Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1896-08-20
ADVICE TO COUNCIL.
An Apparently Tenable Proposition on
the Citizenship Question.
TAxGLEwooD. Z. N. Aug. Il. 1896.


: tling the intruder question, and
, how the census rolls will be made
up, who will be left off and who
will be put or the last roll that
will ever be taken of the Cherokee
, people. Much is said and many
| different plans suggested. Some
thoughts have suggested them
selves to my mind that may be of
some benefit to the law makers of
the country; they are as follows:
The decision of the supreme
court of the United States In the
case of the Delaware Indians VS..
the United States and Cherokee
nation was, that this, the Cherokee
nation was a communal estate, and
that the communal owners were
the citizens of the Cherokee nation
as defined in section 5, amend
ments to article 3 of the Cherokee
constitution, and that it was not an
inheritance. Now let this be the
foundation on which to build our
argument-and you will agree that
a decision of the supreme court of
the United States is strong and
durable foundation to build legal
argument on. 1t seems to be the
great object of the Cherokee nation
to keep out what is termed the in-
truder, and much money has been
spent by the Cherokee nation to
accomplish that end. Every in
truder or every person that is at
present trying to get a right in the
Cherokee nation, from Texas to
Maine, and from North Carolina TO
California, through the Watts asso-
citation. or any other law firm,
claim they are heirs, and that they
are Cherokees by blood, and that
they have a right to their portion
of the estate of their fathers, and
that they cannot be deprived of
their inheritance, and consequent
ly make this appeal to the United
States; and the Dawes commission
have been sent here to settle this
matter.
Now, by the decision above re-
ferred to there is no inheritance;
consequently there can be no heirs.
The child is born an equal partner
aid a communal owner with the
father, and when the father dies
the interest he has in the estate
goes TO the community, and not to
the child. This has been the de-
cision of every court wherein it has
been tried; and in the cases of the
Delawares, Shawnees and colored
citizens it has been emphasized in
language not to be misunderstood.
Now the question is, will you ac-
cept the decision of the supreme
court wherein it says that your
community consists of "all native
born Cherokees. all Indians and
whites legally adopted in the coun-
try, all freedmen who may have
been liberated by voluntary act of
their former owners or by law, as
well as free colored people that
may be living in the country at the
commencement of the rebellion,
and are nOl0 residents therein, or
who may return in six months |
from the 18th day of July, 1866,
and their descendants"
say are you willing 10 take |
them: or do you want to play blood |
when a white adopted citizen
comes up and communal estate
when the North Carolina Cherokee |
comes up? You may think on ac-
count of my being a white adopted |
citizen that self interest prompts
me to give you this advice, but |
have lived with you a long time
and feel deeply interested in the
settlement of this question, and | |
know that you can Lever dispossess
the citizen that the United States
supreme court says has a right.
Then why not make the best of
that decision? Here comes at
least ten thousand people claiming
a right by inheritance to an estate
that the highest court in the land
says does not exist: in the decis-
ion of the North Carolina Chero-
KEGS it was decided that you must
belong to the community or your
rights as a citizen ceased, and the
Cherokees had the sole right OF
placing you in the community.
Every statement filed with the
Dawes commission acknowledges
that they do not belong to the COM
munity, but they inherit right to
belong to it, by blood: and the ar
gument is that this right comes
from their parents. Now if they
had been living in the country and
their parents had died they would
have inherited nothing from them,
because they would have been as
much of a communal owner as the
parent. Say they are Cherokees
by blood; admit this to be so; they
admit that they or their ancestors
left the Cherokee nation with all
their goods and effects and became
citizens of another country, and
thereby forfeited their right. Ar
ticle |, section 2, Cherokee consti-
tuition: however, the Cherokee
council, if they had desired could
have re-admitted them as part of
the community, but they were un-
der no obligations to do so. Now
they are not members OF the COM
munity. There is no inheritance
6equeathed to them by their fa-
thers; the Cherokee nation does
not want them in the community.
The Dawes commission will be
governed by the laws, usages and
customs of the Cherokees and the
decisions of the supreme court.
Would it not be the best thing the
Cherokees could do to stick to the
last decision of the supreme court
of the United States, admit every
bona fde citizen here to be a COM
munal owner and fight against tax
inU anv moro Nnu must either