Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1895-05-16
THAT PRYOR CREEK TAX CASE.
Judge Springer's Somewhat Aston
ishlng Opinion.

This is an action for false i'm
prisonment under the Arkansas
statute put in force in this terrific
ry. 1t is submitted to the court
as an agreed state Of facts to the
effect that the prosecuting witness
was imprisoned by the authorities
of Pryor Greek, a town in the
Cherokee nation in the Indian
Territory, under a process for the
collection of special taxes. Pryor
Creek has town charter under
the laws of the Cherokee nation,
and the authorities were endeavor.
ing TO collect a tax levied on the
prosecuting witness for carrying
on the business si carpenter in
that place. 1t does not appear
that the officers were actuated by
any other motive except to enforce
the collection of the tax. The i'm =
prisonment was the result of his
failure to comply with the ordi.
nances Of the town. The pfosecu-
ting witness was a non-citizen of
the Cherokee nation and a citizen
of the United States, and claims
that he is not subject to the laws
or ordinances of the town of Pryor
Creek.
This is very unusual proceed
ing taking ii altogether. Nowhere
else in the United States could q
case of this kind arise. We have
in this territory a system Of juris.
prudence without any parallel in
any civilized country so far as
know. We have a community
divided into two classes of people,
one is denominsted citizens of the
natisns and the other class non
citizens, and there have been
placed over these two classes OF
people two distinct and separate
codes of laws for their government,
The citizens of the nations have
passed laws and authorized their
municipalities TO pass ordinances
for the gogerument OF the citizens
Of the nations. The citizens Of the
United States are under a separate
set of laws passed by congress. At
the same time the United States
have passed certain other laws
which apply to both classes-cre.
ating by these various systems OF
government very complicated
syetem Of laws and of great diff
Guilty in its administration.
1t would be very strange il there
were no conflicts of jurisdiction,
and what amazes me most il that
there have been so few conflicts
heretofore between those exercis-
ing jurisdiction urder the author
ity of the resp .ctive Indian ma
tions and those exercising juris-
diction under the laws Of the
United States. II is to the credit
of the people of the nations-the
citizens of these Indian nations
and also to the officers of the
United States government in this
territory that so few conflicts have
arisen. ! am not disposed to view
with either criticism or alarm the
presence Of these officers Of the In.
dian nations 10 their efforts to pass
and enforce over every citizen laws
which will secure to them all theil
rights of person and property and
maintain law and order in the
cities and towns of this territory
So fan as this court is concerned
instead of embarrassing them in
their legitimate efforts to maintain
order and local governments it will
aid them in every way in its power
in the exercise Of the authority
conferred upon them by congress
to pass laws for their own govern
ment, in the administration fol
such laws. Wherever the officers
of the Indian nations in this terri.
tory have acted in good faith ano
with c view TO maintain tbs au
thority of their laws, and order
among themselves and also in the
villages and towns in the nations
instead Of treating them az
enemies Of good order this court
will regard them as co-workors il
the effort TO maintain authority
and to preserve the peace Of thi'
territory. II seems to me that Il
would be very harsh and un-
reasonable TO treat the officers o.
the Indian nations whether acting
lander the Authority Of the nation
IOr under municipalities created