Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1882-11-17

that quarter a question of grea1
moment and magnitude to all cit.
D zens of the Nation, which, in the
: settlement thereof, will concern
! the relation citizens hold towards
the Common Domain both east
and west.
/ allude to the right claimed by
,, certain citizens Of means to exclude
all other citizens from the benefit
of immense tracts of the common
domain by erecting a bulwark Of
wood and iron around those tracts.
If this can constitutionally be
+ done by one citizen west of y6 it
can be done by another citizen east
of 96. There is but one authority
which can decide whether it can
constitutionally be done or not,
and that authority is the National
Council. There is but one way;
and that is by reference to the End
Sec., of the lst Art, of the Con-
stitution.
If fencing a number of miles
square makes an improvement on
the public domain Of all the land
enclosed, citizens have had that
privilege since the Constitution
was made, and the privilege can
not be taken away from them
while their Government continues
and the Constitution remains un-
changed. No law can be made to
change the Constitution.
But If mere fence or, in other
words, a device to keep stock from
passing from one side of it to the
other, is not an Improvement, in
the light Of the Constitution, on
any part of the domain except
where the fence stands, then it
nerer was; and any past or future
attempt at monopoly by means of
fencing will be vain. But who
shall define what the rights of citi-
gems are under their Constitution? |
The authority to say what the |
whole people meant BY any. part |
of their fundamental instrument |
lies in the Representatives of the
whole people-the National Coun-
Gil.
1t is for you to make in this case
. declarative law, whose purpose
will not be to restrict, or interfere
with any individual rights, but
only to define what the right al
ways has been under the Constitu-
tion. Such a law can in no sense
be called retroactive, or "retrospec-
tive"
1t is not the first time the fun
bridled" enterprise of some citi-
zens have led them into error and
required the intcrposition Of Coun-
Gil TO defend the Common rights.
The first time was when a few
private citizens of means construed
for themselves the Constitution to
mean that they were given an in
defeasable right to improvements
as long as the improvement lasted,
whether Of use to them or not.
This construction would have
enabled citizen of means to make
bona fide improvement ON a first
class location here, and one there,
until a hundred more or less might
have been made and left untenant-
ed and useless until the monopolist
got his price. Under their author
ity from the people TO say what
the people meant by the word ''im-
provments," the National Council
put stop to that species of spec
ulation by declaring that any work
on the Public Domain was no i'm
provement after ii was left unused
for two years, but was after that
time part Of the Public Domain
itfclf.
The second time citizens erred
in their construction of what the
Constitution meant by ''improve-
ments" was when the passage Of
through the country gave ,
special value a good location on
hose roads. The law still not re-
stricting the number of improve
mcnts to be owned BY one citizen,
the idea of laying the foundation
Of cabins, and calling them i'm
provemcnts in order to hold the
quarter of a mild in each direction
and so monopolize the scarce tim I
Der near the track, was considered j
by some as profitable if not just
Of the term ''im- !
provement." The National Coun- ,
Ill stopped this second encroach- (
ment on the Common right by an
other declaration of what the peo- I
pie menat by "improvement'' in !
heir Constitution. They declared !
no claim OF any place to be valid
Unless lawfully tcnanted and worth I
fifty dollars besides. +
In the same line of legislation {
you are authorized to declare as 4
he representatives of the people .
they meant a mere fence,
,r-in other words-whether q
structure of wood, stone, iron, or
lirt, built in a line, high enough
md strong enough to keep ordinary :
on one side or the other,
9 an improvement" on the
Common Domain" and If il is
70, whether It affects land in its nat
Il state on either side. Also, I
'hould the two ends of the fence
,c joined, either two or three hun
lred miles away, whether the do
main inside the enclosure is all
land and the indefeasible
of the owner Of the fence.
To my mind, the bare PROPOSE
ion is proposterous on its face; d
nd considering that the land is d
he common property of all, and 4
hat one has no more right to il a
han another, Il seems moastrous. 1,
n any citizen has thus attempted :,
!, owcooI fho ri~hf <rfxox. H.. 1..- -