| OCR Text |
Show have been negotiated and lands acquired which could never have been effected, in my opinion, had the law been otherwise, or as it now stands in the statute. For the United States to thus provide that-no claims for Indian depredations shall hereafter be paid until Congress shall make speoial appropriation tberefor-andthen incuradebt totheIndians aGd afterwards divert the moneythus due them to the payment of the claims of its own people without Indian consent or even appraisal, would quite naturally appear to an uncivi-lized mind as a breach of good faith, which would justify hostility to a Government so apparently perfidious. In view of these considerations, I would again respectfully recom-mend that you urge upon the attention of Congress the necessity for , amending this law so as to divest it of its arbitrary and confiscator;y character, by vesting in the Secretary of the Interior such a proper discretion as was lodged in the President of the United States by the act of May 19,1796, and as is contained in the special legislation of July 28, 1892. It also appears to me that the status of the Indians with respect to their rights and privileges as litigants in these suits is not as well de-fined and carefully protected in the law *s it should be, if the recent decision of the Court of Claims in the case of Lewis J. P. Jaeger. vs. The United States and The Puma Tribe of Indians, be accepted as con-clusive. In that case the Assistant Attorney-General, charged by the fourth section of said act with the defense of the interests of the United States and the Indians in these cases, filed a suggestion as follows: And now comes the Attorney-General, appearing apeciallyon behalf of the clefend-ant Indians for thepurphse of thismotion only, and objects to the jurisdiction of the oourt over the defendant Indians for the following reaaons, to wit: (1) No service of petition, summons, prooess, or notice of any kind in this action has been made upon the defendant Indians, ar upon any Indian orIndiaus, agent, or representative of said tribe, hand, or nation. (2) Neither said defendant Indians nor any representative, attorney, or agent of ssid tribe, hand, or nation has appeared insaid sotion, or aonsentedto the aajudioa-tion thereof, or to the jurisdiotion of said court, or has had any notice or knowledge whstever of the pendency of these proceedings. Subsequently he followed up the matter by fling two motions as fol-lows : 1. And now oomes the Attorney-General, appearing onbehalf of the United States, and moves the oourt to oauae a notice of the pendenoy of this aotion to be given to tbe defendant Indians, as required by law. 2. And now oomes the Attorney-General, appearing on bebalf of the United States, and moves the court that the further proae~utiono f this aation be stayed, in order that the Attorney-General may give notice of the pendency thereof to the defendsnt Indim, as provided by law. After elaborate argument of the questions at issue, the court over-ruled and dismissed said suggestion and motions, and in passing its opinion upon the same held, inter alia, as follows: .By the terms of thin statute (the act of Mareh 3,1891) the defendants placed them-selves in the legal position of being responsible for the torts of the Indians. * " . |
