The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1912-02-09

before the decree of February 3, 1896,
proceeded to make up rolls, which were
finally approved by the Secretary on
March 4, 1907, from which were ex-
cluded large number of freedmen
whose names were on the Kern-Clif-
ton roll with the consequence that
such persons so excluded will receive
no allotments of lands or share in the
moneys which stand to the credit of
the Cherokee Nation in the Treasury of
the United States.
On May 6, 1908, Jacob B. Wilson, by
permission of the Court of Claims, and
having been substituted trustee of the
freedmen, filed a supplemental petit
ton in the court in behalf of such ex-
cluded persons, which recited the de-
crees of the court and acts of congress
subsequent to them, asserted right
under the DEGREES and acts of congress
to be upon the rolls, to be allotted
lands and to share in the distribution
of funds, and prayed that the action of
the Dawes Commission and of the Sec
retary of the Interior be declared un-
lawful, an dthat the Cherokee Nation
and the United States be enioined
from discriminating between such
freedmen and other citizens of the
Cherokee Nation in the allotment of
lands and the distribution of property
and assets of the nation, and that it
and the United States be further en-
Joined from further disturbing such
freedmen in the possession and oecu-
Ipation of their homes afd imploe,.
Iments, and to reinstate such of the
as has been ousted from such pcsses-
sion
The court took jurisdiction of the
petition, as we have seen, and decreed
as it prayed A CT. Cls. 453. The
lcourt, in an elaborate and ably reason
ed opinion, decided that its decree had
larger scope than description of the
|. class of freedmen and the declaration
of a principle, and that it undertook
to identify ''the individuals who were
! entitled to share in everything that
: was to be allotted or distributed. To
: this, the court said, the defendants
made no objections and acquiesced In
the terms of the decree for the distri-
button of that part of the property
then ready to be distributor" The
!, court further said that there was
2 nothing In the terms Of the decree or
Z in the conduct of the parties affected
r by 1t to raise the inference that its
language did not apply to all future
e distributions of the property, which
I the plaintiffs in that suit were entitled
t to have and enjoy whenever such prop
erty was ready for distribution
! The court, therefore, considered that
J. the Kern-Clifton roll was made in COM
Ipllance with the decree, and that the
n provisions of the Curtis Act go Stat.
u 495), requiring a roll to be made in
+ strict compliance with the decree of
e the Court of Claims rendered the Sd
S IOl February, eighteen hundred and
/ lninety-six," necessarily confirmed the
d lKern-Clifton roll, and that the Dawes
!, Commission, in disregarding it, dis
] obeyed the command of the statute
}. IF, said the court, the payment by
the Secretary of the Interior was a
g compliance with the provision of the
9 ldecree for the payment of money, the
: refusal of the Dawes Commission to
| allow those same persons to partici-
: pate in the common property as fur
ther provided in the decree, is not q
e Strict compliance nor, for that mat
] ter, compliance of any kind"
e The case is simplified by the con
e cession of appellees that the congress
r had power to alter the decree and to
4 adopt other means or ways for the dis
D position of the property than there pro-
e vided Indeed, the decree of the court
e recognizes this power and the case is
!. brought to an Interpretation of the
acts of congress subsequent to the de-
: cree, As we have already said, we
g have reviewed those acts in United
: States ex rel. Lowe VS.. Fisher. and,
/ after further consideration of them
g invoked in the case at bar and sup
! ported by the very able opinion of the
5 Court of Claims, We adhere to the
: views there expressed. Congress ac-
g cepted the decree as a correct inter
pretation of Articl TX of the treaty as
to the rights of freedmen 1t did not
} accept the Kern-Clifton roll as an au-
2 thentic identification of the individual
2 freedmen. 1t had been challege6. 1t
had been made up with haste and un-
der circumstances which caused ques-
ton of its correctness. It had not re
received judicial approval. From the
] first to the last 1t was the act of ad-
2 lministrative officers. Had IL been re-