Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1891-07-16
A SENSIBLE VIEW OF
GREAT QUESTION

EDITOR CHIEFTAIN: In your issue
of June 25th you call the attention
of the voters of this nation to Capt.
Jackson's advice to a friend, viz,
that he had better fix himself in
time before the country is allotted,
as it is Jackson's opinion that
when allotment takes place the
citizen who fences and acquires
more of the public domain than
what would be his share if equally
divided can hold it. This, | un-
derstand, is the prevailing opinion
of all those who have already got
possession of those large farms,
which are now causing such wide
spread alarm amongst the poorer
class and less fortunate citizens of
this nation, who are not able,
through sheer poverty, to improve
or make a farm and support their
families whilst doing so. If | am
correctly informed those land
moropolists have already employed
legal talent in Washington to de-
fcnd them in their avaricious greed,
as they intend taking advantage of
our stupid laws, that is, which
gives a citizen a right to all the
land he wishes to improve, and to
satisfy his greed a quarter of
mile is thrown in all around his
claim.
At the risk of making this article
rather lengthy, | will quote some
extracts from reports of Commits
sioners of Indian Affairs, viz: At
present the rich Indian who cult
Yates tribal lands pays no rent to
the poorer and more unfortunate
Of their race, although they are
equal owners Of the soil The rich
have too large homesteads and
control many times more than their
share Of land. 1t will not do to
say, as the wealthy and influential
leaders Of the nations contend, that
their system Of laws gives to each
individual member Of the tribe
equal facilities to be Independent
aud equal opportunities to possess
himself Of a homestead. Already
the rich and choice lands are ap.
propriated by those most enter
prising and self-seeking. a con-
siderable number Of Indians have
in cultivation farms exceeding one
thousand acres i'm extent Now,
think of one Indian having farm
fenced in Of one thousand acres,
with the right, according to their
system, of adding nearly one thou
sand acres more by excluding all
otheIs from the use or occupancy
of a quarter of mile in width all
around the tract fenced What q
baronial estate. In theory the
lands are held in common under
the tribal relation, and are equally
owned by each member OF the
tribe; but in point OF fact they are
simply held in the grasping hand
Of moneyed monOpolists and pow
erful and influential leaders and
politicians, who pay no rental to
the other members Of the tribe,
who under theiT tribal ownership
in common have equal rights with
the occupants. have endcayored
to obtain some reliable data as To
the number of farms containing
one thousand acres which exist in
the five tribes. II did not occur Ia
me that eight times that amount OF
rich valley land had been appro-
priated by one proprietor 4 sys.
tenn Of laws and customs where
tribal relations exist and lands are
owned in common, which permits
one Indian TO own so large a quan.
tity Of land TO the exclusion of all
other Indians, merely because be
was first to occupy it, or because
he inherited II from his father,
who occupied it originally, when
all other Indians have equal tribal
rights with the happy and fortun.
ate possessor, needs radical reform.
alton. Are these the sacred rights
seeured by treaty which the United
States are pledged to respect and
defend? II 50, then the United
States are pledged to uphold and
maintain stupendous land mon.
opoly and aristocracy that finds no
parallel in this country, except in
Two or three localities in the fai
west, and in these instances il may
be said that the titles are clear