Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1899-11-30
NO AGREEM ENT.
Allotment According to Con-
stitution and Treaty &c.

sufficient by any means; indeed
there is so much glaringly wrong
still left in it that we can hardly
believe that the trimming that has
been actually done, was in good
faith. No honest, fair minded
man can endorse that outrageous
townsite provision, or ever vote
for that bill as long as it proposes
to let such a remorseless, uncon-
scionable steal occupy a place in
the general plan of allotment.
Yet there are so many leading
members of the council personally
interested in this dishonest pro-
ject, that there is little room to
hope for any relief against this
great wrong by means of home
legislation. Why should our ma
tional council-why should the
congress of the United States-be
willing, nay so anxious to give a
man in town a single dollar of the
common estate more than man
who lives in the country? No wise
man has ever attempted to answer
this question. Every one of these
fellows as dumb as the SOW that is
getting all the swill, are pushing
heroically at the bull-wheel Of the
machine, with eyes eagerly intent
upon the flow at the spout, with
out ever stopping TO inquire as to
whose grist is being ground. The
plea of acquired equities" is
miserable pretense, a sham, the
argument of fraud. These men
who bought the occupancy of these
lots from the nation and made
improvements upon them, did so
with their eyes open. They are
not innocent investors. They
know that the land upon which
these expensive improvements
were being made, belonged to the
Cherokee people. The Cherokee
nation never did a thing, said a
word, or made pretense, that could
possibly have mislead them. They
bought the occupancy from theChe-
rokee nation, and they have had,
and are now having what, and all,
they bought. They are in no po-
sition to claim equities against the
rest of the Cherokee people. Those
who make this agreement of sac
crued equities" have never been
able to show where, or how, they
have accrued.
"But o." it is said "these men
have added value to these lots,
and it would be wrong to deprive
them of it." This argument is
false. The improvements have
added no value whatever to these
lots. But the only value there is
in the improvements, is derived
from the lots. These improve
ments anywhere else but on these
lots, would be worthless.
But it is said, again, these town
men have paid something for these
lots; this is not true. They paid
for the right TO occupy them, and
for nothing else. But this argu-
ment amounts to nothing. Sup
pose this town man had paid
million of dollars for the right to |
occupy his lot; still he would have
no better property in the lot in
than the man in the
country has in the farm upon
which he has simply squatted; |
simply the right to occupy. The
property in the soil, in both cases,
is in the Cherokee people.
Why then, why then, should
there be any difference made be-
tween the treatment of these two
men, in the plan of allotment?
How do these men propose TO
make this allotment, upon what
orinciple2 Do they mean to say
hat each man is to have piece
Of the common estate just in pro-
portion to the amount of money he
las unwisely invested, or foolish
Y squandered, in an illicit en-
leavor to speculate upon tie COM
non property of the people?
But concede that, by these i'm
,rovements, these men have in
Iced added great value to these
OTIS; does that entitle them to the
ots2 There is nothing in reason,
n law, to sustain such a position;
t is the argument Of pure selfish
less and greed. The value of q
oiece of property always belongs
o the man who owns the proper
V, and it makes no difference how
t got into the property or who put
t in. These lots now belong 10
he Cherokee people; if there is
IL. IL rrrnr nj - |