| OCR Text |
Show . . - . . t,. . , I ,. I .k. ~ . . .. 2% REPORT 'O ~. . . :' securiig of an= fiontiefa. Bat as th6bopilation of the.?n%ed. ~&bi , . i'nqeased and its settlemeuts pressed hard upm the boundaries'of the -' , ' Indian &ry s closei and more intimite cdmmunication beween: 1 ' ,whites and Indians became idevitable. It was dangerous toboth.. It . became. necessary, therefore, in order to prevent the "decline and 6ml - extinction of theIndian tribes," to preserve peabe on the f~n~t ierasn,d ; to protect the lives and proper* of the white settlers, for the Govern- , . . : .. . m&t to assume a relation to Indian tribes, and some degree ,to . ~.. . . . individual Indians, similar to that of.guardian. Thus it came about ,?.<. that by degrees the authority of executive officers over persons and -..' :,. property in the Indian cou~~twryas anlarg6d and increased, and natu- ..-- ., rally and almost necessarily the power of -th'e Indian. agent, through ' ,. : ~ .~ . ., . whom the.laws were usually execu$ed, also grew, in about the ~' .: .' - sa,me'proportion. The designation of officers of the Army to perform . , . . the duties of lndian agents, authorized in the "Indian intercourse act"' ' . . . of'1834, still further tendid to increase the agent's power, for the reason . . . tht,accustamed to rigid m y discipline, army officers expected and ,,: required a strict obedience to their orders, and whenIndians resisted. -. they were often coerced by military power into submission. - ' . : . . , . ,. Moreover, the Ipdiana themselvek in various treaties acknowledged . .. . . , thee dependence on the United States forgrotection in their rights as 3 . - tribes and as individual$. . . ,. . . .~ .It has been shown how the United States,in the beginningjregarded .i I . * and treated the Indian tribes aa independent nation@, taking no sOep . . .. , - @ward governingthem or providing tl~emw ith a form of gove&ment; - . ' . how by degrees, although acknowledging their autonomy, control was - , . , taken of their affaim, antil, in 1834, the Indian agent was gken power .~ ' to swure. the arrest and punishment of Indims even in- their own , .. . . . country. After 1834 some years elapsed before Congess 'deemed it necessary to give the Go+ernment further autlrority ,over the Indhn. . . .. F. - ; An act of March 3,1847(9 &tats., 203), providedthat aJ1 annuities or . . - . . other moneys, and all goods stipulated by treatyto be paid or furnished . . , , . . . . to any Indian tribe, should.be paid, not to tribal chiefs according to the , S - - ~ I ' ' law of 1834, but to the heads of familie8 and other in@vidua16 entitled . .. . . thereto, As if to make their dependend on the United States eom- . . . pley, the civil liberlies, if indeed they possessed any before,were taken- ' : from the Indians by a olanse in thaact which declared that "dl execu- ... ~ . . . . t o q con~act sm ade and entered into by any Indian for the payment ..- .. - of money or goods shall be deemed and held tsbe null and void and - of no binding effect whatsoever." Having no power to make acontract, . ' the Indian occupied the position in the eyes of the law similar to that - .. . ' - . . . . - of a minor. His disabilites indeed were even greater' than thoseof a ' ~,.. ' . , minor, because there was no classof executory contracts that^ he could ,. . . . , 'makethat w~ulint ot, under the law, be null and voia. Thus the In- ~. - dia,n by legislation wm brought to the condition to which circnm- .. . . stances hadalready pmtidyreduccd him. He looked to hisguazdian, . . . , ~. \ . - . |
