The Vinita weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1905, 1905-06-08
Thn Whito Mon Cnse.


tance Of the decision just handed dowr
by the Court Of Claims in the white
man case justities, we think, the study
OF IL with unusual care. No one inter
ested IN the issue should have any
misapprehension as to it's real mean
ing As a piece of law literature, the
context OF the written opinion is very
peculiar IL consists of mass of facts
and principles, all correct and true
enough, but with too little regard to
logical sequence The thread of argu-
ment is like the Atlantic cable, Il lies
deep below the surface, and is liable
to be passed over undiscovered by the
non-professional mind. The track Of
thejudge's mental automobile seems to
be about this He finds,
That, according to the constitu-
tion and laws Of the Cherokee Nation,
there are three classes Of citizens,
First, Cherokees by blood second,
white intermarried citizens who have
paid a consideration; third, white in
termarried citizens who have not paid
any consideration.
. That the constitution o. the
Cherokee Nation was framed by the
Indians, and all the laws under it
were enacted, on the theory that the
Cherokee public domain WIS communal
property; that is to say, belonging ex-
clusiyely to particular class OF citi-
zens, to-wit. Cherokees by blood.
That, as plain business propo-
sition, no stranger could be allowed to
become member Of the commune
and part owner in the common prop
erty without paying consideration.
That the act passed by the ma
tional council in 1875, ordaining that
white persons subsequently marrying
into the nation should not have any
interest ia the lands and funds of the
Cherokee nation, was reasonable, con-
stitutional and valid; and was, more
over, In effect, simply reducing to the
form of a written statute what had
already been the law among the Cher.
okees from time immemoral
That, If the idea o. the Cherokees
should have TO he observed and carried
out by the court, It would make
hard case indeed, for all white inter.
married citizens who had not paid any
consideration; all would have to be
barred regardless Of the date Of their
marriage,
But, says the court these laws
are not communal belong 80 a par.
tieular class of citizens1 and never
have BEEN and the Cherokees have
been all the time mistaken as 10 tile
true nature of their landed estate
Quoting from tie opinion Of the SUI
preme court IN the famous Delaware
case, Judge Mott SAYS these lands now
belong 10 the Cherokee government,
aud every citizen must, accordingly
have an equal interest In them with
out regard to the particular way in
which he obtained his citizenship.
That, whether these laws were
communal or national, the question Of
citizenship was a matter entrusted by
the Cherokee constitution TO the con.
troll Of the national council the only
difference being this that, in case
the lands were communal according
TO the Cherokee idea, all presumptions
were against the white man, and he
had 20 be excluded unless he could
show payment; whereas IN case these
lands were national, as held by the
supreme court, an presumptons were
IN favor Of the white man, and DE had
70 be admitted, unless his opponents
could show why he should be excluded.
That those white persons who
married into the nation subsequent TO
the 1870 act Of the national council. |
had due notice ofthe limitations fixed
upontheir citizenship; they were with |
out excuse. They could not be allowed /
70 share IN the national lands and /
moneys But those who married into 1
the nation prior TO the act Of 1875, did +
so at time when there was no known
upon their acquired rights
OF citizenship; their intermarriage was
IN good faith, and innocent On that
account the court holds that they
should be saved from the excluding
effect Of the act, and be allowed, like
citizens Of Cherokee blood, to have a
share IN the national funds aud lands
To0-QuA-sTEE