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district court of Kansas for redress, at the risk of incurring costs and expenses that may not only exceed the award originally made to him, but leave him in debt.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 forgotten that the rights and interests of the Indians are important in every view and should be scrupulously protected.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 23, 1895.

To the House of Representatives: 

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 5740, entitled “An act incorporating the Society of American Florists.”

No sufficient reason is apparent for the incorporation of this organization under Federal laws.  There is not the least difficulty in the way of the accomplishment under State laws by the incorporators named in the bill of every purpose which can legitimately belong to their corporate existence.  The creation of such a corporation by a special act of Congress establishes a vexatious and troublesome precedent.

There appears to be no limit in the bill to the value of the real and personal property which the proposed corporation may hold if acquired by donation or bequest.  The limit of $50,000 applies only to property acquired by purchase.