OCR Text |
Show ! h 84 REPORT OF'THE COMMISSIONER OP INDIAN AFFAIRS. . . SECFION6. Be i t f w t h e r enacted, That any non-citizen having entered into con-tract with any citizen of this nation and obtaining a. permit nuder his employ, end ehall leave the employ of said citizen, ahsli forfeit his permit,,and no other permit shall be granted any non-citizen forfeiting the same by either permit collactor of this nation. Viewing the permit certificate as a receipt for luoney received by the Dhickassw Nation from a citizen t,hereof in payment for a permit for the non-citizen holdiq the receipt to remain in the natiou, it seemed to me but just and fair that such receipt in the bands of a nnn.citieen, whether given on a particular style of blanli, or otherwise, should be accepted by this Government as evider~ce that said non-citizen had compjied with the law and paid the money for his permit to the citizen of the nation with whom he had entered into co~ltracta, nd thereforeshould be taken as evidence of his right toremainin the nation ; provided such certificate should bear the sigr~atureo f one of the legally authorized permit collectors of the nation who had the power to issue the permitiu the county ordistrictwithin which such non-citizen resided. As ths laws of the Ohickasam Nation only require the non.citizen to enter into contract and pay to the citizen with whom he contracts a sum of money sufficient to pay for his permit, it aould seem that his right of residence in the nation would be com[~letew heu the contract required is entered into and the money is paid to the proper party; and tbat if he can prove that be paid the money, either by a receipt therefor from his L'native" or otherwise, he should not be removed fro% the nation. So, likewise, if he should have entered into a contract and tendered money to the proper party to pay for hia permit during the period for which the same is to run, and tbat party should have refused to accept it and to procure the permit, as required by law, he should not be re. moved from the nation to his disadvantage and to the advantage of his " uative," who refused, after entering into contract with him, to buy the permit. Notwithstanding Governor Byrd's statement t,hat the custom of &Ial-lowing non-citizens lo wait until they should have gathered their crops before paying for their permits had never obtained, it appears from an aEdavit by the head permit collector of Pickens County tbat such ha8 been the custom. In view of this I do not think a party who can show . his good faith in the matter by the exhibition of permits for each Sear .' of his previous residence, and who has been permitted to commence a crop this year upon an agreement that he would pay fbr his permit after he gathered his crop, should be removed as an intrude.r. These views of the matter were expressed at length by me, in a Iet-ter of July 17, 1891, to Governor Byrd, in which I approved rules 1, 2, 3, and 4, and modified rules 5, 6, and 7, by silbstitut,ing one rule therefor, as follows : I oonsider proper snbjeets for removal all nnon-citizens who can not aldm exemp- *ion under one of the four preceding rules. |