Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1913-03-09

prefaced his op mon with the follow
ing:
N courts were permitted TO In
dulge their sympathies, a case better
calculated 10 excite them can scarcely
be imagined. A people once numerous
powerful and truly independent,
found by our ancestors In the quiet
and uncontrolled possession Of an
ample domain, gradually sinking be-
meath our superior policy, our arts
and our arms, have yielded their
lands by successive treaties, each of
which contains n solemn guarantee
Of the residue, until they retain no
more of their formerly extensive ter
rtory than is deemed necessary 10
their comfortable subsistence. To.
preserve this remnant the present APP
plication Is made,
Before we can look into the merits
Of the case preliminary inquiry
presents Itself Has this court juris-
diction OF the cause 2'
The court held that II had no iuris-
diction 10 determine the controversy,
as the Cherokee Nation was not for
eign state, but domestic and de-
pendent nation. Georgia continued
her war on the Cherokeos, and I'm
1880 the Legislature passed an act pro-
hibiting any white person from resid-
ing IN the Cherokee territory without
first obtaining license from the gov
crnor Of the state, and taking an oath
Of allegiance TO the State Of Georgia,
For violation Of this act the penalty
was sentence at hard labor for a
term IN prison for not less than four
years.
Samuel Worcester, Missionary
from Vermont, went into the Chero-
kee country without taking an oath
Of allegiance and without obtaining
any license from the Governor ana
there settled down To live, and preach
the gospel 10 the Indians. He was
soon arrested, tried. and convicted
for violating this statute, and sentcnc'
ed to -four years imprisonment He
obtained n writ Of error from the Su-
preme court Of the United States to
the state court as shown in Worces-
ter V. Georgia 9th. Peters. 5l5. The
state court returned certified record
under seal Of the court.
MIR. Justice Marshall again deliver
ed the opinion Of the court, and held
that II was too clear for controversy;
that the Supreme Court Of the Unit
ed States had jurisdiction ana should
exercise it in that casr. No counsel
appeared for the state, the state
wholly disregarding the writ, and en-
tering no appearance. The distin-
gushed William Writ again appeared
as the champion Of the constitutional
rights Of the Cherokees chief JUS
tice Marshall wrote the opinion, re-
affirming the doctrine laid down in
the celebrated ease OF Martin Hun
ter, lessee 1st. Wheaton. 304; also
Buell. V. Van Ness, Sth. Wheaton, 312
and Mccullough V. Maryland, 4th
Wheaton, BIG.
This celebrated opinion in Worces-
ter " Georgia, is not only histori
cal land mark on account of the doc
trire announced and sustained, but
also because IL was the last opinion OF
the court written by the great Chief
Justice Marshall The United states
cnorer,o court o,nuIIed tho iudr-
mont of conviction ana in tha formal
,oneno,a ~ ,bo decree directed mat
tho nrieone,. "ho ana he hnrehv Is
hencofnrtb disn,issed from tho In
dictnort and tbat "be on thereof
anti ,i,bor+ doy" I-rdar This writ
of tho Court tho nrieoner should
ho,o ton,od;ote,y baan sot ot Iihartv
but tho slot outboritias naid no boed
to tho mandate evcont to attack If
,,iooronsI, in the halls Of the leais1a-
trro an tho etr,pn and in tho nress
Tbo Sunrar,o CONT while nracticallv
bo,irc tbe forca of nation behind
II ,yoe Theoretically absoIuto1v now
orlass Va ator,nt was made Inv tho
Court to enforce Its autbority ana
Apdro,, 1ool.sor tbo, President ie
reunited to bare ro,narl,od. "Tobn
Marsrou hoe ,nado his decisior nav
lo+ hin, ovoc,,to IL" II is said that
~ c,o,,orro,. ~ C,oo,,,,, do,1orod tbot
ho u.ould rstbor bare no ,,iesionarv
tbor Iiborote hin, undo. tbo mandate
80 IA. r,ritad c.otos c,nra,,,o co,,rt
Ard u ,roe so,,n,biro lilo oigbtaen
r,o,,ths st,,orooftorv,o,.ds ana u,ber
u,o n,,hlio nossio,, In tho ctoto or
coa,,r,ia ho5 co,,,au,la+ srI,sidod ho