Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1889-01-24
DANIEL II. Ross,
r. NJ. WOLFE,
Cherokee Delegation .

DANIEL II. Ross,
r. NJ. WOLFE,
Cherokee Delegation.
This agreement was approved
by Commissioner II. Price, April
8, 1882, and by. Secretary S. j.
Kirkwood, on the same day.
The Cherokee nation accepted
this agreement as having been
made in good faith and binding on
the parties thereto. All doubts as
to its binding effects, had any ex-
listed at any time while the matter
was under consideration, were re-
moved by the approval Of the
agreement by the secretary, and,
if any legal difficulties were in the
way, as to the obligations entered
in to or the recovery for damages
done a citizen of the nation by the
company's road or agents, in the
manner prescribed in the agree
ment, the honorable secretary cer-
tainly should have known that
there were such and withheld his
approval. To deceive and bam-
boozle and cheat the people may
be in keeping with railway cor
porations, but when it comes to q
cabinet officer of the United States
giving aid and comfort to such
practices, the idea cannot be enter
taired. There may be some mis-
understanding between the con-
tracing parties as to the manner
of collecting judgments against the
road for damages, but the fact is
more likely to be that the effort is
on part OF the company to avoid
compliance by taking advantage Of
some law not thought of at the
time the agreement was made. es-
pecially by the Cherokee delega.
ton, and by the council in ap-
proving the action of the delega-
tion, and of which likewise the
courts Of the country seemed not
to be apprised when they issued
executions to levy on the property
Of the company to satisfy their
judgments. The law is we'll
known that the Indian nations
have no jurisdiction over the per-
sons and property ofcitizens of the
United States, and though there
may be a constructive right to seize
the property Of the company under
the agreement, the law is para
mount to the agreement, even if it
comedies the right, should the
company choose to demur. 1t
may be that no compact or agree
ment can set a side a law should
there be an appeal to the law by
either party to the agreement.
The agreement may be binding
as far as the manner provided for
the determination of damages may
go, but there it ends, if the COM
pany's action against Sheriff Hen
derson, OF Delaware district, be-
fore Judge Parker proves success
full. But this cannot release the
company from the obligation to
pay the damage complained OF.
1t may be asked how can damages
be collected under the agreement ?
The answer may be, under the
company's bond. The judgment
of the court for damages should,
perhaps, be presented to the prop.
er officer Of the company. Should
he refuse, to the secretary of the
interior with whom their bond is
made.
Fighting a railroad is too much
like fighting a skunk. as nine
times out Of ten the attacking par
ty is certain to come out worsted.
A railway company manages
some how to come ont even, if not
ahead, as it will probably in the
Henderson matter. There is
chance for the road to recover
enough of the nation to pay the
damages for which il is sued.
F------------------
HOW THEY RIDE SPRINGER IN
CONGRESS.
1t is amusing as well gratifying
~ .a. r -