Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1886-03-04

about the 100000 iraud. A par
allel case is found only in what he
said to Mr.. Blackstone in relation
to an amendmentto the bill author
izing the execution Of transfers for
the occupied lands. His reply was
as given by Mr.. Blackstone before
the investigating committee, 1--WE
never would get a dollar if that
amendment was placed on the bill +,
and that it would be an insult to
the secretary" lie should have
added, he never would get his s22,-
500.
What he communicated to the
committee is a rehash of what he
has used as a defense, raised to
such occasions on the straits to
which he has been put, since the
memorable council of May 'S3.
Taken as granted what he has said
and what he communicates to the
committee the whole transaction in
relation to the 100000, heis very
little less criminal in transaoting
the business of the nation in loose
uncertain and doubtful way.
Especially is this so when we rec
ognize the fact that any business
involving such great interests could
have and should haye been trans.
acted in such way that a shadow
of doubt as to its correctness and
understanding could not have ex-
listed. The act making the appro-
priation, which when it became a
law, as Mr.. Phillips well knows, is
superior to the treaty itself. Col.
K. G. Boudinot's tobacco case is
evidence of this fact. In either
instance, the manufacture of tobac-
co and the arbitrary act, as termed
by Mr.. Phillips, authorizing the
appraisomeIt of our western lands,
the treaty has been violated. The
manufacture of tobacco cannot be
carried on without license and the
paying of revenue. Yet there is a
treaty provision that secures to us
the right to sell any farm product
including stock, or any merchan-
disc or manufactured products, and
to ship and drive the same to
market without restraint, paying e
tax thereon when sold outside the
Indian Territory Phillips knew
that the supreme court of the Unit
ed States had set this provision of
.4Fesst .4Feesstty aside; and that congress can
abrogate a part or the whole of
treaty and be sustained by the su-
preme court.
1t may be claimed that the two
question are not parallel, one being
that of property and the other sim
ply that Of privilege. But the differ
ence between the two is made even
by a voluntary act Of our council,
lead into the error by Phillips, in
accepting the 100000 as appropri-
ated. Others are to blame in this
matter who should have been so
careful Of the nations interest that
nothing doubtful, where so much is
involved, should be accepted or
by them. Had they re-
fused to accept the money which
they should have done unless they
had a positive, unmistakable,
written assurance from the proper
that it was for the occu-
pied tracts, our present trouble
about this matter would have been
avoided, and many a head would
have rested TRANQUILITY upon its
pillow at night, and investigations,
criminal proceedings and summons
10 Washington been unnecessary.
Yet withal, they cannot and it may
be they dare not, abandon him in
ais extremity.
The argument he used TO sustain
lis position before the committee,
S based largely on Telier's letter
% Senator Dawes, a thing to which
no attention was paid, as
he wording OF the act making the
appropriation bears no resem-
Dlance. This letter seems to be
.he corner stone Of his unsubstan-
.ial and tottering fabric, but he
seemingly fails to observe some
.hings in the secretary's letter that
give him away, and which are as
'ollows:
"If the views expressed in my
.etter referred TO as TO the desira-
oility of an appropriation of a sum
sufficient to pay the Cherokee ma
ion for the lohole body of land in
question, at the price fixed by the
less the payments al
ready thereon, are not adopted,
a. ,. g, 49,, <.,.srfo,, &c. cQO0 Ooo