The Evening critic., 1883-01-16
INDIAN TERRITORY COURTS.
What Colonel BOudiuot Says of the
Hill 10 Divide the Territory Into
Three judicial Districts.

Whht tOfOnet hOuutuOt says Ot tue
Hill 10 Divide the Territory Into
Three judicial Districts.
reporter OF THE CRITIC met Colonel A. q.
Boudinot at the Capitol to-day, and knowing
him to be one of the most distinguished and
learned Indians In the country, proceeded TO
interview him on n subject which is OF much
Importance to his people, tho Cherokees, rs
wcll as to the other Indians composing the flye
civilized tribes. The following VIII explain
Itself as well as tho subject;
"1Iow do yeu like the act OF Congress re-
cently passed dividing the Indian Territory
Into three judicial departments"
81 think the idea good one, but tue Dill as
passed is defective and does not accomplish
what was Intended"
chow go ~
"whoeyer drew tho bill made the mistake OF
consulting tho map instead OF the treaties.
Maps are not laws, aud II they conflict with
treaty they amount to nothing. In this In
stance they so conflict. For Instance, the words
'Cheyennes and Arrapahoes' are marked on
that portion Of the Indian Territory lying i'm
nediptely south OF the Kansas line, and owned
by tho Cherokoes when the treaty of July 10,
1896 was made. These words arc improperly
there the land does not belong to the Chey-
ennes and Arrapahoes, and never did; they
belong TO the Cherokecs now ms much as they
did when the treaty was made, and are Just as
much part of the Cherokee Nation at this
day ms any other portion OF such natlon."
"Dldnt the Cherokecs sell all that part
f their nation lying west OF the 96' OF west
longitude by their treaty OF 1862"
"rhey did not; tho Greeks, Seminoles, Choc-
taws and Chickasaws sold largo part of their
domain in their treaties of 1866 for specl
fed consideration, but tho Cherokees didn't
sell an acre. They agreed In the 18th and 10th
articles OF their treaty OF 1866 that the
United States might settle friendly Indians
in any part Of their Territory, when certain
conditions should be compiled with. All that
part Of the Cherokee Nation upon which the
United States has not yet Settled friendly In.
dans, under the provisions of the treaty
have referred to, is Just as much Il part OF the
Cherokee Nation now as when the treaty was
made"
"What Jurisdiction T-as Intended by the bill
to be given to the United States courts OF tho
States of Arkansas, Texas and Kansas?"
"rhe U. S. District Court for tho Western Dis
trlct Of Arkansas was to retaiu Its present iurls
dictlon over the Choctaw, ChlcKasaw, Creek
and Seminole nations and all that part of the
Cherokee Nation lying east OF the Doth degree
walton. Tie United States court at Graham
Tex, was to have all that portion west OF the
fve civilized tribes and south of the
Wichita. Kansas, was to have the
balance. This was evidently the intention of
tho trainers of the bill, and nothing would
have been easier than 10 have drawn tho bill
SO as TO carry out such intention; but they
haven't done so. There can be no question as
10 the jurisdiction of the Arkansas and Texas
courte, but they have made pretty mess Of
1t, SO far as the Jurisdiction of tho Kansas
court Is concerned. The act says in substance,
nor haven't 1t by me to quote literally, that
all that portion OF the Indian Territory, north
Of the Canadian River, and not set apart or oC-
| cupied by the Cherokees or other civilized
| tribe, shall be subject TO the Jurisdiction of a
United States District court, to be held at WI
cbita, Kansas. Now all that portion of tho
| Cherokee Nation, called the outlet lying
west of the Osage reservation, excepting the
| small tracts which have been disposed OF TO
| the Pawnees, Nez Perces, Poncas and one or
| two other small bands Is still set apart to
and occupied by the Cherokees, and conse-
| quently is still subject under this act to the
| Jurisdiction Of the United States at Fort Smith,
Arkansas The Kansas members ought to
have known this, for their constituents have
4 been paying taxes from year to year to the
n Cherokee Nation for the privilege of grazing
| their cattle on these lands"
| {" What is the extent OF the territory which
| was intended to be given TO the Kansas court,
but which you say still belongs to the court in
Arkansas 2"
long, and lies Immediately south Of the State
Of Kansas"
"What remedy would you propose p
| "There is but one remedy; and that is, an
amendatory bill. should be glad to see such
bill passed. While they are doing this. how.
| ever, they would do we'll to consider another
matter. The bill confers the same jurisdic-
ton, and no more, on the courts in Texas and
Kansas as has been heretofore exercised
under existing laws by tho United
About twothirds OF the territory thus
given TO Texas and Kansas does not belong to
any Indian tribe; but lying contiguous to the
| civilized tribes and railroad soon 10 be built
through them, there Will naturally be good
| many Indians who VIII go upon these lands TO
| Craze their cattle or for other purposes. over
| all such persons there is no court whatever,
| which, under existing laws, has tho slightest
| Jurisdiction. The bill should provide that the
| courts In Kansas and Texas should have crlm-
| inal jurisIictlon, at least, over all persons
| committing ofenses In that portion OF the
| country subject TO their courts not included
within any indian reservation. The bill is a
| step in the right directioni but until 1t is
amended, 1t leaves the Kansas court IN an en-
| barrassing position. The next step should be
for Congress to pass the Vest bill, to organize
| a U. s. court for the 1ve civilized tribes
| This court should be located at Muscogee IN
| the Greek Nation, as that Is on the railroad
| and more central than any other point. The
| Government would save many thousands OF
dollars yearly by the establishment of such a
court, and 1t Is nothing more than Just and
right that these civilized Indians should have
n United States court In their own country and
not be dragged any longer outside Of thell
country to appear before court In the State
OF Arkansas"