Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1886-05-20

] titICOAs
The idea here suggested is that
the rights of soil we're not, nor
could be interfered with by any
treaty stipulation, nor by any
authority outside of the people
themselves, unless by their con-
sent. In the people rests the title
of their lands, and neither the
council, nor a delegation by the
council authorized, can or could
unsettle that title, or deprive the
owners Of any equivalent for the
same.
There is little or no difference
set up by the resolution between
the Delawares and Shawnees as
one class of citizens, and freedmen
as another. The language used
to define the rights of each is about
the same. OF the Delawares and
Shawnees it says: "That such In
dians when made citizens of this
nation, were, and now are, entitled
to such rights only as were realized,
enjoyed and practiced by native
Cherokees, as individual citizens
under the government of this ma
ton, at the time said Indians were
admitted to the rights of citizen
ship" OF the freedmen it says
that they "were admitted, and are
now entitled to those rights of native
Cherokees only as individual citi-
zens of this nation, at the
time of the adoption of
said colored persons, and which
rights were so held and enjoyed
under their organized government,
east of 96th meridian, the said in
dividual rights of native Cherokees
being all the rights exercised by
them, as individual citizens, when
said freedmen were admitted to
citizenship, pursuant to said ninth
article, and no rights to any land
of this nation. nor to any unreal
lied proceeds of any such land
were designed or intended by said
nation to be conferred upon such
colored persons or freedmen" The
definition Of right is made clearer
by terming them civil, political
and personal. If these were all
the rights that we, as native Cher
okees, had at the time these people
were admitted to citizenship, they
are all we have now, because con-
ditions that existed then have not
changed since. There is not a ma
tive Cherokee citizen Of this nation,
if he understands clearly the posi-
tion here taken, would be willing
TO acknowledge that his rights did
not extend to the soil at the time
these people became citizens. Nor
will any one accept the condition
that title TO our lands is in the
government of the Cherokee ma
ton, but in the people. If in the
people, the people, as native Cher
okees, have something more than
civil, political and personal rights
in the country at any time. The
position can only be sustained up
on the presumption that an artifi-
cial person, known as the govern
ment, owns all the lands, ard we
are nothing more then tenants.
The hocus-pocrs change that takes
place when lands are sold or leased
and money is realized and becomes
the exclusive property Of Chero-
okees by blood-which means ma
tive Cherokees-is sophistry too
thin for anything. We want and
must have better reasons than that.
The rights of the Shawnees and
Delawares in the lands are by pur-
chase. One hundred and sixty
acres to each were paid for, and to
say that they are entitled to such
rights only, "as were realized, en-
joyed and practiced by native
Cherokees, as individual citizens
under the government of this ma
tion, at the time said Indians were
admitted to the rights of citizen
ship" and to define those as be-
ing only civil, political and per-
sonal, is a Iepudiation of the ma
toms obligations and agreem ents
that cannot be sustained. 1t would
have been much better 10 have
simply said that these rights in
soil and monies extended only to
lands east of the 96th meridian, and
TO monies realized from the sale Of
lands specified as a part of the
basis of agreement between them
and the nation.
Such legislation is calculated to
cause an entire change in our gov
ernment, by reason of dissatisfac-
f;on of lie cifizans with n and n