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

C56o9
Views Very Clearly.
EDITOR CHIEFTAIS:-0wing to
the complexity of the subject /
have hitherto refrained from dis
cussing allotment, yet the favor OF
it seeming to have gained recently
is sufficient apology for this article.
The most jealous advocates of this
solution of the complicated re-
lations existing among ourselves,
claim that it eradicates three cry
ing evils which certainly demand
the bipartisan attention Of our
most patriotic and wise ST states
men: monopoly, application for
citizenship and the intruder ques-
ton. The last resolve themselves
into one. No one desires to ex-
clude those justly entitled to a
right here, while all should clamor
for the removal of rejected appli-
cants and squatters. The intruders
must be removed before we can
possibly allot, hence the evil is
removed before the application OF
the remedy and is no solution OF
the question save in the future
when cur allotted possessions
would make US more solicitous
for their removal. If the allotted
lands were made inalienable, it
would certainly prevent monopoly.
A physician should learnedly un-
derstand a remedy before giving it
to a patient; so our citizens should
carefully examine the evils attend
ing this move. Too many use
this automatic argument, that
ave must allot, sooner or later; if
so, we had better do il now. I"
Certainly, if the potential "must"
is logically used; yet the inserted
conditional "if' which follows
casts a glimmer of doubt over the
whole reasoning. | don't think
the present outlook warrants our
accepting the conclusion ABOVE
reached. There is yet a further
step that appears 20 me more Om-
inous and OF greater concern to
our people.
To US, allotment and division Of
lands are synonymous; if 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 digression; our
parents, relatives and other cit
izers 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. Year
after year they made additions to
their farms and improvements on
them until to-day the more eco
nomical and thrifty, especially Of
the halfbreeds, are in very good
circumstances, having comfortable
dwellings and good farms.
They were moved to do this by
a clause in our constitution, article
/, section 2, which says that i'm
provements are che 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 of
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 perhaps
would never happen. On the
other hand the dividing lines may
run directly through 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 valIeless. These
are not supposable cases but would
often actually happen. ask any
sane man, would he approve such
4 state of affairs? 1t is Ontended
that thisis to benefit the full-blood
class; viii it do it? No sooner
would this be done than the
half-breeds and adopted citizen:
would take advantage Of it and
stake off the most fertile por ton:
of this country and then full,
bloods would be forced to select
for their shares the barren regions
and flint hills; one citizen gets !
farm worth 5000, another a valu
I less tract lrain / ask i fhi.