The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1896-02-16
FROM WASHINGTON.
Clarence b. Douglas to Capt. Hammer on
the Complexities Of the Territory Sit
uatIon at the Capital.
WAsnINeroN. d. Q. Feb. u ,eo.

My Dear Cap, i find "a condition
and not a theory" confronting Us here
at this time, which / had earnestly
hoped would not exist and which l
have done all could during the past
ten weeks to prevent. refer To the
legal aspect" OF the tOwnsite queS-
now being so industriously talked of
by the Indian delegation and In
dian lobby in this city.
That you may understand the situ-
alton, will 20 somewhat into detail
and briefly explain.
When l left here on the 24th OF
January for ArdmOre, everything
seemed to point to speedy legislation
on territorial matters and there seem
ed no reasonable doubt that the in
terests OF town builders would Lc
provided for. After my departure
Judge {. Il. Stuart reached Washing
ton on private business and owing To
his former position in the Indian
Tei eiritory he at once became con-
spicuuus figure and was eagerly inter
viewed by various parties interested
in legislation affecting that country.
Unfortunately for Us Judge Stuart
took the position at once that no law
on the lines Of our tOwnsite bill which
effected the Indian title would hc
constitutional and here iS where We
encountered the first OF a series Uf
breakers. which threaten TO swamp
any legislation. such as we before had
reasons To expect would be enacted.
Owing To his former judicial position
and supposed familiarity with all
questions Of law pertaining 10 that
country, his opinion was unquestion-
ed Ii Immediately became a strong
weapon in the hands Of the lobby and
the Indians. il impressed the Dawes
commission and evidently the power,
higher in authority even than they
and the result is that now when tai,
townsite legislation 10 Il member cl
congress or senator. the opinion uf
Judge Stuart on the legal aspect
is thrown in my teeth.
Now | do not think Judge Stuart
i, in the employ OF the Indians: ] du
not accuse him or inSincerity iu
delivering this opinion: ] grant that
a. an attorney he states his honest
convictions in this famous decision
but as ] told him sunday the faci re-
mains that to the greatest extent
possible for one man 20 effect the
~ituali ion. he has effected il 10 Tie
serious disadvantage of the tnwhsi;c
interests and il We fail ia legislation.
he i>tLough perhaps unin,rntionally.
the cause Of that failure.
Ii may have been necessary fnr him
T tu raise this question or give IL SUCH
prominence. yet | hardly think ID
was. Many laws are enacted and
afterwards repealed. see the great
+ Democratic revenue measure. j. @. the
4 income tax law.
Now congress j. not a judicial, but
I a legislative branch Of the government
and if this puny little townsitc bill
/ had passed and become law. the
courts of the United States is the
proper place for its cunstitutionality
To b. parsed ou and not hotel Hobbies.
or capital corridors.
4 have talked with the Dawes com
mission on The question Of providing
in their bill for the immediate elec-
tion Of delegate 10 congress We
certainly need an official mouth piece
here and are entitled To il. | told
them our position was this; Three
hundred thousand Americans living
\ in the vcfy heart Of this nation are
political uutrasts and tramps and
must come now and beg from the back
window -! congress for what We have
a right as citizens Of the United
States to ~ TO the front door and
demand.
The whole business j. i'm fog and
what the end will be can not now be
even guessed. II the Dawes com
mission bill as outlined i'm dispatches
becomes a law. think / am able 10
say Mr.. Cleveland will have the Op-
portunity OF vetoing an independent
townslte or general territorial bill.
I think \ G. Cruces letter to Judge
Stuart very i'll advised as il seems 60
me one Of two propositions are absO-
lutely correct. Either we should pay
the original value for town lots be-
fore the town was built or we should
pay the present market value. There
can be no justice, no law, no equity
in any bill which does not accept
either proposition Dut seeks a middle
ground. We have made the present
value and are entitled to it or We
, have not and are not entitled to IL