Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1888-10-11

posluOn OF tne products OF the
soil. They are not prohibited from
disposing of the grass growing up
on their lands any more than they
are prohibited from disposing of
the wheat, corn or vegetables
raised thereon : as the fruits of
their labor.
In support of his position he
quotes Section 2117 of the revised
statutes, providing for penalty of
one dollar per head on all stock or
cattle driven or conveyed TO range
on lands belonging to Indians
without their consent, and says:
"This section recognizes the right
of the Indians to dispose of the
grass growing upon their lands
for" he continues, "if their con-
sent be given to Craze stock there
on, the statute is not violated, and
the owner ofthe stock is not liable
to the penalty imposed"
As a conclusion arrived at by o
parity Of reasoning upon the Sec
tions referred to, he says "Now
fany doubt exists as to the right
of the Indians generally to dis
pose of the grass growing on their
lands for grazing or other purpos-
es, l think the doubt will be re-
moved by applying the principle
enunciated by the supreme court
in the case Of the United States VS..
Geo. Cook % Wall. 591). In this
case the court held that "the fee
twas in the United States subject
"only to the right of occupancy.
"This is the title by which other
"Indians hold their lands. + 4 4 x
"The right of use and occupancy
''by the Indians is unlimited.
"They may exercise it at their
discretion 4 + + + :"
Further on he says: "All ap-
plication to the department to
lease lands have been uniformly
denied for want OF authority in
the department, but such refusal
dill in no wise interfere with the
rights OF the Indians to make such
use of their lands as was consist
ent with the character Of their
title"
Speaking of the approval of :he
department not being asked by
the Cherokee nation or the parties
to whom license TO Craze stock on
the outlet, ho says "The Chero.
KEGS have fee-simple title to
their lands and they do not reeog-
nize the right ofthe department TO
interfere in the management Of
their affairs with reference there
to-" As much as to say that the
title OF the Cherokees TO their land
being a fee simple, the depart
ment had no right to interfere.
The position that the United
States have not the right TO inter-
fere with any disposition the
Cherokee nation may make Of the
grass growing on its lands cannot
be better expressed than done by
Mr.. Teller. lie says
"Under the decisions of the
courts as TO the title they (the
Cherokees) hold their lands, and
the guarantee pledged them by the
United States in the 10Th article OF
the treaty of 1868, can anyone
question or doubt their right to
make such a disposition of the
grass growing on their lands as
as they have made, whether it be
called a lease, license or permit.
The land is theirs and they have an
undoubted right to use it in any
way that white man would use
it with the same character of title,
and any attempt to deprive the
nation Of the right would be a di-
rect conflict with the treaty, as
well as the plain words OF the
patent"
Decisions and opinions of the
Indian department are as much re-
ferred to as authority and as prece'
dents as decisions or opinions OF
the courts, and it is safe in saying
that the exhaustive opinion Of Mr.,
Teller, while secretary, as TO the
right Of the Cherokee nation K
dispose Of the grazing on our wost
era lands, will govern any actor
the department may take in refer
ence 10 that right.