Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1889-09-19
THE rfMHs' DEFECTIVE LoGIO.


THE TIMES DEFECTTvH Lo0IO.
"When the United States gov
ernb.ens talks about treating with
the Cherokee tribe, does it real
ize with what or whom il is going
to treat9v
This is a conundrum the Kan
sas City Times, in an editorial
some time ago, propounded to the
great United States government
for consideration, and then by a
course Of reasoning, sui generis, in
forms that governmeut--as one
naturally concludes after reading
the article through-thut the
the Cherokee nation is already
dead, and that it was about time
that the government and the
Cherokees should know il. The
purpose Of this piece of informa-
tion, it seems, is TO let the United
States know that il is neglecting
its duty in not administering on
the estate Of the deceased nation,
by reason of reversion OF title to
lands whom such is the case.
II confesses an ignorance Of
facts at the outset, when it speaks
Of Chief Maves and the council
talking of owning the Cherokee
strip and refusing to dispose
Of their title to il. As close
noighbor as it is, and as well in
formed as it should be Of the facts
in the case, it ought to know bet
ter than that. The position of
Chief Mayes, which has gone the
rounds Of the papers, condemned
and criticised by many, is that
our land title is in the people and
that the right and question of sale
as with them.
It makes another inexcusable
mistake when it speaks Of certain
persons and class Of persons as
being sons or descendants Of
American citizens, born in the
United States, and are American
citizens to the extent of coming
like other citizens, under the jur-
isdiction of the federal judiciary.
II ought 10 know better than to
assert that the United States courts
have ever made such decision.
Such decision can only be claimed
in the cases of the sons or descend
ants of white and Indian parentage,
who are residents of the states,
or who may have in their
own country, committed a crime
against a citizen of the United
States, or violated the revenue
laws Of that government, or is in
debt TO a United States citizen,
and for that reason is under the
jurisdiction Of the federal court at
Muskogee. This jurisdiction is OF
kind that is merely accidental, as
it depends upon circumstances.
To be subject to the federal
courts is no evidence that the per-
sons so subject are citizens of the
United States. The proof of this
is in the fact that all citizens of
the United States are taxpayers.
The sons or descendants of white
and Indian parentage, the Times
tries 10 prove to be such citizens,
are not subject to the tax laws Of
the United States, except dealers
in manufactured tobacco.
If such an argument holds good
in one case, by reason of such
jurisdiction, it should in another
Of similar nature. There are
many thousands of full blood In
dians in the Cherokee nation who
are as much under the jurisdiction
Of the federal courts as the dcscend-
ants of white and Indian parent
age, when they commit the ofiens-
es that subject all alike to the
same jurisdiction. Why are they
not citizens Of the United States
too?
Z All citizens Of the United States,
whether male or female, when by
marriage they become citizens Of
the Cherokee nation, remain per-
force, citizens of that government,
the treaties between the two 10 the
contrary Notwithstanding. Such
being the case, they are subject to
the jurisdiction of the federal
courts. So are the freedmen of
the Cherokee nations Thus far
is the Kansas City Times correct
and no further.
II says: "The patent under
which the Cherokees hold quasi
titlc to the Cherokee strip recites
that upon the extinction Of the
tribe the land reverts to the Unit
ed States. Is not the tribe ex.
tinct when more than two thirds
OF its members are citizens Of the
United States and nearly all the
wealth IL cnnirnlled hv fhen2