Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1886-10-07

tOhiIVnNSu WIN Ine MISREPRESENTATION
ality Of the authority given him,
and the necessity to interpose
'ome,hing higher to protect a citi-
zen III his rights. This, though,
s'ultifes the law and makes it
shameful. A law that does not in
itself protect the people in their
legal possessions, but has to be de-
prived OF part Of its provisions or
hindered in the exercise of them
by the interference of higher
authority never should have be-
come such.
The plea Of the defense, as offered
to the court, was in part rather
singular, considering upon whom
rests the responsibility of the suit
or the law that brought it about.
An effort was made to exonerate
the nation of all blame in the mat
ter by placing the responsibility on
the sheriff who executed the law,
because an executive order had
been sent him to give Mr.. Lindsey
a chance at law to prove whether
or not he had been guilty Of the
alleged offense, which the sheriff
having disregarded, it was main
tanned that he, and not the nation
was responsible for all damages
sustained by Mr.. Lindsey in the
unlawful seizure and sale Of his
cattle. This places the question
of responsibility upon the right of
the chief executive to construe law
for the courts or officers, or to pre-
scribe what they must do in per-
forming their duties as defined by
the laws. The constitution requires
that "He shall take care that the
laws be faithfully executed" and
in his oath of office that he will
preserve, protect, and defend the
constitution of the Cherokee Ma
ton" These two provisions place
him in an awkward position as
to his duties. In taking care that
the laws be faithfully executed, he
must respect the law that has in
volved the nation and the sheriff,
or suspend its operations, which
he has no authority to do under
the constitution. That authority
belongs to the council. In his
protection, support and defense of
the constitution, he must do vir-
tually what he ought to have done
at frst-veto the thing. But hav-
ing approved an unconstitutional
act, he, as the nation, is response
ble for all the devilment that has
been done on account Of it. The
council is as deep into it as he is,
and together they constitute the
origin of power under which the
legal affairs of our country are con-
Quoted, and under which Sheriff
Cochran seized ard sold Mr.. Lind.
sey's cattle.
There is no little difference in
he oaths of Office chief and |
sheriff. In that of the chief, the
constitution is to be preserved and
defended, which means that he
'hall approve no act Of council
hat, in the least, conflicts with its
provisions. In that Of sheriff
hat he "Will, well and truly exc
,ute the duties of his Office as de-
ined and required Of him by law
md his bond to execute" " The
avs and not the constitution are
ais guide in his official acts or in
he performance of his duties. His
oath plainly indicates this. Nor
S he sworn to obey the orders Of
he principal chief or his construc-
ion of law, or to perform his duties
against plain provision of law, as
plain as the one that required him
% sell Mr.. Lindsey's cattle because
If an alleged oifense, but as directed
by the chief. If the council was so
inguarded in its legislation as to
pass an act so grievous and foolish, |
md the chief TO approve, they
ihould be held responsible for it,
md not an officer who is sworn to
execute his duties, as are defined
md required of him by them.
II Cochran is in fault now he
must have been when he refused
o obey the chiefs order. If then,
Why was he not suspended2 The
,ause was grave enough. The rea-
ION for not doing so is evident in
he consistently inferred ac-
inowledgment on part of the ad-
that it had made a
mistake in approving an act that
hould not have been and that
cochran was not to blame.
~----@a-~~-
sErTTnByn WEATHER