The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1912-05-24

dren OF Indians by blood. or Of freed.
men members of said tribes. as herein
otherwise provided"
~ rs sixteeash aud seventeenth So
tions it further provides that after
the making. fthe allotments provided
for in that and other acts, the resi-
due of the lands, not reserved or other
wise disposed of should be sold By
the Secretary 1.-THE Interior an dthe
proceeds deposited in the United
States Treasury othe credit of the
tribe, together with moneys arising
from other sources, and that there
after, and when al 1.-The just charges
against the tribal funds should be de-
Quoted therefrom. the remaining funds
should be distributed per capita TO the
member sthen living and to the heirs
of deceased members named in TIE
finally approved rolls.
The controversy here arises out Of
the provision in ? fthe act of April
26, 1906, as amended June q following
70 rth eenrollment of "children who
were minors living March 4. 1906, 2
whic hthe defendants regard as includ-
ing children born after SeptemDer ].
1902, and living on March 4, 1906. The
appellants contend, first, tina tit does
not include children born after Sep
tember /, 1902, but only such as were
born prior to that date and for whom
no application 70 renrollment was
made With nthe time limited by The
act of July /, 1902 that is on or before
Octbber 81, 1902; and, second, that e
it does include children born after
September /, 1902, it arbitrarily takes
fro mthe appella l's an dothers sim.
lrly situated property which is theirs
and gives ito others, and before IS
.iolative of due process of law. Tie
last contention rests upon anothe.'. w.
inat the act of July /, 1902, vested IN
the members living on Septembe- [,
& 500, who were enrolled under that
act, an absolute right to receive ;Il
lands of the tribe MT reserved o railot.
ted hereunder and all funds of the
'lIbe not used in tnc payment of trinai
debts.
We are unable to assent to the ths.
contention. The provision in question
says children who were minors i;s.
ing March 4, 1906. an dthose words
as naturally and sptly embrace child
ren born after as before September
1902. Had it been intended, as is claim
Cd, merely to exten.i the time foc fiji
lug applications on behalf of chi dren
living on Septemhe~ ] 1902, and Their
fore born nor bef Ne that date, it is
reasonable to believe that other words
rltre appropriate to the occasion
would have been used Why say living
March 4, 1906, If rs to these children
the prior requirement expressed II
tire words living on September /,
1922 was not to be affected? Besides
the Cherokee tribal council, as also
tie Chickasaw legla,ature (see II r..
Doc No. 455, 59tn Cong, 1st. Sess.l
Lad asked that provision be MADE TOR
| q enrolment of children born NJ t.
March 4. 1906, and that would sned
some light on the provision were its
meaning uncertain. But it does not
see INTO have been regarded as uncer-
tain by those charged with its enforce
th, 7ynee srdluh srdlu srdlu shdrl thes
ment, nor by the courts below. On the
contrary they treated tas plainly in
lcluding children born after September
| /, 1902. and we think that is the right
view of it,
We come then to the second conten-
ton 1t is not proposed to disturb the
individual allotments made to men,
bers living September I, 1902, and en-.
lrolled under tn eaet of 1902, and there
fore we are only concerned with
whether children born after Sentenl-
Der l. 1902, and living on March I,
/ 1906, should be excluded from the al
lotment and distribution. The act of
1902 required tina tthey be excluded,
an dthe legislation in 1906. as we have
seen, provides fo rtheir inclusion. 1t
is conceded, and properly so. that the
later legislation is valid and controll-
ing unless 1t impars or destroys rights
whic hthe cat of 1902 vested in mem
bers living September 1, 1902. and en-
rolled under that act AS has been III
dicated, their individual allotments are
not affected. But 1t is sal dtha tthe act
of 1902 contemplated that they alone
should receive allotments and be the
participants nthe distribution of the
remaining lands, and also of the funds,
o fthe tribe No doubt such was the
purport OF the act. But that, in our
opinion, did not confer upon thesn any
vested right such as would disable