Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1894-12-27

homes in and remained in the
Cherokee reservation, and as lands
to be considered in any subsequent
allotment in severalty among the
members Of the Cherokee nation.
All this was in the line of the ex.
pressed thought of consolidation
Of these Delawares with and alb
sorption Of them into the Chero-
kee nation as individual members
thereof II il be said that all of
the Delaware trust funds were not
turned into the national fund it
will be remembered that there
was no impropriety in the reser-
vation of a part thereof in order
to enable the Delswares TO make
such improvements as they might
desire.on the tract that they select
ed for homes, and also that there
was no certainty that all the mem.
bers of the Delaware tribe would
elect to remove to the Cherokee
country, and that those who re-
mained in Kansas were entitled to
their share in the Delaware nation.
al funds.
With regard to the claim that
the Delawares paid an inconsider-
able sum, if it was the intent that
they should share equally with
the native Cherokees in this vast
body of lands included in the res
ervation and outlet, it will be
borne in mind that the alleged
gross inadequacy depends largely
upon the value of these thirteen
millions of acres. Counsel for the
Cherokees place this value at 81 25
per acre-the minimum price for
government lands-and upon that
valuation base their claim of mad
equacy Of consideration. They
point to the fact that the neutral
lands in Kansas were estimated
in the agreement to be worth 81 25
an acre, and infer therefrom that
the lands in the Indian Territory
were of like value. But that is u
mere inference, and over against
it may be placed such facts as
these: On June IA, 1866, only
abouta a year before this agreement,
the Creeks by treaty sold TO the
government tract in the Indian
Territory estimated to contain
3. 250, $50 acres, at the price Of 80
cents per acre. IA Stat. 1861
The Seminoles, on March 81, 1866,
likewise ceded a tract estimated
at 2, 169, $50 acres at the rate Of Is
CENTS an acre, GA Stat. 756, and
on April %. 1856, the Choctaws
and Chickasaws ceded a large tract
also in the Indian Territory, for
the gross sum of $500, ,000-a sum
which, as counsel for the appellees
stated, was only at the rate of
about 5 cents a acre. IA Stat.
769.) The significance of these
figures is not destroyed by the fact
that in 1889 congress appropriated
large sum for both the Creeks
and Seminoles, to-wit: to the
Creeks the sum of 81, ,2S0. .S57 10,
and TO the Seminoles the sum of
81, ,9l2, ,942.02, apparently in fur
ther payment of these lands. For
while this may tend to show that
congress then felt that the Creeks
and S,minoles had not received
full price for their lands, it is not
inconsistent with the claim that in
1866 the contracting parties consid-
ara1 tho Lon lo 10 ha moth on1. th A
stipulated price. Further than
that, in pursuance of the provis-
ions of the fifth section OF the act
of May 20. 1872, appraisement
was made OF the Cherokee lands
west of the 96th meridian, which
appraisement, approved by the
president, fixed the value of a por-
lion Of such lands, 230,0 04 At 20
cents and the balance, y, ,3i4 ,562 OF
acres, at AZ 40 cents per acre. 1t
may we'll be thet the lands within
the limits of u rapidly growing
state were worth Mt the time OF
this agreement el.25 an acre, while
lands within he Indian Territory,
situate as they were, were of much
less value. Neither should too
much weight be given to the fact
that the Delawdres were To pay for
their homes at the rate of n dollar
an acre, for by that purchase they
acquired no title in fee simple, and
it is not unreasonable that the
price thus fixed was not merely as
compensation for the value OF the
lands to be taken in the eastern
portion tf the reservation, where
the body of the Cherokees had
their homes, and therefore probl-
bly, the most valuable portion Of
the entire reservation, but also as
sufficient compensation for an in
terest in the entire body Of lands,
that interest being like that of the
native Cherokees, limited to a
mere occupancy OF the tracts set
apart for homes, with the right to
free use in common of the unoccu-
pied portion Of the reserve, and a
right TO share in any future allot-
ment. AT any rate, with the un-
certainty that exists as TO It's value,
it can not be said to be clear that
there was such gross inadequacy
OF consideration as is urged by the
counsel for the Cheroke9s; certain.
ly nothing which would justify a
court Of equity in setting aside the
contract on the ground Of made
quacy.
But further, the thought of sale
at least OF an early sale-was
evidently not in contemplation of
the parties, or in line with the