Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1892-08-04
rHn srRIP AaRRRMRNT.
Summary of Report of Senator
Platt for the Committee.

Summary of Report of Senator
Platt for the Committee.
The report begins by citing the
conditions surrounding the Outlet,
with which our readers are per
fectly familiar, and also stating
the fact of trade being arrived
at by the Cherokees and the United
States commissioners by which
s, IA, 632.91 acres of land were to
be transferred for the net sum ol
IS, ,595, 1876, ~.
Your committee believes that il
is desirable that this money should
be paid and that the relinquish-
ment of the title should be OBJ
tanned. But certain conditions OF
the agreement need modification,
notably that portion of section
two which requires the removal OF
the intruders. Then are cited the
various treaty stipulations under
which the Cherokees claim pro-
lection from intrusion. Under
these treaty provisions the nation
has claimed the exclusive right to
determine who its citizens are, and
since the decision Of the supreme
court was rendered in the North
Carolina case the department OF
the interior seems to have raised
no question as to this right.
Then follows a statement of the
intruder question as it exists and
also an account Of the various in
vitations to the North Carolina
Indians to come tc the nation, the
conditions enjoined as to enroll
ment, proof of citizenship, etc.
The Kesterson case of 1888, in
which the right Of the nation to
expell this man was denied by the
department is recounted, and the
ruling in this and other cases are
given. If that portion OF the agree
ment relating TO the removal of
the intruder should be ratified,
the United States, in the opinion
of committee, would be properly
held to have relinquished any claim
that it had discretion to deter
mine upon what terms and con
ditions such intruders should be
removed, and would be obligated
to act upon the mere demand of
the principal chief. Such was un-
doubtedly the intention of the
Cherokee nation in insisting upon
this clause but in the committee s
opinion the government ought not
to enter into such an agreement.
Admit that the intruderE have no
legal right upon these lands. 1t is
nevertheless true in many tnstan-
ces that they came there suppos !.
ing themselves to have been in
vited by the Cherokee nation, and
supposing that they could main
tain their right to be admitted as
citizens. They have made valu-
able improvements. They have
built houses and established homes,
and are as much settled upon these
lands and in those homes as any
persons who have been deemed
and called "squatters" upon the
public lands. To remove forcibly,
by the use of the army if it became
necessary, a body of 5000 or 1000
people forfeiting their homes and
improvements, is too harsh a pro-
ceeding to be contemplated with
equanimity. Such action would
be Justly criticised not only in this
country, but in foreign countries.
If these intruders should be re-
moved from their homes, forfeit
ing the value of their improve
ments, the question arises as to
who would become entitled to the
property and the benefit of the
improvements. They would
doubtless be claimed by the Cher
okee nation, and would either be
sold by the nation to persons who
might occupy such Improvements,
or Cherokees, who might first file
on them and have their claims ac-
knowl edged by the nation, would
become the proprietors and reap
the benefit of the improvements
created by the intruder.
1t seems to the committee but
Just and fair that if the intruders
are to be removed with the loss of
their improvements there should
be some way provided by which
the Cherokee nation should pay
for the value of such improvements
and be in a position to reimburse
itself by the sale OF them to such
af its citizens as it might permit to
occupy the same.
In the opinion Of the committed,
however, intruder claimants who
came to the Cherokee nation and
made Improvements since the 11th
lay Of August, 1886, cannot claim
to have acquired any equitable
rights in which they ought to be
protected.
The committee would, therefore,
limit any provision looking to the
compensation of intruders for their
improvements to those who came
prior to the date mentioned.
With a view TO preventing harsh
action and any possible injustice
in the removal Of intruders, the
committee recommend an amend
ment Of the agreement relating to