Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1899-06-29
NATIONAL CONSISTENCY.
TOO-Qua-Stee" Can Brook
No Opposition to His
Views.

Editor Chieftain:-You say.
"Those who are talking of split,
ting their votes next August should
first consider who opposed the
treaty last winter. 1t was a rem.
nant of the National party, includ.
ing the candidate for chief"
Again you say, "Wolf Coon, the
nominee tor principal chief on the
National ticket, refused to sign his
name to the treaty. Now his par.
ty are declaring in favor of the
treaty in their platform in this
district. 1t would be more con-
sistent to declare against it, in
view of the history of the party" s"
The above is from your daily OF
June 9th.
Judged by its own past history,
certainly the Chieftain could never
be convicted of unfairness to the
outlying, rural, Cherokee people,
in favor OF any little. confederated
clique of selfish spectators, call
ing themselves the upper tens"
the high-toned, guilt-edged Pro-
gressives. The writer can testify
that the Chieftaln has always, here
tofore at least, dealt fairly with
Cherokees. Hence only the great
er our surprise at the left-handed
dealing that appears in the above
extracts.
Let US speak plainly; the time
has come when sugar coating is
out of play. Let things be called
by their right name. The devil is
the Devil, and not the genteel fell
low that figures about in cultured
and refined circles under the eu-
phoneous title of Mr.. Satan.
Don't you know, Mr.. Editor,
that a story half told is the very
worst, and most damaging kind?
What you say about Wolf Coon's
not signing that nefarious Musko-
gee treaty is all true enough as far
as it goes. But you give the story
such a turn as to make the reader
understand that he was not only
opposed TO that particular
treaty, but to all kinds of agree
ment whatever; that is, you make
the candidate of the National
party stand out before the
public eye just in the light
which you think would prove
most damaging TO him in
the estimation OF the intelligent
constituency; you would have him
appear as an unreasonable, stub
born, non progressive, incorrigible
fullblood whose life and manners
are shaped and controlled by
growing animalism. and unfit to
be the chief of so bright, and pu.e,
and intelligent and serenely celes-
tial a set of fellows as the Downing
party.
Now, Mr.. Editor, is that fair
dealing? Is it not a fact that you
are just trying to manufacture
little bit of counterfeit political
capital with which to swindle Mr..
Wolfe Coon out of the chieftaincy?
Why not tell the whole story?
Why not 60 on and tell your read
ers that Wolf Coon was not op-
posed TO the agreement simply be-
cause it was an agreement, but
because of that stupendous town
site steal that was in it; yes, and a
few other steals, but of less pro-
which it provided for?
The history of The Chieftain
will show that it has always fought
these big steals upon the Cherokee
people with the most commend
able courage. 1t has always, in
this regard, stood along side by
side with the opponents ofthe cor
rupt mans administration. 1t
inveighed bitterly against the
sl26,0O0 steal; why should it not
now stand equally firm with the
common people against this still
greater townslte. steal which is
planned in the Muskogee agree
ment, AID adopted in the Downing
platform?
Let US tote fair.