Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1882-10-27

v@~~ <Aofv@te At@S =" 60 "'u'
fencing and pastures west Of IS:
That Executive authority is moi
exercised against the fencing-in Of
large tracts Of country west Of the
Arkansas river, by our citizens fol
the purpose Of combining their own
cattle within certain grazing limits,
or those Of non-citizens who pay
for the special privilege, there
seems to be some complaint. Laws
are never made until there is a
demand for them, or exigencies
anticipated by enactment of a law
for the protection of public inter-
est, at least such is the case in this
nation. As nations grow older
and the industries increase, and
enterprise stimulate the people to
greater energies, demands contin-
ually arise for the enactment Of
other laws to meet newly created
cases. This is q true indication Of
progress-that the people are up
and string, and the public interest
is widening and demands greater
security.
Only Of late-within the past
few m0nths-havc our citizens
gone into this new enterprise Of
fencing in large tracts Of our lands
west. For doing this they have
several good reasons. The money
that is in it, il the first considcra,:
ton. If there is none, there would
be no fencing done. If there is q
law or treaty stipulation against it,
perhaps, no one would risk his
means in running a wire fence
around fifteen or twenty miles of
grazing grounds. But there is no
provision Of either against it, or
not enough Of constructive law or
constitution, as in the walnut-log
matter, to authorize Executive in
reference, as the land cannot be
transported beyond the limits Of
the Territory and be lost to us for
ever. Not much. The two eases
do not chime together. The horse
is Of a different color.
II the people want this thing
stopped, they must prick the Ma
tional Council up to a sense Of
their duty, and make them scnsi-
bic of the necessity Of some legis-
lation upon the matter, and then
blame somebody if tho law is not
properly executed.
What definition ought 10 be given
to the constitutional rights Of citi-
xens, the Council alone has the
power to determine. To draw the
line between such rights and the
limit at which monopoly of the
public domain begins, some keen
discrimination win be required to
steer clear Of infringement upon
such rights, and to prevent monop-
oily. "The lands Of the Cherokee
Nation shall remain common prop
erty," is a constitutional provision.
The reversion to the Cherokee Ma
lion Of improvements upon the
public domain, MS common proper
Iy, is necessary consequence Of
This tenure, and carries with it the
principal against monopoly. Other
wise by the means ofimprovcmcnts
The entire country could become
permanent personal property. But
his is not enough. No law, based
,pon this provision ofthe Constitu-
ion, can be found among our sta
utcs, defining to what extent cit
zen may use the public domain
he equal and common property of
III. The ability or greed Of some
. not circumscribed by the inabil-
ty or the easily satisfied disposi-
ions Of others with a competency,
n the use Of this comm unity Of in
crest.
Many wants may be considered
Iuperhuous, while others as natural
md necessary, but who has the
light to pronounce judgment upon
hem? OF the simple and the prim-
tive they are fcw--of' the advanced
md refined they are many. Salts
action with things just as they are
8 the cause Of the first, ahd the
contrary that Of the latter. Itmay |
,a said: Shall the industrious and
'nterprising he strayed by those
Who are not? II cannot be constru-
d that such Is the intention Of the |
Constitution. Privileges are only |
O be restrained and controlled, |
where mutual benefits might be en-
Dyed, or the exclusion of such !
night deprive, where they could be |
ommon, q neighbor of q participa-
ion. Fenceing in a large scope Of
ountry for grazing purpose, might |
'e considered a monopoly, because |
lone to the exclusion Of the stock |
# a ncighbor. This consideration |
les in the fact that the stock Of a
could be equally be- |
lcfited upon common pasture,
nd he who would fence the whole |
n not materially injured. This |
'erhaps, is about as true meaning |
4 lands in common, and of the nee
ssary Improvements allowed cit
Ecns, as "indefeasible property"
8 can well be defined. Enclosures
Or actual farming purposes may
'ot be circumscribod, because the /
natural products Of the soil, which |
rith the soil is the common pro-
'erty of ell, are destroyed, 30 that
he products Of labor, which is the
'rivate property Of him who labors,
nay be substitute and contribute 70
is comfort and that Of his family. |
As no other tenure Of lands is
ontemplated by the constitution, |
xccpt that in common, this may
. . tolerable fair Interpretation Of
be provision.
TO pu> Z stop to the monopoly |
Ii(hin thc nations limits lhc Coun-
Il must lay their onpicnt heads to-
.r11.or n1x 1&rm1,n ~ Lee n mA~&I