The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1903-11-25
INDIAN WOULD BEcITIzENs
TAe Choclaws and Chickasaws
Fight for Their Pro-
Perty.

the United states supreme cOurl
rendered IT'S decision ir the Joins
case, which it refused to grant 9
writ Of prohibition against the
Choctaw -chickasaw citizenship
court, the attorneys for the court
claimants have resorted to a bitter
contest before the citizenship court
Via hopes OF securing the right Of
citizenship for al least portion of
the claimants. Every inch Of
ground is being stubbornly fought
by McMuray Mansfield & Cor
nish, attorneys for the two nations.
Besides an annual salary Of SIS 900
from both the Choctaw and Chick
asaw nations, this firm receives a
fee Of 10 per cent Of The value oi ali
estate saved the two tribes
IL now seems very doubtfulif the
court claimants can conform to the
rule Of evidence prescribed by the
citizenship court Many Of the
claims rest wholly upon af5davits
and. while the court has not as yet
made a specific ruling on admitting
these afidavits as evidence, there IS
a strong probability that they viii
nor be admitted Judge Adams
has gone far enough to say. In
deciding rights Of property, I am
frank to admit | would attach very
little Importance TO statements
twenty year old, secured by an at
torney from some old and ignorant
witness lie held of IA the woods by
This assertion bears
unnistakable evidence o. prejudice
III that it overdraws tho picture Of
how these afidavits were pro
cured
The claimants attorneys realized
Chat the cases can hardly be proved
if the court insists on The regular
rules Of evidence. Under specific
direction Of statute, The Dawes com
mission and the courts Of the Cen
trail and Southern districts were
forced 10 admit a great deal Of ex
parte evidence. Attorney Ledbet-
ter of Ardmore argued this point
before the couIt. He pointed out
the express provision Of the act of
1896 that evidence before the
tribal commission Ia the form Of
af6davits should be considered by
the Dawes commission, in cases
where the witnesses were dead or
living outside the territory. Mr..
Ledbatter conterd d that the sup
Elementary treaty provides that the
present tribunal---in case it found
the Dawes commission erred in re-
luiring service Of but one nation,
and the federal courts erred in try
ing the cases over instead Of con
fning their work to a review of the.
papers, findings and proceedings
was to try the cases as the commits
sion should have tried them.
The disposition of the court
seems to be interpret this to mean
that this court should adhere to the
ordinary rules Of exidence, which
would exclude all these af6davits as
incompetent. The nation 5 attor-
neys argue that the statute Of 1886
was repealed by implication. They
say that the very reason for this
courts ; creation was the correction
of the injustice wrought by the
'arcical proceedings under the act
If 1896. In opposition 10 this,
Mr.. Ledbetter contends that stat
1tes are not repealed by implca-
ion. especially when two super.
icially conflicting statutes may be
carried out without collision. He
lrsues that the present tribunal
ihould try the cases as the Dawes
shonld have done, and /
hat it should have admitted the
.nidavits especially mentioned by [
tate, such statutory changes Of the !
,rdinary rules of evidence not being /
t all remarkable or without pre- I
edent The reasons set forth for
he establishment Of this court did +
lot include the ex parte evidence. +
,ut were confined to the question
f insufficient service and the other
rial in the federal coust.