Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1886-07-15

l
under the treaty, can be nothing
new to any eommon-sensed citizen
Of this nation lie is right, per-
fectly right, as far as he goes,
because it is all treaty. No one can
be fer wrong, if he confines him
self in his judicial opinions to law
or to a treaty stipulation that de-
fines a right or confirms an obliga-
ton, especially where governments
are parties to an agreement. lie
recites treaty for what he says, and
refers to tho act of congress author
izing the president to appraise our
western lands. In the olhsh Of
the law and treaty he seeks a
compromise between the two, but
sustains, as we would have him
do, the treaty. The law, in its
operation, he confines to the ovcu-
pied tracts, although it clearly
covers, the entire outlet. In this,
claiming the protection of treaty,
we cannot agree with him, because
other tribes can be settled OF
there, and when located, the la..as
so occupied would, according to
his opinion, come within tho pur-
pose Of the act. The simple fact
that certain tracts are occupied by
tribes of Indians does not set aside
a treaty stipulation and make
operative a law that is a violation
of. treaty. Therefore if the law
cannot and does not extend TO all
of our western lands, IL does not
extend to any. This is certainly a
legitimate conclusion when we
realize the fact that some, if not
all, of the tracts have been settled
upon since the Law was made. Yet
the judge says the law applies
only to the occupied tracts. This
is more obviously so when it
is known that no express consent
on part of our nation, was ever
given or even asked for by the
government to settle the tracts
now occupied. This may have
been deemed unnecessary, as con-
sent is given in the treaty.
Confning himself to the treaty,
and not going outside of it farther
than the law that authorized the
president to appraise our western
lands, Judge Parker could not, in
credit to his sound, practical sense,
have decided otherwise than he
has; nor could he, if nothing of
what certain authorities of our ma
tion have done, in the way of the
surrender of treaty right, could
effect such a right. The dispute
has not been about what the treaty
means and what rights it secures
to the nation, but about certain
acts of our authorities that can,
and probably will be, construed
into an abandonment of a right to
say what our lands are worth.
Though illegal and arbitrary, the
appraisement of our western lands
has been virtually approved by
the nation, or the right TO have a
voice in such appraisement has
been waived. No sane man can
approve, in his concern for the ma
TONS safety and prosperity, the
demand upon the secretary Of the
interior for the balance, with in
terest, due the nation under an ap-
preisement not made in accord
with the treaty, as did certain
parties representing the nation in
the matter. Nor can he approve
the receipt of the $500, 900 appropri-
ated under such an appraisement,
without a proviso requiring an as
surance by the proper authority in
Washington City that the amount
was for occupied tracts. Nor can
he approve OF the bull-dozing pro-
cess of virtually coercing the ac-
ceptance of the money without
such a proviso, by declaring that
the nation would not get a dollar
of it, if such thing was done, and
that it would be an insult TO the
secretary Of the interior if such an
an assurance was demanded Of
him. Nor can he endorse that ac-
tion which at one time accepted
the apprafsement for the sake Of
convenience and speculative pur-
pose, and at another inveighed
against when it became necessary
for change ofpolicy.
These things are unexcusable,
even if Judge Parker's decision
proves to be correct, and that such
will be the final Of the whole mat
ter. And it is TO be hoped that
treaty, as decided by him, will al
ways prove superior to any act of
...,s..o.. =. III oaaao of ooua; %