OCR Text |
Show except on some plan by which the government would not be obligated to pay the Indian for his right therein, but upon some terms by which the land would be disposed of by the government and the proceeds paid to the Indians. 149 On July 1, 1904, the Interior Department authorized that agent to proceed with the allotting lands to the Uncompahgres on the Uintah Reservation. There were efforts made by Utah elected officials to have cancelled the 83 allotments made previously to the Uncompahgres on their reservation and to have them given allotments instead on the Uintah Reservation. 150 In councils held with the Uncompahgres, they stated that " they had been moved so many times and land taken from them so often that they would never give their consent to any further change." 151 Congress did not grant the authority to change the allotments. On November 16, 1904, the Department authorized the agent to begin the work of allotting lands to the White Rivers and Uintahs, but only after surveys of the Uintah Reservation were completed. In December, Agent C. G. Hall reported on the difficulties attended to the allotment process. The weather was " becoming extremely rigid," and the " vast majority" of the allotments needed field work to determine whether the soil, particularly under the surface, was suitable for agriculture and, therefore, acceptable for allotment! 52 The Utes also continued in their opposition. For these reasons the Interior Department again requested that Congress delay the opening. 153 In the debates which followed this request, Representative Howell of Utah protested the extension of time as involving " the loss of practically one year to the settlers and homemakers." 154However, the House passed an amendment to the Indian appropriations bill which extended the opening to September 1, 1905.155The amendment provided that the reservation lands would be restored to the public domain by Presidential proclamation, " which shall lay down such rules and regulations for their opening, the idea being to have such rules and regulations as were prescribed, for instance, in the Rosebud Reservation opening...." The Senate considered this amendment along with amendments affecting other Indian groups in a debate centering around the question of the protection of Indian allotments from alienation. 156The Senate then rejected the House amendment and passed, instead, S6867 as a substitute amendment. This Senate version differed from that of the House in two major respects. The Senate version dropped the language " to restore to the public domain" and substituted " disposed of under the general provisions of the homestead and town- site laws." This change emphasized that the reservation would be opened under specific rules and regulations. The Senate version also dropped the language of the House amendment referring to the opening under the Acts of May 27, 1902, March 3, 1903, and April 21, 1904, and substituted language that the opening was to be only under the authority of this 1905 Act. These changes probably reflected the 31 |