Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1898-07-14
SOME TIMELY QUESTIONS
LIKEWISE Is A PARTIAL ANSWER
SUGGESTED.
A Decision from the Court OF Claims
Our Only Remedy for Injury by the
Curtis Bill.
WASHINGTON. D. G. July q, iSaS.

WASHINGTON. ID. c. July l. iS'S.
EDITOR CHIEFTAIN:-l send YOU
copy of the Curtis bill; il is
drastic ana punitive; 1t compelS
allotment, ignores rights acquired
under treaties, proposes 10 diSpos-
sess every citizen holding improv-
ed lands in excess of his allotment
and to sell to strangers town lots
decided by the Cherokee nation 10
her citizens.
The bill passed in spite OF the
efforts of the delegation 10 defeat
il. Only one man IN congress OPP
posed it. Senator Bate of Tennessee,
and be stated in his brief remarks
that he knew his opposition was
useless. On the Indian appropria-
ton bill, Senator Jas. X. Jones of
Arkansas, secured the reopening
of the conference report on the In
dian appropriation bill, and gotin-
serted an item allowing The right
of appeal 10 The CaSss& State >U-
supreme easssS sa ss5eS 4aSalV5ps
tie question 81 sAe Va8a5N ava
eaa>tssa0aaslssS oi The sel al9os-
ting the lands as fello~-s Appeals
shall be allowed scoM The Ja5tee
States courts in the gasiaa peg9s>
tory dluec3 10 The supreme eoats
T a. the United S3atss 10 eiJher party
E in al citizenship cases, aaa iH all
cases between either 81 The Eve
civilized irihes and the Unite
States involving The Constitution
slity or validity of any legislation
affecting citizenship, or the alloi-
ment of lands in The Indian Tenn
tory, under the rules and rssuls-
tions governing appeals 10 said
cuurt in other cases. Provided,
That appeals in eases decided
prior to this act must be perfected
in one hundred and twenty days
from its passage; and in cases de-
cided subsequent thereto, within
sixty days from final judgment;
but in no such case shall the work
of the commission TO the five civil
lized tribes be enjoined or suspend
ed by any proceeding in, or order
of any court, or of any judge, until
after final judgment in the supreme
court OF the United States. In the
case of appeals, as Aforesaid. it
shall be the duty of the supreme
court TO advance such cases on
the docket and dispose of same as
early as possible "
The question is whether this
right of appeal will be of any sub
stantial use TO the Indian people.
The legal right OF congress to re-
peal treaties, to ignore and impair
contracts in its political action has
been declared already by the su-
lpreme court, and the court will re-
fuse to consider the question
whether the United States is justi-
fed in dlsregarding its engage
ments or whether the complaining
nation has a just cause of complaint.
This may seem strange, so | will
quote the decisions and you will
do well to look them up. $50 far
as treaty can be made the subject
of a judicial cognizance by the
courts of this country it is subject
to such acts as congress may pass
for its enforcement, modification
and repeal"
Whitney VS. Robertson, 124 U.
S., 100.
Chae Chan Ping VS. U. s., 130 U.
| S., 5Sl.
! Z. C. Boudinot v. U. s., IL Wall,
l6l6.
"The question whether our gov
ernment is justified in disregarding
its engagements with another ma
ton is not one for the determira
ton of the courts" F"
130 u S. ISL.
Whether the complaining ma
ticn has just cause of complaint is
not matter of judicial cogni-
zance."
Whitney VS. Robertson, 124 U s.,
100.
"The idea has been held that
congress cannot impair contracts,
and this is true in a certain sense,
that the. United States is response
bic for breach of its contracts, but
you cannot suspend the law on
this account but must seek the
remedy of damages by consent OF
congress to sue in court of claims
The right to determine the validity
or constitutionality of the act is no
adequate remedy to the Indian
people. The constitution forbids
a state (Act 1, Sec. 10, U. 5. Con
stitution,) to pass a law "impair-
ing the obligation of a contract, +"
but is silent as 10 the United States.
The supreme court held in Mitch
ell and Clark (210 U. S. 633), that:
"No provision of the constitution
prohibits congress from interfering
with the validity of contracts, :"
and in Knox VS.. Lee, j2 Wall, 457.
that, Contract must be under
stood as made in reference to the
possible existence of the rightful
authority of government and no
obligation of contract can extend
to the defeat of legitimate govern
mental authority"
"1f the supreme court sustains
these decisions that congress may
repeal treaties and act independ
emily of the engagements of the
United States, of what use will a
decision be as to the validity or
constitutionality of the act?
i Even il the courts declared the
act invalid or unconstitutional
what relief would it afford? Would
tl,.a Z, III Id q \. !