| OCR Text |
Show The present status of the case, then, is, as shown by C/a.pt.ain Beck's telegram of July 29, thai theunited States di~trict~attorneisy e ndeav-oring to have the injunction case that was brought in the State courts transferred to the Federal courts, and Captain Reck, in the meantime, has suspended further evictions from the lauds described in the bill of eomplaint., upon which the. iujunctioi~w as granted. The object in dispossessiug the Flournoy Company and its aublessees was that the India~ism ight receive a just and fair consideration for their lands. The company leased direct from the Indians at a very small agreed consideration, ranging from 15 to 50 cents per acre per annum and would sublease at from 25 cents to $2.50 per acre per annum. The company itself, it is understood, did not occupy or culti-vate any of the leased lands, but relied for its profits on subleasing; and enormous pmfit,s they were, as call readily be seen. The plan of subleasing was that the subtenant should pay the company the agreed price, leaving theeompalty to pay the illdians; and to make the case more aggravating, for the past two gears the company has paid the Indians little or nothing for the use of tlreir lands, many of the Indians who leased their individual allotments receiving absolutely nothing. It has been the policy of tho office from the start that no "middle-man" should receive any profits from leasing Indian lands, that the lands should bc leased direct by the agent, and the rental go to the Iudians. And in breaking up the system of illegal leasing, so as to do away with all middle profite, it was not the original purpose of this office, or of Captain Beck, to dispossess the subtenant in any case where he was a propa party to lease Indian lauds, and where the allottee clearly fell mitliin the provision of the law as one who might lease his lauds. Therefore the sublessees were aclvised from the start that in allproper cases they might come to the agency andenter into legal leases under the instructions from the Department. Some complied; others refused. A great many of tlie subtenants had given their notes to the com-pany in payment of the rent, due inone, two, three, and four years, and soon, in accordance with thelength of the term. Th6se notes had found their way into the banks in the towns andcities adjacent to the agency, and the holders declared that they should be paid. The argument of the sublessee was that, as be had giveu his notes to the company in pay-ment of the rent, which notes he mnst pay in any event, if he entered into a legal lease through the agent he would then be compelled to pay rent twice for the same laltd. Doubtless they were encouraged in this position by the company, who also assured them that they would be pro-tected in the possession of thc? lands under the snbleases; and in car-rying out its promises of protection to its suhleseees the company has instituted the legal proceedings above referred to. |
