a remainder-man the Indians may do on 

 their reservations ( Instructions, sec. 262, 

 1880; U. S. V. Cook, 19 Wallace, 591; 

 acts of Mar. 22 and 31, 1882; Rep. Sec. 

 Interior, May 19, 1882, 9636; Reg. Ind. 

 Dept., sec. 525, 526, 527). 



By their treaty of July 31, 1855, the 

 Chippewa of Michigan were permitted to 

 receive the title to lands taken up under 

 the act of Aug. 4, 1854 (U. S. Stat., x, 574) 

 without "actual occupancy or residence," 

 in orderto dispose of them (ibid., xi, 627). 

 An act pronmlgated in Mar., 1875, per- 

 mitteil Indians to homestead land (ibid., 

 xviii, 240). Those Indians who had 

 availed themselves of this act were by the 

 act of July 4, 1884, to receive from the 

 Government a trust i>atent, to the effect 

 that the Ignited States would hold the 

 land for 25 years, and at the expiration 

 of that period convey it in fee to the In- 

 dian who had made entry or to his heirs 

 " free of all charge t)r incumbrance what- 

 ever" (ibid., xxiii, 961). " Indians can 

 not preempt public lands and can not re- 



