Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1890-02-20
THE TERRITORIAL BILL.
Several Senators Speak for Chero.
kee Rights.

speeches made BY different sena-
tors on the Oklahoma bill. 1t il
evident that the territory of tn,
FIVE civilized tribes will not be in
cluded in the bill, nei ther viii
No "Man's Land: :"
Mr.. Dawes opposed the amend
ment, although he said he agreed
with the senator from Missouri al
to the importance and inevitability
of the Cherokee outlet becoming
soon part Of the public domain
and to become so, not by spolia-
tiOn, but by reasonable and fail
compensation. He believed thai
that end could have been accom-.
plished long ago, and could have
been accomplished last summer il
there had not been threats mingled
with the negotiations. There had
been held up to the Indians nego-
tiations in the one hand and a
sword in the other. That had
been the radical deiect in all nego-
tiations with the Indians. 1t had
been announced within the last
six months by those who had been
sent TO negotiate with the Chero-
kee Indians that unless they ac-
cepted the proposition to part with
their land at 81 .25 an acre the land
would be taken from them; and a
distinguished statesman had
thrown out the idea (as if it would
help the negotiations) that 1t was
within the power Of the United
States to condemn the land for
public uses. He added that he
had also seen in a newspaper that
the secretary of the interior had
supplemented that threat by "A
statement that the Cherokees had
no title at all.
Mr.. Jones defended the commits
sion. He did not believe it had
threatened the Cherokees in any
way
Mr.. Platt remarked that when it
became evident that the Cherokee
nation was determined not to cede
the land, but to hold It, because
they were backed up by eattlemen
or others, he did not believe that
there was a member of the senate
or of the house who would not be
ready to say that if that were the
position that the Cherokee nation
occupied. the United States would
be justified in abrogating the trea-
ty and taking the land.
Mr.. Teller said the Cherokees
could not be divested Of fee title
by legislative action. He was as
tonished by the suggestion of Mr..
Platt. He realized that the lands
held by the Cherokee Indians
would have-t to become the homes of
white men but the Indians world
have to be paid what the lands
were worth. The lands in the
Cherokee outlet could be sold to-
morrow in bulk at IS per acre
and what right, he asked, had the
United States to say that the In
dians should part with them at a
price less than their value ? If the
could not afford to
pay a fair price, and give away
the land, il should buy il from the
Indians and sell it to the settlers.
Mr.. Ingalls, opposed the amend
ment. The imputations that had
been cast upon the social condi-
tions in No Mans Land and Okla
homa in this debate were not borne
out by history. They were not
places of refuge for convics, crimi-
nails and malefactors. On the
during the past six or
eight months those communities |
had been in existence, they had l
additional proof of the |
Of the American people |
'or self-government. Without any 1
institutions, without I
statutes, without force, without
any OF the ordinary appliances of
government, they had maintained
in a condition Of social .
order that might be an example to I
surrounding communities. He /
lad been surprised at the state
nents and concessions made by .
Mr.. Dawes and Mr.. Platt that it .
night be necessary for the United 4
States to take possession of the /
Cherokee reservation; that their 4
ands stood in the way of eiviliza-
ion. The senate, which repre- I
iented the conscience and convic-
ions of the American people, was
old that, because there was a
.lamor for more land, the govern
nent had a right to say to that peo-
,le that their lands were needed,
nd that they had 20 sell them for
rhatever the government saw fit