Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1898-02-03

I w az AbAi
valuation. from the nation by pay.
ing the true value of the land, with
regard only to its stability and 10,
cation for townsite purposes.
In view of the foregoing sugges
tions, what is the legal status OF
those Cherokee citizens who have
purchased town lots in the Chero-
kee nation, and what are theil
equities?
In 1888, on the thirty-fr
day of December, the United
States gave to the Cherokee
nation patent which was
signed by Martin Van Buren,
president. This patent granted 10
the Cherokee nation the lands
which they now occupy, subject
only to one condition; tha' the
land should revert to the United
States when the Cherokees becrme
extinct or abandoned the same.
This condition has never been
broken, and, therefore. the lands
now occupied by the Cherokees
are theirs absolutely and indie
feasibly. The Cherokees own
their land as tenants in common,
each Cherokee, therefore, owning
an interest in each and every por-
ton of the lands decided to his
tribe.
Under a familiar rule of law, a
tenant in common may by consent
expressly given, or by estoppel,
grant the right to any one of his
co-tenants to occupy any portion
of the land held IN tenancy and to
make improvements upon the
same. The Cherokee nation un-
der It's right of self government, it
being a representative govern
ment fashioned alter that of the
United States, has provided for an
executive, and a legislature to be
selected by the people who are
tenants in common. The legisla-
ture of Cherokee nation, which
was selected by the votes of these
tenants in common, and acting for
them, passed in 1913, in 1857 and
in 1870 laws heretofore mentioned
which in terms provided that GER
tain persons authorized by law and
appointed thereto, should have
the power to lay out certain town
sites in the Cherokee nation, and
these townsites when so laid out
should be sold at public auction to
the highest bidder, and the money
derived from said sale should be
placed in the treasury as part of
the funds of the Cherokee people.
As a matter of fact, as herein
shown, this has been done; the
money derived from these sales
has been covered into the treasury
and distributed among the tenants
in common of the Cherokee tribe.
This being true, it follows as
matter of law that the Cherokee
nation could not now revoke this
grant nor deprive the Cherokee
citizens who have purchased lands
under these laws of the right
which they have acquired by such
purchase. By the passage of
these laws, the Cherokee nation
has absolutely and unquaifiedly
agreed that those whC purchased
these town lots under said laws
should have the perpetual use and
enjoyment of the same. This Is
and was the express agreement Of
the tenants in common and the
acceptance Of the money is an
estoppel against their ever setting
up any claim to the lots so occu-
pied. Viewed, therefore, from a
purely legal standpoint, the ten
ants IN common who occupy these
town lots are doing so with the
express agreement of all the other
tenants in common; and these
lands thus being segregated from
the public domain by such con-
sent, it follows it seems to US
irresistibly, that the Cherokee
nation cannot assert any right
against the same. And if this be
true, upon what theory of law or
Justice can the United States
place the Cherokee tribe of Indians
in regard to this matter in a bet
ter situation than that in which it
has placed itself? Every member
of that nation has received the
benefit of the money paid by him
for these lands. 1t is not like
townsites which have been estab-
lished in the tour other tribes.
There the individual has purchas-
ed his town lots from the Indian
upon whose claim the town hap
pened to be located, and this
money so paid for said purchase
has been retained by the individu-
al Indian citizen and the other
members of the tribe have re-
ceived no benefit therefrom. 1t
Is, therefore, unjust and inequit-
able to put the Cherokee townsites
which have already been establish
ed by law, on the same footing
with the townsites in the other
tribes.
And in regard to legal points
involved we are not without au-
thority. U. S. Judge Caldwell OF
the Sth circuit, in passing upon
the case of Bell & Trott vs.. At
lantic & Pacific Ry. Co., 63 Fed.
Rep, page ALI. declared that the
townsites established and pur-
chased in the Cherokee nation
were lawfully established and that
no member Of the tribe could oc-