OCR Text |
Show . 76 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. By article G of the treaty of 1835 (7 Stat. L., 478) it is agreed that the Cberokees-shall also be proteoted against interruption and intrusion from citizens of tho United States who mnj' attempt to settle in the country without their consent, and ollsnch persons shall be removed froxk the same by order of the Presideat of the United Stntes. But this is not intended to preveut any residence among them of ussfol ficrruers, meuhanies, rand teachers, for tho instructionof Indians according to tredy stipnlations. Article 26 of the treaty of 1866 (14 Stat. L., 799) provides t k ~tth e Cherokees-shall also bu protsoted against interruptio~~oar intn~sionsf rom all unauthorized citizens of tho United State8 who may attempt to settle on their lauds or reeids in their territory; And by article 27 of said treaty of 1866 it is agreed that- All oersons not ia the militarv service of the United States. not oitieena of the Cherokee Nation, &re to be prohibited from coming into the Cherokee Natiou, or remaining iu the same, exoept ns herein otherwise provided, snd it is the duty of the United Gates Indian a-n ent for the Cherokees to have such oersonsnot lau.ful!v residing or sojourning therein removed from the nation, as they now are or herafter may be required by the interoourse laws of the United States. Itwill be seen from the provisions of t,reaty quoted that the obligation of the Uuitecl States to remove intruders from the Cherokee Nation takes date from the treaty of 1835. Indeed, the Government, follomiug the policy adopted in the royal proclamation of 1763, has always, byjts lams, prohibited intrusions by unauthorized persons within the country set apart for the use and occupancy of Iudiau tribes and has directed the removal of such persons by the proper officers. The agreement of 1891, therefore, imposed no new obligation on the Government. The only new pro~:isions it contains with respect to this question are those defining the terms "intruders" and "unauthorized persons" as used in the treaties, and designating the officer of the Cherokee Nation who shall be authorized to demand the removal of such from the nation. The Supreme Conrt, in the calie of the "Cherokee Trust landsn (117 U. S., 288), declared that tlkc Cherokees in North Carolina aud other Sta,tes east of thc MississippiR'iver, who refnsed to remove West at the time when the main body of the nation was removed, had severed their conl~ectionw ith the tribe, and i t recognized the exclusive right (ibid., 311) of the a~~thoritioefs the nation to admit or readmit such Chero-kees to citizeuuhil> in accordance wit,h the constitution and laws of the nation. I t mould, therefore, seem that an authoritative decree by a proper tribunal of tho Cherokee Nation denying the right of an applicant ;o admission to citizenship mould be sdcient to fix the status of such applicant (if he persists in remaining in the i~ation)a s tbat of an intruder, subject to removal under the treaties, as was held by the De-partmeut in its letter of August 21,1885) in the case of John Kesterson. Therefore, i t appears t l ~ atth e definition in the agreemeut of the terms |