Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1913-05-29


ed this amount he would, no doubt,
wait until tho United states govern
meni has 'Gld the balance of this es-
tate. Ne would then under his CON
tract, be- entitled 10 10 per cent Of
all the money derived from the sale
~ the segregated coal and asphalt
lands ana all the timber lands be-
longing 10 the nations
Mr. Murray himself has not made a
contract with Mr., McMurray and
venture to Aay that not one Of the in
/ flucntinl men 10 whom he specifically
! refers in his letter has entered into
such contract Consequently, Mr..
Murray and his class do not need
! protection IN this matter. The pro
| vision In intended 10 protect those
who need protection, and those who
need protection are not entirely con-
/ iinrd to the full blood element.
Mr., Murray contends that this pro-
/ vision violates the most sacred right
OF an American citizon-the right 10
/ ccntrnct The right to contract In a
sacred right, but the same as all other
rights Of civilized man, the right To
! contract has limitations. These lin
itatiOns aro as old as the common
law Itself and the limitations are al
sdcrcd as the right Itself No man
mas the right TO enter into n con-
| tract that violates public policy The
McMurray contracts come within this
exception They violate public pol
icy. This exception illustrates the
rule and wisdom OF the principle it
self Mr.. Murray would not enter
into contract OF this character
Therefore the provision does not
abridge his liberty for he never would
exercise the right There are those,
even IN the unrestricted class to
which MIR, Murray refers who may be
imposed upon by the wiles of persons
who seek to dlvest them of their In
terest in the common property be-
longing 10 the nations. It ls these
persons that this provision Is intend
ed to shield and safeguard and the
whole spirit OF all laws is to protect
those who need protection.
Mr. Murray ls undoubtedly mlstak-
en- in his contentious that the provi-
sion abridgeS any rights which the
Indian citizens nov have To make
contracts affecting their individual
property or to employ attorneys In
any manner except in matters per-
tanning 'to property of the said ma
tious over which the United states
has supervision" I'm other words,
property held in common 10y the
Choctaw and ChickasaW people as
defined In Mr.. McMurray's contracts
Is the only property affected by this
provision. The contracts which Mr..
McMurray holds, as have said be-
fore, are void because they violate
public policy. Article II of the sup !
plemcntal agreement between the |
United States and the Choctaw and |
Chickasaw Indians (32 Stat. 64D |
provides rs follows.
when allotmcuts as herein pro-
vidcd have been made to all the citi-
leus and freedmen. the residue of the |
lands not herein reserved or other |
wise disposed Of, if any there be, |
shall be sold at public auction under ,
the rules and regulations To be pre-
scrihod by the secretary OF the IN !
terror and so much of the proceeds !
AS may hc necessary for equalizng !
allotmcnts shall be used for that pur-
pose and the balance shall be pad |
into the treasury of the United |
States 70 tine credit Of the Choctaws .
and Chickasaws and distributed per |
capita as other funds of the tribes"
Here the United States assumes |
the duty of dispOsing of the residue !
Of the tribal estate and distributing |
the proceeds derived therefrom per |
capita among the Indians MIR Me |
Murray then contracts with the In 4
dians to do that which the United !
states is bound by treaty obligation |
to do, which is in direct violation of !
puNlic policy 1t will be argued that
the United states has not puuctually |
fulfilled its obligations and the more |
intelligent Indians are dissatisfied |
with the dilatory manner in which |
the United states has handled this
matter, but | submit that even un-
der these conditions, no man should |
bc allowed to capitalize the discomfort
Of the Indians especially when he
has done nothing to relieve the cause |
tion In the sale of these lands, but