Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1898-05-12

|
that the bill Oh. R. No. S5S1) en-
titled "a bill for the protection of
the people of the Indian Territory,
and for other purposes, be not
passed.
Many and weighiy reasons might
be adduced in support of this re-
Quest, but in this instance only a
few of them will be presented.
The passage of the bill would be
in plain violation of the treaties
subsisting between the United
States and the Cherokee nation,
and in disregard of the rights OF
the Cherokee people.
We are painfully aware OF the
] fact that the notion now obtains TO
the effect that those treaties are
dead, and can no Longer be invoked
in support of those rights which
the Cherokee people have long
been taught to prize as more pre-
cious than life itself. But we beg
to say, the Cherokees are far from
ascribing so trivial a character to
the solemn engagements entered
into between the United States
and the Cherokee nation. Ii
could not have been the intention
of the contracting parties that
these treaties should cease to exist
until all their stipulations had
been filled. The very essence of
a treaty is nothing else than con-
tract, only it is rendered more
binding, if possible, than ordinary
contracts, by ihe solemn manner
incident to its execution.
Furthermore, when entering into
those treaties, the contracting
parties understood themselves as
proceeding in accordance with the
intent and provisions of the act of
May 2S, 1880, which authorized the
president sin making the ex-
change of land with the Indian
tribes, to assure the tribe or nation
with which exchange is made that
the United States will forever Sc
cure and guarantee TO them and
their heirs or successors the coun-
try so exchanged" Such, at least,
was the understanding and i'm
plicit faith of the Cherokees when
those treaties were made looking
to their emigration to the west of
the Mississippi. They supposed
they were acquiring a country
where they would be, in compli-
sncs With tbbtatfhg, The nTHsifN nTSfsTsT pr6tected
"against interference and intrusion
from citizens of the United States
who may attempt to settle in their
country without their consent. !"
(Treaties of 1885 and 1866 There
is a charm in the word "forever"
when relating to the occupancy
and ownership of things that is
desirable and pleasing. Especially
is this the case when it is applied
to ones country or home. Patriot
ism is a supreme law of human
nature.
But if those treaties are dead so
far as they relate to the rights and
privileges guaranteed to the Cher
okee people, how is it they are not
dead so far as they relate to the
rights and privileges acquired by
the United States from the Chero-
kee nation under their stipula-
tions? Or, in other words, and
asking excuse for the crude ex-
preston, how is it possible for
those treaties to die at one end and
not at the other? Did not the
United States, under stipulations
of those treaties, acquire title to all
those lands ceded to it east of the
Mississippi; and if those treaties
have ceased TO be effective so far
as they relate to guarantees given
to the Cherokee nation to "estab-
lish and enjoy government of
their choice, and perpetuate such
state of society as may be most
consonant with their views, habits
and conditions, and as may tend to
their individual comfort and their
advancement in civilization" :"
(treaty of 1880, is not the conclu-
sion inevitable that they have also
ceased to be effective as conveying
to the United States all those lands
lying in Georgia, Tennessee and
North Carolina which were once
the property of the Cherokees?
Or, again, if these treaties have
ceased TO be binding on the United
States, have they not also ceased
to be binding on the Cherokee ma
ton; hence if the United States
would take back the rights which
were guaranteed to the Cherokee
nation under these stipultiOns, the
United States should, in all justice,
give back to the Cherokee nation
the lands of the old Cherokee ma
ton which were ceded to it under
the treaty of 1885? Nor should the
TACT that it is the stronger make
any difference; because it is not a
question of power but of law, jus
tice, and right.
But the claim has been urged
that the Indians of the Indian
Territory have themselves broken
their treaties by inviting large
numbers of whites 10 go into their
country, and hence the United
States is no longer obligated to
abide by their stipulations.
Some say 10000, some say /
100000, but the greatest number
of white non citizens claimed to
be in that country is 100000. But
the claim that all those people |
were invited into the Indian Ter
ritory, when examined, will ap-
pear to be without foundation.