Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1897-10-28

Cherokee citizen should enter into
fair contract with the Cherokee
nation, that he will, for certain
valuable considerations, relinquish
his right to the common use of the
public domain and limit his rights
to the exclusive use of a particular
tratc, there can be no doubt but
that it would be a binding agree
ment; he would be bound to live
on his own tract, and nowhere
else.
Now this is precisely the nature
of the contract between the Chero-
kee nation and the Delawares, with
one little exception; in the case OF
a native citizen, in a contract OF
this kind, it would be necessary
for him to relinquish his former
right of common use IN the soil;
but as the Delawares never had
any prior right of common use in
the soil, a relinquishment of that
kind on their part was not needed.
They simply contracted for a small
piece of bigger body of property
in which they formerly had no in
terest whatever, and they can not
be expected to take anymore than
they bargained for.
When it is said that a party
"shall enjoy ali the rights of native
Cherokees'' of course the right to
limit his enjoyment in the
common lands of the nation, Just
as a native Cherokee could do,
must be included; and if he
actually puts that right into
execution, and by agreement con-
sents to a restriction upon his of
right of soil, he will, of course,
have to stand by his bargain; just
as a native Cherokee would have
to do.
The Delawares agreed for 160
acres apiece; and shall they now be
allowed to take more? The Shaw
nees did not, in their agreement,
specify the amount of land they
were to have; hence they share
with native Cherokees, take and
take alike.
We know the conclusion at
which We have here arrived is
quite at variance with that of the
supreme court of the United States
in the celebrated Delaware case;
but We can not help that. 1t is
very obvious that that decision is
not based upon the law of the case.
1t is as wide of the spirit and
meaning of the treaty of 1866, and
the understanding between the
contracting parties, as the east is
from the west. 1t is doubtful if
that honorable court ever grasped
the correct idea of the true scheme
upon which the Delawares were
introduced into the Cherokee
country.
In conclusion, let us glance a
little further at the nature of this
scheme of admission to citizenship.
The Delawares were to have a
district set off TO them by metes
and bounds, within this district,
they were authorized to maintain
their ancient tribal organization;
they were to live as a distinct COM
munity located in their own dis
trict, and there to enforce their
ancient tribal laws, customs, and
usages; under the terms of the
treaty and the contract, they were
empowered to enact and enforce
any new law that would not con-
flict with the laws and constitution
of the Cherokee nation. They
could, within their community,
adopt such police regulations as
they might see fit, enact laws, civil
and criminal, levy and collect
taxes, maintain public highways;
in a word, they were to be, to all
intents and purposes, a distinct
municipality holding a relation to
the Cherokee government very
much like that of county to the
state.
But the supreme court in decid-
ing the Delaware case does not
seem to have thought Of this phase
of the case; they seem TO treat the
case as though it stood upon the
same footing with that of the Shaw
nees; hence they come to the con-
ciusion that the rights of the
Shawnees and Delawares are iden-
tically the same in quantity and
quality; whereas they are, in all
respects, very different.
Now the Delawares paid the
Cherokees as many dollars as there
were to be quarter-sections of land
in this segregated district. What
did they pay this sum for? Sup
pose we adopt the theory of Mr..
Adams, and say 1t was for the fee