The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1912-03-22
per stripes payment for US and it is
up to us to get it.

In Elk VS.. Wilkins, the Court said:
"An Indian, born a member of one
of the Indian tribes within the United
States, which still exists and is reeog-
nized as a tribe by the government of
the United States, who has voluntarily
separated himself from his tribe, and
taken up his residence among the
white citizens of a state, but who has
not been naturalized, or taxed, or rec
ognized as "a citizen, either by the
United States or by the state, is not
a citizen of the United States, within
the meaning of the Fourteenth Article
of Amendment of the Constitution.
Elk V. Wilkins, 112 U. S. "a, III.
The treaty of 1867 with the Kansas
Indian strikingly illustrates the princi-
pie that no one can become a citizen
of nation with out its consent and
directly contradicts the supposition
that a member of an Indian tribe can
at will be alternately citizen of the
United States and a member of a
tribe. BY the Act of July Is, 1870,
Chap. 296, 10, for instance, it was pro-
vided that if at any time thereafter
any of the Winnebago Indians in the
State of Minnesota should desire to
become citizens of the United States,
they should make application to the
District Court of the United States for
the District of Minnesota, and in open
court make the same proof and take
the same Soath of allegiance as is pro-
vided by law, for the naturalization
of aliens, and should also make proof
to the satisfaction Of the court that
they were sufficiently intelligent and
prudent to control their affairs and in.
erests, that they had adopted the habits
of civilized life, and hal for at least
five years before been able to support
themselves and their families; and
thtreupon they should be declared by
the court to be citizens of the United
States, the declaration entered of rec
ord, and a certificate thereof given to
the applicant; and the Secretary of the
Interior, upon presentation of that GER
tificate, might issue to them patents
in fee simple with power of alienation,
of the lands already held by them in
severalty, and might cause to be paid
to them their proportion of the money
and effects the tribe held in trust un-
der any treaty or law of the United
States; and thereupon such persons
should cease to be members of the
tribe, and the lands so patented to
them should be subject to levy, taxa
tion and sale. in like manner with the
property of other citizens, 16. Stat.
361.
BY the Act of March 3, 1873, ch.
1923, similar provision was made for
the naturalization of any adult mem
bers of the Miami tribe in Kansas, and
of their minor children. II Stat. 6S2.
In case of United States VS.. Os-
borne, 6 Sawyer, 4O6, 400, Judge Deadly
in the District Court of the United
States for the District of Oregon said:
But an Indian cannot make himself
citizen of the United States without
the consent and cooperation of the
Government. The fact that he has
abandoned his nomadic life or tribal
relations, and adopted the habits and
manners of civilized people, may be a
good reason why he should be made a
citizen of the United States, but does
not of itself make him one. To be 4
citizen of the United States is po-
ltical privilege &hie hno one, not born
to, can assume without its consent in
some form.
Chirac v. Chirac. Wheat 259.
Fellows V. Blacksmith, 10 How. S66
United States v HOLIDAY, 13 Wall
4O7, 42O.
United States v Joseph, "a U. S
GA, 61S.
Sec. 211S of the Revised Statutes
which was originally enacted June 90
1884, declares that every person who
makes a settlement on any lands be
longing, secured or granted by treaty
with the United States to any Indian
tribe, or surveys or attempts to sur
vey said lands. or to designate any
of the boundaries by making tress OF
otherwise, is liable to a penalty OF
100000
SUSAN SANDERS,
University Hotel, st. Louis, Mo.