Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1885-10-15

must specify, and not in violation
of law. This because there was
no violation il the seizure of the
logs by executive authority was not
an usurpation of power that belong
ed to some other officer. He
must also furnish, when his case
came before the district court,
evidence in support of what he ID
required to swear, before he ia
permitted to sue for his property.
To prove something in relation to
an act performed before the law
was made requiring such proof.
The law has the appearance OF
being the product Of some muddled
solon who in his anxiety to cover
every circumstance the case de-
manded, exacted more than the
constitution fully warrants. The
law in force prior to the seizure of
the logs mentioned in section one,
of the "Act in relation to walnut
logs seized by executive authority"
forbids the sale Of lumber or
timber to non-citizens, and makes
it penal offense to ship any tim
ber beyond the geographical
limits of the Cherokee nation.
There is no provision in this act,
compelling the claimant of walnut
logs or other timber, cut while it
was the only law in force in rela-
tion to timber, "to execute and
file with the clerk of the said
court (districD his affidavit setting
forth the description of the proper
ty (walnut logs) claimed, and that
it was cut for his own use which
shall be specified. This much of
the law is. retroactive because it re-
quires of the owner Of the logs to
swear certain things about them
though they were his property long
before there was any law COM
pelling him to swear so and so.
1t would be as equally consistent
to pass a law compelling every cit
izen of the nation to go before the
district clerk and swear that the
horses and cattle he claims as his
personal property are legally his,
and that he had not stolen any OF
them; and should he refuse or
neglect to swear as the law directs,
TO sell TO the highest bidder for the
benefit Of the nation. Timber
standing upon the public domain
is the common property of the peo-
Pile, but when cut by some citizen
for his own use or that Of some
other citizen, it becomes personal
property as much so as horses or
cattle. To COMPEL a citizen to
swear certain things about his
property Of which he has become
legally possessed under the laws
Of the country, requiring no swear
ing; and to prove what he is re-
luired to swear by provision Of a
retroactive law, prior to which
here was no necessity in law COM
pelling him TO swear so and so,
and to prove what he swears, is
ust a little more than the constitu-
ion will bear out, and a good deal
more than any one is willing TO
submit to. Especially If he has
lot taken the precaution TO inform
ais neighbors about what he is do
ng or intends to do. He must not
Engage in any business until he
prepares himself with witnesses TO
prove certain things, should there
De a law enacted requiring him to
'wear, and 10 prove what he swears,
hat he is innocent of offenses that
nay be named in the law.
The penalty against selling lum-
Der or timber TO non-citiEens or
it beyond the geograph-
cal limits of the Cherokee nation"
'xtends only 10 the act consummat-
ID. There is nothing against the
resumption that it was to be SO
old or exported, not even seizure
" any authority to prevent such
ale or expectation, let appearances
70 what they may. The nations
enumeration for the damage sus-
aimed was the fine imposed, not
ess than fifty nor over one humid
ed dollars. Offenders were willing
o pay the fine for the privilege of
lumber, and many went
'efore the courts and acknowledged |
Judgment and paid the fine as they |
Vould a tax. II the fine was too
mall to prevent the traffic or TO be
decent royalty 10 the nation for
umber shipped in all possible
Quantities, il is no fault Of the cih-
en- who engages in such business
'ut Of a lot Of Lawmakers who
new nothing Of the value Of our
Imber or Of the large shipments