BULL. 301 



TRA y S TREATIES 



803 



ends of the poles rested about the ani- 

 mal's shoulders while the lower ends 

 trailed on the ground behind. The tipi 

 cover was folded into a compact bundle 

 and tied over the poles behind the horse, 

 thus forming a litter upon which other 

 household belongings, including some- 

 times the old people and children, were 

 placed, to the limit of the animal's capac- 

 ity. When the party reached its desti- 

 nation, the load was unpacked and the 

 tipi again set up. 



For special occasions a drag litter was 

 constructed in the same fashion, with two 

 poles for side pieces, supporting the cen- 

 tral rest, which was either a piece of raw- 

 hide suspended between the poles by 

 means of a rope passed through holes 

 along the edge, or sometimes a netting of 

 rawhide ropes stretched within a circular 

 hoop or frame. By reason of its springi- 

 ness this contrivance was more comforta- 

 ble for riding than the other, and was 

 therefore used for transporting sick or 

 aged people, children, and even young 

 pupi)ies. A rounded top to keep off sun 

 or rain was sometimes woven from willow 

 rods, and when used for transporting 

 small children this top was made to form 

 a complete dome-shaped cage, M'ith a 

 doorway which was securely closed after 

 the children had been put inside. The 

 cage travois for carrying puppies was of 

 similar pattern, but smaller, and was 

 usually drawn by the mother of the pup- 

 pies herself. The travois, drawn by dogs, 

 is mentioned as early as the narratives of 

 Coronado's expedition in 1540-42 (14th 

 Rep. B. A. E., 1896). In modified form 

 it has been proposed for army field use 

 in transporting wounded. (.i. m. ) 



Trays. See Ileceptades. 



Trea. Mentioned by Oiiate in 1598 

 (Doc. Incd., XVI, 114, 1871) as a pueblo 

 of the Jeniez (q. v.) in New Mexico. It 

 can not be identified with the present 

 native name of any of the ruined settle- 

 ments in the vicinity of Jemez. In 

 Onate's second list (ibid., 102) Fiapuzi is 

 mentioned. A comparison of the lists 

 shows the latter name to be a misprinted 

 conil)ination of "Trea" and "guati," the 

 latter being the first part of the name of 

 the next pueblo mentioned (Guatitruti). 

 A similar error occurs in the name Mecas- 

 tri'a in the same list. (f. w. h.) 



Treaties. The political status of the In- 

 dians residing within the territorial limits 

 of the United States has been changed in 

 one important respect by official action. 

 From the formation of the Government to 

 Mar. 3, 1871, the relations with the Indians 

 were determined by treaties made with 

 their tribal authorities; but by act of 

 Congress of the date named the legal fic- 

 tion of recognizing the tribes as indepen- 

 dent nations with which the United States 

 could enter into solemn treaties was 



finally set aside after it had continued for 

 nearly a century. The effect of this act 

 was to bring under the immediate control 

 of Congress the relations of the Govern- 

 ment with the Indians and to reduce to 

 simple agreements what had before been 

 accomplished by treaties as with a foreign 

 power. Why the Government, although 

 claiming complete sovereignty over the 

 territory and inhabitants within its do- 

 main, adopted the method of dealing with 

 the Indians through treaties, which in 

 the true legal sense of the term can only 

 be entered into by independent sover- 

 eignties, may be briefly stated: 



The first step of the Government in 

 determiningits policy toward the Indians, 

 whether expressed or implied, was to 

 decide as to the nature of their territorial 

 rights, this being the chief factor in their 

 relations with the whites. This decision 

 is distinctly stated by the United States 

 Supreme Court in the case of Johnson and 

 Graham's lessee r. Mcintosh (SWheaton, 

 453), as follows: "It has never been con- 

 tended that the Indian title amounted to 

 nothing. Their right of possession has 

 never been questioned. The claim of 

 the Government extends to the complete, 

 ultimate title, charged with the right of 

 possession, and to the exclusive power of 

 acquiring this right," which has been 

 subsequently confirmed l)y repeated de- 

 cisions of the court. The next step was to 

 determine the branch of the Government 

 to carry out this policy. By the 9th arti- 

 cle of the Articles of Confederation it was 

 declared that "the United States in Con- 

 gress assembled have the sole and exclu- 

 sive right and power of regulating the 

 trade and managing all affairs with the 

 Indians not members of any of the states. ' ' 

 It is clear, therefore, that while acting 

 under the Articles of Confederation the 

 right of managing relations with the In- 

 dians was vested in Congress alone. In 

 the formation of the Constitution this is 

 briefly expressed under the powers of the 

 legislative department, as follows: "To 

 regulate commerce with foreign nations 

 and among the several states, and with 

 the Indian tribes." 



It is apparent, from the use of the term 

 "tribes," that the frauiers of the Con- 

 stitution had in contemplation the method 

 of dealing with the Indians as tribes 

 through treaties. This is clearly shown 

 by the act of ]\Iar. 1, 1793, in which it is 

 stated that no purchase or grant of lands 

 shall be of any validity "unless the same 

 be made by a treaty or convention en- 

 tered into pursuant to the Constitution." 

 This action of (Congress necessarily placed 

 the initiatory steps in dealing with the 

 Indians under the jurisdiction of the 

 President as the treaty-making power, 

 subject to confirmation by the Senate. 



The colonies and also the mother coun- 



