OCR Text |
Show 74 REPORT OF THE COXMSSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. several laws to secure to each Indian a tract of land for a home is defeated to the extent that companies of this privileged class may purchase by private barter from any Indian land of a quantity practi-cally without limit. There appears no provision in thin law concerning the reversion of the lands taken under the act in the event of their use for railroad purposes being discontinued, as is found in every other act granting lands and rights of way to railroad companies. Under this act a rail-way acquires the fee to the lands taken, after which it may put it to whatever use it m q desire. The O5ce is not informed how far the courts go into the matter of determining the necessity for the taking of additional lands when the application for the appointment of referees to appraise damages is heard, but it is evident that any testimony submitted at any such hear-ing must be of an ex parte character, as the Indian party in interest is unfamiliar with court proceedings and never secures the presentation of his side of the case, as is shown by an observation of proceedings thus far had where Indian lands have been concerned. In view of the fact that the law provides for the taking by railroad companies of additional lands only when necessary, and fails to pro-vide a method whereby the necessity for the taking of such lands shall be determined by the courts, would it not appear that it was tlie inten-tion of the framers of the law that the Secretary of the Interior should supervise the administration of the law through the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in so far as it relates to Indian 'matters, following the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Bishop of Nesqually v. Gibbon, adverted to hereinabove? In Department decision of December 26,1902, it is held that a right of way, "so far aa differences between the individual owner or tribd owner on the one hand and the railroad company on the other are concerned, is to be obtained under judicial rather than departmental supervision and sanotion." Does this mean that where a railroad company, through its skilled and practiced manipulators, overeomes and removes differences between an individual owner or tribal owner there is to be no supervision and sanotion of either the courts or the Department as to matters affecting the property rights of Indians? This is the inference drawn by this Office from the further holding of the Department that the maps to be filed under said act showing the additional lands to be taken "do not require and are not subject to the approval of the Interior Department." From a careful review of the operations of railroads under this act for the past year the o5ce is convinced that the property rights of Indians in Oklahoma and lndian Territory are in great peril, and that legislation for their protection is immediately neoessary, unless after a further consideration of the subject Department decision of Decem-ber 26,1902, may be modified so as to require its approval of the maps |