Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1898-02-17

gree to the Osages, and to other
tribes that came into the Chero-
kee country about the time the
Delawares did. The United States
did not require the Cherokees TO
deed to the Delawares as she did
in behalf of those western tribes.
The Delawares themselves never
thought of securing from the
Cherokees any conveyance In fee;
nor did it ever occur to the Chero-
KEGS that the rights contemplated
by such an instrument would ever
be insisted upon. 3. According
to the treaty this land was simply
to be 'set off for their use," and
they were to pay for the same, "
etc. PAY" for what, the land,
or the use of it? OF course a law
yer would say "the land" because
his mind is professionally trained
to that way of thinking. But what
lawyer might think of the mat
ter is not material. The import
ant question is this: "What were
the minds of these Indians at the
time they were dealing with each
Other?" Every circumstance goes
to show that the Delawares were
to ''pay" simply for the use of the
land, in the meantime, with a
guarantee that when an allotment
should be made, each one of them
should have not less than 100
acres. 4. Finally; the Delawares
stipulated with the Cherokees that
whenever, in the future, an allot-
ment should be made, each one of
them should be allowed to take
160 acres. Now if these Delawares
had actually purchased and paid
for this land, why should 1t be
necessary for them to stipulate at
all for an allotment? If the land
was their own by purchase it was
theirs and not subject to allot
ment. If, on the othe: hand, it
was subject to allotment, it must
needs be the common property OF
the nation.
The conclusion is clear: The
Delawares never acquired the fee
simple of this l57 600 acres; and
TO set the same aside tor tn cir use
as proposed by your bill, sir,
would be a most unwarranted ap-
preparation of the common prop
erty of the Cherokee people
In conclusion, would say that
the arrangement proposed by your
bill lacks somewhat of being in ac-
cord with sound principle. Per-
NIT me respectfully, sir, to call
your attention, (perhaps needless
ly,) to the fact that there is only
one right way to ailot a piece of
common property in severalty
among community of common
owners; and that is, to divide the
whole property into as many parts
of equal value as there are men,
bers in the community and then
see that each member is put into
possession of his part; any scheme
different from this, partakes of the
nature of unfairness. There can
be no objection to the reserving of
town-sites and laying them of into
tOwn-lots provided the commission
intrusted with that work be suf-
ficiently hampered by law to rem
der speculation impracticable
But let these town lots be apprais,-
ed at their real value, in the same
manner as the quarter-sect;ons in
the rural districts. Then if any
man wants a piece of soil within
the limits of town plat, let him
take it at its appraised value and
as part, or even the whole of his
allotment; why not? Is that not
fair enough? Any other sch eme
for the disposal of the soil within
the limits of a town site than this,
or some other which shall secure
The same results. can not be with
out the need of justification against
a suspicion of greed.
The provision in your bill, too,
setting aside certain portions of
land for religious, charitable and |
educational purposes, is also OBJ
jectionable. | can not persuade |
myself to believe that it is fair to |
make the Cherokees, as class of
citizens, contribute so literally of
their means to the support of these
public institutions, while there
are in the territory so many
thousands of residents who are
soon to have large portion, and
perhaps the whole, of the benefits,
and who, at the same time are free
from all the burdens. The
churches are not exclusively
Cherokee churches; the schools are
not exclusively Cherokee schools;
and the time is near at hand when
our asylums will not be exclusive
ly Cherokee asylums; why should
the Cherokees alone be taxed for
the support of these institutions?
Taxation for public purposes
should be equal.
My view, sir, OF this subject is
his: Let these poor Indians have
heir property without the least
dip" stint, or reserve; that is
air; and nothing else can be fair.
Then, when this is done, let there ]
De levied a suitable tax for these
public purposes upon all the in
labitants of the territory without
egard TO race or citizenship.
With much esteem, sir, | am
-Our obedient servant,
Too QUA sTEE.
FIT. Smith Sun: Fayetteville