Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1899-11-16

| hhC opPoAAdhN SitiOo Vial Az
violence, Is Atlantic Or. - 725,
726, and The Brooklyl Park
Commissioners v. Armstrong, 45
N. Y. 234. In these cases, how
ever, the state simply authorized
the municipalities to appropriate
the parks within their limits to
other uses. The state did not as
sumo in either case to appropriate
a park TO its own use, or to sell it
for its own benefit, at the Cherokee
nation does in the case at bar, so
that these decisions do not rule
this case. Moreover, the nation,
in the case in hand, is the grantor
and covenantor, and upon indispu-
table principles it cannot be at the
same time the glantee and the
covenantee, or the agent of such |
grantee and covenantee 10 release
to itself the grant and covenant
which it has made. Mckinley V.
Williams, "a Fed. 81, 95, 2OC. C.
A. 312, 313, Sc U. S. App. 749, 752,
and cases there cited. Besides,
we are unwilling to concede that a
nation or state which becomes
the proprietor OF town site, plats
it, and dedicates its streets and
parks TO public use has any great
er or better right to revoke or avoid |
its grant or covenant than private
proprietor would have. 1t may
be that either, before any rights
have accrued, can revoke the dedi-
cation, but after lots have been |
sold, after streets have been grad
ed, after parks have been cared for
and improved according to the
plat, in other words, after rights
have vested in reliance upon the
dedication, we deny the right of
nation or of individual TO revoke
it, or to release or destroy the
right of the public to the exclusive
use of the parks and streets for the
purpose for which they were
granted. Nations, states, and
municipalities have and exercise
two classes OF powers, one govern
mental, by which they rule their
people, the other proprietary or
business, by which they carry on
their business affairs as legal po-.
sonaIitiss. Ine same fundamental
principles OF justice, of law, and of
equity govern them in the exercise
of their powers of the latter class
which control the acts of private
individuals. Ill. Trust and
Saving Bank v. Arkansas
City, 76 Fed. 271, 2S2, %
C. C. A III, 1S2, 40 U. S. App.
257, 277 and cases there cited; U.
S. vs.. n. P. r. r. Co., 50 Fed.
S64, $50. When the Cherokee ma
tion plated the town of Downing
vile, and when it undertook to
revoke the dedication which that
plat evidenced, it was not exercis.
ing its governmental, but its pro-
prietary or business powers, and
it was subject to the same prin-
ciples of law and of equity, and to
the same rules of estOppel that
would have governed a private
under like circum.
stances. A nation, state or mu-
which dedicates land
hat it owns in the site of a town
10 public use for the purpose of a
park, is as conclusively estopped, +
as a private proprietor from re-
voking that dedication, from coll. :
lng the park, and from apprOpria-
ling the land which it occupies to
other purposes after lots have been
sold, after the town has been set :
led, and after the park has been >
with moneys raised by il
he taxation Of its residents and a
taxpayers in reliance upon the 0
grant and covenant which the ded-
cation evidences. Monongahela I,
Co. vs.. U. S., 14S US. a
I12, 341; Rutherford ct al. vs. c.
Taylor ct al, SO Mo. 315, 3I9; u
Warren VS.. Mayor of Lyons, % =
iowa 351; Ransom vs.. Boal, % D
.owa 50; Price VS.. Thompson. rs p
No. 361, 365; County of Franklin Il
IS. Lathrop, 8 Kan. 453, Z53; Nc W
}ulloch VS.. Board of Education, 81 n,
Ial. 41S; County of Harris w. q
Taylor, IS Texas 900, 695. th
AS the Cherokee nation had no u
light to take possession OF, or to ?,
ccupy the parks in the town of Ie
)owningville for the construction an
f residences in the year 1896, tie W
ppellant, Davenport, acquired 10 pr
uch right by his purchase from ITIs
hat nation, and the injunction co
,as rightfully granted. ar
The DEGREES of the United Stat s la