Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1897-05-13
ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS DENIED
The Nation Alone Should be Considered
In Disposal OF Lets.


EDITOR CHIEFTAIN:-The Choc-
taw agreement provides that the
town lots shall be sold. From the
writer's point of view, this is a
very objechonal arrangement. 1t
is obviously scheme planned by
selfishness in the interest of mon
eyed speculation. If town lots
can be carved out of the common
domain and sold to the highest
bidder, then tell me, pray, why
not a farm anywhere on the public
domain? The principle at the
bottom of this scheme, il applied
in general, would do away with al
lotment entirely, and transform
the common domain of the nation
into a mere speculative stock, to
be sold out at auction; a result 90
unjust to the great majority Of the
people as to be truly odious.
Nor is the evil improved very
much by the plan recommended
by the CHIEFTAIN for the Chero-
KEGS, indeed it is only made worse
by being more unjust to the people
at large. Instead of selling these
lots for the benefit of the common
treasury, it proposes to give them
to the occupants; or, which is the
same thing, to demand for them
only nominal" price. This lib
erality is claimed to be just for
the following reasons: l. Be-
cause these occupants once bought
these lots and paid cash for them;
II. Because these lots are now
chiefly valuable on account of the
improvements placed upon them
by the occupants.
In answer to these arguments,
il is only necessary to say that the
first is fallacious because it proves
too much. If, when allotment
day comes round, every citizen
should be made a present of all
the land that he has bought from
other claimants, ard paid his cash
for il, or if he should be required
to pay into the common treasury
only a nominal" sum for it, it is
obvious that there would be but
little land left in which to share
and share alike. At least half the
nation would have to go landless
and homeless. But the city.lot
owner will say, 80 there is.quite
difference in city lots and i'm
provements on the high prairies!
"Yes there is truly a difference in
physical conditions, but none
whatever ia rights, justice, and
the doctrines of allotment.
AS to the second agreement our
plea is a specific denial. The inn
provement placed upon these lots
have added nothing whatever to
their market value. Let it be
borne in mind that improvements,
under the laws of the Cherokee ma.
tion constitute no part Of the realty
upon which they stand. Improve
ments are personal property and
belong to the party who made
them; while the land belongs to
the Cherokee people. The argu-
ment is founded on an idea which
has been imported from the states,
where land is held in severalty,
and where improvements are re-
garded in law as a part and parcel
Of the realty. Under such an ar
rangement, of course, every fence
or house built, every well dug, or
acre plowed, must needs add to the
value of the estate. But il is not
so here in the Cherokee nation.
The improvement is one thing; the
land is quite another. And it is
understood that this distinction is
TO be we'll observed in making the
allotment. The man who claims a
lot on Main street and has built a
brick block upon it at a cost of a
hundred thousand dollars, is in
precisely the same fix under our
Cherokee laws, as would .be that
man who owns the adjoining lot
and is using il for a pig pen.
When allotment day comes round
neither of these two gentlemen can
be heard to claim any special ia
yors or advantages because OF any
increase of value which has been
added TO the realty by means of
their industry. The lots in each
case must be allotted; and in order
to make way for this operation, the
stockman and the block builder
will be left alike TO take care Of
his personal effects.
And yet It will not do to say that
these town lots have not been in
creased in value since the found.
ing Of the town, il will not do to
say that a lot on Main street in VII
nita Is worth no more than the
same amount Of land on the wild
prairie. But here 10 the question;