The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1902-01-01
"THE EXPELLED"
IN CHICkASAW
NATION WIN OUT
Townsend Rules That They
May Come Back.
CITES LAW ON MATER
As Citizens of City They Have
Equal Rights,
CITES LAW ON MATER

Guthrie. O. T., Dec. 31-An important
ruling has been made by Judge Hosea
Townsend OF the southern district of the
Indian Territory. in which he holds that
persons expelled from the Cherokee ma
ton for non-payment Of tribal taxes
may return after being expelled. The
case in which this decision is made is
given in the Ardmorite as follows:
1t wiz be remembered -. Jake Dodo-
witz. Jos. Weiss and E. c. Baker were
removed from the Chickasaw nation By
J. ". Ellis. captain OF the Indian police
for failure to pay the tax which the
Chickasaw nation has attempted to i'm
pose on non-citizen merchants. The or
der for their removal was issued by the
commission Of Indian affairs, who claimed
TO act under the provisions of section 219
Of the revised statutes of the Unitec
States. which autrorizes the commissioner
OF Indian affairs to move from a tribal
reservation any person whose presence.
in his judgment, is detrimental to the
peace and welfare OF the Indians
The parties above named returned to
the Chicbasaw nation and the grand jury
indicted them for returning after having
been removed.
The defendants fled demurrers to the
indictment. upon the ground that there
was no penalty under the law for return
after remoTal under the circumstances
above indicated, and that if there were
any penalty it could not be enforced
by a criminal proceeding. The demur-
rers We're heard before Judge Townsend
on Tuesday, and ne promptly sustained
them, holding hat the parties had com
mitted no offense and were liable to no
penalty for having returned.
The judge based his decision on the
following reasons: Section 10 of what is
known as the intercourse law, which was
passed in 1894, authorized the superin-
tendent of Indian affairs, the Indian
agent or sub-agent TO remove from the
Indian country anyone who was there
contrary 70 law. and an act passed in
1856 provided that if anyone who had
been removed under the provisions Of said
section 10 should return or be found in
the Indian country, he should forfeit and
pay $l.ooe.
The defendants were not removed under
the provisions Of section 10 of the act Of
1894. as it could not be contended that
they were in the Iadian country contrary
to law, for they were all residents OF an
incorporated city, that Of Ardmore. and
their right to be there was expressly rec
ognized by the Aroka agreement and Cur
It's BILL the Curtis bill expressly pro-
viding that an inhabitants of incorporated
towns should be entitled to equal rights
and privileges. But the removal was ef-
fected under an order from the commits
sioner of Indian affairs. purporting to
be issued under the authority Of section
2Ile. revised statutes. which authorizes
the commissioner Of Indian affairs to re-
move from a tribal reservation any per-
son whose presence.in the opinion of the
commissioner is detrimental to the peace
and welfare of the Indians. Section 2i49
was adopted by congress in lS5S, and there
was no punishment prescribed for return
ing after having been removed under the
provisions OF that section; so admitting
that section Z1s9 is applicable to the city
OF Ardmore, and that the commissioner OF
Indian affairs has the right to remove
anyone whom he wishes to remove with
out a trial or hearing. It is certain that no
penalty can be inflicted upon the person
after he has been removed.
The second ground of the demurrer was
that. if any penalty was incurred, II
could only be recovered by a civil proceed
ing. and not by a criminal prosecution.
As stated above, the language of the act
Of 1856 is that If anyone shall return OF oe
found in the Indian country after having
n - fci II
ton 10 of the act of 1S3i. he shall forfeit
and pay the sum OF 5000.
III there were any doubt as 70 whether
this would authorize a prosecution. it IS
SGT at rest by section y Of the act Of 1884,
which expressly provides that all penal
ties provided FOR in that act shall be re-
eeived in an action in the nature Of an
action Of debt. and that one-haif shall go
TO the inforuer and ene-half 70 the gov
ernmeut.
This sets at rest n question which has
disturbed our business men. as il r-eans
that caaceding the right of the commis-
eioner Of Indian affairs 70 remove from
The territory merchants who refuse 70
nav the TAX imposed by She ChickaSaw
nation. no penalty IS incurred. either civ
INV or criminallv. when the merchant re-
turns after the removal
The lawyers of the Indian Territory arc
q ursit SO FAR as we can hear. in holding
that tho right IF removal does not eN-
ist But that II il does. It only means
brief trim - she frontier and he can
return on the next train. ard thrre s. re
penalty that can he injected for such re-
turn.