OCR Text |
Show XX REPORT OF THE COSIMISSIONEB OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. At the last session of Congress, Hon. E. Willits introduced a bill (H. R. -8-3-0 ) to extend the jurisdiction of tho district and circuit courts of the United States, for the punishment of crimes on Indian reservations witllin the 1imit.s of any State or organized Territory, and for other pur-poses" which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary; hut no further action appears to have been taken. I again respectfully recommend that the attention of Congress be called to the suhject, with a view to snch legislation a,s it iuay deem expedient. In regard to the 111dian Territory proper, a hill (S. '181) to transfer the jurisdiction from the western district of Arkansas w ~ dto establish a, United States court in the Territory at Muscogee, Creek Nation, is now pending before Congress. BOUNDABY BE'ITVEEN TEXAS AND THE INDIAN TERRITORY. A bill (a.E . 1715) is now before Congress seeking to establish the North Fork of the R,ed R i ~ e rn s the true boundary line between the Indian Territory and the State of Texas, instead of the South Fork or main branch, otherwise called the Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River. The tract of country in dispute is about 60 miles long and 40 miles wide, probably over 2,000 square miles, and contains a large qnaot,ity of valuable land. The history of the question in dispute be-tween theunited 8tate.s and the State of Texas, which has been agitated for several years,will be found in a recent report of the Conl~nitteeo n the Judiciary, to whom said Wll was referred. (See House Report No. 1882, Forty-seventh Congress, first session.) This report concludes as follows: After a oarefiil revicw of the facts in the oaso, for the question ss to which prong of the river is the true river is really a question of faot, your committee is deoidedly of the opinion that the South Fork is the true boundary, and that therefore the olaim of the State of Texas is unwarranted. * " * * If the data given in theso reports are correct, there would seem to be no doubt of the claim of the United Stateb to the tract in dispute, and therefore your committee report adversely to the bill referred to it. But inasmuch na the claim ia disputed, and that vith the esroestuess of belief on the part of Texas, and inasmuch as none of the surveys referred to have been made with tbe privity of the State of Texas, the joint oomrnissian appointed having failed to aot in conoert,, your committee is of the opinion that that State should have a hearinc in the matter. and should have an o-o~.v ~ortunittvo oa-onerate with the United States in set,tliug the fkots upon which the question in dispute rests. A: substitute ia re1,ortrd for the appointnaont of s joint oommission, the passage of which is recorn- - ~ minded. I n view of the complicatior~sw hich are already threatened through persons claiming to exercise rights on the di:puted tract under the jurisdiction of the State of Texas, as also the great influx of cattle herds thereon, it is important that this question should be definitely settled by Congress at an early date. |