Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1886-11-25
LINDSEY VS.. THE CHEROKEE
NATION.

TO recover damages sustained by
him in the alleged illegal seizure
and sale of his cattle was dismiss
ed by the supreme court few days
ago, because, as held by the court,
oil Irregularities and improper pre-
sentation. Many are the criticisms
OF those who ventures an opinion,
at law, as to the propriety of the
courts action.
1t appears that the citation was
originally for Mr.. Bushyhead
principal chief, but on his absence
from the country il was changed
for Mr.. Bunch, as principal chief.
Both names appear in the citation,
and hence one of the causes for
dismissal, and the question as 10
which one should answer TO the
complaint Of Mr.. Lindsey. Anoth-
er cause appears to be that Mr..
Bunch is cited as principal chief
where he should be tilted "assist
ant and acting principal chief" SO
that, as the law provides, it may be
understood that Bunch was exer-
ci@ng the functions of principal
chief and by what authority he did
so. The omission of his title in
the presence. of the principal is
what the court held as another
cause for dismissal. Following
ont legal deduction, it would be
legally necessary, in case both
chiefs were absent or disqualified
to perform the duties of principal
chief, that Mr.. Bell, president OF
the senate, TO sign himself, and be
cited in similar suits at law, as
Hon. L. B. Bell, president Of the
senate and acting principal chief,
before there could be any legal GER
tainty as TO what Bell is meant or
intended, or what Bell is acting
principal chief. Ii seems that the
court considered the possibility
that someone might be summoned
as principal chief, to answer to the
complaint of a citizen before n
court Of justice, who was not as
sistant chief, which he should be,
as the law requires, in order that
he may answer in the absence of
the principal.
There is another cause as good
as the first for dismissal had de-
icndant used it as a plea. Had
the name Bushyhead not appeared
at all in the citation, and all things
been regular, as deemed necessary
by the court to legal procedure,
Mr.. Bushyhead's return to duty,
and resumption Of his title Of prin-
cipal chief, before suit is determin-
ed, places Mr.. Bunch just where
the court put Mr.. Bushybead-an
illegal party to the suit. Names
and not titles appear just here the
source of trouble, which might
have been omitted, as legal Sc
quence of the courts action indi-
Gates, and principal chief only nee
essary to constitute a legally in
stituted case. The reason for this,
IL may be assigned, that on the re-
turn Of Bushyhead to his office of
principal chief, Mr.. Bunch ceases
to be such, and Is, therefore, the
Improper person to represent the
nation in a suit at law, and that
his name should not appear in the
citation. This brings US to the
conclusion that it is the office of
principal chief, which possibly may
become vacant and yet be an Office
as provided by law, that is the
-qua-non in such suits, and not |
the man who represents it. Meth
er chief is personally responsible
for damages sustained by a citizen
in ihe improper administration of
law, but the nation Is. The suit
is therefore, against the nation and
not against him who, at the time
the suit was instituted, was "chief."
The courts of our country and |
the laws they enforce are for the
protection Of the lives and proper
ty of our citizens. This purpose
is defeated, and damage done n
il mere formulas control |
the actions Of our courts. Mr.. |
Lindsey's cattle, as he alleges,
were seized and sold without any
lawful excuse. That they were
seized and sold is a notorious fact,
and he should have a speedy and
impartial trial, without any ap.
pearance on part Of the court that
the nation is TO be prote cted rather
than its citizens.