[No. 68 — Second Series— 3000] 
 
 Indian Rights Association, 
 
 1305 Arch Street, 
 Philadelphia, February 29, 1904. 
 
 ANOTHER “CENTURY OF DISHONOR”? 
 
 We appeal for justice on behalf of the Rosebud Indians, 
 of South Dakota, and insist that the Government, in taking 
 their lands, without their consent, in the capacity of guar- 
 dian and under the guise of law, shall not confiscate three- 
 fourths of its value, but should provide that the Indian 
 owners receive reasonable compensation therefor. 
 
 The clear statement of the case written for “The Out- 
 look” by Mr. George Kennan, and Senate Document No. 
 158, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session (a memorial of 
 the Indian Rights Association addressed to Congress), 
 which follow, show the gross injustice threatened the 
 Rosebud Indians by the bill (H. R. 10,418), which has 
 passed the House of Representatives and was favorably 
 reported by committee to the Senate, where it is now 
 pending. 
 
 Until the recent decision of the Supreme Court (January 
 5, 1903) in the case of Lone Wolf vs. the Secretary of the 
 Interior, which held that Congress may abrogate at will 
 an Indian treaty, it was the uniform policy of the Govern- 
 ment to respect (in form, at least) the treaties entered 
 into with its Indian wards. Since the court has clothed 
 Congress with the authority of an absolute guardian, it is 
 incumbent upon the law-making power to see that the 
 interests of its wards are protected. The bill in question 
 proposes to sell 416,000 acres of the Rosebud Indian lands. 
 
2 
 
 without their consent, to homestead settlers at about one- 
 fourth its actual value ; and, moreover, the payment of this 
 insufficient price is not even guaranteed the Indians by 
 the Government. It should also be noted that the Rose- 
 bud Indians, in common with the Great Sioux Nation, 
 hold this land by the most solemn treaty with the Govern- 
 ment, having given as a consideration full relinquishment 
 of claims to other lands. 
 
 At the Santee Agency (fifteen miles from Rosebud), 
 where the soil is inferior to that on the Rosebud tract, 
 many sales of inherited Indian lands have been made at 
 $3000 a quarter section, or $18.75 acre. Two years ago 
 an Indian allottee leased her lands (lying within the district 
 it is proposed to sell) at a yearly rental of $2.50 an acre, 
 almost as much as Congress would sell the land for; and 
 this is not an isolated instance. Such facts speak for 
 themselves as to the actual value of the land. 
 
 Since this injustice to the Rosebud Indians has been 
 brought to the President’s attention, it is probable that the 
 threatened wrong may be averted. There is, however, need 
 to arouse a healthy public sentiment that will demand of 
 the law-making power fair treatment in this as well as 
 similar cases that may arise. 
 
 All friends of the Indian are urged to write to their 
 representatives in Congress (Senate and House) calling 
 attention to the Rosebud bill, and inviting careful scrutiny 
 of similar legislation that may hereafter be attempted. 
 
 Any help rendered by the press in arousing a demand 
 for justice will be appreciated. 
 
 Philip C. Garrett, 
 President Indian Rights Association. 
 
3 
 
 [From “ The Outlook,” New York, February 27, 1904.] 
 
 INDIAN LANDS AND FAIR PLAY. 
 
 By George Kennan. 
 
 On the 5th of January, 1903, the United States Supreme 
 Court decided, in the case of Lone Wolf et al. against 
 Hitchcock, that Congress has full power to abrogate exist- 
 ing Indian treaties, or to violate such treaties without 
 notice to the other parties in interest, and to dispose of 
 Indian reservation lands at its own discretion, regardless 
 of treaty stipulations. The Court assumed, as a matter 
 of course, that Congress would exercise this power “only 
 from considerations of governmental policy, . . . and 
 
 with perfect good faith to the Indians”; but as to the 
 existence of the power, and the “controlling authority” 
 of Congress, there could be, in the opinion of the Court, 
 no doubt whatever. 
 
 Since the announcement of this decision, parties inter- 
 ested in the acquirement of Indian lands in various parts 
 of the West have been urging Congress to throw open 
 Indian reservations to settlement, not “from considera- 
 tions of governmental policy,” but simply because they — 
 the interested parties — want the lands. Two bills pro- 
 viding for the opening up and settlement of parts of Indian 
 reservations have come before the present Congress; and 
 inasmuch as this is the first time that the legislative branch 
 of the Government has attempted to exercise its power 
 under the Lone Wolf decision, and to take away Indian 
 lands without Indian consent, it seems worth while to 
 review the bills and ascertain whether they are consistent 
 with the “perfect good faith to the Indians” which the 
 Court assumed that Congress would observe. 
 
 The first measure (H. R. 10,418) is entitled “An Act to 
 ratify and amend an agreement with the Sioux tribe of 
 Indians of the Rosebud Reservation, in South Dakota.” 
 The clear implication of the title is that the main provi- 
 sions of the bill, at least, have been submitted to the Rose- 
 
4 
 
 bud Sioux and have received their approval and assent; 
 but the accompanying report of the Indian Office shows 
 that such is by no means the case. The attempt that was 
 made by Inspector McLaughlin to get the Indians to agree 
 to surrender their lands completely failed, and Commis- 
 sioner Jones frankly admits that “the bill . . . pro- 
 
 poses to open the surplus lands of the Rosebud Indians, 
 situated in Gregory County, for public settlement, and 
 dispose of the same without the consent of the Indians to 
 the terms thereof.” The bill, therefore, should have been 
 entitled “An Act to seize all the lands of the Rosebud 
 Indians in Gregory County, South Dakota, and to sell the 
 same to settlers, under the homestead laws, without the 
 Indians’ consent and at the prices herein fixed.” That 
 would have been an honest title, while the other is mis- 
 leading and deceptive. 
 
 An examination of the bill, and an investigation of the 
 matters to which it relates, seem to show that it is as 
 unfair in intent as it is deceptive in title. It provides 
 that all the lands of the Rosebud Sioux in Gregory Coimty,. 
 South Dakota, amounting in the aggregate to 416,000 
 acres, shall be taken from them without their consent, and 
 shall be sold to settlers under the homestead laws at the 
 “flat” price of three dollars per acre. The Government 
 does not pay for the lands, nor guarantee payment; but 
 acts merely as trustee, and promises to credit the Indians 
 with the proceeds of the sale. The settlers who take the 
 lands are allowed five years in which to complete the pur- 
 chase, the annual payments being fixed at fifty cents per 
 acre, without interest. 
 
 The question whether the Government, in this bill, is 
 dealing honorably and justly with its Indian wards, or not, 
 depends upon the actual value of the land that it takes 
 from them and sells on their account. If the land is 
 worth $5 an acre in the open market and the Government 
 sells it for $3, it manifestly acts unjustly, because its duty, 
 as guardian or trustee, is to protect the interests of its 
 dependent wards, and get as much for their property as 
 
5 
 
 possible. If a large part of the land is worth $25 or $30 per 
 acre, and the Government sells it for $3, it commits a gross 
 breach of trust, amounting, in effect, to wholesale robbery. 
 
 That much of the Gregory County land of the Rosebud 
 Sioux is worth $25 or $30 per acre, and that the whole 
 tract to be thrown open to settlement would bring an 
 average price of $10 per acre, there seems to be no doubt 
 whatever. Mr. Joseph D. Keller, of the real estate firm 
 of Rathman & Keller, of Bonesteel, South Dakota, says: 
 “There are 416,000 acres of land on the reservation to 
 be opened. Most of it is fine land. Not a mile and a 
 half from the reservation boundary, the other day, we sold 
 a quarter section to a Pierson, Iowa, man for $5000” 
 ($31 per acre). 
 
 The C. A. Johnson Realty Company, of Bonesteel and 
 Fairfax, South Dakota, replying under date of January 26, 
 1904, to a customer’s inquiry with regard to the value of 
 land in Gregory County, said that grazing land was worth 
 $7 per acre, and farming land $25 to $40. 
 
 Edwin M. Starcher, of Fairfax, South Dakota — another 
 dealer in real estate — replied to a similar inquiry by saying 
 that “the average price of grazing land in this country 
 runs from $5 to $10 per acre. Improved farms from $25 
 to $40.’’ 
 
 Rev. A. B. Clark, of Rosebud, South Dakota, writes 
 that the reservation land in Gregory County is worth $10 
 per acre on an average. “Adjoining tracts,’’ he says, 
 “sell for $30 per acre, and the heirs of a Gregory County 
 allottee have a standing offer of $6000 for one section 
 lying partly in the bluffs of the Missouri. All this tract 
 of (Indian) land lies within the belt of regular rainfall 
 and regular crops, and it is no wonder that some news- 
 papers stated, last summer, that the price was to be $20 
 per acre. Local editors said that while the land was worth 
 that price, the Indians would get only $2.50 for it.’’ 
 
 Indian Commissioner Jones himself says, in his report 
 on this bill, that “a considerable portion of these lands 
 is worth perhaps two or three times the amount proposed 
 
6 
 
 to be charged homestead settlers therefor.” Privately, he 
 has admitted that if the whole tract were ofiEered at com- 
 petitive sale, it would undoubtedly bring an average price 
 of $io per acre. ************* 
 From the facts above set forth it clearly appears that 
 the first time Congress attempted to avail itself of the 
 power given to it by the Lone Wolf decision — a power 
 which the Court expected it to exercise ‘‘with perfect good 
 faith to the Indians” — it tried to take away from the latter 
 at a price of $3 per acre lands that were "worth at least 
 $10, and thus to deprive them of about $3,000,000 to which 
 they were equitably entitled. =t=**H:**** 
 The case has now been brought to the attention of the 
 President; and inasmuch as he has always shown a dis- 
 position to give the Indians ‘‘a square deal,” there is some 
 reason to hope that when the Rosebud lands are thrown 
 open to settlement, they will be offered at public com- 
 petitive sale, instead of at a “flat” price, and will thus 
 bring their full market value. 
 
 The other Indian land bill that has come before the 
 present Congress (S. 1,490), and that has passed both 
 Houses, is entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize the sale of a 
 part of what is known as the Red Lake Indian Reservation 
 in the State of Minnesota.” This bill purports to be based 
 on an agreement made with the Red Lake Indians by 
 Inspector McLaughlin in March, 1902; but inasmuch as 
 the terms of the agreement do not correspond with the 
 provisions of the bill, this legislation also must be regarded 
 as a taking of Indian lands without Indian consent. On 
 its face, this bill seems to provide for a competitive sale, 
 with allotment of the lands to the highest bidders; but it 
 contains a proviso that ‘‘after the first” (competitive) 
 ‘‘sale hereunder shall be closed, the lands remaining unsold 
 shall be subject to sale and entry” (under the homestead 
 laws) ‘‘at the price of four dollars per acre.” The objec- 
 tionable feature of this bill is its intentional or accidental 
 ambiguity. Instead of saying that the lands shall be 
 offered at competitive sale for a period of six months, or 
 
7 
 
 one year, and that thereafter all land unsold shall be sub- 
 ject to sale and entry at the “flat” price of $4 per acre, it 
 seems to provide for an allotment of the lands at $4 ajter 
 the first sale. It is perfectly obvious that if lands worth 
 $10 to $20 an acre are put up at auction for a single day, 
 and if those same lands can be obtained on the following 
 day for $4 “flat,” few people will bid at the “first sale.” 
 The effect of the bill, therefore, may be to give the whole 
 tract of 256,000 acres to settlers at the “flat” rate, when, if 
 it were disposed of by means of competitive sales, ad- 
 journed and continued from time to time at the discretion 
 of the Secretary of the Interior, the whole tract would 
 bring its actual market value. This bill also has been 
 brought to the attention of the President, and his action 
 upon it may perhaps depend upon the opinion of the law 
 officers of the Government as to its real meaning and 
 effect. If its object be honestly to continue the com- 
 petitive sales from time to time, so as to sell to the highest 
 bidders all the land that the market will take in that way, 
 it is unobjectionable; but its extraordinary ambiguity 
 throws a shadow of suspicion upon its intent. If its 
 effect should be to throw the lands — or the bulk of them 
 — open to settlement at $4 per acre, it would deprive the 
 Red Lake Indians of about $1,500,000 to which they are 
 justly entitled. Neither of these two bills should have 
 been approved by the Indian Office and the Secretary of 
 the Interior. One of them was evidently intended to take 
 a large tract of land away from the Indians without 
 giving them adequate compensation, while the other 
 was so loosely drawn as to leave room for a construction 
 that would work great injustice. 
 
 Now that the Supreme Court has virtually given Con- 
 gress full power to take Indian lands without the Indians’ 
 consent, attempts will undoubtedly be made in all parts 
 of the West to get possession of desirable Indian reserva- 
 tions; and it is important that the Government — including 
 Congress, the President, and the Interior Department — 
 should decide upon some definite and consistent method 
 
8 
 
 of disposing of such Indian lands as it is thought best to 
 throw open to settlement. The Indians have a right to 
 get, and the Government, as their guardian, is bound to see 
 that they do get, the highest market value of the lands 
 that they are forced to give up; and the only equitable 
 way in which that value can be ascertained is by means 
 of public competitive sale to the highest bidders. The 
 Interior Department has already adopted this method in 
 dealing with inherited Indian lands in the Indian Territory, 
 and the results have been in every way satisfactory. One 
 lot of Creek land, for example, near the town of Eufala, 
 which was appraised at $800, recently brought, at com- 
 petitive sale, ^3500. Another lot, which was appraised at 
 $1500, attracted nine bidders and was bought at $2540. 
 If these lands had been sold at their appraised value, or at 
 a “ flat ” price fixed by Congress, their Indian owners would 
 not have received anything like the amounts that the 
 lands were really worth. 
 
 Since the Supreme Court has deprived the Indians of 
 the right, which they formerly had, to protect themselves 
 by refusing to sell their reservations, and has turned them 
 into helpless and dependent wards of the Nation, the 
 Government is bound, by every consideration of honor 
 and equity, to protect them from exploitation, and to deal 
 with their property precisely as a shrewd and honest 
 guardian would deal with the property of a minor ward. 
 It is to be hoped, therefore, that the President will instruct 
 the Secretary of the Interior not to approve, hereafter, 
 any bill for the opening of an Indian reservation that does 
 not provide for a competitive sale of the lands to the 
 highest bidders. 
 
 But the moral obligation which the Government is 
 under to protect the interests of its Indian wards is not 
 the only duty that it has in connection with Indian lands. 
 It is equally bound to relieve and protect all of its citizens 
 from unnecessary taxation for Indian education and 
 support. If the sale of Indian lands at their full market 
 value would go a long way toward meeting the expenses 
 
9 
 
 of the Indian administration, the people of the United 
 States have a right to ask that they be relieved from 
 taxation for that purpose to just that extent. It is not 
 fair to take out of the United States Treasury, by means 
 of an Indian appropriation bill, money that might just as 
 well be got out of the Indian lands that are thrown open 
 to settlement, if such lands were sold to the highest bidders 
 at competitive sale. If the lands of the Rosebud and 
 Red Lake Indians in South Dakota and Minnesota sell 
 for their full market value when they are thrown open to 
 settlement, they will probably bring $4,500,000 more 
 than they would if disposed of at the flat prices of $3 
 and $4 per acre specified in these two bills, and will con- 
 sequently relieve the people of the United States from 
 taxation for Indian support and education to just that 
 amount. 
 
lO 
 
 [Fifty-eighth Congress, Second Session, Senate Document No. 158.] 
 
 ROSEBUD INDIANS OF SOUTH DAKOTA. 
 
 Mr. Cockrell presented the following “Memorial of the 
 Indian Rights Association, on behalf of the Rosebud 
 Indians of South Dakota, Relating to the Proposed Sale 
 of 416,000 Acres of the Lands of their Reservation.’’ 
 
 February 15, 1904, referred to the Committee on Indian 
 Affairs and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Agency of the Indian Rights Association, 
 
 Washington, D. C., February 15, 1904. 
 
 A memorial of the Indian Rights Association on behalf of the 
 Rosebud Indians, of South Dakota, relating to the pro- 
 posed sale of 416,000 acres of the lands of their reserva- 
 tion, showing that in fairness and good conscience the price 
 proposed to be paid them by the bill H. R. 10418 w inade- 
 quate, and petitioning that justice may prevail. 
 
 To the Congress of the United States: 
 
 On behalf of the Rosebud tribe or band of Sioux Indians, 
 of Rosebud Reservation, S. Dak., and at their request, we 
 appeal for a hearing of the claims of these Indians; that 
 they will suffer great injustice if the bill H. R. 10418, now 
 pending before the Senate, be enacted into law. 
 
 Briefly, the bill proposes to dispose of 416,000 acres 
 of the Rosebud Indian lands lying in Gregory County, 
 S. Dak., without Indian consent, at prices ranging from $3 
 per acre downward, according to date of purchase, etc., 
 the Government acting only as trustee for the Indians, 
 especially providing that it does not guarantee any part 
 of the purchase price. 
 
 The bill sets up an agreement secured from the Indians 
 in 1901, wherein the latter were guaranteed $1,040,000 for 
 these lands by the Government (being $2.50 per acre). 
 
 The Supreme Court of the United States while deciding 
 (Lone Wolf case, October term, 1902) that Congress was 
 
vested with authority to disregard treaties made with our 
 Indian tribes, presupposes that in our dealings with the 
 Indians absolute justice will be done them. The Court 
 says: 
 
 The power exists to abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty, 
 though presumably such power will be exercised only when cir- 
 cumstances arise which will not only justify the Government in 
 disregarding the stipulations of the treat3^ but may demand, in 
 the interest of the Government and the Indians themselves, that 
 it should do so. * * * It was never doubted that the power 
 
 to abrogate existed in Congress, and that in a contingency such 
 power might be availed of from considerations of governmental 
 policy, particularly if consistent with perfect good faith toward the 
 Indians. 
 
 We must presume that Congress acted in perfect good faith in 
 the dealings with the Indians, * * * and that the legislative 
 
 branch of the Government exerci.sed its best judgment in the 
 premises. 
 
 The Congress having assumed absolute control, by guar- 
 dianship, of the Indians, it must accept the added responsi- 
 bility of providing for absolute justice to these w-ards. 
 
 If an obligation of the Government entered into with the 
 Indians may be broken at will by reason of incapacity of 
 the ward, we can not in justice nor good conscience hold 
 the ward to an admission in a former agreement as to the 
 value of lands. Furthermore, the agreement set up in 
 the bill is alleged to have been secured through strenuous 
 effort. The Indians claim they were given to understand 
 that the Government w'ould take their lands anyway at 
 the Government price, S1.25 per acre, if they did not agree 
 to accept $2. 50 per acre. 
 
 As already stated, it is not necessary to dwell upon the 
 history surrounding the agreement of 1901. Congress pro- 
 poses to disregard it in important particulars by withdraw- 
 ing its guaranty of payment of the purchase money, and 
 resolving the Indians to the uncertain payment of settlers 
 upon the lands, who, upon becoming delinquent, usually 
 appeal to Congress for extension of the time of payment, 
 and indeed for the remission of the debt. This plan in 
 
the past has been found to result sometimes in frittering 
 away the Indian estate. 
 
 In brief, the agreements are held not to be binding upon 
 the Government, and therefore the Indians, as the other 
 contracting party, are fully released. 
 
 To set up the agreement of the Indian tribe, therefore, 
 in the bill is useless and can not be otherwise than mis- 
 leading. The question resolves itself to this: What is the 
 actual value of the land proposed to be sold by the guardian 
 Government ? 
 
 Reuben Quickbear, president of the Rosebud Indian 
 Council, writes as follows: 
 
 Rosebud, S. Dak., January i8, 1904. 
 
 Dear Sir: I suppose you know that Mr. Burke’s bill taking our 
 Gregory County land without our consent and at a merely nominal 
 price is now in the hands of Mr. Sherman, chairman of the House 
 Committee on Indian Affairs. 
 
 If ever we needed help we need it now, and badly. Mr. Clark, 
 the Episcopal missionary here, has written to Mr. Sherman pro- 
 testing against the amount offered — or rather thrust at us — for the 
 land. He has been here for years and knows the value of it. A 
 real estate man recently went over it and told a friend of mine that 
 he would gladly give $10 an acre for the whole tract, and could 
 raise the money in three weeks. Over a year ago a syndicate 
 offered the Commissioner $5 per acre for the whole tract, and land 
 around here has since doubled in value. We only ask $5 per acre. 
 
 We call on the Indian Rights Association to help us in this our 
 hour of need, and ask you to protest to Mr. Sherman against the 
 passage of this unjust bill. 
 
 Ask that three men be appointed to value the land — one to be 
 appointed by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, one by the 
 Indians, and these two to select a third, as was done when the 
 Omaha Reservation was valued }^ears ago. If this proposal is 
 entertained the South Dakota delegation will at once consent to 
 $5 per acre, as they well know that any halfway fair valuation 
 would be far more than that. A shyster lawyer named Backus is 
 in Washington stating that our land is not worth more than $2.50 
 per acre. He lives in Bonesteel, in Gregory County, and has been 
 sent by the people there to help beat us in this land deal. 
 
 Yours, truly, Reuben Quick Bear, 
 
 President of the Indian Council. 
 
 Mr. Herbert Welsh, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
13 
 
 As shown by the report (dated January 9, 1904) of the 
 honorable Commissioner of Indian Affairs, on the bill in 
 question, the Indians were not satisfied with the price 
 offered them. He states: 
 
 When the agreement of September 14, 1901 , was being concluded, 
 the Indians argued with great persistency that their lands were 
 worth more than $2.50 per acre, and they were almost unanimous 
 in declaring that they were well worth $5 per acre. Since that 
 time several petitions have been received from the Rosebud Indians 
 earnestly protesting against the ratification of said agreement 
 because of the inadequacy of the compensation. Letters from 
 outsiders and apparently disinterested parties were also received 
 indicating that the lands w^ere worth a considerably larger price 
 than that agreed to be paid. In fact one offer was made by parties 
 to take all the lands covered by the cession at the rate of $5 per 
 acre. On this point the Office seems warranted in saying that 
 from the best information it has been able to obtain a considerable 
 portion of these lands is worth perhaps two or three times the 
 amount proposed to be charged to homestead settlers therefor, 
 and that no doubt the entire tract taken as a whole, exclusive of 
 allotments, is worth considerably more than $2.50 per acre. 
 
 The Sioux City Journal (Sioux City, Iowa) of July 2, 
 1903, regards the tract as comprising fine lands, and 
 says: 
 
 ROSEBUD OPENING DUE SOON MAJOR m’lAUGHLIN ABOUT TO MAKE 
 
 TREATY WITH INDIANS APPOINTMENT FOR J. D. KELLER FORMER 
 
 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF WOODBURY COUNTY MADE 
 
 UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER AT BONESTEEL. S. DAK. TO TAKE 
 
 ACTION NEXT SESSION. 
 
 Persons who have been interested in the opening of the Rosebud 
 Indian Reservation in South Dakota will be encouraged by the 
 news that the reservation will almost without question be thrown 
 open to settlement after the next session of Congress. 
 
 Such action will be made possible by a new treaty with the 
 Indians,'which is to be made by Maj, James McLaughlin, of the In- 
 dian Department, Washington, D.C., who was in Sioux City this 
 week, en route from Washington to North Dakota on business with 
 the Indians. 
 
 The news of the new treaty was brought to Sioux City by Joseph 
 D. Keller, of Bonesteel, S. Dak., of the real estate firm of Rathman 
 & Keller, w'ho is here for a brief visit with friends. 
 
 Mr. Keller formerly was county superintendent of schools for 
 
14 
 
 Woodbury County. Fourteen months ago he left Sioux City for 
 Bonesteel, and has been doing well there. 
 
 “Major McLaughlin is now in North Dakota, attending a pow- 
 wow of the Indians, with whom he has a strong friendship all over 
 the Northwest. He is to go to the Rosebud Reservation in South 
 Dakota and meet the Indians there. This is the primary object 
 of his trip west,’ ’ according to a letter which Congressman Burke, of 
 South Dakota, has received from Commissioner Jones, of the Indian 
 Bureau. 
 
 “There are 416,000 acres of land on the reservation to be opened. 
 Most of it is fine land. Not a mile and a half from the reservation 
 boundary the other day we sold a quarter section to a Pierson, 
 Iowa, man for $5,000. So you see the land is not bad. There will 
 be 2,600 quarter sections to be allotted to settlers when the reser- 
 vation is opened. We have received frequent inquiries about the 
 land from all over the country. 
 
 “You see, Congress balked on the deal because it would neces- 
 sitate an appropriation of $1,500,000 to buy the land from the In- 
 dians, and the purpose of the new treaty will be to make a deal by 
 which the Indians will wait a certain length of time for their money, 
 which the settlers will pay in in proving up, instead of looking to 
 the Government for it.” 
 
 Mr. Keller has just been appointed United States commissioner 
 at Bonesteel, his jurisdiction extending over Gregory County and 
 a large stretch of country west of that county. By virtue of his 
 official position he probably will be given charge of the drawing by 
 settlers for the Rosebud lands when the reservation is opened. 
 
 Bonesteel, S. D., lies on the border of the Indian lands 
 referred to. A circular issued by a Bonesteel land com- 
 pany shows conclusively their opinion as to the value of 
 lands in that section of the country. It read as follows ; 
 
 Rosebud Indian Reservation. 
 
 Four hundred and sixteen thousand acres of choice lands to be 
 thrown open to settlement under the homestead laws. 
 
 While the date has not been determined definitely, it is generally 
 conceded by those in a position to know, that the drawing will be 
 held in Bonesteel in the early summer of 1904. 
 
 Those wishing full information should send 50 cents for large 
 sectional map showing entire county, also names of all allottees. 
 
 Briefly stated, Gregory County is one of the best in the State 
 of South Dakota, because — 
 
 First. The soil is heavier. 
 
 Second. The water is better. 
 
15 
 
 Third. There is no surface stone. 
 
 Fourth. The rainfall is heavier. 
 
 Fifth. There has never been a failure of crops. 
 
 Sixth. Timothy and clover grow well here. 
 
 Seventh. This section of country is better adapted to the rais- 
 ing of hogs and cattle, as com yields well each year. 
 
 Eighth. Land values are steadily advancing. 
 
 Ninth. The prospect for a bounteous harvest was never better 
 in any country. 
 
 Tenth. We are in direct communication with both the Sioux 
 City and Omaha markets. 
 
 Read descriptions and prices of land: 
 
 18. Ninety acres, choice farm land, 34 miles from town; frame 
 house and good well. Price, S35 per acre. 
 
 19. One hundred and sixty acres, 2^ miles from town; good 
 house, all fenced, 140 acres in crop. Price, $26 per acre. 
 
 20. One hundred and sixty acres, 10 miles from town; 100 
 acres in crop, all fenced. Price, S26 per acre. 
 
 21. One hundred and sixty acres, 7 miles from county seat; 
 135 acres in cultivation. Price, $3 2 per acre. 
 
 22. One hundred and sixty acres, 2J miles from town; good 
 farm land; 120 acres in crop, all fenced; good well, 18 feet deep. 
 Cheap at $35 per acre. 
 
 23. Three hundred and twenty acres, li miles from town; 
 250 acres in cultivation. Seven-room house, large, two-story 
 bam. Price, $3 6 per acre. 
 
 24. Three hundred and twenty acres, 3J miles from town; 
 good soil and water; hay meadow cuts 70 tons per year; 210 acres 
 in crop. Price, S3 3 per acre. 
 
 25. One hundred and sixtj* acres, 2^ miles from town; slightly 
 rolling, but all good, tillable land; 80 acres cultivated. Price, 
 S19.50 per acre. 
 
 26. Three hundred and twenty acres choice^creek land, suitable 
 for stock raising, 9 miles from town. Price, $20 per acre. 
 
 27. Two hundred and fifty acres, 5 miles from town; 180 in 
 crop, good well and stock pond, frame house, all fenced, one of our 
 best. Price, S26 per acre. 
 
 28. Stock ranch consisting of 2,355 acres deeded land and 640 
 acres of school land in a body, three streams of never-failing water, 
 three windmills and tanks, buildings suitable for handling all kind 
 of stock, 40 miles of fence. For particulars write us. 
 
 '29. Four hundred and eighty acres, 6 miles from town; well 
 watered and all fenced. Price $20 per acre. 
 
 30. Three hundred and twenty acres, i mile from town; abun- 
 
i6 
 
 dance of good spring water, excellent for pastiire. Price, $16.50 
 per acre. 
 
 31. One hundred and sixty acres, almost adjoining town; 
 well improved, undoubtedly the best farm in Gregory County. 
 Price, $52 per acre. 
 
 32. Six hundred and forty acres, 3 miles from town; 320 acres 
 choice cultivated land, balance pasture, all fenced, plenty of good 
 springs. Price, $26 per acre. 
 
 33. One hundred acres, 3 miles from town; 120 acres in crop, 
 40 acres pasture, plenty of water. Price, $31 per acre. 
 
 34. Three hundred and twenty acres rough land suitable for 
 pasture, on the Whetstone Creek. This is a snap at $7.50 per acre. 
 (Sold.) 
 
 35. Three hundred and twenty acres, 4 miles from town; 
 70 acres can be broken, balance pasture land. School section 
 adjoining leased for four years. Price, $3,200. 
 
 36. One thousand six hundred acre stock ranch, improved 
 and well watered; will sell cheap or take in part payment improved 
 farm or stock of goods. For particulars and prices write us. 
 
 37. One hundred and sixty acres, 4 miles from town; 140 acres 
 in crop, 20 acres pasture, no waste land. A great bargain at $29 
 per acre. (Sold.) 
 
 38. One hundred and sixty acres, fine farm with good well of 
 water; no acres in crop, only ij miles from town, only $32.50 
 per acre. (Sold.) 
 
 39. One hundred and sixty acres, i mile from town; plenty of 
 water, frame house, 80 acres in crop. Price, $6,000. (Sold April, 
 
 1903. 
 
 A recent issue of the Sioux Falls Press, Sioux Falls, 
 S. Dak., has this to say of the pending bill: 
 
 burke’s rosebud bill. 
 
 Representative Burke, of South Dakota, favors the Press with 
 a copy of his bill for the cession of a portion of the Rosebud Indian 
 Reservation in this State, and his report thereon from the House 
 Committee on Indian Affairs. 
 
 This is a measure the Press has criticised in one particular — 
 that the price per acre to the Indian owners of the land was not 
 enough. In Mr. Burke’s new bill the price is increased from 
 $2.50 to $3 per acre for all the land entered within six months after 
 the opening of the reservation, the price thereafter to be reduced to 
 $2.50 per acre. 
 
 It is probable that all the land to be surrendered will be taken 
 by settlers long before the first half year has expired, as there is 
 
17 
 
 nowhere in South Dakota land more desirable than in this tract. 
 So the new bill will give the Indians a couple of htindred thousand 
 dollars more than was contemplated in his original measure. 
 
 When the inspector visited the Indians last summer to procure 
 their consent to the sale of the land, they demanded $5 per acre 
 and refused to sign in sufficient numbers an agreement for its sale 
 for anything less than that sum. 
 
 In the absence of the agreement[it was expected at that time 
 to procure from the Indians Mr. Burke has incorporated in his bill 
 a previous agreement made with the Indians in September, 1901, 
 in which they then consented to the sale of the property at $2.50 
 per acre. This agreement was before the last Congress, and it 
 failed to secure ratification, the managers of the House declining 
 to consider it. 
 
 The Indians are not at all exorbitant in their demand for $$ 
 per acre. The land is worth more than that. A like measure, 
 introduced by Representative Marshall, to provide for the opening 
 of the Devils Lake (N. Dak.) Indian Reservation, is before the 
 House. In the Indian committee it has been so amended as to 
 provide that the price of the land shall be $4.50 per acre during the 
 first six months, $3.50 for che second six months, and $2.50 there- 
 after. The Rosebud land is even more valuable than the Devils 
 Lake land, being in a section adapted to mixed farming. 
 
 The C. A. Johnson Realty Company, of Bonesteel and 
 Fairfax, S. D., have expressed themselves regarding 
 values, claiming grazing lands are worth $7 and farm 
 lands from $25 to $40 per acre in their section, which is 
 adjoining the Indian lands of the Rosebud Reservation. 
 Their statements follow: 
 
 January 23, 1904. 
 
 Dear Sir: As it is probable that the Indian lands in Gregory 
 Coimty will be open to settlement soon, we are thinking of investing 
 some money in the lands in that country. 
 
 What will the average price of farm lands be ? I have a friend 
 who would like to purchase about 3,000 acres of grazing land. 
 
 Could he get that much in a body; and if so, what would be 
 the price? 
 
 We will inclose a stamped envelope and will be pleased to hear 
 from you as early as convenient. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 C. W. Beggs, Sons & Co. 
 
 Mr. C. a. Johnson Realty Company, 
 
 Bonesteel, S. Dak. 
 
i8 
 
 Fairfax, S. Dak., January 26, 1904. 
 
 Gentlemen: Your esteemed favor of January 23, 1904, has 
 been received, and in reply will say that 3,000 aeres of land for 
 grazing purposes can be obtained here in this coimty for about $7 
 per acre. The farm land is much more valuable and higher priced. 
 Farm land is worth from $25 to $40 per acre. 
 
 The new homestead bill, which has recently been introduced by 
 Congressman Burke, of South Dakota, provides for opening about 
 416,000 acres of land in that portion of this country which is yet 
 an Indian reservation. This bill has not beeome a law as yet, but 
 if it does it will provide for paying $3 per acre for the homestead 
 as soon as the land is opened for entry and $2.50 per acre if filed 
 upon after the expiration of six months from the date the land is 
 opened for entry. The bill also provides that after the expiration 
 of four years from the date the land is opened for filing that a party 
 can purchase all the land that is vacant at that !time .that he wishes 
 subject to the rules and regulations of the Department of the 
 Interior. 
 
 Hoping to hear from you further in this matter, I beg to remain, 
 Yours truly, 
 
 C. A. Johnson Realty Company, 
 
 Bonesteel and Fairfax, S. Dak. 
 
 C. W. Beggs, Sons & Co., Chicago, III. 
 
 Confirmatory of the above, the following statement of 
 Edwin M. Starcher, of Fairfax, S. Dak., is important: 
 
 January 23, 1904. 
 
 Dear Sir: We have a party in this city who is desirous of secur- 
 ing about 3,000 acres of land for grazing purposes in South Dakota, 
 and as we understand that the land in Gregory County will soon 
 be open for settlement, we would like to know what the average 
 price of farm lands would be in that section and also if a 3,000- 
 acre tract could be purchased by one party. 
 
 Thanking you kindly in advance for this information and in- 
 closing stamped envelope for a reply, we are 
 
 With respect, C. W. Beggs Sons & Co. 
 
 Mr. E. M. Starcher, Fairfax, S. Dak. 
 
 January 27, 1904. 
 
 Gentlemen: To your favor of 23d instant beg to say that the 
 average price of grazing lands in this country runs from $5 to $10 
 per aere. Improved farms from $25 to $40 per acre. 
 
 There are no very large tracts of land that could be purchased 
 here at this time as nearly all the land has been homesteaded or 
 
19 
 
 preempted by settlers and usually is owned in tracts from 40 to 
 320 acres. The only way one could get 3,000 acres in a body 
 would be to buy out several of the holders who adjoin each other. 
 If we can be of service to you in any way shall be glad to do so. 
 No doubt we can arrange with some of the larger cattle men who 
 own adjoining ranches to sell. Such a sale wotdd probably range 
 approximately $1,000 per quarter. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 Edwin M. Starcher. 
 
 C. W. Beggs Sons & Co., Chicago, 111 . 
 
 Rev. A. B. Clark, a missionary among these Indians for 
 a score and more years, believes that gross injustice will 
 be done if the Indians are forced to accept the valuation 
 provided for by the pending legislation. 
 
 Extract from the Valentine Democrat, Valentine, Neb., 
 issue of February 4, 1904; 
 
 The agent held a grand council yesterday (Monday February i) 
 with the Indians and the result was that the Indians offered to 
 lease their unallotted land for a term of years. On former occa- 
 sions the Indians positively refused to lease, but they feel so sore 
 at the action of the South Dakota delegation in trying to open their 
 Gregory County land at a nominal price that they consented in 
 order that no more of their land could be opened for several years 
 at least. 
 
 By demoralizing the Indians in the matter of leasing 
 we see the immediate evil results that tend in the wake 
 of attempted unfair treatment. It has been shown by 
 those observing the conditions, and is to be inferred by 
 all experienced in Indian life in that portion of the North- 
 west that it is much better to encourage the Indians to 
 pasture their surplus lands with stock owned by them- 
 selves rather than to lease the same to outsiders. 
 
 The Indians have united upon $5 per acre as a com- 
 promise price, although they realize that the lands are 
 more valuable. 
 
 Can the Government afford to commit so apparent and 
 gross an injustice? 
 
 Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Indian Rights 
 Association. 
 
 S. M. Brosius, 
 
 Agent Indian Rights Association. 
 
20 
 
 [From the New York " Evening Post.”] 
 
 TAKING INDIANS’ LANDS. 
 
 DEALING OF CONGRESS WITH THE ROSEBUD SIOUX. 
 
 A Preference for the Methods of Counterfeiters Rather than those 
 of Highway Robbers — Bars Thrown Down by the Lone Wolf 
 Decision — Compelling Indians to Accept $2.50 an Acre for 
 416,000 Acres of Land Whose Market Value is at Least $5 
 an Acre — Indians Also Expected to take their Chances of Col- 
 lecting the Money of White Homesteaders. 
 
 [Special Dispatch to “ The Evening Post.”] 
 
 Washington, Fehmary lyth . — The latest plan to take 
 away Indians’ land and give it to white men has to do 
 with the Rosebud Sioux reservation in South Dakota. 
 The Rosebud Indians have some 416,000 acres in Gregory 
 County that the whites wish to get at. In September, 
 1901, an inspector, detailed for the duty, obtained from 
 the Indians an agreement to sell this land at the rate of 
 $2.50 an acre, $250,000 of the proceeds to be expended 
 in the purchase of cattle for the benefit of the Indians, and 
 the balance paid in cash, so much per capita, in five annual 
 instalments. A bill ratifying this agreement and opening 
 the land to settlement was presented to the Fifty-seventh 
 Congress by Secretary Hitchcock. Congress was too busy 
 with other things and let the bill die and the agreement 
 expire. But the land brokers and intending homesteaders 
 kept up a constant demand that the land should be opened 
 to settlement, so the same inspector was sent out again 
 last summer to negotiate a new agreement. 
 
 Meanwhile the Indians, who had always insisted that 
 their land was worth more than $2.50 an acre, had been 
 looking about and taking note of the value of other lands 
 like theirs in character and location, and therefore refused 
 to sign any agreement for less than $5. Meanwhile also, 
 the Lone Wolf decision had been rendered by the United 
 States Supreme Court, virtually declaring that the Indians 
 had no rights in their reservations which Congress was not 
 at liberty to disregard at will. So what did Congress do. 
 
when the second negotiation failed to repeat the course of 
 the first? Sweep both aside, and enter upon and sell 
 the land at discretion? 
 
 No. That would have been the candid course, but 
 Congress did not follow it. Instead, it fell back upon the 
 expired and obsolete agreement of 1901, revived it, made 
 certain changes in it and proceeded to put through the 
 House a bill to ratify it as altered. The agreement of 
 1901 bound the Indians to accept $2.50. Its revival indi- 
 cates that Congress thought highway robbery a less gentle- 
 manly crime than counterfeiting. 
 
 The Commissioner of Indian Affairs, whom the House 
 consulted before acting, though perfectly conscious that 
 the Lone Wolf decision practically threw down all the bars 
 and left Congress to do what it pleased, could not forbear 
 reminding the lawmakers that outside parties stood ready 
 to pay the Indians $5 an acre for the very same land which 
 they were now proposing to take away from the poor 
 fellows for $2.50. Indeed, he adds: 
 
 The office seems warranted in saying that from the best infor- 
 mation it has been able to obtain a considerable portion of these 
 lands is worth perhaps two or three times the amount proposed 
 to be charged to homestead settlers therefor, and that no doubt 
 the entire tract taken as a whole, exclusive of the allotments, is 
 worth considerably more than $2.50 per acre. 
 
 The Indians cannot see . . . why they should not procure 
 
 such price for the lands as settlers are willing to pay for them. The 
 Indians in their talks have shown themselves to be not unreasonable 
 in their demands, but simply persisted in demanding what they 
 believed to be just and proper. In fact, many of the Indians 
 during the councils last summer indicated that if the propositions 
 under consideration would guarantee the procurements by them 
 of as much money as was stipulated for by the agreement of Sep- 
 tember 14, 1901— f. e., $2.50 an acre — they would not oppose 
 the same. They felt, however, that there was no certainty that 
 they would realize even $2.50 per acre for the lands proposed to 
 be ceded. 
 
 And the Indians are quite justified in this suspicion. 
 Even after taking from them, at nominally $2.50 an acre, 
 416,000 acres of land which, if they were free^o do business 
 
22 
 
 like white people, the Indians could sell for $5 an acre at 
 least, Congress has no purpose of giving them $2.50. On 
 the contrary — except for certain lands set apart for edu- 
 cational purposes, for which a direct appropriation will be 
 made — the Indians will have to take their chances of col- 
 lecting their money of the white homesteaders when and 
 how they can. The homesteaders are expected to pay 
 after sundry periods, but there is no assurance that they 
 will do so. Bad crop years, if any come, will be used in 
 this case, as they have been in others in the past, as an 
 excuse for postponing the demand upon the settlers; and 
 any settler who becomes discouraged, or is of a roving 
 spirit any way, can pull up stakes, abandon his claim, 
 and move away, defaulting on his final payment, and 
 leaving the Indians to whistle for their money. 
 
 That Congress is not proud of its own conduct in this 
 matter is shown, first, by its going through the hollow form 
 of pretending to ratify an old and obsolete Indian agree- 
 ment because it could not procure a new and live one, 
 instead of going ahead frankly on the lines indicated by 
 the Lone Wolf decision and seizing the land desired with- 
 out any apology whatever; and, second, by its equally 
 hollow pretence at self- justification in arguing that it is 
 really trying to promote the interest of the Indians by 
 letting whites enter upon all the land adjacent to the 
 Indian allotments, since such settling of the country is 
 bound to raise the value of the allotments themselves. 
 What advantage the Indians are to derive from this in- 
 crease in the value of their lands it is hard to see. It will 
 not increase the fertility of the soil; it will not develop 
 gold diggings, or oil wells, or any other new sources of 
 wealth; it will not enable them to raise bananas and 
 oranges on the forty-third parallel of north latitude. The 
 only increase must be in the market value, and of what 
 account is the market value of anything to a man who 
 cannot sell it, as the allotted Indian is obligated not to sell 
 his land for a term of years. 
 
 The manly course would have been for Congress to say: 
 
23 
 
 “ Here is the law. Our body is all powerful. The highest 
 tribunal in the land has left us free to do whatever we 
 please with Indian land. We have fixed our eyes on your 
 416,000 acres, and we purpose to take them and give them 
 to the whites for settlement. If we can collect from the 
 whites $2.50 an acre, we will pay the money to you; if 
 not, not. You are helpless, so the wise thing for you to 
 do is to bow to the inevitable.” 
 
 Then the Indians would have realized the full meaning 
 of the transaction. So would seven-eighths of the Amer- 
 ican people, who are not land-grabbers, even when the 
 helpless Indian is the victim marked for plunder. 
 
 F. E. L.