1.“-
AW. f
,.
w , .r
.‘ h» we
dun/Mum“
a Q,
'Umversity"
“in?!
.4
D“ In, .
$31} .1‘
4-5
, Q4“ man 4
Zuni? .1.
3.3!.“ ,
n} 2.1...‘ w
9. 3,; 0
fix n. v5.3,
1.: ..
, . m.
‘a’. v, _ v \ .. ‘ y
la. v xi.
, V "I.
.J, E
. ‘sax. Qkw.
‘ . m N n .1:
. .E, a?
$3 ,
$5; ‘ .
wrfhdvxmfi
.31.
‘k... _.
.1."
rial‘
< at. (w a 4
:,
jam’.
)‘
! J31“... .14
K .flnbkhwflvubr
J... .
3..“
a.
mum.
Q nv
cram»
7
u ‘i *1. A‘
n:§:--:=:-\'n-uu.“ '

‘ 3.? .
1.12:’: w:
\\\\\\\\.
Y! “WW5. ..
. I}
‘4112*


,QGITIZENSHIP i ‘ i-


,a “5" _



BY FAYETTE A. MCKENZIE
Special Agent, United States Indian Census


E INDIAN AN

‘ in 3,?
av‘ 4.4
“14%.?
k .. e
\v
.i
2





HEADQUARTEBS 0F
' TY OF AMERICAN
SH
IE
I ‘
mmms
THE: ‘SOC
A mates; D. c.

W






tubal-- ..
0611,} flame MAJ: i‘
1mm? in... I
Z- q -- up 5 1




The Indian and Citizenship: *
By Fayette A. McKenzie, 5.13:}?
Special Agent, United States Indian Census.
N 1890 the Bureau of the Census issued the first
and only Census volume especially devoted to the
native race of the country. In 1910 another and
more detailed enumeration of the native tribes
was made under the direction of the Bureau, and it
is proposed as soon as funds will permit to issue
another ‘Indian volume. The data on the American Indian thus to be
given will far surpass in amount and in minute detai‘l any statistics
ever ofi‘ered before to the country and the world. Not improbably
the facts when presented will effect the policy of the Government
and will stimulate the various tribes to new and higher efforts.
The first part of the volume will be edited by Dr. Roland B. Dixon,
of Harvard University, and will deal with the number of Indians,
the population in each of the tribes, the relative numbers of the
sexes, the degree of Indian blood, a‘nd the effects of intermarriage
between the tribes and between the races upon the number and
survival of children born to such marriages. In general, Part I will
cover the blood side of the report and will be of the highest scien-
tific value. Part II will deal with the number of Indians taxed, and
with the educational, social, and economic statistics gathered con-
cerning each ‘tribe in each State.
The greater part of this data has not as yet been so completely
tabulated and arranged as to be authorized for publication. Never-
theless, Director E. Dana Durand, of the Bureau of the Census, on
December 14, 1910, December 14, 1911, and on February 12, 1912,
was able to announce the provisional figures for the number of In-
dians not taxed, the total Indian population, and the taxed Indian
population of the United States. Although these figures are sub-
ject to revision, in case errors in tabulation shall be discovered,‘ they


*(Copyright, 1912, by Fayette‘ A. McKenzie.)
THE INDIAN AND CITIZENSHIP

are the sole basis of the statistics in this article. The total number
of persons of Indian blood of continental United States enumerated
in 1910 was 265,683. Since the figure in 1890 was 248,253, we see
that there has been an increase of 17,430 in 20 years, or 7 per cent.
The number reported in 1900, 237,196, would seem to indicate a
fall between 1890 and 1900, but the real difliculty seems to be that
the enumeration in 1900 was not so accurate or complete as in the
decades preceding and following. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
reports over 300,000 Indians, but their figures include people of
other blood who are legally members of Indian tribes.
'i'f'Only three of the geographic divisions employed by the Cen-
sausi Bureau show a decrease in Indian population since 1890. The
West North-Central States fell in numbers from 46,822 to.41,406.
The chief States sharing in this fall were Nebraska and Minnesota.
The East South-Central States fell from 3,396 to 2,612, due to the
loss in Mississippi. The Pacific States fell from 32,776 to 32,458.
All the other six divisions increased their numbers, the New England
division from 1,445 to 2,076, the Middle Atlantic from 7,209 to
7,7I7, the East North—Central from 16,202 to 18,255, the South
Atlantic from 2,359 to 9,054, the West South—Central from 66,042 to
76,767, and the Mountain division from 72,002 to 75,338.
The figures do not show that the Indian is actually a “vanish-
ing race.” His numbers are apparently increasing, but at so slow a
rate that he is losing ground in comparison with the other races.
The white population has increased within the last ten years 22.3 per
cent. Excluding the immigrants, the white rate of increase for the
decadeis estimated by the Census Bureau to be 15 per cent. The
negro increase for the same period of time is 11.3 per cent. The
Indian rate for twice ten years is, as has been shown, 7 per cent.
If we could believe that the figures for 1900 were accurate, they
would indicate an actual fall, between 1890 and 1900, of 4.4 per cent,
and then a heavy increase of 12 per cent during the decade 1900 to
1910. It is probable that the heavy death rate among Indians will
be largely reduced as they learn, through the schools, how to
adjust themselves to modern conditions. Until that heavy death
rate is cut down, the world will continue- to believe that the Indian
is a “vanishing” or dying race. In 1890 the Indians formed thirty-
nine one-hundredths of 1 per cent of the whole population of the
country. In 1910 that proportion had fallen to twenty-nine one-
hundredths of 1 per cent, because the other races were increasing at
a so much faster rate. If the race should increase 3.5 per cent in the
next ten years, it would number 275,981 in 1920. Should sufiicient
care be taken for the health of the race, so that it would increase as
THE INDIAN AND CITIZENSHIP

rapidly as the negroes, the total in 1920 would be 295,705. The
rate of the white race, 15 per cent, would bring the Indian numbers
up to 305,505. The process of amalgamation with the other races,
through intermarriage, is going on at a rapid rate. The race prob-
ably will not die out, but it may sometime be completely merged
with the new and composite American race of the future.
’ But what of the Indian of to-day? Who is he, and what part
does he play in the legal and political life of the nation? These are
difficult questions, because historically the Indian has not shared in
American life. He has not any definite status, and even to-day it
would be a bold man who would make any very positive statement
concerning that status.
’ From that beginning the Indian has been a “perpetual inhabitant
with diminutive rights.” Only Within comparatively recent decades
has he begun to show himself on the political stage. As a rule he
was not a citizen, nor could he become a citizen except by special
act of a legislative nature. His only claim to any consideration
whatever lay in the implications of the provision of the Federal Con-
stitution making Congressional representation proportional to pop-
ulation, “excluding Indians not taxed.” It has now become a matter
of importance to Congress to determine decennially the number of
“Indians not taxed,” in order to include the number of “Indians
taxed” in the population requiring Congressional representation.
These figures have been specifically recognized in the last three
censuses. As we shall shortly see, the number of taxed Indians has
increased very largely since 1880. For purposes of comparison
the figures given for “Civilized Indians,” in that year are accepted as
the nearest equivalent of the present term “Indians taxed.” The
fall from 66,407 to 58,806 between 1880 and1890 is to be accounted
for chiefly by the uncertainty which existed then and still exists as
to which Indians really are taxed.
Upon the assumptions here made it will be seen that 21.7 per
cent of the estimated population in 1880 were taxed. Even at that
time all the Indians of New England, of the South Atlantic, and the
East South-Central States were so classified. In addition to these,
all the Indians in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas were given as taxed. Out-
side of these twenty-seven States, with 100 per cent of their Indians
taxed, California was credited with 79.8 per cent, Utah with 64.2
per cent, Iowa with 56.8 per cent, and Michigan with 41.7 per cent.
The situation in 1880 is graphically shown by the accompanying
colored map (No. 1). The percentage of taxed Indians increases
as we pass from the red through the blue and the green to the white.
THE INDIAN AND CITIZENSHIP

In 1880 there were eleven States where less than 25 per cent of the
Indians were taxed. Only one State east of the Mississippi con-
tinued to hold so large a proportion of the Indians outside the life
of the Nation.
Since 1880 there has been a rapid and great change in this
' situation. Legislation, custom, and consent have brought thousands
into the classes of taxed Indians and citizens. Under the Dawes
Act of 1887 every Indian became a citizen with his allotment of
land. So, too, every Indian who took his residence separate and
apart from his tribe became a citizen. The rate of change was
lowered, however, by the Burke Act of 1906, which postponed for
twenty-five years the grant of citizenship to allottees. But even
the Burke Act makes provisions for the immediate grant of citizen-
ship to those individual allottees who are believed by the Govern-
ment authorities to be already competent to exercise safely the
rights and privileges of citizenship. The colored map (No. 2)
showing the actual situation in 1910 will reveal more clearly than
any number of words what a great change has been effected
since 1880. Instead of 21. 7 per cent of taxed Indians, there are
now 73 per cent. The 66,407 of “Civilized Indians” in 1880 have
been replaced by 193,811 of “taxed Indians.” To-day there are only
71,872 of “not taxed Indians” in all of continental United States.
Every Indian in each of thirty-three States is taxed. This means,
does it not, that these 112,041 Indians, both as individuals and
State-wide groups, have passed from aboriginal isolation to sub-
stantial citizenship. In four great States, with an Indian population
of 41,380, from 83 to 94 per cent are taxed. In six States over half
are taxed. In only four States are less than 25 per cent taxed.
These four States are Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, and New York.
For the first three of this list there may be some excuse for the lack
of progress made. If, however, there is any justification for the
granting of higher rights to all the Indians in thirty-three States,
apparently a grievous injury has been inflicted upon the Indians of
New York. Even the $200,000 Ogden claim will not weigh in the 0
balance against a generation of time and progress lost for 5,000
Indians. '
The accompanying table condenses the Census figures here used.



Indian Population and Indians Tamed—1880 and 1910.


INDIANS TAXED m—

P2313“ 1910 1880
Number Per cent Per cent
UNITED STATES 265,683 193,811 73.0 21.7
New England 2,076 2,076 100.0 100.0
Maine 892 892 100. 0 100. 0
New Hampshire 34 34 100.0 100.0
Vermont 26 26 100.0 100.0
Massachusetts 688 688 100.0 100.0
Rhode Island 284 284 100.0 100.0
Connecticut 152 152 100.0 100.0
Middle Atlantic 7,717 3,037 39.4 17.3
New York 6,046 1,366 22.6 13.7
New Jersey 168 168 100.0 100.0
Pennsylvania 1,503 1 ,503 100. 0 100. 0
East North Central 18,255 17,248 94.5 38.1
Ohio 127 127 100.0 100.0
Indiana 279 279 100. 0 100. 0
Illinois 188 188 100.0 100.0
Michigan 7,519 7,519 100.0 41.7
Wisconsin 10, 142 9,135 90. 1 29. 3
West North Central 41,406 29,209 70.5 12.1
Minnesota 9,053 7,721 85. 3 27.1
Iowa 471 471 100.0 56.8
Missouri 313 313 100.0 100.0
North Dakota 6,486 3,833 59.1 2.1
South Dakota 19,137 10,925 57.1 Nebraska 3,502 3,502 100.0 5.2
Kansas 2,444 2,444 100. 0 54. 4
South Atlantic 9,054 9,054 100.0 100.0
Delaware 5 5 100.0 100.0
Maryland 55 55 100.0 100.0
Dist. of Columbia 68 68 100.0 100.0
Virginia 539 539 100. 0 100. 0
West Virginia 36 36 100.0 100.0
North Carolina 7,851 7,851 100.0 100.0
South Carolina 331 331 100.0 100.0
Georgia 95 95 100. 0 100. 0
Florida 74 74 100. 0 100. 0
East South Central 2,612 2,612 100.0 100.0
Kentucky 234 234 100. 0 1 00.0
Tennessee 216 216 100.0 100.0
Alabama 909 909 100. 0 100. 0
Mississippi 1,253 1,253 100.0 100.0
West South Central 76,767 76,767 100.0 2.6
Louisiana 780 780 100. 0 1 00.0
Arkansas 460 460 100. 0 100. 0
Oklahoma 74,825 74,825 100. 0 ........ -.
Texas 702 702 100.0 100.0
Mountain 75,338 24,194 32.1 19.4
Montana 10,745 1 ,030 9. 6 7.1
Idaho 3,488 1,334 38. 2 4. 6
Wyoming 1,486 179 12.0 6.4
Colorado 1 ,482 1,030 69. 5 5. 7
New Mexico 20,573 10,255 49.8 29.4
Arizona 29,201 5,072 17.4 15.7
Utah 3,123 1,636 52. 4 64. 2
Nevada 5,240 3,658 69. 8 29. 2
Pacific 32,458 29, 614 91. 2 49. 5
Washington 10,997 9,141 83. 1 23. 7
Oregon 5,090 5 ,090 100. 0 27.1
California 16,371 15,383 94.0 79.8








1880
_"-~__INDIANS T-AXED AND NOT TAXED—CITIZENS(?) AND
I
_ MONT, i
" I 2 ' I ' .- Q‘...
_ r._.__._._._.-)-
./ i
1 1; 27.1






l'
I b. 7 i ,
Am; g 2Q‘ 4‘ j a OKLA
I N MEX g \
i ! ‘\ -
I !
i !
' ~._,_----_._..|
\'“'_-'~f \_ TEXAS
\
Iunmxs TAXED— '
All taxed, - - - ~un'colored \_ _._.\
75 to 100 per cent, -_ "J, '\
25 to 75 .per cent, h '\_
\ - 0
' TOTAL NOT 'mxeo, 240,]36—78.3 PER CENT.


Tor/u. TAXI-ID, 66,407—2L7 PER cam‘.
2 I ._._._!._._._._,,_..{..J\“\-’ I
. ‘ , v
Less than 25 per cent,




1910
9-6
Mom» f N. DAK.
5 .
P ;---._.2../.._._i MINN. /
‘I? _._._._..1 i ! l 2’ I s. DAK. ! ‘- _ w
I I l \
,-
L._._§.z.4. ;--—-»'“-\
‘i "-"\ \
i.___ ,I \
Tm- _______ ’_ NEBR
I.‘ g ..... _.
5,5” ! COLD ‘r ___________ m
I ' ' ! .
_____ 4' (0q' 5 ! KANS
_._._!_._ _______ ___ i
‘I i _____ m. ......... _.
.' i !
! i ! OKLA
! N. MEX‘ '.~_\
I g “\-V
i 8 g v- ‘x
I‘ J
’ -._l_--— — -.
\""~-'— _ TEXAS
\
INDIANS TAXED— '\
All taxed, - - - uncolored \ ’._.\
75 to 100 per cent, -_ \J '\
25 to 75 per cent, "In-- '\_
L \_ 0
ess than 25 pe' cam’ .— \ To'rAL NOT nxsn, 71,872-27 PER can-r.
'\_ TOTAL TAXED, 193,825—73 PER CENT.
\_ '
~_
"-—
'fi'_I-¢_v-n-n
n \ . ‘-
'~-__~INDIANS TAXED AND NOT TAXED—CITIZENSQ) AND NON-CITIZENS(?)












1920
NOT TAXED—CITIZENSQ) AND NON-CITIZENSQ)
_'_-_._._- ‘
--_._-_._._~
'“~-—-_.__
"i- ._--._.-._.-'_u-
i ____ ~I;
:oKLAHoMAl,
I "'"l '
g‘ i ARK. /" !



.--_-
INDIANS TAXED— '\
All taxed, - - - uncolored -~.
75 to 100 per cent, \-.4', \'\
25 to 75 per cent, —— '\


TOTAL NOT 'mxzn, 31,767—1L8 PER can-r.
Tor/u. TAXI-ID, 233,000—88.2 PER czn'r.



THE INDIAN AND CITIZENSHIP

If for a moment we may venture away from Census data, let
us look into the future and see what the situation will be in 1920.
Should the rate of increase of taxed Indians continue the same in
the next decade as in the past, all Indians would be taxed in 1920.
It is not probable, however, that that rate will be completely main-
tained. The third map is meant to suggest the minimum changes
which are reasonably sure under the pressure of existing forces to
work out during the next decade. It will be noticed on that map
that all the red States have disappeared, and only the two States of
Arizona and Montana have a percentage of taxables as low as 50.
New York has joined the white States and only 31,000 Indians
in all the country remain for promotion to the ranks of potential
citizenship.
/ We are obliged to confess, however, that not all who are taxed
are accorded the rights of citizenship, nor are all citizen Indians
taxed. Nevertheless there is a distinct, however intangible, change
of status effected when the transition is made from the class of “not
taxed” to the class of “taxed” or taxable. We are justified, so the
writer thinks, in calling the taxed Indians “potential citizens,” and
in believing that their full rights can not long be withheld. So long,
however, as we have taxed Indians and non-taxed Indians, citizen
Indians and non-citizen Indians, independent Indians and Indian
wards, and so long as we have every sort of combination of these
classes, and, further, so long as we have neither certainty as to classi-
fication nor definiteness as to the status when named, just so long
we shall continue to have a condition of confusion in Indian affairs in-
tolerable alike to Government and Indian. Indians of like capability
and situation are citizens in Oklahoma and non-citizens in New
York. Allottees are citizensin Nebraska, and non-citizens in Wyo—
ming. In many cases in the same State some of the allottees are citi-
zens while others are not. Citizen Indians are entirely independent
in Illinois, they are wards of the Nation in Wisconsin, wards of the
State in Maine, and wards of both State and Nation in New York.
Such confusion as this constitutes an effectual barrier to any sys-
tematic policy on the part of the Government, and an almost com-
plete barrier in the way of progress for the Indian race. It is high
time that a consistent effort was made to bring order out of chaos,
and it is therefore not without its timely significance that on January
19, 1912, a noted Indian and Member of Congress, the Hon. Charles
D. Carter, at the suggestion of the Society of American Indians,
introduced in the House of Representatives a bill (No. 18334) “to
create an Indian Code Commission to codify the laws relating to
Indians taxed and not taxed, and to define more exactly the privi-
THE INDIAN AND CITIZENSHIP

leges and disabilities of the several classes of Indians in the United
States.” This bill specifically provides that the said Commission
shall report “a codified law determining the status of the Indians
of the United States in accordance with existing legislation and the
future best interests of these natives.” No greater work for the
race can be done than is proposed in this bill. It will rest upon
the Commission to provide for the advancement of the various
tribes in personal and civil rights without withdrawing any measure
of that protecting guardianship by the Government which is needful
for the safeguarding of certain members of that race.
With the probable early entrance of the Indian into American
politics it is of some interest to know what power they might exert
through the ballot. The exact number of males 21 years of age
and over has not yet been computed by the Census Bureau, so we
have no absolutely correct statistics to quote on this point. N ever-
theless an approximate statement may have some interest. Taxed
Indians now constitute twenty-one one-hundredths of 1 per cent of
the total population of the country. In each of eleven States the
number of taxed Indians exceeds 5,000. In order these States are
Oklahoma, 74,825; California, 15,383; South Dakota, 10,925; New
Mexico, 10,255; Washington, 9,141; Wisconsin, 9,135; North
Carolina, 7,851; Minnesota, 7,721; Michigan, 7,519; Oregon,
5,090; Arizona, 5,072; atotal of 162,917, leaving 30,894 such Indians
in the other thirty-nine States. If all the taxed Indians in the eleven
States were gathered together they would constitute a city only 6,000
smaller than the city of Toledo, Ohio. Practically half of these are
found in the one State of Oklahoma.
Let us assume that in round numbers 22 per cent of the pop-
ulation are males 21 years of age and over. This is not far from
the usual percentage of voters in this country. Now, after we have
discovered the number of such males we may calculate the number
of “taxed” males 21 years and over by employing the percentages
already given in this article. In that way we can get in round num-
bers the number of Indian voters we shall have if all these “poten-
tial” citizens exercise the right of franchise. Of course a large num-
ber of these Indians do not actually vote. But upon the bases here
suggested there are about 457 voters in New England, 669 in the
Middle Atlantic States, 3,795 in the East North-Central States, 6,422
in the West N orth—Central States, 1,991 in the South Atlantic States, .
575 in the East South-Central States, 16,888 in the West South-
Central States, 5,320 in the Mountain States, and 6,513 in the Pacific
States. Women suffrage in certain Western States would double
the numbers in those States but would not increase the relative
THE INDIAN AND CITIZENSHIP

voting power of the Indian. Eleven States have over 1,000 Indian
voters each, namely, Oklahoma, 16,462; California, 3,386; South
Dakota, 2,403; New Mexico, 2,254; Wisconsin and Washington,
each, 2,010; South Carolina, 1,727; Minnesota, 1,699; Michigan,
1,654; Oregon, 1,120; and Arizona, 1,118. Oklahoma has thus 40
per cent of the 40,000 Indian voters of the country. The Indian
population of Oklahoma constitutes 4.5 per cent of the total popu-
lation of that State.
It is plain to be seen from these figures that the Indian does
not have the numbers which will enable him to force his rights
through the ballot-box. His strength and his power will come
through his intelligence. He is ‘coming rapidly into a new situation.
It behooves him to stand strongly for justice, to argue his case before
the new Nation of which he is rapidly becoming a part. It behooves
the other races to recognize their obligations to him, to protect
him from injustice, to receive him to all the rights and privileges
which his education and his intelligence entitle him. With friend-
ship and cooperation the watchword, both the red and white races
will advance to new standards, to greater opportunities, and to
larger responsibilities and obligations. With new and equal political
rights the Indian will insist upon an education equal to the best,
and will prepare to compete on even terms in the business and
professional world. Only. an inferior people would be content with
less. Only an unjust race would be willing ‘to accord less.



/ J a
‘$333 a‘?

I
,. a > “k e X H‘ \ u, gflwmsétwj v If,‘ figétflnn e} V115; @Vacqfi n
- a l * 5 a a“. r r‘ “3 _ -. ‘. "5 ’ " "~ ‘ ‘* "“ 45*’5 ,e ~ w‘
" eww‘t‘ Me's’ ‘'*~ ~ T vfigga */*¥%W'% " *g-s‘rif£~h2.r$r%:%m Mae's I‘ "M‘ ‘ "
’§‘ ‘ t " I , figs“ arr-Mr ‘’ ' “' ’
~ 1 *‘ r 7
‘h h v ' a ( 4
r
\— 4 J
>
. Second Annual Conference
At Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio, Sept. 3-9, 1912


The Society of American Indians
Statement of Purpose
Adopted by the Executive Committee at the Constitutional Convention
held at Washington, D. C., Jan. 25-27, 1912
1. To promote and cooperate with all efforts looking to the advancement
of the Indian in enlightenment, that leaves him free as a man to develop
according to the natural laws of social evolution.
2. To provide through our open conference the means for a free discussion
on all subjects bearing on the welfare of the race.
3. To present in a just light the true history of the race, to preserve its
records and to emulate its distinguishing virtues.
4. To promote citzenship among Indians and to obtain the rights thereof.
5. To establish a legal department to investigate Indian problems, and to
suggest and obtain remedies.
6. To exercise the right to oppose any movement which may be detrimental
to the race.
7. To provide a bureau of information, including publicity and statistics.
Further information may be had by addressing Arthur C. Parker, Sec-
retary-Treasurer, Albany, N. Y., or any member of the Executive Coun-
cil or General Committee.
Executive Council
Sherman Coolidge, President, Faribault, Minn.; Laura M. Cornelius,
Vice-President, Seymour, Wis.; Hon. Charles D. Carter, Vice-President,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.; Henry Roe Cloud, Vice-
President, Auburn Seminary, Auburn, N. Y.; Arthur C. Parker, Secre-
tary, Albany, N. Y.; Henry 8. Bear, Belvidere, S. D.; Hiram Chase,
Pender, Neb.; J. N. B. Hewitt, Washington, D. C.
General Committee
Dr. Charles A. Eastman, Amherst, Mass.; John M. Oskinson, care
Collier’s Weekly, New York City; Rev. William Holmes, Santee Agency,
Neb.; Mrs. Marie Baldwin, Washington, D. C.; Rev. Frank Wright,
224 San Jacinto street, Dallas, Tex.; Howard E. Gansworth, Washington
and Exchange streets, Buffalo, N. Y.; Dennison Wheelock, West De
Pere, Wis.; J. E. Shields, Watonga, Okla; Mrs. Emma D. Goulette,
Shawnee, Okla; Rosa B. LaFlesche, Washington, D. C.; Thomas L.
Sloan. Pender, Neb.; Hon. Charles E. Dagenett. Denver, Colo.


“MICHIGAN v t
F
0
._ .=._....._,,.._.._..___.___n_._._...
.PFIIGCII. H
. ..
rEwkamfimfifigi15555552. __._.ii...._..~.._= =Jun-‘=55?5522.?5:E..5:.iiiEEzi:
. | . v .. > . t . '.",.‘,..,'. In I’... ~".'.IC..' n I v '. 1,»! l7‘.l1.'“~ll."r'."l ‘$4 .!|.'..'H‘.'.i>':‘l'.
=_=.==.=== ____,=_____._ .=
m.
1
Uililiiis
Inna
JmluniuuuuumnHlwuvl
mt _ p- T
‘ Arab-wee‘ .
ienl Soeiet}
I_
ate’
. E
T

allluml
His
-55 =. _..,_._..==.._.=._._ , . . _,==,=.==
._===.=._.
,ggguu
?©hio7S

y
en...‘ . 12... .,

@-
MMNW/I .
. time?
of $1»
.. a 1.1.. x71
. New
n in.
. A»?! .\
a
., s T . .
a, twang, .83» .w
... w? @3118: ..
. ? ~51. iii.
.. wecamswww... when.»
.7/3. a. .
I have. i: i
. . J as?
.gnwga .eaann.
. .sAé

~’.r
a .8.
rH/x. .v
.. r“...
5......“
Sr...
. . L
. . . ..t._...,
215,» . .. , . . .(i/M. .. .
a
x
r n: ,
. .~_ 5w‘u'1.
a. .
1;.
a .x.
HAY
n.1,. HT
"ax-1.-
5 ....§..._..
3 f 7....
a... .
aw.
" n?» d
’ .Vlu
"fig '27
.l.
~.;.
.,,_., _
7?,
“1-1:...
ui'. \\
' sh
. a .
.t a . .
r... . . . . if...
.monunnfi. W” . . . .. .. . . .
(any.
.
1x.
9? , . . . .
.3... gamma.» wfi. . . a”?
.. .. . i .5. .
n,
.,. u. I
v. a .16.
11¢ .\
.i.
.4
WW
1 ‘
7,. I.‘
a... A? 44-.
in»... u}:
‘a
. . . . . a..."
. I . . . .1: . 2.. 1...“.
. . . . . , nah/.3
55/ H . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 7 >1
mévmnwz . . .. . .. . . .. . . .
E. . , . . .
. . . J44... . . . . , .
33%45... A“ .m... .
: . _. 0:. .
. n if .
f}:
m...‘
2.5..
v.»
'1
a“
m
w
. . , .. vb...
. ., . . . . . . . .
82:31.? . . , .
a)... a... .. it“.
w
. (Ir! J. . \a.
a... a .2
.5
3.
11%.“
.3 .. .
. 122.1. ..
. mm...
. . . 4.
. .3. .1’.
. . imp).
.3‘. .W... ., w. w... .
n.5,. ; a... ..
4W»... . , . , .
e... .0 r.
1.... .J
. 121
1
it...
> . , .
31.2.. .
. . . 1.5.1128». .
. . . 2.1."... . . ,
. uhm.) , , . . ,
. 7....‘ . . .
, a... _ , . . ,
T1 , .
v.3
.a. .
Farm
2‘.
. 1.....4. .
1
v...
. . a, 5%. >1
.flmwwflfi. . .
.fifimw . ,
w .

(.2 1.. WWW?
a . J. .. .
1......“ in- -
..., .
.. .\ a...
a»...
n4: ,
iv?
.
\\..
. .22
. )CYT .
. . a. _ . , . . .
>\v.r~. .
1...“? . .
“m...
. . 3 ..
.1: . . . uidzrwrsfiz
at . . . asmwuwimmzv.
. . . . #1., 1
##WWJ. . . . .
_._.~<:..
‘A... .
3.
. ‘ml
2 .t.
‘r .f;
1..»-
‘1'0
X .
'./J
r ..
um. .
a. r
w. mi
. . , 560...;
7n .4. .
$35....
"nj- :
r. l
.'.'-'*
l
;2,.. ..
.| .4
is‘); '1; v
(U 3
£9: .
\u .
, 1... i... .5 <
; .. 1... <.. ...1.:..
.1. 1... . . . . . . war. a.
.3... ..1....... . , . . , . . . .
m1.” ... 1...‘: . -r
A . . , . in.» ..
a... .. . 3...?! 1.. .
“a , . Q... ..t ,
a...
9n