The Vinita daily chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1913, 1905-04-14


form import, and not challenged, may
become sufficient ground for reason
able belief; and, for more than a year,
the very atmosphere has been made
to ring with complaints Of unfairness
imposed on bona fide allottees by out
side parties, both citizens and non
citizens. in the way of encouraging
people to file on one another for
speculative purposes.
Another fruitful source of the con-
test cases is what l, old Watt Duncan,
sitting in his corner, have thought,
and still think, IS clearly fallacious
constructic9 applied to the allotment
law, which provides that, fora specific
purpose, 40-acre tract may be dealt
with as If cut up into 1o-acre tracts;
but the construction, for the general
purpose Of allotting all the lands in
the Cherokee nation, deals with the
whole body Of these landsas If cut into
I0-acre patches, allowing people to
snatch up choice scraps all over the
country; and often to the hurt Of other
fellow citizens. But there is another
objection to this 1O-acre business:
II is generally claimed to be the
rule Of the honorable Dawes commits
sion that where two persons have inn
proyements on a 10-acre square, the
one having the bigger improvement
may just take the other fellows i'm
provement from him-rob him Of his
property under Tie strong sanction Of
the United States, given by action Of
the allotting commission. / do not
believe bit Of it. Does not the
Cherokee constitution say that a
mans improvement is his property?
And does not the constitution Of the
United States say thatno one shall be
deprived Of his property without
''due process of law?" And no ruling
of the honorable Dawes commission
can be such process Of law. No court
in the United states can decide such
contests so as to take the property Of
one man and simply give it to another,
nor can any court sustain the alleged
ruling Of the Dawes commission in
this regard. AS the law secures every
one in the possession and enjoyment
of this own property, the courts in
such contests, would decree that con-
testant and coutestee should each
keep his own improvement.
In these contest cases, where the
honorable Dawescommission has taken
the property limproyements) from
one person and given il to an other,
the Cherokee nation, acting through
its principal chief, and the United
States, acting through its secretasy Of
the interior, both Of them together
become disempowered in the issuance
Of deeds to convey to and vest an I'M
title in an allottee: this as
long as law continues to be law, and
and the constitution Of the United
States shall stand for the defense Of
Of the life liberty and property" Of
the people.
AS TO the truth Of this proposition,
would respectfully beg ofany lawyer
or all Of them, If 1 am wrong to be
corrected.
In fact, the nature Of the business
seems to have required that the qnan.
tity Of land to beallotted, the number
Of the allottees, and the right of prop
srty in the allotments, should have
been ascertained before alIotments
were made, and no one allowed, by the
to file on anothers prop
sr.y This, in the meaning OF the law
wjuld have been for the protection
AZ fi,o tnor,ln - w Duuran