Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1892-06-23

North Carolina Cherokee. Yet,
Il he will answer my question, we
can show by him that he was not
born in the Cherokee nation. He
claims to have been born where
the Cherokee nation once was, in
portion of North Carolina. II
we as a nation are compelled to
admit every human being bora in
the country where we once lived
we would hardly have land enough
left to bury the people upon, much
less support them and afford them
a living. He claims that his great
grandmother was a Cherokee. Had
he been able to come to the Cher
okee nation and show from any of
our rolls that such was the fact,
aud that his ancestors lived in
North Carolina, according TO his
statement, at a time when they
could have drawn money and re-
ceived land by simply asking for
it if they were Cherokees; l say
that if he had come to our nation
and proved that he was upon any
of the rolls, or proved by any liv-
ing Cherokee or party known to
us, outside of some irresponsible
affidavit, which we look upon al
ways with suspicion, he undoubt-
edly would have been admitted as
hundreds of others have been.
But we claim that it would not
do to admit entirely upon aflidayits
of few people we do not know
anything about. His ancestors
name-and that is so long ago that
no living man can swear to it with
any degree of certainty-his ances-
tors name does not appear upon
the rolls, which can only attest the
names of Cherokees OF that long
ago. That is the reason that we
rejected him. If we were TO take
such testimony as he says that his
is, we would not only have the
1000 or 5000 applicants for cit
izenship in the Cherokee nation
that we now have, but we would
have tens of thousands of others,
because men having an experience
with affidavits, men connected
with the pension Office and con-
nected with proving up land claims,
connected with mining claims, or
anything of that kind, know how
wholly untrustworthy an er pdrte
affidavit is. The claim that under
the treaty of 1916 the land was
granted to the whole Cherokee peo-
pie, and therefore entitled to it,
must necessarily fail, under the
decision already frequently quoted
against the North Carolina band of
| Cherokees. Before the court of
claims this mention of the whole
of the Cherokee people was fully
explained as simply meaning all
of those people who were part OF
the Cherokee nation, belonging to
one or the other of the three sep
arate parties that that nation was
divided into at the time of making
the treaty of 1916, which was an
adjustment of their differences,
and tn none other.
As to the question whether we
should pay them for their improve
ments or not, which question
would arise if the Cherokee nation
pays for the improvements, then
1t takes the money belonging in
/ common 10 our wnole peOplU and
invests it in a hoT inr all the
parties. We canno, sell it to the
individual Cherokees, because that
individual Cherokee who is able
to buy it has already received his
portion of that land. II we sold
him one Of these improvements we
would have to protect him in the
title. They have really settled
upon land that belongs to cur poor
people who have been unable to
improve it who are unable to buy
it to-day. They claim that they
should be allowed to sell it to in
dividual Cherokees. The same
objection would arise. They could
only sell to those who had the
money to buy, and those Chero-
KEGS have already more than their
pro rata portion of the lands, and
they must in the very near future
relinquish it for the whole people,
for the whole country is now be-
coming occupied. The poorer class
must come there and take their
share of land in some way or other,
those who are recognized as cit
izens.
@. Let me understand about
that. Suppose they buy, you would
then have an investment in them.
Do you not suppose that the ma
J ton, having bought their improve
ments, could dispose OF them to
parties who have no improvements
now, but who might be willing, il
the terms of payment were easy, TO
step into these improvements
A. 1 do not think that would be
practicable. That would be ask
ing the Cherokee nation to do
something, to give remuneration
and expend her money for some-
thing that is not altogether her
} fault.
Q. That may be, but as a dis
tinguished man said, at is con-
diticn, and not theory, that con-
fronts US" Perhaps you, as well
as we, ought to look at this matter
20 see whether there is any prac-
ticable adjustment, rather than Ia
look at it only on the ground OF
strict right.-A. If we look for an
adjustment in any direction where
the Cherokees will be called upon
to pay any money and relinquish
any Of their rights, that could not
possibly be settled upon any ques.
iion Of right, as we think.