The Vinita weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1905, 1904-03-03

amount equal to that which they
had purchased, and such a dlstri-
button as would secure to them
the homes upon which they had
settled, together with their im-
provements. SO that II, when the
allotment was made, there was for
any reason not land enough to se-
cure to each member ofthe Cher
okees 100 acres, the Delawares
were to have at least that amount,
and the deficiency would have 10
be borne by the native Cherokees
pro rata. In other words, there
was no purchase of a distinct
body OF lands, as in the caec of
the settlement of other tribes as
tribes within the limits Of the
Cherokee reservation. The indi-
yIdual Delawares took their homes
Ia and remaining In the Cherokee
reservation, and as lands to be
considered In any subsequent al
lotment Ia severalty among the
members Of the Cherokee Nation.
All this was In the line OF the ex-
pressed thought of consolida-
tion of these Delawares with and
the absorption of them into the
Cherokee Nation as Individual
members thereof II Il be said
that all oithe Delaware trust funds
were not turned into the national
fund IL will be remembered that
there was no impropriety In the
reservation OF a part thereofin or
der to enable the Delawares to
make such improvements as they
might desire on the tracts that
they selected for homes, and also
that there was no certainty that
ali the members Of the Delaware
tribe would elect to remove to the
Cherokee country, and that those
who remained in Kansas wert en-
titled to their share 10 the Della
ware national iunds."
The intent Of the 1867 agree
msnt u attacked by the Della
wares and . part Ct the testimony
OF John G. Pratt, At that time
agent for tho Delawares, Is lnlro-
duced, on the subject Of the franz
ing of the agreement. IN its course
the question was asked II as flnal-
IS signed II contained the wishes
of both sides. lie answered, mo,
the Delawares were not satisfied,
but signed because 1t was the best
they could do; they wanted TO
own the land outright"
This contention was IN a way
disposed OF By the statement that
the court could perceive no room
for departure from the familiar
rule OF the Law protecting written
agreements from the uncertain-
ties OF parol testimony, 30 years
afterward.
Regarding the money consider
tion paid By the Delawares Justice
Brewer said In the Journeycako
case that too much weight should
not be given 70 the fact that the
Delawares were to pay for their
homes at 81 an acre, for by that
purchase they acquired no title In
fee simple, but an inter-
est like that Of native Cherokee,
limited to a mere occupancy Of
the tracts set apart for homes,
with the right 70 free use Ii com
mon OF the unoceupied portion Of
the reserve, aud the right to share
In any future allotment.
We conclude. then, that the reg
istered Delawarea acquired in
these lands only the right Of oe-
cupancy during life, with q right
upon allotment OF the lands. to
not less than 100 acres together
with their Improvements, and The
children aud descendants Of such
Delawares took only the rlghge Of
other citizens Of the Cherokee Ma
tlon as the same are regulated by
its laws.
The bill further seeks to exclude
from the allotment Of Cherokee
lands and funds certain eltlzens
alleged 70 have been illegally adj
misted to citizenship. thereby
wrongfuiiy dlminlahlng The shares
of the Delawafes N the common
property.
Answering this eDufentIon thr