portion of their land, I am of the opinion that they should have the legal right to sell the land to whomsoever they please, for the best price obtainable, under rules and restrictions to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, and not be restricted to purchasers "of Indian blood lawfully residing in Oklahoma Territory." With a view to the relief of these Indians, I respectfully recommend that Congress be asked to amend the act of 1872 so as to authorize these Indians to sell their land upon the same terms as are provided in the act of August 15, 1894 (28 Stats., 295).

OSAGE ANNUITY ROLL CONTESTED CASES.

As a matter of record, it is thought best to give the following brief history of these contested cases:

February 6, 1895, the acting agent of the Osage Agency transmitted a resolution of the Osage national council, which charged that “many persons by means of false testimony have succeeded in obtaining from their national council citizenship in the Osage Nation;" and which appointed a delegation to visit Washington and asked that the Department appoint a competent person to investigate the Osage rolls, to the end that all persons found to be illegally thereon should be stricken off. The council further appropriated $2,000 to defray the expenses of the desired investigation. In forwarding this resolution, with his favorable recommendation, the acting agent stated: "The relations existing between the full-bloods and half-breed Indians are of such a nature as to require a final and authoritative settlement of the rights of the half-breeds. In my opinion the full-bloods will not listen to any proposition for allotment until this is done."

This duly authorized Osage delegation visited Washington about the 1st of March, 1895, and personally laid the matter before the Department. March 11, 1895, this office, in a report to the Secretary of the Interior, recommended that a person of ability and legal training be appointed to make the desired investigation. The Secretary replied, March 13, 1895, that it would first be necessary to have the Osage Indians, through their counsel, present a list of those persons charged with being unlawfully upon their rolls, "together with the reasons upon which the council expected to sustain the charges," and he added: "When the examination takes place, no evidence will be allowed to sustain an attack upon the citizenship of one already upon the rolls which is not covered by the written specifications." The Osage delegation was, on March 15, 1895, notified of the Secretary's action.

March 20, 1895, this office submitted to the Department a further communication from the Osage council asking early action in this matter and that an inspector be sent to make an investigation. The Secretary, however, in his reply, April 12, 1895, adhered to his former decision requiring that a list of names be submitted with the reasons for the charges made, since it was made by law the duty of the Depart

ment, acting in a semijudicial capacity, to determine what names are illegally upon the Osage rolls. The Osages, April 23, 1895, were advised of this decision, and August 19, 1895, their acting agent submitted on their behalf a list of the names of 446 persons claimed to be unlawfully upon their rolls, which was submitted to the Department September 12, 1895.

The Department obtained the authority of the President to allow an expenditure of Osage moneys for this investigation and Messrs. Washington J. Houston, of North Decatur, Ga., and Clarence E. Bloodgood, of Catskill, N. Y., were appointed as commissioners. The latter commissioner, however, declined the appointment, and Mr. George Y. Scott was appointed in his stead.

February 19, 1896, the Department requested this office to prepare instructions for these commissioners, and the following day they were submitted to and approved by the Secretary. These instructions contained the following paragraph which fixed January 1, 1888, as the date back of which the investigation should not go:

You will not, however, take up and investigate cases of persons charged to be illegally or improperly upon the Osage rolls who were admitted to the same prior to January 1, 1888, even though their names may appear on the list furnished by the Osage council herein before referred to. However, if during the course of your investigation any case or cases should be brought to your notice of persons having gained admittance thereto by manifestly flagrant fraud, prior to that date, you will take testimony and submit proof thereon, with your findings and recommendations, as in other cases, for the information of this Department.

Additional instructions were submitted and approved by the Department April 30, 1896, in which the date was changed by the Secretary to January 1, 1880. The paragraph relating thereto reads as follows:

You will take up and investigate all cases of persons charged to be illegally or improperly upon the Osage rolls who were admitted or placed thereon, by adoption or otherwise, since January 1, 1880, but no case of any person so admitted or placed thereon prior to that date. Nor will you take up for investigation the cases of children admitted or enrolled either before or since January 1, 1880, who were minors at the time of the admission or enrollment of their parents or who have been born since the 1st day of January, 1880.

Some time in June, 1896, the commissioners returned to this city, having completed their work at the Osage Agency, and made separate reports to the Secretary, who referred the same to this office, November 26, 1896. Eighty-two names were added to the original list of 446 by reason of the change of the date from 1888 to 1880. Of the 528 names upo then challenged list prepared by the Osage national council, 296 were reported as exempt by reason of having been enrolled prior to 1880.

The remainder, 232, who were investigated by the commission were reported as follows by Mr. Houston: 80 rights as Osages proved by evidence, and recommended sustained on roll (3 dead); 5 erroneously entered on challenged list, and cases therefore dismissed; 147 without evidence to sustain enrollment, and recommended stricken off the roll

(2 dead). Mr. Houston submitted with his report a "memorial" dated June 6, 1896, from the Osage national council, signed by about twothirds of the entire tribe, known and designated as full-blood Indians, in which they protested against restricting the examination to those enrolled since 1880, and stated that such limit precludes "the possibility of arriving at any settlement that will be final or satisfactory to all parties at interest." They therefore requested as a matter of justice that all persons upon the list presented by them be investigated.

Mr. Scott's individual report, dated July 16, 1896, appeared to have been prepared some time prior to his colleague's. He reported as follows upon the 232 names investigated: 80 rights as Osages proved by evidence and recommended sustained by Mr. Houston were similarly recommended; 147 (recommended stricken off by Mr. Houston) were disposed of as follows: 68 rights to citizenship proved by evidence and recommended sustained on roll (one dead); 74 rights to citizenship not proved by evidence and recommended stricken off (one dead); 5 not reported on, children of white men married to Indians after law of 1888.

December 29, 1897, this office returned the voluminous testimony and evidence in the cases to the Department, with the recommendation that but 92 of the 232 persons investigated be stricken from the Osage rolls, the balance, 140, to be retained upon the rolls.

The cases were then referred to the assistant attorney-general, who rendered an opinion April 6, 1898, which upon motions of some of the attorneys was modified and a new opinion given. June 15, 1898, he found but 25 persons to be unjustly and illegally upon the Osage rolls, the remainder, 207, to be entitled to be retained thereon. In view of this final decision, the United States Indian agent of the Osage Agency was instructed July 12, 1898, in reference to continuing those contestees on the Osage annuity rolls who were found entitled thereto, and striking off those who were found not so entitled.

BOUNDARY OF KLAMATH RESERVATION, OREG. Favorable action was not taken by Congress at its last session upon the recommendation of this office and the Department that the Klamath Indians be compensated in the sum of $532,270 found to be due them by the commission appointed under the act of June 10, 1896 (29 Stats., 321), on account of the erroneous survey of the boundaries of their reservation. Provision was made, however, for the "resurvey of the exterior boundaries of the Klamath Reservati n (so called) in the State of Oregon, in accordance with the provisions of the first article of the treaty" of October 14, 1864. Moreover, the Secretary of the Interior was directed to "negotiate through an inspector with said Klamath Indians for the relinquishment of all their right and interest in and to any part of said reservation, and to negotiate with them as respects any and all matters growing out of their occupation of said reservation

under said treaty;" also, to "ascertain what portion of said reservation is occupied by citizens of the United States, and for what purpose, and under what title."

July 15, 1898, I recommended that the Commissioner of the General Land Office be instructed to cause the boundary lines of the reservation to be surveyed in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of October 14, 1864, as ascertained by the commission named above. I also recommended that the deputy surveyor be instructed not to establish any permanent monuments except such as may be necessary to replace those that have been obliterated on that portion of the established line which coincides with the line determined by the commission. The lands outside the established boundaries have been opened to public settlement and entry, and to a considerable extent are occupied by settlers who have acquired title. Therefore permanent monuments on that part of the line which does not coincide with the established boundary would be worthless and confusing. It is not proposed to dispossess these settlers, who are in no way at fault, but to compensate the Indians for the lands lying between the boundaries established by the approved but erroneous survey, and those determined by the commission to be the correct boundaries intended by the treaty. The only possible object in surveying the latter boundaries is to ascertain the correct area of the lands erroneously excluded from the reservation.

From the fact that a resurvey is directed, it is presumed that Congress is not satisfied that this area was correctly ascertained by the commission, for which reason it is thought that the negotiations authorized should not be undertaken until this area is determined by the resurvey.

FISHERIES IN WASHINGTON.

As stated in the annual report of last year, a suit was commenced and prosecuted against the Alaska Packers' Association et al., to prevent interference by that association with the fishery rights of the Lummi Indians at the ancient fisheries located on the reef at Point Roberts, Wash., which were reserved to them by the treaty of January 22, 1855 (12 Stats., 928). The suit was decided against the Indians, and the Attorney-General directed that an appeal be taken. No information has since been received from the Department of Justice in regard to this case.

DANIEL PULLEN AND THE QUILLEHUTE RESERVATION,

WASH.

Many years ago Daniel Pullen, a white man, obtained the consent of the Quillehute Indians to establish a temporary residence and make improvements on the lands claimed by them. Having once obtained a foothold, he proceeded to make certain entries of the reservation lands used and occupied by him. A contest arose out of that action, which,

after some years, was finally decided by the Department in favor of the Indians. The Indian agent of the Neah Bay Agency, Wash., was then instructed to put the Indians in possession of their land, whereupon Mr. Pullen sued out a writ of injunction in the United States circuit court, district of Washington, northern division, against the Indian agent, John P. McGlynn, to restrain the agent from removing him from the Quillehute Reservation. May 2, 1898, William H. Brinker, special United States attorney, employed by the Attorney-General as special counsel in the case, reported to this office that he had pushed! the case to trial and had succeeded in securing a final decree, rendered April 30, 1898, dissolving the injunction and dismissing the bill filed by the plaintiff, and that the way was then clear for this office to direct the United States Indian agent to remove Mr. Pullen or his tenants from the lands in controversy.

The Washington Fur Company was involved in the case of Pullen, and its rights on the reservation were also passed upon, in determining the rights of Mr. Pullen, by departmental decision of March 1, 1893. (Public Land Decisions, vol. 16, p. 210, et seq.)

May 12, 1898, Samuel G. Morse, the successor of Agent McGlynn, was instructed to serve notice upon Mr. Pullen, his agents or tenants, to remove within a reasonable time from the lands in controversy and beyond the boundaries of the Quillehute Reservation, taking with them their families and all personal effects. If they failed or refused to comply with this notice, he was told that he should forcibly eject them from the lands in controversy and from the reservation also, provided his police force was sufficient to justify him in taking this action; if not, he should report the facts to this office for further instructions.

June 24, 1898, Agent Morse reported that the removal of the personal effects of Mr. Pullen, who was then absent in Alaska, had been accomplished; but that the Washington Fur Company had upon the reservalon some 60 or 70 tons of goods, which it would be difficult for them to move, because they were situated 40 or 50 miles down the coast from Seattle, Wash., and only occasionally could schooners run down to that point, loaded or unloaded. July 12, 1898, he was instructed to give the company ample time to remove their goods.

August 1, 1898, United States District Attorney Gay, for the district of Washington, notified this office that on July 8, last, there was served upon Agent Samuel G. Morse a restraining order based upon the petition of complaint and affidavit of Sutcliffe Baxter in the case of Leman S. Mayer, as receiver of the Washington Fur Company, and that he had prepared a demurrer thereto, which had been sustained by the court; but that the court, however, had allowed the complainant thirty days in which to file a new petition or complaint. The attorney stated that he could interpose another demurrer, and thus fight the whole matter over again.

It is trusted that the partial victory already obtained by the Govern ment will be made complete when the second demurrer in this case