THE GEORGE CATLIN INDIAN GALLERY. * 871 



nients already made on their i^resent location could be sold at their value to pur- 

 chasers. But until Congress takes definite action upon this subject this office wil^ 

 feel it to be its duty to press forward the settling upon lands or homesteads of all the 

 Indians west of Oklahoma, and to encourage them to open farms, erect houses, and 

 make other improvements as rapidly as possible ; for no time ought to be lost in teach- 

 ing these people to support themselves, and to stop all Avork and improvement would 

 throw them into a state of idleness, which would soon lead to crime and disorder, if 

 not to actual conflict among themselves and with their white neighbors. 



[See pages 221 to 227, herein.] 



INDIANS ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR INDIAN TERRITORY. 



[The following memorial from the Indian Territory in 1881 is given 

 in full. It is the Indian statement:] 

 Memorial of the Indian delegates from the Indian country, protesting against the passage 



iy Congress of the hill ^^ providing for the establishment of a United States court in the 



Indian Territory, and for other pur poses. '" 

 To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: 



Gentlemen : A short while ago we had the honor of presenting to you a memorial 

 protesting, for the reasons therein set forth, against the passage by C ongress of any 

 act establishing a Territorial gevernment of the United States over our respective 

 nations. Since the presentation of this memorial we have been shown, through the 

 kindness of the chairman of the Committee on Territories of the Senate, & project of a 

 bill entitled "A bill to establish a United States court in the Indian Territory, and for 

 other purposes," with the request that we present our views on the same. The op- 

 portunities given us for noticing this bill have been so limited and embarrassing as to 

 enable us to do but little more than to file a general protest against the measures em- 

 braced in it, while the author of it, Senator Vest, has had full opportunities, of which 

 he has availed himself, to advocate, with much prejudice to our nations and their rep- 

 resentatives now before the Government, his ex parte views of the merits ofthe bill. 



On a hasty glance at this bill we discover it embraces, substantially, three propo- 

 sitions, the combined effect of which will be, if they become a law, to revolutionize 

 our existing relations with your Government, by disregarding our tr eaties, and open- 

 ing our country to a miscellaneous and foreign population, whose interests and aspira- 

 tions are and always have been aggressive to those of the Indians. The three proposi- 

 tions named are as folloAvs : 



1. For the establishment of a United States court in the Indian country. 



2. For the allotment of the lands belonging to our nations as public lands of the 

 United States. 



3. To enable our peojjle to become citizens of the United States, with right of parti- 

 tion in regard to our lands and funds. 



Recurring to the first proposition, for the establishment of a United States court in 

 the Indian country, we desire to repeat, what we stated in our memorial to you a 

 short while ago against the territorialization of our country, that this court is pro- 

 vided for by our treaties of 1866, but that that provision is not mandatory ; only 

 providing that Congress " may " establish such a court, and that while the treaties of 

 the five civilized nations — the Cherokees, Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws, and Chicka- 

 saws — contain this provision, there are no such treaty provisions with the other 

 thirty-one tribes of the Indian country. If justice is really the object of the proposed 

 legislation, a common respect for fair dealing towards those other thirty-one of the 

 Indian tribes would seem to dictate that the consent of those tribes should be a 

 condition precedent to the establishment of this court. But so far as the five civilized 

 nations are concerned, we cannot object, in view of our treaties of 1866, against the 

 establishment of this court, provided its jurisdiction be confined to criminal matters. 

 In none of our treaties is civil jurisdiction provided for to United States courts, ex- 

 cept for specific purposes, as between citizens of Canadian district of the Cherokee 

 Nation and the citizens ofthe rest of said nation ; and even then the choice of such 



