The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1900-07-06

dian Can Plat Hts L-and.
The following is the full text Of |
Judge Townsend's decision in re-
fusing an Injunction to restrain
the building of the town Of Madill
two miles from Oakland:
In the United States court for the
Southern district OF the Indian
Territory, at Ardmore.
The United States vs. L. o. Lewis,
OF al.
Opinion by Judge Townsend,
lOrally). OF course we all
| understand that the conditions ex-
isting here are very anomalous;
that is, with reference to titles and
the acquisition of titles, the rights
of possession and all that sort OF
thing. 1t is my opinion that the OBJ
| iect and purpose of the Atoka agree
ment apd Curtis act is to provide
a means for the winding mp OF the
affairs of the Indian governments
and Indian tribes. In other words,
they are IN process of liquidation.
as I understand it, and the object
and purpose is to take the title out
of these tribes and to put the
i titles into the different individual
members of the tribe and then to
allow those members in certain
years to sell. or on certain terms
and in e certain manner to sell and
pass a fee simple title. All Of the
land is to be divided up equally,
pro rata, according to its value.
except the townsites that were ex-
listing at the passage of the Act.
I think that it made clear in its
statement with reference to the
Townsite commissioners, and what
power they had and what they can
. do and what towns they are to op-
crate upon, and. then the oil and the
= asphalt and the coal. perhaps, was
reserved. to be lleased by the gov
ernment and the royalty to be paid
] to the United States, for the use
and benefit of the tribe. Very
we'll. At the same time, they al
low, as they have prior to the pas.
sage of these laws, the individual
Indian to have the right of possess
ion to certain property, and now
he 10 supposed to be confined tc
what his approximate share Of his
allotment is until the allotment is
actually made and takes place.
Well now, here is an individual
. Indian, in possession of his allot-
ment under the law, in possession
Of it, that is, he is in possession
: of such an amount of agricultural
and grazing lands as would be an
s approximate share coming to him
e self aud his wife and bis children.
q Now, when he is in possession OF
that, what can he do with it? He
=. has the use of it, and entitled to
! receive the rents thereof. That
Auns, my w. o~~+a;nlv his renting
n contemplafeS ceI Uaii:aa9titul l':------t
that property. Now, is there an!
n limitation as to how he shall reu
4 itf Whether he shall rent it il
lots or blocks or in ten, fifty or I
hundred acre tracts. Is there an!
limitation on his authority?
It don't know any. If he has th'
s right to rent it. why can't he rem
l. it for any purpose that is not
;. violation of the law; that is, tina
: don't contravene the laws fol
Il which the renting of property il
g prOhibitedY He is given that ex
n press right to rent that property
r and now what do you gentlemen
ask me to do? You come in here ant
n say that you ask me to stop him b!
4 injunction from doing that thing
: which under the law he is giver
r the right to do. Isn't that exactly
what you are asking? If he has
the right to rent that property
why should he be enjoined by any
u court from doing it7 l can't un
derstand why. Is there any pro
L hibition against his laying it ou
into streets and alleys and blocks
l. and lotsi
p Mr.. Herbert-That is exactly ou
theory.
The Court-Well. where is tn
prohibitionf
Mr.. Herbert-Well, we dom
II construe the act alike.
d The Court don't know of an,
In~oL.I,<sowo L I,