Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1889-04-04

flrst-W neither jurisdiction
can lawfully be so conferred on the
Cherokee courts Of co nsent Of the
parties ? aud,
Second-Wheth or, If jurisdic-
ton can be so conferred, the courts
Of the Cherokee nation can be con.
sidered as courts Of a Terrific
ry, to whose records and judicial
proceedings properly authenticat-
ed full faith and credit are TO be
given by every court within the
United States7"
Before diving into the seeming
ly doubtful depths Of the interrog-
atiories, the attorney remarks
"The novel and intricate char
acter Of some of the matters in
volved in the quesiions PROFOUND
ed, and the somewhat ambiguous
language Of certain treaty stipula-
tions, which ii is necessary to con-
slider in seeking a solution Of these
questions, have not only retarded
the work Of reaching a conclusion,
but have cast upon my mind, at
least, some shadow Of doubt as to
the entire correctness ofthe conclu-
sion thus reached"
In reply to the first inquiry he
says: 1.-THE doctrine seems to be
well settled that, while consent
may be given jurisdiction over the
person Of a liligant, it cannot be
given jurisdiction over the subject
matter in litigation"
That the judgments may be val.
id, as judgments, he further as
serts that the tribunal rendering
the judgments should have juris-
diction both of the subject matter
and of the person Of the defendant.
He takes up the question of jur-
isdiction over the subject matter
and disposes Of it by reference to
the 18th article Of the treaty Of
1866, which is in relation TO the
establishment of courts in the In
dian Territory. He selects the
clauses Ceases Arising within
their (Cherokee) country in which
members of the nation, by nativity
or adoption, shall be the only par
ties" and "where the cause of
action shall arise in the Cherokee
nation" and is not "othefwise pro-
vided for by treaty." and lays
them down as stepping stones to
the conclusions he is endeayoring
to discover. He performs some
nice hair-splitting operations in
the premises set forth, as he in
Inmates, from the foregoing treaty
quotations, that the jurisdiction of
our courts over the person and sub
ject matter of parties to legal ac-
ton before our courts is clear in
its application to the Atlantic and
Pacific railroad, and then doubts
its completeness on account Of
provision in article 7, of the treaty
which reads
"The United States court to be
created in the Indian Territory and
until such court is created thorein,
the United States district court, the
nearest to the Cherokee nation,
shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction Of all cases, civil
and criminal, wherein an IN
habitant of the district here
inbefore described, shall be par
ty, and when an iphabitant out
side Of said district, in the CEero-
kee nation, shall be the other par
ty, as plaintiff or defendant, in a
civil cause, or shall be defendant OF
prosecutor in a criminal cause"
In this be makes n point by as
serting that the "only exclusive
jurisdiction which this article con-
fers on the United states courts
over civil cases arising within the
limits Of the Cherokee nation, is
in cases where both plaintiff and
defendant reside in the Cherokee ma
Zion" lie then takes the position
that United States court has not
exclusive jurisdiction in such cases
as Audrain's, because the defendant
company is not a resident Of the
Cherokee nation, and quotes that
"a private corporation resides
where its principal place Of bust
ness is located" as reported by
some legal authority.
He next attacks and demolish-
es the denial Of the company's
attorney, "that the Cherokee
council has no authority to pass
any act authorizing its so-called
courts to take cognizance Of any
controversy between an Indian and
the Atlantic and Pacific raiload
company, or any other citizen Of
the United States" lie quotes
the stipulated right of the Chcro-
keo nation" to retain exclusive jur-