Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1889-10-03

-"F--f NE~'@ - A''H WtAN 20 IlOt
an Indian, is in exact conformity
with the principles Of the bovine
illustration above. His excellen-
cy, the bull, in his wanderinge in
search Of greener pastures, remains
the property of his owner, and for
any injury done him the offender,
whether white or Indian, is respon-
sible before the United States
courts. But what becomes Of his
calves7 They do not follow the
condition of their honorable sire as
to the rights of property in them.
They are, according TO an old law
maxim, portus sevuiter ventrem,
Of the condition of the mother,
which, If the property Of the In
dian, settles the question of own
ership in the Indian. Turning his
reverence into the person Of his
owner, who is a white man and a
citizen Of the United States, what
would become of him should he
kill or criminally damage his own
offspring transformed into half
breed Indians and citizens Of the
Indian Territory He would be
held answerable for the crime be-
fore the courts of the United States,
as the Times correctly maintains.
A reversion of the comparison, so
as to change the charge of crime
from his patriarch-ship to his'off-
spring, would certainly make them
amenable to the same courts, be-
cause he is a citizen Of the United
States, and,a the Times says, can
not divest himself of his allsgience
TO that government by becoming
member of an Indian tribe. TAX
ing the calves as half-breed In
dians, whose paternal declension
is from a white man and a citizen
Of the United States, jurisdiction
Of the United States over crimes
committed against each other, ex-
tends no further, provided they
are turned back into calves and
their paternal progenitor into his
original condition, than the right
of ownership of the owner Of the
taurus to his offspring. In this it
is clearly demonstrated that the
maxim, partus seqaiter patrem
don't hold good.
If we use the comparison back
wards by substituting for his bo-
vine govornorship one of the op-
posite sex, we will find by turning
her offsprings into half Indians
that partus seQuiter ventrem does
not obtain in every instance, be-
cause birth right may interfere
where a person, as much Indian as
white, or who may possess any
per-centum of Indian blood, can
not be citizen Of any Of the nations
If he is a citizen of the United
States. No one who is not citi-
zen Of the Cherokee nation cannot
be subject to its laws, and not be-
ing so subject, heirship to his In-
dian fathers estate being subject
only to the laws of the nation,
must be denied him, because he is
not a citizen and cannot, there
fore, claim any interest in the
soil. 1t follows then, as there is
no law to deprive a person of his
birth-right while he is in a condi-
tion to claim it, that a person of
any degree of Indian blood, while
he remains in the Cherokee nation,
is a citizen of that nation TO all in
tents and purposes and subject
to its domestic laws by reason OF
his property rights therein, and
only subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States laws when he |
a crime upon one of her
citizens.
The Times knowledge of facts
is not as complete as it might be,
as shown in assertion that mixed |
bloods "are citizens of the United |
States and cannot voluntarily di-
vest themsel ves Of that allegience
merely by becoming members of
any tribe, since no Indian tribe |
possesses any attributes of sover-
eighty antagonistic to the |
United States" 1t don't seem TO
know that clean blooded white
man can be adopted as a member
Of the Choctaw nation, and, wheth-
er in or out Of it, is not subject to
the laws Of the United States for
crimes committed in the country
Of his adoption against any other
adopted or native fellow-citizen.
But such is the fact.