power, and prosperity should not observe the same rates of increase that have characterized the past thirty years. We carry the great impulse and increase of these years into the future. There is no reason why in many lines of production we should not surpass all other nations as we have already done in some. There are no near frontiers to our possible development. Retrogression would be a crime. BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

December 6, 1892.

SPECIAL MESSAGES TO CONGRESS.

THE GREAT SIOUX RESERVATION.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

In pursuance of the power vested in me by the terms of the last clause of section 3 of the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, entitled "An act making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian Department, and for fulfilling treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes, for the year ending June 30, 1890, and for other purposes," a commission as therein authorized was appointed, consisting of Charles Foster of Ohio, William Warner of Missouri, and General George Crook of the United States Army. This Commission was specially instructed to present to the Sioux Indians occupying the Great Sioux Reservation, for their acceptance thereof and consent thereto in manner and form as therein provided, the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, entitled "An act to divide a portion of the reservation of the Sioux Nation of Indians in Dakota into separate reservations, and to secure the relinquishment of the Indian title to the remainder, and for other purposes."

The report of the Commission was submitted to me on the 24th day of December, 1889, and is, with the accompanying documents and a letter of the Secretary of the Interior, herewith transmitted for the information of Congress. It appears from the report of the Commission that the consent of more than three-fourths of the adult Indians to the terms of the act last named was secured, as required by section 12 of the treaty of 1868, and upon a careful examination of the papers submitted I find such to be the fact, and that such consent is properly evidenced by the signatures of more than threefourths of such Indians.

At the outset of the negotiations the Commission was confronted by certain questions as to the interpretation and effect of the act of Congress which they were presenting for the acceptance of the Indians. Upon two or three points of some importance the Commission gave, in response to these inquiries, an interpretation to the law, and it was the law thus explained to them that was accepted by the Indians. The Commissioners had no power to bind Congress or the Executive by their construction of a statute, but they were the agents of the United States, first to submit a definite proposition for the acceptance of the Indians, and, that failing, to agree upon modified terms, to be submitted to Congress for ratification. They were dealing with an ignorant and suspicious people, and an explanation of the terms, and effect of the offer submitted could not be avoided. Good faith demands that if the United States expects the lands ceded, the beneficial construction of the act given by our agents should be also admitted and observed.

The chief difficulty in the construction of the act grows out of its relation to prior treaties, which were by section 19 continued in force so far as they are not in conflict with the terms of the act. The seventh article of the treaty of 1868, relating to schools and school-houses, is by section 17 of the act continued in force for twenty years, "subject to such modifications as Congress shall deem most effective to secure to said Indians equivalent benefits of such education."

Section 7 of the treaty of 1868 provides only for instruction in the "elementary branches of an English education," while section 17 of the act, after continuing this section of the treaty in force, provides a fund which is to be applied "for the promotion of industrial and other suitable education among said Indians." Again, section 7 of the treaty provides for the erection of a schoolhouse for every thirty children who can be induced to attend, while section 20 of the act requires the erection of not less than thirty school-houses, and more if found necessary.

The Commissioners were asked by the Indians whether the cost of the English schools provided for in section 7 of the treaty, and of the school houses provided for in the same section, and in section. 20 of the act, would be a charge against the proceeds of the lands they were now asked to cede to the United States. This question was answered in the negative, and I think the answer was correct. If the act, without reference to section 7 of the treaty, is to be construed to express the whole duty of the Government towards the Indians in the matter of schools, the extension for twenty years of the provisions of that section is without meaning.

The assurance given by the Commissioners that the money appropriated by section 27 of the act to pay certain bands for the ponies taken by the military authorities in 1876 would not be a charge against the proceeds of the ceded lands was obviously a correct interpretation of the law.

The Indians were further assured by the Commissioners that the amount appropriated for the expenses of the Commission could not under the law be made a charge upon the proceeds of their lands. This I think is a correct exposition of the act.

It seems from the report of the Commission that some of the Indians at the Standing Rock Agency asked whether, if they accepted the act, they could have the election to take their allotments under section 6 of the treaty of 1868 and have the benefits of sections 8 and 10 of that treaty, and were told that they could.

As the treaty is continued in force, except where it contravenes the provisions of the act, I do not see any difficulty in admitting this interpretation.

It will be found that the Commission has submitted many. recommendations, some of them involving legislation and others appealing to powers already possessed by the Executive Department. The consent of the Indians to the act was not made dependent upon the adoption of any of these recommendations, but many of them are obviously just and promotive of the true interests of the Indians. So far as these require legislation they are earnestly commended to the attention of Congress.

The Secretary of the Interior has prepared and submits with his letter transmitting the report of the Commission the draft of a bill embodying those recommendations of the Commission requiring legislation.

The appropriations necessary to carry into effect the provisions of the act should be promptly made and be immediately available. BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

February 10, 1890.

.

THE LAKE TRAVERSE INDIAN RESERVATION.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 8th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting a report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and accompanying agreement made with the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of Dakota or Sioux Indians for the purchase and release of the surplus lands in the Lake Traverse Indian Reservation in the States of North and South Dakota; the negotiations for said purchase and release having been conducted under the authority contained in the fifth section of the general allotment act of February 8, 1887 (24 Stats., 388), which provides among other things that the "purchase shall not be complete until ratified by Congress, and the form and manner of executing such release shall also be prescribed by Congress.'

This agreement involves a departure from the terms of the general allotment act in at least one important particular. It gives to each member of the tribe 160 acres of land without regard to age or sex, while the general law gives this allotment only to heads of families. There are, I think, serious objections to the basis adopted in the general law, especially in its application to married women; but if the basis of the agreement herewith submitted is accepted, it would, I think, result in some cases where there are large families of minor children, in excessive allotments to a single family. Whatever is done in this case will of course become in some sense a precedent in the cases yet to be dealt with.

Perhaps the question of the payment by the United States of the annuities which were forfeited by the act of February 16, 1863 (12) Stats., 652), should not have been considered in connection with this negotiation for the cession of these lands. But it appears that a refusal to consider this claim would have terminated the negotiation, and if the claim is just its allowance has already been too long delayed. The forfeiture declared by the act of 1863 unjustly included the annuities of certain Indians of these bands who were not only guilty of no fault, but who rendered meritorious services in the armies of the United States in the suppression of the Sioux outbreak and in the war of the rebellion.

The agreement submitted, as I understand, provides for the payment of the annuities justly due to these friendly Indians to all the members of the two bands per capita. This is said to be the unanimous wish of the Indians, and a distribution to the friendly

Indians and their descendants only would now be very difficult if not impossible.

The agreement is respectfully submitted for the consideration of Congress.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

February 18, 1890.

BENJ. HARRISON.

CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MINNESOTA.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

In pursuance of the authority and direction contained in the act of Congress approved January 14, 1889, entitled "An act for the relief and civilization of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota," three Commissioners were appointed by the President on February 26, 1889, as therein authorized and directed, namely, Henry M. Rice, of Minnesota, Martin Marty, of Dakota, and Joseph B. Whiting, of Wisconsin, to negotiate with said Indians.

The Commissioners have submitted their final report, with accompanying papers, showing the results of the negotiations conducted by them, and the same has been carefully reviewed by the Secretary of the Interior in his report to me thereon.

Being satisfied from an examination of the papers submitted that the cession and relinquishment by said Chippewa Indians of their title and interest in the lands specified and described in the agreement with the different bands or tribes of Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota was obtained in the manner prescribed in the first section of said act, and that more than the requisite number have signed said agreement, I have, as provided by said act, approved the said instruments in writing, constituting the agreement entered into by the Commissioners with said Indians.

The Commissioners did not escape the embarrassment which unfortunately too often attends our negotiations with the Indians, namely, an indisposition to treat with the Government for further concessions while its obligations incurred under former agreements are unkept. I am sure it will be the disposition of Congress to consider promptly and in a just and friendly spirit the claims presented by these Indians through our Commissioners which have been formulated in the draught of a bill prepared by the Secretary of the Interior and submitted herewith.

The act of January 14, 1889 (25 U. S. Stat., 642), evidently contemplated the voluntary removal of the body of all these bands of 15151-11