Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1893-07-13
COURT OF CLAIMS DECISION.

COURT OF CLAIMS DECISION.
The comments of the Tahlequah
Courier given in full below on the
recent decision of the court of
claims in the case of the Delawares
and Shawnees deserves the close
perusal Of the adopted people OF
this nation as it comes from the
exponent of Downing ideas and is
no doubt the sentiment of the par
ty on that particular question:
Ia summing up the proof of its
finding the court of claims runs
through much history and legal de-
duction quite suggestive and inter.
esting. Its decision, abounding in
many quotations from the treaties
and reference to the compact be-
tween the Delawares and the Cher
okee nation, is seemingly based
upon Sec. 3 of the Cherokee consti-
tuition. Several other sections, bear
ing on the same subject and in sup
port Of their opinion thus
principally established ARE quoted.
Prior to the time Sec. became
a part of the Cherokee constitution,
citizenship" the court main
tains, twas strictly limited to the
native Cherokees of Cherokee de-
scent" This is as much as TO say
that since that time citizenship
in the Cherokee nation, as former
ly limited to native Cherokees OF
Cherokee descent" is extended by
this constitutional enactment to
all classes alike. What citizenship
implied in i,s restrictive sense to
native Cherokees Cf Cherokee de-
scent, including lands, moneys and
all the common property of the ma
ton, is no more strictly limited as
formerly, but is the communal pro-
perty of all without reservation or
distinction. For this reason the
Delawares have been awarded a
decision in their favor. Not be-
cause they are entitled to such
award by the right of purchase Of
an interest in eight million of dol.
lars, but simply because they are
citizens" OF the Cherokee nation
as defined by the court under this
section Of the Cherokee constitu.
ton.
1t seems that the rights OF citi-
zenship, as held by the court, are
merely circumstantial and vary ac-
cording to the customs of the coun.
try, and in comforting rights of cit
izenship such rights must be eqnal
let them involve what they may.
Hence it applies to the Cherokee
nation, where lands are held in
common, the same principle il
docs to the United States, where
no such a tenure exists. A foreign
er, on becoming a citizen of the
United States, is citizen indeed
and is under the protection Of that
governments flag wherever he
may be. But he does not become
an heir to lands and other proper.
ty the instant he becomes natural.
lied, as the court seems TO think
be does, and should, on becoming
a citizen of the Cherokee nation.
Not because he contributes any.
thing to the nations common
store, thereby obtaining a pro rata
share in the common property but
simply because he is designated a
citizen Of the Cherokee nation for
having married one Of its daugh.
ters. The court thinks he is enti.
tied to premium for having done
so, be his character what it may.
As said before the Delawares
have SO far gained their suit, not
because they have an interest in the
lands Of the Outlet by the right OF
purchase, but simply because a
section Of our constitution declares
them to be citizens of the Cherokee
nation. Therefore all who are so
declared are on an equality with
the Delawares and are equal in all
respects with native Cherokees.
| No honorable man will take Of
fence at what is truth or what is
the evidence of truth, as none is
intended by this article. What we
want, as a people and as a nation
OF people, is an honest and a fair
discussion, not only OF this, but OF
all similar questions where im-
mense interests are involved.
II may be iearlessly asserted
that there is not an "old timer
among the white adopted citizens
Of this nation who can truthfully
assert that his political and per.
sonal rights in this nation are
better or greater since the adop-
ton Of Sec. 8 Of the constitution.
That, in fact, he never dreamed
they were more or less since its
adoption than they were before,
until the court Of claims gave in.
depreciation TO the section.
The political and property rights
of persons adopted by marriage
were the same in the early history
OF the Cherokee people as they are
today, and as intended by the fran.
ers OF the constitution. They voted
at the elections, they held Office,
they used, ad ibitum, or without
restraint, the common property ol
the nation. Their rights, as TO the
use and occupancy OF the lands,
were the fame as those OF native
Cherokee, but n the mater Of in.
herited rights they could not claim
any outside Of the wiis's. But the