University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
The State of Wisconsin Collection

Page View

Satz, Ronald N. / Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters
volume 79, No. 1

End notes,   pp. 199-207 ff. PDF (3.2 MB)

Page 204

Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters
    41. Manypenny, who served as Commissioner of Indian Affairs when the
treaty was negotiated, later rebuked federal removal efforts. His words,
general in nature, seem relevant to the abortive efforts to remove the Chippewa
that preceded the establishment of the Chippewa reservations: "In numberless
instances removals have been brought about, not because there was a necessity
them, but with a view to the plunder and profit that was expected to result
the operation" (Manypenny 1880, 134).
    42. In passing the Indian Appropriations Bill for 1871-72 in March of
members of the U. S. House of Representatives demonstrated their general
lusionment with the administration of Indian affairs and their jealousy of
the Senate's
role in ratifying treaties by attaching the following rider to a sentence
funds for the Yankton Tribe of Sioux Indians, "Provided, That hereafter
no Indian
nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged
recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United
may contract by treaty: Provided, further, That nothing herein contained
shall be
construed to invalidate or impair the obligation of any treaty heretofore
made and ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe" (U. S. Congress
1871, 566;
Priest 1942, 96-102, 244; Prucha 1984, 1: 531-33). The United States continued
to deal with Indian governments through agreements (requiring House and Senate
approval), statutes, and executive orders, which recognized rights and liabilities
virtually identical to those established by treaties before 1871 (Cohen 1982,
127-28). In 1924, when Congress made all Indians citizens of the United States,
it again preserved their rights as tribal citizens (U. S. Congress 1924,
     43. The contract with William Rust of Eau Claire was renegotiated in
because a counter offer had raised public questions about the terms (Kinney
255; Shifferd 1976, 22).
     44. The petition was presented to Indian Commissioner William P. Dole
logged it with the notation "the same old chronic complaint" and
then returned
the document to the delegation (Draper { 1882}). A subsequent visit by the
to U. S. Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin also failed to bring results
     45. The Wisconsin Supreme Court based its decision on evidence that
Taylor had issued a Removal Order in 1850. According to the Court:
     ... There was offered and received in evidence that which was certified
to be a copy
  of an executive order of removal purporting to be signed by President Taylor
  6, 1850.
     We find no grounds upon which the validity of such a document or its
competency as
  evidence can properly be questioned. That it evidently was not presented
and offered in
  evidence in the two {U. S. Supreme Court} cases just above quoted cannot
detract from
  its validity now when offered and properly received. What was said by way
of recital in
  those two cases . . . must of course extend no further than the facts presented
in each.
  We must therefore hold that any form of title to this land then possessed
by them . ..
  was ceded by the Indians under the treaty of 1842-43, and their right of
occupancy, so
  far as it would interfere with the lawful occupancy of those claiming by
patent from the

Go up to Top of Page