instance to illustrate the utter confusion which has characterized the administration of our Indian affairs, and the absolute impossibility for any one to be elevated by such stupidity. My second illustration is the Indian Territory itself. A civil government exists there, subject to Congressional dictation. Yet Congress never had anything to do with it, and never authorized it. Its powers have never been defined or controlled by statute. It was a scheme of the treaty-making power of government alone. It is an organization devised between tribes, recognized as independent, and is to take cognizance of matters “relating to the intercourse and relations of the Indian tribes and nations resident in said territory and represented, but can pass no act inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, the laws of Congress, or existing treaties; or any act affecting the tribal organizations, laws, or usages.” Each tribe is independent of this so-called legislature in all its own affairs. Each tribe has its own laws; and its own courts, both civil and criminal, are the last resort; and by treaty, Congress is denied the right to interfere with, or annul, their present tribal organizations, rights, laws, privileges and customs. Thus, if an Indian commits murder in his own tribe, he can be brought to justice only by his own tribe. “The non-treaty Indians can freely rob, murder, trade with each other, without incurring responsibility to United States authority.” (Otis, page 115.) If a white man joins an Indian tribe and commits murder, who tries him, the United States courts or the tribal? Exactly that issue has arisen. A United States marshal was condemned because he attempted to take forcible possession of a United States citizen, who was also a citizen of the Cherokee nation, and who was accused of the murder of a Cherokee squaw. Other inconsistencies might be enumerated. Treaties have guaranteed privileges that only Congress had the right to grant. When the United States court comes in conflict with the treaty, then confusion and bloodshed follow, and the absurd clumsiness of official action is hidden beneath the cry of shocking cruelties by Indians, when they are only defending rights guaranteed by solemn covenant. Two other facts may be barely mentioned. Treaties have been repeatedly solemnized which both parties knew perfectly well could not be kept; as in the case of the covenant with the Mississippi and other bands of Chippewas in 1855, when the treaty included a thousand little details of moral conduct; or the treaties of 1855 and 1865 with the Indians of Oregon and Washington Territory, where all sacredly promised to take a temperance pledge.