Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1889-09-12


and can be sold, in case the par
ties neglect or refuse TO sell their
Improvements within the time al
lowed for that purpose by Chero-
kee law,
To anyone who is thoroughly
acquainted with citizenship mat
ters it is both ridiculous and anus
ing 70 see what stress is put upon
tho action Of claimants who have
"entered the hation, in good filth
prior TO August IL, 1886, believing
they had rights" horo. II seems
that all that is necessary TO give
them a hold on the nation, as citi-
zens, is 70 say they came here in
good faith believing that they
were Cherokees by blood, and the
Indian Office is bound to accept
their statement. ''They are all
honorable gentlemen, as that Of
fice seems inclined to take them,
and for such reason enforce their
continued residence in the country
and possession Of improvements
This certainly is new doctrine Of
right, even il it was originated by
the Indian office.
The restriction Of Cherokee au.
thority to determine questions Of
citizenship, no further back than
August II, 1885, is another strange
feature in the right claimed by
the Indian Office to protect claim.
ants who came into the nation pri-
or to that date. As property in
dispute, when decided by an ac-
tion at law is not an acquisition
but recovery Of something that
belonged to the rightful owner be.
cause suit was brought, so was the
right, before it was decided to be
in the Cherokee nation, a recovery
Of ofsomething that had been, up tc
that date, withheld from the prop.
er authority. 1t was not an en-.
dowment of the nation by the
court, but a restoration, by
legal authority, ola right that al.
ways existed in the nation. Ifthe
right was not in the nation before
the opinion Of the court was rem.
dercd, it certainly could not have
been taken from the party that
had been Withholding, if not exer.
cising, the right for a great number
% years. The conclusion, there.
fore, must be that the Indian Of
fee never had the right TO deny OF
withhold the night from the Chero.
kee nation to determine who are OF
should be its citizens.
Out OF these premises springs
another question: What authori.
ty has the Indian Office now. since
it has been decided that it had
been Withholding uulawlup,s-as
right Of the ChaEekes nation. to
claim control Of and Jurisdiction
over the Improvements Of such
persons who, by the right the
court has conceded are declared to
be intrudsrs in tue country II
the authority to determine claims
to Cherokee citizenship Yves arbi.
trarily and unlawfully withheld
from the Cherokee nation, what Is
the legal status Of that which was
done under the illegal withhold.
ing Of a right, the free exercise Of
which, by the proper authority,
would have prevented that which
We complain on The unlawful
protection the Indian Office has
given intIuders in our country.
who came here prior to August II,
1856, and is still protecting them,
puts a construction on the courts
decision tha. permits no great
difference between the act and the
Withholding Of the material iu-
crease Of property that has been
taken or arbitrarily withheld. n
such intrudcrs, at FIRST, were un-
lawfully given perInission to re.
main in our country, and to exer-
else ali the rights Of citizen
ship, and the decision Of the
supreme court certainly proves
such permission TO have been un
lawfully given, the Cherokee ma
ton should not be held response.
bic for such conduct OF made to
suffer the wrongs the Indian Office
has perpetrated
s-.e-s.s-r------.---.--.-a
THE CHEROKEE FREEDMEN.
Two Letters Of Importance From
Their Attorneys.