Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-09-22
Chicka.aw Mining Claims.

Chickasaw Mining Claims.
Special to the Gazette
| TISHOMiNGO, |. T.. Sept. 2l.-At the last
session of the supreme court of the Chick;i-
! saw nation the following opinion was sub
| mitted. Only two of the Judges were pres
! ent. Judge Samuel Love held that it did
not come within the jurisdiction of that
| court. Judge Harvey held the contrary.
| The matter was laid over till the October
| term of court.
Touching the legality of the mining laws
| passed by the Chckasaw Legislature.
TIsHoMINGo. |. T.. March ~. 1891
| Hon. II. Colbert. Attorney -Ci eneral ChickasaW
| Nation Stonewau l. 7.
| DEAR SIR beg leave to submit the fol-
| lowing questions of land relative TO the eX-
| isting mining laws of the Chickasaw ma
| ton, and relative TO then. legality or illegal
ity. and respectfully ask your legal opinion
| of the same. TO wit:
! FirSt-Are they legal and constitutional
| as Il whole!
Seconds the language of the first sec
! tion Of the original coal law definite and
| certain that under the same coal can be
| mined within the limits of the Chickasaw
! Nation!
Third-Are not said laws contrary to
| both treaty and constitutional provisions by
reason of giving to men and sets OF men
| separate and exclusive privileges. and be-
| cause the country is held in common so
that each individual shall have an equal
undivided interest ln,the whole!
FOurth-is not the law, now appears
in the late revised statutes Il nullity within
itself by reason of providing no royalty to
the nation on gold. silver, lead, zinc. copper
and other things that the different mining
companies heretofore chartered under such
laws are operating for.
F'ifth-Would it b tin point of law per-
fectly safe for capitalists to invest big
' 1,,.tn md t,ga
done at whose risk would il be and who, if
any, person would be responsible.
Your earliest attention is hereby called
to this matter and | ask that you give the
same Il thorough and careful examination
and render your legal opinion thereafter, for
which am your obedient servant.
NJ. V. CHEADLE
National secretary of the Chickasaw Ma
ton.
OFFICE OF ATToRNEY-GENERAL,
TIsHoMINGO CITY. C. N. March ), 1891 I
Hon. NJ. Y. Cheadle, National Secretary
Chickasaw Nation:
SIR-Yours of March 20, 1881, in regard
to the question of law relative to the exist
ing mine laws of the Chickasaw Nation, as
to whether they are constitutional, legal or
illegal, asking my legal opinion of the same,
came to this Office, and | will say after
careful examination of the treaty and con-
stitution on the subject in question. in an
u.
will say that the Chickasaws hold patent
to the land in national character. At one
time they paid for these lands 500. 600, at
another time they paid Sl50,000, making in
all $6S0,000, out of the national funds
of the Chickasaws. This being the
case, the land is held in common, and each
and every man, woman and child has the
same equal rights, the same equal interest
in the land as they had in the money, and if
there Is any revenue derived from these
lands it should be equally divided between
every man, woman and child or 60 for the
benefit of the whole Chickasaw people
There is no provision in the constitution
that gives any citizen any individual coal
right or coal claim mineral right or mineral
claim, but all rights to land coal mines
or other mines are of national
character. We will take the
trespass law The trespass law
says. no person shall iutrude on the prem
ises of another nearer than 444 yards but
this law only gives the right to work the
surface of the soil to his own advantage
and benefit Ii does not include any indi-
vidual coal rights or coal claims or other
mineral right or claim. We will take the
constitutional bill of rights. The second
section says: All freemen, when they form
u social compact (that is, when they make
and enter into an agreement with one
another as Il nation of people, have equal |
rights. and no man or set of mer Is entitled |
to exclusive separate public elnoluments or |
privileges: that Is. exclusive separate COM |
pensation for services. The first section of |
an act to incorporate mining companies is |
in direct conflict with this provision of the |
constitution because it gives any number of |
citizens. not less than three, the right to |
form company or companies to engage in |
developing coal mines beyond the limits of |
this nation. This law does not give to |
every man, woman and child their equal |
rights, but on the other hand, it gives sets |
Of men or companies exclusive separate |
emoluments and privileges above others |
who hold the same equal rights and privi-
leges In reply to your fourth question, an |
act entitled an act TO amend an |
act to incorporate mining companies
in the Chickasaw nation, passed |
and approved October = 1890, is nullity |
within itself, by reason of making no |
provisions for royalty. to the ma
ton in gold, silver. lead, zinc,
copper and other things. General provis-
ions, section 10, say: And any law that
may be PASSED contrary TO the provisions
of this constitution, shall be null and void
1t is my opinion that the mining law of the
Chickasaw Nation is wholly unconstitu-
tional and illegal, and is therefore null and
void. In answer to your fifth question, it
is my honest opinion in point OF law that F!
capitalists would not be safe to invest big
money under said unconstitutional and |
illegal acts. and should it be done the Ma
ton is not responsible for the action of the
company, but the companies should be re-
sponsible for their own actions. The only |
legal and safe way for capitalists to invest
money in these mines would be to enter into
contract with the Nation and make it
national matter by law. Hoping this will
be satisfactory, remain yours,
II. COLBERT.