Mr. INGERSOLL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the House to the treaty made with the Indians in 1861. The treaty provides that the Indians of the Pottawatomie tribe in Kansas who desire may have their lands patented to them in severalty. The gentleman who has charge of this bill informed the House esterday that many of these Indians had selected their lands, and had received either their certificates or their utents therefor; that nearly all of these lands had been set apart to them in severalty, many of them having abandoned Now, sir, under the provisions of the proposed bill and amendment of the committee the State of Kansas has a right to tax these lands held in 7th the same as the lands of any other citizen 6the State. These Indians are not familiar with the tax laws of Kansas, nor will they ever be, and yet, by virtue of these laws, which they will notunderstand, theirlauds will be sold and taken from them. The result will be that 9 10ths of the Indians who own these lands will lose them by the sharp practice of your land speculators in Kansas under the operation of the tax laws. These Indians understand the treaty, and have complied with its terms and provisions, and if further concessions are desirable, good faith requires that we should get them by virtue of a.new treaty. The proposed action on the part of Congress, to say the least, is in bad faith. The treaty which was made with these Indians was intended to protect them in the enjoyment of those lands. The laws of the U.S. are intended to protect them in their rights; and the same law that protects these Indians provides for punishing them for any injury which they may inflict upon the white man or upon his property in the State of Kansas. The district court of the U.S. has cognizance of such offenses; it has jurisdiction over the person and the property of the Indian; and any white man who may be aggrieved by any act of any Indian may appear in that court and have the Indian prosecuted for any crimes for which he may have been guilty. such is the law at present. No power over these Indians during the existence of the present treaty should be vested in the State ofv ansas. In my opinion, this bill is designed, not by this committee, but by other persons who desire solely the promotion of their own interests, and who are utterly regardless of the rights or the welfare of the Indians, their object being to get hold of these lands, represented to be the most valuable in the State of Kansas, for the purpose of compelling these Indians to leave there, just as they have been compelled to leave every other State, by force and by cunning on the part of the white man. They iave been pursue by a ferocitv of which only a white speculator is capable. They have been thus driven almost out of existence. Sir, I believe it to be the dut of Congress to protect these Indians in the new rights that have been conceded them by the Congress of the U.S. This bill is not asked for by the Indians. No one comes here and says that the rights of the white man there have been invaded, or that the treaty has been by the Indians in any particular violated. I sin cerely believe that if this bill becomes a law the result will be that these people will be oppressed. Their lauds will be taken from them, and they will be driven from Kansas miles westward into the wilderness, and even then the will not be allowed to rest. Other laws an new violations of treaties will soon drive them over the mountain range, and they will find rest and peace only when covered by the waves of the sea. By the provisions of the treaty of 1861, itwas provided that “such tracts shall be exempt from levy, taxation, or sale.” It was agreed upon our art, with these Indians, that these lands held in severalty by them should be exempt from State taxation.