Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1898-07-21
EVILS0F THE CURTIS BILL
A RECKLESS DISREGARD OF EN-
ISTING CONTRACTS, ETC.
Many Inconsistencies and an Utter Alb.
senee Of Compensating Benefits in
this new Indian Territory Law.

, nical, it is necessarily unjust
Its very title, "For the Protection
OF the People of Indian Territory ,
: is insincere and delusive. NJ
J sane mind can be made to believ,
that the actuatin9 motive of this
law was any desire to protect the
people of this territory. Its pro
visions for any purpose of thai
kind are so inadequate that, from
such a point of view, the act
would be seriously derogatory tC
the common sense of congress.
The members of that great body
may be unjust, but they are not
fools.
This remark, of course, is based
upon the inference that the Indian
population of this territory were
to be taken into the account in
planning this scheme of protec.
ton.
Look at the matter for moment
in the light of common sense.
The Cherokees constitute ore of
the oldest political communities
on the American continent. Their
institutions (many of them) are
Older than those Of the United
States. Their various fortunes,
amounting in the aggregate to
millions of dollars, have all been
built up under these same institu-
tions. The wealth of these peo-
pie is dependent upon these same
institutions for its protection and
security. But now comes along
the Curtis law and says these
Cherokee institutions shall no
longer exist; they must be abolish
ed and those of the state of Ar
kansas must be substituted in
their stead. 1t is done, and now
what is the result? The Cherokee
law as to the rate of interest on
loans, for instance, is not to be en-
forced; condition, as far as the
business of this country is con-
cerned. even more disastrous, in
legal effect, than abrogation. The
effect of this provision,is not as us.
ual with normal legislation, exclu-
sively prospective, but exclusively
retroactive. All agreements here
tofore made by Cherokees in deal
ing among themselves-all agree
ments as to the rate of interest,
are no longer binding. The rate
may have been legal under the
Cherokee laE; but that law now
no longer exists. Under the Ar
kansas law this agreed rate may
be usurious and uncollectable.
And this is not the whole of the
case; should the Cherokee creditor
attempt to collect his claim by ap-
peallng 10 the Arkansas law, what
would then be to save him from
defeat, bill of costs and the NOR
al disgrace OF a usurer?
But there is another curious
thing about this absurd Curtis
law as bearing upon the construc-
tion and force of contracts. 1t is
admitted that the Cherokee law
has heretofore been in existence:
hence all contracts that have been
made Certainly those made by
and between Cherokee citizens)
must be interpreted according to
the Cherokee law, the law of the
place. 1t was in reference to this
law that the parties entered into
the contract; this local, Cherokee
law Is, IN effect, a part and parcel
OF the agreement. But this Cher
okee law Is now no more TO be en-
forced; it is dead; the Curtis law
has killed it. This contract must
now be construed by the courts
according to the Arkansas law.
The Arkansas law has now come
to be part of the contract instead
of the Cherokee law. That is to
say, this Curtis law has had The
effect to transform the original
agreement between the parties and
make 1t something different from
what it was, in contemplation of
law, intended to be.
In this way, it is obvious, this
Curtis law, by rendering our Cher
okee laws uninforceable, has upset
and andone all the business rela-
tions existent in our Cherokee civ
ilization.
Again, the landed interests of
the Cherokee people are peculiar;
there is nothing like them in the
states. Our land does not belong
to the nation; hence it is not pub
lie land. 1t belongs rather TO the
Cherokee people; it is therefore
what Is called ''land in common.
Our Cherokee land laws have all
oeen suggested by the exigencies