Indian Mining Lease Problems in the Quapaw Agency

THE development of the natural resources of any district of any magnitude, inevitably gives rise to many problems off title, usually due to the greatly enhanced value of the land. The development of the mining industry in the Quapaw Agency has been no exception to this general rule. Our problems, how-ever, have not been many or particularly serious. The Quapaws were allotted and patents issued by the United States Government in 1895. These patents contained a restriction against alienation for a pe-riod of twenty-five years. The effect of the restric-tion was to prevent the Indian from selling, leasing, or in any way encumbering his land. The Govern-ment, in a paternalistic spirit, sought to teach the Indian thrift and industry and to insure him a place of residence. This is evidenced by the first Leasing Act passed by Congress, which permitted only incom-petents and those physically disabled to lease their land for either agricultural or mining purposes. The able-bodied Indian was denied the right to lease. It soon became apparent to the Government, how-ever, that this was a mistaken policy, and in 1897 a General Leasing Act was passed by Congress and it was under this act that the mining industry in the Quapaw Agency was developed. The act, reads as follows: "That the allottees of land within the limits of the Qua- paw Agency, Indian Territory, are hereby authorized to lease their lands, or any part thereof, for a term not ex-ceeding three years, for farming or grazing purposes, or ten years for mining or business purposes. And said al-lottees and their lessees and tenants shall have the right to employ such assistants, laborers, and help from time to time as they may deem necessary: Provided, That when-ever it shall be made to appear to the Secretary of the Interior that, by reason of age or disability, any such allottee cannot improve or manage his allotment properly and with benefit to himself, the same may be leased, in the discretion of the Secretary, upon such terms and conditions as shall be prescribed by him. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this are hereby repealed." It was the interpretation of this Act that gave rise to our first serious problems. It will be noted that the Act says that "allottees of land" within the limits of the Quapaw Agency are authorized to lease their land. Thus, the first question was presented by the use of the term "allottee," and the question was as to whether or not Congress intended to limit the Quapaw Indian to the leasing of his own allotment or did Congress mean that the term "allottee" was synonym-ous with "Indian" and intend to give the Indian a right to lease both his allotment and his inherited land and was an Indian without an allotment an "allottee" even though he was a member of the Qua-paw tribe and the owner of the Quapaw land by in-heritance, and not being an allottee, could he lease his inherited Quapaw land under the authority granted in this Act?