Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1889-07-04
JUDGE sHAoKLEFoRD's oPIN-


ION.
The question Of retroactive juris-
,liciion Of civil cascs arising from
obligations entered into prior TO
The enactment Of tho law TO organ
izc United States court in the
Indian Territory, between the cit
izcns thereof, native or adopted, or
non-citizcn residents and outside
parties, seems TO have received O
thorough airing at the hands Of
attorneys and Judge Shacklcford
Of the Muskogoo court. To one
who comparatively knows nothing
Of the laws ana precedents upon
which tho attorneys rested their
arguments for and against such
jurisdiction, and upon which the
Judge established his opinion,
there would DO but little difficulty,
IL appears, to decide the question,
il confined only to such persons
who we're eubject to the laws of the
United States prior to the laws en-
actment. All adopted white citi-
zens and resident whites Of tho ter
ritory, were under the jurisdiction
vf u : courts Of the United States
in all criminal cases between
themselves or against a rative cit
izen Of the territory, before there
was law 10 create this court.
With the Indian or native citizen
II was quite different. His posi-
ton was that Of one amcnablo for
an oifense committed against an
other by whom he is held respon-
sible. A criminal ofense against
a citizen Of the United States is
against the peace and dignity of
the United States, the world over,
and eausus belli, il the offender
is protected by the nation. To
avoid an unequal war the Cherokee
nation conceded the rightto the
United States by agreement to as
sist and bring TO justice before her
courts native Cherokee citizens for
criminal abuse of her subjects.
Thus far and by reason of such
causes, were native Cherokees
amenable 10 the laws Of the United
States. To render neutral and to
some extent equal, the benefits Of
this agreement, the government
Qfflie United States promised to
,,|<1Ish for tho Cherokee nation
a'ls'F of its citizens as would take
The life or property of a Cherokee.
From this it seems that, as far
as deciding the jurisdiction Of the
Muskogee court, in cases where
the cause OF action accfued be-
tween citizens Of the United States,
an and out of the Indian Territory,
little explanation is needed, but
there appears to be reasonable Gf
not legal,) Inconsistency in ap-
plying such a rule 10 an Indian
debtor, TO compel the fulfillment
of a bargain entered into with a
citizen Of the United States before
there was a law to reach his case.
The act creating the Muskogee
court and giving it jurisdiction
over civil cases in the territory, is
an amendment to the one that
gives federal jurisdiction over
criminal cases, in conformity to
that provision Of the treaty Of
1866. providing for United States
court in the Indian Territory.
Confined as it is TO such civil
causes only as may arise between
the same parties who, If charged
of criminal offense, one against the
other, are subject to trial before
a United States court, the idea of
amendment has the force Ct plaus.
ibiliiy at least. II may not, there
fore, be unreasonable to say that
this new law has any more retro
active. authority than had the one
60 which il seems to be an amend
ment. Objections to this conclu-
sion, by reason Of the agreement
that the jurisdiction is confined TO
the Muskogee court, may be met
hy saying that it is no less a Unit.
I'D States court than the one at
Fort Smith, for all that. Every
such court has its local jurisdic-
diction, as defined by the PAW. So
has the one at Muskogee.
The main proposition advanced
by Judge Shackleford for deciding
that his court has retroactive jur-
isdiction over civil causes arising
between native citizens of the In
dian Territory and citizens Of ihe
states, is the repeal of certain
law by the congress of tho United
States, declaring all contracts be-
tween whites and Indians to he
null and void, unless approved by
the proper authority. BY this act
the judge says "the Indian was
reafor..d 10 his uoanhood >, that Ia