The daily chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Ind. Ter. [Okla.]) 1898-1902, 1899-03-24

and settle upon these lands. 1t
was a naked claim to citizenship
in the nation. II that claim was
good then their holding was good.
If that claim was bad. they ac-
quired no rights by their settle-
,ment and occupancy of the land.
The supreme court OF the United
States in Vol. 115 U. s. Reports, in
the case of Defleback VS. Hawke,
page 1872, held:
"There can be no color of the IT,
tie in an occupant of land, who
does not hold under an instrument
or proceeding or law purporting to
transfer the title or to give the
right of possession. Nor can good
faith be affirmed of party in hold
ing adversely, where he knows he
has no title, and that under the
law, which he is presumed to know,
he can acquire none. "
In that case the court held that
persons who entered upon land
having no. color of title had no
right to the improvements as
against person having a patent
Of the United States. And in an
other case in the same volume, ,psge
40S, Sparks ct al against Pearce ct
al, the supreme court of the United
States in an opinion pronounced
by Mr.. Justice Field held that:
"a person who makes improve
ments upon public land, knowing
that he has no title, and that the
land is open to exploration and
sale for its minerals, and makes
no effort whatever to secure the
title TO it as such, under the laws
of congress, or right OF posses
sion under the local customs and
rules OF miners, has no claim TO
com pensation for his improve
ments as an adverse holder in good
faith, when such sale is made to
another and the title is passed to
him by patent of the United
States"
In that case one of the allega-
ton in the pleadings was that the
plaintiff held under a patent issu.
ed without a particular reservation
which it ought to have had accord
ing to law, and without such res
ervation, was contrary TO law.
This was one of the allegations,
that the patent showed upon its
face that it was contrary to law.
In that case the court held:
ITO entitle a party to relief
against patent of the government,
he must show better right to the
land than the patentee, such as in
law should have been respected by
the officers of the land department,
and being respected, would have
given him the patent. 1t is not
sufficient to show that the patentee
ought not to have received the
patent. 1t must afiirmatively ap-
pear that the claimant was enti-
tied to it, and that, in consequence
OF erroneous rulings of those Of
ficers on the facts existing, it was
denied to him."
Now, when the question of the
citizenship of the person claiming
citizenship in the Cherokee nation
was settled adversely to him, he
then stood in the attitude of occu-
pying public domain without any
color of title and, as the courts
have held, person who makes
improvements upon such public
lands has no right to them, In one
of the these cases just cited town
had been built ON the land
that was afterwards patented to an
individual, and the individual
took possession of the whole town
under his patent, and the inhabi-
tants of the town were not entitled
to anything for their improve
ments. A person who makes inn
provements upon the public do
main without any right does not
acquire any title to the property.
Hence, when the sheriff Of the
Cherokee nation in this case sold
this land he was not selling the
land of the intruder. The intru-
der was not party, he was abso-
lutely ignored. The sheriff was
selling the improvements that be-
longed to the Cherokee nation, and
the intruder was as much a
stranger-a mere looker-on to the
fronaocfson ae anvhn5v alea Hn