OCR Text |
Show nng to the Southern LItes I have to say that it appears, from the report of Hon. George W. Manypenny, the Ute Commissioner, who during the last year's operations had special charge of the operations of the Commission touching the Southern LItes, that there is not sufficient land of the character required to carry out the stipulation with these Indians in the region of country now occupied by them; further, that such prejudice exists upon the part of the settlers in the country surrounding the valleys wherein the agricultural lands for their allotments would have to be selected, that conflicts would occur between them and the settlers, when ever the latter should have gathered in their vicinity in any considerable number. It is not at all unlikely that negotiations will have to be entered into with the Southern LItes for their removal from Colorado, and legislation is understood to be now pending before Congress looking to such end. This would then be an additional reasort for withholding any legislation looking toward the opening up of their lands until such steps as Congress may sec fit to take in relation to the final settlement of the Southern LItes is fully determined and completed. 75 A fourth voice to be heard on the dilemma of the 1880 agreement was that of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Hiram Price. He also agreed that it would be to the LItes' advantage to give them lands other than those mentioned in the agreement. He suggested the Uintah valley as the proper place for the Indian settlement, providing that there were sufficient lands in the area and that the Uintah Utes would agree. 7^' The statements of Kirkwood and Price presented the attitude of the Department of the Interior to Congress. Congress then responded bv introducing supportive legislation. On February 13, 1882, Senate Bill Number 1186, a substitute for Senate Bill Number 29, was submitted to the Senate. The bill, introduced bv Senator Hill, asked that suitable agricultural lands for the Southern LItes be provided in place of those lands named in the 1880 agreement. 77 This bill was then amended to name the Uintah Reservation as the land to be exchanged for the La Plata River area. 78 The desire of the people of southwest Colorado to have the Utes moved out of the state had prevailed. Now Congress adopted the attitude that it would be best to move the Indians out of the state, probably to the other Ute reservations in Utah. The bill passed the Senate but failed to gain the support of the Flouse, and it died in that session of Congress. 7i » Lack of interest in the Lite question seemed to be the reason for Congress' inaction. This was due partly to a change in representatives. The new office- holders were less involved than had been the old. Teller had been appointed Secretary of the Interior and his replacement, G. W. Wolcott of Denver, was not interested in the 75. U. S., Congress, Senate, Letter from the Secretary of the Interior. Transmitting a Communication from the Attorney- General and Report of Commissioner of General Land Office, also Report of Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in Response to Senate Resolution of January 10, 1882, Calling for Information Touching the Opening for Settlement under the Pre- emption Laws of the United States of Part of the Ute Reservation in Colorado, Ex. Doc No. 108, 47th Cong., 1st Sess., Ser. No. 1990, February 15, 1882, p. 2. 76. T. J. Morgan to the Secretary of the Interior, March 1, 1890, National Archives, Indian Division, Record Group 75, Washington, D. C., p. 5. Hereafter cited as Morgan to Secretary. . . 77. Congressional Record. Vol. XIII, op. cit.. p. 1077. 78. Ibidv p. 2796. 79. Morgan to Secretary, op. cit., p. 5. - 29- |