The Vinita weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1905, 1904-11-03
Courts Have Authority to Re.
strain Hitchcock When Act
Ing Contrary to Exist
Ing Laws -Concurs
In General.


of appeals his opinion In the noted
tribal tax case, and concurs in the
main with the conclusion reached by
that court In It's recent decision as
handed down by Judge Townsend, OF
the Southern district
Judge GIN has gone into the case
fully and rendered an elaborate and
exhaustive opinion, reviewing at
length the history OF Indian Territory
court legislation, and also with refer
ence TO the treaties bearing upon the
subject.
While he reaches substantially the
same conclusions reached by Town
sends, he does 50 for other reasons,
which are amply and clearly set forth
in the opinion The central idea In
Judge Gill's position Is that the Choc-
taw tribe retained jurisdiction over
lands segregated for townsites, or,
rather, over lots Ia townsltes, In that
nation until title had passed from the
tribe to the individual That Is to
say, the title to town lot sold by the
townsIte commission remained In the
tribe until the final payment for same
had been made and deed issued.
He says there is no doubt in hsm
that until final payments are made on
town lots the Indians retain the title
therein. Mere delay In the issuance
Of title would not suffice to continue
the title In u, proyiued all OF the con-
ditlons required OF the purchaser un-
der the Atoka agreement had been
met None OF thG plaintiffs 20 the
suit had patents.
Judge gill declares that the opinion
Just handed down by the court OF ap-
peals was based on miseonstruction Of
issues, and reasons assigned In the
opinion are insufficient.
lie says there Is no law In the Choc-
taw nation requiring payment OF any
sum OF money as condition precedent
TO exposing goods for sale as trader.
An the laws refer to permit and
the court thinks this permit was In
tended to regulate the peddlers WHO
robbed the Indians at an early dag.
Common sense would not define mer-
chants as traders. but the government
has treated them as such In supefin-
tending the operation OF non-cltizan
merchants"
when congress, by act OF March l,
1895. provided that Mansiield's Digest
OF the Arkansas laws IN reference TO
municipal corporations should obtain
in Indian Territory, Il made It's first
attack on the Choctaw nation as an
Indian country aud recognized that
white men were here to stay. and
legally so.r
Under the Atoka agreement the In
dian relinquIshed all right TO streets
and alleys in South McAlester."
The segregation and sale OF town lots
Is no longer considered as Indian
country transactions
The Secretary Of the Interior had
authority 70 proceed only In Indian
country. At length the court takes
up the various ISSUES as defined by
Judge Clayton in his dissenting opin-
ion ii the Greek nation case, and there
is 4 close similarity of conclusions
reached on each point, excepting, Of
course, the interest Of the Choclaw
natlon III the lots sold until all pay
menis are made Judge Clayton held
GaGt segregation and sale removed
the lands from Indian Jurisdiction,
while Judge Gill admits that such pro
ceedure removes the property from
classification n Indian country, but
title Is still IN the hands Of the Indian
and as the permit law stands II applies
IN this case.
The court Of appeals, through tie
Townsend decision, recognizes the per.
NIT as tax, while Judge GIN SAYS
there Is no las requiring payment Of
any sum precedent 10 sale OF goods
thereby making the royalty on All
goods brought IL BY merchants Moth
Ing but permit lie holds that this |
THIS permit stands lie says.
I an Of the opinion. Il the prem !
ises Of the opinion OF the majority Of !
this court be accepted. that a. 70 the
United States citizens legally within
the incorporated town Of south MnAl- |
ester and tranarting business there.
the Choctaw nation having parted |
with title thereto; that such nation
has voluntarily parted with the right
70 fuFthercontlnue exactlon from such