The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1898-08-15
Concluded from First page.


and pay the Choctaw and Chickasawi
Nation for all the balance of the
leaset. district. amounting to over
three million acres at the price fixed
by the court in the case now pend
ing in the court wherein the Choe-,
taws and Chickasaws have sued the
Wichitas and the. Upited States for
their interest in the Wichita reser-
vation, this case has been fully AMI
ably argued for the Choctaws and
Chickasaws and while the decision
has not been formerly rendered, it il
well understood at Washington thai
the court will sustain the title of the
Choctaws and Chickasaws to tina |
reservation, that viii add several
million dollars to the treasury of the
two nations, and unless you ratify
the agreement you get nothing.
sst cHICKAsAw FREEDMEN.
Under the language both in The
amendment and the Curtis law som
good honest Chickasaws may mis-
construe or misunderstood the meal
ing and object of congress. Cor
gress in both cases only intended
that the allotting agents should
ailot to the negro 40 acres of land
for him to keep and hold until his
right to it was legally settled because
the alloting agents were to go ahea"
and allot all the land to the Indian
before it was decided that the negr"
was entitled to the 40 acres or not
there would be no land left for him,
the language in both the Curtis Law
and the agreement are exactly the
same and the legal effort of both are
exactly the same, so it is a case O.
six of one and a half dozen of the
other, and there is no reason why
any Chickasaw should vote against
the ratification of the agreement OF:
that account and don't let that ques-
tion scare you off. Congress cannot
give the negro a title to foot {
Chickasaw land if they were to try
congress not excepted, can TAX,
either private or public lands fror
one man and give it to another, sucl
an act would be in direct conflict
with the United States constitu-
ton which declares "That no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty Oh
property without due process o.
law" Legislative or corporate pow
er may condemn either public OF
private property for public use bui
not for private use. For instance
congress can grant to railroads the
right of way through your country
to run and operate there roads
Congress don't attempt to give then
titles-only allot them the use of il
for the public good. In the presen
case the freedmen claim 40 acres o.
land each under the treaty of 1866
the Chickasaw Nation disputes theii
claim, there is no tribunal on earti
that can settle that issue but the
courts or the parties themselves
That is what courts are created for
to settle rights of property between
persons that can't and won't agree
themselves. Some may take up the
notion that il you ratify the agree
ment that you adopt the negro, ne
greater mistake could be made. Tt
ratify the agreement will do no suci
thing. Think, what do you ratify
Simply an amendment to the agree
ment to authorize the allottins
agents when they go to allot to Civ,
the negro 40 acres to keep and hole
until his legal right to it can be set
tied, that is all. The Curtis law doe
the very same thing, and the negro
gets no more than he has now, b,
has possession of it now, and con
gress only intends for him to hold i
until they provide him a remedy t,
settle it. In fact at one time tha
was understood that congress woul'
give the Chickasaw freedmen tn
right to bring suit in the Unitet
States court of claims against tn
Chickasaw Nation to determine hi
right to the 40 acres of land unde
the treaty of 1885. The senate reall,
passed bill for that purpose and
went to the house and was favorabl
reported back to the house by tn
Indian committee of the house t
whom it was referred. So don't b
uneasy on that account. Again un
der the agreement if ratified no ne
gro or Indian can get title to hi
or her allotment only by the join
conveyance of the executives of th
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations
don't think they would make th
negro q deed until his right to th
40 acres of land was legally decide