Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1890-10-02
WOULD NOT sECr1oNIzH.
Prof. Hastings Expresses His
Views Very Clearly.


the complexity Of the subject
have hitherto refrained from dis
cussing allotment, yet the favor o
it seeming to have gained recently
is sufficient apology for this article
The most Jealous advocates of thii
solution OF the complicated re
lations existing among ourselves
claim that it eradicates three cry.
ing evils which certainly demand
the bipartisan attention Of oul
most patriotic and wise st states
men; monopoly, application fol
citizenship and the intruder ques
tion. The last resolve themselves
into one. No one desires to ex
clude those justly entitled to +
right here, while all should clamol
for the removal of rejected appli-
cants and squatters. The intruders
must be removed before we can
possibly allot, hence the evil il
removed before the application o.
the remedy and is no solution o
the question save in the futur,
when our allotted possessions
| would make US more solicitous
for their removal. If the allotted
lands we're made inalienable, il
would certainly prevent monopoly
A physician should learnedly un-
~erstand remedy before giving ii
to a patient; so our citizens should
carefully examine the evils attend
ing this move. Too many use
this automatic argument, that
eve must allot, sooner or later; i
so, we had better do it now.
Certainly, if the potential must
is logically used; yet the inserted
conditional eff which follows
casts a glimmer of doubt over the
whole reasoning. | don't think
the present outlook warrants oul
accepting the conclusion above
reached. There is yet further
step that appears 20 me more ON
inous and of greater concern tc
our people.
To us, allotment and division Of
lands are Synonymous; if a change
of tenure is made, we all want our
pro rata share. This can be done
in no other way than by running
the land off into squares, all Of the
same area. Let us thoughtfully
study the results. To do this will
warrant a slight DEPRESSION; oui
parents, relatives and other cit
liens came before and returned
since the war, many of them with.
out a dollar. They lived on rough
fare, wore coarse clothing and
sheltered under poor roofs. Yeai
after year they made additions to
their farms and improvements on
them until to-day the more eco
nomical and thrifty, especially OF
the half-breeds, are in very good
circumstances, having comfortable
dwellings and good faIms.
They were moved to do this by
a clause in our constitution, article
1, section 2, which says that i'm
provements are the exclusive and
indefeasible property of the cit
liens respectively who made them.
Such being the case it would be a
criminal injustice ON the part oI
our government to deprive them
of their honestly acquired earnings
without reasonable compensation.
Some argue this would be obviated
by allowing each the privilege Of
choosing his division on which his
improvements now are. This
would be valid reasoning if the al.
lotting land would embrace the
whole Of his improvements, which
would be an accident and perhap:
would never happen. On the
other hand the dividing lines may
run directly through a mans farm
between his house and barn Of
spring, they may come in the field
or on the house, etc, thereby rem
dering the whole valueless. These
are not supposable cases but woult
often actually happen. 1 ask any
sane man, would he approve suct
state Of affairs? 1t is con tended
that thisis TO benefit the full-blood
class; will il do il? No sooner
would this be done than tn,
half-breeds and adopted citizens
would take advantage Of it anC
stake off the most fertile por tioni
of this country and then full
bloods would be forced to selec
for their shares the barren regions
and flint hills; one citizen gets
farm worth 5000, another a valu
less tract. Again, I ask, is this
justice2 Some argue that ihi,
may Be avoided it, either Of two