OCR Text |
Show . . REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. 121 Ul)on the face of it this appears to be a fair provision for the Indiaus and calonltuted to fully - protect their rights; but it shonld be remem-bered that the interests of the Governolent and the Indians are ident,i-cal only dnring the preliminary stages of the contest,-i. e., only when contesting the validity of the cldm-and that they become antagonistic afterwards when each seeks to onerate the other with the payment of the same. It is manifest, therefore, that the duties imposed upon the Attorney General are incongruous, and practically impossible of performance with justice to both parties. The Indian, not being L'defer~danitn the proceedi~~gisu, t he sense of being tlisti~~forto m theunited States," can defend hia rights only as subsidiary to those of the United States and' with their cbnsent. He has no independent right under this coustruc-tion of the statute to defend his interests in the litigation by counsel of his own selection and by processes of his own choice under the rules of the court, notwithstanding the provisions contained in said section that- Any Indian or Indims interested in the proceedings may appear and defend by attorney employed by anch Indian or Indians with the approval of the Commiesioner of Indian Affairs, if he or they shall choose to do so. Judgment may be taken by the claimants, with the consent of the attorney-General for the United States, and although the Indians may have their special cour~seel mployed under this provision, such counsel can not byright i~lterferea nd contest the same, for the reason that hi8 client is not a party to the suit "in the sense of being distinct from the United States." The effect of.this law upon the relations existing be-tween the United States and the Indians is very fas-reaching and final in respect to closing all inquiry in the future as to the existence, justice, and legality of the claim, not only as between the Government and tbe claimant, but as between the Government and the Indians, and it is thus of the highest importance that the respective liability of the two defendants should be determined upon the fullest and fairest adjudica-tion possible to be devised. To secure this, I think it is essential at the outset that the Indian should not he deprived of his "day in court" by imposing upon him the service of an attorney who can not, however willing and however able he may be, possibly do justice to his cause. I doubt, however, the propriety of permitting each tribe of Indians to enter into se.parate and specific contrllcts with attorneys to repre-sent them in these cases, for a number of reasons. The principal reason, and probably the only one necessary to be mentioned, is the expense of such an arrangement and the fact that there is no money set apart for such purposes except in the case of the Sioux Indians in South Dakota and Nebraska, for whose benefit in this respect an appropria-tion was made in the act approved July 13, 1892, as follows: The Secretary of the Interior is hereby inthorized to pay out of the oommon filnds Gelangiug to any band or tribe of Indians residing in Soutll Dakota and the hand of |