obtaining the consent of the Indians through
whose territory and reservations the railroad may be located.

Though it is proposed to build the railroad through territories having
local courts convenient to their inhabitants, all controversies that may
arise out of the location and building of the road are by the provisions
of the bill to be passed upon by the United States circuit and district
courts for the district of Kansas "and such other courts as may be
authorized by Congress."

The bill provides that "the civil jurisdiction of said courts is
hereby extended within the limits of said Indian reservations, without
distinction as to citizenship of the parties, so far as may be necessary
to carry out the provisions of this act." This provision permits the
subordination of the jurisdiction of Indian courts, which we are bound
by treaty to protect, to the "provisions of this act" and to the
interests and preferences of the railroad company for whose benefit the
bill under consideration is intended.

A plan of appraisal is provided for in the bill in case an agreement
can not be reached as to the amount of compensation to be paid for the
taking of lands held by individual occupants according to the laws,
customs, and usages of any of the Indian nations or tribes or by
allotment or agreement with the Indians. It is, however, further
provided that in case either party is dissatisfied with the award of the
referees to be appointed an appeal may be taken to the district court
held at Wichita, Kans., no matter where on the proposed route of the
road the controversy may originate. If upon the hearing of said appeal
the judgment of the court shall be for the same sum as the award of the
referees, the costs shall be adjudged against the appellant, and if said
judgment shall be for a smaller sum the costs shall be adjudged against
the party claiming damages. It does not seem to me that the interests of
an Indian occupant or allottee are properly regarded when he is obliged,
if dissatisfied with an award for the taking of his land, to go to the
district court of Kansas for redress, at the risk of incurring costs and
expenses that may not only exceed the award originally made to him, but
leave him in debt.

It is probable that there are other valid objections to this bill.
I have only attempted to suggest enough to justify my action in
disapproving it.

In constructing legislation of this description it should not be
forgott