Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1896-03-19

| vi ldnU, ali the rest 10 De nelQ IN
common, for the benefit of the tribe
AS far as civil cases are concerned
either party is to have the right to
take the case into the United
States courts, ,ifhe desires, but where
both parties prefer to have the de-
cision of a tribal court it is permit
ted.
1t will be seen that the bill is
hardly less radical in the reforms
which it proposes than the Dawes
commission ball. The fact that it
is TO be proposed by Congressman
Curtis, who has all along been the
Indians chief champion on the
committee, indicates that Indian
legislation by the present congress
is now certainty In losing Con-
gresham Curtis as supporter the
indians have lost their last hope
of holding off action. The proba-
bility is that the committee will
adopt a compromise between the
Dawes bin and the Curtis bill
The Cherokee Indians have just
issued brief, which they will file
with the committee, in which they
will set forth their grounds of op-
position to the proposed territor-
ial legislation. In regard to that
section of the Dawes bill which
provides forthe abolition of the
tribal courts they say:
There could not be a more di-
rect and flagrant violation of the
solemn promises and plighted faith
of the United States. as contained
in the treaties of 1885 and 1866.
1t would not only result in taking
the jurisdiction from the tribal
courts, but it destroys their govern
ments as well. Without a judic
iary to interpret and enforce law a
legislature would be farce and an
executive officer a painful remind
er OF false promises and broken
pledges.
"The enactment of this section
would result in robbing the full
blood, whom it is the avowed in
tention of congress to protect. He
knows nothing of civil law or fed
eral procedure. Many do not
understand the English language,
and having inherited the idea as
well as adapted themselves to it of
common properly, they would
abandon property rightfully theirs
rather than contend in a court to
which they are strangers. This is
no mere assertion, but a part OF
their past history. II our people
are satisfied with their own iu-
dietary, why not let them alone?
Their laws are printed in both
languages. so that they can read
and understand them
In regard to the proposed allot-
ment of lands they say:
How can you divest one of the |
use of lands patented TO the tribe, /
legally acquired, when the laws Of
the respective nations, under which |
he acquired it, were authorized by |
the treaties with the United States? /
Congress has no more right to force
a division of the use of the lands
of the Cherokees than it has to
compel heirs to an estate to indi-
their interest, or share
holders of corporation TO divide
their stock. This is not a political
but clearly property right, for if
you can allot the use of the land,
unquesiionably you have the au-
TO individualize the fee.
Congress has no constitutional
right TO interfere with rights under
treaties, except in cases purely po-A
litical."
In regard to those sections of the
Dawes bill which authorize the
to cause to be surveyed
and laid out town sites at such
places as they may deem expedi-
ent the argument of the Indians is.
"The unlimited authority con-
ferred on the commission by Sec
lion s is most dangerous and an
.agonistic to a republican form of
government. 1t places it within
he discretion of the commission to
ay off any or all of the lands OF
he five tribes for town sites.
"Section Is is clearly unconsti-
utional, in that it divests the sew
.ral tribes of the United States of
occupancy of lands bought and pat
,nted to them-undoubtedly vested
'ights-and grants the same to any
claimant, citizen or non citizen,
lpon the tender of the appraised
'alue. Without any trial or due
process of law it authorizes the
of property for private
lse. If In this manner single lot
an be taken, those tribes are not
ecure under their patents in pos
ession of a single acre of land.
The right of eminent domain i'm l
,lies that the purpose for which il
nay be exercised must not be d
mere private one, and congress has
10 power to take the property of
me individual and pass it over TO
even for full compensa-
ion, unless it is for public pur-
'ose. Nor would it be material 10 {
inquire what quantum OF interest {
would pass from him; it would be
efficient that some interest had
'een taken against his will; and if
y.