Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1886-12-30

chief, rabbit Bunch) was just
nothing. That summons in a
suit against the nation when ap-
pealed to the supreme court, if
served upon the second principal
chief in the absence Of the princi-
pal chief, was sufficient grounds to
dismiss such suit, therefore the
X. =. Lindsey case was dismissed
by the supreme court. Now will
some smart Aleck tell the people
of the Cherokee nation, why and
for what use we have n second
chief The next case Of a similar
kind that came up before the SUI
preme court was J. NJ. Bryan VS..
Cherokee nation, for his property
at Chouteau. Under q written
agreement between d. w. Bushy-
head, principal chief and j. NJ.
Bryan, the above case was to be
tried by the supreme court at the
regular term in October and No
vember, 1886, and to be finally dis
posed of at that court. The case
came up (attorneys for the nation,
VIM. p. Ross, Houston Benge, ID.
w. G. Duncan and II. I. Landrum;
for the plaintiff, J. NJ. Bryan and
r. w. Walker) whereupon the de-
fense moved to dismiss upon the
ground that the summons was not
in accordance with the constitution.
AT the same time the summons
was exactly as directed in the COM
piled laws, page ~, when that law
declared that every summons
shall run in the name of the Cher
okee nation, in the following
form:" (Which was the form of the
summons then before the court. }
Then, on the same page, at the
close of the second section, the
last three lines say: "And the
court shall give judgment as the
right of the matter in law shall ap-
pear without regarding any formal
defect or verbal imperfection in
such summons.
Then the next law touching such
motion MS then before the,
premc court, will be found in COM
piled laws, page 1873, Sec. 1873,
which reads: mo suit shall be
dismissed from the docket, or
abated, on account of any formal
defect or commission in the pro-
ceedings thereof, when such defect
or commission is not the fault OF
the plaintiff, and the defendant is
not injured thereby. or his rights
jeopardized. But the court may
remedy any such defect or commission
by ordering such amendment as shall
dgrec with The facts Of the case"
We ask, did the supreme court
in the above case, pay any atten-
ton to the laws of instruction above
quo,ed2 None, none. Then, the
supreme court had the written
obligation between Chief Bushy-
head and J. NJ. Bryan, agreeing
that the above case should be tried
at the regular term of the court,
and be finally disposed of then.
Even that obligation did not weigh
a feather with the supreme court.
The supreme court dismissed the
suit at Bryan's cost. The supreme
court then sustained the motion
upon the ground, Gas they say
that the constitution and laws
referred to and quoted by plaintiff,
must be complied with. as these
provisions. are peremptory. The
above claim was taken from J. NJ
Bryan over thirteen years ago for Z
town site and converted to public
use of the Cherokee nation, Bryan,
his vile and children being ousted
out of house and home, which
was a fragrant violation of Art. /,
Sec. 2, of the Cherokee constitu-
tion. The constitution declares
that no property shall be taken
and applied to public use without
a just and fair compensation. II
has been over thirteen years since
Bryan's home and improvements
were taken and at that time was
worth over $1,000. Bryan has
petitioned the national council for
years and years; then as a last
resort, by an agreement with the
principal chief, brought the case
before the supreme court. But in
every case before the council, and
in the last case before the supreme
court, he has had invariably q
band of what you might call smart
Alecks or gobblers, to lay plans to
defeat justice. At the same time,
take the people generally, and
they are not so disposed. As a
general thing with the smart
Alecks, the less Indian blood in
their veins, the more they desire
to crush white citizens of the
nation. Bryan's improvements
were made long before the railroad
was completed to where Chouteau
now is. When the law was passed
TO lay off town sites there was no
provision in that law TO take q
citizens improvements. Why?
Because the law would have been
unconstitutional.
Let us suppose a similar case:
Suppose the Cherokee nation was
to take the home improvements OF
w. p. Ross, Huston Benge, l.. B.
Bell, John Chambers, Roach
Young, joan Drew, ct. al, and
oust them and their families out
and then refuse TO pay them for
the said property. Would not all
of these gentlemen say it was a
villainous take? And so far as my
knOwledqe pOeg. no honest man On