Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-11-28

Comnnche, l. t., NOV. 20, ls9o'-A
big snow storm Is on US. A good sea-
son Is In the ground and when tho
weather closes up our farmers will be
busy and happy again. Instead of the
supposed "late Chickasaw law" 1t de-
yelops that the law was passed in 1890
and has been the law for all these
years. Now, the question IL, How have
these "extinguished" citizens been able
to get recognized as landlords in tne
United States courts, when the Chicka-
saw laws positively forbid them having
any rights over the soil2
There is something rotten when in
violation OF the treaty and In open
violation OF the Chickasaw laws man
can go into United States commits
sioner court and from the judge get
u verdict of 81 an acre rent from II
man who had never contracted with
him to l cent Where Is the law that
allows n verdict IN favor of Indian
control and use of land when the treaty
and Chickosaw law fOrbids 1t? 1t
should be understood that when we
say rents We mean Indian rents
where the American citizen owns all
the improvements and the landlord
charges for his Indian rights only.
The Duncan Banner boasts of a late
AAlAllb " dAAht NlAEblH AlldA uHlt
lndlan always an Inulan, IA Il Iu,e
habeas corpus case where an indian
was sentenced to thirty-nine lashes ON
his bare back for stealing. lie tried
to eNade the licking by raising the
question that the party stolen from
was not an indian citizen under the
Chickasaw law because his Indian
wife had died and he had married
white woman. II seems that the Judge
refused the writ and remanded the pris-
oner to the tribal courts to take his
sentence. If the Banners crowd is
satisfied with that ruling, the indians
ana settlers can certainly afford to be-
Here ls our version of IL: The treaty OF
1866 In article IS provides that every
white person who having married a
Choctaw or Chlcknsaw resides In the
said Choctnw or Chickasaw nations, or
who has been adopted by the legisla-
tive authorities Is to be deemed a menu
Der of said nations and should be sub
ject to tho laws Of the Choctaw and
Chlckasaw nations according to his
domiCile. and to protection and trial
before their tribunals and to punish
ment according to their laws in all
respects rs though he was y native
Choctaw or Chlckasaw."
SO Instead Of these white men hold
ing down this country as indian land
lords In spite of the Chickasnw laws,
the Indian court can make them obey
the law or take their licklngs or leave
the country. AS the Chickaeaw laws
/ expressly forbid them amy rights to
the soil" this element is liable to see
Some fun In the Chickasaw courts, to
all OF which we say Amen. with one
or two exceptions, the country for
miles around Comanche Us claimed
either by parties who have filed claims
| for citizenship and have not been ad
mitted, or have married and divorced
from indian wives and married white
women afterward. Not one of these
have had any right to hold this land
under any Chickasaw law. ana yet In
our Duncan court they can
set JUDGMENT for rents from
they owned the land and improvements
| while In fact they have not cents in.
terest In the improvements. nor one
shadow Of right under the Chickasaw
laws to use or control the land. The
court recognizes" this their Indian
landlords Claim" and that goes. our
head is threatened II we don't stop. but
Ia begun. II the head does 20. A test
case of one Of these rights has inst
been appealed to the Ryan district
court, to be tried In February. Mean.
time the settlers are asking. Why have
these fellows been getting money ont
OF us as Indians under the Chickasaw
laws for these five long years. when
IN fact they were forbidden to do SO by
the Chickasaw laws? Between the
| Chi kssaw Courts and their punish.
mehta and the United States DIstrio,
| Courts and their penalties for false
| prctenses and damages, the land kim
( will slowly but surely get into trouble
I He has played great game on the In.
dians and settlers; that he can play i,
any longer is doubtful.
| / 8 VOpxc