INDIAN TRUST FUND
List of stocks held by the Secretary of the Interior in trust for Indian tribes
| State | Per cent | Amount | ||
| Arkansas | 5 | $ 3,000.00 | ||
| Florida | 7 | 132,000.00 | ||
| Georgia | 6 | 3,500.00 | ||
| Indiana | 5 | 70,000.00 | ||
| Kentucky | 5 | 183,000.00 | ||
| Louisiana | 6 | 37,000.00 | ||
| Maryland* | 6 | 131,611.82 | ||
| Missouri | 5½ | 63,000.00 | ||
| Missouri | 6 | 484,000.00 | ||
| North Carolina | 6 | 562,000.00 | ||
| Ohio | 6 | 150,000.00 | ||
| Pennsylvania* | 5 | 96,000.00 | ||
| South Carolina | 6 | 125,000.00 | ||
| Tennessee | 5 | 218,000.00 | ||
| Tennessee | 6 | 143,000.00 | ||
| United States | 6 | 251,330.00 | ||
| Virginia | 6 | 796,800.00 | ||
| 3,449,241.82 | ||||
*Taxed by the State.
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Report, 1859, p. 452.
[97] David Hubbard to Ross and McCulloch, June 12, 1861 [Official Records, first ser., vol. xiii, 497].
[98] The position of the tribes in the northern part of the Indian country, in Kansas, was considerably different from that of the tribes in the southern part, in Oklahoma. Each of the great tribes to the southward had a government of its own that was modelled very largely upon that of the various states. The tribes to the northward had retained, unchanged in essentials, their old tribal community government. Moreover, they had already been obliged to allow themselves to be circumscribed by territorial lines, soon to be state lines; their integrity had been broken in upon; and now they were not of sufficient importance to have, either individually or collectively, anything to say about the sectional affiliation of Kansas. As a matter of fact, they never so much as attempted to take general tribal action in the premises. Neither their situation nor their political organization permitted it.
[99] An interruption to this came in the shape of the indefinitely defined “Cherokee Outlet,” which lay north of Texas and in addition occupied the northern part of Indian Territory.
[100] The subjoined map will illustrate the relative position of the individual Indian reservations. Although published in 1867, it is not correct for that date but is fairly correct for 1861. The “reconstruction treaties” of 1866 made various changes in the Indian boundaries but the map takes no account of them.