OCR Text |
Show 102 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF. INDIAN AFFAES. On January 6, 1906, the Office reported its objections to Mr. Clapp's proviso and recommended that the law officers of the De-partment be requested to pass upon its legal effect and to furnish opinion as to whether any modification could be made that would afford greater protection to the mortgagees. In his response, on January 25, the Assistant Attorney-General said : The practical operation of the clause will he to depreciate the price of these lands, and any modiflcation that will remove any part of the objections thereto will benefit the Indian holder. Whether the objections to the tncorpration of the amendment are sufficient to cause its rejection in the face of the asser-tlons of disadvantage to the Indian that would grow out of the retention of the clause In its origlnal form can not, in the nature of things, be definitely determined. The actual results are prohlematlcal. I am Inclined to the opin-ion, however, that disadvantages to the individual Indian growing out of the clause in its original form, especially where the lands affected are agricul.tural. will be greater than the difficulties that will be presented if the modiflcatian he adopted. Mr. Lindsay, an attorney in South Dakota, also asked for a recon-sideration of the order, declaring that the placing of the liquor clause in the deeds was without authority of law and contrary to the pro-visions of the act of May 2'7, 1902, anthorizing.the sale of inherited Indian lands. With regard to the Yankton Agency, he said that plans had been suggested to defeat the operation of the clause by having the purchaser secure from the Indian grantor a deed or other instrument voiding the liquor clause, or by having him secure the consent of the grantors, after the delivery of the deed, to the ex-cision of the clause. He submitted that the clause would work a detriment to the Indians instead of a benefit; that if the liquor clause should be violated the title to the land might be decreed to revert to the Indian, and in such event the Government would no longer have control of the estate; and that, as this was a personal matter to the Indian and one which he could waive, the insertion of the clause in a deed would make the purchaser trouble, cause the Indian grantor to get a less price for his land, and yet in the end become itself inopera-tive. Mi. Lindsay added that he had been advised that the bids which had been accepted recently for Yankton lands were at much lower figures than similar lands had commanded formerly, and he in-vited attention to the fact that, as there are hut few sections on the Yankton Reservation in which some of the land has not been home- ', steaded by white persons or title past from the Indians under an inherited land deed which does not contain such a clause, there seemedto be no good reasou for inserting the clause in deeds convey-ing the remaining land. Mr. Lindsay's letter was forwarded to the Department on January 16, and on January 25 the Assistant AttorneyGeneral said that Mr. |